'Peer of the Realm' Monckton now a Birther

Tue, 2012-05-29 11:20Kevin Grandia
Kevin Grandia's picture

'Peer of the Realm' Monckton now a Birther

This is a guest post by Greenpeace USA's Kevin Grandia, former DeSmog Managing Editor.

Christopher Monckton, well known for his wacky behavior attempting to deny the scientific realities of climate change, has now moved on to look into the conspiracy theory around whether US president Barack Obama was actually born in the United States!

Monckton, decked out in an American flag shirt, fire arm on his hip and a cowboy hat, tells the interviewer that:

My purpose in being here [in Arizona] is to have a further look into whether the president of the United States is the president of the United States. Now you might say, what has this got to do with someone from Britain… I am here because I am curious. As a peer of the realm I am allowed to stick my long aristocratic nose into anything I want to stick it in.

Seriously, you can't make this stuff up. Here is the video:

You can read more on the history of Monckton here on DeSmogBlog's Disinformation Database.

Monckton recently spoke at the Heartland Institute's climate denier conference. As part of that conference, an outrageous ad campaign ran by Heartland just prior to the conference equated anyone who believed in climate change to Osama Bin Laden, the Unabomber and the mass-murderer Charles Manson.

TAKE ACTION! Nucor, one of the largest steel producers in the US, funds the Heartland Institute and we are calling Nucor's CEO to end funding to the Heartland Institute.         

Previous Comments

The money pitch at the end “Please don’t try to contact sheriff Joe Arpaio’s posse, just send him money” is truly sublime.

I don’t usually follow Christopher Monckton, but I do notice that he is reviled by alarmists and is often called a denier. At 1:26 in the video, he says global warming is real and is happening. He questions whether it is happening fast enough to be a great danger. Is this denying science?

Conman shows his ignorance of climate science when he stupidly utters the following:

“He questions whether it is happening fast enough to be a great danger. Is this denying science?”

We know exactly how fast it is occurring, just check all the temperature data bases found at woodfortrees. Where the discount monk denies science is in his completely dishonest and incompetent calculations for climate sensitivity. He pretend to be a scientists and mathematician in his calculations and even published a “paper” on his comical calculations (http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm).

Competent scientists reviewed this “paper” and found at least 125 errors in it (http://www.altenergyaction.org/Monckton.html).

Now, someone has to be completely ignorant or completely dishonest to make so many errors in one paper. My guess he is both.

“We know exactly how fast it is occurring”

The error bars look pretty large to me. While there is clearly an upward trend in temperatures, they also fluctuate all over the place.

I’ll have to admit that Christopher Monckton is a pretty bizarre character. I don’t understand his apeal.

Keep it up conman you are just showing your ignorance of just about everything to do with climate change in every post.

I suggest you take remedial courses in simple science, maths and statistics. You should also include English grammar since most deniers are lacking in that discipline too.

Maybe conman should be renamed “cloneman” since deniers seem to be clones of the most ignorant, arrogant and despicable person you can find.

Be specific.

Here’s Koch funded the Berkley Earth Surface Temperature results;

http://berkeleyearth.org/analysis/

There is no uncertaintly.

“What graphs are you talking about?”

Every month I check out the release of the University of Alabama in Huntsville’s graph on reason.com’s Hit&Run blog:

http://reason.com/blog/2012/05/14/global-temperature-trend-upate-apri-2012

I’ll have to admit that the BEST graphs on the page you linked to, shows a very clear trend. Different temperature measuring methods can have different characteristics that lead to different looking results.

I suspect your choice of a ‘reason.com’ blog may cause considerable misunderstanding.

Here’s the latest UAH data; 

http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/

The official University of Alabama in Huntsville data states clearly tha the global positive trend is +.13C, +0.17C on Land;

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt

Read it, get educated, and stop using crappy information sources.  The official report from the UAH data contradicts your little blogger friend. Never go back there.

Here’s a great video by a Republican Scientist regarding your hero;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDNXuX6D60U

He loves to forget data that disagrees with him, and forgets to graph error margins and other such useful things.  Generally doing things that get you fired on the job.

