A few readers may already be aware that April Fool’s Day marks the launch of Christopher Monckton‘s speaking tour of New Zealand. It’s not arousing much interest in the media – probably because his declared attention is to propagate his conspiracy theory of a corrupt plan to form a world government initiated by fascists, greenies, communists, imperialists and capitalists. Hard to take this seriously, but it’s all outlined in the Agenda 21.
Not much sense is expected – and the public attending Monckton’s talks are generally extreme libertarians or conspiracy theorists of one sort or another – Chemtrail alarmists, Truthers, 9/11 conspiracies, etc.
But it could be fun – some of Monckton’s fans love to dress up. Here’s the latest press release from the NZ Flat earth Society, who are supporting Monckton’s tour.
HEAR YE, HEAR YE, HEAR YE!
The Grand Wizard of the NZ Flat Earth Society, Nathaniel Pipe-Blower, has called on his flock and their friends to give Lord Monckton a rousing welcome to Auckland at Monckton’s public lecture at the University Business School, 7 – 9 pm on April 5th.
As we Flat Earthers have endured centuries of oppression and ridicule from scientists with their so-called “evidence” that the Earth is round, we sympathise with Lord Monckton’s struggle, and wish to offer our support and friendship.
Just to be clear, we want to be FRIENDS with Lord Monckton and WORK TOGETHER TO BATTLE THE CONSPIRACY between the Bad Scientists and the Evil Greens.
We will be handing out a scroll with our message, engaging in courtly conversation with members of the public, and expressing fulsome admiration for the Great Man himself – after all, he claims to a Nobel laureate who has found the cure for AIDS!
Now for the fun part: Flat Earthers often dress in medieval garb, e.g. as damsels, knights, lords & ladies, priests, peasants, jesters, wizards and wenches.
Flat Earthers also love music and entertainment, so it would be great to have pipers / minstrels / jugglers or clowns.
Most of all, Flat Earthers know how to MAKE MERRY! Feel free to let your hair down.
We will be meeting in the quad outside the Fisher and Paykel Lecture Theatre at 6.30 pm (or in the foyer, if wet).
The (free) lecture starts at 7 pm; Flat Earthers will likely be so impressed by Monckton’s total awesomeness that they will clap and cheer the brilliance of his thought!
Perhaps the media will turn up to this talk after all.
It should be pointed out that Monckton likes to accuse his detractors of being Nazis. He’s done it multiple times.
I’d pay good money for Monckton to call the Flat Earthers a bunch of Nazis on live TV.
Oh pretty please.
After all, it’s a classic Nazi tactic. Dressing up as wizards and wenches playing musical instruments with a scattering of jugglers and clowns to make your opponent look like a total idiot. Historical Fact: Hitler insisted on wearing a red nose at all his political rallies!
UK’s coldest Easter on Record. While weather isn’t climate , it has to make you wonder who are the real April Fools.
Those would be the ones who don’t really get that weather isn’t climate.
Coldest Easter in the UK? That’s weather. It’s not climate. Not even a little bit.
You are stupid. Go kill yourself.
Climate Denial Crock of the Week- “It’s cold. So there’s no Climate Change”
– and the public attending Monckton’s talks are generally extreme libertarians or conspiracy theorists of one sort or another – Chemtrail alarmists, Truthers, 9/11 conspiracies, etc
Yes, Eddie. You would think that Monckton would have received a better reception in the UK and he’s wasting his time down here where we are only slowly coming out of a long summer drought. But perhaps they know his political story there and reject it.
Phil, I know this from keen observation of those sponsoring the tour, comments on blogs by those enthusing about the man and intending to attend. Of course, there may be a few honest a sensible people who attend out of interest, but I think my general inference is, on the whole, justified. And look at the press release from the Flat Earthers!
If you have contrary information – let us have it.
Yes, Phil, The UK has had several cold winters – that is still regional and still weather. In this case the unusual weather is thought to be due to changes in air streams as a result of warming in the Arctic. This has lead to cold weather being blown from Siberia.
As for my comment on the likely audience Monckton will get – the inference is based on observation. Take it or leave it – but it is certainly better than what you have (as you say you have no contrary information so I assume whatever information you do have is similar to mine).
But, as I said – you can take it or leave it. No skin off my nose.
In fairness, a few of us will be attending specifically to ask pointed questions and point out where he is misrepresenting research. Ought to be an interesting experience.
In fairness, a few of us will be attending specifically to ask pointed questions and point out where he is misrepresenting research. Ought to be an interesting experience.
Oh how wonderful. A climate scientist called Christopher Banks will be attending. Should be interesting.
We’d like your assessment beforehand, if possible.
Phil – you asked if a single drought could be evidence of climate change. I have answered that before – No. And I am not aware of anyone saying that – it is extremely naive.
Climate scientists do not rely on single events. However, increased frequency of extreme weather events can be evidence of possible climate change effects.
I think you have confused this issue with the reports of NIWA’s analysis of likely drought frequency in NZ under the different warming scenarios used by the IPCC. And – NO – that is not cherry picking at all.
Boy, you are touchy about the Potty Peer, aren’t you Phil.
If you are after the opinions of climate scientists on Mad Monckton and his distorted claims there is no shortage of them around. Just do a brief internet search.
No climate scientists attending that I’m aware of, Phil. Just a few local skeptics with enough time on our hands to check his references. Really not all that difficult to see what he’s gotten wrong, and I encourage you to do likewise and check the literature for yourself.
If I go to a meeting, I will be stimatised as a conspiracy theorist who thinks there is a master plan to poison us with Chemtrails and a global evil plot to form a one world communist government.
