sda2.jpg

March 12, 2012

The Sound Of Settled Science

Lord Monckton, sternly but sadly, told those who had raised their hands: “You know, from the plain and clear demonstration that I gave during my lecture, that the IPCC’s statistical abuse was just that – an abuse. Yet, perhaps out of misplaced loyalty to your professor, you raised your hands in denial of the truth. Never do that again, even for the sake of appeasing authority. In science, whatever you may personally believe or wish to be so, it is the truth and only the truth that matters.”

Enjoy!

Posted by Kate at March 12, 2012 12:46 AM
Comments

i cant find the Play button?

Posted by: bubz at March 11, 2012 11:57 PM

Superb. Hope everyone reads it.

Posted by: EBD at March 12, 2012 12:12 AM

bubz & possibly others, ... At the end of the WUWT post, just above where the comments begin, is the video link:

http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/20909681

Posted by: marc in calgary at March 12, 2012 12:13 AM

Good to hear some real science based on facts come out and hit the liars on the head

Posted by: denis at March 12, 2012 12:17 AM

Lord Monkton's intelligence and eloquence are enough to silence anyone, even the most ardent environmentalist. I like how he works a social cause (ie- malaria and trichiasis) into his speech. If we focused on real problems and not made up ones, the world might be a brighter place.

Posted by: Osumashi Kinyobe at March 12, 2012 12:36 AM

So MSM CTV, files a story on the robocall protest from Calgary, and one of the protesters is a certain Chris McMillan. Geez his face looked familiar, but this was a "non-partisan crowd", according to our righteous reporter at CTV.

Christopher McMillan, NDP Calgary Centre-North Campaign Manager in the last election.

Yeah, sure, non-partisan, whatever.....

Posted by: DanBC at March 12, 2012 12:36 AM

oops, wrong thread

Posted by: DanBC at March 12, 2012 12:39 AM

Osumashi Kinyobe

True dat.

Posted by: syncrodox at March 12, 2012 12:58 AM

Brilliant is right.

Posted by: Ken (Kulak) at March 12, 2012 1:09 AM

Monkton on how the IPCC would describe a spade:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWzVqM_i9oo

Posted by: Stan at March 12, 2012 1:31 AM

Re: A Wide River to Cross.

Great song--great video. Thanks.

Posted by: Plainzdrifter at March 12, 2012 2:04 AM

Something almost all SDA climate realists have been saying for years while putting up with the trolls and Gore/Suzuki bullsh*t as well as our stupid politicians. The rats are cornered but wont give up without a fight. The gravy train they have been riding needs more than just derailing. It needs to be demolished completely to make way for the next panic and the next Gore/Suzuki scam artists. They will always be there and there will never be a shortage of fools to put them in the spotlight, supported by a MSM that would die of constipation if it took brains to sh*t. Thank you Lord Monckton for a little sanity and common sense. Now if only they could find a cure for all the brainwashed green zombies.

Posted by: peterj at March 12, 2012 2:32 AM

Natural gas requires analysis of future regional markets and products.

-

President Obama making fun of Republican candidates said:

"All they will continue to tell you is that we should drill, drill, drill."

Laughter:

But.

"We now have a supply of natural gas that can last America nearly 100 years,
and my administration will take every possible action to safely develop this energy.

Experts believe this will support more than 600,000 jobs by the end of the decade."

-

Teacher:

"Little Johnny,
Can you tell me how President Barrack Obama will continue to develop our Natural Gas Energy Resources?"

Smart little Johnny in back of room.

"Uh.. Teacher,
don't we have still have to drill, drill, drill?"

Laughter.

-

Teacher:

"Johnny,
Go to the office."

Posted by: Fearless Leader at March 12, 2012 2:35 AM

What about the theft of BILLIONS in tax dollars poured into this FRAUD. Like any other FRAUD there should be jail time for the FRAUDSTERS, whether they claim to be scientists or not. FRAUD and THEFT is FRAUD and THEFT.

Posted by: RFB at March 12, 2012 5:30 AM

You think they'd be happy the earth isn't burning up. Sheesh.