It is a common denialist tactic to give with one hand and take with the other. Here he is taking with his other hand:

“there is a startling absence of correlation between the CO2 concentration trend and the temperature trend, necessarily implying that—at least in the short term—there is little or no causative link between the two”

Which is it? Either CO2 causes warming or it doesn’t. The basic mechanism isn’t really that hard to understand. CO2 absorbes IR from the Earth and radiates it back as heat, thus warming the environment. CO2 is why we are not now a frozen ball of ice. Without it there could be no life on Earth.

Secondly, his claim is false. Here is the “CO2 lags warming” claim:

1. Climatologists say that CO2 is responsible for the warming we see today.

2. The geological record shows that CO2 has lagged warming in the past.

3. Therefore CO2 is not reponsible for warming today.

The argument is invalid because the conclusion does not follow from the premises. The paleo-geological record shows cycles of warming that correspond to the precession of the Earth’s axis. These cycles of warming then trigger the release of CO2 from permafrost and other sources. Which in turn sustain the warming period for longer that it would have been without CO2. Studies have *proved* this to be the case.

Scientists know more than your 8th grade understanding of the climate. They know that many sources contribute to our current climate. The sun, water vapor etc. All things being equal the Earth exists in dynamic equlibrium. Very very recently however, humans have been putting MASSIVE amounts of CO2 into the equation. Since CO2 is in fact a greenhouse gas adding more of it logicaly would result in pushing, forcing as the scientists say, the climate out of equilibrium causing more warming.

And that is what we observe.

You are talking about the ‘Monckton Maneuver’ the sudden and utter about face from climate change deniers.

Why don’t you hear it from his own lips he’s sold quite a lot of videos that state the world is not warming.  So, yes, he’s a climate change denier.  There is not debate on that fact.  You can take his word for it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9K74fzNAUq4

And what kind of sap, CONMAN would get fooled by his ‘cure for HIV’.  You?  You’re that stupid?  Would you trust a guy like that?  How?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hl2lShU6zD0

Christopher Monckton lies like a cheap suit.  His presentation in California he shows raw uncalibrated satellite data to explain that he thinks the ocean isn’t rising.

Presentation;  Look at Page 39… Raw Envisat Data.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/23/moncktons-slide-presentation-to-the-california-assembly/

So… how is that sooo different from what the satellites really say?

http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/en/news/ocean-indicators/mean-sea-level/

Good thing I checked ocean rise is 10 times higher than he says..  (Hint: Aviso states very clearly not to use Envisat data Raw.  That data does not represent ocean level.)

Monckton is a worm, Conman.  Can you explain to me what kind of idiot would trust him as a source?  You should know.

For all the handwringing and dire forecasts because of the supposed ‘massive’ amounts of CO2 being pumped out, we still have only warmed less than 1 degree C in the past 100 years!

You guys don’t get it. People like Hansen and Romm and Mckiben are making total fools out of the AGW movement with their way over the top predictions! And when someone like Monckton comes along and asks “Where’s the beef” everyone has a hissy fit.

Blame your own high priests for the current state of skepticism, they are the ones that are out of control.

“the supposed ‘massive’ amounts of CO2 being pumped out”

FALSE - Are you aware that we can in fact measure the amount of CO2 humans contribute to the environment? Humans are responsible for 29 BILLION tons of CO2. It is enough to alter the climate.

“we still have only warmed less than 1 degree C in the past 100 years”

Yes, and that is enough to cause a great deal of damage to the environment and to our infrastructure.

“People like Hansen and Romm and Mckiben are making total fools out of the AGW movement with their way over the top predictions!”

FALSE. Your suggestion that global warming is not something to worry about is FALSE. The IPCC has spelled out several different scenarios. Even in the best case scenario things would be very bad for a great many people.

It is sane and rational to prepare for unforseen consequences. When you build a house in a flood plane it is NOT sane and rational to ignore the possibility of a flood destroying your home. The fact that we do not know for sure what will happen SHOULD make us all the more willing to prepare for the worst. It is even more true given the fact that switching to alternative energy sources and no longer being dependent on foreign oil all by itself has benificial effects.

Sounds like a win win to me.

