Monckton — the follow-up

I referred you to the presentation linked above on May 26, 2010. It is a slide-by-slide refutation of Lord M’s travelling show.

Since then Lord Monckton has replied. Consider his opening gambit:

ONE of the numerous propaganda artifices deployed by the now-retreating climate-extremist movement has been the careful avoidance of any debate with anyone on the skeptical side of the case who happens to know anything about climate science or economics.

As the extremists lose the argument and become more desperate, that is changing. John Abraham, a lecturer in fluid mechanics at a bible-college in Minnesota has recently issued – and widely disseminated – a hilariously mendacious 83-minute attempted rebuttal of a speech by me about the climate last October in St. Paul, Minnesota.

So unusual is this attempt to actually meet us in argument, and so venomously ad-hominem are Abraham’s artful puerilities, that climate-extremist bloggers everywhere have circulated them and praised them to the warming skies.

As usual, though, none of these shallow bloggers makes any attempt actually to verify whether what poor Abraham is saying actually has the slightest contact with reality.

One such is George Monbiot, a scribbler for the British Marxist daily propaganda sheet, The Guardian

Even if I were Lord M’s greatest fan this ad hominem and wildly inaccurate tripe would have me worried. For starters, John Abraham is Associate Professor in the School of Engineering at the University of St. Thomas St. Paul, MN 55105. The University of St Thomas is not a "bible college" with all the connotations that has of Bob Jones University and its like; rather it is a Catholic university founded in 1885. True, it isn’t Ivy League: "St. Thomas is in the third tier in the national university-doctoral category. Prior to 2001, St. Thomas was ranked as a regional university and consistently placed in the top 10 of 124 Midwest universities." And The Guardian may not be Lord M’s favourite, but Marxist it certainly is not. And so on…

See a response to that at Monckton – Stung by Abraham, Embarrasses himself further.

Stung by John Abraham’s devastating takedown, “Lord” Christopher Monckton offered an incoherent, rambling, pointless reply.

Accusing Dr Abraham of being “well funded” (not), presumably by the invisible global communist conspiracy that is at the heart of his lordship’s worldview, Monckton further claims that citing his own website as a peer reviewed source meets the standard in scientific debate. He then goes on, true to form, to make veiled threats, and promises “hundreds” of countering questions to Abraham. If you haven’t seen Dr. Abraham’s takedown, stop everything now, make popcorn, and go here.

Now Dr Abraham has replied in detail to Monckton’s ravings…

I’ll leave you to read that for yourself.

Update 10 June

Via Google Reader

What I want to say is: if I were a climate change sceptic, or denier, or heretic or whatever your epithet of choice is, I would be desperately trying to distance myself from Lord Monckton. Unfortunately for everyone concerned, he is one of the leading lights of the movement.

Lord Monckton is an odd (and, I admit, oddly charming) figure, a bit of a Toad of Toad Hall, entirely convinced of his own genius and completely unfazed when reality fails to agree with him. His utter conviction that he, a classics graduate, has got it right when all those pesky climate scientists have got it wrong is rather endearing. Some of his Walter Mitty outbursts are just funny – see his claim to be a “member of the Upper House of the United Kingdom legislature“, when in fact most hereditary peers haven’t sat in the House of Lords since 1999, and Monckton never has. (The House of Lords’ own verdict: “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.”) But others are more insidious, and now he has been caught out in a bad one. Or, rather, in dozens.

Giving a lecture at a university in Minnesota, Lord Monckton made a series of startling claims – that global warming has been “disproved”, that the Arctic ice is not melting, that projections of sea level rise are a mere 6cm and the oceans are not warming, that mediaeval times were warmer than today, that the Sun has caused what warming there is, that the whole thing is a conspiracy and a fraud. He gave impressive, scientific-sounding references for each of his statements.

Unluckily for him, an audience member – John Abraham, a professor of mechanical engineering who has published 80 papers on global warming-related topics – was sceptical of his claims. So he checked each of the references. Lord Monckton was talking absolute nonsense…

I could go on. There are 115 slides in Prof Abraham’s presentation, which weighs in at 83 minutes and is far too long to do full justice to here (and that is the point – Lord Monckton can fire out dozens of claims of this nature in a short lecture, and it takes real scientists valuable time and effort to rebut them one by one. This is not how science works).

