(photoshopped photo used in previous fraudulent reports)
On July 17, ABC’s Wendy Carlisle dedicates a Background Briefing to a heroic defense of Climate Alarmism, by an extraordinarily personal smearing of Lord Monckton on his Australian lecture tour, amongst others sceptics, with innuendos of ‘big oil’ and other conspiracies. Unfortunately she then unwisely challenged Lord Monckton on his strength, the science, only to make a fool of herself and the ABC.
Ms Carlisle ridiculed Lord Monckton by trying to refute several of his criticisms of Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth” which he makes during the lecture. Embarrassingly for Ms Carlisle, she brought a knife to a gunfight, as these Lord Monckton’s very criticisms of Al Gore’s movie were upheld by no less than a Justice of UK High Court, a fact known to great numbers of the general population, but apparently not to Ms Carlisle and ‘our’ ABC.
Specifically:
#1 Four Polar Bears drowned due to Global Warming
Ms Carlisle: plays audio of Lord Monckton saying:
Lord Monckton: “Here are the polar bears we mentioned earlier…A scientific study shows they are finding polar bears swimming long distances to find the ice…did any of these polar bears according to the paper he [Al Gore] was quoting drown because they were trying to find the ice. NO. They drowned because there was a big storm with high winds and high waves and they got swamped.”
Then Ms Carlisle comments:
Ms Carlisle: The scientific paper Lord Monckton cites does not say that the polar bears drowned because of a big storm. The paper suggests that the polar bears most likely drowned because of there was less sea ice for them to rest on because of climate change. And that the drowned polar bears could be statistically significant. Voice reading from the scientific paper: “We further suggest that drowning related deaths of polar bears may increase in the future if the observed trend of regression of pack ice and longer open water periods continues.”
Ms Carlisle: “Lord Monckton is not one to let the facts stand in the way of a show.”
The Facts:
Relevant Paper: Monnett, C., and J. S. Gleason, 2006. Observations of mortality associated with extended open-water swimming by polar bears in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. Polar Biology, 29, 681-687.
The paper states in it’s Discussion: “Our observation suggest that polar bears swimming in open waters near Kaktovik drowned during a period of high winds and correspondingly rough sea conditions between 10 and 13 September 2004. No other deleterious environmental conditions were present that might have led to the deaths of those polar bears.” And “We believe that the increased risk of swimming in open water is not likely to result simply from long distance swimming as polar bears are considered strong swimmers.”. The authors do proceed to speculate that less ice and harsher wind conditions expected in the future from climate change may cause more drowning related deaths. But, Ms Carlisle, it is the study’s data that is the science, not the authors’ speculations about what might happen if some future climate trends continue.
But, Ms Carlisle should have known that Lord Monckton was correct, from no less an authority than the decision by a Justice of the UK High Court on this specific issue.
In a 2007 UK High Court case brought by Stuart Dimmock against the accuracy of Al Gore’s film, An Inconvenient Truth, Justice Burton concluded, after examining the film and scientific literature, that Gore committed nine counts of scientific inaccuracy.
On Polar bears he concludes:
Justice Burton: Mr Gore says: “A new scientific study shows that for the first time they are finding polar bears that have actually drowned swimming long distances up to 60 miles to find the ice. They did not find that before.” The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm. That is not to say that there may not in the future be drowning-related deaths of polar bears if the trend continues.
How much more secure an assertion can you make in a lecture, than one concluded by a Justice of the UK High Court.
Ms Carlisle continued: “And the show continued like this for 50 minutes with Lord Monckton repeatedly misconstruing the scientific evidence.”
#2 Melting Greenland raising sea levels
Again Ms Carlisle plays audio from the lecture:
Lord Monckton: “As Al Gore says in his movie that because of the melting of two ice sheets Greenland and the West Antarctic, sea level will rise by 20 feet imminently. But in fact, the IPCC says that because of those two ice fields the amount of contribution to sea level rise will be over the whole of the next 100 years 6 cm which is 2.5 inches, not 610 cm which is 20 feet. So there is a 100 fold exaggeration.”
Then Ms Carlisle comments:
Ms Carlisle: “On this occasion, …..Lord Monckton’s assertion that the UN’s Climate Change panel that the sea will rise by 6 cm this century is pure fiction, According to Chapter 5 of its report on sea levels the sea is expected to rise by between 20 and 50 cm this century”.
