In discussing the loony antics of Lord Monckton with climate delusionists/rightwingers (the two categories are now pretty much coextensive), I’m struck by the frequency with which I get the line (pushed a little while ago by Janet Albrechtsen) “Well he did say that Rudd and Obama were planning a communist world government, and that Jackie Kennedy killed millions of people and that the child of holocaust survivors was a Nazi and that he was a member of House of Lords, but why focus on that stuff … you should be debating him on the science”
I’m not sure whether the appropriate Monty Python reference is the witch sketch in Holy Grail or “What have the Romans ever done for us” in Life of Brian. Certainly, the idea of supposedly hard-headed politicos going to this guy for scientific advice is one that would stretch credulity even for a Python gag.
John Quiggin 
This is so bizarre…I cant even get my head around it….how do you deal with madness (and manage to get effective policy in place) in the population in the post 2000 year age……
Madness is madness. Is it in the food chain? Is it the lead in the pipes? Is it the CO2 emmissions? Is it the carcinogens we are exposed to? Is it the autoimmune response to excessive exposure to antibiotics? Is it long term damage to the frontal lobe from exposure to recreational drugs (in the 70s? 80s? 90s? and noughties? They have got worse – much worse…).
We really dont know do we?… but there is a lot of it about…ie what I would class as madness (a lot of what seems to me to be loss of critical analytical functions and a follower mentality).
JQ I think what you are saying amounts to “dopiness by association”
Monckton says dopey things (agreed)
Therefore all climate change sceptics/deniers/delusionists are dopey (previously you have called them evil and venal)
This category of climate change whatevers is co-extensive with the category of right wingers
Therefore….
Many on the left say dopey things about many subjects (Pilger a prime example) but it would be equally false logic to damn all on the left with that dopiness.
I realize that the AGW thing has become a political battle, using (on both sides) many of the misleading and grubby debating tricks of politicians but I’d expect better from you.
On most aspects of AGW I agree with you. I don’t always agree with your debating techniques.
Please give some examples of Pilger being as dopey as Monckton
http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=564
@Ken N
How does this support your case?
Ken, thanks again for your concern. A bit more of it expressed at Catallaxy might do some good.
I’m not saying that Monckton’s loony views prove that all sceptics are dopey, only the large number who have taken him seriously, and offered defences along the lines set out in this post. That includes quite a few people at Catallaxy, unfortunately.
OK JQ, I’m glad you cleared that up.
Monckton is really able to articulate arguments well against all of this global warming baloney.
Reminds me of the goat-f***er joke. You f*** one goat….
I really don’t see what’s so “dopey” about your link, Ken.
@Troll
Yes indeed. With his bachelors of arts in classics and a diploma of journalism I’m sure his understanding of climatology and statistical inference is unmatched by any of the professional scientists who actually believe in this stuff. AMIRITE?
Incidentally, an Arts degree is just the beginning of his qualifications: he’s also a member of the House of Lords, a Nobel peace laureate, the man who won the Falklands War and the inventor of a cure for “Graves’ disease, multiple sclerosis, influenza, food poisoning, and HIV”. Except he’s none of those things, despite having claimed it.
Brain-damaged imps like Rationalist aside, it is becoming quite clear that for all the good Monckton is doing for the denialist cause, he might as well be a Greenie mole. Thank goodness they can’t find anyone who acutally has an iota of credibility.
@gerard
They have
His name’s Bob Carter and he doesn’t go in for theatrics. Rather ‘briefings’ for the opposition party rooms and out on the hustings with Barnaby Joyce
You didn’t specify that his credibility had to be well justified.
“it is becoming quite clear that for all the good Monckton is doing for the denialist cause, he might as well be a Greenie mole.”
You’ve got to wonder haven’t you?
“Thank goodness they can’t find anyone who acutally has an iota of credibility.”
Why do you say that?
Yes, Tim has it-Too much goat sh-gging.
It’s expressed in the vacant idiot drooling lolling expression on Monckton’s silly face.
You can have too much of a good thing… even goats!
Ken, I am assuming that the prominance given to Pilmer and Monckton by proponents of denialism is an admission that they really are the best that their side has to offer. A guy who wrote a book so full of lies that he doesn’t even bother defending it… and one inbred campy nutjob.
If there’s anyone out there better (like someone with professional background in climate science), why aren’t they being paid the $100,000 to go touring that was given to Monckton?
That’s a $20,000 stipend plus $80,000 in expenses by the way. I’m not sure how Monckton managed to spend that much money during his short time here.
And PS, comparing Pilger to Monckton is an indication that you have no standards of intellectual honesty.
@Ken N
Id like you to name me one “dopey thing” Pilger has said Ken. Id prefer a direct quote.
g – I don’t think there is a “side” – those who object to the AGW consensus do so for a range of reasons and to varying degrees. They are not a political party appointing spokesmen.