But we should all be aware of this: Lord Monckton is a fantasist, a blethering popinjay useful only for amusement. He can be safely ignored in all serious scientific debate. But it reflects badly on those people who want seriously to argue against the science of climate change that this capering jester is among the public figureheads of their movement. If I were, for example, m’colleagues James Delingpole or Christopher Booker, I would publically wash my hands of Lord Monckton, and soon.

Update: Lord Monckton has phoned up and, in a rather charming fashion, expressed disappointment at the contents of this post. He was very polite about it and made me feel a bit small about the “popinjay” and “jester” comments, and he pointed out that that I hadn’t phoned him for comment. He says he is going to get in touch with me after he has prepared a response to Prof Abraham, and I have said that I am happy to revisit this topic when he does so. I have, however, refused at least for now to take the blog down, until I have spoken to my editor.

Update 2: I’ve also been told I’m not very good at the correct forms of noble address. After first mention (when he is Viscount Monckton) I have now referred throughout to Lord Monckton as Lord Monckton. Apologies there.

That post by the UK Daily Telegraph columnist Tom Chivers was taken down from its original site. The rebuttal Lord Monckton refers to has appeared since: see Monckton – Stung by Abraham, Embarrasses himself further.

Advertisements

22 thoughts on “Monckton — the follow-up

  1. Did you see Hansen’s new report? He’s claiming that March 09 to March 10 is the hottest ever recorded. I don’t know about Australia, but the entire northern hemisphere just went through a rather tame summer followed by the coldest winter in decades. Yet Hansen is trying to sell it as the hottest year ever.

    You’ve got to admit, the AGW believers have large cojones :).

  2. A recent video: Climate change: Facts, uncertainties and the way forward. Lord May.

    Lord May of Oxford argues that although it is beyond dispute that the burning of fossil fuels is thickening Earth’s greenhouse gas blanket (to levels not seen for tens of millions of years), there remain some uncertainties about the severity of particular adverse consequences and the timescales for manifestation. Robert McCredie May, Baron May of Oxford, is an Australian scientist who has been Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK Government, President of the Royal Society and a Professor at Sydney and Princeton. He now holds joint professorships at Oxford and Imperial College London and is a member of the Lowy Institute’s International Advisory Council.

    Lowy Institute, May 2010

    Lord May (aka Bob May, ex-SBHS student) is a life peer; that is he was honoured for his services to science and his “lordship” is not hereditary. The other Lord M’s is an hereditary title; he is not and has never been a Member of the House of Lords.

  3. Pingback: Why hadn’t I installed Picasa before today? « Neil's second decade

  4. Yikes, it’s starting to look like has made up a number of things in his document.

    I don’t really have a dog in this argument so didn’t look too closely at either of their comments. Just thought you might want to take a look in case the dog you are backing is the bad guy :).

    All I was ever worried about was our governments taxing us out of the markets via the AGW scam. As I said previously, I don’t think that’s a real worry anymore.

    • See also Why is Monckton afraid of a debate with Abraham? and Monckton tries to censor John Abraham. Abraham is far more convincing than Monckton whosefolie de grandeur becomes more apparent as time passes.

      On the site you recommend see Global Warming Denial Machine.

      In 2008, with the help of the Heartland Institute, Joanne Nova (formerly on the payroll of Shell Oil) published The Skeptic’s Handbook. The purpose of this document is to help climate change skeptics to defend their position that humans are not causing global warming.

      How reliable is Joanne Nova’s opinion? According to her own Website:

      “Joanne Nova finished her Bachelor of Science degree with first class honours, A+ grades and prizes (at UWA) majoring in Microbiology, Molecular Biology and doing honours research into DNA markers for use in Muscular Dystrophy trials. She also has a Graduate Certificate in Science Communication from the ANU. Joanne worked for three years as an Associate Lecturer for the Graduate Diploma in Science Communication program at ANU.” (Nova, 2009)
      She certainly cannot be considered an expert in climate science nor has she done any research in the field. One must question why climate change skeptics use a publication from such a source? This publication is being addressed here because this document has gained much traction recently and the serious errors contained within must be corrected.