Again, Ms Carlisle appears too keen to condemn, to even take the time to understand what is being said.
The Facts:
Al Gore alleged a sea level rise of 7 meters due just to the melting of Greenland and West Antarctic sheet. Lord Monckton’s retorts that from IPCC data, the expected contribution of sea level rise from melting of Greenland and West Antarctic sheet alone, works out to be only 6cm, therefore a 100 fold exaggeration. Ms Carlisle claims the IPCC AR4 report states a much higher sea level rise of 20 to 50cm, yes, but this figure is from all causes of seal level rise, namely thermal expansion (17-28 cm), the melting of glaciers and ice caps (10-12 cm), in addition to the loss of ice from the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets.
Ms Carlisle should also have taken more care, given that Justice Burton agreed generally with Lord Monckton’s criticism in his judgment that Al Gore was being alarmist:
This is distinctly alarmist… It is common ground that if indeed Greenland melted, it would release this amount of water, but only after, and over, millennia, so that the Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of 7 metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.
Conclusion
Ms Carlisle’s ridicule of Lord Monckton’s science thus appears embarrassingly mistaken. With errors in such simple science suggesting willful incompetence and bias, what credence should be given to the rest of the program?
Can Ms Carlisle be a journalist of such a professional standards that she, with the resources of the entire ABC, did not know of this legal judgment proving Lord Monckton’s assertion during his lecture? Surely an intern with access to Google would have found it within minutes. Alternatively, did she know and mis-stated the facts in the name of a higher moral cause of saving the world? Who knows? That’s the ABC for you these days.
Ms Carlisle is free to attempt to smear Lord Monckton by implying some kind of sinister impropriety or falsehood of his message based on who organised and who paid for his lecture tour. We expect this from the ABC and we will draw our own conclusions. But Ms Carlisle is not entitled to damage Lord Monckton’s reputation and income from his tour by false allegations that “…the show continued like this for 50 minutes Lord Monckton repeatedly misconstruing the scientific evidence.
I believe Ms Carlisle and the ABC must offer to Lord Monckton a retraction and an apology in this regards.
MichaelC58
Note: I will leave to others the investigation of a third, unimportant point of whether warm blooded bears thrive in warmer climates or not, given the claimed imminent extinction of polar bears has been debunked for some years.
UPDATE: Joanne Nova list a litany of other errors in Ms Carlisle coverage of the Lord Monckton Tour here.
UPDATE: Dr D Weston Allen, author of The Weather Makers Re-examined takes issue with Wendy Carlisle here.
Her evidence for sea level rise? The IPCC says so. Groundbreaking stuff.
Excellent article. Isn’t it funny that the people that say Lord Monckton gets it wrong, get it wrong themselves. I shouldn’t get picky over such a well written piece but you say
I was totally disgusted by the ABC broadcast it did not look at the arguments but was pure tabloid smear tactics. Can someone make a formal complaint the the Broadcasting Tribunal or similar?
I’m not a wealthy person but I’m proud to have contributed to the fund to bring Christopher Monckton to Australia. I don’t work for an oil company nor do I have any vested interest in the climate debate by way of mining company shares or shares in rare earth mining. My only interest is to ensure that all Australians have access to the reality of so called “climate consensus” the consensus to have when when you’ve got an axe to grind and the science is far from settled! You could say that I’m representative of those Australians who can think for themselves and who want value for money from elected representatives.
As for the ABC’s Wendy Carlisle, the drowning of said polar bears, is completely beside the point. Polar bear populations have been increasing steadily for a decade or more and this has absolutely nothing to do with climate change. The bias of reporting from the ABC is breathtaking and a simple google search will reveal just why. This site does not provide for links and quite frankly I’m almost over providing them.
And his evidence of inventing a cure for malaria, aids and ms?
And just who did pay for his trip here?
Thank you very much http://www.nocarbontax.com.au for correcting the hopelessly inept ABC.
I’m also grateful that I don’t need to write up a post about it now too!
For those who are interested, the below three links are well worth reading.
