BPSDB
On the left – the official UK government coat of arms.
On the right – the logo used by Christopher Monckton on his presentations.
By far the best comment that I’ve seen on the two images was one by Vagueofgodalming over at Deltoid:
Nice to see the two logos side by side: one can see that in Monckton’s version the chains are unhinged and there is empty space beneath the crown.
You are probably already aware of this, but since threatening John Abraham Christopher Monckton has also attacked Scott Mandia.
Mandia has published Monckton’s letter here.
I guess that Monckton must like the limelight, because he’s certainly attracting it.
Tamino does (yet another) demolition job on Monckton’s statistical skills at Mo’ Better Monckey Business
Moth Incarnate posts a couple of good cartoons here and (with some insight that I had overlooked) here.
Real Climate host a guest article by Barry Bickmore of Brigham Young University entitled “Monckton makes it up”.
Most recently, The Guardian points out that the House of Lords are getting stroppy with him for his continued claims to be a member. They write:
Last month Michael Pownall, clerk of the parliaments, wrote to Lord Monckton, a hereditary peer, stressing that he should not refer to himself as a member of the House of Lords, nor should he use any emblem representing the portcullis.
In a letter seen by the Guardian, Monckton replied this week to Pownall stating that he considered the House of Lords Act 1999, which “purported” to exclude all but 92 of the 650 hereditary peers from the Lords, to be “defective”.
I think that the House had probably hoped that he would just go away, but got fed up with people writing to them asking for clarification (see this recent and entertaining example from Friends of Gin and Tonic).
Presumably we can now look forward to him threatening to sue the UK government – or possibly even Her Majesty.
Those that have been watching him for a while know that he never was a science advisor to Margaret Thatcher, indeed it is usually stated that he never made such a claim. Or so I thought.
A guest post at WUWT by Monckton makes interesting reading (if you can’t bring yourself to visit WUWT the story is also covered by The Guardian).
He writes:
First, what on Earth was a layman with a degree in classical languages and architecture doing giving advice on science to the British Prime Minister, who was herself a scientist and a Fellow of the Royal Society?
Truth is, British government is small (though still a lot bigger and more expensive than it need be). The Prime Minister’s policy unit had just six members, and, as a mathematician who was about to make a goodish fortune turning an obscure and hitherto-unnoticed wrinkle in the principles of probabilistic combinatorics into a pair of world best-selling puzzles, I was the only one who knew any science.
So, faute de mieux, it was I who – on the Prime Minister’s behalf – kept a weather eye on the official science advisors to the Government, from the Chief Scientific Advisor downward.
Well, we know he can count to three since he does so in Latin ad nauseam – but does this make him a mathematician?
He doesn’t appear to have formally studied maths beyond school level, but I guess he could be self-taught.
And knowing something about maths doesn’t automatically make you a scientist, but it generally helps.
But wait – there’s more!
On my first day in the job, I tottered into Downing Street dragging with me one of the world’s first portable computers, the 18-lb Osborne 1, with a 5” screen, floppy disks that were still truly floppy, and a Z80 8-bit chip which I had learned to program in machine language as well as BASIC.
This was the first computer they had ever seen in Downing Street. The head of security, a bluff military veteran, was deeply suspicious. “What do you want a computer for?” he asked. “Computing,” I replied.
You have to be quite old to remember the Osbourne 1. It had a 4MHz cpu, 64K of memory, and two 360K drives.
Monckton apparently used this box for all sorts of things, including:
- Predicting election results
- calculating the optimum hull configuration for warships
- “the first elementary radiative-transfer calculations”
That last one is really spectacular on such a low specification machine. Wow.
Oh, and we can add “Electronic engineer” to his cv as well:
The only expenses I ever claimed for in four years at 10 Downing Street were £172 for soldering dry joints on that overworked computer
(though £43 per year on solder for a single PC (in the 1980’s) suggests a spectacularly dodgy machine, or extremely incompetent soldering, or both).
But we’re not fininshed yet.
From his recent appointment to the UKIP joint Deputy Leader press release we learn that his history includes
2008-present: RESURREXI Pharmaceutical: Director responsible for invention and development of a broad-spectrum cure for infectious diseases. Patents have now been filed. Patients have been cured of various infectious diseases, including Graves’ Disease, multiple sclerosis, influenza, and herpes simplex VI. Our first HIV patient had his viral titre reduced by 38% in five days, with no side-effects. Tests continue.
Surprisingly, I can’t find any information on “RESURREXI Pharmaceutical” as a company. If anyone knows anything about it please let me know.
In summary, Monckton is a real polymath.
So far, we have
- Classicist/linguist
- Journalist
- Political analyst/advisor
- Politician
- Mathematician
- Scientist
- Marine Engineer
- Computer programmer
- Electronic Engineer
- Saviour of the Human Race
The last point does give me an excuse to link to The Scaffold on youtube. 🙂
As a postscript, I think the best single collection of Monckton’s follies is at Barry Bickmore’s excellent blog post Lord Monckton’s Rap Sheet.