Phil, may I reiterate that I am not an expert on this topic. I am, however, sufficiently educated to know how to look up the sources a person cites and check whether they support the conclusion he has drawn from them.
If you would like a systematic critique of Monckton’s past pronouncements, and a comparison of what he has said to the source material, I suggest beginning here, and then, as one cannot simply believe something just because it’s posted on Youtube, going on to check the literature in question for yourself.
In the interests of fairness, Monckton has responded to the videos in question. His response, and the critic’s reply, can be found here:
If I was sure that Monckton’s talk would be attended only by conspiracy theorists and the like, I probably wouldn’t bother. However, it is entirely possible that a few people with less set in stone positions will turn up, and I feel it’s important that somebody point out to them that Monckton is not a credible voice in the debate.
You are, of course, welcome to turn up and find out what approach Monckton’s critics will be taking for yourself, Phil.
I do feel that you yourself are exhibit A when it comes to demonstrating that there is a debate going on. After all, we are in disagreement over the topic. Whether particular positions in the debate are based on reasonable scientific evidence is a rather different matter.
Incidentally, I feel the Flat Earth Society has the “buttonholing people and telling them Monckton is not credible” angle covered. I doubt it will have much impact on entrenched positions however, and I see little point in duplicating their approach.
I doubt the “flat earth society” will have any influence on people’s opinions at all, other than convincing people that the “flat earth society” are comprised of idiots.
As satirists I am sure they will provide some humour and probably get some enthusiastic support.
As for serious – well their support of a flat earth is consistent with Mad Monckton’s support of climate change denial and evolution denial. In all three cases they are opposing credible science.
So, although satirical, I think many will take them seriously, or at least their message. That is what good satire hopes to achieve.
Although, I see Phil will not be amused. He should really get out more.
Anyone who supports the flat earth society deserves to be ridiculed
However, I agree with Cedric that we need to encourage more people to kill themselves.
If you would like a systematic critique of Monckton’s past pronouncements, and a comparison of what he has said to the source material, I suggest beginning here, and then, as one cannot simply believe something just because it’s posted on Youtube, going on to check the literature in question for yourself.
Phil, even an silly fool like you should be able to do that.
Monckton is the public face of climate denial. He’s the very best they have. Says it all really.
Potholer54/Greenman3610 – The Search for Lord Monckton
If you would like Monckton’s rap sheet in text form, Phil, that does appear to be available. In this case, links are provided for more in-depth analysis of particular claims, which, again, you can check by consulting the literature.
I’m not entirely sure what else you want from us. You plainly don’t trust our analysis of Monckton’s claims, yet you also don’t seem to want to go out and do the research for yourself.
I am not talking about my research of anyone else’s. I am asking how you are going to present this information to the gathered assembly at one of Monckton’s talks
Do you intend to stand up and make an announcement?
Or perhaps you will play 5 hours of videos beforehand, or perhaps you will personally phone everyone who came to the talk and spend hours with each one earnestly presenting this information.
Yes Phil, Ian is just part of the denial echo chamber so it’s hardly surprising he is participating in the current cowardly attempt at discrediting scientific research and maligning scientists.
But this didn’t work for the attack in Mann – his data has been reconfirmed several times and only a biased idiot or blatantly political animal promotes concepts that the “hockey stick” has been discredited (it hasn’t) or that it is fraudulent (it isn’t). Nor is it working for the latest attack.
I have written on that issue before and you are welcome to refer to my articles – your might learn something!
You could start with my review of Wishart’s book Air Con (see Alarmist con) or just search for “hockey stick“).
And it wouldn’t hurt to read Mann’s excellent book on the subject – The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars (see my review at “Good faith” science – and its enemies).
As I have said, Phil, you are welcome to come along and hear what people have to say in person.
I had been under the impression that we had moved on to the question of why Monckton is wrong, for which, in this situation, providing you with links to other peoples’ writings on the subject is rather more efficient than patiently retyping all the same evidence. Obviously, such an approach would not be possible in person. But then, we’re not conversing in person, are we?
I’m not sue what you base the idea that Ian Wishart is my mate on. Given his magazine’s publication of pro-ID material, I doubt we’d get along.
Still, the article does illustrate the necessity of doing some basic research when confronted with outlandish claims. In this case, checking what the authors actually said, rather than Wishart’s highly selective quotations of them, would make a good starting point. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=14965
I do get the impression, Phil, that you are attempting to get me to do research on your behalf, which you will then attempt to find fault with and demand further work on my part. As I do have other, more constructive things to do with my time, I will simply reiterate my suggestion that you conduct your own research.
The authors of the Marcott paper admit themselves that their work is faulty and that the “hockey stick” is just a statistical artifact.
It didn’t stop this work getting reported on in the echo-chamber we call the mainstream media
Same happened with the Southern Hemisphere “hockey stick” too.
Clearly dishonest
But then, we have come to expect this from the dishonest system we call climate science
Dishonest scientists trying to make a name for themselves exploiting a dishonest system, with a dishonest media reporting their dishonest work with equal dishonesty.
Do I care about minor accusations of dishonesty from Monckton when much larger dishonesty is happening in the dishonest echo chamber of dishonest climate science?
This is clearly dishonest
I shall say this at a meeting, should I chose to go, in which Lord Monckton is being hectored by dishonest people, posing dishonestly as medieval monks.
Phil, in your anger I think you are revealing your own political bias and inability to understand science. That’s why you think so highly of our Potty Peer and Ian the creationist.