      This document cites the Oregon Petition as proof that there is no scientific consensus. As mentioned previously, the Oregon Petition is fraudulent and is a purposeful attempt to mislead scientists into signing the petition.

      Joanne Nova also lists fourteen scientists as “believers are becoming skeptics” along with some of their quotes. In the case of Dr. Joanne Simpson (JoNova spelled her first name Joanna) the document shows the following incomplete quote: “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly.” Dr. Simpson’s full statement can be found here. Of interest is the following excerpt from Dr. Simpson’s full statement: “What should we as a nation do? Decisions have to be made on incomplete information. In this case, we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable. But as a scientist I remain skeptical.”

      Joanne Nova’s source for this list of fourteen scientists is from Senator Inhofe who has assembled a list of “scientists” who are global warming skeptics. This dubious list is known as the “Inhofe 400”. According to The Daily Green (2008) and Climate Progress (2007) Inhofe’s list includes many people who are not climate scientists such as economists, the retired, TV weathermen, mathematicians, amateurs and industry spokespeople.

      Because The Skeptic’s Handbook endorses the Oregon Petition and Senator Inhofe’s dubious list, one must conclude:

      Joanne Nova did not do her research or did so without due diligence.
      Joanne Nova is intentionally misleading the general public.

      Either way, The Skeptic’s Handbook is NOT a reliable source for discussing climate change.
      The Skeptic’s Handbook also lists four main reasons why man cannot be causing global warming. Each of these arguments is seriously flawed. The four points and their mistakes are detailed below:

      The Greenhouse Signature is Missing

      According to the Handbook: “Weather balloons have scanned the skies for years but can find no sign of the telltale “hotspot” warming pattern that greenhouse gases would leave. There’s not even a hint. Something else caused the warming.” and “This is the knock-out blow. If greenhouse gases are warming the earth we are supposed to see the first signs of it in the patch of air 10 kilometers above the tropics. But this ‘hot spot’ just isn’t there.”
      Joanne Nova lists her source for this statement as Dr. David Evans who holds degrees in electrical engineering and mathematics but no degrees in any earth sciences. Dr. Evans published “The Missing Hotspot” on his Website at http://www.sciencespeak.com/MissingSignature.pdf. This publication was never submitted for peer-review and has never appeared in a legitimate science journal.

      There are two flaws with this statement: 1) This hotspot is not a signature of the greenhouse effect – it is a signature of warming from any source, and 2) the hotspot is not missing. According to B.D. Santer et al. (2008): “Using state-of-the-art observational datasets and results from a large archive of computer model simulations, a consortium of scientists from 12 different institutions has resolved a long-standing conundrum in climate science – the apparent discrepancy between simulated and observed temperature trends in the tropics. Research published by this group indicates that there is no fundamental discrepancy between modeled and observed tropical temperature trends when one accounts for: 1) the (currently large) uncertainties in observations; 2) the statistical uncertainties in estimating trends from observations. These results refute a recent claim that model and observed tropical temperature trends “disagree to a statistically significant extent”. This claim was based on the application of a flawed statistical test and the use of older observational datasets.”

      Two other good resources on the so-called missing hot spot can be found at Chris Colose’s Skeptics/Denialists Part 2: Hotspots and Repetition and Tim Lambert’s David Evans doesn’t even know what the hot spot is.

      Increased CO2 emissions will result in a warmer lower atmosphere and a cooler stratosphere which is precisely what has been observed (see: Stratospheric Cooling). Recall that climate models cannot accurately predict the climate change observed in the past century by excluding greenhouse gas emissions due to human activities. When including these greenhouse gas emissions along with natural forcing, the models do predict today’s climate. Therefore, today’s climate is well explained by the measured increases in greenhouse gases.

