The truth about the “Lord” claim
I care not about the UK peerage, but for the record, when people mockingly claim Christopher Monckton is not a Lord it shows just how desperate they are to attack the man and distract people from hearing his arguments.
The correct answer when people say: “He’s not a Lord” is one line.
The Letters Patent grants him a peerage, and his passport lists him as a Viscount. You really are scared of talking about scientific evidence aren’t you?
Attacks on his title are ad hominem remarks — designed to suggest he can’t be trusted to speak about anything else. The truth is a complex legal debate borne from that the centuries old messy ancient liaison between the British monarchy and UK Parliament. Do you want to talk historic legal technicalities or science?
There is no deception on the part of Christopher Monckton. He has never claimed he was a voting member of the House of Lords in the UK. He inherited the title the Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley from his father and grandfather before that. It is indeed inscribed on his passport as such, I can confirm.
For we uninformed Australians, the title Viscount is ranked above the more common Baron, but beneath that of Dukes, Marquess, and Earls. All of the above can use the term “Lord”.
Monckton explains the complex legal situation:
“The House of Lords Act 1999 debarred all but 92 of the 650 Hereditary Peers, including my father, from sitting or voting, and purported to – but did not – remove membership of the Upper House. Letters Patent granting peerages, and consequently membership, are the personal gift of the Monarch. Only a specific law can annul a grant. The 1999 Act was a general law. The then Government, realizing this defect, took three maladroit steps: it wrote asking expelled Peers to return their Letters Patent (though that does not annul them); in 2009 it withdrew the passes admitting expelled Peers to the House (and implying they were members); and it told the enquiry clerks to deny they were members: but a written Parliamentary Answer by the Lord President of the Council admits that general legislation cannot annul Letters Patent, so I am The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (as my passport shows), a member of the Upper House but without the right to sit or vote, and I have never pretended otherwise.”
Do I think that this an unwelcome distraction and he should stop using the title? I used to. Now though I am convinced that were Monckton to appear completely untouchably reasonable, like say Anthony Watts or Dr David Evans, the media would ignore him too. It’s part of his clown disguise, and it reels the small minds in. It’s rather pathetic that the level of discourse is so damningly poor that this sort of theatrical flag has any place in the public debate about whether we should spend billions on trying to change the weather. It’s as if the kindy kids escaped into the Editorial Department of major mastheads.
“It’s on his passport. Excuse me, but I think your attack-dog is off his leash.”
Can we talk about something that matters please?
UPDATE: Can Monckton Claim to be a member of the House of Lords (a non-voting one)? Yes.
According to a constitutional lawyer. Yes, quite so. From WUWT:
Monckton, on returning from Australia from his tour this autumn, consulted Hugh O’Donoghue, a leading constitutional lawyer at Carmelite Chambers, overlooking the River Thames just a mile downstream from the Houses of Parliament. His question: “Am I or am I not a member of the House of Lords?”
O’Donoghue, who specializes in difficult human-rights cases and Peerage law, spent months carefully researching Monckton’s question. He says Lord Monckton “was and is correct at all points”. The conclusion of his 11-page opinion (see PDF at bottom of this article) , reviewing 1000 years of Peerage law, is clear on the issue:
“Lord Monckton’s statement that he is a member of the House of Lords, albeit without the right to sit or vote, is unobjectionable. His claim is not a false or misleading claim. It is legitimate, proportionate, and reasonable. Likewise, Lord Monckton was correct when he wrote to the US Congress that ‘Letters Patent granting Peerages, and consequently membership [of the House of Lords], are the personal gift of the Monarch. Only a specific law can annul a grant. The 1999 Act was a general law.’ He legitimately drew attention to a parliamentary answer by no less a personage than the Leader of the House, making it plain that the Act was a general law and not a particular law that might have had the effect of revoking Letters Patent. We now have the recent authority of the High Court, in the Mereworth case, for Lord Monckton’s assertion that the 1999 Act did not revoke or annul his Letters Patent. Unless and until such revocation takes place, Lord Monckton remains a member of the House of Lords, and he is fully entitled to say so.”
O’Donoghue-lords-opinion (PDF 335k)
Other related posts:
The Fog of War — more propaganda against Monckton
Monckton stirs the pot with a cheap shot, and the media obediently perform
University witchdoctors speak out, and the frightened are fleeing!
See all posts tagged “Christopher Monckton”
UPDATE!: The Climate change debate between Lord Christopher Monckton and Richard Dennis will be televised tonight on ABC 24 at 10pm! h/t Tony Gomme.
UPDATE#2: Andy Semple is helping to spread the word and titled his post:
I can’t get over how ridiculous this article by Lewandowsky is, regarding how skeptics don’t engage in debate.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2798990.html
I truly am in the twilight zone. When they get this ridiculous you know that AGW is at it’s peak.
Don’t often agree with Howard but I think he had it dead right when he talked about how the Greens were extremists and that they had peaked. He acknowledged the dubious nature of the “science consensus” as well, so I assume it is well on it’s way to becoming common knowledge among politicos.
Can we declare the Green Carbon Scare bubble burst?
20
Hi have the utmost respect for the members of the upper house in the UK – for one very good reason…
A few years back I used to live, with my father and mother in a small UK seaside town called Swanage in Dorset – unfortunately a purely profit seeking developer had set their eyes on throwing up the worst Spanish style off-pink development going – namely a rats nest complex of flats and town houses combined with a separate harbor – the locals wanted nothing of it. Scientific reports were written showing the proposed harbor would wash away the beach… A petition was written showing a universal NO to the development – but what did the local town council do? Well, they passed the darn thing through… Although there was one step in the legal process they forgot – namely that development below the low water mark in the UK had to go through parliament and the Upper House…
Come the day of the vote, the chamber was nearly empty with those in support sitting there looking very happy for themselves – yet come the division bell – Lords of all shapes and sizes appeared literally out of the woodwork and killed the bill dead!
20
Hey there wotsisface who decided to drag out this sorely beaten dead horse:
Classic own goal dude. With people like you against us we can’t lose. Keep up the good work you nong. Were you angling for a job at the ABC?
Lord Monckton – thank you for getting the messages out so succinctly, clearly and humourously. I noticed the teary eyed crowd, whom I can only assume were the getup puppets. The teary eyes indicate to me that their belief system has fatally been speared with reason and logic as well as the knowledge that 90% of australia will not follow their green/red agenda.
10
Madjak I didn’t see the debate; can you give us your thoughts on it
10
What’s more, pointing out that he (or anyone else) is not a scientist, is also diversionary.
Someone’s position, qualifications, income (and its origins) do not change one iota whether or not what they’re saying is truthful.
