“Don’t mock the Monck” (2011-11-20). Anthony Watts “don’t have a dog in this fight” but wants us to think that at least one of the comical Lord Monckton’s denialist claims are true. Apparently unable to out-argue Monckton’s denialism his opponents can only make up slanderous personal criticisms.
So… Anthony Watt’s continuous coverage of Monckton’s scientific activities (hereafter referred to as “antics”) and Monckton’s frequent appearance as a WUWT guest writer are to be taken as indifference to Monckton’s credentials? Pull the other one, Anthony.
Who would have thought that the blowhard Monckton would respond to scrutiny of the single credential he can even vaguely lay claim to by running off at the mouth even more? The real House of Lords has repeatedly told Monckton to stop using an invented portcullis crest that looks almost the same as the House of Lords’ and to stop representing himself as one of their Members. The indignant Monckton responds with “soi-disant”! “criminous”! “misfeasance!” “defalcating”! And trots out the paid opinion of lawyer Hugh O’Donoghue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Since Anthony stands in rapt admiration of Monckton’s sparkling verbiage, here’s a word for him to look up: logorrhea.
So when Monckton defended his claim of being a Member of the House of Lords, maybe his answer of “Yes, but without the right to sit or vote” was correct? Why yes, in the sense of not appointed and completely without authority, rights, or (dare I say it) qualification.
I guess since the only response possible to Monckton’s searing global warming arguments are these ‘personal attacks’, he automatically wins every climate debate from now on. That’s so galling to us global warming alarmists.
Oh, wait. The is he/isn’t he issue is completely beside the point, 99% of the criticism of Monckton’s claims are about his repeated bold-faced scientific lies. See here, here, here (this is a good one), here, here and here. For the visually oriented, start here. Hell, just fire up Google and type “Monckton debunked“.
So this whole tempest is just ineffectual misdirection, perhaps intended to keep their follower’s emotions running high. Monckton, like our own Anthony Watts, has a long history of taking self-important offense to imagined slights.
When the dust settles we again find ourselves just where we started: Monckton is a vainglorious, paranoid, reactionary right-wing politician and journalist with no scientific credibility whatsoever. Everything Monckton does is in the interest of his own self-admiration. You can make your own connection between portcullises, lipstick and pigs here, while Anthony might want to ponder fleas and dogs and perhaps also own brushes and tar.
Note: Monckton is keeping quiet about his claim to have won the Nobel Prize.
Wott's Up With That? 
And so in summary – Monckton’s claim is correct.
Those who have spent all their time claiming otherwise have been proven wrong and once again we are left to wonder why alarmists are so keen to focus on anything (anything at all!!) other than the science.
He must really be getting under your skin!!
:)
[You and Monckton are trying to turn a sow’s ear into a silk purse. No-one disputes Monckton hereditary claim to the title he so vainly clings to. Monckton has tried to infer that this represents some sort of recognition of his mighty intellectual powers. That’s what’s laughable. – Ben]
The fact that Watts has Monckton on his website is confimation (not that any is needed) that he is not a seeker of truth or scientific validity, but a fulltime misinformer.
Off topic, a new set of stolen emails with nothing in them. My comment will not make it through the liberal moderation of WUWT. Therefore here:
–
This is called: fencing.
Everyone now has the right to steal all Watts’ private mail and do some quote mining. That’s going to be rather nasty.
–
Now this really needs to be done. Be assured the mails of the climate revisionists will be full of sh*t, possible even prosecutable sh*t.
“And so in summary – Monckton’s claim is correct.”
No. The House of Lords says he’s not a member, that’s the definitive word on who is and is not a member of the House of Lords.
If Monckton feels aggrieved he can challenge it in court, something he has failed to do.
In this case you have concluded Monckton’s claim is correct based on the opinion of a lawyer, whom I’m willing to bet, you’ve never heard of. I’m also willing to bet your knowledge of British constitutional law and the reform acts that stripped heredity peers of their rights is lacking.
When Monckton gets the House of Lords to agree he is a member either by letter or court case then his claim will be correct.
sharper00 said:
“If Monckton feels aggrieved he can challenge it in court, something he has failed to do”.