      Ice Core CO2 Lag

      According to the Handbook: “Instead of carbon pushing up temperatures, for the last half-a-million years temperatures have gone up before carbon dioxide levels. On average 800 years before. This totally threw what we thought was cause-and-effect out the window. Something else caused the warming.”
      Before human activities, CO2 was controlled by natural forcing mechanisms that took place over thousands of years. When the climate warmed, more CO2 entered the atmosphere. This increase in CO2 then accelerated the warming so CO2 may not have caused the initial warming but it definitely drove the climate later on. The “CO2 increase lags the temperature increase” argument is moot in today’s world because human activities are now driving the CO2 change on very short time scales. CO2 concentrations are known accurately for the past 650,000 years. During that time, they varied between 180 ppm and 300 ppm. As of March 2009, CO2 is 385 ppm which took about 100 years to increase. For comparison, it took over 5,000 years for an 80 ppm rise after the last ice age. Higher values than today have only occurred over many millions of years. The Skeptic’s Handbook is comparing apples to oranges. The unprecedented global warming experienced recently is well explained by the measured increases in greenhouse gases.

      Temperatures are Not Rising

      According to the Handbook: “Satellites circling the planet twice a day show that the world has not warmed since 2001. How many more years of NO global warming will it take? While temperatures have been flat, CO2 has been rising, BUT something else has changed the trend. The computer models don’t know what it is.”

      This statement is patently false! Satellite data “infers temperature” and is not a direct measurement of temperature. That is why there are several satellite temperature trends that are published – each uses its own algorithms to estimate temperature. As discussed in the Global Cooling page, GISS, HadCRU, RSS, and UAH represent the four organizations that publish online the global average temperature estimates. All four of these sets show that the planet was warmer between 1998 and 2008 than the previous decade so the assertion that there has been no warming since 2001 is incorrect. In the past few years the rate of warming has decreased but not the temperature. There has been no global cooling! One cannot cherry-pick a few years to try to prove a century’s worth of rising temperatures is not occurring. The increased temperature trend since the 1880s is well-documented even though there have been some cooler years in that trend.

      Here is a more technical analysis of why global temperatures have not “cooled since 1998” nor “cooled since 2001” as some global warming critics claim: Embarrassing Questions from the Open Mind Blog.

      Adding More CO2 Will Not Cause Much More Warming

      According to the Handbook: “Adding twice the CO2 doesn’t make twice the difference. The first CO2 molecules matter a lot, but extra ones have less and less effect. In fact, carbon levels were ten times as high in the past but the world still slipped into an ice age. Carbon today is a bit-part player.”
      Another patently false statement. For a detailed description of how carbon dioxide heats the atmosphere please visit Realclimate.org’s: A Saturated Gassy Argument. Today’s climate is well explained by the measured increases in greenhouse gases.

      Because The Skeptic’s Handbook contains significant errors in its statements, one must conclude:

      Joanne Nova did not do her research or did so without due diligence.
      Joanne Nova is intentionally misleading the general public.

      Either way, The Skeptic’s Handbook is NOT a reliable source for discussing climate change. Increases in greenhouse gases from human activities can easily account for the increased trend in global temperatures over the past century. As mentioned often in this site, there are no other known mechanisms that can account for this unprecedented global warming on such a short time scale. Joanne Nova suggests that “something else must have caused it” but she never explains what this might be…because she cannot!

      Joanne Nova ends The Skeptic’s Handbook with the following statement which reveals the true motivation of her document: “An emissions trading scheme is a bad solution to a problem that’s gone, fighting a cause that never was …” Doesn’t this sound like it comes from the fossil fuel industry?

  5. As I said, I no longer have a dog in this fight. But then you quote this:

    “Joanne Nova finished her Bachelor of Science degree with first class honours, A+ grades [plus long list of other accolades I left out].” Followed by “She certainly cannot be considered an expert in climate science nor has she done any research in the field.”

    And suddenly I DO have a dog in the fight. My dog is scientists. If you believe this person’s analysis, then I think you have a deep misunderstanding of hard sciences. She’s clearly quite intelligent. And quite sciency, to coin a word. She qualifies as a true scientist.

    Any true scientist can understand any other true scientist. It doesn’t matter if it involves electricity, chemistry, probability, physics, optics, the list of sciences is almost infinite, and mathematics allows true scientists to comprehend them all. I’m not bragging here. There are a billion people who can do it. It’s not like we’re a rarity. For you to imply that a person with her credentials can’t be trusted when talking about AGW because she didn’t major in the pseudoscience called ‘climatology’ is about as silly as saying that I can’t design a circuit board because I’m just a chemical engineer (hint: I can, and I have, although it is something often left to electrical engineers). Science is the degree. That’s why they call it a Bachelor of Science. We’re all pretty much the same, no matter our specialization, provided we took enough math, as that microbiologist lady surely did.