So here’s a task for your:
Quote me and link Marcott’s “admission” “their work is faulty and that the “hockey stick” is just a statistical artifact.” Come on.!
Once we have the facts we can discuss it rationally.
I will interpret refusal to do so as admission of your lying. Of your own dishonesty.
But then, we have come to expect this from the dishonest system we call climate science
Dishonest scientists trying to make a name for themselves exploiting a dishonest system, with a dishonest media reporting their dishonest work with equal dishonesty.
Classic conspiracy thinking.
NASA is not dishonest.
NASA and every single scientific community on the planet are not dishonest.
A global scientific conspiracy physically just couldn’t work.
That’s the reason why the details are never forthcoming.
Nobody can even speculate about how the nuts and bolts of it could possibly work.
You haven’t got anything except babble.
Just as Monckton hasn’t got anything except babble.
You are both idiots.
Quote me and link Marcott’s “admission” “their work is faulty and that the “hockey stick” is just a statistical artifact.”Come on.!
20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.
No, Phil, they say that the temperature record generated using their own methodology does not include enough data points from the past 100 years for their data for this period to be statistically robust. Considering that they were gathering data suitable for measuring temperature change over an 11,000 year period, this is unsurprising.
Since the so-called hockey stick graph was not drawn based on their study, but on studies which include a rather larger number of recent data points, and which were statistically robust, you will understand if I find the strident calls for all previously gathered evidence to be thrown out to be ever so slightly unconvincing.
While they themselves have not generated usable data to draw conclusions as to the past 100 years, they can nevertheless make use of the research others have done in this area and draw comparisons between other peoples’ data and their own. Hence the statement that temperatures from the past decade are higher than over 75% of the holocene. They have collected data for the holocene, and others have provided the data for the past decade.
The words “Based on comparison of the instrumental record of global temperature change with the distribution of Holocene global average temperatures from our paleo-reconstruction” really do make this point obvious.
Now, if this study contradicted the previous research (that is, if they found, to a statistically significant degree that their data indicated that temperatures had remained flat or fallen over the past century), then we would have some evidence to put in the “no anthropogenic climate change” column. It does not.
This is all fairly basic stuff based on a reasonable reading of the work. If you think it constitutes phone-slamming levels of dishonesty, well, I have to disagree as to which side is being dishonest here.
“However, here I document the gross misrepresentation of the findings of a recent scientific paper via press release which appears to skirt awfully close to crossing the line into research misconduct, as defined by the NRC. I recommend steps to fix this mess, saving face for all involved, and a chance for this small part of the climate community to take a step back toward unambiguous scientific integrity.
Pielke is one of the few honest people working in the climate arena. Others are trying to prop up clear dishonesty through their politically motivated rose-tinted glasses
Just to make this point crystal clear: These scientists never said “according to this study, temperature has risen over the past 100 years” nor “based on the data collected according to our methodology for the past century…”
Hence, while clarification may be needed for the benefit of those people who think they said such a thing, this does not constitute a retraction, nor an “admission” that anybody’s work (whether their own or that of others) is faulty.
Phil, you have exposed the typical dishonesty of the extreme politically motivated climate change denier. An honest scientist points to limitations in one small part of his data (an area already very strongly covered by others with thermometer measurements), and you describe this as an “admission” “that their work is faulty and that the “hockey stick” is just a statistical artefact.” and “Clearly dishonest.”
Well, as I suggested, this just confirms you are resorting to lies. That you are dishonest. And your anger reveals that your motivations are political.
As for quoting Pielke – come off it! That does not comprise an “admission.” That is just an internal reference to your own dishonest echo chamber.
This sort of behaviour is cowardly, and the fact that you have laid yourself out like this indicates you are stupid as well as politically motivated.
Just to make this point crystal clear: These scientists never said “according to this study, temperature has risen over the past 100 years” nor “based on the data collected according to our methodology for the past century…”
Oh, well maybe this needs clarification then:
Ah. I do indeed appear to have misinterpreted the paper. It seems they do include instrumental temperature records in their dataset and draw conclusions based on that.
Please note, however, the difference between “our palaeoclimate data is not statistically significant for the past century” and “our instrumental data is not statistically significant for the past century.” Both sets of data were gathered according to different methodology (and indeed by different people) and then combined for the purposes of analysis.
So, still no need for a retraction, but it certainly explains the need for a clarification.
Actually, you know what? I’m still not entirely certain I’ve gotten my interpretation correct. As such, I’ll bow out of further discussion on the topic until such time as I’ve had the opportunity to review things in a bit more depth.
Yes I think the moon landings were faked, Obama was born in Kenya, Diane was murdered, and Elvis is alive and living in a trailer park in Kansas.
Those conspiracies are much simpler than the one you subscribe to.
But then, we have come to expect this from the dishonest system we call climate science
Dishonest scientists trying to make a name for themselves exploiting a dishonest system, with a dishonest media reporting their dishonest work with equal dishonesty.
This is conspiracy thinking, plain and simple.
All of the scientific communities are sekritly lying to you?
Weapons grade derp.
You’re stupid, Phil.
” Poor old Barry Brill is just miffed that Justice Venning has given him another serving and awarded NIWA $90 K costs against NZCSET, with the option of seeking the monies directly from Brill and Dunleavy…
Here are the highlights:
[34] Having reviewed the matter carefully in light of the matters raised by the Trust, I am satisfied there can be no reasonable basis upon which it could be said that I had a direct pecuniary interest in the outcome of the proceedings before the Court. Any connection between my interest in the forest investment including its NZU’s and the effect of the decision on the issues in this case is so remote as to properly be described as fanciful.
