Bed-wetters and the farmers' union

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.

Warmest regards (for paranormal)

Lord Christopher Monckton writes in today's Southland Times:

The monstrous conspiracy of global warming, perpetrated by a scandalously huge majority of the scientific world, persists.

The latest outrageous deception is the attempt to ascribe some sort of significance to the "fact" that Antarctic Peninsula is melting in summers at a level not seen for 1000 years. This requires us to take on blind faith the assumption that this so-called continent exists outside the minds of alarmists.

To point to Antarctica's presence on maps is a fatuous nonsense. When was the last time a scientist came out and acknowledged that Antarctica didn't feature in the early maps used by some of the world's most intrepid and admired explorers? Has anyone even asked who first added it, and for what reasons? Certainly not the uncritical mainstream news media. What proof do we have, beyond anecdotal reports from those who claim to have been there - a perfect way for any ne'er-do-well who needs to cover his tracks to disappear from scrutiny for long stretches at a time?

As for satellite imaging purporting to show the presence of some southern polar mass; it is already a well-established fact that images can be doctored. You could just as easily insert an Atlantis in the same space. The latest report describes the so-called continent as the "Antarctic Circle" when even those fabricated images show something that is far from perfectly round. The global warming brigade can't even get that part of their story straight.

Then there is the highly questionable issue of timing and the assumption that the world is more than 1000 years old. Nowhere in the Old or New Testament will you find references to the terms "BC" or "AD". The hands that wrote the scriptures under guidance from the Holy Spirit did not insert these misleading signposts; they were added centuries later by worldly monarchs taking their eyes off scripture and falling under the thrall of that most perilously fashionable of disciplines, mathematics. In any case, they got it wrong. Nowhere in these calendars do they allow for the year 0, rendering them mathematically unsound. Surely another kick in the credibility goolies for global warming.

The latest report also claims that the Antarctic Circle (sic) has seen the most extreme global warming on Earth since the 1960s - a decade widely associated with hallucinogenic drug-taking. Hardly a trustworthy basis for any serious comparison. Any evidence gathered in that decade must be dismissed out of hand. And how many of the scientists at present pleading with the world to react gained their so-called degrees in that decade? We shudder to think.



The breathtaking vanity of those who believe in anthropomorphic global warming must also be confronted and rejected. Not necessarily in that order. If history has taught us anything - and the jury is still out on that - it's that mankind's assumption that we could materially influence the glorious majesty of the natural world speaks of nothing other than our failure to accept our own insignificance. An unspeakable vanity. Whatever came of our attempts to influence the seasons by sacrificing beasts, virgins and the like? Nothing. Do rain dances end droughts? Of course not. Did all our teeny tiny attempts to split atoms in ways that might generate huge discharges of energy result in any explosions of truly global consequence? Not so far, buster.

We need to worry about today and let the future take care of itself. Should the day ever come that climatic calamity is upon us, and we are up to our armpits in hard evidence, that is the time to sit back in restful contemplation and give consideration as to what exactly we should or shouldn't have done. Until then it's all conjecture.

Monckton (pt 3)

Threatening Those Who Disagree With Him

1. Monckton has threatened to instigate academic misconduct investigations against several professors who have exposed his misrepresentations. The list so far includes Naomi Oreskes, John Abraham, and Barry Bickmore. He has even threatened a libel suit against John Abraham. Monckton has now threatened to extend the libel suit to include Scott Mandia. Here is Scott’s reply. John Abraham has stated that Monckton has threatened lawsuits against him several more times. Monckton and Monckton has also threatened . He also wrote to Bickmore’s university administration to tell them Bickmore was mentally imbalanced, and that he had beeen sending Monckton “hate mail”.

2. He launched a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission in the UK against The Guardian because of a column George Monbiot wrote about Monckton’s antics. The PCC threw out the complaint. In a bizarre twist, George Monbiot reported that someone claiming to be Monckton and using Monckton’s IP address had tried to edit his Wikipedia page to falsely claim that he had won a £50,000 settlement from The Guardian because of Monbiot’s article.