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s1887890.htm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1545036/Polar-bears-thriving-as-the-Arctic-warms-up.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1353073/Winter-storm-Map-shows-Northern-Hemisphere-covered-snow-ice.html#ixzz1DytF0Zgq
Andy Semple
Assistant Managing Editor
Just wondering whether our schools in NSW are all informed of the “2007 UK High Court case brought by Stuart Dimmock against the accuracy of Al Gore’s film, An Inconvenient Truth, Justice Burton concluded, after examining the film and scientific literature, that Gore committed nine counts of scientific inaccuracy”..and whether this gets mentioned when teaching with the film?! Given that it is part of the curriculum it seems pretty important! And I had not heard of this before reading this!
Well done on thsi reporting, someone needs to stand up to this new ‘Emperor’s new Clothes’ type society we’re currently living in.
Wendy Carlisle has a BA degree from the University of New South Wales
Industrial Relations, Sociology
1979 – 1984
Three time finalist Eureka Science/health Journalism awards
Gold medal – New York Radio Festival “Science in a suitcase”
So how does someone with a BA in Sociology and IR end up getting Science related reporting awards?
My suggestion to the ABC would be to look at hiring people with a Science Degree or people have worked in a science field to cover debates/stories of a scientific nature. Especially in the area of “Climate Science” – where the “science is definitely not settled” – and debate amongst scientists and the public is currently very robust. It can be quite tricky to interpret data, read reports, and determine who is the real voices of wisdon are, as opposed to charlatans like Al Gore who are only out to make a quick buck. I think it is unprofessional of an ABC reporter to be quoting Al Gore’s comments as gospel, as they are largely based on the fraudulent work done by the now discredited IPCC. I expect better reporting from the tax payer funded ABC, and would be hoping for more fair and balanced arguments in the future, given that they should be representing Australian’s from both sides of politics equally.
Can I ignore anybody on here who is not a scientist?
Monika, what does the public have to do with anything? It should only be scientists who are allowed to comment.
Andy, I mean of course the New York Radio & Eureka awards were fronts for the lefty new world order who are “dark forces” looking to control us all
http://www.infowars.com/exclusive-interview-lord-monckton-talks-about-nwo-master-plan/
The ABC – and yet again our tax dollars forced to do their worst!
It doesn’t matter who paid, the Greens are funded by the big oil , read the busted climate gate emails on u tube ,it tells all from their own mouths ,funding from SHELL , BHP , rigging peer review , leaving out data , faking data , and AL Gore was exposed in Congress that he set up the carbon scam with the head of Enron at the time Ken Lay . The fact is, it impossible to predict the future or climate and models are not science and cannot predict chaotic theory which is what climate is .Its all about obsessive people trying to pull a fast one ,you cannot measure all the co2 in the ocean or know which percent did what ,Remember all they can show is a model in chapter 9 with data from the busted climate gate emails ,in other words nothing .
Bjorn Lomborg in his book CoolIt! covers the studies done on polar bears.
Pg 5
- Polar Bear numbers 5,000 in the 1960s to 25,000 today
- two areas where bears are in decline are the coldest areas!
- where they are increasing is in warmer areas!
Who cares about polar bears, they are like straw men arguments.
Do you all agree with Moncktons views on a new world order?
This is his argument on the mythology of Climate Change.
Why will no-one including Andrew Bolt answer me this?
I note with some amusement, that if you try to find an image of ms Wendy Carlisle in Google, you won’t find one.
Let me guess…our reporter is shy of publicity..?
Or is she working in cahoots with the ABC & Google to frame skeptics by suggesting that she has also received ‘death threats’ : which in turn have necessitated a pulling of all image of here from the internet.
Rex, the 2009 report from the Classic Liberal reports as follows:
A small cadre of obscure international bureaucrats are hard at work devising a system of “global governance” that is slowly gaining control over ordinary Americans’ lives. Maurice Strong, a 68-year-old Canadian, is the “indispensable man” at the center of this creeping UN power grab.
Among the hats he currently wears are: Senior Advisor to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan; Senior Advisor to World Bank President James Wolfensohn; Chairman of the Earth Council; Chairman of the World Resources Institute; Co-Chairman of the Council of the World Economic Forum; member of Toyota’s International Advisory Board. As advisor to Kofi Annan, he is overseeing the new UN reforms.
