Helen Caldicott and the ABC have excelled themselves in the Art of Ad Hominem. So much so, that Christopher Monckton is not only writing to the ABC, but also to medical registration boards as well, calling for Caldicotts’s de-registration.
On ABC Radio National (about 25% into the program). Reader Steve, writes that “Helen Caldicott declares that climate change sceptic Christopher Monckton has “got thyrotoxicosis and bilateral exophthalmos”. She gives the impression that such conditions should prevent Monckton from engaging in the public debate. Waleed Aly said nothing to stop Dr Caldicott’s ad hominem attack on Monckton’s alleged medical condition.”
Is she not aware Monckton had Graves?
Caldicott is a doctor and also the co-founder of Physicians for Social Responsibility, “an organization of 23,000 doctors”. [See her Bio]. Perhaps she thinks it would be “socially responsible” to start a show where panels of doctors speculated on the medical conditions of celebrities they had never met? They could make fun of fat politicians and disabled sports stars? What fun. How about the laughs of picking on Stephen Hawking?
Stephan Lewandowsky could be a regular guest, pronouncing that non-Labor-Green fans were paranoid conspiracy hunters, and ideated nut-cases. Some ABC viewers would find that most entertaining. The rest will despair at how our tax dollars are being vaporized in the biased billion dollar organization with manners and reasoning at sub-preschooler levels, impoverishing public policy by suppressing non-pc facts.
- Jo
Christopher Monckton writes to the ABC
Christopher Monckton
I should be grateful if the ABC would investigate and respond to each of the following grounds of complaint against it for broadcasting factually inaccurate, biased, inappropriate, offensive and unfair remarks about me on its RadioNational programme “The Drawing Room ” on Wednesday, 20 February 2013 at 7.40 pm.
During the programme a Dr. Helen Caldicott said: “The other thing is, you know, that they say they have to give equal time to global warming, and they have people like this awful – what’s his name? – Monck? Lord Monckton, who’s got thyrotoxicosis and bilateral exophthalmos, but apart from that he’s not a lord and apart from that he doesn’t know any science. This is so important. And it’s imperative to have people who understand science and medicine to be discussing this, and not have these global deniers often who are funded by the oil companies like Exxon in America who spent hundreds of millions in a propaganda campaign to convince people that global warming isn’t a fact. I don’t think the media quite gets it that it’s like medicine: you know, you don’t have a charlatan debating with the doctor about the treatment of a patient, you have to, you know, practise the very best medicine you can or the patient might die.”
Ground 1: Dr. Caldicott incorrectly stated that I suffer from thryotoxicosis, which is in fact now cured, and correctly but grossly inappropriately stated that I suffer from one of the sequelae of that disease, bilateral exophthalmos. I am entitled to privacy in my medical history, and it is certainly inappropriate that Dr. Caldicott should discuss my health on the air, particularly in a fashion that was, in part, factually inaccurate.
Ground 2: Dr. Caldicott inaccurately stated that I am not a Lord. However, my passport states that I am “The Right Honourable Christopher Walter, Viscount Monckton of Brenchley”. A Viscount is a Lord. When the Clerk of the Parliaments once wrote to say I should not call myself “a member of the House of Lords”, I consulted a barrister expert in peerage law, whose written Opinion concludes that I am indeed a member of the House, albeit without the right to sit and vote, and that I am, in his words, “fully entitled to say so”.
Ground 3: Dr. Caldicott inaccurately stated that I do not know any science. However, I have a degree in Classical Architecture from the University of Cambridge, and the degree course included instruction in mathematics. I was last year’s Nerenberg Lecturer in Mathematics at the University of Western Ontario. I have contributed several papers to the learned journals on climate science and economics, have lectured on climate science at universities on three continents at faculty as well as undergraduate level, and am an expert reviewer for the forthcoming Fifth Assessment Report of the UN’s climate panel, the IPCC. I have testified four times before the U.S. Congress on climate science and economics.
Ground 4: Dr. Caldicott describes me, offensively, as a “global denier”, with overtones calculated to bracket me with holocaust deniers.
Ground 5: Dr. Caldicott inaccurately implies that I am “funded by the oil companies like Exxon in America.” I am not, and have never been, funded by any oil company. My current tour in Australia, like my first tour here, is entirely funded by the contributions of those who attend my speaker meetings.
Ground 6: Dr. Caldicott unfairly and without adducing any evidence describes me as a “charlatan”, inferentially on the sole ground that she disagrees with me. I do not know whether she has any scientific or mathematical knowledge relevant to the climate debate: if not, then it was doubly inappropriate for her to mischaracterize me as a “charlatan”.
Ground 7: The presenter did nothing to prevent Dr. Caldicott from saying what she said, and did nothing to remedy the situation by indicating to the audience that her remarks – which on their face appear malicious – might not be well founded in fact and were certainly inappropriate.
I am also lodging complaints with the medical registration authorities in Australia, since Dr. Caldicott’s discussion of my health problems on the air is a flagrant breach of the confidentiality to which patients are entitled. I shall be requesting that Dr. Caldicott be removed from all medical registers in Australia and debarred from practising medicine ever again, on the ground that she is not a fit and proper person to respect the confidentiality of patients.
Christopher Monckton
The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
h/t to Steve H. Thanks.
_________________________________
More posts by and about Christopher Monckton.
Caldicott’s remarks are beneath contempt, as are so many of the utterances of the entitled Left.
Imagine if this had been the other way around; say, Andrew Bolt describing Kevin Rudd as looking like a Fisher-Price toy, knowing nothing about science and being funded by union donations.
It would have ended up in court, like as not.
Report this
681
Rick
Except that the comments about Rudd would have been largely true…
Cheers,
Speedy
Report this
401
To be fair Rick, Monckton has told so many porkies over so many years it’s all becoming a bit ridiculous. It’s hardly surprising that people will eventually wake up to his tactics and I doubt that appealing to the moral high ground is going to carry much weight.
Report this
7111
JFC, brother of KFC I presume.
The mighty and highly esteemed Lord Monckton does not need to lie and follow the lead of the Warmistas.
He has science and mathematics on his side, as well as the truth!
You have nothing but petty accusations!!
Long live the Monck!!
Report this
710
I wonder how many of his previously debunked myths he will be repeating. Or does he make up new stuff for each promotional tour?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=544
Report this
696
Ignorance is bliss it is claimed, you have provided clear evidence
Report this
260
Unfortunately for you your link does not debunk Monkton at all. If offers alternative opinions on his statements not scientific proof.
Oh, and what do you say about the fact that CO2 emissions have increased by 58% in the last 16 years while temperatures have flatlined? UK Met office and other AGW proponents have finally admitted this even though they are trying to make new “scientific” reasons for it.
Report this
411
Ah, the Nonce returns with his meaningless SkS bribble.
A zombie, rotting from the insides. Mind, then soul.
Report this
170
When a commenter links sks as a credible source then their ignorance is hung out for all to see … nay, it’s like trumpeting it from the ramparts. Sks is without doubt, amongst the leading discredited sources of anything ‘scientific’ … without their excessive censorship of genuine scientific opinion they’d be seriously exposed on their own forum.
Report this
310
You’re such a clown; the first 2 alleged ‘Monckton myths’ concern low climate sensitivity and Lindzen.
CS is a measure of the temperature response to CO2 forcing; there are modelled conclusions about this and real life data conclusions; the IPCC relies on modelled conclusions but even these are now reducing their estimates of CS; see Box 12.2 page 153.
In the real world the model predictions were far higher than reality up to AR5 and much higher .
Lindzen has been vindicated here.
You have been challenged before to pick one of LM’s so-called ‘myths’ and defend it; we are still waiting. In the meantime EVERY one of AGW’s bits of proof are lying in tatters.
What a fool you are!
Report this
330
That should read:
In the real world the model predictions were far higher than reality up to AR5 and much higher after.
Report this
80
Typical of a troll, you post a link to a propaganda site. The reason is simple: you can only argue from authority. Whats the matter, can’t form a cogent thought on your own?
Report this
391
Nice one, Nice One,
You link to unsceptical science and the first point they try is to debunk Monckton about climate sensivity.
There have now been no statistically significant atmospheric warming for 23 years while the atmospheric co2 levels continue to increase.
So who to believe, Monckton who say climate sensivity will be much lower than modeled and in fact matches the empirical evidence
Or
SkepticalScience who say that new papers say it will be worse than they thought, but empirical evidence contradict them?
Nice One
Report this
150
Wow………………..this is JB standard welcome to the club Nice one
Report this
11
You could make a song out of that:
Debunk debunk debunk
Da da da da da Debunk.
Debunk debunk debunk
Da da da da da Debunk.
Da da da da da da da da
Da da da da da da da da
Da da da da da de de da.
Sorry about the chorus.
KK
Report this
10
N.O. if you put your brain in gear you will quickly or perhaps slowly, depending on the quality of your brain, come to see that the crucial point of contention amongst those skeptics who broadly accept the validity of the GHG effect and the alarmist scientists is whether the net effects of all the feedbacks, associated with the CO2 contribution to global warming, does one of three things:
1. Amplifies the primary direct warming effect of CO2 (positive feedback).
2. Produces zero amplification of the primary direct warming effect of CO2 (neutral feedback).
3. Diminishes the primary direct warming effect of CO2 (negative feedback)
The temperature data eliminates point 1 thus the only likely candidates are 2 and 3. If one or the other is operating then CAGW is ruled out.
Report this
01
It’s an accusation based on no knowledge at all.
Report this
00
“so many porkies”.
OK list some of them, in detail with references. You are not being truthful and you know it.
Report this
320
“Monckton has told so many porkies over so many years it’s all becoming a bit ridiculous. ”
Exactly what has he said that was a “porky”? Don’t just refer to SkS for your response.
Obviously he is so full of shit that he has been invited to be an expert reviewer for the forthcoming Fifth Assessment Report. Did you receive an invite? Did John Cook?
Report this
241
Monkton said “In fact, the global sea-ice record shows virtually no change throughout the past 30 years, because the quite rapid loss of Arctic sea ice since the satellites were watching has been matched by a near-equally rapid gain of Antarctic sea ice.”
Utter Bullcrap!!
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/sea.ice.anomaly.timeseries.jpg
Report this
26
24 Hours and you come up with one example. Just one. And it’s wrong.
Your proof is a link to a graph showing the NORTHERN HEMISPHERE Sea Ice Anomaly.
Monckton was talking about GLOBAL sea-ice record.
The Northern Hemisphere isn’t global.
Whoops.
Report this
22
As Heywood says…
Plus this.
Really Nice One – you make a claim to be refuting Moncton wrt…
And then link to the Northern Hemisphere only?
I would suggest that this really goes directly to your epistemological method where you clearly practice a bastardized version of the scientific method, that I will call “Science by Omission”, whose core goal is the protection of the “beloved hypothesis” and whose method relies on the omission of any refuting evidence.
“If you can’t see it – it doesn’t exist.”
You and your fellow travellers have really painted yourselves into an increasingly tight corner as the empirical evidence against Catastrophic Man Made Global Warming continues to emerge, one of these days your going to wake up and discover that what you believe has become the truly fringe, loony tunes beliefs of crackpots.
Report this
12
Trap set. SNAP, Two pathetic losers caught.
BTW: He was also talking about 30 years of data. Whoops. Your graph only has from 2000 onwards, but even that has a downward trend.
Here’s some alternatives for you, also showing a downward decline of global sea ice.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
http://www.climate4you.com/images/NSIDC%20GlobalArcticAntarctic%20SeaIceArea.gif
So why don’t you prove me wrong using any of the metrics; sea ice extent, area, volume, or mass? I’ll save you the trouble of looking. The data doesn’t support Monckton’s claim – man up, admit it and move on. Southern sea ice gain ( http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/ ) is NOT making up for the Northern sea ice loss ( http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/ ).
Monckton is full of crap. What’s worse than Monckton making a stupid mistake is people like yourself trying, in vain, to defend a blatantly incorrect statement. Both of you KNEW the data doesn’t support him, yet you still believed you should defend him. That’s pathetic! But it also shows that you two are not concerned with facing facts.
Report this
15
Arctic Sea ice is always “coming” and “going”.
As per this history.
You need a better metric of “human influence”.
Report this
00
To begin…
The full quote from Monckton with Nice One’s excerpt in bold.:
Nice One says in response to the Monckton quote…
And then follows with the Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Anomaly over the satellite record (30+ years now) as a refutation to support his assertion that the quote is “Utter Bullcrap”.
Heywood & I both provide comments pointing out the category mismatch between the “NH Data” of Nice One’s attempt at refutation and the “Global” nature of the quote by Monckton.
Nice One responds to our accurate statements of the category mismatch – i.e. Nice One’s substitution of Apples for Oranges with the following, which I will now dissect.
[1.a] So now it’s just a point scoring game, not an actual debate to determine what the facts are?
[1.b] Have you entered into this blog with dishonest intent?
[1.c] Does your dishonesty also go to your “scientific practices”?
[1.d] Do you believe that a strategy of dishonest engagement to score points, rather than honest debate to reveal what the facts are, will bring you lasting credibility on internet forums?
[1.e] OR Alternatively :- Is this simply a distracting strategy (e.g. Look it’s Britney Spears…) to avoid owning and dealing with your category error?
[1.f] NOTE: The lack of assumptions in what I write – I ask questions, I do not assume that I can read minds – ref point 7 below.
[2] The existence of a downward trend in the graph provided by Heywood is not obvious – looks kinda flat to me.
[3] Yes – Heywoods graph only ran from the year 2000, however mine runs over the full satellite record, and it to – looks kinda flat to me, and could honestly be described as Monckton put it “virtually no change”.
[4] As above – The global sea ice cover could honestly be described as Monckton put it “virtually no change”.
[5] As Monckton puts it “has been matched by a near-equally rapid gain of Antarctic sea ice”. So lets be clear, that is “near-equally” not “equal to”, or “exceeds”. Clearly there has been, as Monckton puts it, “virtually no change” in global sea ice coverage.
[6] Based on the data – it’s not incorrect. Now if Monckton had said that (i) Global Sea Ice has grown over the last 30 years, or (ii) Antarctic Sea Ice, has more than offset the loss of Arctic Sea Ice, then you would have a valid point that Monckton was talking “Utter Bullcrap”. However, neither of those two claims were made.
[7.a] It’s interesting to me, how often Warmists imply that they can read minds. Perhaps you should join a circus, or travelling carnival. Do you always ascribe supernatural abilities to yourself, or is this mind reading ability something that you only just started assuming with comments on this thread.
[7.b] Honestly – you could strive to be more rational in your reasoning and written expression.
[8.a] See [1.a] So now it’s just a point scoring game, not an actual debate to determine what the facts are? above. Hypocrisy.
[8.b] The facts will be determined by empirical evidence drawn from finely calibrated instruments, where the instruments and data are managed with open, transparent, and independently verifiable methods. With that in mind – are you able to provide the empirical evidence that the climate system is (i) governed by net positive (+ve) warming feedbacks to increasing concentrations of CO2 and other GHGs in the atmosphere, and that (ii) demonstrate the specific proportion of the measured increase in CO2 (and other GHGs) in the atmosphere that is attributable to human actions.
[9] NOTE: No net positive feedbacks = no Warming Catastrophe.
[10] WRT point 8. above. Could you please supply the name of the instruments used to measure the +ve feedback. Their documented method of calibration. The documented method of data management, and the specific results published in scientific journals. (Please don’t make the novice mistake of substituting climate models for actual empirical evidence).
Thanks.
Cheers ExWarmist
Report this
22
No it’s not a point scoring exercise, nor is it an exercise in distraction so FU but I won’t enter the feedback debate.
It’s an exercise in showing how wrong Monckton has been and also to demonstrate how far you go to defend Monkton despite the data not agreeing with his statement.
You’ve written a good several hundred words, yet still not provided the evidence to support his bullcrap claim. The closest you have come is a “yeah, it kinda looks flat from this angle”, is this the Monckton method?
Instead of following your lead I’ll work a little more scientifically and plot the data available from NOAA and create a 365 day running average to smooth the yearly oscillations which might be clouding your vision.
http://i51.tinypic.com/53tnqx.png
See the trend yet? Still think Monckton is correct to say “virtually no change”?
Global Sea Ice, the size of Texas & California combined, has disappeared and you think people are dumb enough to call this “no change”? What “virtual” planet are you living in?
Report this
22
“Trap set. SNAP, Two pathetic losers caught.”
Bullshit. You posted a quote about global sea ice, then provided a graph to the norther sea ice extent.
Don’t try and pretend that it was a set up. You stuffed up the response, pure and simple. Everything else is back-pedalling.
…and before calling anyone a pathetic loser, try looking in the mirror.
Report this
32
Nice One says …
[1.a] Then why write “Trap set. SNAP, Two pathetic losers caught.”?
[1.b] “FU” – getting a bit upset are you? Are you capable of having a reasoned debate or do your emotions lead your brain around?
[1.c] “but I won’t enter the feedback debate” – Yes, well – that would require empirical evidence wouldn’t it (sadly still missing)
[2.a] That’s your POV, not mine.
[3] The onus is not on me to provide evidence to show that he was right – I wasn’t making that assertion. You were making an assertion that he was wrong, the onus was on you to provide compelling evidence that he was wrong.
[4] It was what I was left with, given that you had not provided a clear trend line.
[5] Finally – a graph with a clear trendline. So now the argument is – “is the loss of approx 1.5M SqKm of global sea ice” more than “virtually no change”
[6.a] Well yes – I can certainly see a trend – it’s amazing the difference that expanding the scale on the y-axis makes.
[6.b] Was Monckton right – see below.
[7] You know what, Monckton was IMHO wrong to use the words “virtually no change” to describe global sea ice over the last 30 years. It would have been better for him to say something along the lines of “In fact, the global sea-ice record shows
virtually nosome small changes throughout the past 30 years, however these changes are not unusual given the volatility of arctic ice cover over the 20th century.”Why…
[7.a] Ice at the north pole in 1958 not so thick
[7.b] “1938: Unprecedented areas of open waters. (And again, this is not the ice minimum but just the August ice area)”
You know what Nice One – if you were not so wedded to practicing Science by Omission, you might have noted the historical context of Arctic Ice in the 20th Century, and you would not be relying on a naturally volatile metric such as Arctic Ice Cover to feed your Confirmation Bias.
[7.c] The metric of real concern is the growth of Antarctic Ice for which there is no compelling explanation in the hypothesis of Man Made Global Warming.
Report this
04
ExWarmist says
Great. So, as I said, Monckton was full of sheet!
But he didn’t. Monckton is full of it!
LOL. Now you are the one showing only Arctic “data” and ignoring the Antarctic! But you also fail to support your argument.
[7.a] One moments data showing the ice thickness in one small point on the Arctic is NOT the same as satellite data giving unprecedented view of ice extent and thickness.
[7.b] Unprecedented? Incomplete more like it and not one of the images shows anything like the most recent Arctic low.
[7.c] Perhaps you should read the science instead of blogs written by the clueless.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/earth20121112.html
Report this
13
Nice One says…
[1.a] You are drawing a very long bow to conclude that a shift from “virtually no change” to “some small changes throughout the past 30 years, however these changes are not unusual given the volatility of arctic ice cover over the 20th century.” supports your assertion that Monckton is full of “sheet!”.