IMAGE CREDITS:
[[1] – The Guardian
[2] – thatsbraw.co.uk
Comment Policy
Comments that are not relevant to the post that they appear under or the evolving discussion will simply be deleted, as will links to Denier spam known to be scientific gibberish
- The “Mostly” Open Thread”
is for general climate discussion that is not relevant to a particular post. Spam and abuse rules still apply; - The “Challenging the Core Science” Comment Thread is for comments that purport to challenge the core science of anthropogenic climate change.
Greenfyre's 
Nice break down!
It’ll be interesting to see what happens between ol’ Chris and the British Parliament – I feel, for this stance his made against climate science, he’s unable to back down.
Cheers for the mention – both John Abraham and Scott Mandia don’t deserve such anti-science stupidity thrown at them.
We object! If you’re going to use a crazy-Lord story as an excuse to link to youtube, the link should be to this guy.
—-
Politicians, environmentalists, “big money and other supporters of The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis appear to be getting increasingly worried about the general public’s reducing concern about the unsubstantiated claim that our use of fossil fuels will cause catastrophic change to global climates. Lord Monkton, despite his peculiarities, is doing a fine job spreading enlightenment world-wide to counter the politically motivated scare-mongering that is being promoted by the UN, its IPCC, George Soros, Ted Turner, Al Gore, Maurice Strong and friends. Have a look at “We Know About Soros — But Who Is Maurice Strong?” (Note 1) by American Thinker’s Ed Lasky,
You should also have a listen to George Soros (Note 2), whose objective is quite clear when saying “ .. this would be the time .. you really need to bring China into the creation of a new world order .. ”. Soros quickly added the rider “ .. uh, uh, financial world order .. ” but soon after repeated “ .. we need to have a new world order that China has to be a part of the process of creating it .. ”. Soros goes on to talk about the creation of a new world currency to replace the dollar.
Have a read of the third comment on that blog to understand more about Maurice Strong and the UN (guess where Strong lives). Another interesting comment on these power-brokers is available in the Canada Free Press 2008 article “George Soros, Maurice Strong and company redefine the Middleclass” (Note 3) and I love this contemporary comment by one Judi McLeod. “The story of the economic meltdown of 2008 begins and ends with the United Nations and its carefully managed One World Order” (Note 4). There’s plenty more like that if you Google “power behind AGW Gore Strong Firth Soros”.
Many who are sceptical of The Hypothesis are accused of closing their minds to the scientific evidence, which of course I reject. On the other hand many supporters have closed their minds to the motives of the non-scientific promoters behind The Hypothesis.
I invite you all to look further into the non-scientific drivers then reconsider whether or not there is evidence to support the hypothesis that the UN’s real agenda has nothing to do with concern about global climate change but everything to with:
– redistribution of wealth from developed to underdeveloped economies,
– establishment of a framework for global government,
– enhancement of the finances of a privileged few.
NOTES:
1) see http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/we-know-about-soros-%E2%80%94-but-who-is-maurice-strong/
2) see http://therealbarackobama.wordpress.com/2009/10/30/soros-china-must-be-part-of-the-new-world-order/
3) see http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/5216
4) see http://www.theodoresworld.net/archives/2010/05/maurice_strong_and_george_soro.html
Best regards, Pete Ridley
IT’S A CONSPIRACY! IT’S A CONSPIRACY! And all those thousands of scientists, all over the world, are in it. Right. Even the 9/11 conspiracy nutters make more sense.
Pete, I already knew you were nuts, but you sure have a way of reinforcing that notion…
Marco, I have enormous respect for your opinions too. It’s such a shame that a outstanding analytical brain such as yours belongs to a member of that group of blinkered individuals who “have closed their minds to the motives of the non-scientific promoters behind The Hypothesis”. Never mind, you’re never too old to learn.
BTW, what was the field that you said that you specialised in?
Best regards, Pete Ridley.
Marco, thanks for that – I have enormous respect for your opinions too. It’s such a shame that an outstanding analytical brain such as yours belongs to a member of that group of blinkered individuals who “have closed their minds to the motives of the non-scientific promoters behind The Hypothesis”. I recall making a similar comment about your closed mind back in June on the “A Glorious Defeat” thread. You have indicated before that you seem to believe that the only politics involved is from the sceptical side of the debate (Chris Colose’s consequences-of-being-over-concerned thread 11th Nov). Never mind, you’re never too old to learn.