[39] For the above reasons I decline the Trust’s application to recuse myself from dealing further with this case.
[40] Before leaving this issue, I note that in his submissions Mr Brill renewed his request that I respond to further questions regarding the forestry investment. It is not for parties to proceedings to seek to interrogate the Court.
[47] For a number of years the Coalition, which established the Trust, has challenged NIWA’s records in a variety of ways and forums. These review proceedings were just the latest attempt by the Coalition, through the Court and using the vehicle of the Trust, to pursue its challenge to NIWA. I do not accept the submission these were public interest proceedings. They were pursued by the Trust to advance its own interests.
[48] The Trust has made it clear that it does not and will not accept NIWA’s temperature series. The appropriate place for the Trust to challenge NIWA’s science is not the Court. Having chosen to bring the matter to Court for its benefit rather than any wider benefit, the Trust should pay the cost consequences.
[52] I do not accept those criticisms of NIWA’s actions. NIWA’s pleadings were focused and coherent. To the extent they were detailed that was because NIWA was required to respond to the Trust’s prolix pleadings. Dr Wratt’s affidavit was detailed but it was the substantive response on behalf of NIWA. I do not consider there has been any disentitling conduct on behalf of NIWA that would support any reduction in the costs otherwise claimable by it.
[57] The end result is that NIWA is to have costs against the Trust in the sum of $85,091.00 together with disbursements of $4,147.90, in total $89,238.90
[58] As I previously indicated, if NIWA wishes to pursue its application for non-party costs against Mr Dunleavy and Mr Brill personally, that is a quite separate issue. Mr Dunleavy and Mr Brill would be entitled to be heard. If NIWA is to pursue its claim against Messrs Dunleavy and Brill it should do so by way of a formal application. A memorandum is not sufficient. As the basis for NIWA’s application appears to be that the Trust is or will be unable to pay the costs, perhaps that matter should be clarified first. However, those are matters for NIWA and its advisers to consider further. “
How about the honest people of Cyprus getting their money taken by dishonest bankers Ken? Or how about the honest British pensioners who have their personal possessions taken from them by dishonest government bailiffs who dishonestly impose fines?
How about the dishonest judge who fined the Greenpeace protestors $650 each for illegally boarding a Shell drilling ship? Why were these dishonest and law breaking people only fined $650 yet an honest member of society who prepares an honest court case gets fined thousands by a judge? Is the judge dishonestly covering up the dishonesty of NIWA or is he just a dishonest puppet of a dishonest government?
Phil, there is probably little point in engaging with you on this. But here’s a simple fact.
None was fined in the High Court case brought by local climate change denies against NIWA. Simply that the complainants were found not to have proven their case and the judge awarded NIWAs costs to them.
I think that was extremely fair, given the deniers record of behaviour.
But as I say, experience here shows that when you start throwing the word “dishonest” around its a sure sign you are telling lies.
then there is the McGuinness Institute in wellington ( a node of the Millenium project) who adhere to Agenda 21 sustainable development. they write reports and recommendations to the NZ Govt under the name of Project 2058 see here..
A few readers may already be aware that April Fool’s Day marks the launch of Christopher Monckton‘s speaking tour of New Zealand. It’s not arousing much interest in the media – probably because his declared attention is to propagate his conspiracy theory of a corrupt plan to form a world government initiated by fascists, greenies, communists, imperialists and capitalists. Hard to take this seriously, but it’s all outlined in the Agenda 21.
Open Parachute 
It should be pointed out that Monckton likes to accuse his detractors of being Nazis. He’s done it multiple times.
I’d pay good money for Monckton to call the Flat Earthers a bunch of Nazis on live TV.
Oh pretty please.
After all, it’s a classic Nazi tactic. Dressing up as wizards and wenches playing musical instruments with a scattering of jugglers and clowns to make your opponent look like a total idiot.
Historical Fact: Hitler insisted on wearing a red nose at all his political rallies!
LikeLike
UK’s coldest Easter on Record. While weather isn’t climate , it has to make you wonder who are the real April Fools. Britains on course for 30,000 cold related deaths as this Winter is expected to last well into April, while Governments obsess about taxing abundant & plentiful fossil fuels out of existence, and without having credible policy to replace them.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/elderhealth/9959856/Its-the-cold-not-global-warming-that-we-should-be-worried-about.html
LikeLike
UK’s coldest Easter on Record. While weather isn’t climate , it has to make you wonder who are the real April Fools.
Those would be the ones who don’t really get that weather isn’t climate.
Coldest Easter in the UK? That’s weather. It’s not climate. Not even a little bit.
You are stupid. Go kill yourself.
Climate Denial Crock of the Week- “It’s cold. So there’s no Climate Change”
LikeLike
Nah, just kidding. Don’t kill yourself. Get a life instead.
LikeLike
– and the public attending Monckton’s talks are generally extreme libertarians or conspiracy theorists of one sort or another – Chemtrail alarmists, Truthers, 9/11 conspiracies, etc
How do you know this Ken?
LikeLike
Yes, Eddie. You would think that Monckton would have received a better reception in the UK and he’s wasting his time down here where we are only slowly coming out of a long summer drought. But perhaps they know his political story there and reject it.
Weather isn’t climate – and to cherry pick like that (both temporally and regionally) does give the wrong impression. I have written about that in my post Climate contrarians/deniers are cherry picking again
LikeLike
Ken – would you agree that using a single drought as evidence of climate change is cherry picking?