Posted by: Soccermom at March 12, 2012 10:08 AM

Responding to a "woman with messy blonde hair" who "shreiked" consensus. "Lord" Monckton offers this refutation --

"Had she not heard of Aristotle’s codification of the commonest logical fallacies in human discourse, including that which the medieval schoolmen would later describe as the argumentum ad populum, the headcount fallacy? From her reddening face and baffled expression, it was possible to deduce that she had not. Nor had she heard of the argumentum ad verecundiam, the http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/10/moncktons-schenectady-showdown/#more-58770

These sorts of exchanges hardly consitute any kind of logically consistent argument. If, heaven forfend, "Lord" Monckton were to be diagnosed with cancer, would he get a second opinion or would he repudiate the "argument from authority" or "ad populum" & find an oil company PR type or politician?
Monckton is a showman -- he plays with graphs, makes elementary mistakes, blathers on about "world government" .... anything but the science.
His shtick is no "argumentum" of any sort. The Flat Earth guy used to win all his debates.

Posted by: dizzy at March 12, 2012 10:10 AM

IMHO the commentator is aptly named.

Posted by: madasl at March 12, 2012 10:18 AM

My comment should have read thusly,IMHO the commentator dizzy is aptly named.

Posted by: madasl at March 12, 2012 10:22 AM

Read the article, watched the video, thanks Kate, Love that Monkton - can't get enough.

This says it all - "As they filed in, Lord Monckton was chatting contentedly to a quaveringly bossy woman with messy blonde hair who was head of the college environmental faction. Her group had set up a table at the door of the auditorium, covered in slogans scribbled on messy bits of recycled burger boxes held together with duct tape (Re-Use Cardboard Now And Save The Planet). “There’s a CONSENSUS!” she shrieked.

“That, Madame, is intellectual baby-talk,” replied Lord Monckton."

Yep - it is regurgitated intellectual pablum swallowed by a generation of intellectual infants. The thing about these events where Monkton wades into a sea of scolding university indoctrinated leftards is that it displays the incredible gap in effective reasoning and understanding between the classic education he has had and the McDonald’s happy meal education sold at modern colleges.

Monkton's classic schooling (unrevised politics and history, classic logic, classic philosophy, classic math and science training which emphasise rationality in problem solving) honed his reasoning and fact gathering capacities and taught him to reject the preposterous - modern mass educators only indoctrinate students in unthinking conditioned reactions to prescribed situations devoid of reason or self-discovery of fact. It is unreasoning conditioned mantra slingers that Monkton obliterates with simple reason which produces inconvenient truths for these indoctrinated green lemmings.

If America's Pedagogues had not dumbed down sufficient generations, frauds like AGW, Green crisis and Al Gore could not penetrate the reason and truth of the college environment

Posted by: Occam at March 12, 2012 10:36 AM

I wonder when Lord Monckton will die of the same 'natural causes' as Andrew Breitbart?

Posted by: Abe Froman at March 12, 2012 11:01 AM

Moncton was the only one in the room who had done his homework as well as being armed with a classical education!

What was telling was that the Professoriate were as sophomoric as the undergrads and as intellectually defenseless. I'm guessing that the entire event would be white-washed within a few days and the classes could return to self reinforcing narratives of CAGW (that's where the money is). Hopefully a few students would have been inspired to go outside of the "institutions of higher learning" to gain knowledge and reason.

Posted by: John Chittick at March 12, 2012 11:26 AM

I had the privilege of seeing Lord Monkton's lecture when he came to Calgary. He's one of a kind -- a true child of the enlightenment and a real pleasure to hear speaking. His positions are so difficult for the eco-zealots to assail because Monkton simply goes where the hard scientific evidence leads him. His critics are left fighting back with pure puffery.

Posted by: DrD at March 12, 2012 11:32 AM

Lord Monckton is spot on...

Today's 'academics' do not think critically anymore because they aren't ALLOWED to.

Questioning their moonbat masters is unheard of and id guaranteed to instantly fail them or reduce their scores to the point that they become unhireable by other moonbats.

Universities, at one time, were places you went to study the theories and surmises of the scholars before you and to question their conclusions while developing, exploring and testing your own new theories and using their work to prove or disprove yours and yours to prove or disprove theirs and conclusively disproving a once accepted theory was welcomed as much as proving it...if not more.