And assuming that you read Pilger’s latest NS piece carefully, if you believe that was an intelligent wise description of what the US is doing in Haiti and why, then we are so far apart that there is no point in discussing anything.
Alice – taking your question seriously, I think part of the answer is that much of the population lacks the general education to understand how things connect. The climate denialsts, for instance, show no awareness that global warming is built on well-established bodies of knowledge in quantum physics/chemistry, thermodynamics, statistical mechanics and so on – the general principles of which used to be taught in high school and were part of a number of trades.
They are like people coming into a conversation that’s been going on for some time, who for lack of background treat each remark as if it were an isolated observation.
This is increasingly widespread in other areas, including political discourse – you see a lot of arguments that go straight from vague principles to some instance without much surrounding context or awareness that the instance is the product of a history.
Not sure what produced it, but it does not make for sensible discussion of policy.
Looking at the comments on this thread, most people are not troubled by this:
http://clubtroppo.com.au/2010/02/01/the-pull-of-immaturity/
It says a lot about the lack of quality of the Australian media that they give this charlatan so much attention.
I don’t want to derail this thread Ken, but it is quite obvious that you have little background knowledge as to the role of the United States in Haiti (from Woodrow Wilson’s occupation and imposition of conscripted labor there, to the coup against Aristide in 2004). If you can find any factual errors in Pilger’s piece then point them out. If you really think it is comparable to Monckton’s comedy of outrageous conspiratory theories and bald-faced lies then yes, you are so far from sanity that there is no point in discussing anything with you.
“there is no point in discussing anything with you.”
OK, g, let’s agree on that.
I just saw a very positive portrayal of Monckton on the 7:30 Report.
@ken n
you stil haven’t responded to the reasonable request made for more detail as to why you consider the pilger article is loony
Re Monckton – at this point it is useful to refer to definitions of charlatan
“a charlatan is being accused of resorting to quackery, pseudoscience, or some knowingly employed bogus means of impressing people in order to swindle his victims by selling them worthless nostrums and similar goods or services that will not deliver on the promises made for them.”
Now we need to refer to the defintion of “pseudiscience” from which Monckton, the charlatan, makes a very good living….
”
Part of a series on Science
Natural sciences[show]Astronomy: Cosmology • Galactic astronomy • Planetary geology • Planetary science • Stellar astronomyBiology: Anatomy • Astrobiology • Biochemistry • Biological engineering • Biophysics • Behavioral neuroscience • Biotechnology • Botany • Cell biology • Cryobiology • Developmental biology • Ecology • Ethnobiology • Evolutionary biology (Intro) • Genetics (Intro) • Gerontology • Immunology • Limnology • Marine biology • Microbiology • Molecular biology • Neuroscience • Paleontology • Parasitology • Physiology • Radiobiology • Soil biology • Theoretical biology • Toxicology • ZoologyChemistry: Acid-base reaction theories • Alchemy • Analytical chemistry • Astrochemistry • Biochemistry • Crystallography • Chemical engineering • Environmental chemistry • Food science • Geochemistry • Green chemistry • Inorganic chemistry • Materials science • Medicinal chemistry • Metallurgy • Molecular physics • Nuclear chemistry • Organic chemistry • Photochemistry • Physical chemistry • Radiochemistry • Solid-state chemistry • Stereochemistry • Supramolecular chemistry • Surface science • Theoretical chemistryEarth sciences: Atmospheric sciences • Ecology • Environmental science • Geodesy • Geography • Geology • Geomorphology • Geophysics • Glaciology • Hydrology • Limnology • Mineralogy • Oceanography • Paleoclimatology • Palynology • Physical geography • Soil science • Space sciencePhysics: Applied physics • Atomic physics • Computational physics • Condensed matter physics • Experimental physics • Mechanics • Particle physics • Plasma physics • Quantum mechanics (Intro) • Solid mechanics • Theoretical physics • Thermodynamics • Entropy • General relativity • M-theory • Special relativity
Social and
behavioral sciences[show]AnthropologyArchaeologyCriminologyDemographyEconomicsGeographyHistoryPolitical sciencePsychologySociology
Applied sciences[show]Computer scienceEngineering: Agricultural engineering • Biomedical engineering • Chemical engineering • Civil engineering • Computer engineering • Electrical engineering • Fire protection engineering • Genetic engineering • Industrial engineering • Mechanical engineering • Military engineering • Mining engineering • Nuclear engineering • Software engineering • Test EngineeringHealth sciences: Biological engineering • Dentistry • Epidemiology • Health care • Medicine • Nursing • Pharmacy • Veterinary medicineSocial work:
Related topics[show]Interdisciplinarity: Applied physics • Artificial intelligence • Bioethics • Bioinformatics • Biogeography • Biomedical engineering • Biostatistics • Cognitive science • Computational linguistics • Cultural studies • Cybernetics • Environmental studies • Ethnic studies • Evolutionary psychology • Forestry • Health • Library science • Logic • Mathematical biology • Mathematical physics • Scientific modelling • Neural engineering • Neuroscience • Political economy • Science and technology studies • Science studies • Semiotics • Sociobiology • Systems theory • Transdisciplinarity • Urban planningHistory of sciencePhilosophy of scienceScientific method
v • d • e
Pseudoscience is a methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific, or that is made to appear to be scientific, but which does not adhere to an appropriate scientific methodology,[1][2][3][4] lacks supporting evidence or plausibility,[5] or otherwise lacks scientific status.[6] ”
All who choose to subscribe to charlatans and pseudoscience…say aye!