    Now don’t misunderstand me. I’m not saying that climate science is ‘hard science’, because clearly it’s not. And I’m not saying that you should trust anyone with a degree in science, since you surely should not. Michael Mann is a great example of a person with a science degree that you should not trust.

    I’m just saying that you should NOT trust climate scientists. Their income is too dependent upon prophesying armageddon. Instead, you might consider trusting someone like Ms. Nova. Or, if you’re truly concerned that she once worked for an oil company, maybe you could trust someone who just studies the AGW myth in their spare time for fun and no cash. Or you could DO THE MATH YOURSELF! But that is admittedly difficult. It’s very hard to get raw data these days.

    Regardless, don’t bash smart people just because they don’t have a climate change degree. Heck, even your hero James Hansen doesn’t have one. He’s just got a Bachelor of… ARTS (hah!) in math. Sorry, BA’s always make me giggle.

  6. Interesting you should mention Hansen as I have just read his latest book. More on that later.

    “Hansen was born in Denison, Iowa. He was trained in physics and astronomy in the space science program of James Van Allen at the University of Iowa. He obtained a B.A. in Physics and Mathematics with highest distinction in 1963, an M.S. in Astronomy in 1965 and a Ph.D. in Physics, in 1967, all three degrees from the University of Iowa. He participated in the NASA graduate traineeship from 1962 to 1966 and, at the same time, between 1965 and 1966, he was a visiting student at the Institute of Astrophysics at the University of Kyoto and in the Department of Astronomy at the University of Tokyo. Hansen then began work at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in 1967.”

    I will put to one side my own BA (Hons) then… 😉

    The argument about climate scientists being untrustworthy is really embarrassing by now surely. It is clear from what you say time and time again that your real beef is economic, political and ideological, not scientific at all — or only marginally so. “All I was ever worried about was our governments taxing us out of the markets via the AGW scam. As I said previously, I don’t think that’s a real worry anymore.” Unfortunately when real scientists such as Lord May of Oxford, a bit of a hero among real scientists here and internationally, do not share your enthusiasm for global warming contrarians I tend to side with the real scientists. Lord May has no axe to grind at all in this debate.

    The $$$$ in spades are in defending the status quo for the fossil fuel industry rather than in funding for some obscure nefarious purpose climate scientists. I am sure they wish they did have the mythical bottomless purses, but they don’t.

  7. I woke up this morning realizing that I accidentally insulted you again, Neil. Sorry. A BA is great for people who aren’t getting scientific degrees. It’s just that science is not an art. A scientist with a BA is not a good scientist.

    Heh. The first thing I thought of when I woke up was, ‘Crap, Neil’s got a BA’. Just thought I’d let you know that people are thinking of you all across the globe!

    As I said, my beef WAS mainly about using a fallacious argument to destroy the western economy. But I’m no longer worried about that. I think we’ve made it through the hippie storm, and they can’t hurt us again like they did with nuclear power in the 1970/80s. No, my only beef left is the science, or more specifically, the lack of science involved in climate science.

    It’s simply not true that “The $$$$ in spades are in defending the status quo…” Both governments and oil companies would increase profits if the energy freedoms of the masses were curtailed. That’s why energy companies support horrible bills like cap and trade. There are literally $BILLIONS to be had by writing papers that are afraid of the climate. On the other hand, no one will pay you a penny if you write something proving or even suggesting that AGW is bunk (or, as you Aussies say, proving that AGW is a porky).

    Have to go to work so didn’t have time to read about Lord May. Looking forward to it!

  8. The link takes you to the man himself.

    Climate change: Facts, uncertainties and the way forward. Lord May

    Part 1 | Part 2

    In this Wednesday Lowy Lunch talk, Lord May of Oxford argues that although it is beyond dispute that the burning of fossil fuels is thickening Earth’s greenhouse gas blanket (to levels not seen for tens of millions of years), there remain some uncertainties about the severity of particular adverse consequences and the timescales for manifestation. Robert McCredie May, Baron May of Oxford, is an Australian scientist who has been Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK Government, President of the Royal Society and a Professor at Sydney and Princeton. He now holds joint professorships at Oxford and Imperial College London and is a member of the Lowy Institute’s International Advisory Council.

