Why the left hate Monckton

Jo Nova notes Lord Christopher Monckton’s “clown disguise”, used to “reel in the small minds” who think they can make a fool of him. He is one who boasts more hate from the left than most skeptics, a true complement indeed. They really go the extra mile to try to discredit him, the latest attempt being the ‘he’s not a lord’ crack. This comes after the Clerk of Parliaments in the UK wrote to him about the issue. He is however entitled to the title ‘lord’, as Monckton explains.

“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.”

There is the ‘no peer-review’ claim, which I heard last night in Ballarat and warmists continue to throw around. Yet, it doesn’t take much searching to find a peer-reviewed paper bearing his name. Lord Monckton explained last night how there were attempts to claim that the paper was not peer-reviewed, despite documentation to the contrary.

Of course, there’s the claim that he is a liar, cherry-picker ect. It’s 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 with the presenter, Wendy Carlisle refusing to use the references she asked for.

There’s always going to be the accusations of big oil, and in some cases, big tobacco. The latter of course having nothing to do with anything and as Monckton told me, “it’s just a smear”. The day a warmie thinks to even provide evidence for this will be the day the IPCC admit they were wrong (never).

‘He has no formal qualifications in science,’ the left say. He is ‘an autodidact’, so said Ballarat Renewable Energy and Zero Emissions group representative Andrew Bray last night. This really is irrelevant. The bloke is as smart as they come and he knows what he is talking about, being incredibly familiar with the peer-reviewed literature. Yet, Al Gore who gets his facts wrong (specifics here), tries to shut down debate and admits he exaggerates his claims to sell his message, is considered credible?

They do bring up his nazi jibe on Ross Garnaut. Yes, it is a horrible thing that he said, but he has apologised. They claim however, that it was not an isolated incident. Last night he labelled the global warming campaign the “most relentless propaganda program since Goebbels”. Since meaning not exceeding that of the propaganda minister of the third reich, just as ‘the warmest year since xxxx’ means it was warmer in year xxxx. At least one commenter at Ballarat’s The Courier fails to grasp this. The Age’s Adam Morton has also taken one of Monckton’s remarks out of context.

He is a favourite target of alarmists in their increasingly hysterical campaign to smear those who disagree. Yet, the more they do it, the more attention they bring to him and the more he makes a fool of them. So his “clown disguise” really does pay off.

Advertisements

About Climate Nonconformist

Hi, I'm the climatenonconformist (not my real name), and I am a global warming skeptic, among the few in generation Y. With Australia facing the prospect of a carbon tax, we need to be asking the simple question; where is the evidence that our emissions are causing any dangerous warming?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Why the left hate Monckton

  1. Malcolm P says:

    With regards to the “peer-reviewed” article you linked to – did you actually read it? The APS has quite clearly stated at the top of the page: “The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review, since that is not normal procedure for American Physical Society newsletters.”

    • Climate Nonconformist says:

      Monckton explained how the journal caved into pressure to make that statement, despite the paper having gone through the peer-review process. Monckton claims to have the documentation to back this up. I did mention this. Did you actually read that?

  2. Bob says:

    Climate Nonconformist, did you read his documentation that backed it up? The only public knowledge that we have is that the American Physical Society has stated that it is not peer reviewed, they dont agree with the conclusions, multiple physicists and scientists have shown multitple gross inaccuracies in Lord Moncktons data (namely in his calculation of forcing), and none have agreed with his paper. Further, the scientist he cites as reviewing his paper, did show what revision was made. It was editorial review, not scientific review, so Lord Monckton in essence is correct, his paper was reviewed, though not in any manner that would validate the information in that paper. Further, the study which he interprets for his calculations (Lindzen 2001) has already met with a plentitude of criticisms and rebuttals. It is indeed fascinating that Lord Monckton is the only one convinced he has written a peer reviewed paper, and only Lord Monckton himself who believes he is a member of the Upper House of Lords, when each organisation says the oppositie. People who are actually credible don´t have to prove the credibility of their credibility.

    • Climate Nonconformist says:

      Monckton’s rebuttal is found here [http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/commentaries/reviewed_or_not.pdf] including an exchange between him and the editor.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s