“
oops – sorry – I have no idea how that happened!
I really don’t know why people respond to people such as Ken N. He’s a shallow, glib dilettante and a low-level foot-soldier for you know who. He’s not even a worthy adversary.
Such people are not serious. They’re deeply cynical, uncaring, and all they are capable of is idiotic nitpicking and baseless challenges to the global AGW scientific consensus because that is their brief and ideological imperative.
There’s no need on this blog, is there, to endlessly counter them? Why give these spiritual, ideological and political oafs oxygen?
@Peter T
“much of the population lacks the general education to understand how things connect.”
Hmmm, but this “much of the population” (how much, by the way ? 5% 10% 40% even more ?) comes from a nation that has had compulsory education for over 100 years, and has never had as much and as long ‘education’ (on average) as it has now.
So what are you saying ?
1. That our education system has patently faild our nation ?
2. That we have patently failedour education system ?
3. Both of the above ?
4. Something else entirely ?
@Alicia
I agree Alicia..Ken is a footsoldier for the extreme right…infantry and cannon fodder for Catalepsy. He is in the wrong battlefield and way out of his depth here.
@Alicia
And actually Alicia I agree “why give them air time.”The only reason they get it is because decent people get tired of answering their insane ideas and simply give up…and they take that as a cue to bombard JQs website with ridiculous propaganda that is not even genuine. Id hit the delete key – Ken is a troll but there has been a deluge of them lately and its really annoying. They need to go back to the dark side and hang out with their kind for a change.
@Alice
It’s as plain as day, Alice.
Funny thing is these “libertarian” types are so transparently uncaring, principle-less, careless, empathy-less, congenitally unimaginative and intellectually torpid, you tend even to feel very sorry for them.
@Alice
@Alicia
Holy moly, there is two of them!
@Alicia
I dont feel sorry for them Alicia….I just wondered what happened that they have been so sconded to a fulty view of the world and I wonder what so enslaved them that it simulatenously robbed them of all their critical faculties…is it meetings? Is it girls? Is it a clubby thing? Do they go to political part pep talks and get instructed in the jargon? Are they on a mailing list for “what we think and what you have to repeat blurbs” and “who to criticise list” (because they sure have not read them – I sit here waiting for Ken N to come up with something “dopey” Pilger said and when it comes down to tin tacks Ken is having a hard time finding something – especially when he has likely not ever turned a leaf to read what Pilger has written).
Dope is as dopey doesnt read…
Such loneliness that you end up selling your soul…is a terrible thing Alicia.
@Rationalist
Holy Moly Ratio….there is only one of you and its scarier!
Perhaps you’re reading way too much into them Alice. As individuals they don’t count at all, because they are not individuals, much as this may pain them to know.
Their potentially autonomous selves have been captured and disemboweled by a rapacious ideology that they do not understand or have any intellectual or personal means of mastering. They’re puppets and like all puppets deeply unhappy and physically and intellectually constrained by that [fully accepted by them] material reality.
@Peter T
Thanks Peter – for taking my question seriously because my question was serious. Sometimes I feel like I am surrounded by madness and empty rhetoric that is very repetitive (eg..there is a communist takeover plot underlying everything from climate science to the most recent train timetables, to the latest exhibition at the Art gallery, to the annual students association fees)..
Then there is global conference (for fees only) lying on climate science al la the travelling charlatans who happen to be reaping money in..
Then we get it rehashed in the news…who is Lord Monckton but the grey haired, bug eyed, public school accented Andy Warhol of the Delusionist movement…and come to think of it..his accent isnt quite as refined as it could be…has anyone checked Debretts peerage? He could be faking aristocracy as well – or maybe his family bought his title a mere century ago…
Oh for a peaceful life…where we just recognised a policy problem and corrected it, instead of denying it and arguing about for years before anything positive was done!