3. Monckton lobbed threats against Arthur Smith after Arthur objected that Monckton (and the Science and Public Policy Institute) had violated copyright. Smith had written a rebuttal of one of Monckton’s articles, and was trying to get it published. Monckton put the entire thing up on the web along with his comments, and altered the article to imply that Smith had written it at the behest of his employer, the American Physical Society, which was not true. Arthur prevailed after threatening legal action, because he was clearly in the right.

4. John Mashey pointed out an instance where one contrarian had plagiarized from Monckton (and cited papers that had been challenged and withdrawn), and then Monckton turned around and praised the work. When Richard Littlemore reported this, Monckton left a comment on the page saying that Mashey was “under investigation” for breaching “doctor-patient confidentiality,” and that he was guilty of “interfering in an unlawful manner on the blogosphere.” To this day, I don’t think anyone has any idea what Monckton was talking about.

5. George Monbiot chronicled how Monckton has threatened several times to sue The Guardian for libel. The U.K. has libel laws that are absurdly in favor of plaintiffs, and yet, these lawsuits have never materialized.

6. Senators John Rockefeller and Olympia Snowe wrote an open letter to Exxon-Mobile, urging them to stop funding climate-contrarian “think-tanks,” whose tactics resemble those of the tobacco industry, Lord Monckton wrote an open letter to the senators, in which he said, “In the circumstances, your comparison of Exxon’s funding of sceptical scientists and groups with the former antics of the tobacco industry is unjustifiable and unworthy of any credible elected representatives. Either withdraw that monstrous comparison forthwith, or resign so as not to pollute the office you hold.” Ok, so this isn’t really a threat, but Monckton’s language is so bombastic and filled with fake moral outrage that it almost feels like a threat.

In his letter, Monckton falsely claimed to be a member of Parliament, and 2) Naomi Oreskes, a prominent science historian, and Erik Conway, have shown that not only do the most prominent organizations fighting mainstream climate science follow the same playbook as the tobacco industry, but it’s often the SAME organizations and people doing the fighting on both fronts!

7. Monckton launched yet another complaint to the Press Complaints Commission against New Scientist magazine, which had the temerity to point out that Monckton’s article on climate sensitivity in an American Physical Society newsletter was not peer-reviewed, among other things. Of course, the editor had specifically noted that the newsletter is not a peer-reviewed publication, but Monckton said he had the article critiqued by a “Professor of Physics,” i.e., someone who isn’t a climate specialist. The complaint was not upheld.

8. His Lordship complained to Ofcom, the British regulator for TV and radio programming, that he had been unfairly treated by the producers of the BBC documentary, Earth: The Climate Wars. Ofcom found that the show’s producers should have given more information to Monckton upfront about the nature of the program (even though Monckton expressed familiarity with how the BBC had covered the issue in the past.) However, they found that the lack of informed consent did not result in any misrepresentation of Monckton’s views by unfair editing. The complaint summary linked above is a fascinating read, if you have about 15 minutes.

9. Monckton threatened to have IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri jailed for fraud because he used an IPCC graph that turns out to be correct, but misleading. In his letter to Pachauri, however, His Lordship used a temperature graph that had already been shown by several scientists to be blatantly fabricated. I’m sure Monckton is on his way to Scotland Yard right now to give himself up.

10. The BBC aired a documentary called “Meet the Climate Sceptics” which apparently focused largely on Monckton. (Click here to see the trailer.) In fact Monckton unsuccessfully attempted to have the courts stop the BBC from airing it unless they allowed him to insert a 3 minute video rebuttal into the program.

11. The ABC (Australia) aired a rather stunning gutting of Monckton and his crowd. Journalist Wendy Carlisle brought up several instances where Monckton’s sources contradicted him, the fact that he falsely claims to be a member of Parliament, his miracle cure-all, and more. So of course, Monckton threatened to sue unless given airtime to reply.

Making Up Crazy Conspiracy Theories

1. He accused NASA of crashing its own satellite so it wouldn’t have to deal with more data that contradicts the scientific consensus about climate change.

2. Monckton claimed that a treaty would be ratified at the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen that would “impose a communist world government on the world.”