[1.b] One could also conclude that the variation I am talking about is simply a matter of emphasis with appropriate caveats based on past evidence of arctic volatility.
[1.c] Hmmmm. Please observe the technique – I quote you completely, in full open transparency, before I refute you. You take partial snippets, make “omissions”, gaps of logic, reasoning and empirical evidence… I will address this below.
[2.a] Obviously (?) if we are discussing a drop in total sea ice extent, and the Antarctic has grown in extent (which point, I think that we both agree is valid), then it logically follows, of necessity, that the Arctic component is the point of interest – hence why I focused on it in my last comment. This is not an opportunity for you to attempt point scoring, or to avoid recognition of your original lapse in providing only the Arctic metric when a global metric was warranted..
[2.b] See supports below.
[3.a] I’m a big fan of satellite data, – however it does not reach back prior to 1979. Hence it is a short record, your CAGW hypothesis needs to be able to account for past changes as well as current ones if it is to be able to rule out natural climate change.
[4.a] Note that none of the 1930s maps deals with the September period of maximum arctic ice melt. They all understate the melt for each year. The fact that there was a substantial period of consistent ice loss over the 20s and 30s, and then rapid recovery in the 40s shows how naturally volatile the Arctic has been within recorded history.
[4.b] Note that the 1907 map for September shows an Open North West passage the year after the Norwegian explorer Roald Amundsen in his 47 tonne sloop ‘Gjoa’ emerged in the Pacific to become the first yacht to complete the Northwest Passage albeit over a 2 1/2 years of travel.
[4.c] The second main element of these maps is that current reconstructions of data by Cryosphere Today, substantially overestimate past data. It seems that ice area for 1935 and 1996 were roughly similar (and it seems that ice area for 1938 and 2000 were roughly similar etc.)
[4.d] One could suggest that the Cryosphere Today data for the pre-satellite era was “full of sheet!”.
[5.a] It is important to read the science, it is also important to gather all the facts, not just those that “on their own” appear to support your hypothesis.
[5.c] In your comments on this thread you have managed to demonstrate many of the methods of Science by Omission
For example.
[i] Simply omitted from consideration – the pre-satellite data from other sources,
[ii] Disqualified from consideration – “instead of blogs written by the clueless”
[iii] The significance is downplayed (and look at something else). – “One moments data showing the ice thickness in one small point on the Arctic is…”
There were more than one point of data in the linked article – and the North Pole is a significant point.
[iv] The source and/or the messenger is maligned – “instead of blogs written by the clueless”
[v] Adjusted into compliance – expanding the y-axis of your graph to get a stronger down slope for Global Sea Ice.
[6.a] A good article, – interesting that it provides no support for the hypothesis of Man Made Global Warming, as the authors make no distinction between anthropogenic and natural climate change.
In summary: Your methodology is as full of holes as your reasoning. Your leaps of faith overreach the evidence that you admit as useable to reach conclusions that are not warranted once a broader view of the available evidence is taken into account. You should re-examine your method, and root out your confirmation bias, your rejection of any evidence that might refute your beloved hypothesis, your adoration of authority and your willingness to malign others who simply disagree with your conclusions.
Report this
00
All that and still you provide no evidence to show that the Arctic has been like the recent low.
You talk a lot, but you don’t say much.
I obviously don’t have the same amount of spare time as you, but please note, the gradient of the graph does not change by modifying the scale of the Y axis. Learn some basic math. More than 1 million sq km of ice went missing, no matter how the graph is plotted.
Report this
11
Let’s be clear about the difference.
Your 1935 map (from sketchy data sources) looks like this
http://hidethedecline.eu/media/Nautisk/fig9.gif
The 2012 minimum looks like this
http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/79000/79256/npseaice_am2_2012257.png
A vast difference, although if you use Monckton logic, “virtually no different”. Perhaps his googly eyes are playing tricks on him?
Report this
13
Oh, and anyone could be a “reviewer” for the fifth assessment.
Report this
63
I stand corrected. Will you be applying?
Report this
11
What about “Expert” reviewer? Is it his expertise in writing essays about ancient architecture (including “instruction in mathematics”!) that gets him that moniker, do you suppose?
Report this
30
And Helen Caldicott hasn’t been telling porkies?? Have you ever tried to read the dribble she regularly comes out with? She has no understanding of nuclear radiation at all, yet for about 15 years she has been the ABC s go to person for antinuclear statements. Tim Flannery may have his biases and his faults, but he is at least basically sane. Dr Caldicott, unfortunately, not so much.
Report this
70
You are joking, right?
Report this
70
He doesn’t pretend to be a member of the House of Lords, for starters….
Report this
12
“He doesn’t pretend to be a member of the House of Lords, for starters….”
I love it when the warmies continue to trot this out like it’s relevant. It’s not like his title changes the message.
Report this
01
It’s not the title, it’s his repeated insistence on an untrue assertion which sets him apart from the likes of Flannery.
Report this
10
I wish LM would sue this person.
Report this
350
Cohenite, Monckton does a lot of threatening to sue but never does. Why?? Of course, because it would be laughed out of court.
Report this
265
Care to list the occasions that you allege or is it just more warmista innuendo with no facts?
Report this
150
So, how is Michael Mann’s case going?
I will pose the same challenge as I do to every dirtbag troll that slimes his way on to this site: Why don’t you arrange a debate between one of the global warming luminaries and Lord Monkton? Then, Monckton would be “exposed”… as a titan amongst debaters with an astounding command of the science on the tip of his tongue!
Could it be because he eviscerates all comers? Are you worried that your little world built on a BS theory will come crashing down upon you? Is it because in all the major debates sponsored by an impartial organization the warmists always lose?
I would tell you to man up but that would be a waste of my valuable time! Get a life!
Report this
401
Eddy,
Be reasonable. Just because most of the skeptics on this site are well connected with real scientists, doing real science, we cannot assume that your average troll (and JFC strikes me as being below average) has contact with anybody apart from the occasional Script Kiddie who thinks they understand how the climate models work.
Report this
40
He “eviscerates” them, by telling porkies and displaying doctored graphs.
Not so convincing.
If he wants a debate, he can stop pretending that his letters to science journals are “peer-reviewed scientific articles” and actually do some science and get it published.
Of course, being unqualified in the field and never having conducted any research in the field is something of a handicap.
Report this
11
Under Roxon’s proposed amalgamated AD legislation where offence becomes actionable I would think a sufferer of a disease who is ridiculed by, of all people, an MD, would have good grounds for a complaint.
Under defamation Caldicott has defamed LM by claiming he is paid by big oil; that is factually incorrect and the imputation is LM only speaks against AGW alarmism because he is paid to by vested interests; that is actionable.
Similarly, the other points LM notes are all defamatory, are not factually correct and do not constitute honest opinion since even a modicum of enquiry by Caldicott would have led her, as an educated person, the standard to which she would be judged, to conclude those comments were not correct.
IMO LM’s standing as a reputable commentator on AGW has been damaged by Caldicott. I don’t think she or the court would be laughing if a SOC came her and the ABC’s way.
Report this
310
If Lord Monckton has Graves Disease, that would go a long way toward explaining why he hasn’t spent time in court fighting the naysayers. This is not an attempt at defending his position(s) on global warming, etc., but rather a defence of the serious nature of the disease.
You have only to look at his picture to know that he has a thyroid problem, but Graves goes far beyond that. Look it up, talk with someone who has it.
Report this
30
Surely he could cure his own disease, after all he’s cured AIDS, MS and all sorts of malady!!
And Peter Sinclair suggests you could use it on stubborn stains as well!
Report this
018
Does JFC stand for Just Find a Cure? You may be on to something here!
From Yale University, no less!
For a list of all the things global warming “causes” see http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
So, Lord Monckton exposes the fraud of CAGW for what it is and saves countless lives!
Actually, I think JFC stands for Just a Fuc@$#G Coward!
Report this
90
The 21 protestors from the No Dash for Gas group, which protests against government plans to develop 20 gas-fired power stations in the UK, admitted the charges against them at Mansfield magistrates’ court on Wednesday.
However, they now face a claim, seen by Channel 4 News, for damages of up to £5m from French company EDF. The claim seeks compensation for a range of elements including lost profits from the delay in commissioning the power station and staffing and security costs.
Report this
50
Oh, way to go … mind you, the Green movement could probably pay that out of petty cash.
Report this
20
Probably not. Truth is a defence, I believe
Report this
016
Not applicable in this case cobber.Caldicott has defamed Monckton. There are a number of defamatory imputations in the ABC broadcast. The ABC as the publisher of the defamation should be sued. The limited privelege statutory defences in Australian defamation law cannot be relied upon by Caldicott and the ABC as the staement involved malice. Just sue them and stop this outrage against legitimate and democratic dissent once and for all. Apart from defamation Caldicott expresses a fascist notion that the demos is ignorant, musn’t speak and must be ruled by a technocratic elite (which includes herself of course).
Report this
290
Good point; I had forgot the malice in Caldicott’s statement.
Report this
120
Sure, but I don’t see how this will help Caldicott, Monckton is telling the truth.
Report this
20
“Don’t debate the science, attack on person and repeat the political CAGW(UNFCCC) doctrine”
?
Report this
00
She took a knife to a gunfight. What a complete berk. Unfortunately her mates will protect her because with the left, the end justifies the means.
Report this
540
You do not want to Mess with the Monck. The Green Left seem to think their adoption of cuddly causes puts them above adherence to the social norms of behaviour and common decency, or at least puts everyone else beneath them. Though most of them haven’t the life experience to realise it. Ask Parncutt. Though Monckton was much too gracious in accepting his abject apology, after having to go to the trouble of eliciting it, but that’s him.
Report this
570
Well done, Lord Monckton.
The words of Caldicott quoted are despicable. Her participation in an organisation interested in social responsibility looks akin to Gleick’s membership of an ethics committee – evidence not of their own leadership in either responsibility or ethics, but rather of the abyss between their own behaviour and what one might presume to be their self-image.
Morally and intellectually unimpressive people seem to be prominent as leading pushers of alarm over carbon dioxide. That by itself is both intriguing, and grounds for the newcomer to this ‘debate’ to wonder about what is going on here.
Report this
980
Strange that a leader of http://www.psr.org/ could say this public? Makes one wonder what the meaning of social responsibility really is about?
Maybe it’s just another “innocent club”?
Report this
20
http://www.heretical.com/miscella/munzen.html
?
Report this
00
“Trotsky chose well in Münzenberg. Following the rise to power of the Bolsheviks, he pioneered most of the manipulative political techniques which are a feature of life in Britain today. Ad hoc committees for endless causes, politicized arts festivals, mock trials, celebrity letterheads, disinformation stunts and protest marches all sprang from Münzenberg’s sheer genius for propaganda.
Stephen Koch, in his book Double Lives: Stalin, Willi Münzenberg and the Seduction of the Intellectuals, calls this “righteous politics.” Political issues are turned into a quasi-religion, which brooks no debate – witness the ‘no platform’ antics of left-wing students who can tolerate no outlook besides their own.” etc……
Report this
90
“During the 1920′s and most of the 1930′s Münzenberg played a leading role in the Comintern, Lenin’s front for world-wide co-ordination of the left under Russian control. Under Münzenberg’s direction, hundreds of groups, committees and publications cynically used and manipulated the devout radicals of the West.
Most of this army of workers in what Münzenberg called ‘Innocents’ Clubs’ had no idea they were working for Stalin. They were led to believe that they were advancing the cause of a sort of socialist humanism. The descendents of the ‘Innocents’ Clubs’ are still hard at work in our universities and colleges. Every year a new cohort of impressionable students join groups like the Anti-Nazi League believing them to be benign opponents of oppression, rather than the Trotskyite fronts they really are. The old tricks certainly are the best!”
Report this
70
From the PSR website”
Three totally disjoint concepts in that statement, conflated into one.
I wonder why they did not include starvation caused by the sudden increase in biofuel production in the second and third worlds. Do they even know what biofuels are?
I also wonder why, as physicians, they are not concerned about the increase in Malaria in the Second and Third world countries, and not lobbying for the reintroduction of DDT.
The whole PSR thing is about creating a feel-good atmosphere over drinks and nibbles once a month. Oh, and having their very own amateur-looking website, that they can feel so proud of.
Report this
50
Sorry for not having the time nor the urge to watch the ABC show or to read the script, but I have a question: did Caldicott also talk about climate science. If yes, what credentials in climate science did she put forward or demonstrate?
Report this
410
No, not at all — she simply wants to ensure that these “awful” people who do not toe the official Left/Green Party line on subjects including nuclear power and climate change, should not be allowed to have their views aired on the media.
That privilege should be reserved for people such as the “wonderful” (or was it “lovely”) Bob Brown, she thinks.
She’s a piece of work, all right.
Report this
540
Flannery explained it to her while they were sipping Chardonay on his waterfront deck
Report this
140
G’day Dennis,
That would be the deck just above the eight story level no doubt.
Report this
50
I liked Helen’s bit near the start, about there still being so many nuclear missiles on a hair trigger between Russia and the US. Then she goes and steps on a hair trigger she wasn’t counting on, by so glibly dismissing the architect of the Green Lefts demise.
Heh, heh. Popcorn anyone ?
Report this
161
What the hell would she know about that?
Probably thinks theres a man in a hat sat in a flat with a big red button…you know, like they used to say “they is only gotta press the button”.
Point of fact, if the WP had overrun West Germany it would have taken days for the order to deploy nukes to be implemented. Nobody in NATO believed conventional forces, BAOR and US Army included could hold off the WP forces for longer. It was integral to NATO doctrine that nuclear weapons would HAVE to be used to stop such a WP invasion. The entire purpose of NATO ground forces was to delay the WP long enough to get the order cleared to use nuclear weapons. Hardly a hair trigger.
Then at least hundreds, possibly thousands of nuclear weapons would have been detonated on Western European territory from the Baltic down to the Mediterranean. Its not widely understood that not only Britain and France possessed nuclear weapons to use on Western European soil. Nuclear weapons were deployed on “dual key” systems to numerous other countries, operated by for example, Holland and Germany itself. Turkey was one of these NATO nuclear powers and still possesses the US W61 nuclear bombs from that time (a side script to Iran becoming nuclear is the likelihood that Turkey will review its status in response). Germany would have been heavily bombarded with Lance, Pershing and other missiles, not to mention French weapons with a range that only reached into Western West Germany and they were deadly serious about using. Clearly these weapons would have been detonated between significantly populated areas where armour would have been funnelled into killing zones. But civilian casualties would still have occurred. Hence the deployment of the “Neutron Bomb”. Many thousands of Davy Crocket systems were deployed having a range of less than five miles fired from the back of a truck. Their yield could be dialled in, down to fractions of a kiloton. The US Army intended to fire off all of these at tank formations crossing West German soil. Its a testament to US security that all of these weapons (smaller than a water-cooler) were eventually retired with none unaccounted for. Would the same have happenned elsewhere? Deaths among East German, Polish, Czech and Russian soldiers would have been collossal. They were the target.
No, we do NOT live in such circumstances today and the daft woman clearly hasnt a clue what she is talking about.
Report this
330
Hmm,
Another Cold War Warrior …
Report this
74
Thanks Ace and what the hell do you mean Rereke?
In 1988 my wife and I visited the wire in Germany. Lovely day and we just looked in to the lovely northern European woods and knew there were tripwires and landmines and no doubt pre-registered machine guns and mortars in there. Makes you think more than a little.
I have nothing but the deepest respect for the soldiers, sailors and airmen who held the line against totalitarian evil during the frightening cold war years and for the thousands who died in various incidents and training accidents. I’m not sure if there is a memorial for them but there should be.
Live your life well and enjoy it. These made it possible.
(If you weren’t at least a little bit frightened during the Cold War you weren’t paying attention)
Report this
120
Doing that from the other side would have invited arrest, detention and interrogation as to your intentions ? What a hell these people lived in.
Report this
50
Mike, I think that he was referring to the socialist activists displaced by a lack of the Cold War overrunning the environmental movement. She’s just a left-over with nowhere to go and without a hook to hang her coat.
Report this
20
Nothing in particular Mike. Except that I carry a small shrapnel scar from from that part of the world. Perhaps I should have put a question mark at the end of my previous comment?
And for what it is worth, the trip wires et al (in fact the whole of the Wall) was more concerned with keeping people in, rather than keeping us out.
That is why I have previously said, on this blog, “When the Berlin Wall came down, and all of the Communists escaped …”
Report this
70
Well she leaves me cold
Report this
20
Such petty tyrannies we endure today, compared to the holocaust and democratic centralist dictatorships of the mid twentieth century across much of continental Europe, that so many of the current intelligentsia and leadership would have us go back to.
Report this
70
Rereko, I made the assumption that people understood what Mike meant about the tripwires. But you are right,lots of people in the wider world or younger people just wouldnt think of that.
Report this
10
Caldicott, a medical doctor and a clown of resounding pomposity.
Let me tell you Doc’ – your medical degree demonstrates your ability to follow a prescribed course of lectures, good for you. However, it does not bestow omniscience – you need to drop the God complex. For that type of idee fixe exhibits your own obsessional behaviour.
Report this
570
She probably does not possess a Doctorte in Medicine. It is the custom in Australia to call double pass bachelor degree holders in Medicne and Surgery Doctor which is basically erroneous.
Medical Attendants or Medicos are more appropriate title.
Report this
172
I wish I were as clear-thinking, articulate, and ruthless as Christopher Monckton. Arguing with him must feel like being shot at close range with a canon.
Report this
430
Everybody ought to try it … once.
Report this
100
You are right there mate,I wish I had his ability with language,Awesome.
Report this
20
Tell me – how can the good Doctor (for a doctor she purports to be) be required to maintain confidentiality over a patient who has never consulted her, and whose diagnosis she read in the media?
Report this
530
A doctor she is – a paediatrician. Though I am unsure of her clinical involvement these days since she took up the anti-nuclear cause.
In any case, it is most unprofessional for doctors to publicly comment on a living person’s medical state (without permission) whether they are primary care givers or not. Recently in Melbourne we have seen disgraceful – in my view – comments from quite notable but uninvolved senior practitioners on the likely past medical problems of one Ian Gawler, a currently alive “cancer survivor” who runs a very expensive alternative “cure” regime for cancer patients at a nearby bucolic retreat. I don’t happen to agree with either his philosophy or his methods, but there you are.
Such public speculations are a gross invasion of patient privacy (I acknowledge Monckton’s making his medical history quite public, but that gives no medical practitioner the automatic right to disseminate it and openly speculate as to its consequences.)
Such behaviour would in normal times be a trigger for severe reprimand from any Medical Board, if not suspension of license.
Report this
410
If, say, I see a photo of someone who clearly has a medical condition, I, as a physician, not a layperson, cannot mention it.
Report this
71
I doubt if the detail on the toxicosis thing stands out from seeing a picture. A competent MD would reserve judgement until after having done a full examination, personally. And who knows that she hasn’t ?
Report this
00
The Hippocratic Corpus (the writings of Hippocrates) contains the phrase, “The physician must … have two special objects in view with regard to disease, namely, to do good or to do no harm.”