Got a problem with what someone says? Address what they’re saying; addressing anything else doesn’t prove squat.
10
he’ll always be a lord to me (just posting so i can check the “email new comments box), oh and can someone post a transcript of the
debateor should i say massacre?Cheers
Crakar24
10
There will be arguments in Britain about whether hereditary peerages should be dropped but then theyd have to do the works..tell the Queen to resign and end the whole system of aristocracy.
It seems just an alarmist distraction for the warmists to denigrate Monckton about such trivial crap after all its his business and is not relevant to his arguments.
10
Val,
I was there at the debate, and Monckton held his own – Richard Denniss argued from the logical fallacy of the consensus and authority. Some of the audience were from 1 million women and basically a sneering, ridiculing bunch of harridan’ though mindful not to be too loud lest the ushers led them out.
About 30? Sceptics present (I was in far LH corner) to the left of Monckton, table 18, and Monckton told me he noticed the more enthusiastic applause of the Sceptics. I noticed it as well, ours being a little more animated than the, almost, dead-handed pro AGW present. Monckton’s opponents appeared generally glum, and only at the end started to peer at us in the corner, suddenly realizing we were not “one of them”. I sometimes felt like I was in a cage in a zoo being thrown peanuts.
Overall Monckton won the debate, made his point, referred to the literature, while Denniss spent some time belittling the skeptics on being economic Sceptics as well, admonshing us for not criticizing the Liberal direct action policy.
Most Sceptics seemed to be very old people, couple of young ones, (I learnt that most in the air force are Sceptics etc).
Lunch was a lump of cooked salmon, carrots julienned, fluffy arboria rice and some sorry baby broccoli sticks. Wine in my case was cab-Sauvignon, good winter refreshment.
And it is bloddy cold in Canberra.
10
Monckton had the debate moderator read out his UK passport – he is a peer, and entitled to the honorific “Lord”.
The only table that was conspicuous was one seating members of the 1 million women – condescending, ridiculing lot but when it came to applause” the small number of Sceptics clapped more enthousiastically than the rest. Monckton told me that he noticed it. Denniss’ applause seemed a little muted by comparison, but made up with laughter and ridicule when Denniss started to belittle the skeptics. Usual occurrence of ALP vilification for the Sceptics rather than arguing the case.
Here’s Louis Hissink (and I’m a fan of his) comment on Bolt
Monckton was, in debating, the winner. Summed up his case well and admonished the audience to check out the facts.
And the facts are that the test of the greenhouse effect has, as demonstrated by Wood 100 years ago, been replicated in full using modern instrumentation and that CO2 does not, and cannot stop IR radiation leaving the earth.
The CAGW hypothesis has been falsified again.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/monckton_rebuked/desc/#commentsmore
Looking forward to hearing Louis’ report on the debate
10
Reading the comments on Andrew Bolt’s blog about the debate suggests Lord Monckton won “hands down “.
Also on the blog was this reference in relation to Jo’s comment above
http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/letters-patent/
I find it interesting the AGW crowd devote so much effort over this ” is he really a Lord ?” rubbish. But they cannot refute his comments or facts. I linked Jo’s thread giving the Perth speech in a response to one of the paid ALP/Getup posters on Bolt’s blog about 10 days ago. To my knowledge he/she has not made one comment about — they just cannot pick holes in it.
10
val,
The debate was civil on all sides. his opponent was an economist who was only using argument by authority and the precautionary principle. This gave lcm the opportunity to get the do your homework message to the audience. The questions from the press showed many if them up as being ill informed leftards more interested in trying to undermine lcms air of authority than anything else. He put a couple of them through the mincer as a consequence. For example one of them brought up the threats to scientists thing. lcms response was to ask why they didn’t report about threats to sceptics like tattoos or gassing sceptics etc.
If this debate gets more airplay, the ALP will be finished and australia will be known as the country with mediocre academics but a populace which is too independantly minded to be manipulated.
10
Nobody is saying he’s not a peer with a title. He’s just not a member of the House of Lords. The passport claim is a diversion, as it is the answer to whether or not he has a title/is some sort of peer, not whether or not he is or has ever been a member of the house of lords.
Rather than this showing how desparate people are to play the man, it shows how resistant MoB is to even the slightest element of truth.
10
Louis great to hear from you and Madjak thanks for your reply
Wish I could have been there and Louis it was at great effort on your part
We appreciate it!
10
UPDATE!: The Climate change debate between Lord Christopher Monckton and Richard Dennis will be televised tonight on ABC 24 at 10pm! h/t Tony Gomme.
MAttb: They attack Monckton for calling himself a Lord. They say he is not and misrepresents himself. They mislead, lie and distract at every turn. What a waste of time. It makes no difference to the climate.
Where are their apologies for the false attacks?
20
I smelled a rat at the very beginning and i can say with hand on heart i have never met a defence force employee who believes in this crap.
10
MattB at #12
Well I don’t know about “it shows how resistant MoB is to even the slightest element of truth”. He was citing peer reviewed science all over the place. Richard Denniss kept on and on about groups like the CSIRO. I do work with CSIRO sometimes – they have good gear and mean well, but you have to tell them what to do or it comes out a useless mess. And NAS, well they managed to prove the worst and most flagrant example of “even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” over Lindzen & Choi 2011. Disgraceful.
10
YOU MUST SEE HIM IN ACTION WHEN HE WAS ASKED THIS QUESTION AT THE Press Club today. He creamed the opposition as usual. All the Green could do was argue from authority and one little girl who asked questions looked very stupid. The arguments from authority were pathetic, I could have done a better job myself. One thing Monckton did reply was this issue of an insurance policy likening it to investing in a large cricket bat to defend the world against meteorite attaack. I would have liket to see him develop this argument eg non of us has a prostactectomy just in case we might get prostate cancer because of the costs and side effects when we can wait for symptoms to occur and then decide if the disease is worse than the cure
10
[…] See JoNova for insights by people present. Overall Monckton won the debate, made his point, referred to the […]
10
Bruce for the life of me I have no idea how an economist ended up debating Monckton. It plays in to his hands as his main trick is to cite and misrepresent peer reviewed science. Should have had Tim Lambert again.
Jo, sorry but you are wrong… they correct MoB for calling himself a member of the house of lords.
Read the letter:
“In particular, I have listened to your recent interview with Mr Adam Spencer on Australian radio. In response to the direct question, whether or not you were a Member of the House of Lords, you said “Yes, but without the right to sit or vote”. You later repeated, “I am a Member of the House”.
I must repeat my predecessor’s statement that you are not and have never been a Member of the House of Lords. Your assertion that you are a Member, but without the right to sit or vote, is a contradiction in terms.”
