Thursday
Jun032010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Monckton to overthrow government..
Jun 3, 2010 Conservatives Politicians UKIP ...or something like that. Lord Monckton is apparently to be the new deputy leader of the UK Independence Party and politicalbetting.com is wondering if global warming sceptics will now all leave the Conservative Party.
Reader Comments (32)
'politicalbetting.com is wondering if global warming sceptics will now all leave the Conservative Party.'
No chance, there'd only be 20 or 30 left to hold Dave's hand if that happened - still it's a nice day-dream!
Ian E,
Is that everyone except the Cabinet?
Monckton for God-Emperor!
This is worrying - we need people with good sense to remain in the Tory party.
I see Moonbats having a pop at Monckton via cif ... George you get more desperate by the minute ......
Monckton is always entertaining and witty -- another reason for Lefties to hate him, since they don't get humour.
The videos of him giving the treatment to various assorted activists at Copenhagen are classics.
Monckton is a good debater. That's it! His appeal is limited. His title, his right-wing politics, and now his extreme right-wing politics are all liability to the skeptic/agnostic camp. Except for several dozens drooling admirers, he won't win anyone over to his new, controversial fringe party. Hopefully he'll retire himself from climate change debate, or the CAGW cult will make most of his new political affiliation.
Could a British person explain the nuances of Moncton's claim that he is a non voting member of the house of lords? As far as I can tell the 1999 reform took away the right to sit in the house (non voting or otherwise) from most hereditary peers,.
sHx: UKIP got the 4th highest number of votes in the last election. More than the Scot Nats, the Welsh Nats, the NI parties and the Greens. Hardly a fringe party then, unless these others are more fringey. In Euro elections, where PR means votes count, they do even better. Given voting reform, they will make a big impact. You only have to look at comments to see how many people consider they are the only party with credible policies on "climate change", energy and the EU.
Bishop - you do yourself a dis-service in promoting the likes of Monckton and Delingpole. They're journalists, for god's sake. Monckton is a charismatic debater, but has been shown time and time again to manipulate and fabricate data. Delingpole, well, is histerical, and a tool.
It attracts anti-science and anti-intellectual types to the blog, which is a pity because otherwise this a good libertarian read.
[BH adds: I don't think I'm promoting them particularly. I just thought it was interesting that political betting thought that Monckton's appointment would threaten the government, something that appeared somewhat unlikely to me.]
Narrow minded:- a person or persons who cannot see beyond their own set of values and/or will not accept them.
Well I like Lord Monckton (except perhaps when he ventures off into his "communism" bit) but if he were PM you could guarantee this would not have happened...
Swine flu like global warming
Of course AGW has different rules re conflicts of interests. Everyone on their side is just working for saving the planet.
The parallels are so obvious, but whenever a conflict of interest is highlighted (panels, journalists, PR spokespeople) the response is "it does not matter". Yeah right...
Bishop - you do yourself a dis-service in promoting the likes of Monckton and Delingpole.
Lord Monckton and James Delingpole show no fear and are not intimidated by the "moral superiority" of AGW proponents. They would walk into any AGW forum and not be afraid of the emotional "...but the planet!!! what about the planet!!! our children!!! our children's children!!!" type arguments. And they were doing that before Climategate.
Whether Bishop is promoting them is up to the reader to decide. However, I forgive the two of them many things because at least they have the balls to enter arenas that others fear to tread.
the left has nutters galore, they do festivals with them in Wales; so to have a few eccentrics extra on the right side is long overdue.
Will Nick Robinson and the HoTwat in Hammersmith decry the outrageous injustices when it endangers their narratives and plush lives? => I hope sooooo.
@Phillip Bratby: UK has a lousy electoral system. The 3.1% vote (and no seat) that the 4th place-getter UKIP got is some comfort in the circumstances but it still leaves the party on the fringes. UKIP's election performance is not comparable to Scottish and Welsh nationalists; the latter two are big fish in their respective ponds. Considering the political system in the UK, no one with real ambition for government would stray from the mainstream. Only eccentric public figures with penchant for showmanship would seriously consider the fringes. (See, the former Big Brother celebrity George Galloway and his RESPECT party.) If Monckton is serious about affecting influence on climate policy, he shouldn't part way with Tories, now that they are in government.
If Monckton is serious about affecting influence on climate policy, he shouldn't part way with Tories, now that they are in government.
I have to agree. Better inside the tent pissing out, than the reverse... :-)
As someone who is firmly entrenched in the left/liberal side of the political discourse (I voted for OZ Greens for last 10+ years), I am neither exposed to nor interested much in what right-wing pundits and politicos like Monckton, Delingpole, Andrew Bolt, Sen. Inhoafe, etc, etc, has to say about the science. I converted from climate agnosticism to climate skepticism after the climategate scandal, and mostly thanks to popular science blogs like Climate Audit, WUWT and Bishop Hill that made it easy to follow up the complex scientific debate. So it is a little disconcerting to see right wing opinion makers getting promoted here. Also, Bishop Hill has a small, high-quality fan-base that actually make the comments pages worth reading, and I doubt they would care to debate what Monckton and Delingpole have to say.
sHx, I'm probably similar to yourself, politically. I describe myself as "hard of centre" and traditionally I'm an environmentalist and conservationist.
