Here it is -- the interview that Monckton declared showed that the ABC supported fascism.
- Log in to post comments
Advertisment
Here it is -- the interview that Monckton declared showed that the ABC supported fascism.
Ooooh - much more fun than I'd anticipated (I was expecting more of that dreadful approach to Monckton where the norms-of-politeness constrained interviewer just gets overwhelmed by the unrelenting wave of bafflegab.)
I think that in the future it will be seen as a defining feature of both the climate debate and the age itself that such a person can have had such a public career given the actual calibre of his material.
And this is 'supporting fascism' how exactly?
(Anyone recognise the latin?)
utterly brilliant, the only way the loony fringe should be dealt with.
Best interview ever. James is correct this is the only way to deal with people like Monkton and is far more effective than the sad mistake of debating them.
Vir sapit qui pauca loquitur.
It's not even funny Tim, Then again, I'm not up with you sophisticated city slickers am I.
I said on the open thread that this reminded me of Borat interviewing one of his interviewees. I guess I can only dream that Borat actually does interview Monckton.
Time for the little aussie bleeder to interview Monckton,
where are you Norman?
The one thing that self-important, self-appointed little men like Monckton cannot deal with is not being taken seriously and becoming targets of scorn and derision. Great approach to the interview.
I actually felt sorry for the old coot. I think it went a little bit too far in terms of ridicule..and it perhaps echoes Mark Latham's infamous handshake of John Howard.
No-one likes to see old men getting beaten up..either literally or figuratively. It reminded me of the BBC documentary on him that screened earlier in the year..which created similar feelings in me.
You don't want to create sympathy for genuine lunatics like Monckton. Unlike Carter, Plimer etc..I think he genuinely believes in what he is peddling and he is incapable of facing reality.
PG, it's unwise to allow your sympathies to be manipulated by the likes of Monckton.
Given free reign, that closet fascist would have isolated and imprisoned forever every HIV patient during the '80's panic, and deployed biological weapons during the Falklands war. Now he's pimping for global interests at the expense of the common good for personal gain.
He's actually beneath contempt despite his apparently civilised public face.
PG,that old man is actually a thug.Have you read the transcripts of his talks?
I much prefer Monckton being treated as the comedy sideshow that he is. If it means that serious scientists and policymakers have to spend less time countering his nonsense, I'm all for it.
As for the man himself, I don't possess so much as a gramme of sympathy. I sometimes wonder if he is suffering from some kind of delusion, but most of the time I'm of the opinion he's just a conman who gets his jollies from acting important.
@8. PG | October 20, 2011 4:13 AM :
I dunno bout that.
I've met Ian Plimer & he certainly seems very sincere and genuine in person. Plimer even had me convinced .. for a time & to my shame. :-(
Monckton~wise, I think these youtube clips :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfA1LpiYk2o&list=PL029130BFDC78FA33&inde…
(Part I) &
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duxG4lyeSlc&list=PL029130BFDC78FA33&inde…
(Part II)
Plus this :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rizvaJyA-GM&list=PL029130BFDC78FA33&inde…
sum him up best.
Despite his claims he's no member of the House of Lords, no former science advisor to Maggie Thatcher and NOT somebody I'd feel any pity or respect for.
PG, I can't agree - anyone who can spout this kind of crap deserves everything he gets [Head-in-Vice warning!].
What is there to respect and tiptoe around in this kind of poisonous nonsense?
People hold 'sincere beliefs' in all sort of whacky - and, more importantly, deeply vile - crap. And amazingly some people even get funded to swan around the world spouting such toxic junk! (And as the man himself might say "cui bono?")
Just how intricate are the knots we need to tie ourselves in in so as not to offend anyone in the process of refuting them? Satiric scorn is an entirely appropriate reaction to ugly stupidity. If not the most appropriate reaction, as has been suggested above. Orwell? Swift?
BTW. Off topic somewhat but there's an interesting interview with Alan Jones - the Climate Contrarian not the F1 champion - here :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVHAWVZadrc
via ABC TV's 7.30 Report & slavman4000 on Youtube.
20 minutes 25 seconds mark :
Probably this stuff steve,
The UnMuseum - Comet Halley
www.unmuseum.org/halleycomet.htmIn 1665 a comet preceded an outbreak of the Black Plague that killed almost 100000 ... The predicted return of Halley's Comet became one of the first chances to
Every time I hear Monckton spout his crap, I feel the irresistible urge to vomit.