Here’s what the Harper Government says is happening in the Arctic.
 http://www.ec.gc.ca/adsc-cmda/default.asp?lang=En&n=77842065-1

1.7C over 64 years, so Hank_, you are wrong.  Stop lying.

“ we still have only warmed less than 1 degree C in the past 100 years!”

Which normally takes thousands of years according to natural cycles of the past.

 

Wow, deniers actually want and like this guy being in their corner? The guy is a moron. Ive read that graves disease often leads to mental illness……..it’s clear that this is happening here with Monckton.

 

Do you two jokers own part of DeSmog Blog or do you have compromising pictures of Chris Mooney and Christopher Monckton (with his eyes really bugged out) or something? How do you get away with your incessant name calling (in violation of the comment policy)? I would think that you two would be banned on grounds of embarrasment alone.

Conmen and Quislings… if they weren’t here, I wouldn’t be here.

Go away, and I’ll likely fade away to.   But there always seems to be more Conmen, right?

cloneman, stop acting like a fool and people will stop calling you a fool. Surely you are not that ignorant that you cannot see that we are only responding to your dishonest nonsense?

You should know by now, Canman, that this is the accepted practice of the AGW faithful everywhere.

If you can’t respond intelligently to questions about warming, use name-calling and ad hom attacks. It’s telling that Desmog overlooks this from the ‘regulars’ but I’m used to it by now.

In the end, as they say, “the truth will set you free”!

Cheers!

p.s. to Oilman and Ian; we will not “go away” anytime soon, get used to it!

cloneman and Hank_ you do neither yourselves nor your friends the deniers any favours by spouting your dishonest nonsense. The more you post the more obvious it becomes how you lack knowledge of climate science.

It also becomes more and more obvious that you are a pair of dishonest nasty trolls who seem intent on wishing the worst possible future outcome onto future generations. That is just despicable behaviour.

http://www.climatechange.gov.au/climate-change/understanding-climate-change/response-to-prof-plimer.aspx

Actually Hank_ I got dumped on all over the place.  My behaviour is a learned reaction to you and your kind, nothing more.

Originally I thought there really was some sort of truth to what you guys would claim. But after debunking false claims time and time again, I began to realize that this is all some sort of game for you guys.  I also realized that you really don’t know what you’re talking about.  I’m positive that your role here is to spread misinformation.

Over the last 6 months or so, I’ve noticed a serious drop in attempting to offer links to the ‘facts’ you and your kind seem to like.  I know that this is because there is no truth to what you say.  It gets debunked rather instantly under a logical discussion.

And as I said, I’m only here because you are here.

P.S. to the Quislings; You will not “Get Educated” anytime soon, we’re used to it!

 

I am looking forward to your intelligent and thoughful questions as well as your calm and respectful rational debate. When were you planning to do that?

“Do you two jokers own part of DeSmog Blog or do you have compromising pictures of Chris Mooney and Christopher Monckton (with his eyes really bugged out) or something? How do you get away with your incessant name calling (in violation of the comment policy)?”

I must admit, the same thing annoys me over at WUWT. Deniers are allowed to say what they want. Realists are censored for similar offences. At least you are not censored here. WUWT could take a leaf out of desmogs book.

I tell you what. How about you start with asking “skeptic” blogs to stop using such words as warmists, alarmists, communists, socialists, fascists, marxists, leftists etc in association with those that accept AGW science.

And I’m sure that those on this side of the fence will reciprocate.


 

On the issue of AGW, the two extreme sides seem to have a lot of emotion invested in the issue. I often hear each side accusing the other’s blogs of censoring comments.

FWIW, I had a link to a climate progress post clipped from a comment at WUWT (at least I think I did):

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/16/facts-about-the-forecast-the-facts-campaign-theyre-just-another-mouthpiece-of-the-center-for-american-progress/#comment-958147

Of course, the only time I ever tried to post a comment (admittedly snarky) on climate progress, it dematerialized after a few hours. I castigated Joe Romm for writing a long post on clean energy without mentioning nuclear power.

That is why Mann has the FBI investigating the email leaks.