Another goofy lord tried that and it didn’t work.
“In May 2011, Mereworth went to court to attempt to force the House of Lords to issue him a Writ of Summons allowing him to sit and vote in the House by virtue of the Letters Patent issued in the creation of the Baronetcy. The case (Baron Mereworth v Ministry of Justice) was dismissed on the grounds that the High Court did not have jurisdiction on how the House of Lords conducted its business. Furthermore, even if the court did have jurisdiction, the House of Lords act of 1999 clearly withdrew the right of holders of Letters Patent to be issued a Writ of Summons purely “by virtue” of those Letters. Mereworth was also ordered to pay £8,800 in costs.
This case was referenced as precedent in the official rebuttal of a claim by Viscount Monckton that he was entitled to claim membership of the House of Lords”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baron_Oranmore_and_Browne
You should read the article on WUWT, it explains that the ‘House of Lords’ does not deny he is a member, just some jumped up little minion. So get your facts straight.
What is funny is that this is an issue raised by people who cannot debate Monckton on the science and now these same people are whining that this is a ‘distraction from the science’. LOL.
Still, I guess if you are believers in the new religion of AGW you are not too bothered by reality.
So tell me, how much faith do you have in these climate models now that you have just had another insight into how your climate priests behave?
[Did you read my post? Monckton is regularly and easily defeated on his “science”. The “minion” is the person responsible for defending the House of Lords’ integrity. But keep squawking if it eases your anguish – Ben]
Hey I will tell you something crazy that Monckton said! He said that the climate was a chaotic system which is far to complex to model to any useful degree of accuracy. Mad eh! Of course you can prove him wrong can’t you? Show us the model.
LOL!!
[As real climate scientists have said; “All models are wrong. Some are useful.” In Monckton’s case he’s twisting a relative truth to make a dishonest absolutist argument. And you gobbled it up. LOL. – Ben]
A furphy, also commonly spelled furfie, is Australian slang for a rumour, or an erroneous or improbable story.
“Watt, me worry?” : Alfred E Neuman
“You should read the article on WUWT, it explains that the ‘House of Lords’ does not deny he is a member, just some jumped up little minion. So get your facts straight.”
The facts are the House of Lords website specifically repudiates Monckton as a member.
Note at the bottom:
It’s from the Clerk of Parliaments and references his predecessor as having the same position. Your comment about “jumped up little minion” suggests you heard something about a “clerk” and didn’t bother to do any research whatsoever on what the position is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clerk_of_the_Parliaments
“What is funny is that this is an issue raised by people who cannot debate Monckton on the science”
Yeah yeah I remember how “evolutionists” were too scared to come debate pastors at their church on “the science” too.
What is far more interesting is the cult of personality you’re promoting. It’s hilarious to read WUWT posts in which they talk about “we the people” and liberty, then Monckton posts and they bend over to kiss his ring and lick his shoes.
Given that at least one of us British ought to do it. Could I just apologise to the rest of the world for Monckton.
[Its OK, Monty Python mocked Moncton long before your apology in “Upper Class Twit of the Year” (YouTube link). I don’t think even the Pythons envisioned someone so bug-eyed and blithering though! – Ben]
Pingback: What I’m Reading Monday, December 5, 2011 | Rationally Thinking Out Loud
I would think that at this stage of the game if I was a serious climate change denier I would want to disassociate myself and any arguments I made from Lord Christopher Monckton. With such outstanding dissections and takedowns of Monckton’s nonsense from John Abraham (A Scientist Replies to Christopher Monckton: Abraham v. Monckton) and Peter Hadfield aka Potholer54 as well as so many others over the years the guy has as much credibilty talking about climate as Orly Taitz does talking politics. He’s become a parody of himself.
I got my Climate Depot email today from Marc Morano where he was boasting that he going to appear with Monckton and Inhofe down at the Durban UN Conference on Climate Change this week. Yeah, those guys will all look great together.
[I can only stomach so many sources of crap, so I stay clear of Morano. Monckton is literally becoming a Monty Python character, which makes Morano’s choice of association quite illuminating. Abraham and Hadfield do great work. – Ben]