35 thoughts on “Monckton is a crock (part two)”

  2. This is a beautiful if somewhat shallow propaganda movie.

    I look forward to the counter attack on Rajendra Pauchauri.

    The "Railway Engineer" who was responsible for all those "peer reviewed papers" (Of which 5600 were not peer reviewed")

    The man so busy he could write a racy novel involving group sex with a climate scientist and (also) Shirley Maclaine

    The guy who gets a chauffeur driven taxi to drive him one mile to work.

    The guy whose company TATA has a private golf course in Delhi that sucks up a good percentage of Dehli's water supply.

    The guy whose company TATA closed down a steel mill in the UK, opened up an identical one in India and claimed one billion pounds in carbon credits off the EU.

    The man that gets millions in grants from the EU.

    But don't ask me. Ask the dairy farmers of NZ who will get a 25% hit on their bottom line when the ETS kicks in on July 1st.

    Tell them. They are very excited about this.

    2. Feeding trolls is bad, I know. But sometimes it's too easy…

      "The "Railway Engineer" who was responsible for all those "peer reviewed papers" (Of which 5600 were not peer reviewed") "

      Now, there were almost 19.000 peer reviewed reports in IPCC AR4, right? And the IPCC AR4 rules explicitly allowed non-peer reviewed material, right? Especially in areas where very little peer reviewed material was available, right? And mostly those were used in exactly those areas, right? Besides, lot of those non-peer reviewed reports are often overview reports literally combining multiple peer reviewed papers, right?
      So, please explain, what exactly is the problem with using those non-peer reviewed papers?

      "The guy who gets a chauffeur driven taxi to drive him one mile to work. "

      I wonder; how does one get a taxi without a chauffeur? Steal one? Now that would really be a bad thing for Pachauri to do…

  3. I'm confused – are we Communists or Nazis? Alex B was just calling me a Nazi back there, but now Monckton is talking about Communists. I wish I knew which conspiracy I'm part of…

  5. The commenter posting as "Alex Brown" used to post here as "Dr Checkzor". He posted under another name a few weeks ago, and I warned him then that I don not allow "multiple personalities". Stick to one name, whoever you actually are, or you will be banned. For the time being, you are on auto moderation, and I will only publish your posts if they are on topic and posted under your original name.

    1. Gareth, can you list the aliases used by this particular denialist troll in the past?
      It would be interesting to track him back to his PR / thinktank lair….

      1. I can't remember the name he first used after stopping posting as Checkzor — it is Sunday morning, after all… But he seems to be posting from Christchurch (or through Xtra in Canterbury), so I doubt he's anything other than a straightforward contrarian troll.

        1. I suspect he may be one and same as Andy Scrase, who seems to blog here: http://buildwith.net/blog/ http://www.scrase.com/

          At the same time as Dr Dr Checkzor was posting here someone under "worthless troll" or "New to denialism" amongst other aliases was posting on Ken Perrott's site but slipped up and the revealed origin of posts.
          seehttp://openparachute.wordpress.com/2010/03/12/chr…

          Both Dr Checkzor and The Scrase character described themselves as "worthess troll" at about the same date.

          The dots seem to all join up but I could be wrong.

        2. I suspect he may be one and same as Andy Scrase, who seems to blog here: http://buildwith.net/blog/ http://www.scrase.com/

          At the same time as Dr Dr Checkzor was posting here someone under "worthless troll" or "New to denialism" amongst other aliases was posting on Ken Perrott's site but slipped up and the revealed origin of posts.
          seehttp://openparachute.wordpress.com/2010/03/12/chr…

          Both Dr Checkzor and The Scrase character described themselves as "worthess troll" at about the same date.

          The dots seem to all join up but I could be wrong.

          1. If he is, the value of his vapourings is like that of Boolean (idempotent) multiplication: A*A=A, A*A*A=A, etc. Garbage under multiple names – same old garbage. Don't these guys ever come up with something different?

  7. Anyone else notice the ‘I have family who where [sic] in Nazi Germany’ claim in response to the last Monckton video? Standard fabulism, or do I detect a hint of Der Gute Deutsche lurking in the closet? Perhaps ‘Mr. Brown’ is named for his preference in shirt colour?