You keep going on about “those thousands of scientists” but who are you talking about? My scepticism is not about the impacts of climate change or about mitigating against those impacts or even about whether or not global temperatures, droughts, floods, tornados, etc. are changing. My scepticism is about whether such changes are abnormal as a result of our use of fossil fuels. I am sceptical about the claimed level of understanding that scientists have of global climate processes and drivers and I am suspicious of the motives of some scientists. After all, like you and I, they are only human.
BTW, what is the field that you specialise in? There are too many Marcos in the world for me to find out for myself.
Best regards, Pete Ridley.
Mr Ridley …
If you are so concerned about scientific truth, why yet again do you defend Monckton?
I seem to remember that in a previous posting that you expressed uncertainty about Moncktons credibility regarding science.
Yet here we have Mr Ridley writing:
“Lord Monkton, despite his peculiarities, is doing a fine job spreading enlightenment…”
Then further write:
“I invite you all to look further into the non-scientific drivers…”
Yet fail to attack Monckton for his own failings and for being a key member of a political party that has published ‘scientific’ views about climate change without substantiating any of them with peer reviewed material of any sort.
You have double standards Mr Ridley and I think you should put aside your sympathies for Monckton and apply your own standards, before criticising others.
Pete Ridley is obviously channeling Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh.
See:
“The paranoid style of American politics: Beck, Limbaugh claim oil spill deliberate sabotage”
http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2010/05/06/the-paranoid-style-of-american-politics-beck-limbaugh-claim-oil-spoil-deliberate-sabotage/
Marco, for some reason my response to your inspiring comment has not appeared here – sorry about that.
Sailrick, thanks for that link, which I can make use of. I’ll try to use it to post my response to dear Marco. I took a look at the “Climate Change and Disinformation” thread on the “Energy Solutions We Can Believe In”. Those links to politically motivated blogs like Climate Progress and Realclimate that provide disinformation on climate change helps my argument about supporters of The Hypothesis. Despite the “whitewash” enquiries into Climategate the general public are beginning to realise the con trick that the UN and others are attempting to pull off.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Once again, Pete refers to a conspiracy “con trick”. Once again, it would by necessity have to involved many thousands of people, distributed all over the world. Paranoia is a bad advisor, Pete.
Marco,
You keep going on about “those thousands of scientists” but who are you talking about? My scepticism is not about the impacts of climate change or about mitigating against those impacts or even about whether or not global temperatures, droughts, floods, tornados, etc. are changing. My scepticism is about whether such changes are abnormal as a result of our use of fossil fuels. I am sceptical about the claimed level of understanding that scientists have of global climate processes and drivers and I am suspicious of the motives of some scientists. After all, like you and I, they are only human.
It’s such a shame that an outstanding analytical brain such as yours belongs to a member of that group of blinkered individuals who “have closed their minds to the motives of the non-scientific promoters behind The Hypothesis”. I recall making a similar comment about your closed mind back in June on the “A Glorious Defeat” thread. You have indicated before that you seem to believe that the only politics involved is from the sceptical side of the debate (Chris Colose’s consequences-of-being-over-concerned thread 11th Nov). Never mind, you’re never too old to learn.
BTW, what is the field that you specialise in? There are too many Marcos in the world for me to find out for myself.
Best regards, Pete Ridley.
Yes, I know you consider me to have a closed mind. Quite funny coming from someone who hunts for a conspiracy. You will find one if you are looking for one, Pete. It becomes a circular argument.
I don’t care much about the motives of some people that back AGW being unscientific. What I care about is whether AGW is a better explanation for current observations than other hypotheses. The answer is a resounding “yes”. I’d also like to point out that just about any and all professional scientific society agrees with that evaluation. It must be disconcerting to be surrounded by so many scientists that are willing to conspire you out of your money!
Mr Ridley:
My scepticism is about whether such changes are abnormal as a result of our use of fossil fuels.
Funny that, because all you seem to refer to is the politics.
If you are so keen on the science, where is it then?
I am sceptical about the claimed level of understanding that scientists have of global climate processes and drivers and I am suspicious of the motives of some scientists.
Funny that!
Yet you are quick to point out that Monckton spreads enlightenment.
What exactly is the claimed level of understanding that Monckton holds?
Marco, I’ve just posted a comment on the “holding sceptics to account” thread (http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2010/08/15/geust-post-lord-monckton-are-you-a-creationist/) which includes my response to you that did npot get posted here for reasons best known to Mike.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
—-
I note you started stalking another person on that thread. No surprise I’m not going to tell you more about me and my area of expertise. I’ve been cyberstalked once, I don’t need another nutcase trying that again.
S2, thanks for that. My first attempt on August 14, 2010 at 9:53 am wasn’t posted until now so I can’t see the problem being common phrases. Could it be due to more than one post in one day?
Hm, no, obviously not!
Ah, this may have done it = I repeated “closed their minds to the” so will watch out for that in future – thanks again S2.
Pete,
“Many who are sceptical of The Hypothesis are accused of closing their minds to the scientific evidence, which of course I reject.”