MoB even thinks he had a peer reviewed paper in 2008!
10
The case for the AGW precautionary principle is easily shot down with a rebuttle precautionary principle.
If we do do “the something” the AGW are proposing, like shutting down our base load power supplies, based on a lie and the world goes into a cooling phase (like some scientists are suggesting is a possibility sooner rather than later) then many more will die from cold and the inability to heat their homes.
Methinks my precautionary principle beats theirs.
10
“eg non of us has a prostactectomy just in case we might get prostate cancer because of the costs and side effects when we can wait for symptoms to occur and then decide if the disease is worse than the cure”\
yet in fact some women DO have masectomys.
10
The losers of the left both here and in the UK play the aristocratic card,
They do it to imply that because someone is a Lord, Duke, Earl etc. they are not one of us,therefore their opinion is not worth listening to.Having these titles today are virtually irrelevant, but because Monckton is a whole lot smarter than his socialist detractors they have to attempt ridicule
Sorry Comrades, Christopher is much smarter than you will ever be.
10
This is a little off the topic of Christopher Monckton, (and I hope Joanne forgives me this move away from the main topic) but in fact, this goes directly to the core of the debate.
Let’s actually pretend for a minute that we need to reduce the emissions of CO2.
This new tax is ‘hoped’ to reduce CO2 emissions by 5%.
The Greens say that is nowhere near enough.
Okay then, I can show you a way to actually reduce emissions by between 25 and 30%
The solution is what is actually perceived as being the actual problem.
Coal Fired Power.
If you were to replace every coal fired power plant in Australia with the newer technology coal fired plants they are already constructing in China at the rate of one every seven days, then this of itself would in fact decrease those emissions by that 25 to 30%.
That new technology produces more power, burns less coal, burns it more efficiently, and emits less CO2.
CO2 Emissions Reduction – A Radical Plan explains in detail how this can be achieved.
This may seem incredible, but it is absolutely true. What’s more it’s cheaper than anything renewable, and by cheaper I mean a quantum level cheaper.
There are some readers at this Blog who might find this incredible, and they’ll be positively apoplectic after reading this.
Again, Joanne, please forgive me for straying from the main topic, but this needs to be seen to be believed.
There’s also a chart that should frighten a lot of people, because I know it frightens me.
Tony.
10
I was also at the debate, sitting with (mostly!) skeptics at Table 17.
Richard Denniss, the Executive Director of the left wing think tank The Australia Institute, and an economist, opened the debate. He started with a medical analogy, asking what the audience would do if they were advised by their doctor that they had skin cancer and that the treatment would be nasty but effective etc etc.
He said we need to take the hard decisions. He appealed to the authority of the IPCC, CSIRO, Aust Academy of Science etc. He claimed many conservatives eg Thatcher, Howard, Turnbull etc had decided to do something about Climate Change.
He stated it was immature not to take out insurance. He attacked Tony Abbot, saying that no economist thought that his scheme was a good idea.
He said many times that the consensus science should guide our actions.
Monckton spoke next.He talked about climate sensitivity, and that very few climate scientists were doing measurements/science in this field, and that the consensus there is 1DegC not 3.3DegC. He stated that the consensus among economists is that it is cheaper to deal with any consequences of warming, if it occurs, if and when they occur. He admonished the press to do their homework. The debate on both sides was civil.
The questions were mostly to Monckton. He was asked:
1. About the Lord thing. He shot this down by producing his passport and slaughtering the reporter who raised the subject.
2. About Abbot’s plan. He said that he thought it was silly – economists don’t support doing anything about CO2.
3. He was asked if he was against pollution. He said yes but that CO2 wasn’t pollution. In fact it was a fertiliser, and that 2xCO2 = 40% more crops. At that point a lady at our table said “rubbish”. I tried to tell her about co2science.org and their database, but this lady who claimed to be a practicing botanist wasn’t having any of that rubbish, refusing to talk to me. Oh well!
All in all, a worthwhile debate. I wonder how the press will report it.
10
2xCO2 = 40% more crops..verified by experiment..Hmm wonder if she would dare to repeat the experiment?
20
Tony is that all emissions including particulates and SO2?
Well sounds fine for more efficiency..shsh dont tell Bob how to use more “durdy coal”.
10
I have said this before, there is no such thing as a climatologist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! To be one of those you need the following expertise:
Astrophysics
Physics
Mathematics
Statistics
Geology
Oceanology
Vulcanology
Cryosphere (ology is there a word for this)
and the list goes on and on and on
Below is a link to the biography of one Micheal E Mann, the opening line states he is a climatologist and his education is limited to “Dr. Mann received his undergraduate degrees in Physics and Applied Math from the University of California at Berkeley, an M.S. degree in Physics from Yale University, and a Ph.D. in Geology & Geophysics from Yale University.”
This does not qualify him to be called a climatologist.
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/features/moving-by-degrees/bios/mann.html
Do people get all nasty about Mann claiming falsely to the title of climatologist? Of course not but maybe we should from now on.
10
Mattb: Try this then, from the UK parliament site:
Letters Patent create a life peerage in the House of Lords and are issued by the Queen. Recipients become Members of the Lords automatically when Letters Patent are received. Recipients can then be written to at the Lords, using their new title of Lord or Baroness. They cannot sit or vote until their Introduction.
And actually, you know full well that there are many many claims that Monckton is not even a Lord. So since you are so concerned about the Truth, and now presumably admit he can call himself a Lord, I take it you’ll hound those mistaken bigots to issue an apology right?
10
Its good that he’s a lord. It makes him so much more silly.
He is, however, amazingly good at what he does. Just a shame he doesn’t use that talent for something more worthwhile.
10
TonyfromOz @ 22
There is another advantage of going down this road.
Super-critical steam power generation represents improvements in boiler, turbine, generator and ancillary equipment technology, with each area contributing to the overall reduced coal consumption for greater power output. However it is the area of actual boiler design that represents the bulk of design improvements and subsequent savings.
At the moment the wait time for suitable generators is at least three to five years, and for turbines five to seven. But the boilers and coal crushers/pulverisers that feed them can be built now. We could start building them tomorrow at places like Hazelwood and Bayswater, and when completed, transfer their steam output to the existing turbine/generator sets.
New technology turbines and generators could be added when available.
Of course Brownshirt Bob would never have a bar of it.
10
It’s clear to me that anyone who uses the cancer treated with chemo argument has never ever seen a child go through chemo.