Britain has had several years of very cold winters
LikeLike
Phil, I know this from keen observation of those sponsoring the tour, comments on blogs by those enthusing about the man and intending to attend. Of course, there may be a few honest a sensible people who attend out of interest, but I think my general inference is, on the whole, justified. And look at the press release from the Flat Earthers!
If you have contrary information – let us have it.
LikeLike
I don’t have any contrary information. You made the claim, so I was hoping that you could support the claim.
Clearly, this is not possible.
Oh well
LikeLike
Yes, Phil, The UK has had several cold winters – that is still regional and still weather. In this case the unusual weather is thought to be due to changes in air streams as a result of warming in the Arctic. This has lead to cold weather being blown from Siberia.
As for my comment on the likely audience Monckton will get – the inference is based on observation. Take it or leave it – but it is certainly better than what you have (as you say you have no contrary information so I assume whatever information you do have is similar to mine).
But, as I said – you can take it or leave it. No skin off my nose.
LikeLike
No I have no information, but I will ignore the information that you just made up too
LikeLike
You are welcome, Phil.
Obviously you have a soft spot for Mad Monckton.
LikeLike
In fairness, a few of us will be attending specifically to ask pointed questions and point out where he is misrepresenting research. Ought to be an interesting experience.
LikeLike
Interesting Christopher – I thought there would be a few. Would like to hear your assessment afterwards.
LikeLike
In fairness, a few of us will be attending specifically to ask pointed questions and point out where he is misrepresenting research. Ought to be an interesting experience.
Oh how wonderful. A climate scientist called Christopher Banks will be attending. Should be interesting.
We’d like your assessment beforehand, if possible.
LikeLike
Phil – you asked if a single drought could be evidence of climate change. I have answered that before – No. And I am not aware of anyone saying that – it is extremely naive.
Climate scientists do not rely on single events. However, increased frequency of extreme weather events can be evidence of possible climate change effects.
I think you have confused this issue with the reports of NIWA’s analysis of likely drought frequency in NZ under the different warming scenarios used by the IPCC. And – NO – that is not cherry picking at all.
LikeLike
Boy, you are touchy about the Potty Peer, aren’t you Phil.
If you are after the opinions of climate scientists on Mad Monckton and his distorted claims there is no shortage of them around. Just do a brief internet search.
LikeLike
No climate scientists attending that I’m aware of, Phil. Just a few local skeptics with enough time on our hands to check his references. Really not all that difficult to see what he’s gotten wrong, and I encourage you to do likewise and check the literature for yourself.
LikeLike
I don’t need to do a “brief internet search” Ken.
You claimed that the people attending Monckton’s talks are all conspiracy theorists etc
Did you stand outside and ask them their opinions? Did you get them to fill in a questionnaire?
Did you phone them up?
Did you email them?
LikeLike
I checked the literature Christopher. I can’t see where Monckton has gone wrong. Perhaps you could fill us in, given that you are an expert.
LikeLike
Well, Phil, you seem very upset by my comment or any criticism of the guy.
Perhaps you should go to one of his own meetings and make your own assessment of the man and his audience.
Yes, and you are welcome to report back here.
LikeLike
If I go to a meeting, I will be stimatised as a conspiracy theorist who thinks there is a master plan to poison us with Chemtrails and a global evil plot to form a one world communist government.
So I might stay at home, thanks
LikeLike
Phil, may I reiterate that I am not an expert on this topic. I am, however, sufficiently educated to know how to look up the sources a person cites and check whether they support the conclusion he has drawn from them.
If you would like a systematic critique of Monckton’s past pronouncements, and a comparison of what he has said to the source material, I suggest beginning here, and then, as one cannot simply believe something just because it’s posted on Youtube, going on to check the literature in question for yourself.
In the interests of fairness, Monckton has responded to the videos in question. His response, and the critic’s reply, can be found here:
If I was sure that Monckton’s talk would be attended only by conspiracy theorists and the like, I probably wouldn’t bother. However, it is entirely possible that a few people with less set in stone positions will turn up, and I feel it’s important that somebody point out to them that Monckton is not a credible voice in the debate.
LikeLike
So how will you point out that Monckton is not a credible voice in the debate?
Will you stand up and say in a loud voice “You are not a credible person in the debate”.
Or will you try to debate him on one of his points?
Perhaps you will buttonhole people outside the talk and say “he is not a credible person in the debate”
Of course, the educated may ask “who is a credible person in the debate”, given that you admit a debate exists.
LikeLike
(* crickets chirping *)
LikeLike
You are, of course, welcome to turn up and find out what approach Monckton’s critics will be taking for yourself, Phil.
I do feel that you yourself are exhibit A when it comes to demonstrating that there is a debate going on. After all, we are in disagreement over the topic. Whether particular positions in the debate are based on reasonable scientific evidence is a rather different matter.
LikeLike
Incidentally, I feel the Flat Earth Society has the “buttonholing people and telling them Monckton is not credible” angle covered. I doubt it will have much impact on entrenched positions however, and I see little point in duplicating their approach.
LikeLike
I doubt the “flat earth society” will have any influence on people’s opinions at all, other than convincing people that the “flat earth society” are comprised of idiots.
LikeLike
Phil, the Flat Earthers are there to support the Potty Peer, not oppose him.
LikeLike
Ken, yes very funny
You would have to be particularly thick to believe that to be true.
LikeLike
Oh, I don’t know about idiots. I’m inclined to see the local chapter as satirists myself. But I agree that people are unlikely to take them seriously.
LikeLike
They are about as funny as Russell Brand. i.e not at all
LikeLike
As satirists I am sure they will provide some humour and probably get some enthusiastic support.