Doctors occupy a special place in society. This comes from the privilege that they are often permitted a level of intimacy with people that nobody else would be given. For that reason, many practicing doctors treat the statement “to do good or to do no harm”, as if it were part of the Hippocratic Oath.
All doctors are bound by the rules of their respective Professional Bodies to preserve patient confidentiality, and to not publicly speculate upon the medical condition of any individual, whether or not that person is their patient or not.
It is that breach of confidentiality that is despicable, and should be grounds for her to be disciplined. The fact that she was partially wrong in her comments, simply compounds the matter.
Report this
290
She has a medical qualification, but I thought the normal accepted protocal was to only use the Dr. in relation directly to her medical practice.
She DOES NOT have a PhD, so the use of Dr. in any other sense is purely for arrogance and ego boosting.
She is making herself out to be a false authority on things she basically has no idea about.. Opinions only. !!
Report this
71
It’s normal to call medical doctors doctors. Sometimes when they do other things we leave it out for brevity or to put them on a level playing field with others, but it’s an honourific and there’s nothing wrong with it. Ron Paul, for example, is often called “Dr. Ron Paul”. It isn’t a biggie.
No, the real problem is her asininity.
Report this
20
Exactly, Chris A.
Report this
00
Monckton is unlikely to get her de-registered unless she got the information about his medical history by improper means (or unless he had been a patient of hers, which is unlikely). She should not not lose freedom of speech over medical issues and individuals simply because she is medically qualified. She discredits herself by her comments, of course. And why is the ABC interviewing medics about climate?
Report this
234
Could it be her propensity for using big words to describe common conditions , (not so) subconscoiusly putting herself above the rest of us that got her into trouble, or just her offhand dismissal of people ?
Report this
200
The medical fraternity will no doubt close ranks, but they will put up with an embarrassment only so often. A complaint will be registered and from those affected by her careless remarks.
Report this
230
We have to be careful not to tar all doctors with the same brush. Most doctors are busy clinicians, dedicated to their craft, who have no time or inclination for green activism. From her bio Dr Caldicott would be best described as a retired medico, who presumably has retained her registration by paying the yearly medical board fee and meeting any other formal requirements for continued registration. A minority of doctors, e.g. administrators, are not clinicians but still work in the health arena, which does not seem to apply to Helen Caldicott.
Dr Caldicott cannot presume to speak for a traditionally conservative profession as a whole, and I would be very surprised if her stance reflects anything but a fringe minority viewpoint – another case of the ABC giving airtime to someone who fits with their own narrative, while ignoring the silent majority.
Activism within doctors’ area of expertise can be a good thing, e.g. Fred Hollows and eye disease, smoking, immunisation, safe driving campaigns, always in keeping with the primary medical aim of preventing and relieving human suffering. The broader social activism of Dr Caldicott and her ilk is not in that category, as it does not address the here and now but raises fears, almost certainly unfounded, of future catastrophe.
Report this
110
How the subconscious indoctrination works… Chris M, did you purposefully write “Dr” Helen Caldicott, but just plain ol’ “Fred” Hollows ?
Report this
10
Simple, Fred was a man of the people, a knockabout bloke with a heart of gold and a true humanitarian. No airs and graces for him! If Caldicott insists on keeping her honorific even though she has retired from medicine, let her! There is no meaningful comparison between the two of them, even though they are both nominally “left-wing”.
Report this
10
By closing ranks they are as bad as she is.
Report this
40
Hear, hear, Anton — on all points.
Report this
10
The thin skinned showman is being his usual bullying self.
Report this
6126
http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2013/02/21/372826_tasmania-news.html
I think they mean ‘let loose’. Note his excellent math.
Report this
236
I guess with the election being called you must be back on the ALP payroll eh tristan?
Report this
120
Well spotted Madjak!
Report this
15
I am pleased for you that you’ve found employment. I am all for employment. Just so long as it’s meaningful.
Report this
70
Must be a lucrative gig too with the number of days left to the election Maybe you should share some of your pay with Jo?
Report this
60
One would hardly call defending their reputation as “bullying”…. except you of course JB.
DO you have anything useful to say?…. something that isn’t moronic?
Report this
601
Was that rhetorical? ’cause he don’t speak that, either.
Report this
80
http://asiancorrespondent.com/97560/australian-politician-calls-to-ban-muslim-immigration
Uh oh. If Bolt doesn’t like Monckton, which one does Jo ditch?
Report this
244
Unlike the rabid warmists, normal people quite easily cope with people who have differing opinions without any need to “ditch” them just because they do not see eye to eye on all matters.
Report this
360
I don’t think he intended you to notice that. Tristan isn’t exactly “normal” in his views of how others should behave.
Report this
60
It speaks to the Labor hive mindset that prevails on the left side of politics. At all costs, all members of a left-leaning party must speak the same propaganda over and over until the population relents and complies. Then on to the next mind-numbing mantra. It doesn’t matter that the mantras are meaningless, you will win when the opposition gives up fighting against the inane inaccurate sound bites.
Report this
00
All fundamentalists have the same problem – a desperate need for certainty and in inability to be comfortable with ambiguous situations, uncertain information, and dissent.
Report this
00
I like that top comment on that page.
Thanks for the laugh. fool.
Report this
40
Bolt is right that it is unhelpful to have Lord Monckton, an Englishman, wade into Australian politics endorsing a relatively unpopular, oft-seen-as extremist political party. Even if he’s right on some level in his endorsement of them, it is a major distraction from his perceived expertise in climate science, and wins him few brownie points with the public at large.
So it’s counterproductive to advancing the skeptical cause on climate science. If Christopher Monckton absolutely feels the need to do it, fine, but ….
What Bolt said.
Report this
03
John,
Not having Monkton’s finesse with words I have to do it the ordinary way. On the other hand I might be censored if I did. So let that tell you what I think of your comment.
Report this
151
gees you’re a slimy, ignorant piece of *****, JB !!
And from the look of that superstupid moron type grin on your moniker, you obvious have very deep seated mental issues. Did your little sister really bully you that much when you were young ??
Report this
263
Don’t you have some photocopying and filing to go do miss brookes?
Report this
61
I wonder how many remember Our Miss Brookes. That was a real comedy classic!
Report this
80
It would have been a mimeograph machine in those days though. All hand powered too — no electricity needed, just a good old armstrong generator. How very green friendly can you get?
Report this
10
In my opinion far better than Lucy, guess we’re both showing our age, hey Roy.
Report this
30
Bob,
That’s like comparing one woman with another while both are present. Don’t go there!
Don’t go there even when only one is present. Big mistake!
Report this
20
Roy, message received and understood.
Report this
10
Roy, you must be pretty old
…the only reason I remember that is because I can remember my mom remembering it….
Report this
20
Right!
But I’ll never tell.
Report this
00
I remember “Our Miss Brooks” Roy.
I can assure you Connie Brooks (Eve Arden) has no connection with the ignorant ass to whom you refer.
Report this
30
The spelling was Brooks as I remember. But you can’t have everything.
I remember it from the radio before we even had TV and then it went on for several more years on TV.
Good inspired buffoonery and stuff you could actually let a child listen to or watch without blanching.
I can see her two co-stars big as life but their names won’t come up no matter what (senior moment in progress as my wife frequently tells me). Anyone remember? And what were their character’s names. The Principal was Mr. Conklin or something like that… Help!
Report this
00
“I can see her two co-stars big as life but their names won’t come up no matter what”
Eve Arden … Connie Brooks
Gale Gordon … Osgood Conklin
Jane Morgan … Mrs Margaret Davis
Also stared Richard Crenna in 91 of the 130 episodes.
Now the confession Roy. I cheated, looked up IMDb.
Report this
10
Now for my confession: I’m still blank so I’m glad you cheated.
Thanks!
Report this
10
And Bob, this is another one for plain old good comedy. Do you remember Laverne and Shirley?
This won’t make us look quite as old either (1976 – 1983).
Penny Marshall is in that inspired group who could deliver a punch line like no other. Then there’s Lenny and Squiggy as an added benefit.
Where have all the good comedy writers gone?
And now I’m so far off topic that Jo will be cutting me off soon.
Report this
10
I look forward to the day you dry up, stop [self-snip], and blow away…
Report this
70
52 thumbies down Brooksie! What’s your record?
We might have to have a contest.
Report this
012
Bloody masochists. No wonder you support CAGW. Bet you’re just hoping it’s another way to get your kicks.
Report this
60
He was too cowardly to see what his record was, because he said he would leave us alone if it ever went over 100. For the record, it is over 130.
Report this
50
But I didn’t check any more after it topped 100.
I guess 132 thumbs down gives you a idea of the number of people participating in this blog.
Report this
119
You are free to go now… ciao!
Report this
40
Dunno if I can top 132 with an honest post. I’ll give it a burl sometime.
Report this
05
Be rest assured, jb, we won’t miss you … you can take your ‘pay for comments’ mates with you.
Report this
40
Now 60.
Report this
20
Tristan
26 weeks before you have to get a real job. They reckon Billy Shorten has his papers already boxed up and is shovel ready. Hard times in the mill mate.
Report this
60
Not true, at the rate they give me I’ll be good for a while!
Report this
16
Dear Mr Brookes,
Irrespective of the accuracy or not of the comments of Dr Caldicott, was she inferred that such a medical complaint would have a detrimental effect on Lord Monckton’s intelect.
The comments enunciate by Dr Caldicott should be publicly denounced by the ABC and immediately followed by an on air apology by the good doctor.
May I suggest that Dr Caldicott and you for that matter, gather together all of the ‘scientific evidence’ supporting your/her claims regarding AGW and prepare an hour long YouTube video similar to videos presented by Lord Monckton.
All I have heard from her to this point in time are comments attacking the health and knowledge of an individual who has presented scientific evidence supporting his own claims.
Come on Doctor and you too John, lets see the evidence (and the video).
Report this
180
Monckton seeks to deceive. I’ve no idea why he does that. Maybe it is because of a medical condition. But its probably just because he loves the limelight.
Report this
442
Dear Mr Brookes,
With all of my comments either verbally of in writing I always try to be patient, thoughtful, polite and honest. I will endeavour to continue in the same manner whilst corresponding with you. Please allow me to address your comments:
“Monckton seeks to deceive.
I’ve no idea why he does that.
Maybe it is because of a medical condition.
But its probably just because he loves the limelight.”
Where is your evidence?
1. Please give me (and all others here interested) examples of the deception of Lord Monckton.
2. Your admission of having ‘no idea’ is self explanatory it seems.
3. Please furnish you diagnosis of the medical condition which causes this so called ‘deceptive behaviour’.
4. And this is unacceptable because of?
John, please pause and think before you make such statements, I am sure you don’t want to embarrass yourself . Even a tiny piece of evidence would be good.
Report this
230
Don’t waste the band width or the time asking JB questions. He baits the thread and does nothing useful. It’s a shame there isn’t an /ignore ability on the thread. Occasionally he’s funny, but it’s hardly worth the wait.
Troll is a good description of him. JB simply attempts to either derail the thread, or stir up the locals (as in this thread). Best to simply ignore him.
Report this
21
Piss off.
Report this
03
“Piss Off”
Code for: I have no evidence.
Report this
20
you say that because you basically don’t understand ANYTHING… because you are a totally braindead moronic fool !!
Report this
40
John Brookes seeks to deceive. I’ve no idea why he does that. Maybe it is because of a medical condition.
Report this
40
The ‘left’ demonstrates the fine art of passive aggressive behaviour in the Caldicott rant. Lord Monckton holds that behaviour to account.
Report this
60
Not always passive – sometimes just simply aggressive.
Report this
10
The thin brained Brooks is being his embarrassing self!
Report this
110
“thin brained”?
Is that a euphamism for wind bag?
Report this
70
I think that “pin head” may be closer….
Report this
60
Eddy,
I think you have a spelling mistake. Shouldn’t it read, “Brooks is being his embarrassing serf”?
Report this
10
I am not sure, WR, a serf contributed SOMETHING whereas Brooks just occupies space while consuming valuable oxygen. He does exhale plant food, though!
Report this
00
One mans “thin” seems to be another mans “thick”…
Report this
00
When he is put on an execution list you said his response was that of a bully. Now he is defamed by the national broadcaster and he is the bully? In September the gravy train hits the end stops. Gonna ride it all the way down smart arse?
Report this
120
You are a sad case, Brooks.
I seem to remember you having a pathetic little whine when someone here inappropriately made a complaint to you public teat employer.
In the real world you would not still have a job so don’t abuse the generosity of the sheltered workshop that pays you.
Report this
50
She dumps on him and you call him the bully?
Dumbass
Report this
60
Listening to the interview (well as much as I could stomach), irritating isn’t she ? Dr Helen even seems to have rubbed Journalist George up the wrong way, that arch defender of the aflicted, Dear old Moonbat of the Guardian. Here he is taking issue with her trite sensationalisms, albeit in the same nitpicking fashion that nobodies of the Green Left seem to adopt when trying to make a name for themselves by picking on Monckton, in Evidence Meltdown
I’m not suggesting Monbiot is one of these nobodys, but the style is unmistakeable when you’ve seen the likes of Abrahams, PotHoler, Bickermore and even Deltoids attempts.
I sense that Caldicott is someone rather more used to getting her own way, by bluff & bluster if necessary. A more worthy target for Monckton’s attentions perhaps.
Perhaps poor old George sees her rather as one of the too comfortable and more in need of affliction than affection, in adopting the words of Finley Peter Dunne in has strapline.
Report this
110
You’ve just got to say, “Well done, sir, well done!”
Report this
80
Lord Monckton has a much stronger background in climate science than his detractors would have us believe, hasn’t he?
A very nice letter to the ABC, I enjoyed reading it immensely!
Report this
350
Well he’s not a technician, but he seems to have an excellent grasp of the fundamentals and an eye for the significant.
Report this
10
She is also known for some ” SUSS” . Every time you turn on an electric light, you are making another brainless baby.Helen Caldicott, Union of Concerned Scientists
and .
Free Enterprise really means rich people get richer. They have the freedom to exploit and psychologically rape their fellow human beings in the process…. Capitalism is destroying the earth.
Helen Caldicott, Union of Concerned Scientists.
Report this
190
UCS. That’s the organisation that has Anthony Watt’s dog as a member IIRC.
Report this
80
Is Anthony’s dog really that stupid?
Report this
10
Nah – he’s a wily double agent, and reports back faithfully to his master.
Report this
00
He’d get taken a lot more seriously and have a lot more credibility if he abandoned the absurd claim about being a member of the House of Lords.
He is no more a member of the House of Lords than we are members of the House of Commons, even if he has the opinion of “a barrister expert in peerage law”. All that line tells me is he asked one of his inbred pommy mates who also has an axe to grind about being turfed out of the House of Inbreds. He’s a lord, he’s not a member of the house- OK- how hard is that to fathom? They changed the rules, even if some of the inbreds, even the “peerage experts”, haven’t worked it out yet.
And anyone counting thumbs down here- I think I got over 100 once for expressing some minor criticism of his lordship, and I’m as rabid a denier (yes, I like the term because it sets me apart from those too genteel to express their real opinions) as you are likely to find anywhere.
They like you if you only think what they think you ought to think. Free speech isn’t highly thought of. Sometimes you look at the pigs and you look at the men and you look at the pigs again and it gets harder and harder to tell which is which.
They like bending over for lords here. I think it’s some sort of aspirational thing.
(Oh and this is in response to Carbon 500 at No. 14- it might turn up in the wrong place.)
[This is a pretty dead horse. Whether he is or isn't is a legal debating point about the constitutionality of changes made in UK law. If it were a clear answer, I guess someone would sue someone. It isn't. Monckton genuinely believes he has the right to say that he is a non-voting member, and he has solid legal advice to back him up. Clearly it is used against him as a petty ad hom. But even that is not as simple as you may think. Many times, he has turned these ad hom attacks back on journalists to his great advantage. - Jo]
Report this
16
Never heard of this woman before, so I looked her up.
Undoubtedly a Category 1 ecoloon, whose views would make even Jane Fonda blush.
Pompous beyond belief, rigid in outlook and a classic example of why the Global Warming Industry has so little credibility. A smug purveyor of deceit, distortions, smears and outright lies
[SNIP I know it's metaphorical and a cliche. Lets find a better way to say it. Thanks, Jo]
Report this
340
[SNIP about snipped - But yes Speedy, you are right. --Jo]
Report this
60
Are people talking about me again?
Report this
100
Speedy’s words are usually poetry. Don’t be to picky about what they mean.
Report this
60
Thanks Joe – tolerance is the mark of a Gentleman.
Report this
30
Jo, my apologies.
The Labour parties of the UK and Australia are infested with Helen Caldicutt thinkalikes, they are capable of doing enormous economic damage if they somehow manage to impose their political/climate/personal whims.
She is an anti- nuclear, anti-fracking fanatic, I just wish we could selectively impose on her sort of people the type of world they bleat they wants: a low technology society dependent for energy on the vagaries of the wind and the obvious limitations of solar power. In other words, an impoverished society, but one in which she obviously believes she would deserve to be in a privileged position of power and influence.
Report this
300
Peter – more than likely true. Humility doesn’t set well with many of the leftist “intellectuals”. And sacrifices are things that other people make – ask any celebrity environmentalist.
It’s funny – having a little knowledge can affect you two ways. It either swells the ego because you think you’re an intellectual or it makes you realise how much there still is to learn. I think it’s called Socrate’s Paradox – The wisdom is Socrates is defined by the knowledge of his own ignorance.
Cheers,
Speedy
Report this
60
You’d think by that age she’d be getting some of the latter. Some people never learn though, no matter how much education.
Report this
40
She probably comes under the category “a life unexamined”.
Report this
20
…Speedy, then she aint lived ha!
Report this
20
More likely she has been handsomely rewarded for her actions in the past – and so why would she change.
Report this
00
Speedy
I could not agree more.
Leftist intellectuals are a curse on humanity with their smug self-righteousness, intolerance and inability to understand reality.
Report this
60
Thanks Peter & Speedy, I was struggling to find the words. That about nails it though.
Report this
20
As previously, I recommend “Intellectuals” by Paul Johnson.
ISBN 1-84212-039-5. Not many realise that while Marx was saving humanity he owned a lifetime domestic slave given to himby his mother-in-law. Its all in there. Along with how all the star intellectuals of the last two centuries destroyed the people they came into contact with. Read that and you wont be able stomach Shelley ever again. Find out why Tolstoy was a hypocrite. Its all in that book.
Report this
40
Was Caldicott helpful in the Cold War but a hindrance on global warming?
Sure, Helen Caldicott single-handedly saved the children of the world from thermonuclear destruction in 1986, but what has she achieved SINCE then??
The same condition Reagan had, probably.
Report this
70
Am I reading that right? She is not only giving herself credit for someone else making a decision, but she is giving herself the credit for no nuclear wars since then?
Report this
10
Clearly a “sufferer” of Aggressive Narcissism.
From the link.
Report this
10
Hmmm, 1986. That is over 25 years ago. That means the records of that meeting could have become declassified by now. Unless of course, a later President has extended the period.
I will have to see if I can find a reference. This could be fun.