Science is NOT concensus...science is getting the correct answers in SPITE of concensus...one would think that there can be no focus groups or UN panel reports on the subject of 2+2=4 but many mathematicians say "not so fast, what if....?" and then we have advanced theoretical physics, multi-dimensional computations, string theory, etc.

Yet we are supposed to accept that the spittle-spewing ravings of the likes of al gore are sacrosanct and never to be questioned even when he can't point to a single repeatable proof of any theory, or indeed any evidence, observational or experimental data that hasn't been proven to be deliberately tainted ?

Lord Monckton is pointing out the dangers of accepting something as incontrovertible and as usual...when threatened, the moonbats try to push back, only to slip and fall on the slime of their own manipulations.

Posted by: Bemused at March 12, 2012 12:04 PM

Does anyone know what his itinerary is for the remainder of this tour? Can't seem to find any reference via Google.

Posted by: PO'ed in AB at March 12, 2012 12:37 PM

Enjoy indeed! Thanks Kate for that heartening read.

Posted by: RCGZ at March 12, 2012 1:36 PM

It is worthy of note that Albert Einstein, introducing his GERERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY, specified that regardless whatever support it received, it would only take ONE INDIVIDUAL to prove it wrong.

Posted by: sasquatch at March 12, 2012 2:23 PM

Now this! is news!!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2113910/Colonel-Gaddafi-gave-French-President-Nicolas-Sarkozy-42MILLION-fund-2007-election-campaign.html

(If true).

Posted by: old Lori at March 12, 2012 2:30 PM

Oh, Dizzy, poor Dizzy. Your problem, from your comment, seems to be that all of your advocates are ignorant blowhards like Al Gore, or hysterical hippies shrieking slogans. A consensus of ignoramuses and liars is irrelevant to just about everything, let alone science.

Now go read Sasquatch's 2:23 post again, and try to understand it this time.

Posted by: cgh at March 12, 2012 2:45 PM

@ old Lori at March 12, 2012 2:30 PM

Gaddafi should have know that when you are filthy rich, you have no real friends. Sarkozy will take a beating on this one. What a display of morality. Perhaps it was a loan, which would explain a lot.

Posted by: peterj at March 12, 2012 3:51 PM

cgh
// Now go read Sasquatch's 2:23 post again, and try to understand it this time. //

I've read them all, & can thereby second your previous remark --
// A consensus of ignoramuses and liars is irrelevant to just about everything, let alone science. //

Posted by: dizzy at March 12, 2012 4:59 PM

// A consensus of ignoramuses and liars is irrelevant to just about everything, let alone science. //

and gore, suzuki and the rest of the lying, ignorant data-manipulating fraudsters are the only ones screaming 'concensus' to back their scam while the ones they vilify without evidence or scientific cause are the ones looking for the truth in the theories and real evidence to support any theory that is accurate instead of accepting 'concensus' as fact...

hoist...meet petard.

Posted by: Bemused at March 12, 2012 5:17 PM

dizzy at March 12, 2012 4:59 PM

Poor dizzy. Invested in carbon credits did you ?

Posted by: peterj at March 12, 2012 5:28 PM

No surprises for those of us following the matter in what Monckton said. Always good to see it so nicely packaged and presented though..

Posted by: Michael H Anderson at March 12, 2012 6:43 PM

Stop sucking on the tail-pipe of a running car, and you won't be Dizzy, dizzy.

People like dizzy mock Moncton because they have NO other argument to put forward.

Posted by: Otter at March 12, 2012 6:44 PM

Monckton rocks!

Posted by: A Dog Named Kyoto at March 12, 2012 7:59 PM

It sure would have been nice to sit in that audience and experience what we just read.