    Lowy Institute, May 2010

    He also went to the same school I did — the science teachers were in awe of him then! (He was class of 52, while I was class of 59.)

    Professor Lord Robert May of Oxford, AC, OM, Kt
    Lord May (1952) is currently a professor at Oxford University and is a member of the House of Lords, having been appointed in 2001. He was Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK government 1995-2000 and President of the Royal Society 2000-2005. His long and distinguished academic career has included appointments as Royal Society Research Professor at Oxford University, 1989-1995; Professor of Biology at Princeton University, 1973-1988; and Professor of Theoretical Physics at Sydney University, 1970-1972. Throughout his career, he has made major advances in the field of population biology by the application of mathematical techniques and has played a key role in the development of theoretical ecology through the 1970s and 1980s.

    He was knighted in 1996 for services to Science and received an AC in 1998 for service to science and scientific research, particularly in the area of biological conservation involving the interaction between population, resources and the environment, to scholarship and to the formulation of science policy. In 2002, Bob received the Order of Merit, a British honour established as a special distinction for people of the highest eminence. The order is limited to 24 living people.

    His many other honours include: the Royal Swedish Academy’s Crafoord Prize (for bioscience and ecology); the Swiss-Italian Balzan Prize (for “seminal contributions to [understanding] biodiversity”); and the Japanese Blue Planet Prize (”for developing fundamental tools for ecological conservation planning”). In 2007 he was awarded the Royal Society’s Copley Medal, the world’s oldest prize for scientific achievement. The last High Old Boy to win this medal was Sir John Cornforth (1933), who like Lord May, was taught science at Sydney High by Lenny Basser.

    Cornforth won a Nobel in Chemistry, by the way. I can also claim to have been taught, for a while, by Lenny Basser, who (strangely in the 1950s) wore yellow shirts.

  9. Kudos that you are so closely related to nobility such as Lord May or Lord Monckton! Nobility means nothing over here, but I imagine it has some import in Britain and Australia, so again, kudos!

    About Lord May: First impression: That dude is the definition of old. Second impression: he’s whiny. Plus he’s got that goofy accent that makes you not take him seriously. I keep expecting him to say, “How ’bout a Melbourne Bitter, mate?” Final impression: He’s just reiterating things that other people paid to predict climate armageddon have said ad nauseum. He’s not even trying to prove them. He’s just saying them. Your Lord, however noble he is to you, is pretty useless.

    Aside: Maybe Lenny Basser was gay. Wearing yellow, pink, or red shirts means you’re gay in America today. Perhaps it meant the same thing back then.

  10. And so you dismiss one of the most eminent scientists Australia has produced. As for his lordship, it is an honour bestowed by the UK and an even greater honour is to be one of the 24 only enrolled in the Order of Merit. (Lord Monckton on the other hand merely inherited his title and in fact has never sat in the House of Lords. The guy is a crackpot.) Even more significant is that his expertise ranges from Physics to Zoology and Ecology.

    I trust that you listened to WHAT he said rather than the superficial reactions you note. I am sure he can do the Maths and knows his sources.

    Try a Nobel Prizewinner instead, also Australian of the Year 1997.

    My crap detector goes into overdrive the more I learn about climate change deniers.

    It’s just a shame the planet itself disagrees with them. Mitigate and adapt is what we need to focus on. Quarelling with the reality of climate change seems remarkably stupid at this stage, and probably disabling for the lives of children being born right now. I am sure the people in 2100 will be so grateful when they regard the courage we showed in being so honest and realistic about climate change in 2010.

  11. I don’t dismiss anyone*. I listened to his lecture, which I’m no longer inclined to do since I believe the church of AGW is almost dead (to beat a dead horse, my dog in the race is quite dead). But I did, and I found that it had no substance. He was merely repeating armageddon theories that Al Gore or Neil Whitfield could have stated. There was just nothing there. No data, no intriguing information.

    I don’t mean to discredit the guy or take away from his holiness in your eyes. He in no way sounded disingenuous. I’d bet he’s a nice guy. He certainly believes the tripe he’s peddling. Much like your King in waiting does.