Report this
30
Caldicott is way out of her depth on a great many matters on which she comments so confidently. Recently; she declared Fukushima Much Worse Than Chernobyl … when the actual headline should read: Caldicott: Worse than Chernobyl
She and her ilk have stirred global paranoia of very low, safe levels of radiation resulting in hundreds of thousands of Japanese not being able to return to a place that they can call home; to rebuild after a natural disaster. Further; the denial of the use of a safe and affordable form of energy to many more people around the globe as a result of fear mongering borders on being a crime against humanity. It become dangerous when governments “believe” the lies and prevent people from using their better judgement.
I doubt that Caldicott has the capacity to argue the case for CAGW, even when presented by an “amateur” such as Monckton. So she attacks the messenger; by his appearance and by his medical condition; as though they supported her argument.
Caldicott “appeals” to those who understand science; but she doesn’t listen when it doesn’t suit her. She waves aside the WHO and UNSCEAR reports on Chernobyl and claims that deaths will be hundreds if not thousands of times worse … 26 years later, they’re still to work out where those 600,000 claimed to have been killed by Chernobyl might be buried. Even Monbiot questions Caldicott’s credibility.
Report this
390
From Monbiot’s moment of enlightenment, linked by Bernd
Is any UN Scientific Committee to be trusted ?
Report this
80
God help us!
Report this
30
I think the correct response is – Amen!
Report this
00
Yes! Amen!
I had the quote in mind when I wrote, “God help us!” But Joe’s comment deserves amen several times over. I stand corrected.
But back to the quote: I can easily imagine the farce and the trouble that a UN committee on the effects of atomic radiation will be — and the regulations it will eventually come up with.
Report this
10
It’s the tedious and obscure NON-Papers that UN Committees spend so much of their time (& our money ) on that really crack me up. That sort of language outdoes even 1984 for obtusity.
Report this
20
There may be hope for Monbiot yet if he’s prepared to look at evidence. The evidence for global warming due to CO2 seems to be thin on the ground.
Report this
30
Is Caldicott a Collingwood supporter?
Report this
20
Len, that is an insulting implication to all Collingwood supporters!
Report this
50
Nah. She seems to have all her teeth though the level of comprehension fits.
Report this
10
I saw an interesting presentation by a Canadian academic a few years back who questioned the “Linear No Threshhold” assumption* (it’s an unproven hypothesis at best) assumed by many nuclear alarmists.
The LNT assumption works like this… we know radiation at 1,000 (arbitrary value for argument’s sake) will kill the average person. We know with reasonable accuracy that 100-200 (again for the sake of argument) will increase likelihood of cancers x, y and z by a certain percentage, presumably from case studies. Extrapolting backwards it is _assumed_ that even radiation at 10 (again arbritrary value for sake of example) increases liklihood of cancers x, y and z by some amount. Extremists even go as far as saying one radioactive particle can kill you (take the one of the Government’s melonoma ads – you know, the one melanoma cell can kill you line).
The latter may be the case, but it completely overlooks the body’s natural defences. Most mutated cells die without any external help. Many mutated cells are disposed of by the body’s natural defence mechanisms even if they don’t die naturally. The chances that a single mutation leads eventually to death are extremely small indeed, immeasurably small, but cannot be discounted altogether.
Add to this that we are exposed every day to various forms of radioactivity and radiation… bananas^, xrays, granite, flying in planes and your spouse/partner sleeping next to you etc… Living on Perth’s scarp exposes you to much more radiation than living in the metro area. Fact is the body copes with this quite handily.
The fact that one radiation particle COULD cause a mutation that COULD kill you eventually is, as Prof Lindzen might say, something we know to be trivially true.
Meh, I am digressing, but I thought these were interesting points /shrug. And yes, I have used lay terms, I am no bio-scientist of any description, I am merely regurtitating what I recall from readings and presentations. Usually I find the reality is much more mundane than the way alarmists wish to present things – something that is true by definition, I guess, otherwise they’d be realists
Anywho, the parallels with CAGW are quite interesting … e.g. some warming has occurred since the LIA, which we all agree, but this is not the sign of an impending heat apocalypse as many CAGWers would have us believe. Alarmists of any flavour (CAGW, nuclear, Peak anything including population) are pretty much cut from the same cloth (no apologies to peak oilies that frequent this forum … but let’s save that for another day).
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model
^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_equivalent_dose
Report this
20
Thanks Bulldust, that banana link is a ripper;
it’s like the radioactive analogue for the amount of global non-warming saved by the Kyoto protocol.
Report this
00
Radiation hormesis is the process of an organism changing to protect itself against damage from the radiation. It appears to work by ionising radiation activating certain genes in DNA which improve the “quality” of the copies of the cell during mitosis. (Part of preparing for cell division for growth.) It seems that one result may be that the surviving cells are more accurate copies of the original cell; resulting in less mutation. I’ve not studied to see if the faulty copies suicide as a result of “checksum failure”, or if it’s simply a matter of mitosis failing more often when the DNA copy isn’t correct.
The planet used to have much higher levels of background radiation… during the evolution of all living species and their ancestors. Everything was more radioactive a million years ago; not just the bananas. Species that had no way to protect the “signature” DNA of the species under low radiation exposure must have become extinct. i.e. humans as a species must have inherited a resistance or adaptability to low-level radiation.
And it gets “better” because hormesis resulting from low level radiation exposure over long periods appears to “immunise” against moderate to high radiation bursts. Populations which grew up in areas of high background radiation are less likely to develop cancer as a result of brief exposure (by accident!) to more intense radiation.
Report this
10
Great comment Bernd.
KK
Report this
00
You’d think somebody celebrated as an “expert” in such things (Caldicott) would be at least as aware of the present state of ignorance in that regard as a somebody with no formal education in the squishy, crawly stuff (me).
She seems to have abandoned medicine and the science behind modern medicine in favour of blind activism.
Report this
10
Another interesting example of the “Anti-Fragility” of the human body.
AntiFragile
Report this
10
Killer T cells save the day.
When killer T cells become inactive, that is when all forms of mutated cells can go to work and generally not before.
These are the body’s natural defenses.
With apologies, this stuff is now 12 years old in an ageing brain and error of recall may be present.
KK
Report this
00
Very relevant
KK
Report this
00
Dear Helen has three children. I wonder how she justifies this ‘ecocidal’ behavior with fellow misanthrope Paul Ehrlich, who said-
“In terms of environmental degradation, the birth of each American child is 50 times the disaster for the world as the birth of a child in India. In terms of consumption of nonrenewable resources, an American baby is some 300 times as dangerous to our future well-being as an Indonesian baby.”
Paul Ehrlich, Herald-Journal, March 7, 1972
Report this
202
Chris, these “stats” are obtained by not counting the kerosene, branches, roots, twigs and dung burnt daily by billions of impoverished people. For the Posh Left and GetUp Greens, the “povos” have an obligation to be born in great numbers at little or no cost, and die cheaply. They must not get hooked on diesel pumps for their water, and expect to get light from smokeless, flameless power grids. And they must not be allowed to abandon their main function:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWpan7ZjSI8
Report this
10
But dung, branches, roots and twigs are renewables
Just storring…
Report this
10
Gah! stirring (typo)
Report this
10
That’s a new one – I didn’t know that anyone was denying the existence of the Globe.
Perhaps she was being imprecise.
Report this
140
It could mean that they are denying everything … existence itself! And themselves. Kinda like Descartes* disappearing up his own thought bubble.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum
Report this
30
Hi Bulldust.
I was having a dig.
My actual reading is that her reference to “global deniers” is as follows.
The complaint that she has is that there are people who “deny” the CAGW meme who have “global media reach” – and therefore influence & impact.
When you are part of the operations of a long lived, global propaganda campaign, it does not help your cause to have other people clearly off message – the Serfs are not meant to be given the opportunity to think for themselves, or to even realise that the Authorities are not the fountainhead of certain knowledge.
Report this
20
Evidence seems to indicate that Dr. Helen C. (babies) and Dr. Paul E. (butterflies) have been and continue to be equally wrong about everything. Unless one quotes them regarding babies or butterflies it is best practice to not quote them at all. If they have not kept up with the respective fields of study – I have no information about this – they should be ignored.
Report this
60
There is an acronym for thes ekinds of people. They are called OWNIDs … Often Wrong, Never In Doubt.
Report this
31
She, on the other hand, suffers from periorbital puffiness and climate-catastrophism constipation … both, evidently, untreatable.
Report this
120
You mean mental constipation and verbal diahorrea?
Report this
40
What on (global) earth did Caldicott expect achieve by mentioning (wrongly, as it turned out) Lord Monckton’s medical condition?
Ooooooh Lord Monckton’s got a couple of long-word medical conditions, therefore, you can’t trust anything he says. He denies ‘global’ you know!
I think that the woman’s got some problems of her own, especially in the logic and common sense departments!
Report this
250
The trouble with some Doctors is, they aren’t used to their patients challenging, questioning or disagreeing with them, so they can develop an exaggerated sense of their own correctitude. Such self assuredness unfortunately tends to increase the longer they get away with it and so with age, unlike the rest of us who tend to realise just how little we know as time goes by.
Report this
130
Only too true, from first hand experience. Whenever a doc or other expert pontificates on settled science/medicine, I have an instant riposte: Remember Barry Marshall!
They sure are slow learners.
Report this
00
Khelen Koldikott should be perceived as a gross embarrassment by her fellow warmists.
I prefer to spell her name this way because it’s a transcription from the Cyrillic.
During the 1980s, when she campaigned for the suppression of nuclear power plants everywhere, and for nuclear disarmament by every government except the Soviet, she got regular and adulatory writeups in Pravda.
Report this
230
Blimey,
Thanks for that fascinating insight JunkPsych.
Helen Caldicott and the Soviet Connection
Old Soviets never die and some of them don’t even fade away. The human face of what Monckton Is saying about the new Greens.
Report this
130
Right.
Her name was also written Khelen Keldikott and Elena Koldikott (as transcribed back into the Roman alphabet).
Report this
60
Helen Caldicott received her medical degree in 1961 from the University of Adelaide Medical School. Thus, she is a Physician and does not have a doctorate in anything. To preface her name with “Dr.” is simply wrong. The Australians like to call their physicians “Doctor”, eg. Doctor Caldicott, however the use of “Dr.” as a title is misleading. At best it should be Helen Caldicott, MD.
Report this
151
Perhaps that’s all the ‘MD’ stands for ‘medical degree’. Medical practitioners don’t seem to call themselves MDs any more, so I’m told.
Report this
60
Could that be since WMD became a widely discussed subject.
Report this
20
MD is a Doctorate. (Doctor of Medicine). There is also a Masters Degree which is M. Med. About a four year course. What Caldicott has is a MBBS. A double pass Bachelor degree: Bachelor of Medicine;Bachelor of Surgery. Ken Fitch, the former Olympic team physician and Eagles “doctor” has the degree of Doctor of Medicine
Report this
10
Dentists and vets with only Bachelor degress and not genuine doctorates, have also jumped on the Dr bandwagon, much to their detriment, OMHO.
Report this
10
A disgraceful comment by Caldicott but a great response by Monckton. That Caldicott felt it was acceptable to utter those comments in a public forum at all is perhaps symptomatic of the arrogance and Group Think of the Ruling classes. But as Monckton makes clear in his reply, Dr Caldicott has bitten off more than she can chew. All hail the Monck !
Report this
201
Since I first became engaged with the CAGW debate, I have been perplexed at how the warmist crew can declare with impunity that skeptics, and named skeptics, are funded by Big Oil. The declaration is that these people are paid mouthpieces of oil and gas interests involved in an industry-wide conspiracy to subvert Good Government, to misinform the electorate and, through direct bribery, to control what various politicians support or reject, to rewrite appropriate legislation in a way that enriches company coffers.
Big Oil is not a vague term. It is ExxonMobil, Devon, Shell, BP. Nobody could mistake who they are talking about. The “paid spokemen” are Inhofe, Morano, Monckton, Watts (probably Jo, also).
Specific people say these things: Hansen, McKibben, Suzuki. Yet for all the clear specificity, nobody gets called to show where proof for these planet-level conspiracies to defraud, pervert, manipulate, lie and steal citizen’s wealth, health and happiness.
Very, very odd. With so much at stake, you’d think someone would be able to complain. But even such egregious malfeasance as Gleick counts for nothing.
Naive I might be in some ways, but is it really this bad?
Report this
250
It’s worse, Doug.
Edward Bernays taught Goebbels that the Big Lie, repeated a hundred times, becomes the truth in the perception of the gullible public.
The Establishment, and this government in Australia in particular, has taken this to new heights. It is no longer just one or two Big Lies, but ALP policy appears to be to blatantly lie about anything and everything.
The Crime Minister cannot open her gaping maw without lies, big lies, little lies, gross lies, spilling forth like sewage from a milking shed. It would seem this has been the case for a very long time. Since she continues with no repercussions whatever, the entire cabinet seem to have taken the same approach. In fact, Combet, Emerson, Conroy, apparently think this is some sort of contest. Who can tell bigger lies, and more of them? Wong, Emerson, Ludwig, Smith? (Shorten just agrees with all of the lies without even making an attempt to listen to them).
Report this
80
Australian Liars Party or ALP, whatever it takes. Their extreme Green now divorced but cohabitating comrades are the same.
Report this
40
I think the divorce is another lie. Both want more votes and each blame the other for losing them, so they are trying a “let’s split and rake in what votes we can each, then get back together again and screw the people some more” trick.
Report this
40
Perhaps we can get Lewandowsky to come up with a new paper “Conspiracy Ideation and The Dunning Kruger Effect Among CAGW Fanatics”.
Report this
30
Well, you’d have to ask Jo where she got her funding from. Perhaps from a right wing think tank? And perhaps that right wing think tank got its money from a US right wing think tank. And perhaps they got some of their money from Donors Trust.
Report this
320
jb, why don’t you take a stab at putting up a name ? … any name will do, the response will be similar. We know the donors to your socialists organisations … Soros, Rockerfella, etc. Australian Feral Government, amongst others.
Report this
50
Don’t ask me, ask Jo.
Report this
00
JB,
You are such an insincere, disingenuous ingrate that it beggars the imagination to conceive of a sorrier excuse for a human being than you!
Jo is on a shoestring budget. She and her family have used their own money because they know that their cause is just. Jo spends not only her own resources but her most valuable commodity, her time, as well.
For you to cast such unwarranted aspersions on Jo, considering how lenient and tolerant she has been to you, shows what a pitiful excuse for a man you truly are. You must suffer from such low self esteem and self worth that a beggar on a street corner would seem like a winner and a self made man in comparison to you.
You have no decency and you have no soul!
Why don’t you make like dog sh!t and hit the road!
Report this
91
Make like a tree and leave! How often do I have to tell you!
Report this
14
Where do you get your funding from JB?
And why do they still employ you while sleeping on the job?
Report this
20
Or what, John? You are a glutton for punishment, aren’t you?
The day you say something slightly intelligent or remotely profound is the day I will hold you in something other than utter contempt and total disesteem.
Report this
11
Yes! You know, it’s like, if I, like, found my self in the hands of a doctor who, like, you know, talked to me that way, you know, I would, like, you know, have to find another doctor, you know or the patient might, you know, die.
It didn’t dawn on me right away but is this a professional or is it some recent high school dropout talking here? What a little twit image she presents to the world.
Yes John and others, I know I’m exaggerating. It’s a legitimate device used to make a point. So don’t complain.
Report this
160
I just lodged a complaint, and CC’d both Conroy and Malcolm Turnbull. For what it’s worth, here it is. I suggest others do the same.
Please investigate this.
The ABC has deteriorated to the point that it calls this programming?
I find this absolutely disgusting, and the fact that my tax dollars are expended on this kind of dirt I find repulsive.
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Do Not Reply
Date: 24 February 2013 07:28
Subject: ABC Contact: Complaint – Inappropriate or offensive content
To: rodxxxxxxxxx
THIS IS AN AUTOMATICALLY GENERATED EMAIL. PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND.
SHOULD YOU WISH TO CONTACT US AGAIN ABOUT THIS MATTER PLEASE USE ONE OF THE FEEDBACK OPTIONS AT http://about.abc.net.au/talk-to-the-abc/feedback-and-enquiries/
Thank you for contacting the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. A copy of your submission is included below.
An acknowledgement will be provided in due course if a valid email address was provided.
Contact type:Complaint
Subject:Inappropriate or offensive content
Response requested:Yes
Send copy of comments:Yes
Name:Mr Rod Stuart
Location: TAS Australia
Email:rodxxxxxxxxxxx
Service:Radio
Heard or viewed on: ABC Radio National
Program: The Drawing Room
Date/Time: 19:40 hrs Wednesday 20 February 2013
Comments:
During the programme a Dr. Helen Caldicott said: “The other thing is, you know, that they say they have to give equal time to global warming, and they have people like this awful – what’s his name? – Monck? Lord Monckton, who’s got thyrotoxicosis and bilateral exophthalmos, but apart from that he’s not a lord and apart from that he doesn’t know any science. This is so important. And it’s imperative to have people who understand science and medicine to be discussing this, and not have these global deniers often who are funded by the oil companies like Exxon in America who spent hundreds of millions in a propaganda campaign to convince people that global warming isn’t a fact. I don’t think the media quite gets it that it’s like medicine: you know, you don’t have a charlatan debating with the doctor about the treatment of a patient, you have to, you know, practice the very best medicine you can or the patient might die.”
a) What right does this individual have to refer to herself as “Doctor”. She is no such thing. She is an MD, at least at the time being. Her degree was granted by the University of Adelaide in 1961.
b) AS an MD, who gave her permission to discuss someone’s medical condition on the radio?
c) In what way was this relevant to the topic?
d) Is this the way in which the ABC believes we should treat visitors from overseas?
e) Under what pretext does the ABC consider this to be appropriate discussion?
f) What excuse does the presenter have for allowing this horrid woman’s rant to continue?
g) Does the ABC producer of this program have any excuse for failing to blank out this blasphemy in real time?
I believe the seriousness of this situation is sufficient for me to copy the minister responsible for the ABC as well as his opposition counterpart.
Submitted via:http://about.abc.net.au/talk-to-the-abc/lodge-a-complaint/
[Not a good idea to publish your email details Rod. I've redacted. Mod Oggi]
Report this
260
Only thing is of course, she probably has a string of honorary doctorates from a string of politically correct establishments throughout the world, and these days (ever since we were told by little Johnny Howard that we must refer to Temp GG Hollingworth as Doctor Hollingworth on the basis of his honorary doctorate) I like to refer to all honorary doctors by the honorific.
You know, like Doctor Bob Dylan, Doctor Kathy Freeman, Doctor Ray Williams, Doctor Rodney Adler and so on.
(I don’t discriminate. His Honor Mr Justice Doctor Marcus Einfeld QC holds a special place in my heart.)
Report this
30
Well done rod.
kk
Report this
60
Much though Christopher Monckton should complain, and I wish him luck, the ABC has a highly efficient Complaints Rejection Unit, (Audience and Consumer Affairs). Unless higher management steps in, I would think that based on my experience his complaint will be rejected because of the following clause in the Editorial Policies:
I think the only chance of success is to embarrass the Editor-in-Chief (Mark Scott; the MD) in a suitable public forum or by advising people of influence.