You would reject that because it’s an obvious call at your total ignorance of the science. I have repeatedly suggested scientific literature for your enlightenment and you do nothing but shrug it off. Of course you can assert that ACC is merely a hypothesis because you blatantly ignore all the mounting evidence to the contrary and then piss-fart around on other people’s blogs like a roaming cowboy. Your absurd denial fiction books don’t cut it my friend.
I can’t believe you’re still on the stupid “One World Order” nonsense. Did you read 1984 as a young man which has set in a deep rooted fear of some fascist plot for world domination? It’s impractical and near impossible. It makes as much sense as your loony puzzle-making hero.
You do nothing but expose yourself to be void of scientific knowledge and foundation. The fact that you cannot see Monckton for what he truly is and that you adhere to an insane Orwellian paranoia is pure homage to your complete ignorance to climate science.
Pete, you love a good newspaper article over science literature. Check out this article in the Daily Mail of your home land. The crack in the roof of the world: ‘Yes, global warming is real – and deeply worrying’
Tim(Motthy) the most important statement in that opinion piece by Hanlon is “Certainly, talk of Greenland melting entirely in the near future is nonsense, ‘It’ll take a millennium,’ says Dr Hubbard, and that is assuming the current warming continues”.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Tim or Moth is fine Pete (either way, there’s no double t).
You can put whatever you want done to my age, I’m happy to put your arrogance and ignorance in the light of further knowledge down to ours. As they say, you can’t teach an old dog. We’re all entitled to our opinion – luckily science is based on evidence though, which is why it means more than your opinion.
I’ve simply grown tired of denial that continually refuses to read from the literature yet makes assertions without scientific basis, Pete.
Anyway, I offered that newspaper ONLY because you ignore science.. and you wonder why S2 blocks your rubbish.
Give it up, Tim. Pete lost me the day he posted a reference to the American Thinker blog.
One day, many months ago, I innocently followed an education discussion (from someone whose views I respect) to that extraordinary place. The rabid racist views backed up by all manner of weird conspiracy guff took me completely by surprise.
Anyone who continues to read there, let alone quote, is clearly not on the same page as me. 30 years ago I might have stuck with it and jumped into the fray. Not now.
I know you’re right… but he continues to pop-up like a chiwawa with an attitude. I can’t help but eventually bark back.
As far as I’m concerned, I won’t bother talking to him anymore unless he bothers to learn about the science which he feels unjustifiably qualified to debate over.
Hope you’re going well btw 🙂
Getting back to the topic of this thread, the blog that I linked to on 15th August at 13:13 (Note 1) also had to resort to trying to ridicule Lord Monckton. That blog chose to support the notion that Lord Monckton might be driven by religious fervour in his challenge to the notion that our use of fossil fuels is causing global climate change leading to a catastrophe if unchecked. As most of you should be aware, in October Lord Monckton gave a presentation to Minnesota Free Market Institute (Note 2) at Bethel University, with supporting slides (Note 3). Bethel University is a Baptist Christian “faith school” which declares that it is “ .. committed to integrating evangelical Christian faith with learning and life .. ”.
Professor John Abraham of the Minnesota’s University of St. Thomas responded to that presentation (Note 4) with his alternative version of the truth. St. Thomas’s is a Catholic Christian “faith school” which declares its conviction that “We actively engage Catholic intellectual tradition, which values the fundamental compatibility of faith and reason”.
I don’t find any of you suggesting that Professor Abraham too might be driven by his own religious fervour. Could this be due to a certain bias on the part of supporters of The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis? [1]
Mike Kaulbars had several recent articles trying to ridicule Lord Monkton, one commenting on the exchanges between Monckton and Abraham (Note 5) and this most recent being little more than a collection of derogatory comments. [2]
I was impressed by Professor Abraham’s honesty and said so on “A glorious defeat (Note 5). He did acknowledge in his attempted rebuttal of Lord Monckton that “ .. he’s a pretty compelling speaker. He’s very eloquent, has a wonderful way with words and gave a pretty convincing speech. In viewing his presentation any reasonable audience member would have a number of conclusions and specifically climate risks aren’t as serious as we’ve been led to believe and there’s a bit of a conspiracy .. ”. This is why the supporters of The Hypothesis are trying so hard to ridicule Lord Monckton. It’s the last resort when no valid argument exists with which to refute in any convincing manner what he says. What did Ghandi say “First they ignore you. Then they insult you. Then they fight you. Then you win”. In the eyes of the general public Lord Monckton and like minds are winning the debate.
Marco, renowned across the blogoshere for his derogatory remarks, could find nothing to say in response to my comment of 14th August at 06:05 except “IT’S A CONSPIRACY! IT’S A CONSPIRACY .. ”. You’ll find more of his inane comments at Note 5 too – all very enlightening I’m sure.
