Monckton: Start Jailing Climate Scientists!


Lord Christopher Monckton, a man of hereditary royalty who still believes that he should have a seat in parliament in England merely because he was born so special, demands in his latest inane screed at the Worldnutdaily that climate scientists who think global warming is real be arrested and thrown in jail.

A senior Australian police officer specializing in organized-crime frauds tells me the pattern of fraud on the part of a handful of climate scientists may yet lead to prosecutions.

When the cell door slams on the first bad scientist, the rest will scuttle for cover. Only then will the climate scare – mankind’s strangest and costliest intellectual aberration – be truly over.

This man is absolutely unhinged. This is also a man who advocates mandatory blood tests for everyone and that anyone that is found to be infected with HIV be permanently quarantined from the rest of the population. Fascist much?

Comments

  1. slc1 says

    I’m sure that Sir Lancelot will be along to inform us that Monckton’s view of global climate change is absolutely correct and accurate, even if the good viscount is nuts. On the grounds that even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

  2. dingojack says

    Uh Ed – Monckton isn’t ‘a member of hereditary royalty’, not even close. Being made a peer doesn’t put you even vaguely near the throne even if every member of the royal family were killed in a freak photography accident. Perhaps you should read up on the subject.

    Dingo

  3. cottonnero says

    I’m sure that slc1 will be along to inform us what someone else’s opinion probably is.

  4. slc1 says

    Re dingojack @ #2

    Monckton inherited his title from his father, which make it hereditary. He should be referred to as Viscount Monceton. Monceton has lied about being a member of the House of Lords and had been reprimanded by that body for his lies.

  5. Akira MacKenzie says

    His lordship has got it ass backwards as usual. Given the threat AGW poses to the human species and the need for immediate and decisive action to combat it, we can not afford to have kooks like Monckton and the fossil-fuel industry shills running around sabotaging political efforts to reverse or even mitigate climate change with their lies.

    In short, jail the climate change denialists. Survival trumps “free speech” and there ought to be legal consequences for denying reality.

  6. dingojack says

    Actually it’s quite OK to refer to him as ‘Lord Monckton’*, ‘Viscount Monckton’ would be only if you were referring to him as opposed to his son, or in formal introductions.
    OBTW ‘peer’ =/= ‘royalty’. Baroness Thatcher is never gonna get to be queen no matter how senile she gets.
    Dingo
    ——-
    * The spell-check suggests ‘monotone’ or ‘monotony’ for ‘Monckton’. I think I’ll take up it’s suggestion in this case.

  7. Michael Heath says

    cottonnero writes:

    I’m sure that slc1 will be along to inform us what someone else’s opinion probably is.

    slc1 once referred to this as, “rattling [insert person’s name here] cage”. I too find it annoying.

    I suppose this is a cost of having a collection people hanging out in the same venue over the years; not that there aren’t benefits as well, I think more so than the costs. I’m confident I too pull out some arguments identical to past ones that justifiably create some aggravation in others. So what I strive to do is make sure those quips are at least defendable and relevant.

  8. slc1 says

    Re Michael Heath @ #7

    slc1 once referred to this as, “rattling [insert person’s name here] cage”

    Alternatively can be referred to as “pulling [insert person’s name here] chain. My old bud Don Williams, who used to comment over at MH’s hero, Matthew Yglesias’ old blog, is one of the world’s greatest chain pullers with his conspiracy theories. Check out the Iraq lies thread posted several days ago to get a flavor of ole Don’s chain pulling strategies.

  9. Olav says

    Monckton is not royalty, but he is nobility. If you are not familiar with the ridiculous peerage system I can see how a mistake is easy to make. According to antiquated feudal etiquette you can call him Lord Monckton. Personally I would avoid using titles or honorifics for the nobles altogether. Mr. of Mrs. is good enough. Even better if they don’t like it and insist on undue respect. In other words: fuck them ;-)

  10. Michael Heath says

    Ed concludes:

    This man [Christopher Monckton] is absolutely unhinged.

    I disagree; this is a carefully crafted article.

    To someone literate in rights, liberty, scientific methodology and climate scientists, this is self-evidently a hoot of an article which is outrageously dishonest. I wouldn’t be surprised to find more than a dozen fallacies. It’s not merely filled with all sorts of lies and disingenuously framed premises, he’s relying solely on the ignorance of his readers to compel them to at least consider his conclusion as a reasonable one.