The Latin tag just underscores what a genius Sacha Baron Cohen is:
"...and so it's not a not a question of being in the Lord Monckton character. As it happens I *am* Lord Monckton. As the poet Horace used to say "Omne tulit punctum qui miscuit utile dulci"...
The phrase means "he wins every hand who mixes profit with pleasure". Of course, it has nothing at all to do with SBC's assertion that has is "Lord Monckton", but is total smoke and mirrors. A brilliantly subtle swipe at denialists who throw random non sequiturs to distract from the fact they have little but assertion and handwaving.
Doubly clever, because of course, SBC's "Monckton" character *has* taken great pleasure and made plenty of coin at the same time by baffling and upsetting pensioners, just as "Borat" did with monied but clueless Americans.
Genius!
(well, the Latin translation is accurate, anyway...)
Washington Post also picked up on this:
http://tiny.cc/sasha-baron-cohen
Was Cohen in on the joke? Or more importantly, was Monckton in on the joke. (I've always suspected that most of Cohen's foils were willingly part of the joke.)
Uh no, Jeffrey - Cohen was likely thousands of miles away and totally unaware of this particular jape. And Monckton in on it? I doubt that.
Monckton was getting flustered because he was being treated as if he were one of Cohen's comedy characters. And not being taken seriously is complete anathema to the pompous.
StevoR @ 12: I have to disagree about Plimer's sincerity. A colleague of mine, who knows him well, indicated that Plimer had straight out said that he wrote Heaven & Earth simply because he knew it would make him money, not because he cared about the science.
Bob Carter, whom I know moderately well, is another story: he's a good scientist, but can be a bit of a bully about convincing you about his own theories; plus I think his ideologies have trumped the science.
Monckton is a lunatic in the literal sense. Funny thing is, I have asked several colleagues from the UK about him, and none of them has ever heard of him - he probably knows he'd get laughed out of the country if he pulled his crap in the UK because they aren't fooled by his pomp. Whereas in the US and here in Oz....
@#8
There is something deeply wrong with you if this made you feel sympathy for Monckton.
That's pure unadulterated bullshit.
No, but he's such an idiot that it sort of seems that way.
@SteveR For those old enough to remember, Alan Jones likely is referring to the 1986 pass of Halley's comet near earth. It was hyped for months by the media (and some astronomers) as a spectacular once in a lifetime celestial light show that you wouldn't need a telescope to observe, but in the end, turned out to be a fizzer, barely observable with binoculars even if you knew where to look.
So, like, I think he's implying that it's overhyped (making him a lukewarmist.)
I thought it revealing that the last paragraph in the [Washington Post piece](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/10/hamster_wheel_interviews_monck…) required an explanation of the joke...
I'm enjoying the Hamster Wheel though. I did miss the latest episode, but from what I've seen the Chaser team appears to be pulling their comedy back toward more clever satirical stuff than the somewhat base material they ended with at the end of their War on Everything.
I think you've mis-interpreted my point. I'm as well versed as anyone regarding the sorts of horrible lies, fear, uncertainty and doubt that he has spread across the world.
However, people don't like to see mentally frail old people being ridiculed. For those who 'sit on the fence' regarding AGW, I personally think that instead of pursuing Monckton..the best thing to do IMO is to ignore him.
In other words, the Chaser skit isn't going to make a genuine AGW skeptic suddenly understand and accept the science is it?
Mind you..it was funny.
@24 Jason | October 20, 2011 8:29 PM :
Thanks. That make sense. Jones comment still sounds silly to me though.
@21 ginckgo | October 20, 2011 6:04 PM :
Fair enough.
However, its not how he came across to me & I think (sadly) how he comes over to many others though.
I suppose he wouldn't be much of a successful contrarian "luminary" if he seemed insincere would he?
I don't. Rather, you have moved the goalposts and then launched an attack on at least two strawmen.
You appear to be one of those people who use the phrase "in other words" as if you had no idea what it meant.
Speak for yourself. The evil little prick deserves all the ridicule we can muster. I have as much concern for his welfare as he has for the welfare of my great grandchildren.