    As to whether the rest of us are Nazis or Commies; didn’t you know? It’s all the same thing! The Tea Party Right now claim the two are synonymous terms, and both are Left and Green; Limbaugh, Fox and co. have even re-written Pastor Niemoller’s famous letter to begin ‘First they came for the Jews’ to avoid some of the cognitive dissonance involved in this feat of mental gymnastics…

  8. I also came across Scrase as one of the "Citizen" auditors of the IPCC report (Main Findings of the Citizen Audit of the 2007 IPCC report). Quite a laugh that lot. There is another from NZ who is listed as anonymous (must be one of Treadgold's "science team" who wish to remain anonymous). And at least one other (from Canada) who has been active as a denier commenter at Poneke (Hilary Ostrov – The View From Here).

    Probably wise for them to remain anonymous – when you look up their websites (where given) they are clearly cranks.
    My recent post Superstition – inevitable?

    1. You know it really doesn't help your "argument" that – far from addressing the content of the Climate Bible Report Card (21 out of 44 chapters receive an F) – the very best you can do is dismiss the participants as "cranks".

      Frankly, in light of Dr. Judith Curry's recent observations pursuant to Oxburgh's excuse for a "report", I consider myself in good company:

      "The corruptions of the IPCC process, and the question of corruption (or at least inappropriate torquing) of the actual science by the IPCC process, is the key issue. The assessment process should filter out erroneous papers and provide a broader assessment of uncertainty"
      http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/4/18/…

      1. It doesn't help yours that the "citizen audit" you worked on is devoted to demolishing a straw man. IPCC guidelines have never insisted on using only peer-reviewed literature. In WG2 and WG3, to do so would be to exclude a large amount of high quality, relevant material.

        Quite why Judith Curry wants to analyse the issue from inside the frame established by the email thieves and US right-wing think tanks is a mystery to me.

        1. I wasn't attempting to make any "argument"! Furthermore, far from demolishing any "straw man" – although we have, I believe, contributed to demolishing the myth of IPCC infallibility.

          The goal of the audit to was determine whether or not Pachauri's (and others') frequently repeated claim that the IPCC reports are "all/solely/entirely/ based on peer-reviewed" literature is supported by the evidence in the References. As the Report Card shows, it is not.

          But I note that you provide no evidence to support your smear of Dr. Curry.

        2. As for the permitted use of non-peer-reviewed material, it is worth noting that the IPCC "rules" indicate that such material is to be clearly designated as such in the References. Of the 5,587 such references, only 6 were so designated.

        3. It doesn't help yours that the "citizen audit" you worked on

          So is hr0001(whom iirc posted regularly on Poneke) yet another sockpuppet of Scarse/Checknob etc?

            1. It doesn't help yours that the "citizen audit" you worked on
              OK, my mistake, Hillary is the one who uses the "numerology approach" as demonstrated in her thinking that there is something significant in the video she brought to Mcloughlin's attention:
              http://poneke.wordpress.com/2010/01/22/c02/

  9. Let’s pause for a moment to consider that to date the sum total of responses to the actual content of the posted video above from the denialati is Scarce / Checkzor / DT / Gauleiter Braun’s ‘This is a beautiful if somewhat shallow propaganda movie. ‘

    Then we get to play the standard contrarian game, when faced by inconvenient information, of shifting the topic to ‘firmer’ ground. First we get the Pauchari canards, and now we must debate some Citizens’ Audit that ranks 21 out of 44 chapters of the IPCC report with an ‘F’. Golly! We might all just as well go home then!

    C’mon contrarains – defend your own! If he doesn’t make you all look like fools, tell us why…

    1. Yep, goalposts on wheels, and coal-fired to boot!

      You will find, however, that there will not be any critical gaze cast on a Monckton, just a stony silence and the usual distraction tactic you point to.

      I wonder if any of the denialist "horde",(any of the 8 or 9 of them) can explain why it is OK for Monckton to tell bare-faced lies?

        1. Well, I was being generous, and including a sockpuppet or 2.

          No condemanation of Monckton's essential dishonesty from any of the Denialati? No explanation or defence of his repeated behaviour?

          1. surely this is a hatchet job by the evil scientists who have been paid millions to find a way to drug him (notice the eyes?) so he will seem insane on youtube and no one will believe his essentially sane rantings…

Leave a Reply