When Monckton Met Miss Greenpeace
By Bogus Doug
In timely fashion, Monckton presents the most definitive cross examination of a Global Warming Alarmist zealot ever. Points to both participants for the civility. But wow… Global Warming Alarmism doesn’t come out smelling so fresh in this one.
(H/T to the always excellent Global Warming Hoax Weekly Roundup, at the Daily Bayonet)
December 17th, 2009 at 9:09 pm
Go Monckton! I thought the lady’s head was going to explode when M mentioned ‘regression to the mean’. She seems to be in the ‘Angry Clown’ school of AGW True Believers.
People are starting to look at the data from East Anglia that was not email text. I am certain nothing will come from this that is good for the CRU and the AGW priesthood. If there was evidence that made the AGW theory more solid, it would have been released and gotten banner headlines long ago.
Throw another log on the fire, turn that thermostat up a bit. It’s too frikkin’ cold.
December 17th, 2009 at 10:50 pm
[…] Shot in the Dark » Blog Archive » When Monckton Met Miss Greenpeace […]
December 18th, 2009 at 12:34 am
It’s fun to make fun of the least knowledgeable of anyone’s supporters.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKKKgua7wQk
I’d like to see Monckton question an actual climate scientist. To save time, I’d also like that scientist to ask Monckton to explain exactly how the Copenhagen Treaty would cede U.S. sovereignty to a global government.
December 18th, 2009 at 2:21 am
Oh, give it up, Stooj. Are you trying to tell me you give a damn about US sovereignty?
December 18th, 2009 at 3:47 am
Assumptions, assumptions. What have I ever said that would make you assume I don’t?
December 18th, 2009 at 9:05 am
One person who doesn’t know anything about global warming against another. “Viscount” Morgan. Please.
December 18th, 2009 at 9:07 am
Correction: Viscount “Monckton.”
Angryclown has sacked his girl over the mistake.
December 18th, 2009 at 10:11 am
Angryclown’s a tea-bagger!
December 18th, 2009 at 10:16 am
As is usual, when confronted by questions about Global Warming Orthodoxy, its true believers resort to ad hominems rather than substantive refutations.
Why should this woman be considered among the “least knowledgeable” among a movement that speaks in terms of “belief and deniers” and actively suppresses dissenting opinions? Her candid confession of being informed on this matter by the press and her preferred political organization seems rather typical, if perhaps uncomfortably close to home for some who would not be so honest about their own epistemology on the topic.
December 18th, 2009 at 10:50 am
Disco Stu-
I’m sure that Monckton would welcome a chance to debate one of climate scientists who endorse AGW (shockingly enough there are more than a few who don’t). The problem is that most of them seem to be following Gore’s lead in declaring that the “time for debate is over” and refusing to engage those who disagree with them.
December 18th, 2009 at 10:56 am
angryclown said:
“One person who doesn’t know anything about global warming …”
Was angryclown in this video? I may have to watch it. 😉
December 18th, 2009 at 11:49 am
Stool is right….mocking morons is fun!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GovV4iZN0vQ
Oops, wrong target….here we go.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53C2-b8BOLs
So, tell us Stool. Have you started jacking your house up to keep it above the new water line?
December 18th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
I’d like to see Monckton question an actual climate scientist.
For years Monckton has been trying to get Gore to debate him. Gore refuses to debate anyone on the subject. It’s the AGW people who run away from difficult questions, not the skeptics.
December 18th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
The “movement” is irrelevant, Mr. Passionate About Heirloom Tomatoes. It’s about the science. And neither of the chuckleheads in the video understands the science sufficiently to evaluate it.
December 18th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
And neither of the chuckleheads in the video understands the science sufficiently to evaluate it.
Mohammed Ali didn’t have to fight the fight of his career to defend his title against Jean-Pierre Koopman. If you went to that bout expecting to see another Rumble In The Jungle-level display of skill, you might have gone away thinking you were watching a couple of duffers.
So tell Algore to square off against Monckton – or any of the front-line AGW skeptics.
Better yet – since the peer-reviewing of the “settled science” was grossly tainted by the corruption exposed in the CRU emails, would it be too much to ask to get an actual, neutral peer review of the whole thing?
December 18th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Angry Clown, you know nothing about what it takes to properly evaluate climate science.
Or maybe you could state your credentials? Have you even taken college physics?
December 18th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
It’s about the science. And neither of the chuckleheads in the video understands the science sufficiently to evaluate it.
Speaking of science and chuckleheads, I should point out that Doug actually has some background in the whole “scientific method” thing.
Unlike, say, your typical circus performer.
Just saying.
December 18th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
I’ve seen Gore’s bio. He has no more ability to evaluate climate science than Monckton.
December 18th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Uh, so?
December 18th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
“Uh, so?”
Wow. angryclown seems so “smart”. Hehe.
Only initiated (and peer reviewed) practitioners of Skyfallogy are equipped to evaluate the science behind Anthropomorphic Sky Falling theory. Only they may command us to do what we need to do to set the world right. It is unnecessary for them to explain their theories to the uninitiated, convince skeptics of their truth, or entertain any real debate.
December 18th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
The “peer reviewers” are anonymous. It is highly likely that the same handful of climate scientists review each other papers.
What a great way to determine public policy.
December 18th, 2009 at 5:53 pm
Actually, I’d rather see the pro and anti scientists debate. Unfortunately, scientists tend to debate in papers, which isn’t as interesting.
December 18th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
Unfortunately, scientists tend to debate in papers, which isn’t as interesting
And that’s provided that even that debate isn’t rigged – an assumption the CRU emails put into grave question.
December 18th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
“CRU emails put into grave question.”
Not really, Mitch. It’s more like if conservatives decided that the Wall Street Journal was no longer a good conservative paper because Nick Coleman and Kieth Olberman took over.
Deciding a journal is no longer objective because people who deny any Global Warming have taken over as editors is not stifling debate. It’s realizing that the journal is no longer credible.
December 19th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Yet somehow a publication retains its credibility as an objective source when people who deny that there are legitimate anti-AGW arguments take over?
We are talking about statistical interpretation of an imperfect data set. In this way AGW theory has always been more like social science than astrophysics.
December 19th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Nah, Stoo is just “homogenizing” reality. Much like the data coming out of Australia, Russia, NASA and the CRU at East Anglia.
December 19th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
Our esteemed mainstream press isn’t helping either, Kermit.
Check this article from SFGate:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/12/19/MNVS1B6E4C.DTL
The first paragraph states: “If the course of human history is any model, then the wheels are already turning on Earth’s sixth mass extinction, thanks to habitat destruction, pollution and now global warming, a scientific analysis of millions of years of data revealed Friday.”
The paper is here:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0008331
The paper never mentions “global warming”, other than in the context of the end of the last ice age.
The dire speculation by one of the researchers came only in remarks made to the SF Chronicale reporter. They did not appear in the peer reviewed published paper.
I am afraid that a lot of the AGW journalism uses similar standards as this article.
December 21st, 2009 at 9:19 am
DiscordianStooj said:
“Deciding a journal is no longer objective because people who deny any Global Warming have taken over as editors is not stifling debate. It’s realizing that the journal is no longer credible.”
So “deciding” and “realizing” is what they’ve done? In my opinion that’s a very sympathetic-to-the-point-of-addled interpretation of events.