Yet his most prominent and influential role to date was as Secretary General of the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development –the so-called Earth Summit — held in Rio de Janeiro, which gave a significant push to global economic and environmental regulation.
“He’s dangerous because he’s a much smarter and shrewder man [than many in the UN system],” comments Charles Lichenstein, deputy ambassador to the UN under President Reagan. “I think he is a very dangerous ideologue, way over to the Left.”
At Rio, he challenged the governments of the developed world to extend significant financial aid—over $600 billion— to the developing world as reparation for a century of industrial development and the environmental degradation. As Director of the 1972 UN Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment, Mr. Strong successfully placed global environmental issues on the international agenda for the first time. The conference in Stockholm has come to be known as the first Earth Summit.
Obama helped fund the Chicago Climate Exchange, which Al Gore and Maurice Strong cashed in on! For years now Strong and Gore have been cashing in on that lucrative cottage industry known as man-made global warming.
The Commission on Global Governance, founded in 1992 at the suggestion of former West German Chancellor and socialist Willy Brandt. Maathai worked on the CGG alongside Maurice Strong, Jimmy Carter and Robert McNamara. The group’s manifesto, “Out Global Neighborhood,” calls for a dramatic reordering of the world’s political power – and redistribution of the world’s wealth.
Most importantly, the CGG’s proposals would phase out America’s veto in the Security Council. At the same time, it would increase UN authority over member nations, declaring, “All member-states of the UN that have not already done so should accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the World Court.” It asks the UN to prevail upon member governments to enact proposals made by wide NGOs – such as the Green Belt Movement. “Our Global Neighborhood” also suggested creating a 10,000-man “UN Volunteer Force” to be deployed at the UN’s approval on infinite peacekeeping missions everywhere (except Iraq).
In its economic section, the report calls for the international taxation of multinational corporations and for a worldwide carbon tax. A new international “Economic Security Council” would assure the world’s economic growth takes place according to “sustainable development” principles. The IMF would be given the ability to interfere in the economic policies of member nations “to ensure that domestic economic policies in major countries are not…damaging to the rest of the international community.” Call it pre-emptive regulation.
Oh, so you do believe all his bullsh*t, haha I thought you guys had critical thinking skills, hence the skepticism?
Lordy Lord, you will really believe any old dog whistle craziness.
Aqua,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/crossing_continents/4701541.stm
http://www.thegalileomovement.org/
really good slide show, worth reading and listening to if you want proof regarding viscount monckton’s credentials and veracity ! lots of learned argument , you will be convinced !
Quote = Aqua Fyre, “is she working in cahoots with the ABC & Google to frame skeptics by suggesting that she has also received ‘death threats’ : which in turn have necessitated a pulling of all image of here from the internet.”
Thanks for me letting me see into the mind of a nutjob. Is this seriously how you wingnuts think?
You guys must be so conflicted over the fact that Murdoch is pushing your agenda, but yet he is also part of the problem. Unless of course Murdoch is “freedom fighter” for the underdog?
Nobody really knows how many bears there were in the 1950s and 1960s. Estimates then were based on anecdotal evidence provided by hunters or explorers and not by scientific surveys.
Polar bears are affected by several factors, including hunting, pollution and oil extraction. Most notably, hunting, particularly following the introduction of snowmobiles, airplanes and ice breakers, led to a huge decline in certain subpopulations. The introduction of the International Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears in 1973, which restricted or even banned hunting in some circumstances, consequently resulted in an increase in polar bear numbers.
Not all subpopulations are affected to the same degree by climate change, and while some subpopulations are well studied, for others there is insufficient data to make broad statements about current and past numbers.
With this caveat in mind, what do the figures actually say? According to a 2009 report by the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group, of the 19 recognised subpopulations of polar bears, 8 are in decline, 1 is increasing, 3 are stable and 7 don’t have enough data to draw any conclusions.
Both habitat degradation and over-harvesting are responsible for the decline in some subpopulations. To understand why the IUCN and US Endangered Species Act consider polar bears to be at risk, it is important to look at how rising temperatures are likely to affect their habitat in the future. Polar bears are highly specialised mammals which rely heavily on sea ice for food and other aspects of their life cycle. Satellite data show that Arctic sea ice has been decreasing for the past 30 years, and projections show that this trend will continue as temperatures carry on rising. The changes in sea ice affect polar bears in several ways:
The early retreat of summer sea ice means that bears have less time to hunt and therefore less time to build up fat reserves.
