Monckton responds to “potholer54”

Monckton responds to “potholer54” (2012-01-11). Anthony Watts really needs to think about who he associates with. Sure, the comical/pompous/paranoid attention-whore Lord Monckton will bring web hits, but it’s the bad kind of attention. It shows that you’re all about politics and shouting and not about thinking.

In this case Monckton’s guest post is about the “silly allegations” on YouTube of

a former “science writer” who uses a speleological pseudonym “potholer54″ [to] sneeringly deliver a series of petty smears about artfully-distorted and often inconsequential aspects of my talks on climate change.

Monckton does a good job of obscuring his argument, but if you strip away the pompous weaselly word play, his 2334 word response to the boils down to yeah, but… and because I said so. So little payoff for so many words. And long ones too!

So what can we determine from Monckton’s post? Well clearly potholer54’s penetrating observations have hit home with the thin-skinned Viscount, particularly because he goes to such effort to minimize them. The funny thing is that Monckton’s posts serve as “kick me” signs, his flowery attempts to dismiss his critics simply point us to where his claims are most effectively destroyed. You just know that getting to the bottom of his arch reference in this same post to a “no-account non-climatologist at a fourth-rank bible college in Nowheresville” is going to be worth the Googling (we covered it here).

Viscount, shouldn’t you keep quiet about where your arguments are so neatly skewered? We know that you love the spotlight and the sound of your own voice, but you’re really not helping yourself.

Anthony Watts helpfully provides the real name of the “potholer54” YouTube account holder in case his readers want to make their life miserable.

26 thoughts on “Monckton responds to “potholer54”

  1. God is Homo-stupidus still around? That’s is a sure sign that evolution can go backwards. Perhaps it’s the psycho symptons of that incurable Graves disease which he can cure – hey presto! Please…….keep him away from down under – poor old codger.

    [I’m afraid he seems to have a strange attraction to Oz. – Ben]

  2. The fastest way to know that a writer knows nothing about the science of climate change is when he or she cites Monckton or Plimmer as an authority. Of all of the denialist strategies, bringing up Monckton or Plimmer is the one that I have the most difficulty comprehending.

  3. Pingback: What I’m Reading Thursday, January 12, 2012 | Rationally Thinking Out Loud

  4. A couple of his great lines:

    “there has been no statistically-significant warming this millennium. “

    Kind of like saying there has been no sunshine today at 12:15AM

    ‘I hope shortly to be in a position to demonstrate formally that climate sensitivity is unarguably little more than one-third of the IPCC’s central estimate.”

    Formally? Does that mean he’s going to submit a paper for peer review to an established journal? Stay tuned!

    [Promises, promises. – Ben]

    • Aah the usual cry of ‘peer review’, the predictable mantra of the unsicentific alarmists, knowing full well that mainstream science and the relative institutions are controlled by the globalists pushing the AGW scam.

      One of the fastest ways to know that a writer knows nothing about the science of climate change is when the completely avoid the overwhelming scientific evidence that significant man made global warming is a scam, like the lack of mid tropospheric hotspot, the fact that mediaeval Warm Period was warmer than today, the fact that CO2 lags behind temperature by 800 years (and using statistical cheats by averaging the hemispheres that have different temporal relationships to the heat transfer to create a CO2 leading role is criminal) showing Temperature drives CO2 rise, the fact that there is no empirical human signal in the climate trend (the 70s to 98 incline has been repeated many times, even before the turn of the century), the fact that it hasn’t warmed for 17 years, the lack od sea level rise increase, the lack of sea temperature increase for the past 60 years, the fact that solar activity matches temperature cycles in the climate record, as does cloud cover (albedo effect), and the general fact that the IPCC’s GCMs’ predictions are multiple times the actual temperature showing that CO2 has negative feedbacks.

      Of all the science denier, Alarmist strategies, avoidance of the facts and science is the one that I have the most difficulty comprehending, oh wait, i do understand. They’re either criminals, gutless globalist sycophants, or suffering extreme religious cognitive dissinance.

      [Feel good to get that off your chest? Complete load of delusional, paranoid, bullshit of course. – Ben]

  5. Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
    – Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound.

    [Lorem ipsum clavum in caput (You’ve hit the nail on the head). – Ben]

    • The best argument against the mad monk is his claim to have cured AIDS ‘a fiortori’ negates all following statements.
      If Latin was a part of everday usage thugs such as he would have been ignored long ago.

    • latine scripto a fuckwitus adhuc fuckwitus

      [Lucky for you I can’t remember the URL for Google’s Latin translator – Ben]

  6. OK now you made me go watch potholer’s videos on “lord”. Normally I skip anything doing with the monc because theres not much to learn and it is kinda just going after the low hanging fruit. But one thing about potholer he sure does a thorough job. He along with green man do an excellent job.

  7. The first link goes to”Monckton responds (part 2/2)”, which contains the ‘conclusions’.

    The ‘responses’ are in “Monckton responds (part 1/2)”. The distinction isn’t obvious, and there is some overlap. But don’t miss it. It’s over twice as long.

    Enthusiasts will want to spend 70 more minutes watching potholer54’s original Monckton Bunkkum 5-part series. On the right side of the youtube page, click on the “see all” below his ‘climatechange(19)’ section.

    • What keeps amazing me is that “skeptics” somehow find the time to read pages and pages of “climategate” emails (must be boring stuff to read) but do not have the time to watch 70 minutes of Potholers videos……

  8. OK. Fine. But has anyone thought that maybe he told Maggie that it was raining and she should take an umbrella ( as an iron lady she could rust). A discount viscount looking into a mirror could easily imagine this as advising on climate change.