For completeness here are another couple of links, one to Lord Monckton’s the 6-part presentation (Note 6) and the other to his 12th July Science & Public Policy Institute document (Note 7), both of which refute what Professor Abraham said in his June presentation – Enjoy
You may not be aware of the EPA/Dept. of Energy/Ceres-sponsored “Insurance In A Climate Of Change. The Greening of Insurance in a Warming World” web-site (Note 8). “While climate change poses material threats to the insurance industry, it also presents enormous opportunities for advancing innovative and proactive solutions”. Being cynical as well as sceptical I expect anyone in marketing to welcome any business opportunity, whether founded on fact or fiction.
Health Insurance marketing manager Fred Orth says that it “Seems that my whole industry is in denial” (Note 1). If he’s referring to the entire insurance industry then from a sceptics perspective that’s a healthy (pardon the pun) sign. If what he says about the industry being in denial is correct then the propaganda pushed out by that EPA/etc project since 1996 (Note 9) and Lloyds in their 2006 “360 Climate Change Report” (Note 10) has fallen on deaf ears, at least in the US – wonderful.
Despite your attempts to ridicule Lord Monckton, he presents his message in a far superior manner and that message is getting through to the general public. I’ll try to make time to “cherry-pick” some words from scientists which support some of the areas where he refutes Professor Abraham, one of which was kindly provided in Tim(mothy)’s comment of 15th August at 23:15.
NOTES:
1) see http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2010/08/15/geust-post-lord-monckton-are-you-a-creationist/
2) see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stij8sUybx0
3) see http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/monckton_2009.pdf
4) see http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/
5) see https://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2010/06/07/a-glorious-defeat/
6) see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z00L2uNAFw8&feature=player_embedded#at=17
7) see http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/response_to_john_abraham.pdf
8see http://insurance.lbl.gov/
9) see http://insurance.lbl.gov/about.html
10) see http://www.lloyds.com/NR/rdonlyres/38782611-5ED3-4FDC-85A4-5DEAA88A2DA0/0/FINAL360climatechangereport.pdf it is possible that this link may not work but a Google will find it.
Best regards, Pete Ridley.
—-
Are you by chance referring to the paper in this comment on my blog? Where you try to conclude that ecological respiration doesn’t match predictions, thus no climate change (nonsense, of course) or do you have yet another pearl of wisdom that you’re waiting to unleash on the world?
Pete, as always, I don’t think anyone wants anthropogenic climate change to be real – if there was anything that once and for all debunked it, you wouldn’t be the first to let me know. I’d be all over it on my own blog and would be certainly a happy chap to know that my son’s future (and that of hopefully more children to come) is more comfortable. However, I’ve continually provided copious amounts of literature to you, that demonstrates compelling evidence to the contrary, which you blatantly ignore.
Hot(tish) off the Watts Up With That press “BREAKING: New paper makes a hockey sticky wicket of Mann et al 98/99/08” at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/14/breaking-new-paper-makes-a-hockey-sticky-wicket-of-mann-et-al-99/#more-23450 – enjoy.
Check out the paper “A STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF MULTIPLE TEMPERATURE PROXIES: ARE RECONSTRUCTIONS OF SURFACE TEMPERATURES OVER THE LAST 1000 YEARS RELIABLE?” at http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/mcshane-and-wyner-2010.pdf . It concludes “Research on multi-proxy temperature reconstructions of the earth’s temperature is now entering its second decade. While the
literature is large, there has been very little collaboration with universitylevel, professional statisticians (Wegman et al., 2006; Wegman, 2006). Our paper is an effort to apply some modern statistical methods to these problems. While our results agree with the climate scientists findings in some respects, our methods of estimating model uncertainty and accuracy are in sharp disagreement. On the one hand, we conclude unequivocally that the evidence for a ”long-handled” hockey stick (where the shaft of the hockey stick extends
to the year 1000 AD) is lacking in the data”.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Perhaps McIntyre should audit that paper. Some have already started in his place:
http://shewonk.wordpress.com/2010/08/15/the-eternal-return/
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/08/13/changes/
(read the comments, in the second link a bit further down)
I doubt, however, that McIntyre will do so. Don’t want to be criticising something that appears to support one’s position, now, will we…
I like the way Watts instantly took down Greenmans Youtube video about a year ago that criticised his work, quoting copyright as the reason.
Yet copies and publishes an unpublished research paper on his own blog!
I wonder if he got clearance?
—-
Ah but the point is Greenman used snippets of old movies and recordings from TV shows, not entire shows or films and Watts apparently claimed he ‘pressed the button’ because of that. [1]
Yet Watts didn’t own the copyright for the material.
I think we all know that in reality Watts was probably annoyed and pressed the the button, then realised afterwards it was probably a mistake and covered himself by saying it was the copyright that made him do it!