On some blogs, I keep seeing this phrase thrown around: "From Laframboiseâs Citizen Audit: âOf the 18531 references in the 2007 Climate Bible we found 5,587 â a full 30% â to be non peer-reviewed.â"
I don't like engaging in discussions on contrarian blogs because they just get annoying... but I feel like it would valuable for one of the good climate blogs to debunk this number. The quick answer is that Laframboise's citizens misclassified two major classes of documents:
First, many book chapters are indeed peer-reviewed, but the citizen auditors classified all book chapters as non peer-reviewed.
Second, they may disagree with the outcomes of the review, but the IPCC, National Academies, and WMO reports are heavily reviewed, and they were also classified as not reviewed.
At least looking at WGI chapters like chapter 2, something like 3/4s of the "non peer-reviewed" references fall into the above two categories, and several more refer to raw data sources which don't require peer review. Not to mention that many of the references (even in WGII and WGIII) to non-peer reviewed documents are often using them as examples of government or industry responses to change, where such a reference is appropriate, rather than using the reference as a source of analysis and results...
MMM, I already have noted the same a number of times, amongst others here:
http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.com/2010/04/cant-you-see-acceleration.html
http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.com/2010/03/open-letter-by-scientists-on-i…
Couldn't even get it into Hans von Storch's head that the "citizen auditors" were muddling the waters by conflating various issues.
Someone might want to put this little factoid on Climate Etc, but it is likely to get ignored by the host there. She doesn't like people pointing out she fell for yet another lie.
To that I'd add that non-reviewed book chapters are generally fine as references if all you're citing them for is basic knowledge in the relevant field.
Stay tuned for the next exciting episode in which Marylebone president Christopher, Viscount Monckton, demand the ejection of Sascha, Baron Cohen, from the next test at Lords.
Rhetorical force majure this viscount may have mastered, but vis consili expers mole ruit sua.
Hi Marco!
I see you did make the same observation I did (but much earlier than I did)... again, I think it would be good for someone like the host of this blog to actually make this critique a short, top-level post that we can then point people like Judith Curry to... (because I still have a wisp of hope that Curry retains vestiges of real scientific thought and can sometimes be swayed by evidence, in contrast to, say, Plimer or Monckton or Watts).
MMM, I think others have noted it, too, and Phil Clarke already wrote something on Curry's blog. Zip response from the host (last time I checked), others actively moving goalposts in all directions.
Apologies for being O/T but re Laframboise, Curry has a post raving about how good the book is, and of course puts in a lot of references to an authority on the subject of the IPCC - herself.
She also makes much of the glowing reviews the book got on Amazon, which as we all know is a rock-solid guide to how good a book is - it's not as if anyone can just rock up and post their own review, is it... Anyway apparently Peter Gleick gave Laframboise's book a good mauling at Amazon, which led to Curry stating Gleick hadn't even read the book. Gleick quite rightly got on Curry's blog and demanded she correct the "lie" and apologise. After a lot of to-and-fro Curry altered the wording, saying she always corrects errors in her posts, but when questioned by Gleick and others said she altered her wording because Gleick asked her to, not beause her original claim was erroneous.
Honestly, Curry's squirming on this makes me wonder if she hasn't had training as a lawyer. Gleick remains - shall we say - unmoved.
Au contraire PG -- I'm for badgering and annoying the hell out of the Monckton character. This is what a particularly nasty troll looks like in real life, and the fact that he was being trolled was absolutely called for, as well as amusing.
There never was any possibility of getting him to admit sense. It was far better to treat him like the overhyped fraud he is.
"bafflegab"
Ha ha. My new nonsense word. Thank you.
I have as much concern for his welfare as he has for the welfare of my great grandchildren.
Nice line.
Doubleplusgood smackdown.
M got what he gives others, ie a serious dissing.
Climate denier now backs global warming, see article in The Independent.
"Urban heat island effect" consigned to the trash bin.
> âOf the 18531 references in the 2007 Climate Bible we found 5,587 â a full 30% â to be non peer-reviewed.â
Well, given that there is a section on how manganese ore is refined, please tell us where anywhere how the refining of manganese ore is peer reviewed, or any place such a thing could be done. Therefore "No peer review" would be a nonsequitor (especially since that section doesn't appear in WG1).
IIRC it also includes references to the earlier IPCC reports as "Not Peer Reviewed", which is rather odd, since the IPCC is possibly the most peer reviewed document possible.