Report this
50
There’s a weasel under every rock.
Why do decent rules only apply to the good guys?
Report this
10
Go Monck, give ‘em hell mate.
Haven’t watched the All Bullsh!t Company for years; looks like I haven’t missed much and Call-Dee-Coot has been short on the little grey cells for years.
Report this
40
Jo and others:
Monckton is still wrong in his lukewarm concepts, and he fails to understand the physics which totally demolishes any greenhouse concept, because the latter ignores the entropy conditions of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
It really is a waste of time working with IPCC models because the underlying assumptions are so dramatically false that the models don’t have a hope of being correct in the long run. They completely disregard and ignore the entropy conditions of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. They consider only 24 hour means as if the Earth is flat, and so there is no representation of the obvious underlying supporting thermal plot in the atmosphere and sub-surface.
I have written four very detailed comments (further enlarging on the content of about 20 pages in my paper) here …
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/02/tropical-ssts-since-1998-latest-climate-models-warm-3x-too-fast/#comment-70221
If you read and study this you will find, like others who have read the initial version of the paper (November 2012) that you cannot fault the physics therein, simply because this is what really happens in planets in our Solar system. Take it or leave it – that’s your personal choice – but it is correct, and no one has proved otherwise.
Report this
34
I’ve already described why the GHG effect does not conflict with the second law and arguments claiming it does are semantic mistakes. We’ve had more than 2,000 comments on this site on the topic but no progress. The net entropy of the system increases. The energy flow starts with the sun and goes through the Earth, the atmosphere, and out to space. GHG’s don’t generate any heat from “nothing” they merely delay the escape. But it doesn’t matter what I say, the discussion on this topic goes back through the same circles and repeats the same errors.
So what is the Second Darn Law?
Greenhouse Gas warming doesn’t break the second law
If commenters wish to discuss this, please do so on the Slayers site unless you’re read the comments on the two posts above and have something new to contribute. This has nothing to do with Monckton or the ABC. It’s been done to death here. I will ask the mods to stop further comments on this repetitive dead-end topic.
Report this
151
It would be great if GHG thermodynamics could be banned from threads where the topic is not specifically tagged for debate.
The same group of offenders refuse to educate themselves from the primary theory. Why? Because they don’t speak Maths…. Ultimately, the argument is, as Jo says, about semantic confusion, a battle about whose metaphor is more accurate belongs in a creative writing class, rather than in thermodynamics. The debate just keeps going back to how to better say in colloquial english metaphors what can only really be precisely spelled out in the language of mathematics.
I checked Google translate and they don’t have a translator algorithm that does physics math to English metaphor.
Far worse, IMO, is that those skeptical of GHG thermodynamics leave the false impression that overturning long established, fundamental physics is necessary to show that the CAGW hypothesis is hogwash. Nothing could be further from the truth. AGW fails on so many common sense and easily observed points that it is playing into the hands of warmists to engage in pointless arguments – IN THE WRONG LANGUAGE – about atmospheric thermodynamics. Warmists love to befuddle the real issues. And this glibberish only helps perpetuate the confusion upon which they thrive.
Report this
40
Think of increased GHG in the atmosphere being like a blanket.
No, it doesn’t create heat — but it can raise your temperature vs. what you’d otherwise be at, by trapping heat. Same deal with GHG.
The debate really comes down to the secondary and subsequent effects. This video is an excellent if brief summary of the real points of contention from a skeptical perspective:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gDErDwXqhc
Report this
15
“Think of increased GHG in the atmosphere being like a blanket.”
With all due respect, that is rubbish !!
The atmosphere acts to cool the Earth’s surface.. It is NOT a blanket of any kind.
Report this
55
With all due respect, you don’t have a clue what you are talking about.
Were your theory to be true, your jacket cools your torso when you’re walking around in winter because it isn’t 37 deg C.
Report this
23
Gees, you serious have no idea do you !!!!!!
If the Earth’s surface is overly warm, what does the atmosphere do.???
It attempts to COOLS the surface… a blanket does not and never has, and never will.
It is you who has zero idea of reality.
The atmosphere regulates the surface temperature using the pressure/temperature gradient. (something you obviously haven’t figured out yet, go back to school little boy.)
If the surface is too warm, it tries to cool it, if it is too cold… nothing much happens. NOT a blanket ! Do…… you…. understand ???????
Maybe your definition of a blanket is different from mine.
Report this
43
While it’s so obvious I posted my original comment referring to a blanket before looking at the post which also uses a blanket as an analogy not once but twice (both by the post author Michael Hammer and then in addendum #2 by our host herself), I see that there is a good explanation for this conveniently already on this site which Jo linked to above.
Sir, and I say this with no animosity — we’re both skeptics about the CAGW theory — please do yourself a favour and read this in its entirety. It is critical to the global warming debate, and really, to any proper understanding of atmospheric thermodynamics and dare I say it, basic scientific reasoning skills.
THIS IS NOT IN DISPUTE BY ANY SERIOUS SCIENTIST including skeptics of CAGW theory and its newer derivatives.
Why greenhouse gas warming doesn’t break the second law of thermodynamics by Michael Hammer with additional commentary by JoAnne Nova.
Seriously, dude, you are probably a nice fellow and knowledgeable about a great many areas that I’m not (and I mean that). However, in this one you’re just off base.
Please study the diagram in the above example carefully also. The key is that while the atmosphere is cold, space is colder. So the atmosphere (through radiative reflection, convection, and also by absorbing and re-emitting heat energy, each to varying degrees) reflect some heat back to Earth, slowing the heat loss into space.
The atmosphere doesn’t warm the Earth — it’s colder. You’re quite right about that. But it slows the heat loss down just the same as pulling out a cold sweater from your backpack makes your body warmer on a cool day.
Honest.
Report this
23
Sorry Chris, but your comment “you don’t have a clue what you are talking about.”…. Is WRONG !!
You make comments like that.. expect a sharp response.
I can assure you that there is no circumstance in which CO2 can actually cause sustained warming of the atmosphere. The atmosphere will IMMEDIATELY attempt to balance any warming effect at any level because it is regulated by the basic pressure/temperature gas laws.
The NET EFFECT of the atmosphere is to regulate and cool the surface, and the ONLY substance that can have any major affect on the speed at which this happens is one that goes through phase changes at atmospheric temperatures… ie H2O, which actually speeds up the surface cooling.
The surface of the Earth cannot maintain a temperture any greater than that which the pressure gradient can hold wrt incoming solar radiation.
That is just the way it is. Sorry if you cannot understand that.
Report this
43
Alright, Andy. We’ll call it a draw. Now here’s some entertainment:
The Black Knight from Monty Python and the Holy Grail
Report this
40
Christoph…”were your theory true”…you could sit in your jacket at the Arctic and would never get cold. Plonker.
Report this
22
No, Ace. I didn’t make the claim. I said you would be warmer than you otherwise would be.
I don’t know whether you’re so thick that you missed that or are merely intellectually dishonest. I am actually perplexed on that score. Care to elucidate?
Report this
31
Dullis:
“No, Ace. I didn’t make the claim. I said you would be warmer than you otherwise would be.”
No you wouldnt, plonker, unless you had some source of heat to start with. If you take two grasses and tie them up in a freezer for a week, one with a coat and one without, both will be equally dead and exactly the same temperature at the end of the lesson. UNLESS ONE HAS A SOURCE OF HEAT. In which case the jacket becomes irrelevant.
Thats the point of Jo’s reference to the laws of thermodynamics. All energy moves from ordered to disordered state. Its called entropy. She spellled that one out above. Pillock. Its one of the basic laws of physics taught in6th form, but clearly you were off listening to Radio Head that day.
“I don’t know whether you’re so thick that you missed that or are merely intellectually dishonest. I am actually perplexed on that score. Care to elucidate?”
No tiddy-winkles its you who are such an ignoramus that you read what Jo referred to and the words were all like dancing daisies to you…la,lala..the lights are onbut nobodies home. Just go read about the laws of thermodynamics onWikipedia wont you.
To rub it in how dumb you are, If you take two blocks of ice and wrap one in a fur coat, as per your “model” then contrary to what your “theory” predicts, one block of ice with the coat is no bleedin warmer than the other without the coat, issit! Crikey you are thick.
——————————————————————————–
Report this
01
Alright, Ace, I know this is going to be a really complicated concept, but let’s give it a try.
The Earth is heated from the Sun (and to a lesser degree by radioactive decay in the Earth’s core and elsewhere). The human body is internally headed by its metabolism of food.
Is that clear?
Out of respect for Jo and the moderators, I’ll drop this topic on this thread now.
However. Seriously people. You’re arguing with extremely well established physics that no one serious in the climate debate has an issue with.
Report this
50
Hi All
I think you are all correct.
There may seem to be a paradox in that but I took no exception to what Chris said about the insulation.
Insulation keeps you warmer than you otherwise would have been: For a while.
As Ace says; without a daily top up of Sunshine you are going to wind up at the same temperature as deep space ie about 1.6C deg above absolute zero, with or without insulation.
Andy took exception to the term ‘blanket” probably because it usually comes wrapped up in a package that includes “amplification” or re radiating stuff back to ground and so on. Amplification is stupid.
We are, I think, arguing over terminology, unless of course Chris is here just to stir up trouble which we don’t know yet.
KK
Report this
01
As compared to the vacuum of space, which is also even colder?
Sorry, Keith. That’s just silly talk from Andy.
Yes, Ace basically understands what’s going on, but missed the part where I’m talking about heated bodies and said so explicitly.
[alright, I'm out of this topic; shouldn't have replied, but felt i had to. sigh]
Report this
30
CDULLI: “”"Alright, Ace, I know this is going to be a really complicated concept, but let’s give it a try.
The Earth is heated from the Sun (and to a lesser degree by radioactive decay in the Earth’s core and elsewhere). The human body is internally headed by its metabolism of food.
Is that clear?”"”"
PRECISELY…AS I said…unless there is a source of heat your overcoat makes not a damn difference. Its no good repeating what I said to you and then claiming you are saying it first…anyone can look up and see what you said. YOU said a guy up North with a coat will be warmer than one without.BECAUSE OF THE COAT. Mind you, it helps if I post the fleedin comment in the right place to start with!
NO. Firstly: If the one without coat is a fat bar steward and sweating buckets already hes probably warmer sat bollock naked in snow than the krank addict on withdrawal in a fur coat. If the guy in the coat IS warmer you cannot say its because of the coat, as the fat swelter may have swiped and be wearing said coat. By the same flaming elementary principle you DONT know if your “coat” of GHG is CAUSING a temperatuire increase or not. Secondly, that Entropy business. You prattle on in bold about “EVERYONE SAYS SO” but the only people who disagree with the principle are those who try building perpetual motion machines and they didnt get the memo. Unless your heat input is maintained, both bodies eventually become equally cold. Which takes us back to the first point.
Somehow as a declared AGWb sceptic you have missed the many years debate as to the status of this warming input. Unless that is accounted for you really dont know if the guy with the coat is warmer than the one without BECAUSE of the flaming coat. the coat is unaccountable until the heating variable is controlled. As many AGW sceptics enjoy pointing out, Mars, of which the very thin atmosphere has not been augmented by human activity and certainly has a dead core has nonetheless been getting warmer. Whether or not that is true, it indicates the discussion.
If you really are an AGW sceptic you seem to have missed that memo.
I think you are some kind of “gift” giving Greek. But you can keep your wooden horse, its obviously shoddy.
Ladies and Gentleman, please in the above substitute “blanket” for “coat” as “suits”.
CDullis:
“”"However. Seriously people. You’re arguing with extremely well established physics that no one serious in the climate debate has an issue with.”"”"
Ahem…from the guy who says the atmosphere is warmer than space because it wears an overcoat. Thats like saying these geezers wearing overcoats are warmer than those in THAT EMPTY ROOM (ie,”space”).
Apologies for double / mis-placed first posting.
——————————————————————————–
——————————————————————————–
Report this
02
To be fair to Mr Christophe….—I didnt read any of the actual arguments above…I just saw two choice howlers (the coat and the S.P.A.C.E ) and the the opportunity to be a trollish person myself for a change.
I still wouldnt trust him with my power tools.
But that space one was hilarious.
Report this
02
Its ok Christoph. There is a dedicated group here who have their fingers in their ears, and are screaming “I can’t hear you”. You can’t reason with them.
Report this
10
I have no idea how anyone can claim that insulation (through absorption and re-emitting in the case of CO2) doesn’t cause a heated body (in both senses of the word) to be warmer than it otherwise would.
Hint: the atmosphere is warmer than space.
Throw on a few jumpers (i.e., sweaters) — which you’ll note are likely at a lower temperature than your body most days of the year — and get back to me with the results of your science experiment.
Report this
53
You obviously have zero comprehension of basic gas laws, and the difference between convection, conduction and radiant heat.
Your problem, not mine. !!
Come back later, [snip]
[C'mon Andy no need for that. Please match the politeness level of the person you are debating. Mod oggi]
Report this
21
Andy, please read the article referred to in comment #32.2.1.1.2. That comment of mine is a little above this comment and contains a link.
The article referred to is on this website, has commentary from our host, and is directly relevant to our discussion. If you don’t read that article, we don’t have anything else to discuss regarding it because we’re at an impasse.
One of us is obviously badly misinformed. Which of us? Well people can make up their own minds on that one.
Report this
32
No, Mod oggi! That was so funny. You should have left it.
Report this
42
CO2 actually speeds up the transfer of radiant energy in the atmosphere.
But hey.. whatever. !!! You obviously know that.
Report this
23
Hi Andy
I can’t see that Chris has specifically mentioned CO2 as a part of the GHG situation he’s describing so I assume he is just talking about GHG in which the major item is water ?
I suspect you guys are talking pretty much about the same thing, just using different “models” and nomenclature.
I know from previous discussions that both of us have similar ideas on the effect of the composition of the atmosphere: namely that doubling or tripling of atmospheric CO2 will have zero influence on the final temperature achieved by the atmosphere.
That of course may need qualification with the additions of the rider: “give or take one or two then thousandths of a degree C here or there.
The main thing about the atmosphere is that it holds up/delays the transfer of heat from the surface to space, and if that heat is in the air , rather than in deep space, it means that the air is a bit warmer.
At TOA the presence of more CO2 may mean faster cooling there but again the concentration effect is probably very minor.?
KK
Report this
10
Dullist:
“Hint: the atmosphere is warmer than space.”
HILARIOUS…W.H.A.T.A. B.L.E.E.D.I. EEEDjit we have in this Dullist. I wouldnt bother to point out the obvious but his “performance” threatens to degrade the average for everyone on the site, Brookes included.
The atmosphere (leaving aside the definition of that body, for our lad probably thinks it stops about fifty miles up where Virgin rockets fly) is warmer than space because THERE IS NOTHING IN SPACE TO EMBODY HEAT…THATS why its called “S P A C E”…….Goh!
|You see Dullis, you see that…theres nothing in it…which is why its called SPACE. The clue is in the word.Pillock.
Of course I am simplifying(dumbing down) to the level of the “model” cited. Space is very far from empty, but the distinction BETWEEN “space” and “atmosphere” is the very fact that space contains veeeery litle density of anything compared to the (lower) atmosphere.
Yes…that is why its called S P A C E
Report this
01
Ah Andy,
Hi
Could I ask you to compare possibilities that might prompt a change of view.
First we have inbound UV passing to Earth and some of that re emitting as ground IR out towards space.
The atmosphere interacts with both inbound and outbound components.
now what happens if there is NO atmosphere/
ie. There is a vacuum.
Which situation cools faster..
The problem we have all faced is the use of warmer words that have poor boundaries.
For example GH effect or GHG or blanket or insulation are all used but they mean different things to different people. A lot of this difference is deliberately designed to create confusion: so I have rephrased the question as above.
Does the Earth cool faster when enclosed by a vacuum or by a layer of atmosphere?
CO2 does help cool the atmosphere but this takes place at the top of the atmosphere and occurs only after the ground IR has traveled through the atmosphere to TOA.
We have been fighting warmers for too long.
KK
Report this
40
KK.. The pressure gradient in an atmosphere ALLOWS it to MAINTAIN heat.
If there is no atmosphere it cannot maintain heat.
A “lighter” atmosphere allows less heat to be maintained.
A dense atmosphere allows more heat to be maintained.
All this is independant on the “lite” GASEOUS compounds in the atmosphere.
Only non-gaseous or large long-string molecules can have any significant effect.
CO2 is neither.
Earth has a sort of ‘half-way” atmosphere that doesn’t fully block the sun’s energy, so the surface can often get warmer than the pressure gradient allows, resulting in cooling.
If the surface temperature is less than the pressure gradient can hold then cooling does not occur.
The atmosphere is NOT a blanket, because a blanket DOES NOT allow cooling of a warm surface. A blanket actually acts to retain the heat of an overly warm surface, the absolute opposite of the action of the atmosphere.
Why can’t people realise this basic, and totally obvious fact !!!
Report this
40
“We have been fighting warmers for too long”
Yes, probably..
Now its probably time to start correcting some of the mis-conceptions of the skeptics.
Report this
30
Res ipsa loquitur.
Report this
21
ps.. I think that if I see someone, (especially someone who says they are a skeptic) use the word “blanket” wrt to atmosphere once more… I’ll scream !!
Its so “non-thinking” !!!
(Can’t pull my hair out………….any more… nearly all gone! )
Report this
22
Well don’t think of it as a blanket, Andy, think of it as a tea cosy. You know, ’cause the atmosphere is round.
(You are off topic and ignoring Jo’s request as well:
“If commenters wish to discuss this, please do so on the Slayers site unless you’re read the comments on the two posts above and have something new to contribute. This has nothing to do with Monckton or the ABC. It’s been done to death here. I will ask the mods to stop further comments on this repetitive dead-end topic”) CTS
Report this
32
Hi Andy
I’m looking at your comment and finding that it sis a little bit more sophisticated than my basic idea of what is happening.
And I agree; I don’t like terms like blanket or GHG and the like or GH Effect because they have been used and abused by so many people that they now have no meaning and all discussion must use the correct scientific terms or at least try to describe the processes.
I watched part of the video link that Chris put up and it was an outline of the skeptics case. ps I don’t like being seen as a skeptic, but, what the hell.
Tat clip outlined the warmer case and it nearly drove me up the wall watching someone say that “for a doubling of CO2 ” the corresponding temperature increase was modeled at say 3 C degree.
Enough; it’s too late.
KK
Report this
00
No Chris, its not a tea cosy either.
The atmosphere would COOL a teapot. A tea cosy is designed to keep it warm. OPPOSITES…. do you understand yet ?????????
Maybe take the tea cosy off your head and see what happens.
Very simple. Unless you like your tea at room temperature, of course.
(Jo politely asked everyone to stop getting off topic and either go the slayers forum or try posting in her two blog threads she linked to:
“If commenters wish to discuss this, please do so on the Slayers site unless you’re read the comments on the two posts above and have something new to contribute. This has nothing to do with Monckton or the ABC. It’s been done to death here. I will ask the mods to stop further comments on this repetitive dead-end topic”.) CTS
Report this
20
Christoph Dollis
February 24, 2013 at 8:20 pm
Why can’t people realise this basic, and totally obvious fact !!!