    However I think it would be very difficult for the average person, even non-authoritarians, to understand how dishonest Mr. Monckton’s premises are if they aren’t up to speed on what science understands. I don’t think someone with well-honed critical thinking skills could spot Monckton’s defective arguments unless they were literate in the afore-mentioned qualities. So I don’t think this can be attributed to the luck of someone we can define only as, ‘unhinged’. There’s enough sanity to make a compelling case to the mundanely ignorant.

    For example, a handful of his major false premises are as follows, where I strip out the disingenuous framing of his claims:
    1) warming isn’t occurring (it is) – not because he says so, but some official groups state that,
    2) that the Arctic is losing ice volume where he cites a seemingly compelling fact (it is rapidly losing ice volume) and,
    3) that only a “handful” of scientists are managing this conspiracy (97%+ practicing climate scientists concur AGW is a fact).
    Unless a person knows these are wildly untrue assertions they’d have a difficult time disqualifying all of Mr. Monckton’s premises, leaving them exposed to considering his conclusion we should start criminal proceedings against these supposed frauds and their supposed conspiracy.

    It’s clear that disingenuity is in play. For example, when Mr. Monckton states a supposed fact regarding ice extent in the Arctic in order to compel people to believe his supposed fact reveals the Arctic is not being impacted by global warming and not losing ice volume when in fact to the contrary, it is both warming and rapidly losing ice volume.

    This is not the rantings of someone merely unhinged, this is a purposefully deceptive article good enough to not set off a lot of people’s lie detectors.

  11. Olav says

    I wrote:

    According to antiquated feudal etiquette you can call him Lord Monckton

    But not Lord Christopher Monckton, that was my point. Also, not Lord Christopher.

    Again, it is a ridiculous system.

  12. slc1 says

    Re Dingojack @ #6

    I don’t pretend to be any sort of expert on the thoroughly ridiculous British nobility system but, as I understand it, Monckton is a hereditary peer while Thatcher is a life peer. It is my information that Monckton’s title can be passed to his descendants, if any, while Thatcher’s title expires with here demise and cannot be inherited by here descendants.

    Interestingly enough, it is unconstitutional for a US citizen to accept a title from the British Government (or any other government for that matter). For instance, the late General Storming Norman Schwarzkopf could not accept an appointment to the Knight of the Garter which would have entitled him to be addressed as Sir Norman Schwarzkopf .

  13. dingojack says

    Ah yes, you’re quite right, but it still makes no difference she still ain’t gonna be queen.
    Dingo

  14. Michael Heath says

    Chris Monckton writes:

    Sea-ice extent in the Arctic has reached a record high for this time of year, despite a record low last summer.

    WTF? [NSIDC graph of recent Arctic winter ice extent]

    Since Mr. Monckton provides zero citation links for his article or even textually cited this claim’s source, I’m not sure where he conjured up this supposed factoid.

    Defectively conflating [false] Arctic data with [false?] Antarctica data as Monckton also does in this article is a common tactic by denialists, which to the scientifically literate reveals some combination of their collective ignorance, idiocy, and dishonesty. [Not that I’m conceding Monckton’s assertions on Antarctica are true, he’s earned zero trust on any assertion he makes.]

  15. raven says

    I wouldn’t get too weak in the knees about Lord Monckton’s nobility.

    1. IIRC, Viscount is the lowest of the ranks. I used to know the order, (Marquis is on top) but have forgotten. I suspect most UKians could rattle it off in a second.

    2. It is a short hereditary lineage. IIRC, Monckton’s father was one of the last to get a hereditary peerage

    3. Whatever special privileges it confers, it doesn’t make anyone smarter, prettier, or more competent. Lord Monckton proves that one.

  16. raven says

    Australian climate scientists receive death threats | Environment …
    www. guardian.co. uk › Environment › Climate change

    Jun 6, 2011 – Universities move staff into safer accommodation after a large number of threatening emails and phone calls.

    This happens in the USA a lot as well.

    One climatologist once said he checks under his car every morning for bombs. “I’ve been doing this for so long, it seems normal now.”