As for serious – well their support of a flat earth is consistent with Mad Monckton’s support of climate change denial and evolution denial. In all three cases they are opposing credible science.
So, although satirical, I think many will take them seriously, or at least their message. That is what good satire hopes to achieve.
Although, I see Phil will not be amused. He should really get out more.
LikeLike
I am sure both they and Brand will be simply devastated by your negative opinion of them.
LikeLike
Anyone who supports the flat earth society deserves to be ridiculed
However, I agree with Cedric that we need to encourage more people to kill themselves.
LikeLike
especially children
LikeLike
Just kidding! They need to get a life though
LikeLike
If you would like a systematic critique of Monckton’s past pronouncements, and a comparison of what he has said to the source material, I suggest beginning here, and then, as one cannot simply believe something just because it’s posted on Youtube, going on to check the literature in question for yourself.
Phil, even an silly fool like you should be able to do that.
Monckton is the public face of climate denial. He’s the very best they have. Says it all really.
Potholer54/Greenman3610 – The Search for Lord Monckton
LikeLike
Do you guys have anything other than links to videos?
It all seems like an in joke that the rest of us don’t get
LikeLike
Monckton is the joke and we get him very well.
Potholer54: “Open letter to Christopher Monckton — Please return to the debate”
LikeLike
This video is very boring
Where are the key points, please?
LikeLike
If you would like Monckton’s rap sheet in text form, Phil, that does appear to be available. In this case, links are provided for more in-depth analysis of particular claims, which, again, you can check by consulting the literature.
I’m not entirely sure what else you want from us. You plainly don’t trust our analysis of Monckton’s claims, yet you also don’t seem to want to go out and do the research for yourself.
LikeLike
I am not talking about my research of anyone else’s. I am asking how you are going to present this information to the gathered assembly at one of Monckton’s talks
Do you intend to stand up and make an announcement?
Or perhaps you will play 5 hours of videos beforehand, or perhaps you will personally phone everyone who came to the talk and spend hours with each one earnestly presenting this information.
LikeLike
By the way, your mate Ian Wishart has written about the latest fraudulent Hockey Stick
http://www.investigatemagazine.co.nz/Investigate/?p=3532
LikeLike
Yes Phil, Ian is just part of the denial echo chamber so it’s hardly surprising he is participating in the current cowardly attempt at discrediting scientific research and maligning scientists.
But this didn’t work for the attack in Mann – his data has been reconfirmed several times and only a biased idiot or blatantly political animal promotes concepts that the “hockey stick” has been discredited (it hasn’t) or that it is fraudulent (it isn’t). Nor is it working for the latest attack.
I have written on that issue before and you are welcome to refer to my articles – your might learn something!
You could start with my review of Wishart’s book Air Con (see Alarmist con) or just search for “hockey stick“).
And it wouldn’t hurt to read Mann’s excellent book on the subject – The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars (see my review at “Good faith” science – and its enemies).
LikeLike
As I have said, Phil, you are welcome to come along and hear what people have to say in person.
I had been under the impression that we had moved on to the question of why Monckton is wrong, for which, in this situation, providing you with links to other peoples’ writings on the subject is rather more efficient than patiently retyping all the same evidence. Obviously, such an approach would not be possible in person. But then, we’re not conversing in person, are we?
I’m not sue what you base the idea that Ian Wishart is my mate on. Given his magazine’s publication of pro-ID material, I doubt we’d get along.
Still, the article does illustrate the necessity of doing some basic research when confronted with outlandish claims. In this case, checking what the authors actually said, rather than Wishart’s highly selective quotations of them, would make a good starting point.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=14965
I do get the impression, Phil, that you are attempting to get me to do research on your behalf, which you will then attempt to find fault with and demand further work on my part. As I do have other, more constructive things to do with my time, I will simply reiterate my suggestion that you conduct your own research.
LikeLike
The authors of the Marcott paper admit themselves that their work is faulty and that the “hockey stick” is just a statistical artifact.
It didn’t stop this work getting reported on in the echo-chamber we call the mainstream media
Same happened with the Southern Hemisphere “hockey stick” too.
Clearly dishonest
But then, we have come to expect this from the dishonest system we call climate science
Dishonest scientists trying to make a name for themselves exploiting a dishonest system, with a dishonest media reporting their dishonest work with equal dishonesty.
Do I care about minor accusations of dishonesty from Monckton when much larger dishonesty is happening in the dishonest echo chamber of dishonest climate science?
This is clearly dishonest
I shall say this at a meeting, should I chose to go, in which Lord Monckton is being hectored by dishonest people, posing dishonestly as medieval monks.
LikeLike
It makes me so angry I could slam the phone down!
LikeLike
No I am not expecting you to do any research for my Christopher. (Nice name by the way)
I was just interested in how you were going to persuade the fence-sitters at the meetings that you are right and Monckton is wrong.
I have already asked this question several times.
LikeLike
Phil, in your anger I think you are revealing your own political bias and inability to understand science. That’s why you think so highly of our Potty Peer and Ian the creationist.
So here’s a task for your:
Quote me and link Marcott’s “admission” “their work is faulty and that the “hockey stick” is just a statistical artifact.” Come on.!
Once we have the facts we can discuss it rationally.
I will interpret refusal to do so as admission of your lying. Of your own dishonesty.
LikeLike
But then, we have come to expect this from the dishonest system we call climate science
Dishonest scientists trying to make a name for themselves exploiting a dishonest system, with a dishonest media reporting their dishonest work with equal dishonesty.
Classic conspiracy thinking.
NASA is not dishonest.
