Deltoid

Carlton's column is worth a read, since he points out that Monckton has adopted the Larouchites nutty notions about a world government and DDT.

And it has a concise summary of a lot of Monckton's lies and bull. He also points out:

Nelson got his viscountcy for Trafalgar; Montgomery for Alamein and the war in Europe; Bill Slim for beating the Japanese in Burma. Monckton has his coronet because his lawyer grandfather sorted out the abdication of Edward VIII and his messy marriage to Wallis Simpson.

The title "Discount" Monckton seems very appropriate.

Carlton also points out:

These days the Liberals are almost entirely run by Sydney private school boys...

Those Sydney private schools must be proud of their achievements in science education.

Posted by: Chris O'Neill | February 6, 2010 2:34 AM

lots of fun, to read that pinocchio article.

may i present to you: Lord Monckton, leader of the "sceptics2 movement against climate change!

Posted by: sod | February 6, 2010 3:11 AM

Tim, it looks like you might need to put up some postings in The War on Science for the Sydney Morning Herald, courtesy of Sheehan and the Devine Miss M. Or perhaps their science denialism is too obvious to all but the delusional.

Posted by: Chris O'Neill | February 6, 2010 5:52 AM

so it isn't just a coincidence that he looks like Marty Feldman

Like Feldman, Monckton is being paid while being funny.

Unlike Feldman, Monckton isn't being paid to be funny.

Posted by: Chris O'Neill | February 6, 2010 6:00 AM

Funny reading all the comments on Tim Blair.

When I first started reading his blogs on global warming/climate change, I quite genuinely thought he was being satirical towards the denyosphere and got a great laugh out of many of them, and even made a couple of published comments about how funny it was that some regular blog posters were taking them as supportive of the denialist view. Because of course, how could someone make such comments as Tim Blair does on the topic, and not be taking the piss?

It wasn't until later that I realised he actually was supporting the denialist view, and they weren't satirical! Wow. How horribly embarrassing.

Posted by: Mike | February 6, 2010 7:11 AM

Regular hot crumpets shoved between the buttocks can do odd things to a young chap's mind.

As long as the memory remains of cheeks burning with shame, the Earth will never warm!

Posted by: John | February 6, 2010 8:38 AM

Hard to separate parody from truth, so let the spoof wars begin. Eli has an interesting post (translated) on 'concern trolls', which explains that phenomenon in detail.

Posted by: el gordo | February 6, 2010 6:01 PM

How dare you show a picture of Monckton with that tie knot! That's not a windsor. Are you suggesting he can't put a tie on properly? Why are your attacks so personal?

Posted by: David Allen | February 6, 2010 7:15 PM

Not a windsor knot in the old necktie, eh? I can think of another "necktie" knot....

Posted by: TomG | February 6, 2010 7:32 PM

We're just having a spot of fun, janama. Monckton is so utterly crazy, the jokes write themselves. If he'd ever had a serious point about anything related to climate, we'd discuss it, but sadly he hasn't.

In the meantime, he's curing HIV and the common cold. It's clear that climate sceptics are quite bad at realising cranks among their own, but you'd think even they'd think twice about a guy making claims like that.

Posted by: carrot eater | February 6, 2010 8:30 PM

Calling Monckton a mathematician is like calling George Bush a jackass.

Sure he acts out the role, but true jackasses can tell the difference and would be insulted by the comparison.

Posted by: Fran Barlow | February 6, 2010 8:34 PM

Cohenite ... considering the vacuity of his presentation and the large sums he was charging and getting, I feel sure he can cop the brickbats.

The comparison with the underpants bomber is indeed apt, because both of them are clearly unhinged and seek to harm the legitimate interests of others. Monckton aims at more damage than underpants man though.

Posted by: Fran Barlow | February 6, 2010 8:45 PM

Is Monckton that short of cash that he signs on with the LaRouchies? Did Scrotum get paid this week?

Posted by: Eli Rabett | February 6, 2010 9:20 PM

janama - or to put it another way, he had to offer a prize of a million bucks to get people to buy his puzzle. It's barely one step up from a "scratchie".

Posted by: anthony | February 6, 2010 10:21 PM

Having met Monckton at the Newcastle leg of his tour I'm sure he can withstand the peurility being expressed here and elsewhere

Is that because you gave Monckton some succor? Did you fawn Anthony? Let me guess, you feel like you want to start name dropping?