  17. redmann says

    slc1 @12
    Hmm, Wiki says Schwarzkopf was awared British Knight Commander in the Military Division of Most Honourable Order of the Bath (honorary).

    From the British Embassy web site Working with the USA
    Knighthood and honours
    What Americans have been honoured by Britain recently?

    Recent American recipients of Honours include former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and film director Steven Spielberg (honorary Knights Commanders of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire), former Presidents George Bush and Ronald Reagan (honorary Knights Grand Cross of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath), Generals Norman Schwarzkopf and Colin Powell (honorary Knights Commanders of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath), Caspar Weinberger (honorary Knight Grand Cross of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire), and New York Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik and New York Fire Department Commissioner Thomas Von Essen (honorary Commanders of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire).

  18. redmann says

    Here in good ol’ Virginy our Attorney General Coocoocinelli tried to force the University of Virginia to give him all of Michael Mann’s research data to see if there was fraud committed as part of Mann’s climate research. Fortunately UVA stood up to this clown and CooCoo lost in court.

  19. Nick Gotts (formerly KG) says

    Monckton is both a shameless liar, and a man whose sanity is genuinely in doubt, some of his claims, particularly those about himself, being so bizarre that one must suspect psychopathology – notably, his claim to be a member of the House of Lords when anyone can check that he isn’t, and his claim to be a scientific expert on climate change when he has zero qualifications in science of any kind. Even parts of the denialosphere recognise that he discredits them.

  20. Nick Gotts (formerly KG) says

    Amusingly, although it’s true Margaret Thatcher’s peerage is not hereditary, her son, the well-known incompetent rally-driver and failed coup-lplotter, is still entitled to style himself The Honourable Sir Mark Thatcher, 2nd Baronet: any child of a peer is “The Honourable”, and his father, Denis Thatcher, was given a hereditary baronetcy (which is a sort of sub-peerage) shortly after Margaret left office, and has since died. Yes, the British honours system is both thoroughly daft, and morally rotten.

  21. Nick Gotts (formerly KG) says

    In short, jail the climate change denialists. – Akira Mackenzie

    Whenever someone comes out with this sort of crap, I suspect them of being undercover denialists.

  22. Nick Gotts (formerly KG) says

    IIRC, Viscount is the lowest of the ranks. I used to know the order, (Marquis is on top) but have forgotten. I suspect most UKians could rattle it off in a second. – raven

    Yes, you have: wrong twice. It’s:
    duke
    marquis
    earl
    viscount*
    baron
    Most Brits wouldn’t know this.

    *I.e. “vice-count”: an earl’s wife is a countess, count being originally a Roman title, brought to England by William the Bastard in 1066, as I think were all the others apart from earl, originally jarl, which came in somewhat earlier with the Vikings.

  23. dingojack says

    Order of Bath is within the prerogative of the Monarch (ie they can give it to anyone they want to, within reason). OBE? I’d rather have an HBE!*

    Really the whole point is that being a peer (hereditary or not) does not confer any kind of royalty, in fact the only peerage the monarch is allowed to claim is the Duke of Lancaster (whether male or female).

    Dingo
    ——–
    * Hard Boiled Egg (don;t blame me, blame Tim Brooke-Taylor, Bill Oddie and Graeme Garden)

  24. lpetrich says

    Reminds me of how the US Constitution forbids the granting of titles of nobility. Even though some Americans have lived as de facto nobles, there is no US de jure nobility.

  25. hinschelwood says

    @12, slc: “as I understand it, Monckton is a hereditary peer while Thatcher is a life peer. It is my information that Monckton’s title can be passed to his descendants, if any, while Thatcher’s title expires with here demise and cannot be inherited by here descendants. ”

    This is correct. What is interesting is that Thatcher got her husband a baronetcy – a hereditary “Sir”. The days of giving an ex-prime minister an Earldom, and hence a hereditary noble title, disappeared with MacMillan. Rather than bat for a hereditary peerdom, she got the next best thing.

    This means that her thoroughly worthless (though wealthy, but borderline ciminal) son is now Sir Mark Thatcher. That title will go on for ever, as long as it impresses the small-minded.