Posted by: Knacker at March 13, 2012 12:18 AM

@ Dizzy
Congratulations on having the intellectual honesty to visit a blog that makes a case you don't agree with, and to consider their arguments before commenting.
However, I confess that I'm not quite clear what you're trying to say. Beyond a generalised "yucky, bad man!"
I say this as someone who understands every word you said, but still doesn't know the point you're trying to imply.
You said:
1) "These sorts of exchanges hardly constitute any kind of logically consistent argument...."
Which of the following propositions comes closest to the idea you had in mind when you wrote?
a. The blog owner who posted the exchange is not posting a logically consistent argument against Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW)?
b. The two disputants are not arguing in a logical fashion?
c. Lord Monckton’s response was illogical?
d. Lord Monckton’s contribution to the exchange was not a logical refutation of CAGW?
e. Some other idea, in which case what, exactly?
2) “If, heaven forfend, "Lord" Monckton …”
Here, I’m unsure what you’re implying by the use of quotes around the courtesy title. Which of the following propositions comes closest to the idea you had in mind when you wrote?
a. Christopher Monckton is fraudulently pretending to be an English Viscount?
b. Although a Viscount, he is not entitled to the honorific “Lord”?
c. Aristocracy is a fraud upon the people. No person is morally entitled to be called a Lord. When using the title you use quotes to indicate its fundamentally fraudulent nature.
d. Some other idea, in which case what, exactly?
3) “If, heaven forfend, "Lord" Monckton were to be diagnosed with cancer, would he get a second opinion or would he repudiate the "argument from authority" or "ad populum" & find an oil company PR type or politician?”
I think it possible that you mean to imply any or all of the following propositions. Would you please indicate which you had in mind?
a. Warming would be as bad for the planet as cancer is for an individual.
b. Today’s climatologists have expertise comparable to today’s oncologists.
c. Getting a second opinion is not the same as refuting the argument from authority.
d. The evidence Lord Monkton cites was fraudulently manufactured by politicians and Public Relations officials.
e. The “argument from authority” and “ad populum” are logically valid.
f. The “argument from authority” and “ad populum” are pragmatically valid.
g. Some other idea, in which case what, exactly?
4) “Monckton is a showman -- he plays with graphs, makes elementary mistakes, blathers on about "world government" .... anything but the science.
His shtick is no "argumentum" of any sort. The Flat Earth guy used to win all his debates.”
With these sentences, I’m pretty sure I do understand your claims. Nevertheless, I’m gobsmacked, since I can see no way to reconcile them with my default assumption that you’re an honest person. Please confirm for me that you do in fact hold these propositions. For the sake of clarity, please give a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer, or where you feel it appropriate, respond “neither ‘yes’ nor ‘no’”. Feel free to expand on your reply. If these propositions are not what you meant, please feel free to indicate what you did mean.
a. If someone gives a good show it means he has his science wrong.
b. Monckton does not discuss the science of CAGW.
c. Monckton does not give an argument.
d. The fact that the Flat Earth guy won his debates means that people who win debates are as wrong as the Flat Earth guy.
I think there are satisfactory answers to all the points you make, but it since would take ages to respond to every possible interpretation of what you’re trying to say, I’d appreciate your clarification before I try.

Posted by: Leo Morgan at March 13, 2012 4:15 AM

A petard was a primitive medieval grenade on a stick. Sometimes the grenadier dropped it- thus, "Hoist, by his own petard."

Posted by: alzaebo at March 13, 2012 4:52 AM

Leo Morgan
// I’d appreciate your clarification before I try. //

My last post didn't get through. Let's see if the Cerberus at the gate lets it [& this one] go up. Not much point other wise. Selective editing plays havoc with any kind of reciprocal discourse.

Posted by: dizzy at March 13, 2012 9:36 AM

actually, a petard was closer to a breaching mine or later on, a mortar, indeed it's the French word for 'mortar' (and 'fart' in Quebec) but it's the same idea and in the colloquial useage of the term meaning "to fall into one's own trap," 'dizzy' most efficiently hoisted himself....repeatedly...in both explosive senses..."lifted him right out of his chair that time" ;)

Posted by: Bemused at March 13, 2012 9:42 AM

@ Dizzy
I regret any form of censorship. Especially in a skeptical blog, since a censor of an argument costs themselves the moral high ground. By censoring an alternate view, they damage 'my side' of the argument.
Would you like to nominate another blog where we can continue this discussion without censorship?
Against the possibility that your acceptance is censored, let me provide my e-mail address, though I will present it in a fashion that should avoid the attention of spam-bots trawling the net.
That address is my first initial, the letter 'j', followed immediately by my name as printed here, save there is no space betwen given and surnames, all of this is one word with no dots or other symbols, followed immediately by the ampersand and the name of the free email service provided by Google, with the dot com extension.