How sad. Did you think we'd be impressed?

Posted by: Anon | February 6, 2010 11:38 PM

Who is using conites name to take the piss? Very funny though!

Was David Flint there too?

;)

Posted by: jakerman | February 7, 2010 12:50 AM

Barney Google (with those goo-goo-googly eyes) has changed his name to Christopher Monckton? What a disappointment.

Posted by: MadScientist | February 7, 2010 3:16 AM

God bless you leftards. You're so damn feral and so damn sanctimonious at the same time. Here's a radical idea though, and it might cause your ears to bleed, actually address a specific point about AGW Monckton has made. Go on ya zombies, you can do it. Try harder.

Posted by: Doug | February 7, 2010 4:31 AM

Here's a radical idea though, and it might cause your ears to bleed, actually address a specific point about AGW Monckton has made. Go on ya zombies, you can do it. Try harder.

Here's another radical idea: search the archives on this blog for "monckton", then go over to Realclimate and search "monckton", then go to deepclimate and search "monckton", then go to tamino.wordpress.com and search "monckton", then go to skepticalscience and search "monckton", and then, just for a joke, GOOGLE "monckton".

If you are still impressed with Monckton after all that, check yourself in for rehab.

Posted by: Mike | February 7, 2010 5:17 AM

Lord Haw-haw's made a point that hasn't been debunked??

Wait. He's actually made a point?

Posted by: ChrisC | February 7, 2010 6:21 AM

There are children represented on both sides it seems. It's unfortunate that people descend to name calling and commentary on appearance. One more reason to suspect the whole 'debate'.

Posted by: Keith | February 7, 2010 6:04 PM

25 MikeH,

Interior designer? You should check your sources.

Or are you having us on?

Posted by: TrueSceptic | February 7, 2010 7:37 PM

So far I have not read any scientific scientific rebuff on what Monkton asserts. The above commentary is an example. Perhaps the collective silence on the science indicates he Monkton is correct when he says;

"To the environmentalists I shall say that it is important not to waste time, money and effort on trying to solve non-problems like “global warming”, when the time, money and effort could and should be better spent on solving real problems, such as deforestation, overfishing, particulate pollution in south-east Asia, and the encroachment of humankind on to the fragile and shrinking habitats of our fellow-creatures.

Telling the truth is often unpopular, and I realize that those who are making money out of the Great Lie that is the “global warming” scam, and those who have too readily believed it because it is socially convenient or politically expedient, may be upset by what I shall say.

But my intention is not to give offence, nor deliberately to attract criticism for the sake of making a sensation. My aim is merely to tell the truth, and to explain how interested listeners can verify the truth for themselves. I usually start my talks by saying, “Do not believe a word I say. Science is not a belief system, but a process of rigorous enquiry and observation and measurement and testing, testing, testing. Everything I say comes from the data or the learned journals of science, mathematics, and economics. If you are interested, check for yourselves.”

Posted by: Dick J | February 7, 2010 9:08 PM

Dick J.

Some small corrections.

"My aim is merely to tell the truth people what the want to hear, and to explain how interested listeners can verify the truth reinforce their subjective ideologies for themselves. I usually start my talks by saying, “Do not believe a word I say[, because my words are not based in science]. Science is not a belief system, but a process of rigorous enquiry and observation and measurement and testing, testing, testing. Everything I say comes from [my misrepresentation of, and lying about] the data or the learned journals of science, mathematics, and economics. If you are interested, check for yourselves. [Search blogs such as Deltoid, Open Mind, RealClimate, Deep Climate, Climate Progress, Rabbet Run, Gristmill and Greenfyre's, using the term 'Monckton', and you will find that this is so]."

There, that's better.

Posted by: Bernard JU. | February 7, 2010 9:35 PM

Richard Davidson I don't know if Monkton is funded by Exxon.However I suspect its an internet untruth propogated by people which can't argue the science. Prove me wrong if you wish.

Consider this also; Is being funded privatley any different to being funded by Government, WWF, Greenpeace etc?

Posted by: Dick J | February 8, 2010 12:30 AM

Dick J:

So far I have not read any scientific scientific rebuff on what Monkton asserts.

Then you haven't read any of these: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/global_warming/monckton/

or these: google monckton site:realclimate.org

Aren't the scientists who write for realclimate "scientific" enough for you?