The fragmentation and reduction in sea ice has several impacts. It forces the bears to swim longer distances, using up some of their fat reserves. It also reduces the number of seals, which are the bears’ main source of food, and impedes travelling and den making. And it also forces the bears to spend more time on land, with increased interactions with humans potentially leading to higher mortality.
To get an idea of the potential impacts of future climate change on polar bears, we can look at subpopulations found at the bears’ southern range, where habitat changes have been most noticeable so far. A good example is the western Hudson Bay subpopulation, which is one of the best studied. Here, ice floe break-up is taking place earlier than 30 years ago, effectively reducing the feeding period by about three weeks. As a result, the average weight of female polar bears has dropped by about 21% between 1980 and 2004, and the population declined by 22% between 1987 and 2004. In Alaska, there is evidence of increased cub mortality caused by a decline in sea ice.
In conclusion, the reason polar bears have been classed as threatened comes from the impacts of future climate change on the bears’ habitat. Current analysis of subpopulations where data is sufficient clearly shows that those subpopulations are mainly in decline. Further habitat degradation will increase the threats to polar bears.
Rebuttal written by Anne-Marie Blackburn. Last updated on 30 September 2010.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/polar-bears-global-warming.htm
Wow…..
http://www.thegalileomovement.org/
Monckton is proven to be full of rubbish… How can you all believe his absolute rubbish?
Hey Rex…
Great name for a DOG…
Which you clearly are…
Ther only thing I need to work out, is
A. Are you Julia’s Poodle ?
B. An olde Drover’s Dog ?
C. Or an ABC / Union mongrel reporter who likes nothing better than licking his own Balls for entertainment.
Hey Rex & Dave,
You really are a pair of vocationally challenged illiterates, possibly because being ferrets, you spend too much time with your heads stuck in a hole.
Try this amigos:
FOREWORD by SPPI
“Christopher Monckton has issued an extensive and detailed critique and refutation of a widely circulated 83-minute personal attack on him by one J.P. Abraham, a lecturer in fluid mechanics at the University of St. Thomas, Minnesota.
Professor Abraham’s 83-minute lecture with 115 slides purported to demolish a talk about climate change that Lord Monckton had given in St. Paul, Minnesota, in October 2009. More than 2.5 million people have seen Monckton’s talk on YouTube, making it one of the most popular viewings on the web.
In June 2010, Abraham posted up an attack on the internet via the servers of the University of St. Thomas. Within a week, Monckton’s response letter with its near-500 questions was in Abraham’s hands, to which he has not responded as challenged.”
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/response_to_john_abraham.pdf
Aqua Fyre; I thought Rex’s dog breeding got mixed up with the goats.
Did you actually listen/watch the rebuttal of moncktons work and see the responses made by the actual scientists who monckton quoted ? . Monckton ALWAYS responds with another set of information which sounds plausible, but on close examination proves to have omitted arguments that would weaken his position .But thats his strategy , keep on muddying the waters so that the science is discredited and the general population will remain confused long enough for industry to postpone making any changes that might mitigate the situation . He has learnt from other right wingers who practiced the same strategy for the past 50 years.This has been the case with the ozone layer, acid rain, tobacco use and now climate change. It interesting that most of you here resort to name calling when your opinions are questioned , PAG , in what way am I illiterate, or vocationally challenged ? I generally don’t resort to name calling as its a usually a sign that one has run out of logical arguments. Perhaps you were one of the people who began to jostle and threaten wendy carlyle when she was at Monckton’s lecture ?
I try to keep an open mind on all these issues, the science is not definite ( it never is ) , but I know a charlatan when i see one, and i am afraid that Mr Monckton falls into this category, like Michael Moore he undermines his credibility by omitting facts. The most unsavoury side is his world govt conspiracy theory, which is so far fetched that you just know that he’s cracked. Also his pronouncements about his cures for multiple diseases, his twisting and omission of facts and quotes from sources and his constant insulting behaviour towards his critics,( calling Abrahams a ” so called professor ” which he did this week . He is very quick to throw insults around , to question the credentials of his critics ( usually by implying that they are left wingers ) and by making bloody daft claims regarding the nobel prize and house of lords fiasco. Given the standard of debate here , I can see that he is in good company .