NASA and every single scientific community on the planet are not dishonest.
A global scientific conspiracy physically just couldn’t work.
That’s the reason why the details are never forthcoming.
Nobody can even speculate about how the nuts and bolts of it could possibly work.
You haven’t got anything except babble.
Just as Monckton hasn’t got anything except babble.
You are both idiots.
Quote me and link Marcott’s “admission” “their work is faulty and that the “hockey stick” is just a statistical artifact.”Come on.!
(….crickets chirping…)
LikeLike
20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/03/response-by-marcott-et-al/
LikeLike
No, Phil, they say that the temperature record generated using their own methodology does not include enough data points from the past 100 years for their data for this period to be statistically robust. Considering that they were gathering data suitable for measuring temperature change over an 11,000 year period, this is unsurprising.
Since the so-called hockey stick graph was not drawn based on their study, but on studies which include a rather larger number of recent data points, and which were statistically robust, you will understand if I find the strident calls for all previously gathered evidence to be thrown out to be ever so slightly unconvincing.
While they themselves have not generated usable data to draw conclusions as to the past 100 years, they can nevertheless make use of the research others have done in this area and draw comparisons between other peoples’ data and their own. Hence the statement that temperatures from the past decade are higher than over 75% of the holocene. They have collected data for the holocene, and others have provided the data for the past decade.
The words “Based on comparison of the instrumental record of global temperature change with the distribution of Holocene global average temperatures from our paleo-reconstruction” really do make this point obvious.
Now, if this study contradicted the previous research (that is, if they found, to a statistically significant degree that their data indicated that temperatures had remained flat or fallen over the past century), then we would have some evidence to put in the “no anthropogenic climate change” column. It does not.
This is all fairly basic stuff based on a reasonable reading of the work. If you think it constitutes phone-slamming levels of dishonesty, well, I have to disagree as to which side is being dishonest here.
LikeLike
“However, here I document the gross misrepresentation of the findings of a recent scientific paper via press release which appears to skirt awfully close to crossing the line into research misconduct, as defined by the NRC. I recommend steps to fix this mess, saving face for all involved, and a chance for this small part of the climate community to take a step back toward unambiguous scientific integrity.
The paper I refer to is by Marcott et al. 2013, published recently in Science
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.co.nz/2013/03/fixing-marcott-mess-in-climate-science.html
Pielke is one of the few honest people working in the climate arena. Others are trying to prop up clear dishonesty through their politically motivated rose-tinted glasses
LikeLike
Just to make this point crystal clear: These scientists never said “according to this study, temperature has risen over the past 100 years” nor “based on the data collected according to our methodology for the past century…”
Hence, while clarification may be needed for the benefit of those people who think they said such a thing, this does not constitute a retraction, nor an “admission” that anybody’s work (whether their own or that of others) is faulty.
LikeLike
Classic conspiracy thinking.
(* giggles *)
Yes I think the moon landings were faked, Obama was born in Kenya, Diane was murdered, and Elvis is alive and living in a trailer park in Kansas.
LikeLike
Phil, you have exposed the typical dishonesty of the extreme politically motivated climate change denier. An honest scientist points to limitations in one small part of his data (an area already very strongly covered by others with thermometer measurements), and you describe this as an “admission” “that their work is faulty and that the “hockey stick” is just a statistical artefact.” and “Clearly dishonest.”
Well, as I suggested, this just confirms you are resorting to lies. That you are dishonest. And your anger reveals that your motivations are political.
As for quoting Pielke – come off it! That does not comprise an “admission.” That is just an internal reference to your own dishonest echo chamber.
This sort of behaviour is cowardly, and the fact that you have laid yourself out like this indicates you are stupid as well as politically motivated.
LikeLike
Just to make this point crystal clear: These scientists never said “according to this study, temperature has risen over the past 100 years” nor “based on the data collected according to our methodology for the past century…”
Oh, well maybe this needs clarification then:
LikeLike
Thanks for the video link, Phil. I really enjoy scientists talking about their science honestly and acknowledging limitations realistically.
It really contrasts with your dishonesty.
Again, after claiming dishonesty on the part of climate scientists, for you to post this video just confirms my conclusion that you are stupid.
LikeLike
Ah. I do indeed appear to have misinterpreted the paper. It seems they do include instrumental temperature records in their dataset and draw conclusions based on that.
Please note, however, the difference between “our palaeoclimate data is not statistically significant for the past century” and “our instrumental data is not statistically significant for the past century.” Both sets of data were gathered according to different methodology (and indeed by different people) and then combined for the purposes of analysis.
So, still no need for a retraction, but it certainly explains the need for a clarification.
LikeLike
Actually, you know what? I’m still not entirely certain I’ve gotten my interpretation correct. As such, I’ll bow out of further discussion on the topic until such time as I’ve had the opportunity to review things in a bit more depth.
LikeLike
Good idea Christopher. We can leave Cedric and Ken to defend this piece of scholarship
(* chortles *)
LikeLike
Yes I think the moon landings were faked, Obama was born in Kenya, Diane was murdered, and Elvis is alive and living in a trailer park in Kansas.
Those conspiracies are much simpler than the one you subscribe to.
But then, we have come to expect this from the dishonest system we call climate science
Dishonest scientists trying to make a name for themselves exploiting a dishonest system, with a dishonest media reporting their dishonest work with equal dishonesty.
This is conspiracy thinking, plain and simple.
All of the scientific communities are sekritly lying to you?
Weapons grade derp.
You’re stupid, Phil.
LikeLike
I am an idiot, and I am proud of my idiot heritage
I demand equality for idiots!