    Although we in America have no class… heh, I meant classes, I accept the Australian and British caste system. I don’t approve of it, but I accept it. Nevertheless, honesty requires me to call a spade a spade, regardless of what name some monarch in England bestowed upon someone.

    UPDATE: Some guy I know in Nevada called me while I was writing this post. I asked him to give me a lordship. He said ok! So from now on, please call me Lord Kevin.

    * Except worshipers of islam, and even then only with cause. ‘Cause they’re murderously crazy! 😉

  12. Just trying out my new name. Damnit, I should have asked for an Earl or Duke name :(. Can I be Duke Lord Kevin? Or maybe Lord of Earl Kevin? Also, I’d like to add in ‘viscount’ because it sounds a lot like ‘discount’. I’m very low budget so it fits well. any ideas?

  13. Pingback: Fact and fiction and climate change « Neil's second decade

  14. Relax. You are only making an effort to prove my point. This guy has nothing new to offer. He’s just spouting other debunked scientists have said. And he’s saying them like they’re fact. But I’m not denigrating him though. He’s clearly smart, or as you guys like to say, ‘clever’. He’s proven that he’s smart enough to read. Most notably, he’s proven that he can read the talking points from the “Church of Man is Evil” (aka the “Church of Climate Change”, or “The Stone Age Cult”. They’re all the same thing).

    But even that very old person doesn’t believe in AGW any more than you do. You don’t see him telling the camera people to turn off the lights or stop the cameras to save energy, do you? Is he stopping all of his flights, long or short distance drives, and living in a hovel sans electricity? Doubt it.

    Aside: Would you mind anointing me as king? I asked my wife to do it, but she anointed me a pawn. She’s a huge jerk. Anyway, thanks in advance for declaring me king.

  15. Easy, Kevin. See Prince Leonard of Hutt. Yes, he’s for real even if unfortunately Australia does not recognise his principality.

    Oh and thanks, by the way, for your efforts in turning me over the past few years into a much more confident believer in the reality of climate change and the fatuity of the sceptics.

    (Australian spellings above.)

  16. You are welcome! I’m a huge fan of letting people believe what they want to believe as long as it doesn’t harm others. And belief in AGW will probably not harm others anymore. If we in America can make it to January at least. *fingers crossed*

    Thanks for the inspiring example of the Prince of Hutt. Sadly, my son removed ALL of my honors and labeled me an ‘untouchable’. You can’t trust teenagers. Even if you own them. Well, half-own them (the wife holds half of the deed). But once we kick him to the curb, I shall return to claim my rightful honors. Count of Oak Trees? Yeah, I should be able to get that one. Earl of Grass? Probably not. I don’t mow often enough to claim dominion over grass. Eh, maybe I’ll start small. Baron of Turning Up the Thermostat. Someone keeps turning the A/C down to 70, but I catch ’em quick and bump it back to 76. That’s GOT to be worth a barony.

    Hey, why can’t Australians spell recognize and skeptic correctly? Are your schools really bad or something? 😉

  17. Also that bastardization of aluminum – aluminium – has GOT to stop. It makes you sound dumber than some hick from Louisiana.

    Damn, I just insulted myself.

  18. Turn the Tables on Monckton

    Christopher Monckton and other deniers get far more press coverage than they deserve. Journalistic false balance has caused the public to be confused on climate change – the greatest threat to humanity this century. Worse, these deniers have used mainstream media to attack climate science and the scientists who pursue the truth. Let us now turn the tables.

    Monckton has been exposed by Dr. John Abraham and instead of hiding his tail and whimpering away, Monckton has gone on the offensive by attacking Dr. Abraham and asking his followers to essentially “email bomb” Dr. Abraham’s university president. We need to alert the media to this story.

    I have assembled a list of media contacts in the hopes that my readers will follow my lead and send letters asking for an investigation of Monckton and his attack on Abraham. Please feel free to use the letter I sent below as your own or to modify as you see fit. I have placed mailto links that will make it easy to send letters to several contacts at once with a single click…

    Scott A. Mandia, Professor – Physical Sciences
    T-202 Smithtown Sciences Bldg.
    S.C.C.C.
    533 College Rd.
    Selden, NY 11784

Comments are closed.