A letter in the current Straight Furrow cites a speech from Lord Christopher Monckton where he calls those who accept that anthropogenic climate change is a reality, "bed-wetters".
Monckton is presently touring New Zealand and is supported by the farmers' union, Federated Farmers.
They should be ashamed of themselves. I'm thinking too, of those people who wet their beds, against their own wishes, being used in a derogatory way. It's a disgraceful thing to say, especially coming from someone claiming to be a Lord, and to being intelligent.
Friday, April 19, 2013
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
I thought Monckton deplored ad hominem attacks and wanted to debate the issues.
Unless I've missed something - does bed-wetting cause global warming? It's quite possible it does, after all Kevin Hague was told that marriage equality caused droughts.
Fouling one's own nest can be counter-productive, but the sea bed, for example, has been wetted since forever to no ill effect.
No, no no, AC. Marriage equality destroys the world and we'll burn in hell fire.
Although I suppose that could be another way of saying it causes drought?
He also referred to them in the same collective way as Henny Penny's, obviously to illustrate a point. Should the poultry industry be offended as well?
Not much of a gentleman, is Lord Monckton?
Going to hear him, para?
Been to see him RG. That's why I was able to offer my second comment above. No wonder your lot are working so hard to discredit him. What he is saying will stop a lot of revenue flowing into academic and government coffers.
Great. Reduced revenue to government coffers is a sign of reduced taxation. Is this because Monckton will reduce taxable activities and cause a deepening of the recession/economic crisis? Or does his mere presence cause tax cuts?
And we invest too much in academia already. Monckton's right. Damn the ivory tower dwelling good for nothing layabouts. If they can't and won't think the right thing let them get real jobs, like labouring in the fields.
So you've contributed financially to the denier movement then. Not just a sideline supporter anymore. I'm betting there were only deniers in the audience. It must have been an easy rant to deliver.
I've thought about my previous comment, paranormal, and decided it was out of order. While I often disagree with a lot of the things you say, you are generally polite, so I apologise for being capricious.
Having said that, I disagree with your contention that Monckton or anything he does will affect tax revenue or funding to academia. If your are a believer in cause and effect then by raising doubt the need for further investigation, study and monitoring will arise. It will probably be funded through general taxation, though a targeted tax could be fairer.
Thank you AC. Perhaps I could have been clearer in what I said regarding taxation and the diversion of tax revenue into funding certain research at the expense of others.
You're correct in that it doesn't matter what it is called, poor government will continue to expand taxation as much as they can to fund their spending to buy votes. If it wasn't a spurious tax to save the world from naturally occurring carbon, they're creative enough to find something else.
RG, you might have been surprised to see who was in the audience. Definitely a wide range of people with open minds come to hear what the man had to say.
One thing Monckton said that I agree wholeheartedly on was about the ultimate political cost of the AGW movement. When the fraud is laid out, the public will switch off the Green agenda. It won't matter how valid or pressing the issues are, because they have been so badly misled by the Green movement, the public will just not listen to them in the future. The same applies to science. What has masqueraded as science ('consensus' science, denigration, data fiddling, collusion etc.) has brought real science into such disrepute there is a danger that in the future the public just will not listen to scientists.
Ultimately the AGW agenda has harmed the environment. It could be said those driving the movement don't really care as their agenda is not environmental, but political.
Monckton and, sad to say, you Paranormal, are sadly delusional. Curiously, you think the same of me! How odd this world is! You didn't clarify whether anyone in the audience was from "my camp". I maintain all were delusional, like yourself :-)
There were some clearly from your camp. You would have been proud of them though they were polite and respectful. So you were correct - all in the audience were delusional.
I bet there weren't. You may have believed there were, para, but, you know, your delusion and all, makes all of your pronouncements suspect :-)
And if they were polite and respectful, they weren't from my camp. Ours is the disrespectful, impolite gang, don't cha know!
Post a Comment