Res ipsa loquitur.
——————————————————————————–
Yeah man…like SPACE is by definition relatively EMPTY, which is why its called SPACE.
Report this
00
PRECISELY…AS I said…unless there is a source of heat your overcoat makes not a damn difference. Its no good repeating what I saidto you and then claiming you are saying it first…anyone can look up and see what you said. YOU said a guy up North with a coat will be warmer than one without.BECAUSE OF THE COAT.
NO. Firstly: If the one without coat is a fat bar steward and sweating buckets already hes probably warmer sat bollock naked in snow than the krank addict on withdrawal in a fur coat. If the guy in the coat IS warmer you cannot say its because of the coat, as the fat swelter may have swiped and be wearing said coat. By the same flaming elementary principle you DONT know if your “coat” of GHG is CAUSING a temperatuire increase or not. Secondly, that Entropy business. You prattle on in bold about “EVERYONE SAYS SO” but the only people who disagree with the principle are those who try building perpetual motion machines and they didnt get the memo. Unless your heat input is maintained, both bodies eventually become equally cold. Which takes us back to the first point.
Somehow as a declared AGWb sceptic you have missed the many years debate as to the status of this warming input. Unless that is accounted for you really dont know if the guy with the coat is warmer than the one without BECAUSE of the flaming coat. the coat is unaccountable until the heating variable is controlled. As many AGW sceptics enjoy pointing out, Mars, of which the very thin atmosphere has not been augmented by human activity and certainly has a dead core has nonetheless been getting warmer. Whether or not that is true, it indicates the discussion.
If you really are an AGW sceptic you seem to have missed that memo.
I think you are some kind of “gift” giving Greek. But you can keep your wooden horse, its obviously shoddy.
Ladies and Gentleman, please in the above substitute “blanket” for “coat” as “suits”.
But space is colder…thats hilarious.
Report this
02
Attention all Mensa madmen: could you please scroll (that’s the little wheel in the middle of your mouse)up to the top and check the topic?
Report this
40
Thanks for the reminder Tim
KK
Report this
20
Wow, that was a good sequence.
C Dollis, politely and with remarkable aplomb, beating his head against the edifice of abusive stupidity and ignorance that is AngryG55.
Classic. Thanks Guys
Report this
03
So – you’re pleased that the run-of-the-mill trolls haven’t cut it and they’ve had to bring in the industrial strength trolls. A troll is a troll by any other name.
Report this
20
Our catamite is back.
Report this
00
…ooops, I meant THE catamite…nothing of mine, not my scene, crikey.
Report this
10
Hi Catamongst
I have commented quite a bit in the Chris Dollis series.
I have to agree with his comments ; on the science, as far as they went.
His comments about Hereditary Title are another matter.
Leaving all that aside, and I can see some lack of tact from those of us who are here most days, especially myself; his comments demonstrate a remarkable lack of concern about misapprehensions by others who are commenting.
maybe he doesn’t know or maybe he just wants to stir up conflict?
Most of us here want to try and fill in the gaps of the picture for others.
I know I am happy to have any misconceptions I might have corrected with some sort of explanation.
He doesn’t attempt that; and why is the big question.
Andy, for example, pointed out that the process of getting water from ground to cloud level, is an enormous part of the heat transfer system on Earth.
If Chris was as smart as he makes out to be he could have pointed out that the ground radiation IR
absorbed by the atmosphere is the Precursor to the convective transfer Andy described. Further he could
have acknowledge that getting water off the ground is energy intensive and uses much more enrgy than
warmers like to admit; ie there is cooling when water becomes a gas.
WHY NONE OF THESE WERE ACKNOWLEDGED is plainly puzzling unless the objective was to sow conflict.
An old saying, which I think, Ace may have already alluded to, Beware of ****** Bearing Gifts.
It is easy to appear smart, by making a few motherhood statements that are TRUE, right before you shut your mouth and say no more.
Say no more, appear to be a genius. A common tactic.
My point is that anyone who was genuine posting here would be happy to try to add to the sum of knowledge.
Maybe he doesn’t know any more than he saw on the 12 minute you-tube clip?
I have already posted about the possibilities here, as Tim says, do we have Industrial Strength Trolls here?
Not wishing to rubbish Industrial Strength Trolls, but those existing have always been useful but after they have been analyzed and processed, they start to become Spacers, just filling out the blog and damaging it.
There needs to be a procedure of collapsing troll comments so that they are only accessible if called up.
Spacing gives the blog a poor image.
KK
Report this
10
I don’t think the media quite gets it that it’s like medicine: you know, you don’t have a charlatan debating with the doctor about the treatment of a patient, you have to, you know, practise the very best medicine you can or the patient might die
This statement makes one almighty assumption – the prognosis is correct in the first place. Doctors are not god and if you dont question them you do so at your own peril. When I was 19, I had appendicitis, the trouble was it took me 3 days and 5 doctors to find a doctor that would believe me. They kept telling me that I had a bad case of stomach cramps. After a burst appendix, and coming within hours of death, I finally found a doctor who believed me. (The problem was my bowell had twisted around my appendix and protected it from the normal pressure tests). Not to question AGW is an acceptance of faith but is far removed from science.
Report this
70
“you have to, you know, practise the very best medicine you can or the patient might die.”
Plenty of patients have died (as you nearly did) even though the doctor was practicing the best medicine s/he could according to the best scientifically supported theories. Sometimes the best available medical science is wrong.
Report this
30
British Eurosceptics will recognise the technique. Ad hominem attacks are what people use when their arguments are refuted. With ordinary people, unused to public debate, it can be quite effective. I suspect that this lady (I use the term loosely) has picked the wrong subject for such treatment.
Report this
60
She’s so wrong on so many levels. Her claims about Chernobyl are completely false as are her remarks regarding the recovery of the area.
Chernobyl wildlife recovers
Report this
100
She says
Why is the understanding of medicine so important in the discussion of climate issues?
(Just so she can say something stupid?)What about engineers and experts in the fields used by her mates such as statisticians and computer modellers?
I think arrogance sums up her views.
Report this
100
Dont forget farmers fishermen and woodsmen as well
Report this
30
AS I’ve stated before my local paper’s story on Monckton’s visit let all the negative,insulting comments through including one about the appearance of his eyes,this prompted a warmist to chastise the commentor pointing out it does nothing for our cause,if one of our local deluded eco heroes can see the wrong doing in this why can’t Caldicott ?. This is lowering to a childs debating tatic she might as well called Monckton a “poo poo head” and be done with it,whats next “your mother” jokes?!
Report this
30
Probably worse than that. I’ve seen and heard a few comments I definitely won’t repeat here.
Report this
10
Roy this is the only reason I have followed Jo’s site a long time and decided to comment, there is a huge difference in having a productive debate, with a bit of wit thrown in, between adults wanting to find information or solutions to questions VS inane vulgar troll attacks on you tube. I choose to listen to people who can admit when there wrong and move on as this is a key element in finding solutions which has been sadly lacking on the AGW side, and I’ve heard and said worse things but usually in person so I’m trying to clean up my online persona for my own benefit
Report this
20
I understand you completely. I would not trade this blog for anything.
Report this
20
This is our local paper which I refuse to buy.
http://www.theherald.com.au/story/1324704/climate-sceptic-lord-monckton-in-newcastle/?cs=305
The level of “debate” speaks for itself.
As somebody said a few days ago: this is the age of togetherness and internet reality; there is no other reality but the big group hug.
Reason and logic are irrelevant
KK
Report this
00
KK,
I think it would probably have been about the same before the Internet. Fortunately the debaters were not willing to do the work required to write a letter to the editor. But now it takes no effort at all. No one even cares about spelling or grammar. Punctuation? Never heard of it. Typo? Too bad.
Reason and logic have always escaped a lot of the population. But now we’re catering to that failure. And we’re doing it just because we can.
We really should recognize that while the other guy may have freedom of speech, that fact does not require us to provide him with a forum from which to exercise that right.
Report this
10
I heard Caldicott on the radio years ago. “Screeching moonbat” seems a fair description.
Report this
50
I wonder what the latin for “haggard old screeching moonbat” is?
Their are several in the ALP?Green parliament, so one could almost assume it is a contagious medical condition.
Report this
60
My latin is somewhat wonky to say the least but I think Screeching Moonbat would be “Vespertilio lunaris stridens” (
Report this
20
Yes but that title is not very specific to individuals, its a general appellation that applies to the whole green cult….
Report this
10
Even the males
Report this
20
I’d call Caldicott a mendacious piece of work.
A misogynist of the highest order.
If ALP’s free speech laws come in.. She’s a goner !!
Report this
81
When I heard her voice from the radio recording I think I recognized her as an idiot on Lateline a few years ago gushing that weapons of mass destruction could easily be made by anyone in their kitchen.
Checking her on youtube this afternoon… sheesh… this woman is just terrible.
There was a strange breed of children that grew up just after ww2 that were imbued with with a simplistic missionary type zeal. They were mainly female and their heroes were Florence Nightingale, Elizabeth Kenny, Vivienne Bullwinkle etc, and in later life Mother Theresa.
They learn like parrots, are unintelligent and operate mainly on an emotional level. Their use of intellect extends only as far as to figure out what works for them.
Report this
00
Outside of the hysterical neo-leftoid’s definition, it appears that Caldicott is going to find out firsthand what the true meaning of the phrase “cause and effect” is. This will surely test the unreasonableness and unintended consequences of being a dumb verbal nutter.
Report this
60
Perhaps she could debate rather than defile. Would she have what it takes to debate Monckton, while he’s in Australia? For me, that would settle the matter.
Report this
70
It would certainly settle her!
Report this
30
Bolt reports on Caldicott’s derision of Monckton. He’s spot on as always.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/monckton_to_abc_enough_of_caldicotts_wild_abuse/
Report this
40
Bolt today also reports that thousands of asylum seekers here on protection visas are returning home to marry and apply for family members to travel to Australia for family reunion. And they are funded by Australian taxpayers via Centrelink benefits paid even when they are out of this country.
This is a disgraceful situation, more economic vandalism and new world order agenda.
Report this
41
Thousands eh? Why don’t I believe you?
Report this
418
“Why don’t I believe you?’
doh… because you can’t count past 21 !!
Report this
91
Andy, help me out here as I am having trouble with my math. JB is staring down and uses his appendages to count. Lets see, 10 fingers plus ten toes equals twenty. I can’t possibly see where JB could get the other appendage? Are you insinuating that JB is a man?
Base upon the previous comments that JB has made wherein he calls into question Jo’s integrity and character I find it hard to believe he is a man!
Report this
51
Physicians I know have aim at the highest standards of care for their patients, driven by a strong ethical principles. Along with confidentiality, another is a duty of care towards the patient. This is especially true when they proscribe risky and/or painful courses of treatment. Maybe they should apply this principle to climatology and climate policy-making. Some areas where climatologists fail on ethical standards are:-
- Inaccurate and extreme diagnoses.
- Failing to downgrade the severity of the diagnoses when symptoms fail to develop as predicted.
- Proscribing policies with a flagrant disregard for their ineffectiveness and harmful side-effects.
- Claiming to be expert in fields when they are as qualified as a drunk putting the world to rights. That is in economics, policy-making and diplomacy.
- Deliberately preventing the patient from seeking a second opinion.
Report this
91
Do you mean prescribe instead of proscribe?
To proscribe something means to prohibit it, not recommend it as a doctor would prescribe treatment.
Report this
20
Exactly. Unfortunately a spell-checker does not help when you use the incorrect word.
Report this
20
Spell checkers are useful but still just idiots. And then there are we humans who can get it wrong only too easily without any help.
Been there…sigh!
Report this
10
People, People, People, Puuulleeease.
OK, I have read most of the comments here, no need to read them all, I’m sure there’s a pattern
The pattern I’m guessing is most of the comments here are made by adults. Having come to their own conclusions through their own thought processes, having looked at and studied the information available, have come to their own individual, albeit, similar conclusions.
Adults are, generally, capable of independent thought, having either educated themselves or having experiences that tell them not rely on anyones elses biased self interested view.
Beaudy, this worked, untill now.
The juveniles are running the agenda now. Juveniles rely on peer support for their position, hence the peer group is incredibly powerful amongst juveniles and adulescents.
Every single peice of information this current generation of Juveniles and Adulescents absorbe is based on garnering the support of their peers, not by forming their own view, and being able to form their own individual view and argue it based on observation, evidence, data and facts.
Every part, every single element of the Juveniles life, now is all about the peer group and/or collective.
We cannot to turn to one influential beacon and observe anything other than peer pressure, group think, and collective ideas blossuming and spreading their tentacles though out the life of todays Juveniles and Adulescents.
Social media is all about popularity (Getting “Likes”), video is all about popularity (Reality shows are amongst the most popular genrie consumed).
The top rating nightly/daily news outlets are dominated by social/personal scandal beatups and “sensation”. All designed to attract attention and gain popularity, rather than report and inform.
This is what is being demanded by the audience of course. It’s not the Media’s fault. How can it be? If the audience didn’t watch it, didn’t want it, the market for it wouldn’t exist.
If the audience for the current education system wasn’t there, the system wouldn’t be preaching the garbage it is.
There is no, none, nadda, zero, “fooorrgetabooouuutt iiit”, point in argument based on the adult concepts we have all come to expect from people of responsibility and authority.
We’re arguing against and trying influence juveniles who have the support of and will retreat to the collective power of the peer group.
The only successful method, I have experienced, in influencing the midset of juvenile thought processes is time. Leave them to it. Let them fall and fail, sooner rather than later. Get the learning experience over and done with as soon as possible, leaving time to enjoy the fruits of the learning.
We need to make sure argument and information is on the record for them to refer to when it all turns to custard, so a model is available, to follow, when recovery from their rubbish is needed.
We’re the grand parents of the current crop of decision makers and “influencers”. Grandma and Grandpa need to be ready to do 2 things, in the coming years?…
1. Get ready to dress down and slap around your sons and daughters for being such self interested morons and allowing their kids to run riot, without influencing their upbringing enough, influencing their influencers, their thought processes and leaving them to the “collective wolves”.
2. Be ready to cloth, house and feed them. They’ve not learnt how to do that. The collective is all the nurrishment they need at the moment, and their other Grand Parrents, the “nanny’s State” are looking after them. You’lll need to be ready re-educate your grandkids on how it should work. Have the evidence ready for them to independantly move on with.
This collective, group think, peer influenced period we’re in cannot continue. All such periods, throughout history have proven to be unsustainable, unstable and have collapsed.
Anything that cannot continue will STOP! That includes, the debt the West is racking up, the deteorating productivity of the population, falling education standards, Government growth and reliance and Government programs growth. None of this can continue, and will STOP! It’ll come as a surprise to most and hence cause a few issues
Harsh lessons will be doled out, of not thinking and gathering information for themselves, and not to be influenced by self interested groups or indivudals.
So, this turned out to be a bit huge didn’t it? LOL
Woops. I got on a role, what can I say? Sorry. 
Criticising any of the individual members of todays chattering classes cannot not work. Pointing out the flaws in the information and argument they put forward, to them, will not work. They’ll just retreat back the to the collective, their peer group, their “Nanny State” and complain “That nasty Adult hurt my feelings, and upset me”.
Well, “Sunshine”, “Apple of my eye”, “Treasure of my life”, You’r going to need these adults sooner or later. We’ll just sit over here, in the corner. Ready to re-assemble your life to how it should’ve been in the first place, when the collective eventually turns on you, as they innevitably do.
Keep your wits about you, “Grandma” and “Grandpa” your gonna need ‘em!
I’ll sit back, shuttup and wait for the virbal tommatoes to be thrown now.
Report this
92
Well observed, Nick.
Unfortunately, one cannot count on a cessation of this situation of its own volition.
It has not occurred by accident. It has been very carefully planned and executed of a very long period.
Explore, if you will, the vagaries of Agenda 21, ICLEI, Council on Foreign Relations, Tavistock Institute, the term “sustainability” that has overtaken “global warming” and subsequently “climate change”.
Similar circumstances are rife in human history. Unfortunately, the power of money is only overcome by the power of blood. I don’t think I need paint the remainder of the picture.
It is no coincidence that the policies and demands of the Australian Greens bear an eerie resembland to the demands of the National Socialist German Workers Party.
Report this
50
I actually used the word “Sustainability” deliberately. Knowing full well it would spark thought about Agenda 21 and the like.
There is actually no difference between the Nazi’s of old and the Socialists of Old. This is a common misconception, propogated by the Left, to remove themselves from being associated with the “Old Enemy”.
The Nazi’s were aligned with the USSR, before they turned around and attacked ‘em. The Nazi’s are of the same value system, and the Left owes their heritage to mass murders, genocidal maniacs and crackpots.
“Wouldn’t it be great if we could blame the Nazi insanity on the right”?
“Yeh, then we could keep pedling our rubbish”.
It makes complete sense for the Left to Deny their ancestry, they deny everything else!
Far more is known and taught about the Nazi’s than Stalin, Lenin and Mao. It makes sense for them to deny their common values with something that is known. The left often employ snow jobs in just everything they espouse.
In fact, aligning yourself with Mao, seems fashionable to a few nowadays. They’re all Socialists, All Dictators and all pro-Collective!
When your kid says, “I want to do (x), becuse John or Betty is”! Time to pay attention, before they get sucked into the great collective abiss, never to return.
That’s very dramatic isn’t it? LOL 
Report this
90
Except perhaps the desire to exterminate Jews?
Report this
09
And the romani and the polish and the disabled.
Oh and their belief in hierarchy of race.
No difference whatsoever really.
Report this
16
And the Gulags were summer camps for your kids, yeh, yeh.
Purge anyone?!?
Mao’s death marches were a great idea as well. Oh not to mention the Chinese people dying from all sorts reasons for all sorts of wacky ideas. Including most recently forced abortions due to a one child policy. Recent enough for you?
Good luck tryin to justfy tirrany and wantin’ human slaughter by degrees!
They all slaughtered their own citizens in the name of ggaaawwd knows what!?!?
There is no difference! None whatsoever!
The west has evolved to cherish and embrace freedom. As a result it’s citizens have thrived and prospored by any measure you care to nominate.
The rest have floundered, killed themselves and each other.
Justify by degrees of difference? Yeh good one!
Report this
50
Only by a matter of degree. In the Soviet Union, Jews were persecuted like many other groups that hung onto their identity. The Communist systems tried to do away with all alternative religions, and any grouping that was separate from the total state.
Report this
40
Yeah that’s right – Stalin was very supportive of Jews wasn’t he?
Report this
00
Nick
Well done.
It is useful to have them here for a while to prod and probe and see how they think but they have no reasoning or analytic skills and why am I saying this. You have already said it.
After they have been exposed though, they keep going and fill up the site with more and more crap.
This seems to be periodic, as though the whole warmer movement goes through a cyclic manic phase every month or so.
KK
Report this
50
I know, Keith.
I actually use these “Usefull idiots” as examples for my Kids.
“You want this to happen to you”? “Well then, start thinking for yourself”! “When your puzzled about something, come see me”, “I’ll help make it worse, with massive story from History”.