    John McManus

  9. I happened to (after many months of ignoring WUWT) click on that story, and saw there were no comments yet. So I wrote “Is this site really still serving as a clearing house for this demagogue?” – I just checked: it never made it through moderation.

  10. Christopher Monckton’s only hope is that people won’t compare his version to potholer54’s.

    His list is in the same order as “Monckton responds(part1/2)”. Beginning times are shown.

    0:32___”…he advised Margaret Thatcher on climate change…”

    0:52___”…he wrote a peer reviewed paper…”

    1:27___”…the Earth is cooling…”

    2:56___”…Greenland is not melting…”

    3:40___”…there’s no systematic loss of sea-ice in the Arctic…”

    4:27___”…there has been no correlation between temperature and CO2 for 500 million years…”

    5:26___”…a pre-Cambrian ice planet shows CO2 has no effect…”

    6:40___”…there had been no change in the Himalayan glaciers for 200 years…”

    8:13___”…only one Himalayan glacier has been retreating…”

    11:13___”…Dr. Pinker found that a loss of cloud cover had caused recent warming…”

  11. Perhaps he’s finally lost the plot completely. It was one thing to take on Abrahams – after all he’d written a pretty long piece and you have to pay attention to get the full meaning.

    But Potholer’s videos are simply put together, clearly explained, nicely illustrated, always explicitly and exactly linked . You absolutely cannot miss getting the message.

    (- unless you spend the whole time trying to skip or fast forward I suppose.)

  12. Tilting at windmills is he?

    Just then they came in sight of thirty or forty windmills that rise from that plain. And no sooner did Don Quixote see them that he said to his squire, “Fortune is guiding our affairs better than we ourselves could have wished. Do you see over yonder, friend Sancho, thirty or forty hulking giants? I intend to do battle with them and slay them. With their spoils we shall begin to be rich for this is a righteous war and the removal of so foul a brood from off the face of the earth is a service God will bless.

    “What giants?” asked Sancho Panza.”

    Extract from the book “Don Quixote” by Miguel de Cervantes

  13. The staying power of that Monckton is incredible. Although there’s no doubting the man is superb at political theater. The tragedy is that what the Climate Change discussion needs is education and intellectual curiosity. Both sorely lacking in the Lord’s various presentations.

    For my two cents worth see: “WUWT champions and cheers Monckton’s lies, fortunately Peter Hadfield gives an excellent response ” at

  14. Hadfield, in his usual measured and polite style, has the following at his youtube site

    I am in discussion with Anthony Watts about posting a rebuttal to Monckton’s response on wattsupwiththat. Both Monckton and the website’s moderator made the ludicrous claim that I have no documentary evidence to support my debunk of Monckton, despite the fact that in the video description I list scores of references to documents, and show most of them in the videos. I won’t publicly disclose where the ‘negotiations’ are at, but I’ll let you know if I am eventually granted the right to respond — which is a right, not a privilege. I would equally welcome Monckton’s response on this channel, which is also his right.

  15. HELP !
    I’m wonder if someone out there knows if anyone’s did an examination of the various claims made at the WUWT post:

    Lord Monckton’s summary of Climategate and its issues
    Posted on December 1, 2009 by Anthony Watts
    Both Steve McIntyre and I are mentioned in this comprehensive summary. I’ve posted some excerpts below, with a link to the full report in PDF form. It is well worth a read. – Anthony

    ~ ~ ~
    Ending with:

    “Scientists with programming knowledge have already begun to examine the computer code that Professor Jones and his colleagues had attempted to hide for so long. Here is Marc Sheppard’s selection of three examples of the tortuous sequences of deliberate data tampering that are evident within the program code.
    Read the complete report from SPPI here:
For the Full Report in PDF Form”

    (i’m not bothering to link it, but you know where to find it.)
    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

    Considering how much time has passed and nothing else has been heard regarding “tampered computer codes” seems like more smoke up the arse, still I’d love see a systematic take down of those claims – should one exist.
    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

    Also for what it’s worth:

  16. PS. The more I reread the full text of that, the more it seems to simply be the “Hide the Decline” nonsense – the Lord sure does know how to hyper load his syntax.

    In other words much ado over nothing. . . yet once again.
    Go figure

  17. Further to Potholer’s attempt to get right of reply at WUWT, his site now says:

    UPDATE: Anthony Watts has rejected my request for equal space to respond to Viscount Monckton’s piece on wattsupwiththat (… ). I have responded to Mr. Watts’s various reasons on the comments section at the bottom. I have been told I can respond in the comments section only (while Monckton was granted his response as a guest post.) As a test of Monckton’s willingness to debate me I did post a comment on one subject — the Johannessen paper — but so far Monckton has not responded. He seems unwilling to enter into a debate with me, and Mr. Watts is unwilling to give us equal platforms for such a debate. However, I will submit my response to WUWT in the hopes that Mr. Watts might allow not just the right to respond, but also a free and fair debate on his channel. I repeat my invitation to Mr. Monckton to post a video response on this channel. I have also extended an invitation to him to debate me in the comments section of WUWT, and in the guest forum if he can get Mr. Watts to agree. After all, if Mr. Monckton is right and I am wrong, what has he got to lose? What does Mr. Watts have to lose?

    [Funny how Anthony’s ‘generosity’ is always one-sided. – Ben]

  18. Watts wants to control the debate through his site and he can bury Hadfield’s response in the archive where nobody will ever read it. I suspect he knows deep down that Hadfield is right which makes this behaviour doubly gormless.

    What is Watts so afraid of?

    Hadfield would be smart to ignore him and respond through a video. Either way Monckton’s leigons are going to ignore the response so there is no point playing Watts’ game.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s