Posted by: Chris O'Neill | February 8, 2010 2:34 AM

"We're just having a spot of fun, janama. Monckton is so utterly crazy, the jokes write themselves. If he'd ever had a serious point about anything related to climate, we'd discuss it, but sadly he hasn't."

You lot haven't discussed anything remotely approaching science yet - just ask Phil Jones

Posted by: Case | February 8, 2010 3:21 AM

I always thought that the Discount Viscount had already been dubbed Baron Monckhausen. His following is that great reservoir of arrogant ignorance, stupidity and personal viciousness we know as 'the Right'. These are the types identified in psychological research as so moronic as to have absolutely no idea just how stupid they are, lacking the intellectual equipment to make such judgements, and hence they habitually over-estimate their intelligence. They hate real scientists and those they suspect of being cleverer than they as 'smart-arses' or 'know-it-alls'. And as one other contributor noted, the fact that they all have a vote ensures our doom. Was it not Goethe who observed that there is nothing more terrible than ignorance in action. Add stupidity and that simple misanthropy that the Right holds in abundance, and you have the denialist lynch-mob, growing crazier and more hysterical by the day, as they are whipped into a frenzy by the hatemongering psychopaths of the Rightwing media sewer.

Posted by: Mulga Mumblebrain | February 8, 2010 4:07 AM

Steve@57

Knowing your limitations is the first step on the road to mitigating the constraints on your life that they impose. Well done.

Stop calling yourself a skeptic though. Not getting stuff and saying "No sir, I don't like it" just makes you like Mr Horse. A true skeptic knows exactly what it is that is problematic, and can demonstrate the flaws in reasoning (s)he identifies in ways that those from the field of knowledge in question can evaluate and respond to systematically.

Until you know something you are ignorant. Until you can apply it to specification or analysis of a problem, you are a moron, whatever you think your IQ is.

Posted by: Fran Barlow | February 8, 2010 6:28 AM

Dick J.

If you think that I "made" your point, then you missed mine entirely.

In your opening sentences above you say:

So far I have not read any scientific scientific [sic] rebuff on [sic] what Monkton asserts. The above commentary is an example.

You are, without presenting any supporting evidence, criticising the lack of scientific argument on this blog. My response was to indicate to you that this blog, and many others, are scientific in most of their conduct, and certainly so in the elucidation of professional detail, Denialist trolls notwithstanding. These blogs each are frequented by competent scientists, who regularly provide direct reference to primary literature, and who also provide a synthesis of the corpus of scientific literature so that is accessible to the lay person.

That my point, and the very existence of the abundant deconstructions of Monckton's pseudoscientific jabberings, have both escaped you is damning evidence, in its own turn, of your own Denialist incompetence.

Continue your prating though, knave. It becomes your cause.

Posted by: Bernard J. | February 8, 2010 6:57 AM

No refutation of what Moncton says. Why is that?

Why?

Perhaps it is because you haven't actually followed the links that you so abhorr, and thus you have not found that they lead directly to a plethora of information and evidence from primary literature that soundly demolishes Monckton's nonsense.

However Monckton might present, it has noting to do with scientific fact. One ideologue's "calm, considered and intelligent" is, in Monckton's case, a thinking person's "practised, posing, charlatan". That you are not able to discern the difference is a reflection of the level of your ignorance, and not of the state of the science.

As to the "[n]o refutation of what Moncton says", there's no accounting for the stupidity of some people in the Denialist camp.

On the left hand side of this page is a column with a title, not far from the top, that says "Categories". One of these catgories is "Monckton", which provides a nice start for scientific deconstruction of the rabid lunatic's nonsense.

And at the top of the page is a search engine that permits the pondering enquirer to search the entire site for postings on Monckton. Who'd 'a' thought?!

Apparently trivially basic research is beyond the likes of Dick J and Bear.

Posted by: Bernard J. | February 8, 2010 7:15 AM

Bear falsely claims:

No discussion on the science? No refutation of what Monckton says. Why is that?

Bear why do you say such things that are demonstrably false?

Does CO2 follow an increase in temperature or the reverse?

Both. If temp rises CO2 rises, and if CO2 rises temps rise. Currently CO2 is forcing temps to rise.

Posted by: jakerman | February 8, 2010 7:26 AM