3. After the BP oil spill disaster, Monckton went on CNBC claiming that Pres. Obama has some sort of vendetta against BP because he hates the United Kingdom. What’s the evidence? Well, Obama has repeatedly referred to BP as “British Petroleum”. Which is, well, what “BP” originally stood for. Note that he wasn’t just saying that Obama was using the fact that BP is based in the UK to score political points, pass the buck, or whatever. He was claiming that Obama HATES the U.K., and mentioned some rumor about Obama’s Kenyan ancestors being mistreated by the Brits.

4. After Monckton and his allies went about crowing that his article in an APS newsletter was “peer-reviewed,” the APS started appending notices on all its newsletter articles stating they are not peer-reviewed. Monckton claimed it was all a Communist plot. Marxist, to be precise.

Butchering History

1. On the Michael Coren show, Monckton butchered the history of the DDT ban so badly that he claimed JFK did things after he was dead… among other things.

A Reluctant Posterchild for Godwin’s Law of Nazi Analogies

1. Some young environmentalist protesters in Copenhagen started chanting and disrupting some meeting Monckton was involved with. Monckton later called these people “Hitler Youth,” even though some were Jewish. Ok, so I would be annoyed about the protesters, too, but when asked about the incident, Monckton denied to an AP reporter that he had been the one to make that comment. But, um… someone had already posted the video on YouTube.

2. Monckton gave a speech at Utah Valley University, in which he said (3rd paragraph from bottom) that a group of local scientists (including Barry Bickmore) were “trying to impose the same kind of tyranny as Hitler.” When some of us called him on this during an e-mail exchange, he said he didn’t recall having compared us to Nazis.

3. As mentioned above, in a speech given at the 2011 Big Footprint Conference, sponsored by the American Freedom Alliance, Monckton gave a long tirade about “eco-fascists”, and compared them to Hitler. He also flashed up slides with quotations by various accused “eco-fascists” next to a large Nazi flag. Prof. Ross Garnaut, an Australian economist who wrote a government report on dealing with climate change, said that people who don’t know anything about climate science have no rational choice but to accept what the experts say about it. Garnaut was simply encouraging people to be rational. To everyone but the tinfoil hat crowd, summarily rejecting the consensus of scientific experts without knowing what you are talking about is, well… irrational.

Being an All-Purpose Extremist

1. It’s a good thing Monckton has developed a cure for AIDS! In 1987 he suggested rounding up all AIDS-sufferers and isolating them for life. Since nobody took his sage advice, he later acknowledged that the problem had gotten too big for his suggestion to be feasible.

2. Monckton suggested it might be a good idea to require scientists to have some kind of religious certification before being allowed to practice in a field like climatology. You know, because scientists are a pack of atheists who think lying is ok.

3. Monckton claimed that, as a member of Margaret Thatcher’s policy unit, he suggested spiking the Argentines’ water supplies with a “mild bacillus” so the British troops could more easily win the Falklands War. He said he believed Thatcher had followed his advice, even though this would clearly have been a violation of the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention.

He Can Dish it Out, But Can’t Take It

Lord Monckton has repeatedly accused scientists and others of lies, fraud, and conspiracy to impose a Communist world government. He routinely calls people who disagree with him “bed-wetters,” “zombies,” and “Hitler Youth” (see above.) Well, fine. However, nobody likes the kid who can dish it out, but can’t take it. (If you want to see an amazing string of epithets that came from Monckton’s mouth in a single talk, click here. It’s astonishing!)

1. When John Abraham posted an exceptionally mild-mannered, careful critique of one of Monckton’s presentations, His Lordship complained that, “so venomously ad hominem are Abraham’s artful puerilities, delivered in a nasal and irritatingly matey tone (at least we are spared his face — he looks like an overcooked prawn), that climate-extremist bloggers everywhere have circulated them and praised them to the warming skies.” Watch Abraham’s presentation, then read Monckton’s response (heck, just read the passage I just quoted,) and decide for yourself whose language was “venomous,” and whose arguments were ad hominem.