You know the swines hide form me on their messaging programs?. LMAO
Good to know I have an effect, and they’re trying to not be influenced by me, they’re trying to think for themselves.
Job Done!
Report this
50
I’m just trying to figure out what effect you’re claiming to have on people.
Report this
02
He’s trying to boost our self esteem. We read him and think, “Wow, I am smarter than some people!”.
Report this
10
Nick,
You can always tell whose skin you got under by who crawls out of the woodwork to push back at you.
Brookes and Tristan will always defend the indefensible.
You are spot on about social media.
Report this
30
Well said, Nick.
Report this
20
Thank you Dr Caldicott.
As the saying goes “any publicity is good publicity”. People who hadn’t heard of Monckton or else didn’t know he was touring again will now be aware, may go along to a talk and perhaps learn what the MSM won’t tell them.
It was the publicity of how Labor was going to save the planet by bringing in the carbon tax that made me a climate change sceptic. It prompted me to want to read up on the whole argument. My hands briefly wavered in front of a copy of “The Weather Makers” (oh, the horror) before I fortuitously found Bob Carter’s “Climate – The Counter Consensus” … and, in that, numerous footnotes brought me to Jo’s site.
Report this
140
Another”must read”site is”Climate Realists”.
Report this
30
I did exactly the same thing, about 8 years ago, while looking at property close the shore edge about 1.5mtrs above sea level.
I wanted to know about the sea level rises that had been foretold, and found a load of crap.
The problem is, David, there are too few of you and it may be a little too late to save our society from the infenction that now grips everything down to preschool.
The mind set that led to where we are now permeates every corridor of power and decision making and through every hour of every day of everyones lives.
Published “free thinkers” are so far and few between, none if it seems to be penetrating the noise.
I listen talk back radio constantly, and consume copious quantities of all sorts of media, and I’m noticing an increased frequency of people using annonymity when trying to exercise free speech, and prefering not to use any identifiable information.
This is behaivour I’ve only read about coming from Dictatorial One Party State type systems and the old “Eastern Bloc”.
Never experienced it outside office politics.
We’re in worrying times.
Report this
70
Nick do not despair, these kind of collapses actually seem to produce informed voters, after the mob gets through looting that is.
The overreach we see , Caldicott a good example, weirding about the weather another, are symptoms of panic, as I see it.
The lie has been imploding at an ever increasing rate since the IPCC 4th report.
Climate gate probably killed the beast but the zombie has staggered on, propped up by our governments and media all frantically trying to claim than CAGW lives.
Nature has a sense of humour, the 30ish year warming part of the Northern Ocean cycles has passed and we are in the cool phase .
Looks like 30 years of cool coming and with the claimed connection between CO2 gas emissions and a warming planet broken for the last 16 years,PANIC has set in at the political and media levels.
The actions of bad people cause storms?
That is desperate.
We are broke and getting progressive all right.
Progressively angry, embittered and suspicious of elitism of our political bureaucracies.
People take an interest when the welfare cheque bounces.
Report this
60
I am a fan of Lord Monkton and I think he does a great job.He drives his detractors absolutely beserk-crazy and they often get venomous and personnel,just like “Caldicott”.Lord Monkton epitomizes the front line in the crusade for the truth.I fear for his safety.
Report this
170
Its ok Geoff. We may mock him, but we won’t kill him.
Its not every day you get a genuine English lord doing stand-up comedy!
Report this
419
At least he far from being a complete moron…yet to learn to make an intelligent comment that adds value to the discussion.
Report this
50
My job is to entertain and provoke, not to inform.
Report this
21
John,
Be careful because mockery can turn out to be a very sincere complement coming as it does from someone who can’t compete with Monkton. Now if you really could compete intellectually with him then it might be something more in line with what you think.
Report this
40
Absolutely. Monckton is very good, and I would be a damn fool to take him on. Luckily being good and being right are completely different things in his case.
Report this
11
A relevant point that seems to be somewhat beyond the comprehension of most of the true disbelievers. If a partisan advocate argues glibly enough they will quite uncritically believe their utterances. Fascinating coming from self identified skeptics.
Report this
00
Don’t feel bad, John, nobody in the pro CAGW crowd can stand up to him, nobody. John, since you state that you are here for “entertainment” value, why don’t you arrange a debate. Since the science is sooooo settled it shouldn’t be too difficult a task even for you, right John?
Report this
30
Unfortunately your thinly veiled assertion that you are right is fair game to be challenged.
Monkton can make strong arguments for his position. I have yet to see you make a strong argument for yours. So why don’t we cut right to the chase and you tell us, straight up in your own words, what convinces you that carbon dioxide is any kind of a problem? No references to papers or opinions, just John Brookes telling us what facts, arguments, experiments, measurements or what ever it is that convincingly connects CO2 to any problem.
Report this
30
Did someone let the Cat out of the bag? I thought I heard a sneer but maybe it was just the wind.
Report this
00
John, is this your coffee break, or are you paid to come in and put down people who think for themselves, research for themselves, put their science on the table for everyone to look at and actually stand up against those who would oppress us?
Report this
30
almost seems like its every day though? Did he have any new gags for his Oz tour of the credible and cranky, or just recycled debunked stuff??
Report this
34
Do you mean credulous?
Report this
23
credulous was in fact the word i meant, although i am sure that there are credible people who attend to his tour just for the funnies.
Report this
23
As my mother used to say;”stay sweet”,however there is nothing “sweet” about you[J.B.].Naive,pretentious tool of the establishment,as if you have a handle,let alone a dot of influence on your masters actions or agenda!To all reading I would like to draw your attention to that film”Blooded”,about Greenies[or maybe PETA] kidnapping five people and shooting at them and generally terrorizing them for days.All over Fox hunting.As hunting goes,foxes are a real challenge,by the way.
Report this
00
Radio “National” vilifies to protect its agenda again …there’s a surprise
Report this
30
Government board.
Government media outlet.
I won’t risk saying any more than that.
Report this
50
The ALPBC
Report this
40
It occurred to me that Caldicott would make an excellent study for Lewandowsky on the subject of Conspiracy Theories of Socialist Activists.
Report this
140
Here is Caldicot claiming a 9/11 conspiracy, which according to the impeccably researched Cook the cartoonist/Lewandowsky retracted papers, is a sign someone isn’t swallowing UN-IPCC/CSIRO climate swill.
❝ The next notably laughable moment comes as Caldicott wishes for a Wikileaks clarification of what really happened on 9/11:
Caldicott: Well, I mean, if 9/11 documents were released that would put the cat amongst the pigeons so to speak. I mean, there’s a huge amount that we don’t know. ❞
.
It’s like shooting all the stupid fish in a barrel using one bullet.
(sorry to insult fish. none were intentionally hurt in formulating this comment)
Report this
60
Hopeless is the only term I can think of at the moment. Caldicot is absolutely hopeless.
I wish we could put all the stupid fish in one barrel. We might even put them on display and charge admission (could help pay for the damage they’ve done). But the barrel would be too big to manage and these aren’t a rare enough species to draw anyone to the ticket window — just ordinary every day stupid with nothing going for them.
Report this
20
Good point streetcred!
Report this
16
Don’t hold your breath, waiting for a Lewandowskian study of conspiracist ideation among movement environmentalists. Or among Khelen and her supporters.
They’re just going with the settled science, don’t you know?
Report this
10
Why, thank you, jb. I won’t hold my breath waiting though.
Report this
20
[...] ABC, Dr Helen Caldicott sinks to mocking the unwell, Monckton calls for her to be deregistered Helen Caldicott and the ABC have excelled themselves in the Art of Ad Hominem. So much so, that Christopher Monckton is not only writing to the ABC, but also to medical registration boards as well, calling for Caldicotts’s de-registration. [...]
Report this
20
Jo,
James Delingpole has an interesting challenge that may interest your readers at http://bogpaper.com/2013/02/22/delingpole-on-friday-governments-cant-spend-their-way-out-of-a-recession-by-stimulating-demand/#comment-1251
The challenge is toward the end but it is,
What we need to do is find a way of expressing, lucidly, entertainingly, persuasively, why it is that all those liberal-lefties who believe that it makes economic sense for government to go on spending at current levels are not just wrong but demonstrably wrong.
So that’s my challenge to you, Bogpaper readers. Especially those of an economic bent.
And I urge folk to check out the comments by posters ‘dr’ and ‘david’.
It certainly gave me food for thought!
Report this
40
It is not rocket science but it is common sense, sadly missing and now not so common.
Report this
20
ps: please email a copy to Mr Goose and Ms I once was a solicitor and it has all been downhill ever since
Report this
20
I have been a business accountant for one or three lifetimes and I found the comments by ‘dr’ to be enlightening in relation to the Leftist/Green mantra.
Unfortunately with those that are welded to the marxist system of power all you can really do is never take your eyes off them and back slowly away.
Completely defund every single State and Commonwealth education department, all government funded universities and primary and secondary schools.
It is the only way that I can see that the real educators can wrest back control to once again teach common sense.
Report this
70
I would like to ask Dr. Helen Caldicott to give the date of her medical examination of Viscount Christopher Monckton of Brenchley.
I would also like to ask Dr. Helen Caldicott to list the medical conditions which disqualify a person from expressing an opinion on climate change.
I would like to further inform Dr. Helen Caldicott that I am not a medical practitioner, but that I can easily recognise an a****** when I see one.
Report this
181
Well said. I’m commenting here so people can vote for your comment twice,
Report this
40
a****** like opinions? Everybody’s got one.
Report this
00
Heywood,
You don’t get “invited” or “appointed” as an IPCC “expert reviewer”.
Anyone can register as an expert reviewer via a “self-declaration” of expertise.
Gilding the lily?
Report this
22
Maybe so, but still waiting for the list of “porkies”.
Report this
30
A list of “porkies”.
I always think this is a good place to start on that one.
http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2011/july/letter-to-viscount-monckton/
Report this
11
Oh yes, the letter from David Beamish claiming that Lord Monckton isn’t a member of the House of Lords.
*Yawn*
Stock standard Straw Man from the warmist camp. Lord or Not Lord. So? What has that got to do with his statements on Climate Change?
Still waiting for the “porkies”.
Report this
10
Would you like that with crackling?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton-response.pdf
Report this
01
Obviously you missed my original post asking for said “porkies”…
“Don’t just refer to SkS for your response”
It just goes to show that you haven’t actually listened to what Monckton has to say, you have just heard it second hand via the cartoonist’s website.
Keep trying.
Report this
00
You obviously didn’t open the link.
It’s a detailed science-based response (by scientists) in reply to Monckton’s written testimony in connection with the 2010 Congressional hearing.
Skeptical Science is merely the portal for this one.
If you read it, you’ll see that I was indeed endeavouring to provide that which you requested.
Report this
00
Its nothing of the sort. Its just a bunch of people giving their opinions without any scientific argument whatsoever.
Next please!
Report this
00
Backslider,
Yes, I know it’s remiss of me to link to the expertise of people who are actually qualified (as opposed to having a degree in Classical Architecture)
I’m suitably chastised…..
(Wow, this site is amazing!)
Report this
00
Yes it is. There is a massive difference between opinion and actual science. It is just as easy to link to opinions opposed to those you endorse.
Yes, this site is amazing. You will find that most people here would much rather spend their time looking at real science rather than opinions.
Nobody here accepts “argument by authority”, its meaningless……
Still waiting for the science……… Please do not waste your time linking to SkS.
Report this
00
Wooster you dip s**t if you really want people to open a link don’t use Craptical Science. Link to the source.
It is handy that you link to Craptical Science though, since because of it, I know you are a Dip S**t.
Thanks now.
Report this
00
Backslider,
“There is a massive difference between opinion and actual science.”
So you’re saying that trained scientists have “opinions” and non-scientists have “actual science”.
Why am I not surprised?
And you guys wonder why you get termed “d[snip]” instead of “skeptics”.
[no no. not the D word unless you accurately explain what is denied] ED
Report this
00
As Mark D points out, you are, just as he says.
Let me just show you the insignificance of your ignorance. Although I did not at all say what you imply, you do reveal your own misguided naiveté. In your opinion, only trained scientists have the nous to understand science. Nothing could be further from the truth, but yes, it satisfies your “argument by authority” (I did warn you that such is not accepted here).
Now, as to what I said: The paper you link to does not present scientific argument, but rather the opinions of people, whether couched in “scientific language” or not its still irrelevant. Get it?
Please present actual science to back up your arguments. Get it?
Report this
00
“Yes, I know it’s remiss of me to link to the expertise of people who are actually qualified”
You must be a devotee of SkS to dive into argumentum ad verecundiam so quickly.
So what qualifications do you need before you can be called qualified?
“It’s a detailed science-based response (by scientists)”
No, it’s a detailed opinion-based response (by scientists, some of whom aren’t “climate scientists”, there is even some engineers in there).
It’s even in the text. “The opinions expressed in the Report reflect the participants’ professional scientific judgment”
I have had a quick read. Where does it list where Monckton has “told a porky” ie. lied? An impressive list of “scientists” disagree with his conclusions, but not one provided proof that he lied.
He was testifying to the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming of the U.S. House of Representatives. Surely if he was lying, he would of been charged with perjury. As far as I know, that hasn’t happened, has it?
So.. Where and when has he told “porkies”?
Report this
10
PORKIES
noun (plural porkies)
(also porky-pie) British rhyming slang a lie:
“you’ve been telling porkies”
LIE
noun
an intentionally false statement:
“the whole thing is a pack of lies”
Just in case you don’t quite get it…
Report this
00
(ED – Apologies for using the D word)
[Apologies accepted] ED
Since I’ve been labelled a “dips**t” for merely linking to a site, it seems a little pointless to link to anymore for the benefit of Heywood’s “porkies” inquiry.
All in all, it’s been an interesting experience – however, the thinking does seem overly tribal around here.
Only skeptics welcome here, I take it?
[look around, we have an interesting mix of personalities here. Post facts freely, comment freely and be prepared to defend your position. Just don't use the "D" word.] ED
Report this
00
Why don’t you just say “I can’t find any evidence where Monckton has lied” and be done with it?
My initial post was actually asking JFC to back up his “porkies” claim, but you seemd to take up the cause.
Actually Jo is very welcoming of most opinions and there are many non-skeptics who frequent this blog (MattB, Brookesy, JFC, Nice One etc.)
Try being a skeptic and posting on SkS or DeSmog… Your post quickly becomes “disappeared” if your point of view varies from the orthodoxy.
Report this
10
no no no… he “consulted a barrister”. Case closed.
Report this
00
But you have to take legal action to get off the list.
Report this
00
I emailed the ABC to air my disgust at such blatant propaganda. I made it abundantly clear that it was some of the most biased and shoddy journalism I have ever witnessed. I expect they will take my comments to heart….not
Report this
71
Where does the idea that Exxon is handing out wads of cash to “deniers” come from? Has anyone, anywhere, ever received a brown envelope from them?
(And don’t all answer “No me. Where’s mine?”)
Report this
30
[...] this same Caldicott – unaccountably given the run of the ABC studio of Waleed Aly – makes another string of wild and also offensive claims, and this time Lord Monckton has [...]
Report this
00
While Helen Caldicott’s statements were despicable (and ignorant), it’s ridiculous of Christopher Monckton to try to get her right to practise medicine stripped.
He wasn’t her patient. I don’t believe that being a medical doctor means you lose the right to speculate (free speech). She didn’t violate his confidence.
If Monckton’s [ridiculous] position was followed to its logical conclusion, all the doctors discussing a given medical condition in the context of a particular patient (say the American President’s health, or an actor, or whomever) would be violating their oaths.
They’re not. They’re just speaking their minds, which they have every right to do. So does Helen Caldicott, however puny and vindictive her mind happens to be.
Report this
211
The problem I have with what she said is that she, in the same sentence, associated a medical condition to his background – implying strongly that having such a condition precludes him from having a valid opinion, presumably because it effected his mental reasoning. She is using her medical standing to undermine Lord Monckton – she is not making a qualified point on someones medical condition in isolation – thats the core problem.
From looking at her CV she seems decorated to the hilt with honourary degrees etc – I would have though by now she would have learnt to be more tactful and know the rules. Although it all appears her CV has run out in the last few years; possible last gasp/grasp for attention?
Report this
90
Yes, what she said was awful, disrespectful, profoundly stupid, and reflected poorly on her as a physician — bit it didn’t come close to being sufficient to strip her of her right to practice.
No, I wouldn’t choose her for my doctor.
Report this
70
I’m pretty sure she’s in paediatrics… so…
probably not !!
Report this
50
hummm.. looking after children..
explains why she like Bob Brown
Report this
21
I have a roll of lewpaper with an honorary degree on each square.
Report this
00
Did you study with daS Monkers??
Report this
01
Da monkers! Da shnooky wooky!
Report this
00
No, I bought the lew-roll of honorary degrees from UWA which I believe has a co-study arrangement with UEA and UNSW on-line stores.
On the other hand, my BSc and Masters were achieved in the customary manner.
Report this
10
Christop,wrong: A medic takes the Hippocratic Oath,they are bound to prioritise the well being of anyone who is in need of care…NOT merely their own patients. The actual phrase in the oath is: “First, do no harm”. If you do not know a person, to publicly make statements about their health based upon medical status can do them no good, therefore the only possibility it offers is potential harm. Therefore it is in breach of the oathe. Its that simple
In effect YES when a person takes the oath they forswear areas of speech, speculation or expression of opinion about the affairs of individuals if based in the medicine they practise.
Otherwise, take your position to its logical conclusion and any medic can repeat in public personal details about you they happenned to have heard from your physician, as long as they dont know you personally. You want that?
Report this
40
Christoph,
I get your point. On the other hand, someone worthy of the trust you need to have in your doctor has to display basic critical thinking ability; bare minimum qualification. Caldicot shows off just sandbox mentality.
I doubt that Monkton really expects her to be stripped of her right to practice. He’s fighting back at her denigration of his reputation as he has a right to do. Nothing succeeds better than the hardest punch you can throw.
Report this
60
Caldicott has form in this department. Back in the 80′s she boasted about diagnosing a condition for President Reagan as she attended some function to which she had managed to get an invitation.
In her best effort to look and sound patronising she took his arm and told him her news. No doubt Ronald R. correctly diagnosed her as a mad woman. And bog rude.
There can be few persons with an over-inflated ego the size of Caldicott’s. She’s a … doctor, you know. Caldicott vainly hopes everyone puts her on a pedestal the height of which she herself has elevated to Babelonic proportions. But lately poor old Helen has run into lots of trouble with dodgy references to her anti-nuclear claims. Not doing too well, at all.
Report this
60
I am glad that Lord Monckton is tackling this one because I feel that too often we turn the other cheek.
I have also written to the ABC and to the Caldicott website to let them know how disgusted I am.
Report this
70
“Helen Caldicott” had no problem with saying “thyrotoxicosis and bilateral exophthalmos” but before that had trouble with his name, she also noted that he is not a Lord. I am sure that this woman knows exactly who he is and that fact what his passport says. Let us see if the Left can practice what they preach in regards to anti-discrimination.
I really do despise the like of Caldicott.
Report this
110
That’s absurd.