  26. hinschelwood says

    @15, raven “It is a short hereditary lineage. IIRC, Monckton’s father was one of the last to get a hereditary peerage”

    Actually, Monckton’s grandfather was the first Viscount Brenchley.There’s no real sign of him having done anything particularly worthwhile, but he was a mate of Churchill. As you say, he was one of the last hereditary peers. MacMillan was the last PM to get an Earldom. After that, I think a couple of House Speakers got Earldoms, but they were bachelors (possibly confirmed) and the Earldom died with them.

  27. slc1 says

    Re Nick Gotts @ #19

    Monckton is both a shameless liar, and a man whose sanity is genuinely in doubt, some of his claims, particularly those about himself, being so bizarre that one must suspect psychopathology – notably, his claim to be a member of the House of Lords when anyone can check that he isn’t,

    Actually, it’s worse then that. He has been ordered by the powers that be in the House of Lords to cease and desist from styling himself as a member. I don’t know if they have threatened legal action as of yet if he fails to cease and desist.

  28. dan4 says

    Ugh, I hate to defend Monckton, but there’s an obvious distinction between “climate scientists who think global warming is real” (Ed’s characterization of what Monckton wrote) and “pattern of fraud on the part of climate scientists” (what Monckton ACTUALLY wrote). Believing that global warming is real in and of itself is not illegal. Committing fraud in the service of that belief is.

  29. slc1 says

    Re dan4 @ #29

    Excuse me, scientists don’t “believe” that global warming is real. It is their considered opinion that the scientific evidence supports the view that it is real.

    This notion that scientists “believe” something is a product of the lame stream media’s careless reportage. Scientists don’t “believe” in global climate change, evolution, quantum mechanics, the theory of relativity, the germ theory of disease, etc. They have concluded that these theories are strongly supported by the evidence. It has nothing to do with “belief”.

  30. Michael Heath says

    dan4:

    Ugh, I hate to defend Monckton, but there’s an obvious distinction between “climate scientists who think global warming is real” (Ed’s characterization of what Monckton wrote) and “pattern of fraud on the part of climate scientists” (what Monckton ACTUALLY wrote). Believing that global warming is real in and of itself is not illegal. Committing fraud in the service of that belief is.

    This is a piss-poor analysis of what Chris Monckton actually argued. Mr. Monckton first set the stage with a host of dishonest premises where he “reports” that scientific findings reveal there’s been no recent warming and ice is increasing at the poles. I.e., that science doesn’t support the theory of AGW – the exact opposite of reality where the consensus is near-monolithic with facts Monckton avoids, denies, and misconstrues.. Monckton then insinuates only a handful of scientists are perpetuating a fraud by claiming the earth is warming with his statement Ed quoted and I do here:

    A senior Australian police officer specializing in organized-crime frauds tells me the pattern of fraud on the part of a handful of climate scientists may yet lead to prosecutions.
    When the cell door slams on the first bad scientist, the rest will scuttle for cover. Only then will the climate scare – mankind’s strangest and costliest intellectual aberration – be truly over.

    From this perspective Ed’s representation of what Monckton is effectively asserting is a valid one based on the actual facts; as opposed to the false framing Monckton staged which you fall for here. I do not spell that out here but will if you request elaboration; hopefully I’ve given you enough to now figure this out for yourself.

  31. lancifer says

    Here in good ol’ Virginy our Attorney General Coocoocinelli tried to force the University of Virginia to give him all of Michael Mann’s research data… – redmann

    Yeah, imagine asking a scientist to show the data supporting his conclusions.

    In my freshman level physics class you would have been flunked out if you didn’t show your data, but hey Mikey Mann is “saving the planet” and can’t be bothered to show his work.

  32. lancifer says

    As a matter of fact I didn’t support Cucunelli’s efforts, but that doesn’t mean that Micheal Mann shouldn’t be open about his data.

  33. lancifer says

    And yes I know it’s Michael Mann, and Cuccinelli. I’m just too lazy to hit preview.

  34. Erp says

    @dingojack

    Actually new members of the Order of the Bath are not actually chosen be the Queen; they tend to be military.

    I think the only groups that the Queen has full control over appointing are Order of Merit , Order of the Garter, and Order of the Thistle. The Order of Merit is perhaps the most prestigious (it is the only one that tends to get non-nobles and even non-knights and merit often is merit in science).