@ Kate
A significant part of the reason blogs like RealClimate have no credibility is their censoring of those that disagree. Even if they were right, how could they persuade anybody of that fact when they know that arguments and evidence contradicting their view are being suppressed?
I draw your attention to the light-handed moderation of massively popular blogs like ClimateAudit and Wattsupwiththat. I am certain that this light-handedness is a contributing factor in their popularity.
Accordingly I ask you to go easy with censorship. If someone is right, then we should all hear them. If they are wrong, then their mistakes should be on public dispaly, and the errors publically exposed.

Posted by: Leo Morgan at March 13, 2012 11:54 AM

Leo, you ought to consider that, given the fact that there IS no *reasonable* answer to your questions, the likelihood that "dizzy" (why do you still call yourself that, diz? Don't you realize that as a nickname it has always meant the same thing as "daffy" or "crazy"?) never posted any rebuttal at all, but simply added the second troll post claiming censorship in order to cast a shadow on Kate as moderator?

Dizzy is a known troll. Any of the million-dollar vocabulary he employs here has VERY long stay here; you should have seen the childish, disjointed, drug-addled crap he used to write (not that the "disjointed" part has improved, only the vocabulary - you're welcome, diz). You have already outlined in eloquent terms precisely why he needs to be ignored: he has no "argumentum" himself - in fact he is perfeclty aware of the fact, and like all trolls he is only here to wasste our time and distract us from the good works we ought to be doing instead.

In short, dizzy suffers from an incurable antisocial personality disorder like so many of the left, and to respond to give him a pathetic but (to him) highly vitalizing kind of acknowledgement that the has existence somewhere other than just that basement suite in his Mom's house.

Posted by: Michael H Anderson at March 13, 2012 3:26 PM

Leo, you ought to consider that, given the fact that there IS no *reasonable* answer to your questions, the likelihood that "dizzy" (why do you still call yourself that, diz? Don't you realize that as a nickname it has always meant the same thing as "daffy" or "crazy"?) never posted any rebuttal at all, but simply added the second troll post claiming censorship in order to cast a shadow on Kate as moderator?

Dizzy is a known troll. Any of the million-dollar vocabulary he employs here has VERY long stay here; you should have seen the childish, disjointed, drug-addled crap he used to write (not that the "disjointed" part has improved, only the vocabulary - you're welcome, diz). You have already outlined in eloquent terms precisely why he needs to be ignored: he has no "argumentum" himself - in fact he is perfeclty aware of the fact, and like all trolls he is only here to wasste our time and distract us from the good works we ought to be doing instead.

In short, dizzy suffers from an incurable antisocial personality disorder like so many of the left, and to respond to give him a pathetic but (to him) highly vitalizing kind of acknowledgement that the has existence somewhere other than just that basement suite in his Mom's house.

Posted by: Michael H Anderson at March 13, 2012 3:27 PM

Jesus wept, never mind censorship - double post caused by my first attempt reaching an error page; loss of entire chunks of my text. Let's try again:

Leo, you ought to consider that, given the fact that there IS no *reasonable* answer to your questions, the likelihood that "dizzy" (why do you still call yourself that, diz? Don't you realize that as a nickname it has always meant the same thing as "daffy" or "crazy"?) never posted any rebuttal at all, but simply added the second troll post claiming censorship in order to cast a shadow on Kate as moderator?

Dizzy is a known troll. Any of the million-dollar vocabulary he employs here has been learned over the course of his VERY long stay here; you should have seen the childish, disjointed, drug-addled crap he used to write (not that the "disjointed" part has improved, only the vocabulary - you're welcome, diz). You have already outlined in eloquent terms precisely why he needs to be ignored: he has no "argumentum" himself - in fact he is perfeclty aware of the fact, and like all trolls he is only here to wasste our time and distract us from the good works we ought to be doing instead.

In short, dizzy suffers from an incurable antisocial personality disorder like so many of the left, and to respond to give him a pathetic but (to him) highly vitalizing kind of acknowledgement that the has existence somewhere other than just that basement suite in his Mom's house.