I don't see an issue with Bish reporting Monckton's appointment. It's news and by extension, since Monckton is a prolific climate debater, it's climate news. Not celebrating, just reporting.
I do agree with you that Monckton is not representative of the climate sceptical position and is not necessarily beneficial to the science-sceptical argument, because (it seems ever-more evident that) his interest is primarily motivated by political stance rather than the integrity/corruption of the science.
In my opinion, Lord Monckton has contributed a considerable amount to the debate and his debating skills combining (mostly) factual science and humour has appeal, especially to those who might otherwise be indifferent or even apathetic to MGW. This contribution is very important in my opinion because it will serve to increase the pressure on those who want to close the debate down.(THE DEBATE IS OVER) syndrome.
Having said all that, i think that Lord Monckton must take care not to be seduced by his own advertizing. He must question the advice of those close to him, who might want to use him to persue their own agenda.
Take care Christopher and thanks for your contribution so far.
@pesadia
I am in total agreement with your POV but, as expected, as soon as those who wish to challenge the consensus put their heads above the parapet we get this from the Telegraph-
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tomchivers/100008371/viscount-monckton-is-an-embarrassment-to-global-warming-sceptics-everywhere/
Clearly this blogger should be at the Grauniad but I am assured that a suitable riposte
from the lord to the Abrahams 'assault' will be forthcoming soon - can't wait.
sHx
The warmists "defeated" in our society will mean a complete rethink of education & research not to mention the meddjah who now still wrigglingly slime over the floor after these erudite turds that call themselves scientist in all these fancy ivry'towers..
We have learnt lessons from WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Plastics, GMFoods and erm Iraq and now AGW and we should put them in practice: Never give away some stock with blank cheques for the "atoned" to look after.. We saw what happened with the BBC..Accountability will not be looked over this time.
If climate science turns out to be ill-founded (do not read ill funded) and erm erm wrong it means that a slight calculation fault was made by all the politicians and elites whom we entrust our taxmoney with. They should all GO. all of them.
I do not wish a "The Guardian" and a "The Indpendent" , a BBC and any univeristy board and plotting institute in any form to survive this.
Let us not forget that Ayatollah Gore and his new found Messiah are demanding trillion dollar
efforts (not from erm erm themselves) and would take away all that money from our efficient economies to build erm erm windmills. That would cause unoverseeable damage a 100 times an unjust Iraq war over.
If AGW is proved wrong , Stockholm owes it to the rest of humanity to organise a small ceremony whereby Barry and the Ayatollah are ripped of their prizes and get a good stamp in their assuaged fat arses OUT of public life. And that re-vowed prize has to trickle down in similar ways all the way down to that average geography teacher who now thinks, the Graun and Brian Cox DVDs under the arm,the israel bashing teacher union's membership in the wallet, that he is doing a good job showing "an inconvenient truth" to the kiddies at our taxable expense.
The Royal Society and other Societies should then be cleaned out with high pressure hoses.
the sophisticates get a minute to clear their desks. They can apply for a new lordshipment in North Korea, or Iran. Cleaning toilets is beyond their capability I would not know what to endow them further in the West with actually.
So yes, welcome to the other side.
Care to detail how you were living life while you were a warmist?
I admire Monckton for his verve, and presentational skills, but as others have said he's weaker on the in-depth science, though well able to put over the key ideas even if the details a little edgier. Unfortunately the chattering classes are more likely to listen to someone like Nigel Lawson or Monckton, in the same way as 'Environment correspondents' are rarely technically trained. People who know the science inside out, and can present it effectively, AND will command an audience from the powers that be are rare on both sides - I guess Stott is a good example of that ilk.
I do find it interesting that many in this debate (on this blog and others) would find they differ quite substantially in view on many other subjects, yet have common cause in this. I think this shows that the common media stereotype of 'right' or 'left' is highly misleading, except perhaps when dealing with dyed in the wool party apparatchiks with no real principles of their own.
Cumbrian Lad: "I think this shows that the common media stereotype of 'right' or 'left' is highly misleading"
Agreed. Something like www.politicalcompass.org is slightly more nuanced, where an Authoritarian/Liberal axis is added to the Left/Right axis.
I think that the Liberal Right and the Liberal Left often have more in common with each other than they do with their respective Authoritarian Right/Authoritarian Left brethren. Authoritarians of course love anything which gives them the opportunity to boss others around (or for the more masochistic ones, to be bossed around) and CAGW is perfect for this. Liberals generally think that people should be free to do as they wish - the main difference between left and right liberal perhaps being the extent to which people's freedom should be allowed to impact on other people's freedom.
