Originally Posted by AemJeff
Pisc, I'm sorry. Monckton is a polemicist, with an apparently invariant point of view. I know you like to link to politically charged, often compromised sources and submit them as if they should be accorded significant weight in what is essentially a question of science; but that doesn't obligate your interlocutors to allocate equivalent weight to those sources.
For a little context, it's worth reading this short column by George Monbiot
), published in 2006 in response to Monckton's last big "paper."
Here's how it begins:
This is a dazzling debunking of climate change science. It is also wildly wrong
For the past nine days my inbox has been filling up with messages labelled "Your scam exposed", "The great fraud unravels" and "How do you feel now, asshole?". They are referring to a new "scientific paper", which proves that the "climate change scare" is a tale "worthier of St John the Divine than of science".
Published in two parts on consecutive Sundays, it runs to a total of 52 pages, containing graphs, tables and references. To my correspondents, to a good many journalists and to thousands of delighted bloggers, this paper clinches it: climate change is a hoax perpetrated by a leftwing conspiracy coordinated by the United Nations.
So which was the august journal that published it? Science? Nature? Geophysical Research Letters? Not quite. It was the Sunday Telegraph. In keeping with most of the articles about climate change in that publication, it is a mixture of cherry-picking, downright misrepresentation and pseudo-scientific gibberish. But it has the virtue of being incomprehensible to anyone who is not an atmospheric physicist.
The author of this "research article" is Christopher Monckton, otherwise known as Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. He has a degree in classics and a diploma in journalism and, as far as I can tell, no further qualifications. But he is confident enough to maintain that - by contrast to all those charlatans and amateurs who wrote the reports produced by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - he is publishing "the truth".
[Added] And here is another short piece, from RealClimate, posted earlier this year: "Monckton’s deliberate manipulation
[Added2] Some more examinations of Monckton's previous "papers" are linked to from the RealClimate Wiki
Back to Jeff's comment:
Originally Posted by AemJeff
In less than three weeks, the world’s governing class – its classe politique – would meet in Copenhagen, Denmark, to discuss a treaty to inflict an unelected and tyrannical global government on us, with vast and unprecedented powers to control all once-free world markets and to tax and regulate the world’s wealthier nations for its own enrichment: in short, to bring freedom, democracy, and prosperity to an instant end worldwide, at the stroke of a pen, on the pretext of addressing what is now known to be the non-problem of manmade “global warming”.
If you think this is a harbinger of a well-reasoned argument on the pros and cons, either on the specific topic of the stolen data, or on the larger debate on AGW, then you already agree with him. Otherwise, it carries no weght at all.
On measure of this may be observed by looking at the Google News results for monckton
: Top articles are from Alex Jones, David Horowitz, American Thinker
, The Telegraph
, and WorldNetDaily.
And those are the "respectable" ones.