  35. Suido says

    As an Australian who is currently living through the after effects of our hottest summer ever, including extensive flooding in my area and bushfires elsewhere, I think Monckton should start worrying about the growing body of evidence that he is the fraud.

    Excuse me while I go fix some rail lines which have been put out of operation three times by three different flood events in the last 8 weeks.

  36. Nick Gotts (formerly KG) says

    Lancifer is being his usually utterly dishonest self. The arena in which Mann must show the data to support his conclusions is the scientific literature – which is, of course, exactly what he has done. The claim that he has not been open about his data, according to normal scientific practice, is a barefaced lie. Cuccinelli’s politically motivated harrassment, like the risible treatment of Monckton as an expert, is of a piece with the campaign of lies Lancifer’s political allies have continued for years, because they cannot support their claims scientifically.

  37. Michael Heath says

    lancifer writes:

    Yeah, imagine asking a scientist to show the data supporting his conclusions.

    In my freshman level physics class you would have been flunked out if you didn’t show your data, but hey Mikey Mann is “saving the planet” and can’t be bothered to show his work.

    Dr. Mann’s work has been independently validated, his findings are confidently held by the scientific community.

    Dr. Mann should be lauded for alerting the public to the threat posed by what the climate scientific community has discovered and confidently asserts is objectively true. lancifer’s projecting his own failure of integrity onto Dr. Mann is bad form on his part. The projection of course being political motivations which seeks to misconstrue objective truth because the facts are inconvenient to his public policy preferences. Unfortunately that bad form is a distinguishing attribute of the denialist movement.

    It’s also a lie, big surprise coming from a denialist, that Dr. Mann hasn’t shared his work. In fact he has, first he’s always shared his findings consistent with what is expected per the National Science Foundation. Because the denialists couldn’t handle Mann’s findings or that of the ten or so other independently validated findings confirming Mann’s work, yet continued to keep up the political pressure due their scientific efforts woefully failing, Dr. Mann subsequently shared his computer code. He shared it in spite of the fact the scientific community considers such proprietary. Ironically his supposedly scientific detractors who are infamous for their mistakes as they practice science and their dishonesty, John Christy and Roy Spencer, have not shared theirs. Cite: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-109hhrg31362/html/CHRG-109hhrg31362.htm .

    It should be noted the above cite is from a House committee hearing chaired by Rep. Joe Barton, whose intelligence and grip on the truth and the physics of climate change rivals lancifer’s and people like OK Senator Jim Inhofe – another member of Congress who also lies about Dr. Mann like lancifer does.

    Rep. Barton was on a witch hunt similar to the type VA’s AG hoped to accomplish that lancifer dishonestly frames as a mere attempt to get at data. In fact the AG actually sought Dr. Mann’s personal correspondence and was obviously motivated for political reasons rather than whether Mann’s work is objectively true or not true – which would have him instead looking at other scientific findings which validate or invalidate Mann’s work. Of course others’ work is politically inconvenient to his agenda.

    This is the company denialists like lancifer keeps; Chris Monckton (lancifer also ignorantly conflates findings on both the poles in hopes they’ll cancel each out), leaders of witch hunts who don’t like what science has found, are incapable of fairly assessing the science – in fact he and his allies don’t even bother themselves to get up to speed on what the climate science community understands or the underlying physics, refuse to adapt their positions to that which is objectively true, and instead project their own character failings onto undeserving others – Michael Mann being one of their biggest targets.

  38. slc1 says

    Re Sir Lancelot

    1. The claims about Prof. Mann not releasing his data is an example of the big lie in action. 90% of the data Mann used is in the public domain and is available on the Internet. The other 10% is proprietary and is owned by a 3rd party, not Prof. Mann. Prof. Mann has no authority to unilaterally release that 10%, and apparently the 3rd party has not given the required permission.