I bid you rather unpleasant ladies and gentlemen g’day , but not good luck .
Dave ole’ son, you are in fact a vocationally challenged illiterate, and a ferret, because you choose to cherry pick what suites your ideology, or whatever hole you are living in. Btw, how’s your alter ego ‘Rex’ today ??
If you had one ounce of an “………open mind on all these issues………” then you would be actively looking for rebuttals on any issue, and more particularly, issues involving climate science where you purport to believe that ”………the science is not definite ( it never is )…….
In other words Amigo, you are full of bullshit, but what is even more worrisome is that you choose to be full of bullshit.
http://vodpod.com/watch/5828004-climategate-hide-the-decline-explained-by-berkeley-professor-richard-a-muller
We’ve got a budgie named Rex.
He CAN talk but he only repeats things that he hears.
I don’t think he can actually think for himself.
PAYG once again, you resort to insults because you have nothing to say that proves your point , you are in fact doing exactly the same thing that you accuse me of doing. Cherry picking facts that suit ( not suite BTW, just to enquire, what sort of suite are you talking about, the musical one or a set of palatial rooms ? ) your ( IMHO ) delusional argument . The trouble is , your argument goes against the vast body of established science , the evidence that the environment is seriously degraded world wide, the widespread decimation of species, the serious decline in the oceans , but most significantly , it also depends on a belief in a world wide left wing conspiracy that somehow has managed to encompass governments of all persuasions, scientists of almost every political hue ( although unfortunately not the utterly right wing kind) and which aims to deprive every nation of its sovereign rights.
The capacity of human beings to believe almost anything fanciful and to blissfully follow mountebanks like Mr Monckton has been proven repeatedly , all of us tend to believe in people who mirror our world views , we have a vested interest in doing so. I am neither of the right or left, i think of myself as a middle of the road person who tries to avoid extremes of any kind , as i am fully aware that both far sides of politics are, as you so delightfully put it ‘ full of bullshit ” . I DO keep an open mind , I have studied the climate change arguments as far as I am capable from both sides and I have discussed the issues with scientists at work . They are all firmly behind the established science, they are not government funded and they prefer to rely on the expert peer reviewed science they read in respected journals rather that the cherry picked snippets chosen by Mr Monckton , Lets quote a few ripe bits of his reply to professor Abrahams, who was polite and pretty respectful towards the Monck during his slideshow. Compare his answer to Abrahams .http://cfact.eu/2010/06/04/climate-the-extremists-join-the-debate-at-last/
http://www.skepticalscience.com/abraham-reply-to-monckton.html
Monckton
” . 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.
Another “George Monbiot, a scribbler for the British Marxist daily propaganda sheet, The Guardian. Well, like Abraham, he is a “scientist”. Trouble is, he’s a fourteenth-rate zoologist”
Now I don’t have much time for Monbiot, in his own way he’s a bad as Monckton, but the least the Viscount could do is to try to be civil. Unfortunately he’s not capable of it, he loses his temper very quickly when you press the right buttons – just as it seems you do PAYG . you are eminently suited to each other.
I note you have no reply regarding the more fanciful aspects of Mr Monckton’s personality and you don’t explain your rather quaint insult, I attempted to decipher the phrase and the best I can come up with is that you believe I am a four legged sexually dimorphic predator who has no particular occupation to which I am suited or drawn to . In addition you believe that I am also unable to read and write (or that possibly I display a lack of culture) I will admit to occasionally expectorating and to picking my nose in the car, but as far as I know you haven’t been following me around to see me doing this . But I digress, since i am a professional with five years of tertiary education, who has practiced successfully in a number of different fields in technology and a variety of dsiciplines for the past 35 years , I really don’t think that your description is an accurate one .
