by frog
ClimateTV has pulled together some of the claims made by Lord Monckton, a key climate denier, and knocked them for six. There are some excellent examples of just how duplicitous these people are.
Climate Denial Crock of the Week has a transcript and references, for those who wish to dig deeper and do their own checking.
Published in Environment & Resource Management by frog on Mon, April 19th, 2010
Tags: climate change, climate change denial, denial, Lord Monckton
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Others can comment on other portions of these much traveled videos, but since part two seems to draw a lot of conclusions from Margaret Thatcher’s apparent views on global warming in the 1980s, it might be instructive to get a more up to date view on how she sees it.
So, from the PERC site from 2004 comes this excerpt :
Like or Dislike:
4 
4 (0)
Lordy! A Pop-eyed Loon!
Like or Dislike:
3 
3 (0)
Like or Dislike:
12 
5 (+7)
Monkton talks about Complex numbers? Anyone here knows? I do. Does it relate to climate modeling? Yes, but in pattern recognition task climate data analysis, eg, the FFT (fast fourier transform). FFT is heavily used in climate numerical modeling, which the method itself is based on complex numbers, so Monckton definitely knows what’s hes talking about. There are more complex number techniques which are used in climate modeling, but FFT is one of them. Note, that pattern recognition technique such as FFT doesn’t establish causation and that’s fact. It’s not a physics causation laws (eg, thermodynamic, fluid or heat flow).
The vid clip here you have shown, is full of primary or secondary school commentary that the host himself, has no clue to what he is talking about.
Like or Dislike:
5 
4 (+1)
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
5 
2 (+3)
http://blog.greens.org.nz/2009/09/18/climate-change-answers-to-every-question-you-ever-had
Monckton is claiming that the Greenland ice cap is increasing, but it is only increasing in the centre (due to higher precipitation) and decreasing around the edges (due to higher melting rates) where his carefully selected satellite data displays few results.
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
5 
0 (+5)
Monckton is a mathematician with expertise in complex modeling.
He made his reputation in generating complex financial models for the UK Treasury – during those years when econometricians still had faith in the ability of models to emulate the behaviour of chaotic systems.
He became disillusioned with macro-economic modeling and has brought this skepticism to the IPCC models.
His analysis of the models revealed that the hot spots in the upper atmosphere that should have been generated over the tropics according to the models did not show up under satellite analysis.
When he talks maths and models he knows what he is talking about. Cambridge gives an MA to its maths graduates rather than a science degree as we do.
He was also science policy advisor to the Thatcher Government and gave very good advice on science and Thatcher was no pushover because she is a BSc in chemistry herself.
He suffers from Graves disease, a form of hyperthryroidism, which creates the bulging eye problem. So did Marty Feldman. I did not know the Greens were into mocking people with incurable diseases. Others include:
Christina Georgina Rossetti, British Victorian Poet[257]
Cecil Spring-Rice, British Ambassador to the USA from 1912 to 1918[258]
Mary Webb, English author and poet, descendant of Sir Walter Scott[259]
Like or Dislike:
5 
8 (-3)
So it’s no mocking Monckton?
I don’t think so.
Like or Dislike:
3 
3 (0)
i mean..have you seen him..?
a better caricature of an arrogant/class-riddled buffoon would be difficult to find..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
4 
5 (-1)
Owen, I agree we shouldn’t mock Monckton’s appearance, and I do think that such behaviour is very ungreen, but what comes out of his mouth deserves as much mocking, trashing and ridicule as we can muster!
Like or Dislike:
3 
5 (-2)
So it’s just ‘Loon’ then?
And Gerry’s, ‘Gerry’?
(No ‘Fat Man Grim’)
You guys are not much fun.
Like or Dislike:
3 
3 (0)
Owen – can you give us some links to explain your point:
“His analysis of the models revealed that the hot spots in the upper atmosphere that should have been generated over the tropics according to the models did not show up under satellite analysis.”
My understanding is that the models do not predict hot spots in the upper atmosphere, only in the lower layers.
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
Hark! The warbling of the Titled Loon!
Plaintive. Palid. Loony.