In fact its common practice to post someone real identity and contact information to give them a real dose of hate.  The idea being that if you can cause your enemy to fear you, maybe they’ll go away.

You wouldn’t engaging in what Chris Mooney calls black/white thinking now, would you? One thing I have to give Anthony Watts credit for, is that on his list of climate blogs, he lists some of them as “lukewarmers”. I don’t think the FBI has Judith Curry in their sights.

As much as I respect the high school he graduated from.  I don’t believe it grants him the intellect of 15,000 phds.  Nor do I believe that Monckton has a cure for Cancer and HIV and all the other crap he exclaims.

I just picture Monckton at the front of a church slapping people on the face, “Be Healed!”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hl2lShU6zD0

Yeah, sure… its all real.

What kind of complete and total idiot would trust a lier and shyster like that?  Tell me Conman, what does it take to be so utterly deluded?

FWIW, I had a link to a climate progress post clipped from a comment at WUWT (at least I think I did):”

Like I said, they censor. Ironic for a group of people that complain about censorship themselves.


 

“On the issue of AGW, the two extreme sides seem to have a lot of emotion invested in the issue.”

False equivilence. The truth about any matter of fact does not depend on whether it’s supporters behave well or poorly. And it is simply not the case that science is a political body *only*. What makes something true? A statement of fact is true if it is in fact true. Not if someone in authority says it is. That is the main difference between conservative authoritarians and science. For a conservative something is true because an authority figure says it is true. That authority then justifies them defending him by any and all means available. By violence if need be. As the history of science and of liberalism shows, conservatives will oppose *any* change with extremely violent means.

Anger and violence are based in fear. When people are afraid they defend themselves by putting up a wall of anger. The problem though is that the truth is not a respector of persons. The facts do not care that your feelings are hurt or that you are afraid. They just are.

The facts: Global warming is a fact. That human sources of CO2 are the main drivers of global warming is a fact. That the consequences of global warming will negatively effect large populations is also a fact. The only real questions are over what we should do about it and over how quickly and how much global warming will effect us. To me it seems prudent, even conservative, to prepare for the worst and hope for the best. The least effective response would be to try to pretend global warming is not happening or that it will have no serious consequences.

Liberals care about our country too. We care about our future and what kind of a world we will leave our children. The best available science says that if we do something about global warming now we can prevent great suffering and loss of capital later. I would have thought that being willing to do more with less now for a greater reward in the future would be a conservative value.

The simple fact Canman is that you have no facts on your side. It might have turned out differently. It might have turned out that global warming is not happening or that it’s consequences would not be a threat. But that didn’t happen. Reality doesn’t give a frack what *we* want. A boulder rolling down a hill doesn’t give a flying crap about those who get in the way. Even if it is really really inconvient for them to get out of the way. If you do not move it will crush you and everything you love.

The rich and powerful know all this. They believe that no matter what happens their money will buy them and their children security. They play you for a chump. They’re more than happy for you to bravely stand athwart shouting no to that boulder coming right at you. They’ll be fine. You… not so much.

You’re not a conservative Canman. You’re just a mark in the latest con.

I am not a conservative, although I agree with them on many issues. I am a small “l” libertarian.

I don’t see how the alarmist side can say that they are not authoritarians. They are the ones saying that we must leave everything up to the experts. The late Richard Feynman said: “Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts”. My favorite Feynman video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f61KMw5zVhg

Conman… Read and get educated;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism

Authoritarianism is a form of social organization characterized by submission to authority as well as the administration of said authority. It is usually opposed to individualism and libertarianism. In politics, an authoritarian government is one in which political authority is concentrated in a small group of politicians.

Denailists are taking their marching orders from an exceedingly small number of individuals.


Now, speaking of Libertarian Values… You should watch Hansen’s video again;

http://www.ted.com/talks/james_hansen_why_i_must_speak_out_about_climate_change.html

Hansen’s Republican Libertarian Economist provides a solution with ZERO government.

One more thing Conman.  I don’t believe in experts.  I’ve read the scientific papers on both sides, and frankly you guys come back wanting.  In engineering this is called a review.  When faced with too much information for a single human to understand, we do a drill down from requirements to implementation.  I’ve done a drill down through various parts of climate science.