Posted by: Michael H Anderson at March 13, 2012 3:29 PM

Leo Morgan
A reference for each of the comments you base your questions on. For the fourth , I have more or less reposted my lost comment [to Otter]

// 1) "These sorts of exchanges hardly constitute any kind of logically consistent argument...." //

Having quoted the exchange I meant, I noted that pointing out a "logical fallacy" does not constitute a refutation of what is said. It says nothing about the science. Nor was the idea of consensus dealt with. [which is mainly a cry of anti-AGW campaigners] -- scientific consensus is never complete & it comes after the scientific work from people [peers] who understand what is claimed. Some aspects are a matter of consensus, others are matters of current research.
See this discussion - - http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/just-what-is-this-consensus-anyway/
Basically, what we have is an experienced snake-oil salesman embarrassing a young woman who became indignant at his speil.
At Copenhagen he accused a young student [Jewish] of being a Nazis for demonstrating against him.

// 2) “If, heaven forfend, "Lord" Monckton …”
Here, I’m unsure what you’re implying by the use of quotes around the courtesy title. //

Monckton has claimed to be a member of the House of Lords & has used a graphic closely resembling one of that institution in his presentations. Discussed here with reference to a "cease & desist" type letter from the clerk of the House [of Lords}.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/aug/11/lords-climate-christopher-monckton
Hence "Lord" to distance myself from his misrepresentation.
Incidently he did offer his name during an odd one-time election for a vacancy in the chamber. Lost badly -- zero votes.

// 3) “If, heaven forfend, "Lord" Monckton were to be diagnosed with cancer, would he get a second opinion or would he repudiate the "argument from authority" or "ad populum" & find an oil company PR type or politician?”
I think it possible that you mean to imply any or all of the following propositions. Would you please indicate which you had in mind? //

Listen to this short video with [Paul Nurse & J Delingpole] to see what I had in mind -- it features a real nobel prize winner.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36Xu3SQcIE0

// 4) “Monckton is a showman -- he plays with graphs, makes elementary mistakes, blathers on about "world government" .... anything but the science.
His shtick is no "argumentum" of any sort. The Flat Earth guy used to win all his debates.”
With these sentences, I’m pretty sure I do understand your claims. Nevertheless, I’m gobsmacked, since I can see no way to reconcile them with my default assumption that you’re an honest person. //

From my post to Otter
// I mock Monckton because his presentations are so wrong in so many ways, and he won't acknowledge real arguments or evidence.
Also he changes his claims regularly.
So mockery is appropriate. [...]

I did mention that Monckton // plays with graphs, makes elementary mistakes, blathers on about "world government" //
http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/
http://www.altenergyaction.org/Monckton.html
Read these for the first two.
& this unintentionally hiliarious video for the third --
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHM5PLq9KXo
Anyway, this is not the place for arguing the science. These threads last only a few days. //

From your last post --
// Would you like to nominate another blog where we can continue this discussion //

If you want an extended discussion of Monckton, a forum would be better than a blog.
This one is free. Join, start a thread, & I'll check for it. [there are many forums at this site -- this is the biggest in the Current Affairs category]
http://forums.delphiforums.com/pc-opinion/messages

Posted by: dizzy at March 14, 2012 9:33 AM

Thanks for the suggestion about a forum. Kate's guideline about extended debates needing to be taken to private e-mail is at risk if we don't.
I'll come back and post a link to the forum when it is created, hopefully before the end of the weekend.
However, I will respond here to two of the claims you've made here.
// pointing out a "logical fallacy" does not constitute a refutation of what is said.//
The rules of logical argument disagree. Pointing out a logical fallacy absolutely is a refutation of what was said. Specifically, their argument is refuted.