Like or Dislike:
3 
3 (0)
And flitting across the puckered surface of the pond, bug-eyed …
.
.
.
.
bugs.
Like or Dislike:
3 
3 (0)
Finally found time to watch this.
Very Funny, altho’ the clips of the Iron Maiden of the Tory party still gave me the shivers, never mind what she was saying.
Too many bad memories of nasty surprises from that quarter for my mind to allow a positive response to her carefully enunciated vowels…
Talk about ’80′s retro…. Baroness Thatcher was never my cup of tea.
Monckton – oh, just another over-entitled RWM, who can afford to swing around the world casting his poisonous ideas before any audience he can drag up. While the minions back in the UK cover his costs with their labour… Old-fashioned Lord-of-the-Manor thinking.
Owen, if Monckton’s credentials are so sound, how come Thatcher is seen quoting a position diametrically opposite to that which Monckton is espousing?
Get real, he’s a mad old loon that no-one in the UK will listen to, that’s why he’s lecturing business-people and right-wing media in the ROTW.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
Here is another take on Monckton. Just one more point at which he has proven that he is much better at threatening scientists than at science itself.
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2010/04/monckton-jumps-shark-gets-eaten.html
This is simply one of a LONG series of incidents in which Monckton has made wild claims widely reported and rapidly debunked in the scientific literature (not reported at all).
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/04/12/monckey-business/#more-2474
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/09/05/graphic-evidence/
( claim that Iceland was cooling refuted ).
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2006/11/27/warming-up-to-iceland/
(Just making sh!t up)
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/05/moncktons-deliberate-manipulation/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/07/once-more-unto-the-bray/
…. or worse. I can probably find a good 100 or so risible claims by the man (and I use that term loosely) about AGW, all of which are thoroughly debunked and all of which have been more widely reported than the debunkings.
One of the few real liars in the field and he is on my “better dead” list, as he does far too much damage to be missed.
Yes, I am still here, but work ratcheted up to near 100 hour weeks lately and I am not able to hang out much.
Good luck folks, but don’t EVER take anything Monckton says seriously.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
7 
1 (+6)
Owen – your plea for clemency for the Loony Lord hasn’t softened our flinty green hearts at all!
You’ll be as surprised as I am.
What is it about us nuggety Greens that causes us to behave this way?
We’re usually so sympathetic to the pathetic wee beasties of the world, the snails, frogs, seals and whales.
Seems we just don’t have a soft-spot for bug-eyed lunatics!
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
BJ – 100 hours a week!
You have my sympathies. I hope it’s work that’s worthy of your time.
It’s great to get even your occasional comments.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
So “Lord” Christopher Monckton isn’t entitled to call himself a Lord. Well found BJ!
“Christopher Monckton is not and has never been a Member of the House of Lords. There is no such thing as a ‘non-voting’ or ‘honorary’ member.”
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2010/04/monckton-jumps-shark-gets-eaten.html
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
But it starts with the same letter as, and enhances the look of, Loony!
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
Trevor, RE
Owen – can you give us some links to explain your point:
“His analysis of the models revealed that the hot spots in the upper atmosphere that should have been generated over the tropics according to the models did not show up under satellite analysis.”
My understanding is that the models do not predict hot spots in the upper atmosphere, only in the lower layers.
Trevor.
The models predict warming in the lower troposphere which I characterised as the upper atmosphere.
Evans, Gray, McKitrick and Monckton have all written about this discrepancy.
Just don’t have time to dig out the papers now.
This is a statement by another commentator reporting on their work. Notice that he lower atmosphere and upper troposphere interchangeably. My memory must be better than I normally believe.
“But one of the few things that the global warmers, the computer models and sceptics all agree on is that if greenhouse gas warming is happening, it will show up most strongly in the lower troposphere above the tropics. Also, if greenhouse gases do cause warming by trapping heat in the upper atmosphere, then it will be immediately obvious. There will be no time delay.”
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
For the sake of accuracy.
Monckton is not a member of the House of Lords but is a hereditary peer.
His grandfather was made a Lord as a reward for his contribution to science in the cause of winning the Second World War. Cannot recall the details.