So Amigo , if i choose to be full of bullshit, at least my bullshit has a hell of a lot more going for it than the angry ,hateful, ignorant , prejudiced , spiteful, arrogant , illogical, intolerant and above all monumentally stupid crapulence with which you are so evidently crammed full to bursting point I leave you to wallow in your spiteful little universe and this time I depart knowing full well that its a total waste of time trying to reason with a bunch of loonies who have utterly closed minds on this issue. Fare thee well oh miserable ones
Do people actually think Monckton has any credibility in the science community or do they just support him because he is telling them what they want to hear?
He has no science credentials at all – let alone in climatology. He has lied all through his presentations by claiming he is a member of the House of Lords in England to the extent that they have told him to desist from doing it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jul/18/climate-monckton-member-house-lords?INTCMP=SRCH
And he also claims to have a cure all for the likes of Aids, multiple sclerosis, influenza and other incurable diseases.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/sep/21/climate-sceptics-evidence-gullible?INTCMP=SRCH
Someone here has even admitted to contributing to funding this snake oil salesman and fraudster. There really is one born every minute.
Turns out Adam Spencer was right – Monckton should not be claiming to be part of the house of Lords.
http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2011/july/letter-to-viscount-monckton/
I hope he hasn’t been lying to us about anything else.
PAYG,
I don’t think we should be quoting from SPPI.
They are a very compromised organisation.
The SPPI claims to be free from affiliation from any corporation. However, its President Robert Ferguson heads the Center for Science and Public Policy (CSPP) which receives funding from oil company Exxon Mobil. According to its website, the CSPP is a project of Frontiers of Freedom, which received US$1,037,000 from ExxonMobil between 2001 and 2006. Sourcewatch claims that the SPPI was formerly the CSPP. Both the SPPI and the CSPP continue to operate, with the two organisations using separate websites. They both operate from units at 209 Pennsylvania Ave, Washington D.C., with Robert Ferguson as President with the SPPI and Executive Director with the CSPP and Willie Soon as Chief Science Researcher of both organisations.
Alex Bruce,
Thank God for that, it’s better than I thought. For a minute there I though you had some sort of proof of corruption or that they are linked to the multi$billion dollar green energy carpetbaggers and the Government’s bottomless funding tit.
After all it’s not much more than a person, any person can take to his or her grave except ones reputation and you wouldn’t engage in any attempt to put shit, or even unproven shit, on another’s reputation, would you ??
A bigger insult would have been if you could, some how, have linked SPPI toMann – Bradley – Hughes 1998fiasco, or should I say, somewhat unconventional scientific machinations. Perhaps you could make this your next project, or did you candle blow out and your out of flint rocks to fire it up again ??
Btw, have checked out any of the places where Green Peace gets some of its money from ??
http://activistcash.com/organization_financials.cfm/o/131-greenpeace
@Dave
“The most unsavoury side is his world govt conspiracy theory, which is so far fetched that you just know that he’s cracked.”
Dave, thanks for a fair opinion, with which I must disagree.
Regarding his science, Abraham’s critique was unhinged, and he silently retracted some of criticisms, when challenged.
Regarding World Government, I would have agreed 2 years ago – but now it’s no longer a conspiracy theory, it’s an open agenda – in fact you can’t stop people openly promoting it – Bob Brown, EU president and indeed the Copenhagen Treaty had a go. It’s not a coup d’état, of course, it’s an accretion of powers by international bureaucrats – in EU and UN.
MichaelC58
Some truly nice and utilitarian info on this web site , as well I think the design and style holds fantastic features.
She definitely needs to apologize for this so much. This was definitely a big error and she does not even realize it. I hope to see that she does it. Toronto windows and doors
[...] Lord Monckton’s science embarrassingly wrong … or not. [...]
[...] “science-fiction horror show”, namely sea levels and polar bears. In light of the ABC’s recent attempt to portray him as a liar over the issue, Lord Monckton has explained how he has demanded a right of reply from the ABC (the [...]
[...] funny that no one seems to provide a specific example of such a case, and the latest attempt by the ABC to do so, has resulted with egg on their face. The latest developments are at Jo Nova’s blog [...]
[...] weeks winner of the Climate Fool Award is the ‘journalist’ Wendy Carlisle for the backfiring of her witchunt against Lord Monckton. She is not the first and certainly won’t be the last to be made a fool of by this guy, but [...]
[...] Wendy Carlisle’s errors were explained in detail in a previous post. [...]