10
Among his silly, fallacious arguments, Dr. Denniss used the old “ignoring climate scientists is like ignoring oncologists” argument. Actually it’s more like ignoring one oncologist and listening instead to homeopaths, reiki knights, chiropractors and breatharian healers. Al Gore likes comparing the climate with a feverisg child, but we must first determine whether the child even has a raised temperature before wondering whether to believe a consensus of quacks or one lone GP.
Here’s another analogy:
A man feels a little queasy in the tummy occasionally and sees a GP, who asks, “When do you suffer this queasiness? After meals, perhaps?”
“Well, yes, actually. Could it be cancer?”
The GP says, “More likely indigestion, I think. I observe that you’re a stout trencherman.”
Nonetheless, the man asks for tests and a referral to a specialist.
The man is unhappy, and still feels a slight twinge in the stomach after only his third burger some evenings.
The specialist tells him that there’s nothing wrong with him apart from some undoubted effects of over-eating. “You could afford to lose some weight but, otherwise, you’re in very good shape.”
The man goes to a psychic healer who tells him that he was right to doubt the medical establishment. Computer modelling demonstrates that his queasy stomach is actually incipient osseocarnisanguineoviscericartilaginonervomedullary ganglianitis compounded by osteosarchæmatosplanchnochondroneuromuelalgia caused by excessive dihydrogen monoxide poisoning, twenty other psychic healers at her well-credentialled practice agree—and she has a doctorate of advanced psychic healing, and two masters degrees in massage and film appreciation—; he needs immediate, weekly therapy which will cost him only $100,000 a treatment for twelve weeks.
Now, which medical opinion would our beloved PM prefer?
10
I met Lord Monckton after the debate and briefly told him about a Canberra initiative: http://www.accessipcc.com/
This is an analysis of AR4, identifying what is not peer-reviewed, what is self-referenced, what is modelled rather than measured, what is by “persons of interest” [eg Mann, Trenberth, Jones &co]etc etc. Well worth a look!
[I also said hello to Richard Denniss, explaining that I didn’t agree with almost 100% of what he said, but thanked him for the debate.]
10
Well look Jo if the house of lords wrote a letter sayihg “he is a Lord” then detractors would shut up. They haven’t done so, so If I was comparing evidence I’d say the letter trumps the website.
10
LOL..silly..yes…BUT
That would mean the people Monkton easily defeats in “debates” must be truly cretinous..
Not quite what you were meaning I know.. 🙂
You just dont see too many intellectual giants in debates supporting CAGW..they must be busy..
I know..how about..95% of CAGW supporters are not good at debating…:)
CAGW supporters should stick to what they are best at..losing data/deleting emails/ad hominem attacks/appeals to authority/broad generalisations/smears/sarcasm…and scary stories with models..
10
““Dr. Mann received his undergraduate degrees in Physics and Applied Math from the University of California at Berkeley, an M.S. degree in Physics from Yale University, and a Ph.D. in Geology & Geophysics from Yale University.””
To be frank Crackar… he ticks pretty much all of the important boxes you list.
Vulcanologist? Now that is more spurious than climatologist if you are being picky about qualifications. I’m not convinced you need to be an astrophysicist.
I must add that as I have a degree in physics, with a major in astrophysics, and an Environmental Engineering degree (which is mostly in fluids and oceans), and as a result have studied maths, stats, a bit of geology, I’m just about as qualified as a layman needs to be!
10
Given that the debate is being retelevised tonight on the ABC, and Colin Davidson’s summing up here, I’ refrain from adding any more comments, except to remark that no one on Denniss’s side seems familiar with the scientific method.
Those here who need a refresher, AIG news (www.aig.org.au) issue 87 has it as the lead article. Note that argument from authority is basic Platonism, and the pro AGW side all think in this manner. As they have assumed control of science, Denniss’s debating thrust is easily understood, since for
10
MattB at #19
Those papers he cited at the Press Club are papers I’ve read (several times – I’m only a slow chemist and they’re chunky). So I can say there was no misrepresentation of the peer reviewed science.
This is the problem with Dr Denniss’s analogy about insurance, since the measured 2XCO2 in those papers is so low (CM called it ‘less than 1 C’ in ref to L&C 2011 and S&B 2010 – since he was talking to journo’s he may’ve been afraid they couldn’t cope with numbers smaller than 1) – its like asking a house owner to pay $100,000 a year compulsory premium against possible asteroid damage. Not only unnecessary overkill, but would bankrupt the homeowner.
And before you object, the carbon tax and follow up ETS are intended to rise by 4 or 5% above inflation. Compounding on top of a ‘price’ already 50% higher that even the Europeans have to cough up. Funny that Ms Gillard never mentions this, innit?
10
Typing this on a neurotic iPad,
Since these people know of no other way of thinking.
Hence the acrimony and cognitive dissonance.
10
even after Monckton said Abbott should ditch the Coalition direct action plan, Denniss returned to the subject to claim sceptics don’t criticise the Coalition. every attempt is made to divide and rule.
sceptics are everywhere, Mr. Denniss. they are from all political persuasions and none. i know enough young ones who are even more sceptical about CAGW than i am, so it’s not an Age Thing. also there are many sceptics who BELIEVE, like the alarmists, that CAGW might be happening but who are, nonetheless, completely against the “political remedies” put forward to date, which is what you – and most alarmists, seem to be arguing. stop trying to pigeon-hole sceptics.
as i’ve said repeatedly, i would never vote for any political party that wants to put a price on carbon dioxide, period. for me, it will be “none of the above”.
argue for tax increases. consider cutting spending. reduce the size and scope of government. drop the CAGW narrative. it’s past its use-by date.
bravo Monckton. (i’m not a Monarchist, m’lord)
10
Deadman @ 32
I can make it even simpler without introducing psychic healers.
A man doesn’t feel well and goes to his doctor who tells him he has dangerously high blood pressure, gives him a script for some tablets and packs him off for all the standard tests, like for cholesterol. And tells the man to quit smoking. Later the man goes back to his doctor who tells him there is no apparent cause for his high blood pressure. This is a common condition doctors call “essential hypertension”. But he should give up smoking.
Over the next twelve years the man moves around a lot and subsequently ends up seeing eight different doctors to get his scripts renewed. Each new doctor insists on doing the same tests with the same negative results, and prescribing new and different pills and telling the man to quit smoking.
Then the man collapses out in the middle of woop-woop, has a stroke and a couple of heart attacks and a few other nasties, is stabilised at the local hospital and is air-lifted in an induced coma to Perth by Royal Flying Doctor, and spends the next month in intensive care, learning how to walk and talk and wipe his own bum again. Oh, and getting a stent fitted to his left carotid artery to open it up.