So he is entitled to call himself Lord Monckton because he is in fact the 3rd Viscount Lord Monckton of Brenchley.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
And key figure in the Ministry of Silly Walks.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
I find it frightening that people can be so easily mobilised behind emotive rhetoric that has no basis in fact:
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/second-ammendment-rallies-pro-gun-groups-rally-2607535.html
American health reforms will deliver health care to many of the protestors for the first time and Obama supported legislation to free up gun laws yet these deluded people follow idiots caliming the very opposite.
There are obviously many out there blindly following Monckton too.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
“When he talks maths and models he knows what he is talking about. Cambridge gives an MA to its maths graduates rather than a science degree as we do.”
he does not have a degree in mathematics or science the degree he holds is in classics. Cambridge Maths masters are either M Math or MASt (advanced study) not an MA. Did Monckton tell you he had a Masters degree in Math? He is well-known to be a compulsive liar. Remember when he claimed to be a member of the house of lords? hilarious!
if it were true that he understood the maths I am sure he would have published his criticisms in a journal which would actually challenge the mathematics used in the models rather than what he has done which is to attempt to undermine public confidence in the maths.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
His short bio:
Chief Policy Adviser: Lord Monckton, UK: — Christopher, Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, was Special Advisor to Margaret Thatcher as UK Prime Minister from 1982 to 1986, and gave policy advice on technical issues such as warship hydrodynamics (his work led to his appointment as the youngest Trustee of the Hales Trophy for the Blue Riband of the Atlantic), psephological modeling (predicting the result of the 1983 General Election to within one seat), embryological research, hydrogeology (leading to the award of major financial assistance to a Commonwealth country for the construction of a very successful hydroelectric scheme), public-service investment analysis (leading to savings of tens of billions of pounds), public welfare modeling (his model of the UK tax and benefit system was, at the time, more detailed than the Treasury’s economic model, and led to a major simplification of the housing benefit system), and epidemiological analysis. On leaving 10 Downing Street, he established a successful specialist consultancy company, giving technical advice to corporations and governments.
And do you think someone with no training in mathematics could have developed the Eternity puzzle:
http://www.mathpuzzle.com/eternity.html
And by the way he was a Policy Adviser to the Thatcher Govt but it just happened that much of the advice was about science – possible because it interested her and he shared that interest. He has never told me what degrees he has but I shared a room in which he was involved in a vigorous three way debate with another expert in modelling and an expert in statistical analysis. They all seemed to be making equal contributions and it was way ahead by stage two maths and physics.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
Owen, all that may be true but I still don’t see climate science as a past area of expertise. Warship hydrodynamics, psephological modeling, embryological research and public-service investment analysis are hardly qualify him as a climatologist. He may be very clever but he’s also very deluded!
I would rather listen to a scientist rather than a mathematician and statistician to be informed on climate change. This is an interesting link to an interview with a real scientist who has received death threats from the sceptics:
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2009/s2766202.htm
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
“And do you think someone with no training in mathematics”
I didn’t say he had no training in mathematics, just that you seemed to be stating he held a Cambridge Masters degree in mathematics which is not the case. Once again if his criticisms have any validity why has he chosen a series of PR tours, youtube videos and blogs as the forum in which to make his challenges instead of submitting his criticisms as a scientific paper for peer review.
I don’t doubt he’s a clever man but I think his deceptive tactics are the real clue to his cleverness rather than his ability to devise complicated boardgames…
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
Cutting through the crap, we see that Monckton’s a twit.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
Sprout and nommopilot
So where do you rank Nobel prize winner Al Gore and the Railway Engineer Pachauri?
Two things about Chris.
He can be very overbearing and just when you think you have to escape he will start telling wonderful stories about his pranks and practical jokes – mainly directed at boring bureaucrats.
He loves to satirize himself and play up the English Lord caricature. This does not travel well through the electronic media. He is one of the most charming and infuriating people I have ever met!
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
Perhaps amateurs are simply on more solid ground discussing accepted scientific conclusions rather than conspiracy theories.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
Ah! It’s all a prank!
That Chris Monckton!
Wot a wag!