Anyway YouTube restored the video eventually.
—-
Hot off the press:
http://deepclimate.org/2010/08/19/mcshane-and-wyner-2010/
Re RESURREXI, a probable hit
http://www.dellam.com/english/RE/RESURREXI%20LTD.html
and at the same address
http://www.companiesintheuk.co.uk/ltd/monckton-enterprises
—-
P.S.: The Pitlochry trail was started over somewhere in the comments at Deltoid.
How typical that our friend, Pete, here will read a paper, or at the very least (as the case probably is) refer to a paper that supports his already held conclusions, yet ignores the bulk of evidence mounting, some of which I’ve referred him to previously. This is, of course, not how science is done – simply reinforcement of his bias.
As I’ve told him before; paleo-climate studies are like fossils to evolutionary biology – unessential to our understanding of climate/evolution, it simply adds weight.
If we knew nothing of paleo-climate we could still be just as sure about the effects of our modifications to greenhouse gas concentrations and thus the anthropogenic climate change under way.
Pete’s obsession with this one field of climate science, where temperature data must be inferred through other means (allowing for greater uncertainty) demonstrates the weakness of his argument. If he knew anything about climate science and of the various alterations observed in physical and biological responses to the amplifying greenhouse effect, he wouldn’t have to attack a field which is nearly as much an art as it is a science.
It is the old, “you can’t prove evolution because I’VE seen no ape-man!” argument and as such is not in the realms of scientific debate.
Pete – join the discussion when you’re willing to learn a bit about it, read a wider range of scientific studies and are beyond referring to Watts, newspapers and denial grey literature. You’re growing to be a real bore.
You should read the comments at climateaudit about this paper. Someone should perhaps extract all those comments and save them for later use (in case the thread is ever removed out of embarrassment).
Absolutely none of which has anything whatsoever to do with AGW and everything to do with hatred of Monckton for refusing to bow to pseudo-environmentalist intimidation. It’s known in logical circles as “poisoning the wells”.
You’re right. And there’s no reason to dislike or discredit Monckton. And yeah, no truth in anthropogenic climate change.
Odd, no, that we dislike liars and bullies?
It seems the HoL doesn’t like Monckton either. Especially when he accuses the clerks of the HoL of lying…
Actually, it has everything to do with pointing out that Monckton can’t open his mouth without lying.
Do you understand, now?
Jes,
I doubt it… we’re just “pseudo-environmentalist” whatever that means. Honestly, what was sam trying to say with that, come to think of it? How are we fake environmentalists? Or was he just trying to sound clever but stringing a whole heap multi-syllabic words together?
I’m happy not to be within his “logical circle” of needless wording. 😉
Especially when he accuses the clerks of the HoL of lying…
Clearly the House of Lords is just a den of communist conspirators. Just like NASA.
Thank the invisible sky-daddy that Monckton sees through their wicked lies and is willing to stand up for the troooth.
(giggle)
The UK’s House of Lords membership comprises a significant number of ex-politicians, so Cedric’s suggestion that they are “ .. just a den of communist conspirators. Just like NASA. .. “ may not be too far off the mark (although I don’t think that “communist” applies. Some might argue that NOAA can be included in that description. I’m sure that you’ll be interested in what John O’Sullivan, the author of the original article about the NOAA satellite temperature measurement problems, has posted his latest article “Leading US Physicist Labels Satellitegate Scandal a ‘Catastrophe’” (Note 1). O’Sullivan begins “In a fresh week of revelations when NOAA calls in their lawyers to handle the fallout, Anderson adds further fuel to the fire and fumes against NOAA, one of the four agencies charged with responsiblity for collating global climate temperatures. NOAA is now fighting a reargaurd legal defense to hold onto some semblance of credibility with growing evidence of systemic global warming data flaws by government climatologist”.
He then links to physicist Charles R. Anderson’s An Objectivist Individualist blog article “Satellite Temperature Record Now Unreliable” in which he starts “I have written many posts that our unreliable the ground surface temperature record, based on the collapsing network of weather stations around the world, is biased upward with the urban heat island effect and by obviously bad grid interpolation schemes. I had thought that the only reliable temperature records were the satellite and ocean buoy temperature records. I was wrong. It now appears that since at least 2005, the satellite temperature records have not been reliable”.
He concludes that “It is now perfectly clear that there are no reliable worldwide temperature records and that we have little more than anecdotal information on the temperature history of the Earth. There is clearly no basis for the claims that the Earth has warmed at unusual rates in recent times or that we know anything more than some local temperatures, mostly from urban heat effect zones”.
The bits in between are interesting too – enjoy.
NOTES:
1) see http://johnosullivan.livejournal.com/22385.html
2) see http://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/2010/08/satellite-temperature-record-now.html
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Ah yes I remember checking out the O’Sullivan piece on the BBC pension fund. A pile of dog doo.