Turns out 14 years ago the man had been thumped in the throat with a lump of wood in a fight, leading to the development of plaque in the carotids, eventually cutting blood supply to the head down to fifty percent on the right side and five percent on the left.
Turns out the “essential hypertension” was the man’s body desperately trying to pump blood to his head to keep him alive. The doctors then advise the blood pressure tablets should have killed him, and grudgingly admit that the temporary blood pressure elevation with each smoke was probably all that had kept him alive the previous six months.
Moral of the story? Just because all the “experts” say something is so, doesn’t make it so.
True story. My story.
Now excuse me while I roll another fag.
10
Mann’s PhD is in geology and… . But zero undergraduate or post graduate instruction in geology, only physics and maths?
Mann is a mathematical physicist, not a climate scientist.
You have to be careful about some degrees conferred by the Enid Blyton universities as well, sort of clayton’s degrees.
10
I also attended (at table 17) the debate this afternoon. Monckton won hands down IMO. Denniss appealed to a false and misleading medical analogy viz. skin cancer. While most GPs would have little difficulty diagnosing and managing such, the ‘climate science’ diagnosis of the CO2 hypothesis rests on ‘diagnosis by exclusion’ which ASSUMES that ALL the natural climate variables have been identified and quantified together with their feedbacks. Clearly, IPCC’s general circulation models are deficient in the following viz. aerosols, clouds, Earth’s albedo, solar magnetic and spectral variability to name a few. Furthermore, Roy Spencer’s recent paper presents observations which clearly demonstrate that IPCC has grossly overestimated climate sensitivity (see his website). Unfortunately none of these were discussed and I was disappointed at the overall level of the debate. Apart from his false analogy, Denniss repeatedly appealed to the ‘authority’ of the ‘consensus’. Perhaps someone should tell him that Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Einstein, Max Planck, to name a few, held minority views in conflict with the prevailing ‘consensus’ in their time.
The truth about IPCC is that it failed due diligence, cherry-picked the ‘evidence’ in support of the agenda of the sponsor governments. That is how they arrived at the ‘consensus’!
10
Pat,
Dr. Denniss barely listened to a word Lord Monckton said. Monckton completely out-argued Denniss. He had the facts, and the command of logic, but Denniss is clearly so ignorant and ill-read he can’t tell when he’s been thrashed: his saying carbon dioxide is pollution because it’s a byproduct after Monckton completely refuted the notion, or constantly trying to win points with the audience by referring to conspiracy theories or Tony Abbott, just made him look stupid. If I were a conspiracy theorist, I’d suspect that Dr. Denniss was a Tea-Party plant. Otherwise, perhaps, he obtained his doctorate from a packet of bubble-gum or a really corrupt university.
10
MattB; If you spent as much time educating yourself on climate sensitivity as you do whinging and moaning about trivial issues you might end up making a half decent skeptic.
10
7 News, and Southern Cross News, covered the debate with only a “get used to it” grab.
10
Deadman;
If he wasn’t stupid he would not have met the prerequisite to become Bob Brown’s economic adviser.
10
INdeed Louis in #42… those Enid Blyton universities like Yale?
10
here’s The Aust report
the ambience is not in the report but in the comments the vast majority of which agree with Louis and Madjak
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/agitated-aristocrat-defies-the-lords/comments-e6frg6xf-1226097667207
10
memoryvault 41,
Thanks for the medical account. I, too, have heard of many similar stories (and I have a few of my own). One nifty account of medical expertise comes from Dr. Jonathan Miller’s excellent TV series from 1978, “The Body in Question”. In one of the episodes Miller gives an example of how any observant GP, just from looking closely at his patient, could diagnose a particular disease (which I can’t remember) from various symptoms. I remember reading a letter to The Australian wherein a man explained that he’d been suffering from those symptoms for many years without doctors being able to cure or diagnose the problem; after seeing the programme, he went to the GP, asked to be tested for that specific disease, and that disease was exactly what he had.
Nonetheless, I still hold that, before wondering whether to believe experts on solving any problem, first establish that there really is a problem.
10
Mattb: Well look Jo if the house of lords wrote a letter saying “he is a Lord” then detractors would shut up. They haven’t done so, so If I was comparing evidence I’d say the letter trumps the website.
Yes, there is obviously some incongruity in the well of UK parliamentary rules and guidelines.
But it doesn’t change the weather.
10
What I’m finally realising is that most of the warmist scientists don’t actually understand the science. They know their own specific aspect of science but none have followed the scientific debate that Lord Monckton so succinctly presents. I noticed it recently at Climate Shifts – all their posts are old worn out stuff and it’s all ad hom. They don’t actually understand the science or the debate!
10
the joe kelly piece in the Australian is pathetic and meaningless. the only other piece up so far is AAP’s which is worse:
AAP: Monckton compares climate risk to asteroid
http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/monckton-compares-climate-risk-to-asteroid/story-e6frfku0-1226097709474
no ABC, no Fairfax, yet ABC has time to do a piece “Abbott moves to clarify ‘crazy’ carbon comment” and Fairfax can repeat the daily mantra, with “Gillard expects carbon sell to get tougher”.
the MSM is finished.
10
Attacking the character and not the science is an age old ploy of redirection so that important issues are lost in the emotional responses.
Political parlor tricks.
10
Which doesnt matter hes a crook and a charleton for deliberately producing fraudulent bogus data known as the infamous “hockey stick” along with his co-conspirators at the infamous CRU, well we all know what happened there..nada..theyre not behind bars for defrauding the US taxpayer, British taxpayer, US Dept of Energy and numerous other Govt grants which they ADMITTED in emails they were scamming, for their master at the UN.
10
Lord Monckton added: “The House of Lords says I’m not a member of it. My passport says I am – get used to it.”
I think passports in the UK are issued by the UK Homeoffice? So they are at odds with their Lordships?
10
MattB:
July 19th, 2011 at 5:35 pm
“Well look Jo if the house of lords wrote a letter sayihg “he is a Lord” then detractors would shut up. They haven’t done so, so If I was comparing evidence I’d say the letter trumps the website.”
Who be they, I wonder, the house of lords (who issues nothing, but the Queen, which is obvious) or the detractors (which includes you I imagine.)
Since the title of the peer is hereditary your nit picking is, of course, fallacious in its logic but for the making of you into an even greater illiterate fool.
10
Off topic:
Just visited the drum to catch up on comments on Lewandowsky thread, Comments are closed on his post after just one day. Does this seem rather quick to close comment on a post, maybe that so many comments highlight the short-comings in his arguments has embarrassed them.
10
@MattB
You know what a Red Herring is?
It is an idiomatic expression referring to the rhetorical or literary tactic of diverting attention away from an item of significance.