Report this
09
Everyone else does……
It’s common knowledge that Lord Monckton is entitled to call himself a Lord.
The only reason for saying otherwise is spite and malice.
Report this
60
Caldicott knows his medical history, but gets it wrong to try to humiliate
… but doesn’t know his real entitlements wrt title.
really !!!????
Stop defending the *****
Report this
60
I don’t know how “common” knowledge it is. I know it, but I had to read a few articles including by him to gain that knowledge, and I wouldn’t assume everybody has done that.
But I do know with an absolute certainty I had no idea the info appeared on his passport, so I assume that Doctor Caldicott probably didn’t know that either. In general, her statement was offensive, but I don’t expect her to be a British passport expert to be frank.
Indeed, I personally find hereditary titles unbecoming. If I had one, I would not use it. But I won’t discount many of Monckton’s sound arguments and fact for that reason.
Report this
15
If I had got Dr. I would probably use it for a week with my mates, just for fun…
Then only use it when totally linked to the subject matter of the Dr.
ie a medical Dr. should NOT use the Dr except in medical circumstances, its irrelevant.
ie a PhD in psychology should NOT use the Dr. wrt anything to do with climate.
(ps… Soon, I hope)
Report this
40
I seriously bet that Caldicott knows exactly Lord Monckton’s credentials.
Report this
40
Me too.
Report this
03
Andy Caution
Trystan has agreed with you.
KK
Report this
00
Sokey, KK… its only because he understands the deviousness and deceit of the leftist mind, being one of the collective.
Report this
40
Indeed, like many of the Labour Peers who said they would never accept a peerage, until the time came …
Lord Prescott blames his wife
Report this
50
I have no idea where you live, but if you live in Australia, and had paid any attention whatsoever to the hoo haw and dirt kicked up by the media during his last tour, (as I am certain Caldicott would have) you would be aware of the controversy. The media initially had a heyday over this, until LM showed one of the interviewers his passport. Incidentally, this is the point at which the media and the Left in particular developed a hatred for Gina Rinehart. LM was scheduled to speak at the University of WA, and a bunch of so-called academics (an I think Lew was one of them, tried to have the venue cancelled. Gina spoke up and said that if the Uni did that, they could kiss her annual million dollar donation good-bye. They didn’t cancel. Or that is the way I remember it going down, anyhow.
Report this
20
Canada
Big Eruption over there
Report this
00
Hi Chris,
As to Helen Caldicott knowing about LMs passport detail; maybe she wouldn’t know the detail there.
However,given the focus of her life and activities, leaning if not toppling towards the green left side,
I would say that this obsessed person is well aware of the controversy over his peerage .
In fact she uses it as a weapon.
She is aware, and this strongly suggests that she would have been exposed to the truth of the matter;
that he is entitled to the title of L**d.
If some of us on this site seem a little “testy” it may be because we have had strangers here before who pass
on a few motherhood statements and then proceed to dish out the green warming mantra and such to support the
CAGW money laundering scam.
Will you stand up straight, or topple towards the green refuse bin?
KK
ps there are other subtleties associated with discussion of the use of the title, and your comment about finding “hereditary titles unbecoming” rings alarm bells.
Report this
20
Also slightly off topic, but at Lord Monckton’s lecture in Hobart, during question period, a man in the audience identified himself as a contractor, and pointed out that in order to tender for a Tasmania State government tender, it is necessary to “tick the box” beside the question “Do you believe in ‘climate change’”. He maintains that if one does not tick that box, one is no longer considered.
I have not been able to verify that. On the one hand, it seems too bizarre for words. On the other hand, this is Tasmania, “the Green Viper’s Pit” as His Lordship describes it.
Monckton asked for a copy of one of these tender forms, and promised to follow it up.
Report this
30
Why? Is it absurd to think she knows his intimate medical case history but doesnt know he has a title.
Like I said, plonker.
Report this
20
I’ve complained to the ALPBC, but after Paedophilegate featuring 100m Robyn I’m not optimistic.
LM should also complain to the Human Rights people, a distraction from their day job supporting Vladimir Ilych Roxon’s idea of “rights” would be a useful social service too.
Report this
21
In the article above Monckton states that:
I’m interested in Monckton’s ideas but I can’t find these papers.
Could someone please provide references for these.
Report this
23
Here you go, The Monckton Files
Report this
21
The SPPI is a public policy institute (as the organisation’s title suggests) of which Monckton is a director. It’s not a “learned journal”.
Report this
26
OK then – try this
Monckton, Christopher. “Climate sensitivity reconsidered.” Physics and Society 37.3 (2008): 6-19.
and this
Change, IPCC Climate. “The science of climate change.” Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1996).
Report this
90
Have you any idea of how hard it is to get published in the “Learned Journals” when you buck the system?
Report this
50
It took me 5 mins to find those references – why don’t you do your own f**king research prick!
Report this
91
Unless you can resort to publishing as Volume 1 , Issue 1 , of your ‘very own’ created for the purpose DIY Journal (courtesy of SciTechnol for instance)
Report this
40
When a quick [Snip] might have saved from an unbridled moment of passion.
Report this
10
The “Forum on Physics and Society” is a newsletter. With regard to the article you refer to it states that “The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review, since that is not normal procedure for American Physical Society newsletters.”
With respect to the second article you refer to, I’ve searched it and can’t find any reference to Monckton. Isn’t it a Working Group Report? As such, it’s not a “learned journal” either.
I have done some research and I cannot find the articles that Monckton refers to anywhere – again I respectfully ask, where can I find these articles?
Report this
17
When Monckton says something, you’re not supposed to question it bucko. That would be pointing your skepticism the wrong way.
Report this
211
As you can see he’s written a great deal more on the question of Global Warming Helen Caldicott.
Report this
31
Just because it’s not peer reviewed doesn’t mean it’s not learned. American Physical Society is a learned journal/newsletter whatever you want to call it. It’s a damn sight better than the pal reviewed journals you’d prefer him to be publishing in. As I said, when you are against the global group think it’s extremely hard to get published anywhere.
Now why don’t you give a critique of his “Climate sensitivity reconsidered.” and show us your stuff.
Report this
100
Amen!
Report this
30
The phrase “learned journal” generally refers to a peer-reviewed academic journal.
I have no preference for where Monckton publishes, but if he states that he has published in a “learned journal” then I would like to read the article/s.
I’m not a climate scientist but I am interested in the scientific debate and the issues surrounding it.
Report this
23
janama you’ve fallen for the troll’s trap of outsourcing thinking to a Team-controlled priesthood.
As soon as you accept as legitimate the requirement of “published in a learned journal” you have opened the back door of the castle to green goblins.
It is to accept as valid the logical fallacy of argument-from-authority.
The warmists must be told that that journal publication status is ultimately irrelevant.
Facts, measurements, logic, math, and physics proven by engineering are the only standards needed.
We like pretty charts too.
Report this
00
O/T but carbon scam related.
Noticed in the Courier Mail today that the Queensland Competition Authority (ay yi yi) has just approved electricity price rises of nearly 21% over just the next few years.
The contributing causes are said to be infrastructure maintenance (wires and poles), raising the price cap higher (gotta love that non-free free market), and of course solar panel subsidies (RETs are our favourite scam). No mention of the carbon tax at all.
Yeah, well, not much I can say about that which isn’t already obvious to us all.
But I do have a very impertinent question to ask.
In 1973 the Commonwealth saw it necessary to seek a referendum before the government could put controls on market prices, and that referendum did not pass. Government controls on prices appear to have been established now, so at what point did getting a referendum become optional?
Report this
60
“The American Physical Society is the world’s second largest organization of physicists, behind the Deutsche Physikalische Gesellschaft. The Society publishes more than a dozen scientific journals, including the world-renowned Physical Review and Physical Review Letters, and organizes more than 20 science meetings each year. It is also a member society of the American Institute of Physics.[1]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Physical_Society
If that’s not learned what is.
Oh I know – climate change commissioner David Karoly publishes in the learned journals you refer to, and he’s peer-reviewed as well yet importunately his papers get canned and withdrawn once they are released.
Report this
80
Whilst the organisation you refer to is indeed “learned”, the Monckton article you referred to was not published in one of their “learned journals” – it was published in their newsletter.
At #64.1.1 you mentione the following:
What is Monckton’s contribution to this and where is it referenced?
Report this
14
As I said, I’m leery of hereditary title. Not only am I philosophically opposed, it hints at a certain caring too much of what society thinks of one/status for my liking. When coupled with Christopher Monckton using phrases like “learned journals”, it makes me wonder if he doesn’t put too much stock in these things at some level.
And yet at the same time, intellectually, he’s a fiercely independent thinker and willing to go toe-to-toe against consensus. Like most people, he’s complicated.
Report this
35
Chris
You seem obsessed with attacking LM.
?
What’s going on?
It is as irrelevant as the country of your birth or that of your parents.
In attacking LM you are saying things ref 61.2 maybe obliquely but what’s the point?
I agree with your scientific comment, as to the rest of it there is a slight racist undertone and why is that necessary. It is not pertinent to the scientific discussion unless the purpose is disruption.
Do you have an axe to grind.
KK
Report this
10
Racist?
Because I don’t birth-derived titles (themselves derived from a particular people conquering another people way back when)?
I think you misunderstand what the term “racism” means.
Report this
13
*don’t like
Report this
11
Well Chris,
I think most people would agree that with racism there are two elements:
1. Where the person making the comment comes from in terms of Country of Origin
and
2. The Country of origin or political group of the target.
In Australia most people would take the Lord in Lord Monckton as a bit of showmanship and not see it as a personality defect as you apparently do.
Given your, so far, relatively astute grasp of climate science I’m wondering why this is such a big issue for you and it tends to suggest that something else is happening here that we are yet to find out about.
This blog has been taken over by nutters over the last couple of weeks and your sudden arrival here as a true blue rigididge Skeptic is a bit unusual.
Why is it important to root out Hereditary Peers and expose them to scorn?
Is it important because you are actually here to discredit LM?
Or is it something that you find hard to take about the British and some of their outdated customs.
Or is it a bit of both?
Or are you like that recent comet in Russia – just passing through?
KK
Report this
22
Well to start with, neither of these two things are race. So you can’t possibly be right.
Second, disagreeing with hereditary titles is only incidentally to do with the United Kingdom anyway. To the degree the practice is done elsewhere (even my native land of Canada where we may not use heriditary titles, but one can — with permission of the Canadian government — get knighthoods, etc. (including peerages) from the queen who only holds her position due to her genetic ancestral background), I oppose it.
In fact, on this issue at least, my position is the exact opposite of racial. It is, in fact, in favour of merit and (starting-off position) social equality.
Report this
12
.
KK
I think it maybe explained simply by watching the English Rugby Team playing the French. The long ago development of mistrust of anything British is also evident today in Canada.
Shame really – they should let bigones be bigones.
Fortunately – the Wallaby supporters tend to cheer for all teams apart from South Africa, New Zealand, England, French, Wales, Ireland, Italy, Tonga, Fiji, Samoa, Argentina, Japan, etc etc.
Report this
30
And through and through again.
So, yeah. Sort of like a comet.
Report this
02
Well Chris,
You have been here before.
KK
Report this
10
Its a simple PR trick. To most people it would mean reputable, relevant, peer reviewed and so they assume that to be the case. When it turns out thats not the case, well, he didn’t lie did he?
Just happened to innocently use a term likely to mislead most people.
Report this
00
It means as published by a “Learned Society”. The society decides on the publishing rules.
Report this
00
unfortunately
Report this
11
Me thinks Australia should keep to Tourism, your Universities are not even 4th world levelif you have people like this employed by them. I would not recommend ANY foreign student to go there for higher education
Report this
14
You do too much thinking! Australian universities are amongst the best in the world! Seeen.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_rankings_of_Australia
Report this
30
Norm
I can assure you that not all lecturers are like Lewandowsky.
Don’t judge us with him as the standard.
KK
Report this
30
doG, have a couple of weeks hols and the hilarity just keeps rolling on here huh? das Monkers, the self debunker, STILL has fanbios here??
When you do dryliberal, maybe you can refer das Monkers to them?
Report this
011
Now comes Catamon to show us that just like Brookes and Tristan, he too lacks the intellectual tools to compete with Lord Monkton.
This is truly a remarkable blog. It attracts both the brightest and the dimmest wits on the planet.
Report this
70
And i would lower myself to compete with the prat why??
Last time someone purporting to be him replied to a post if did here he studiously avoided the actual point at issue and referred to me as “Catamite”. The man is a twit, but that pretty much fits with your comment about this blog attracting the dimmest wits.
Report this
24
I’d have called you ‘Pokemon’.
“Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered” (I presume the name is satire) starts with a 5-year surface temperature trendline and doesn’t get better. A few tweaks and The Onion might publish it.
Report this
13
yes, but you have a sense of humour.
Report this
21
Catamon, Tristan too,
I know that you know where I put you both on that scale of brightest to dimmest wits. You also know why. You puff up your egos and you put down those with the temerity to disagree with you but you can’t engage them in any kind of direct debate about their position.
There is never debate from you, only your overblown egos and your sneering put-downs. Forget about being treated like adults. Kiss goodbye to whatever respect you hoped to get here. It won’t happen until you grow up. John Brookes gets more respect here than you do. Go home and take a good look at what you see in your mirror. Ask that image what it’s done to your self respect. Ask it why.
Monkton is worth a hundred of you, if for no other reason, just because he will stand up and argue facts and figures for what he believes is right without putting anyone down.
Report this
20
You been for a Socialist’s indoctrination refresher again ?
Report this
21
I have long admired Dr. Caldicott’s work in promoting nuclear disarmament and in her other humanitarian efforts. However, in venturing into Meteorology and Climatology about which she knows nothing,she is making a fool of herself. Her ad homiium slurs directed towards Lord Monckton are beneath all standards of professional behavior.
Dr. Martin Hertzberg
Copper Mountain, CO
coauthor of “Slaying the Sky Dragon- Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory”, Stairway Press, 2011
Report this
51
Doctor Martin…I love your boots by the way….I think as I showed earlier she knows nothing about the other topic either.
Report this
10
As I’ve never had a yen to be an infantryman in a giant even bigger re-run of WW2 I regard attempts at nuclear disarmament with dismay. Nukes put politicians and generals in the front line along with the rest of us.
BTW you dragon slayers are just plain wrong.
Report this
20
.
You are an idiot.
Nukes put them in rapid transit to the deep bunkers with filtered air and water supplies.
We fry.
Report this
00
Actually, Catamon, it looks more like the existence of nukes has made politicians very afraid to get into a pissing contest that might lead to using them. Nikita Khrushchev was one of the most belligerent leaders of the 20th century but he was deathly afraid to push John Kennedy too far back in 1962, the so-called Cuban Missile Crisis. There is simply too much to lose. And there’s no benefit to being in those nice secure bunkers if there’s nothing left to come back up and enjoy when it’s all over.
Report this
10
Do tell? Out with it sonny, you can’t just come here making blanket statements without anything to support your conclusions, its not welcome. You are however quite welcome to elucidate, so, go on…..
Report this
11
Are you attempting to suggest that she knows anything whatsoever about nuclear physics?
Report this
20
Not me Rod, I am suggesting she knows so little about the character, deployment, control, potential use and administration of nuclear weapons to make a useful pronouncement on the matter.
Report this
00
Monckton has Graves?
OooooH
Fred West, he had Graves: under his backyard, in his cellar, out around town and maybe his front yard as well.
Report this
10
I do think Chris does a greatsrrvice, is a sharp, kmowledgeable articulate guy and is RIGHT. So I dont think this title crap does him any service.
I am entitled to wear a string of daft initials after my name. From a Royally chartered body of the UK academic establishment. I dont. I think people will Google the initials and laugh at what they mean I do!
I think Monckton should think the same. Of course he cant let armpits claim he aint a real viscount, but then he ends up looking like he cares. Given that he has no seat and no vote I think its a liability. Unless he really is that snob…which I prefer not to think…I believe he should formally renounce that title. This would do three things, it would cancel the suspicion of snootiness, it would end all the nagging about it by armpits like kaldikwot and it would prove finally he DID have the title, as the act of reouncing it is only possible because he has had it.
By the same token, I think it would make life easier for him if everyone stopped calling him His Lordship and touching their forelock. Well, I admit Ive done the former, not the latter.
Outside of the USA the term “Lord” is usually taken to mean “plonker”. A seat, a vote and the salary for sitting are assets if you have them, which would make it worthwhile, but if he doesnt, that daft lag-over from the Norman conquest (viscount) is a liability.
Report this
11
I think we should stop referring to him as “Lord Monckton” and instead refer to him as “Big C Daddy”.
It’s sufficiently respectful without getting into that whole heredity thing — he’s the Big Daddy of kicking arse in climate debates.
Report this
26
Titles and credentials in general, like MD after your signature can be as important to people as getting their name right. I don’t know why Monkton’s title is so important to him but it is. End of story as far as I’m concerned.
Report this
20
No, it’s different. Love her or hate her, Caldicott earned her title.
Report this
25
Chris,
It’s funny how this conversation has moved to this topic; of whether LM should proclaim his title.
i am of the same general opinion of Hereditary titles as him and think that LM is sufficiently aware that it can be seen as a bit of a liability.
What I also think is that he is using it to get publicity for a good cause and that he may also be using it to rub the noses of the warmers mob in it.
On the one hand you say titles are irrelevant and then with Helen’s you say they are.
We all understand the difference between inherited and earned, especially here in Australia but, the test is
WHAT ARE YOU DOING WITH IT.
And I think he is using it for a good cause.
As for Caldicott? Does the use of her title do her credit or bring credit to the organisation she represents with that title?
Ref my comment above 61.2
Hoping things turn out well.
KK
Report this
40
KK..all well taken BUT the question is DOES it help CMs cause?
My argument that it was counter-productive.
As for this Christophe I guess he’s another Brookes.
Even looks like him.
Report this
11
…My argument WAS that its counter productive.
Also, I totally accept that one may want to use such a title purely for personal or sentimental reasons. It may even be a be a feline-magnet! But if you are engaged in conflicts of perception and want to succeed, it could be a personal sacrifice for “the cause”.
Report this
00
Hi Ace
The actual “content” of Chris Moncktons tour is probably irrelevant.
The publicity that is given is the most important thing since as Nick showed earlier;
This is a matter of perception, not reality, not democracy or science, this matter is one of entraining young minds using the Twitterverse and the web.
The very fact that a headline says;
Global Warming to be Challenged =
is worth much more than any fact because it counters the overwhelming media emphasis on CO2 induced Global Incineration that is push relentlessly every day in all its Goebbels like glory.
It has been a truly amazing victory for the scammers.
What is the best way of stopping the money flow?
KK
.
Report this
00
Hi Chris
“No, it’s different. Love her or hate her, Caldicott earned her title.”
What is your purpose in coming to this blog?
KK
61.2
Report this
11
She sure did but it should be Smb(Sceeching moon bat) or Cd(Commie dupe) or UI (useful idiot) although the KGB must have been in despair at times(with friends like these……).
Maybe just LIAR will do.
Report this
20
Continuing to call her “Dr” is like calling a retired airline pilot “Captain”
Report this
00