Sunday, September 19, 2010

Lord Monckton on Global Climate Disruption, or the lack thereof

This is painful. 
This is probably the 3rd or 4th Lord Monckton video that I've posted.  He's probably my favorite Global Warming Global Climate Disruption skeptic. 
What should we take away from all of this? 
When in doubt, look at your thermometer. 
Just because people are trying to make money from the weather doesn't mean you should give it to them. 


Cedric Katesby said...

Experts do not embody science.
Science is about work.
Not "experts".
Monckton does no work.
He's not even an "expert".
He doesn't know anything more about climate change than anybody else who has access to the internet.

"Experts" go on TV.
People grade these "experts" based on whether they support their viewpoint or not.
This is confirmation bias.
Ordinary people do this all the time.

The way you get out of this confirmation bias trap is to follow the scientific work.
What research has been done?
Nothing else matters.
Monckton does no work.

He's probably my favorite Global Warming Global Climate Disruption skeptic.

Oh yes. Mine too.
He's the best representative the climate denier community has to offer.
The very best.
Everybody on the climate denial side says so.

I especially liked his expose of the NASA conspiracy to deliberately crash their own climate satellites.
The trooth is out there.

He is indeed warmly embraced by everybody in the "who's who" of the denialism industry.

He richly sums up the mentality and the spirit of the entire climate denier community.

There is no argument that he will not use.
And use badly.

Monckton is a wierdo.
He really is a wonderful, wonderful representative for the climate denier community.
Listen to this man.
Listen to him very carefully.
I certainly have.

The Whited Sepulchre said...


Cedric Katesby said...

Allen, as always, I have read the link you provided.

It goes to a blog.
(Again,no surprises there)

That blog links to...another blog.

There's nothing about Monckton at all on either one.
Bugger all.

In any case, why are you going to blogs for your science information?
What's the point?
Why do you avoid people that do the science work themselves?

Here's some choice quotes...

...the IPCC and other Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC) charlatans...

Yes. The IPCC are charlatans. It's a global conspiracy.

Of course, we could trust the scientist chappies... They know what they're doing, let's leave it to them, eh?

Yes. Them versus us. Those durned scientists. Science is a religion. It's all a conspiracy.

as people delve into the raw figures (when they can be found—remember how good CRU were at "losing" or "wiping" their original data), they keep turning up more and more anomalies.

Yes. Anomolies. Scientists going around wiping data. It's a cover-up. It's a global conspiracy.

But, as Bishop Hill laid out so clearly and repeatedly in his excellent book...

Oh well, that's all right then. Bishop Hill? Him? Now him we can trust. Trust Bishop Hill. He wrote a book after all. (???) And...and it's an excellent book. Much better that all that boring science peer-review stuff.

...the figures are quite simply unreliable.

Trust us. We will tell you what figures are reliable or unreliable.
We have a blog. Look at our pretty graphs. On our blog.

Allen, stop trusting blogs from your tribe.
Get out of the ghetto.

That's how you ended up trusting Monckton.
For crying out loud, MONCKTON?!?!?

If you are honestly interested in what's happening to glaciers in the Himalaya's (as opposed to PRATT collecting) then NASA has some rather good resources.
They actually study this kind of thing.
They get out there and do the work.

Science is not religion.

Scientists don't just have knowledge privately revealed to them and then they pass it along to the rest of us and we just have to believe them.

There's no priesthood. There's no orthodoxy.

The scientists know stuff because they get out there and put boots on the ground. They do the work.
They record the results.
They follow specific and well-understood methodologies.
Everything is subject to peer-review.
Sure, mistakes will happen.
Yes, human nature will get in the way.
Yet that's understood and part of the peer-reviewed process.
Science is self-correcting.
There's nothing mysterious or magical or criminal about it.

Monckton, however, is a fruit-loop.
He's totally batty.

Take a good hard look at him.
Watch the videos.
Check out the analysis of his arguments.
Monckton is a train-wreck.

Yet, let's have Monckton have the last word.
Let him reveal the grand, super conspiracy to you.
Trust him.
He runs an "Institute".