LikeLike
Speaking of idiots also supported by local Flat Earthers, some have to pay dearly for their foolishness
http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogsection&id=14&Itemid=47
According to Rob Taylor commenting at blog Hot Topic (http://hot-topic.co.nz/brills-quadrant-rant-a-snotty-faced-heap-of-parrot-droppings/):
” Poor old Barry Brill is just miffed that Justice Venning has given him another serving and awarded NIWA $90 K costs against NZCSET, with the option of seeking the monies directly from Brill and Dunleavy…
Here are the highlights:
[34] Having reviewed the matter carefully in light of the matters raised by the Trust, I am satisfied there can be no reasonable basis upon which it could be said that I had a direct pecuniary interest in the outcome of the proceedings before the Court. Any connection between my interest in the forest investment including its NZU’s and the effect of the decision on the issues in this case is so remote as to properly be described as fanciful.
[39] For the above reasons I decline the Trust’s application to recuse myself from dealing further with this case.
[40] Before leaving this issue, I note that in his submissions Mr Brill renewed his request that I respond to further questions regarding the forestry investment. It is not for parties to proceedings to seek to interrogate the Court.
[47] For a number of years the Coalition, which established the Trust, has challenged NIWA’s records in a variety of ways and forums. These review proceedings were just the latest attempt by the Coalition, through the Court and using the vehicle of the Trust, to pursue its challenge to NIWA. I do not accept the submission these were public interest proceedings. They were pursued by the Trust to advance its own interests.
[48] The Trust has made it clear that it does not and will not accept NIWA’s temperature series. The appropriate place for the Trust to challenge NIWA’s science is not the Court. Having chosen to bring the matter to Court for its benefit rather than any wider benefit, the Trust should pay the cost consequences.
[52] I do not accept those criticisms of NIWA’s actions. NIWA’s pleadings were focused and coherent. To the extent they were detailed that was because NIWA was required to respond to the Trust’s prolix pleadings. Dr Wratt’s affidavit was detailed but it was the substantive response on behalf of NIWA. I do not consider there has been any disentitling conduct on behalf of NIWA that would support any reduction in the costs otherwise claimable by it.
[57] The end result is that NIWA is to have costs against the Trust in the sum of $85,091.00 together with disbursements of $4,147.90, in total $89,238.90
[58] As I previously indicated, if NIWA wishes to pursue its application for non-party costs against Mr Dunleavy and Mr Brill personally, that is a quite separate issue. Mr Dunleavy and Mr Brill would be entitled to be heard. If NIWA is to pursue its claim against Messrs Dunleavy and Brill it should do so by way of a formal application. A memorandum is not sufficient. As the basis for NIWA’s application appears to be that the Trust is or will be unable to pay the costs, perhaps that matter should be clarified first. However, those are matters for NIWA and its advisers to consider further. “
LikeLike
I looked at the original link the other day, Richard. But was surprised the decision was actually handed down last December!
Thse buggers have been rather quiet about it, haven’t they?
LikeLike
The end result is that NIWA is to have costs against the Trust in the sum of $85,091.00 together with disbursements of $4,147.90, in total $89,238.90
Ha ha. Sucked in.
LikeLike
Perhaps Phil or Chris Monckton NMHL would care to chip in and contribute to the Coalition’s costs, I doubt Brill’s wealthy ACT pals will help out.
LikeLike
I don’t have any money to contribute.
Dishonest government agencies have taken any spare money I had
Maybe you should try this in future?
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4868948/three-murderers-hung-in-kuwait.html
LikeLike
I don’t have any money to contribute.
Dishonest government agencies have taken any spare money I had.
Sure they have. Sure.
LikeLike
Cedric, I think we have learned that when Phil starts labelling others as “dishonest” we can be sure he himself is telling porkies.
LikeLike
How about the honest people of Cyprus getting their money taken by dishonest bankers Ken? Or how about the honest British pensioners who have their personal possessions taken from them by dishonest government bailiffs who dishonestly impose fines?
How about the dishonest judge who fined the Greenpeace protestors $650 each for illegally boarding a Shell drilling ship? Why were these dishonest and law breaking people only fined $650 yet an honest member of society who prepares an honest court case gets fined thousands by a judge? Is the judge dishonestly covering up the dishonesty of NIWA or is he just a dishonest puppet of a dishonest government?
LikeLike
Phil, there is probably little point in engaging with you on this. But here’s a simple fact.
None was fined in the High Court case brought by local climate change denies against NIWA. Simply that the complainants were found not to have proven their case and the judge awarded NIWAs costs to them.
I think that was extremely fair, given the deniers record of behaviour.
But as I say, experience here shows that when you start throwing the word “dishonest” around its a sure sign you are telling lies.
LikeLike
But as I say, experience here shows that when you start throwing the word “dishonest” around its a sure sign you are telling lies.
You seem very keen to call me a liar and dishonest based on no evidence at all.
Clearly dishonest
LikeLike
So, Ken, where did lie and “tell porkies”?
(* crickets chirping *)
LikeLike
Phil | April 3, 2013 at 8:42 am | Dishonest government agencies have taken any spare money I had.
LikeLike
It is true. What evidence do you have that I am lying?
Clearly dishonest
LikeLike
Burden of proof.
You haven’t got anything except babble.
Just as Monckton hasn’t got anything except babble.
You are both idiots.
LikeLike
then there is the McGuinness Institute in wellington ( a node of the Millenium project) who adhere to Agenda 21 sustainable development. they write reports and recommendations to the NZ Govt under the name of Project 2058 see here..
LikeLike