You on the other hand like to post links to creepy bloggers who can’t do math.

“I am not a conservative, although I agree with them on many issues. I am a small “l” libertarian.”

Yes, you are a conservative. Libertarianism is one form that conservativism takes. It is essentially economic conservatism with an emphasis on limited government and without all the social issue/morality shit that is such a big part of mainstream U.S. conservatism.

—–

I don’t see how the alarmist side can say that they are not authoritarians.

Because I believe in FACTS does not make me an authoritarian. Truth is it’s own authority. If I claim “The Earth revolves around the sun” the fact that I can say it is true with absolute authority does not make me an authoritarian. But… when the Church said “The sun revolves around the Earth”. That WAS authoritarianism because it’s truth was not based in reality but in the authority of men.

So.. when I say that “Global warming is real and humans are responsible” and say so authoritatively I am not being an authoritarian because the truth of my claim does not come from any man or woman but from reality itself. When your 3rd grade math teacher taught you that 2 + 2 = 4 she was not indoctrinating you in a political ideology. She was teaching you the truth.

———-

“The late Richard Feynman said: “Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts”.”

But the opposite claim is NOT true. It is NOT true that “Disbelief in experts is science”.

What makes something true? Some statements like 2 + 2 = 4 are absoutely true in all possible worlds because we can show that “2 + 2” is defined in a way that it is really the same thing as “4”. Scientific claims are true because we can show that there is an objective fact of the world that *makes* it true. The claim that “The speed of light is 186,000 mps” is true not because we can prove it true in all possible worlds (it isn’t) like that above but because we can show that it is true of this world by referring to brute facts about our world.

In no case does any man make any claim true. However, scientists are more trustworthy than oil executives or priests because they dedicated to objective truth and not the subjective opinion of men but they do make mistakes. So citing that 97% of scientists believe in global warming doesn’t *make* it true. It just ups the odds that they are right. What makes warming a fact is that we can measure the rise in temps with instruments (and then do some statistics). Temperature is a brute fact of the world. Asserting it’s truth is authoritative but not authoritarian.

all your questions. Never rush into a sale before all your doubts about the authenticity of designer purses clear. Have you ever replica rolex like original watches. Nowadays these replica Rolex watches are available in different styles.By selling these watches, we can maintain easily the budget replica watches uk also present. Merchandise is guaranteed legitimate.The designer Michael Kors was frequently obsessed with manner and structure from a young age and began preparing clip in hair extensions Oh no… a post about the Jersey Shore crew” is probably exactly what you are thinking after reading this posts title, but it’s not about the oompa loompa, rolex replica Rolex Cellini models have Japanese Quartz movements. Date Just models are visually attractive in the first place. You could check the two tone case with black dial and blue dial. chanel bags mm gold rimmed watch with black mother of pearl colored dial self winding president watch is the perfect gift that you could present a man. The chanel replica the some other bags in the assortment. Pricing $350 SGD, them any bag that will once again easily obtainable in many different hues; trim replica rolex These types of replica watches is an sort of incredible artisanship at a low price. Their particular parts are imported from Switzerland, Asia, China and so forth to swiss replica watches reviews online is really eye catching that it immediately gets the first choice of any lady that sees it the moment. These replica rolex is powered by a mechanical movement of 17jewel. . Technical specifications and also the characteristics of CharlesHubert Paris shows mechanical replica watches expectations. It takes greater than a year to assemble more than 220 minute pieces. This really is carried out systematically by hand and is replica rolex in numerous prices. if you actually are severely searching for just about any remarkable product in an affordable broad range then it is very much better to go with rolex replica towards the Underworld doesn’t require a watch due to the fact it is actually an epitome of time keeping. Some call him a watcher rolex replica

[x]

Crossposted from PolluterWatch blog on Jay Lehr.

If you're John Stossel and you want to host a segment to rail against the US Environmental Protection Agency, who ought you call?

It turns out, a man who was convicted and sentenced to six months in prison for defrauding the EPA!

Stossel's guest last night, Jay Lehr, was sentenced to six months–serving three–in...

read more