You and all your fellow warmists are masters of the red herring.
10
O/T
The Household Estimator on the new Clean Energy Future Website is apparently wrong.
It’s been working on $20.00 per tonne CO2 instead of $23.00 per tonne.
https://www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au/helping-households/household-assistance-estimator/
10
Matt and John, here’s a topical question for you.
Chris Monckton is out there for all to see, warts and all. He cites the science references relentlessly so anyone can check them.
Neil Wallis, who has been in the news you might say, and his PR company was retained by UEA CRU to advise them covertly how to respond to the Climategate emails publication.
Now guys, how would you like climate science to be done? Choice of the red pill or the blue pill. Take your time.
10
The misunderstanding of physiscs and thermodynamics is appalling.
This maybe true in some cases but the reality is the BIG ones, we know their names..are nothing but scamsters. They know they’re presenting fake results.
10
Tony @23
Sounds too good to be true. A 1/4 reduction in fuel means a 4/3 increase in station efficiency. For modern stations this would mean an increase in efficiency to over 50%. This is pushing the limits of the thermodynamics of the steam cycle? Bring it on!
10
I watched the debate in my works meal room with 5 or so other guys. We were laughing out loud as Monkton smashed all that attempted to debate him. His appearance and wit only added to their misery, especially that lady from the university newspaper. You can see the guy behind her trying not to laugh out loud when she is getting told to “do her job better”.
And Monkton’s address at the start “My lords…. oh thats me” bahahahaha.
(the guys at my work, apart from 1 had never heard of monkton, let alone the ongoing debate about carbon dioxide, but blind freddy could see that monkton won the debate hands down.. and there is absolutely no support at all for Juliar at all.
10
Hey Matt here is a more accurate list of the disciplines required, we still need to delve into the sub disciplines.
Atmospheric and Physical Sciences: Meteorology, Atmospheric dynamics, Atmospheric physics, Atmospheric chemistry, Solar physics, Historical climatology
Earth Sciences: Geophysics, Geochemistry, Geology, Soil Science, Oceanography, Glaciology, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoenvironmental reconstruction
Biological Sciences: Ecology, Synthetic biology, Biochemistry, Global change biology, Biogeography, Ecophysiology, Ecological genetics
Mathematics, Statistics and Computational analysis: Applied mathematics, Mathematical modelling, Computer science, Numerical modelling, Bayesian inference, Mathematical statistics, Time series analysis
and of course somewhere in there we need to squeeze in quartenary science.
So if Mann or any of the other IPCC pin up boys want to call themselves a climatologist then i think Monckton can cal himself a Lord.
10
scott:
July 19th, 2011 at 9:21 pm
“…We were laughing out loud as Monkton smashed all that attempted to debate him…”
The prime minister Brown bit had me laughing also Lord M asking the Audience to give Dennis a round of applause for good behaviour.
10
[…] the left hate Monckton Posted on July 19, 2011 by Climate Nonconformist Jo Nova notes Lord Christopher Monckton’s “clown disguise”, used to “reel in the […]
10
The alarmists, Mattyb included, focus on LM not being a Lord, because like all bush lawyers they know if they have no arguments themselves that the only way left of winning is to impugn the character of the opposition. So, if LM claims to be a Lord but isn’t then he is likely to be wrong about everything else.
As LM noted this is the Ad Hominem Fallacy. It, even if correct, does not detract from objective and independently verifable information which the impugned witness is referring to. This in fact is what LM does; he refers to objective sources of information and is entirely transparent with his sources of information, a situation and approach to be compared with the deplorable secrecy and obfuscation and high-handedness of the alarmists.
In any event the Lord issue is not true. LM is a Viscount and entitled to the title ‘Lord’. In respect of the House of Lords which has a limit on its membership with membership determined by election, LM is entitled to be elected to that institution. Anyone who is not entitled to the title of a Lord is not.
10
9:45 and no Mockton just that stupid NOTW scandal!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
10
Oh dear it looks like something…anything is more important news than the press club replay.
10
Jo,
If Monckton has never claimed he is or has been a voting member of the HoL why has this letter been issued. Is the HoL mistaken? Why is the Lord Chamberlain’s Office also getting involved?
10
“Why is the Lord Chamberlain’s Office also getting involved?” Sternly asks JC; maybe you petitioned them JC; why don’t you also ask them how many fleas are on a dog’s bum, or how many IQ points your vast brain is shedding by even asking these stupid questions.
10
Sliggy,
Though i must admit it is fun watching him (recent met police commissioner)cover his by claiming he is incompetent.
Question to all, why all the carry on about Lords etc? can we move on to the substance?
10
Now it seems a Murdoch story is more important.
10
Yes we are now interviewing unknown Americans regards NOTW, looks like Julie put in the call, is this what Bob meant by media censorship?
10
So yes the ABC don’t seem to want to replay the debate.
But as an alternative it is now up on youtube.
10
Oh hang on the news has started 1 half an hour early, we started with Joooooooooooolya wearing a daglo orange construction shirt that matched her hair (very becoming) calming the miners, we then cut to Abbott saying hello to a man in a shop who replied “dickhead”. With the government indoctrination out of the way the news really began.
I think i just saw a glimpse of the watermelon future and i want none of it.
10
The ABC has made an assessment of Lord Monckton’s performance and judged it too dangerous for their cause to screen at the appointed hour. This tour is working – people are taking notice.
Is this media censorship?
10
Pressclub cancelled..Ive switched to the Tour de France.!
10
Cohenite,
That doesn’t answer why the HoL has issued this letter. There must be a reason. Can you shed light on it?
10
Richard Dennis did not perform well at the National Press Club debate but the level of science teaching in schools over the last 35 years has been so poor that few would have noticed.
10
TRU same here although i flick back at times just in case they try to pull a fast one on us LOL
10
Listened to a bit of the debate on MTR at work. Denniss’s contribution indicated that he is an irrelevant pisswit who is completely clueless on climate science. Monckton simply pointed to the only scientific evidence that matters in this debate i.e. the time series temperature data which indicates that the climate’s sensitivity to CO2 forcing is very low and catastrophic human induced global warming is an activist’s phantasy.
One could be pretty sure the reason that no Australian “climate scientist” was willingly to debate Monckton is all those willing to put their heads up have taken a terrible hiding from non scientists like Jones and Bolt. Some of those interviews gave an indication of how clueless they all are about the nature and ultimate relevance of “the settled science”.