It seems to me that nobody ever explained to you the rules of logical argument.I'd like to do that now, so that you and I betwen us can discuss things logically. It goes like this: First you give your evidence for your conclusion. (Premises.) Then you give the reasons why that evidence supports your conclusion. Then you tell us your conclusion. The reason that we go through this complicated process is that everyone in the world who understands logic must accept your conclusion, if they accept your premises and your reasoning.
In your initial post you gave us your premises, but left us to guess at your argument and conclusion. It's a natural thing to do. Every child begins the process of argument that way. What's going on in there head is so clear to them that it seems obvious that everyone should see things their way from those premises. It always comes as a surprise to them that others can disagree, and they run the risk of forming the opinion that others must be crazy or evil. For the exactly the same reasons, if they don't do the full premise, argument, conclusion thing, others are likely to think the same about them. Or to think that they are childish, disjointed, drug-addled crap-artists :)

//Hence "Lord" to distance myself from his misrepresentation.//
As an aside, you do realise that nobody reading your original words can tell that that’s what you mean/are doing, without this additional explanation?
Personally, I don’t care. I disdain the idea of an aristocracy on principle. Despite this, I would use the title without “scare quotes”, because I prefer that my side be the only one to demonstrate civility in debate. Onlookers find our arguments much more persuasive that way.
Nevertheless, unless you are an expert in English Constitutional Law, I recommend you abandon the practice of claiming he is making a misrepresentation, on the reasonable grounds that you might be completely wrong. Specifically, after the clerk of parliaments gave the opinion that you refer to, Lord Monckton obtained the advice of a leading constitutional lawyer, Hugh O’Donoghue.
The Summary of Mr. O’Donoghue’s learned Opinion reads as follows:
“I am asked to consider whether The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley was correct when, in a recent radio interview in Australia, he answered the question ‘Are you a member of the House of Lords?’ by saying, ‘Yes, but without the right to sit or vote.’ My conclusion is that Lord Monckton’s answer was and is correct at all points.
“Lord Monckton’s statement that he is a member of the House of Lords, albeit without the right to sit or vote, is unobjectionable. His claim is not a false or misleading claim. It is legitimate, proportionate, and reasonable.”
I can tender the full 11 page opinion if you wish.

Posted by: Leo Morgan at March 15, 2012 1:06 AM

@ Dizzy
Oops. The above post is a reply to points you made. Sorry I left off the '@ Dizzy' to indicate that that was so.

Posted by: Leo Morgan at March 15, 2012 1:11 AM

@ Keystone Garter
Lord Monckton is not denying the science of CO2 absorbtion of long-wave heat radiation. I don't either. But we both point out that it is currently absorbing almost all there is. Extra carbon dioxide can only absorb the last few percent of photons, a minute amount. At current rate of increase would take 500 years to reach the (unjustifiably low) 'disaster figure' of two degrees Celcius.
This is not contentious. Admittedly the ignorant among the alarmists don't know it, and the well informed don't publicise it, but they will admit to it if challenged.
Where they see CO2 causing heat catastrophe is in their idea that the tiny amount of heat it briefly retains will be enough to cause multiplier effects from water vapour, which they think will create climate troubles.
So the question is not "Why does Monckton think CO2's effect will be so low?" Everybody thinks the same as him on that. The question is "Why do they think the multiplier effects will be so high?"
Actually, even taking into account their multiplier effects, the range of forecasts includes quite a lot of 'no problem' scenarios, and advancing scientific knowledge is wiping out extreme cases as possibilities. See for example http://www.princeton.edu/~nurban/pubs/lgm-cs-uvic.pdf
The Industrial revolution happened back in the 1700's. Most climatologists claim we only significantly began putting CO2 into the air 130 years ago. For the sake of argument, grant them that. In 130 years the temperature has changed less than 1 degree. It's going to change ten times that much today alone here in my home town.
Think of the places you know that are 2 degrees warmer than your home town. Are they disaster areas?
The idea of a disaster sure seems ridiculous!
I know that pointing at a ridiculous seeming proposition and laughing at it doesn't actually answer the argument, but my thoughts on the matter are too detailed to fit into Kate's guidelines. But what they amount to is that the reasons this 'disaster' seems ridiculous in that comparison are actually valid, and alarm really is ridiculously wrong.
On a seperate note, in defense of Einstein, the one thing he did receive the Nobel Prize for was his work on the photo-electric effect. It was his contribution to the understanding of the wave/particle duality of the nature of light that we now use to explain the misleadingly named 'greenhouse effect'.

Posted by: Leo Morgan at March 15, 2012 10:00 AM
Site
Meter