2. When Barry Bickmore charged, in an e-mail conversation involving Monckton and a number of local scientists, that Monckton had 1) lied about his personal circumstances for monetary gain (see above), 2) lied about being a member of Parliament (see above), and 3) made up data to discredit the IPCC (see above), he said, “I do not propose to answer any further ad-hominem points, and, as I have explained, I shall not answer any points from anyone who continues to assert ad-hominem arguments against me. No further communications from this email address will be answered, therefore. – Monckton of Brenchley.” But as Richard Littlemore pointed out, if the issue is Monckton’s credibility, it isn’t ad hominem to point out that he routinely makes things up.

Going Ape

Lord Monckton has largely been ignored or dismissed by scientists in the past because, after all, how could anyone take him seriously (see above)? A number of scientists have begun systematically picking apart his scientific arguments (see above). This does not sit well with someone who thinks he is a super-genius who has single-handedly gutted the entire field of climatology and invented a miracle cure-all (among other things.) So when the pressure is on, Monckton can really lose it.

1. The University of St. Thomas unequivocally told Monckton to take a flying leap when he was campaigning to get them to launch an academic investigation against John Abraham, who had critiqued one of Monckton’s presentations. Monckton went on Alex Jones’s show and called Abraham a “wretched little man,” the University of St. Thomas a “half-assed Catholic Bible College,” and the President of the University (Father Dease) a “creep.” He also said the Archbishop of St. Paul (who oversees the University) was “probably so busy sorting out the problems with little boys that he hasn’t got time to deal with this one.” ‘

Conclusion

I trust that you can see, from the overwhelming body of evidence that I have presented to you, that Monckton is a fraud and regularly engages in reprehensible and extremist behaviour. He is not someone your club should be associated with, as doing so will bring your club and its members into disrepute. It is not sufficient for you to claim that the Northern Club is just the venue, and others are booking it for their own use. By hosting Monckton you are condoning his behaviour and allowing your club to be used so that he can spout his extremist garbage. I urge you to cancel Monckton’s luncheon.

The luncheon organisers may accuse you of censorship. But cancelling the luncheon is more like reputational quality control. Consider whether such extreme views and behaviour have a place in today’s society. Would The Northern Club host someone who rejected the link between HIV and AIDS, for instance? Would The Northern Club host someone who rejected the link between smoking and lung disease? Would the Northern Club host a Holocaust denier?

The science of greenhouse gas induced climate change is over 100 years old. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has gathered the scientific evidence from numerous peer reviewed scientific papers, written by hundreds of scientists, and established the consensus position. The IPCC states that evidence of climate change is “unequivocal”. A thorough debunking of Monckton’s claims is available from the following sources (amongst others):

1. Monckton Myths
2. Youtube videos by British journalist Peter Hatfield, Youtube channel Potholer54
3. Videos produced by Peter Sinclair

I am happy to meet with you to discuss this matter with you. You may wonder why I have bothered to raise this with you. For your answer, please read the first quote from Edmund Burke.

Regards,

Martin Tegg

Brash flails like drowning swimmer

Not content with having revealed himself us an unrepentant racist with his recent anti-Maori blathering, Donald Brash, Act head, is now championing the dangerously deluded climate-change deniers club of New Zealand by denigrating the Greens for their dismissal of Mad Lord Monckton and his barmy argument that 'the volcano dun it'. Monckton has perfected the art of misleading his audiences in live debate, making false and unsubstantiated claims with unassailable Tory arrogance and persuading those who can't check his 'facts' quickly enough to realise he lying to them. This method he employs is widely reported and wherever he goes, his challenge 'I'll debate ya!' is met with rejection. Instead, experts in the field of climate change say they welcome a written challenge where facts can be presented and checked but Monckton and his denier-backers refuse to be tested in this way. The Green Party, challenged to 'live debate' Monckton on Q&A this weekend, have described their preference to test Monckton's claims as written, but instead of agreeing to that, his supporters, including the quite clearly deluded Don Brash, have over-excited themselves and are clamouring that 'the Greens are yellow'. If the Greens do decline to dignify Monckton's challenge with an appearance on Q&A, good on them. If they do decide to put Kennedy Graham up against the Mad Lord, I'd be watching that debate with eager anticipation as Kennedy has a particular way with words and might be just the man to undo the loopy Lord of the Deniers.