Perhaps it needs a little investigation but my cursory checking indicates that most of our Aussie climate “scientists” are anything but that. Most seem to be hangers on getting funded by Climate Change departments for their little specialties in others areas of science, like saving the Barrier Reef or the oceans from acidification, because they swear allegiance to alarmism. David Karoly is perhaps one of the few with any training and work experience in the science but he has failed to publicly present the sort of evidence asked for by Monckton, and that would give the catastrophic postulate any scientific credibility.
10
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6810NX4QGc
Censor this bob
10
“Can you shed light on it?” asks JC with his tongue so far between his teeth its coming out his nasal cavity. Well JC I may be the light of reason but I’m no torch. Light your own fires.
10
For West Australians the ABC TV Guide is still suggesting that the press club debate will start at 10pm. http://www.abc.net.au/tv/guide/
Who knows?
Jo
10
Tim Curtin saw the debate and emails this:
Dear all,
Chris Monckton excelled himself, he was superb and won over the majority of
those attending, miffing the Chairman in the process.
Pam thought Richard’s effort was very weak. His main points were
1) we should defer to climate scientists as if they were cancer specialists
examining one’s skin cancer, but nobody has yet died of the climate change
of 0.75 oC since 1900;
2) the precautionary principle, the carbon tax is our insurance against the
climate change none of us will ever see in our lifetimes. Richard is
actually close to being the worst economist in Australia (if possible!),
because this claim of his would not survive actuarial examination. For
example, perhaps 10 of Canberra’s 100,000 dwellings burn down every year,
which is why insurance companies get rich on our premiums (say $1,000 p.a.
per house worth $500,000) (premium income $100 million, payouts $5 million).
What is the actuarial risk of climate change wrecking my house in the next
25 years? NIL
His final comment showed that he really does believe that CO2 is a pollutant
without any benefits at all. That tells you all you need to know about the
level of science and economics at a University that provides space for
Dennis.
Best
Tim
10
The debate was on Sky News in NZ at 2.30 pm.
The economist, whose name I have already forgotten, used lots of arguments from authority which he clearly mistakes for evidence.
The argument about “Is M. Mann a climatologist? is like the argument “Is Lord Monkton a member of the House of Lords?”
Irrelevant. It is what they say that matters. Not their titles.
10
John in NZ,
Thats the whole point i am glad someone understood.
By the way i watched the banned Monckton debate on youtube, my take for what it is worth is that if the warmbots keep sending bullet catchers like Denniss to debates this battle will be over by lunchtime Friday.
10
Evening All.
The ABC clearly thought that a bike race in France was more important than a national debate on climate science.
If Monckton had lost the debate, do you think the ABC would have swept this under the carpet? I don’t either. We can interpret their silence as the ABC vote on the result…
Congratulations, Chris.
Speedy.
10
You can see the debate on my next post.
I recommend the answers at around 37 minutes and especially 52 minutes.
10
Maybe not Lord Monckton’s Brilliance but perhaps it was Dr Dennis’s “mistake” – “Faux pas” – “slip-up” – which caused the ABC to “lose” the Broadcast?
Right at the end of the debate Dr Dennis actually said
“Carbon Dioxide is a Pollutant”!!!
I’ve suggested elsewhere we create a t-shirt with the Proclamation
Carbon Dioxide Greens the Planet!
10
[…] See also Joanne Nova Comment […]
10
I watched the debate in the UK on the video posted on Bishop Hill.
Monckton was polite, stuck to the rules of debate and backed all his statements with accurate quotations and appropriate science. Dennis was utterly inadequate and floundered, while the few cocky young ‘meeja people’ who raised questions tended to make arses of themselves. I enjoyed Monckton’s ‘free kick’ taken after one of the young reporters asked a forbidden and OT question about Monckton’s peerage. The young lady who asked why Lord Monckton didn’t publish papers was utterly skewered by Monckton.
The final indignity for Denniss was to state that CO2 is ‘pollution’, which was pounced on and corrected by Monckton.
10
MattB.
Sorry MattB. The ‘Letter’ is the opinions of a clerk. It may be evidence of many things, but I think the timing tells us all. The House of Lords is now inhabited by placemen. Political appointees & cronies. Lord Monckton must be heartily sick at seeing the quality of characters now being regularly appointed to occupy that place.
The House of Lords Act 1999 that sought to unseat Peers and overturn over 800 years of constitutional monarchy, turning it into a numbers game of musical chairs, is indeed a carelessly drafted & incompetent instrument of post democratic reform.
10
Real @ #56
“Lord Monckton added: “The House of Lords says I’m not a member of it. My passport says I am – get used to it.”
I think passports in the UK are issued by the UK Homeoffice? So they are at odds with their Lordships?
”
It is not beyond the UK authorities to withdraw the Passports of citizens they expect to be casing trouble abroad.
10
[…] That waste-of-time “Lord” debate […]
10
It is true though it is a waste of time debate that Moncton craves. He does the equivalent of walking in to a debate with a flock of parrots on his head, the opposing debater says “why the parrots” and MoB spends the next half hour being able to claim that his opponents are not interested in the science but just want to ad-hom him about the parrots. Ideally for MoB the venue would have an explicit “NO PARROTS” policy, but of course MoB would have it written on his passport that he is the carer for galahs, not technically parrots. “They are galahs, not parrots, get used to it!”
10
As usual Matt, you completely ignore what anyone says about the ACTUAL evidence and equivocate about trivialities!!! You say you are a trained physicist and engineer??? I don’t believe it based on your avoidance of anything science related!!!!!!!
10
OSI – this is a thread about MoB’s title. As usual you are making things up.
10
MattB @ 100
You mean the part about you being a trained physicist and engineer?
.
Yeah – I thought it was made up too.
10
That’s what it says on my university transcript MV so get used to it.
10
What am I making up?? The fact that you avoid anything science related on this blog?? Or the fact that you focus on the most minute of trivialities and completely ignore the point of any discussion of the science??
10
has anyone else seen the latest form our favourite railway engineer???
10
http://news.yahoo.com/act-now-climate-no-wait-top-un-scientist-180126138.html;_ylt=AuVJ9wirXmxpXZ5z7FNUpVwPLBIF;_ylu=X3oDMTNmc3ZqMHFkBHBrZwNlYTdiNzk0MS02NmJhLTM3MzUtYTA4MS02NTAxZWJlYTAyYWYEcG9zAzIEc2VjA0p1bWJvdHJvbiBTY2llbmNlU0YEdmVyA2QwOTU2YzMwLWIyMzEtMTFlMC1iZWJiLWM2NDlkMTQxMjMzYQ–;_ylg=X3oDMTFsMmxkdGs2BGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdANzY2llbmNlBHB0A3NlY3Rpb25z;_ylv=3
10
MattB @ 102
Would that be from universaldegree.com?