Can I point out to moderators that Ridley is doing a PR job for O’Sullivan and is regularly going off topic. They mutually support each other.
If you read this latest Ridley comment the only relevance to the post is a mention of the HoL and then Ridley moves on to the topics he is trying to promote.
I think it deserves some moderator attention.
What a perfectly ridiculous little web you’ve constructed that is impossible to break down with science!
It’s all a crazed communist plot of world domination that has infiltrated all the data sources!
So it doesn’t matter that NASA/GISS temperature anomaly data clear shows that the areas of greatest change in temperature are in no way related to greater urbanisation (time series – slide to the most recent dates) or that you can compare rural sites against urban sites across the rapidly urbanising China… Nope – “Ha!” Pete cries, “It’s all propaganda! There is no truth in any of this – the world just changes and you can’t prove otherwise!”
You’re a fool… Why are you wasting your time on people who clearly find your conspiracy theory as baseless as your (climate change without any known forcing occurrence because Pete say that it’s certainly not our GHG emissions) hypothesis? You’re as bad as a creationist arguing against evolution with an understanding of biology from the 60’s.
Or maybe fluoride consumption has infected our brains and made us hopeless zombies to the green communist order.
Find other crackpots to play with – you offer nothing scientific or even useful around these blogs.
It was to be expected that after the surface record, the satellite record would be the focus of attacks. After all, Specner & Christy keep on correcting their methods, and every time the warming becomes stronger and closer to the surface record. Can’t have that now, after trying to get all that doubt on the surface record as “contaminated” and “adjusted to increase warming”.
Our as bad = You’re as bad.. Typo..
—-
I’m boycotting that troll above until he takes a science course.
Deleted
—-
My God — too funny. Thanks for this post, S2!
It is hard to see (logically) how anyone could reasonably value Monckton’s views, when Monckton is demonstrably dishonest on so many other topics as this, previous blog posts, and links so clearly show.
Not only are Monckton’s efforts to address the science pretty sad, but he shows exceptionally poor professional ethics. For both these reasons, he is unable to fairly, clearly or realistically prescribe or proscribe courses of action. He’s a disaster in relation to policy work.
But it starts with his demonstrably weak knowledge of climate science.
In fairness, climate change is a complex topic not easily reduced to the personal terms of reference that Ridley so consistently demonstrates on this thread, or that his authority Monckton has built his career on. It generates the self-importance of these men — nothing more.
cheers
S2, so you consider my comment to be “deliberately provocative” yet your opening comment on this thread “By far the best comment that I’ve seen on the two images was one by Vagueofgodalming over at Deltoid: Nice to see the two logos side by side: one can see that in Monckton’s version the chains are unhinged and there is empty space beneath the crown” isn’t!! “Double standards” springs to mind.
[Deleted]
—-
[Deleted]
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Ridley said:
Stalker Ridley is trolling for new victims. Why is this lunatic allowed to pollute a civilized blog?
Ridley said:
Supporters of this blog [1] are able to determine who is intelligent and understands climate science and science in general. You fail on all accounts. Your opinions are based on the character flaws of arrogance, ignorance, greed, selfishness and a general hatred of science and scientists.
—-
S2, see what I mean about your position, double standards and [Deleted] [1]
Best regards, Pete Ridley
—-
[Deleted]
—-
Marion, S2 deleted my earlier response to your comment so this time I’ll try to avoid upsetting him by asking a simple, on-topic question. Do you still consider that Lord “Monckton is not only the Baron von Munchausen of climate denial, he’s its L Ron Hubbard in the puffed-up resume sense”?
BTW, I’ll post my original comment elsewhere and let you know where it is so that you can respond to it.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
S2, ref. your comment of 21st August at 3:09 pm, don’t worry, I’ll get my full comment and the related list of links out on a relevant blog somewhere on this wonderful internet thingy. You may have the power on this one but this one is trivial.
Best regards, Pete Ridley.
And yet you keep on coming back spouting your drivel on *this* blog. Why is that?
OK, S2, you’ve invited me to say what I like about you so I don’t expect you to apply your double standards to this comment. As you didn’t delete what Ian Forrester quoted from my submission of 21st @ 03:48 it seems that you may have taken notice of my closing suggestion in that post that “Perhaps you should re-asses your position” regarding those double standards.
In my opinion your double standards about what is acceptable and what is not here is undermining any credibility that Mike Kaulbars might have. Climategate and all of the subsequent IPCC-gates have done a lot of damage and he doesn’t need you adding to the problem. I should have thought that a major objective of any “climate change” blog is to persuade others about an opinion. Demonstrating double standards such as you have done has completely the opposite effect on genuine sceptics.