I am someone else who is generally Liberal left but who came to be sceptical of CAGW based on the evidence - or more accurately lack thereof. I'm having to share forums with some people whose attitudes I very much don't share but bite my tongue because the issue is so important. Unfortunately, I suspect many more people are put off if they are more undecided and certainly the warmists are able to use this as a way of portraying scepticism as solely a right-wing political position.
I think that it's important that people realise that there are many people who aren't on the right who are very sceptical indeed.
If you have never witnessed Monckton speak, you can find a video of his presentation at the 4th International Conference on Climate Change in Chicago last month here:
http://www.heartland.org/environmentandclimate-news.org/ClimateConference4
Monckton is quite versed in the science of global warming, which is why the left vigorously tries to discredit him, such as today's ad hominem in The Guardian on-line by Hickman in the Environment Section. Not only that, Monckton is thoroughly entertaining; he heralds the Nine of Diamonds as his trademark.
He's got really googly eyes - reminds me of Marty Feldman... =P
I agree with pesadia , jazznick and Dr Crinum -- Monckton has played a very important role in the debate. The issue has long gone past the detail of the science of the issue and has been about politics and money for a long time. I think Monckton has a great grasp of the science and the fact that he can present the issues to the public in a positive forthright way is his most important contribution. Also his background has obviously helped him open many important doors to enable him and others to argue the sceptics case.
How he puts his personal political stance into place is secondary although I'd tend to agree that staying within the Conservatives might be better.
A few words of defense of Lord Monckton seem in order.
Mr Hill has made a great contribution to our fight against CAGW by his investigations and prying open the circled wagons. But without public exposure (by the failed MSM), blogging can sometimes be preaching to the converted.
Lord Monckton has played a complimentary role. He deserves reporting and promotion for what he is - a good science communicator to the masses. Amongst his many lectures, I recall he traveled extensively around the US before Copenhagen, warning about the energy 'world government' clauses in the treaty. His video, from memory, got over 100,000 hits, raising awareness and skepticism about the political dimension of CAGW in the USA and worldwide.
His 'funny eyes' is, of course, a medical condition called called exophthalmos and is due to previous thyrotoxicosis (see Graves' disease in Wiki, where he is listed as a prominent sufferer).
Yes, he may be a bit quirky and a little bombastic, but his message is correct and he is out there fighting. Let only those who have contributed more, criticize him.
www.nocarbontax.com.au
Well put Michael Cejnar !!
@rinky stingpiece "He's got really googly eyes "
I think I remember reading that it's because of a medical condition he suffers from.
@ Michael Cejnar
Absolutely Right!
The fact that he is a bit eccentic is all to the good. We need people who are a bit eccentric. Even those we don't agree with. Heaven save us from all the PR smoothies!
The fact that he is possibly the man whom the Warmist Ecotards most love to hate is proof of his value. And the fact that they are always claiming that the facts he quotes have been discredited is absolutely typical of their lying modus operandi. Just check out Bob Ward's seminal - and sickeningly dishonest review of Plimer's "Heaven and Earth". There is absolutely nothing (other than a trivial typo in a footnote URL citation) which he demonstrates is incorrect, but the whole book is somehow 'discredited'.
As Delingpole & others have pointed out, even if some trivial error could be identified in Monckton's presentations, HE isn't the one who is insisting we send the economy to hell in a handcart NOW in order to solve a problem that doesn't exist.
Monckton is absolutely correct which is why he is vilified by the loony left, along with the alarmist bandwagon.
For those of you still naive enough to think this is still about science are stumbling under a most severe form of cognitive disorder.
CAGW was always about politics, never about science, how can a puny amount of man-made trace gas be a major atmosphere heating, Green House Gas, climate driver?
Answer? It can't, we remain attendant, awaiting with baited breath for this dodgy postulation to be proven by AGW 'experts', what Monckton does is punch train tunnel sized holes through the idea of MM CO2e is driving CC (or indeed having any great influence).
Hansen with GISS + Mann UPA, the Met office and the CRU along with the IPCC and dolts like Gore are the ones who through their appalling exaggerations and worst case scenarios and bent models have politicised the arguments.
Then in turn the politicians have pumped scandalously massive amounts of TAXPAYERS money into proving the impossible, the unverifiable. These payments are intolerable they are involuntary contributions, no one gets a damn say in these grants and where and whom they are paid to, all to prove a political point, not science is it?
Politicians have gone further, the political 'elite' of the EU/UK/UN have browbeaten and bullied the scientific community into closing down debate and preposterously for the first time ever (yes!! since time began!!) claim the 'science is settled'!
Utter b*****ks!
Let Monckton have his say, he is ephemeral and has a light touch, his steel blade though like his wit, is rapier sharp, people who underestimate him, merely display what he himself is always trumpeting - for the science community to avoid............. ie, that of bombast, ignorance and arrogance.
Monckton replies to Abraham:
http://cfact.eu/2010/06/04/climate-the-extremists-join-the-debate-at-last/