10
Maybe not ‘upward’ but downward (temps)! Another “Little Igeage” commeth.
ATS Euromaster: Motorists Urged to Prepare as Forecaster Predicts the Worst Winter on Record
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/13/idUS77740+13-Jun-2011+BW20110613
I think out Peer of the realm lives up that way.
10
Pleae sign and send to everybody you know!
PETITION TO GET RID OF THE COMMUNIST GILLARD “GOVERNMENT”
http://hadenough.com.au/index.php/2011/07/petition-to-get-them-out/
10
Jo Nova clearly has not read or even bothered to understand the House of Lords Act (1999) and subsequent rulings by court justices that state quite clearly that “”In my judgement, the reference [in the House of Lords Act 1999] to a ‘member of the House of Lords’ is simply a reference to the right to sit and vote in that house … In a nutshell, membership of the House of Lords means the right to sit and vote in that house.”
She can try to use Monckton’s own skewed version of events or can get the facts from independent law justices. But since Jo Nova is such an idiotic conservative i would expect that she takes everything that Monckton says at face value – never bothering to question it. Pitiful
10
The only thing pitiful, Kristian, is your obsession with such a piffling and irrelevant aspect of the debate. Fairly typical of your side.
10
MattB #98
Gee matt, why didn’t you volunteer your services to slay Monckton.
Can’t say I saw the parrots on his head but then again, I can’t see the bats that definitely live in your belfry either.
10
That’s what it says on my university transcript MV so get used to it.
Well, you would say that, wouldn’t you, MattB?
So, if our esteemed host, who has vouched for you in the past, would inform us she has seen your transcript just as she has verified seeing Monckton’s passport then any doubts about your academic record will be well and truly put to bed.
Simple really.
10
Joanne Nova @14 Says:
Indeed! The simple fact is that none of the members of the house of Lords have done one thing to earn the title, it is honorary. What counts is the the deeds of the man, and what he says. Debate those issues. Criticizing him for an accident of birth is as stupid as racism, and clearly shows how those doing so have lost all moral standing. They are no better than the Neo Nazis or Skinheads. The only difference is their target.
10
If CO2 is a pollutant because it’s a byproduct of electricity generation then so is water vapour.
10
In the context of great big carbon tax or no, notice how the NPC debate was really not about the science of AGW but focussed on the science/veracity of warmist policy prescription/s, albeit the protagonists had opposing views on the AGW science itself as having been ‘settled’. With no real substance other than ‘we gotta do sumpink’ appeal to emotion by Dennis and fallback on the insurance principle, Monckton simply agreed to agree with that premise and then proceeded to provide a damning actuarial anlysis based on the warmists best science- ie notably the IPCC’s best scientific estimates. In the absence of Dennis, or any single economist, Lord or layman being able to debunk his calculations and sums, he rightly claims economic victory of fact over emotional fiction. Indeed he openly challenged all the press present to ‘do your homework’ and prove his actuarial analysis wrong. Notice how none of them asked Dennis to do so, or if he couldn’t or wouldn’t, then logically we all had to defer to Monckton’s superior science re the policy prescription/s being touted. The only alternative is to accept the warmists’, post-normal science methodology and rely upon the settled ‘consensus science’ of voters. Take your pick warmists but either way you’re cooked according to those voter poll intentions. Frying pan or the fire, or as Monckton so poignantly posed- what about some comet bats while these warmists are at it folks? Game set and match any which way they want to argue with the umpire’s line call!
10
Climate Debate Challenge to raise money for African Hunger Appeals
Here is a way to raise a lot of money to feed starving people in Africa.
Ask supporters and opponents of manmade climate change – the theory that mankind, through its use of co2 will have a greater than 3% warming influence on climate over the next century.
We challenge scientists on both sides of the debate to formally argue their cases in a public forum in a fair, non-political and open debate: in a lecture hall and on radio or TV; , to be adjudicated by a panel of 3 judges (completely independent of political or commercial interests.). Judges, who are used to expert opinion, do not themselves have to be scientifically trained.
We would ask supporters of the debate to contribute $100 each (minimum). It does not matter from which side of the debate they come.
Donated funds will be used as follows: 90% donated immediately to Community Aid Abroad for the African Appeal: 10% to publicise and organize the event – and to publicise the judgement. If one side fails to take the challenge, this money will be spent on advertising the decline of the scientists on either side of the debate (assuming that there are no takers).
As there are more than 1,000 supporters and opponents of the debate – one which has so far been resisted by scientists who hold government or government-funded positions, there is a huge groundswell of demand for this debate: the sceptics have been excoriated as ‘deniers’ and the science has been proclaimed as ‘settled’.
Apparently both sides are able to defend their views and conclusions in public and fair debate. Or are they? ….
I believe that more $100,000 can be raised towards this worthy cause, and at the same time it would encourage a debate on the topic which is demanded by the public of Australia.
I ask volunteers to assist me with arranging for this. Fund-raising, publicity and accounting expertise are needed – and of course networkers keen on the idea. Volunteer debaters and judges.
Stan Lifschitz
Member of Climate Sceptics
84/5B VICTORIA PARK PARADE
ZETLAND NSW 2017
Mobile 0415374955
International +61415374955
Email stanbusiness@bigpond.com
Skype: stanfodlif
10
Stanford @ 116
You appear to have posted on a dead thread.
Suggest reporting this to the current(latest) thread, for it to be seen.
10
Monckton also has a cure for multiple sclerosis, influenza, and herpes simplex 6 and possibly HIV. Lord Dr Christopher Monckton.
[REPLY: This is typical of the ad hom character slur. CM has never said he has a cure, instead he’s got something that keeps him on his feet after 20 years of being bed ridden and near death, and whatever it is is also going through placebo controlled clinical trials at several hospitals against a range of other conditions. He’ll call it a cure, only if and when the results come and demonstrate that. And I only bother to answer this, because most people don’t realize how desperate some are to make out that he’s a nutter. — JN]
10
The link below provides indisputable evidence of the FACT that Christopher Monckton is not a member of the House of Lords. Monckton though, continues to lie and proclaims himself to be a member – how absurd! The FACT that Monckton lies about his membership of the House of Lords is indisputable evidence of his lack of any credibility whatsoever. Monckton’s words have no credibility!
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-information-office/2011/letter-to-viscount-monckton-20110715.pdf
—————————–
REPLY: The scathing hatred of the Condescendi knows no bounds, no matter how irrelevant, pointless or nasty. Monckton wiped the floor with him. A constitutional lawyer points out the said clerk above is entirely wrong. No more comments until you apologize. Jo
10