Does Mike want his Greenfyre blog to be seen by those of us who are sceptical of The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis in the same light as we see Romm’s Climate Progress, Schmidt’s Real Climate or Tim Lampert’s Deltoid? Would he want to be considered to be from the same mould as Al Gore, who is seen by sceptics in the same light as Lord Monckton is seen by supporters of The Hypothesis. Lord Monckton has the advantages of superior presentation skills and far superior knowledge and understanding the science. I am not aware that Lord Monckton has ever had any of his arguments on climate change directly rejected by an English High Court judge (Note 1).
You set this thread up to lampoon Lord Monkton but it has backfired. Am I correct in suspecting that the October 2008 comments made on Tim Lampert’s “Monckton has a gold Nobel prize pin” thread (Note 2) were by you and not Mike Kaulbars? (although perhaps not, after reading the comments and responses on the 2008 “Night of the Climate Change Denier Undead” thread – Note 3). Perhaps you weren’t involved then, since the exchanges on Greenfyre were much more even-handed than they are now.
You have shown your true colours on this thread. It is clear from the other articles about Monckton on this blog that you have set up, like “A Glorious Defeat”, Lords a Leaping” that you dislike him intensely but I suspect that there is more to it than his well-presented opinions on The Hypothesis. Is it more than a coincidence that you, Ian Forrester and Lord Monckton all hail from “North of the Border”? I must do some research on this. Google is a wonderful tool for unearthing information about people, even those who hide behind false names.
BTW, maybe it is time to lampoon Al Gore in order to restore some credibility.
NOTES:
1) see http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23416151-judge-attacks-nine-errors-in-al-gores-alarmist-climate-change-film.do
2) see http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/10/monckton_has_a_gold_nobel_priz.php
3) see https://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2008/09/28/night-of-the-climate-change-denier-undead/
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Ridley, I hope S2 doesn’t delete this post since it just confirms all intelligent peoples’ opinion of you, Monckton and other ignorant deniers.
I got a laugh out of your nonsense. Please don’t call you and your ilk “skeptics” you are not, you are ignorant, arrogant, greedy, selfish and moronic deniers.
The English language is a wonderful language please do not abuse it with your poor grammar, your poor spelling skills and your repeated mis-use of words.
Marco, S2 has already explained why I keep coming back. [1] You should read his comments more carefully. Also, S2 said back on 30th December @ 17:23 “.. Mike has a high tolerance level (and I’m trying to maintain his standards in his absence). I think that it is worth while arguing with people (to a limited extent). Some of them may listen and some may not – but surely discussion is better than simply closing it down” (https://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/12/24/seasons-greetings/). [2]
The objective for those of us on either side of the debate is not to convert those who are convinced that they know it all but to help the undecided to recognise the truth as we see it. This debate will ramble on until the scientists properly understand the processes and drivers of global climates. That will not be in the near future because there are too many significant uncertainties to be resolved.
Despite the attempts by the politically motivated UN and its supporters to declare that the debate is over The Al Gore and Lord Monckton look-alikes will be at it for ages. Meanwhile, normal people will continue with their normal business, surviving and thriving in this wonderful world of ours, despite the knock-backs of weather events and economic events and other catastrophes.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
—-
Deleted
Best regards, Pete Ridley
—-
s/boycott/killfile
s/he takes a science course/the end of time/
Monckton is not only the Baron von Munchausen of climate denial, he’s its L Ron Hubbard in the puffed-up resume sense.
– Freedom magazine
We object! The Baron von Munchausen (and by the way, it’s Monckhausen) of climate denial lives here.
Mike and Stuart, I expect at some point you’ll have to follow Tim Lambert’s example and give the persistent troll above his own thread and scrub him from the real ones. Just my guesstimate.
—-
I’ve asked him constantly, on my blog, to contain his argument within a scientific means and when he proved unable to do so – always slipping back into a political / conspiracy debate – I had to tell him to move on.
I’ve no time for “UN-world order” nonsense.
Is Peter Ridley related to Lord Bunkum / von Monckhausen? His posts seem to have a similar factual content.
Crumbs, a lot has happened since I last looked at this thread!
OK, can we now please stop commenting about Pete Ridley.
I actually quite enjoyed some of his comments (both here and on other blogs), especially when I found him having a go at some Young Earth Creationists. He is certainly not a parrot.
But one thing I cannot tolerate is stalking, and Mr. Ridley is a stalker.
Pete will not be commenting on this blog again. I think the best thing is to move on and forget him.
Please do not post any further comments about Pete here.
Excellent!
More on Monckton’s patent applications at the IPO, his 2009 applications are now terminated. I expect to see new applications, soon.
http://wp.me/pYpi4-1j
Baron Monckhausen has apparently copied my pink waffle, topped by a jester’s hat and flanked by two columns of monkeys.
Perhaps I should serve notice upon him for copyright infringement. 😉
Well it’s just as accurate and logical as the comments made by Lord Bunkum.