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
“he will start telling wonderful stories about his pranks and practical jokes – mainly directed at boring bureaucrats. He loves to satirize himself and play up the English Lord caricature.”
I have just realised what you unintentionally revealed, Owen, Monckton is just having a big joke at our expense-what a card!
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
They should chuck Al Gore into that Icelandic Volcano (Ejdfbkblqhebflhbvjnfv;sakjvnejhkull) to appease the volcano demons that hate the atmosphere so much (and modern air travel).
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Shunda – the volcano’s real name is Arnold George Dorsey.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
Thanks for posting this! Monckton was in Australia not long ago spewing his BS and getting taken seriously by the corporate media. It’ll be good to have this on hand to let people know what a moron he is.
Like or Dislike:
1 
3 (-2)
Don’t look him in the eye!
(Google ‘Monckton’)
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
Only one person thought the ‘Arnold George Dorsey’ line was funny!
Dang!
I’m packin’ up the yurt!
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
I believe he is blind in his right eye and so he won’t look back.
When do we all get to go out and beat up a spastic?
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
Owen – what are we to make of Lord Monckton’s comments reported here:
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Moncktons_letter_to_Snowe_Rockefeller_on_1218.html
“Finally, you may wonder why it is that a member of the Upper House of the United Kingdom legislature, wholly unconnected with and unpaid by the corporation that is the victim of your lamentable letter, should take the unusual step of calling upon you as members of the Upper House of the United States legislature either to withdraw what you have written or resign your sinecures.”
This was not followed by the simple explanation that he was not “a member of the Upper House of the United Kingdom legislature”.
I take it that he was deliberately playing on and using the confusion particularly amongst people not familiar with England’s titular system (such as myself) between those entitled to call themselves “Lord” and members of the House of Lords.
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
“I believe he is blind in his right eye”
One-eyed!
I knew it!
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
These video clips are very amusing, I have to say. So, many thanks for the entertainment. However, some people might say that, as a basis for developing rational thought, they would seem to leave a lot to be desired. Those people might go on to suggest that there needs to be some solid, rational, fact-based discussion in these video clips, instead of irrelevant mocking, music, and argumentum ad hominem. (I consider the argumentum ad hominem in the comments to be pretty bad also. I had not realised Monckton’s pop-eyes resulted from a thyroid problem.)
My philosophy lecturer taught us that, of all the several logical fallacies that one could employ in a debate, the use of argumentum ad hominem was always a dead giveaway that:
(a) you were losing the debate, and
(b) you knew it.
- therefore it was best to avoid using it, no matter how much you might want to use it.
If anthropogenic warming can be scientifically substantiated, and if it therefore is not a matter of belief but of fact, then we need to demonstrate that beyond all reasonable doubt and communicate it to the world. It is not enough to use another logical fallacy – as has been done in the past – that of the appeal to the consensus, viz. “Scientists are in agreement that…”, when clearly they do not seem to be. This might have been alright if we were still in the 16th century, when Montaigne basically said there was no harm in the fact that “almost all the opinions we have are taken on authority and credit”. Since the 17th century, when Gilbert, Bacon, Descartes and Boyle made a big thing of taking nothing on trust/authority, it is expected (and to our credit) that we use reason and the scientific method.
A rational, scientific approach should thus help to ensure that the level-headed skeptics, at least, will shut up, because they will be unable to see anything further to be skeptical about. If we cannot do that, then we are arguably sitting on a pile of unsubstantiated belief.
We cannot afford to miss the current window of opportunity to repair the damage done by the publication of those regrettable Climategate emails and reports, which reek of fallibility and error. Nor can we afford to tolerate any more regrettable and stupid mistakes by the IPCC – which committee sometimes seems Hell-bent on self-destruction, they appear to have made so many cock-ups. We need competent people in there, pronto.
My recommendation would be for all concerned Greens to pull together on this one, taking the above approach. If we do not, then the general public’s concern about it being a potential sham will escalate and seem to be justified, and they will become increasingly uneasy about AGW. The groundswell of public and political support was there for AGW, but it could be drawn away altogether if this continues to be fouled up.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)