Is it true that Tony Abbott attended Monckton’s lecture? I thought I heard that on the 7:30 report but wasn’t sure. If he really prefers what Monckton (and Plimer) have to say about climate over the CSIRO and Australia’s Chief Scientist I think that would make him too gullible to trust to govern anything. It goes beyond mere dismay to think all the best science can be tossed aside so casually. Not that Labor’s acceptance of the science appears to translate into serious policy.
I have just seen him speak at the Press Club. In questions someone asked him how to respond to alarmist at social occasions. He said try this “The fact that if all the UN models and predictions are correct ( which he had shown they were not) then for how many years would we have to stop, totally, all industrial use of fossil fuels to reduce temperatures by 1C ? The answer is 41 years After you Johno after you. You could of course challenge his mathematics in open debate. You can master blog hiding in a ivory tower for only so long eventually you have to face your nemesis. There now apears to be an international competition for who can find the most worthless source for the “peer reviewed IPCC report” the best so far seems to be a protocol for Antarctic tour operators to encourage tehir clients to clean their boots “showing the fragile nature of the Antarctic to Global Warming” Get real and come out and fight if you have the guts
Mockton is a political mouthpice for some of the “denialist” who oppose the idea of AGW. I have to admit I cringe everytime I listen to him (although he can be very funny) as i don’t think he adds anything to the AGW quandry. I could never take him seriously on anything he has to say, especially AGW.
In fact I liken him to Gore, the political mouthpiece for those on the yes side of the AGW debate. The only thing that makes Gore smarter is that he stands to make huge financial windfall from promoting a carbon mitigation scheme to prevent catastrophic global warming.
Do we really need propaganda machines the likes of Gore and Mockton talking political mumbo jumbo. They only ever polarise the AGW debate and propagate our democracy into a blackhole. What a waste of time they both are.
@John Coochey
Coochey – you have Tony Gs genetic code obviously – completely impervious…its really time someone hit the eject button if the best you can come out with is
“Get real and come out and fight if you have the guts”
@Ubiquity
Ubiquity – you do a decent man a great disservice by comparing Al Gore to Monckton…who is just an empty parody of a self aggrandising conference money grubbing crawler.
There is in fact a difference between Gore and Monckton which is I think significant:
Gore as i understand it was seriously trying to convey in a form accessible to the general public the overall consensus of the outcomes and implications of climate science.
Monckton is representing himself as someone qualified to make strong judgements on the science on his own account. Monckton is claiming to mix it with the scientists and should be judged n that basis while Gore needs to be held to account on the accuracy with which he has reported other people’s scientific work.
@Doug
Monckton is claiming to “mix it with the scientists”????. He has no science to mix with and Monckton is entirely off balance sheet when it comes to being held to account Doug.
Typical rightwing idiocy from Ubiquity (same as what Ken N did at the start of the thread) – try to defend an indefensibly crazy rightwing maniac by comparing them to somebody on the left that you personally don’t like but who never has done or said anything remotely comparable in terms of dishonesty or plain insanity. You know the difference between Monckton and Gore? Gore says what all the scientists say. Monckton says the opposite. Ooh, but they’re just the same, and Gore is fat LOL
If you ask me – even Monckton’s “aristocratic” accent is fake). But then an Aussie or US bush basher or canyon camper wouldnt know that would they?
Alice/Alicia, please don’t swamp the thread
Monckton from what I have seen (not a lot I must admit) seems to be a salesman. Apparently he is doing his job well. However it’s not as if there isn’t already a high degree of demand for the product.
Indeed, as you say terje, people on the right really want to believe cranks like Monckton, and disbelieve science. It is a fascinating study in collective self-delusion.
OK let us cut to the chase. Take the big M on if only on the internet. He is readily available. If you are too incompetent or cowardly I will give you the contacts. Or you could start with his response/ in my view rebuttal of Glikson or his open letter to Rudd. Go for it give it your best shot
Janet Albrechtsen is completely rational. After providing a list of example where Baron Munchausen-Monckton invents ‘facts’ to suit his then current purpose, she implores “but why focus on that stuff … you should be debating him on the science”.
But for what purpose? Simply to see what ‘facts’ he invents to help him support the unsupportable? His science versus science’s science?
Maybe if they were giving you $100,000 to do so…
John Coochey
Your funny as well !
Alice
Gore should just shut up and return all the proceeds from his grand AGW schemes, not just the deductible profits, back to those he legally took it from.
Doug
I am sure most here would agree with you but Gore the politician/ AGW mouthpiece has no integrity (politcal and scientific) and that is my biased and totally subjective opinion.
Gerard
I wouldn’t defend Mockton, he is an idiot. It also turns out you are as well. I am not on the right or left of anything, unlike yourself.