    2. The deceptiveness of the deniers like Anthony Watts is mind boggling. In reference to the study conducted at Berkeley which was headed up by Physics Prof. Richard Muller, Watts declared that he had confidence in Muller and would accept any conclusions he and his team arrived at. When Muller’s findings and conclusions didn’t support the denialists, did Watts admit that, maybe he was wrong? Not a bit of it. Watts proceeded to conduct a character assassination campaign agains Muller, declaring that he was never a global warming skeptic but was a wolf in sheep’s clothing who accepted the global warming theory all along. What’s even more amusing is that, because the Berkeley study was funded in part by the Koch brothers, apparently Watts believed that Muller was a lying sleazebag like himself who would dance to the tune of the piper payers. Unfortunately, it turns out that Muller and his team had scientific integrity and went where the data led them, not where Watts wanted them to go. Personnel note, the first course in physics I took at Berkeley was taught by one of the members of Muller’s team, Prof. Arthur Rosenfeld. I knew Prof. Rosenfeld, Sir Lancelot ain’t no Arthur Rosenfeld.

  39. pacal says

    Dingo Jack, no. 13, said:

    Uh Ed – Monckton isn’t ‘a member of hereditary royalty’, not even close. Being made a peer doesn’t put you even vaguely near the throne even if every member of the royal family were killed in a freak photography accident. Perhaps you should read up on the subject.

    I award Dingojack two Internets for making a reference to the movie King Ralph.

  40. says

    Well, I’m glad there’s lancifer to set me straight on what it took to support your conclusions in science. I thought it involved getting papers published and verified by independent parties, kind of like how Mann’s work has been done.

    But no, this illustrious luminary of blog commentary has revealed to me that what you really need to do is submit to an intrusive, politically-contrived witch hunt by an Attorney General motivated by ideology.

    Thanks for setting me straight, lancifer!

  41. lancifer says

    Ho hum.

    Just about what I expected from the self deluded.

    Arguing with you gents would be like arguing with my aged Christian parents that there is no Jebus. It would be cruel and pointless if I succeeded, since in both cases your delusions give you purpose and comfort.

    Carry on by all means. Mother nature is busily unraveling the failed hypothesis as the months go by and the populace at large is largely apathetic to your wailing and gnashing of teeth.

  42. lancifer says

    composter99,

    You get the least points since your post is directly in contradiction to my actual words.

    But no, this illustrious luminary of blog commentary has revealed to me that what you really need to do is submit to an intrusive, politically-contrived witch hunt by an Attorney General motivated by ideology.

    Here is what I actually said.

    I didn’t support (Cuccinelli’s) efforts

    But I bet it felt good pummeling that straw man didn’t it?

  43. dingojack says

    Lancy-baby (#46) – Guess he forgot to email the Australian Climate Commission.
    Dingo
    ——–
    The key word here is variability, as it always has been. Averages tell us nothing (especially since one hemisphere might be in dead winter,when the other is in high summer, or vice versa).

  44. lancifer says

    Dingo,

    That report is a joke and you do know it’s called global warming, right?

  45. slc1 says

    Re lancifer @ #51

    Sir Lancelot’s response is entirely predictable. He really is the slime of the bottom of the cesspool.

  46. says

    Complete speculation and even if it did happen…

    Lancifer, your complete disregard for observable reality is noted. As is the moronic fake-macho bluster you invariably use as a substitute for honest dialogue. Now fuck off to bed (or the redneck bar where you learned your masturdebating skills), and take your little demon costume with you. I had one of those when I was eight years old, but I outgrew it, and it doesn’t impress anyone.

  47. says

    lancifer’s projecting his own failure of integrity onto Dr. Mann is bad form on his part.

    What do you expect from lancifer?! If it wasn’t for bad form, he’d have no form at all.

  48. says

    In fact the [VA] AG actually sought Dr. Mann’s personal correspondence and was obviously motivated for political reasons rather than whether Mann’s work is objectively true or not true…

    Sort of like those asshats who stole a disorderly heap of emails from East Anglia U. and then lied about their contents; or good ol’ Sherriff Joe pretending to investigate Obama’s citizenship status. Yeah, wunnerful company Lance keeps..and he wonders why he has no credibility?

  49. lancifer says

    slc1,

    I linked to the actual global temperature data and you linked to an article about predicted conditions 40 years hence. Also the article didn’t say there was anything particularly bad about the speculated future conditions.

    I point that out and that makes me “bottom of the cesspool”?

    Ah, OK.

  50. slc1 says

    Re Raging Bee @ #56

    Sir Lancelot revels in associating with Sheriff Joe, Anthony Watts, Roy Spencer, and every other asshole on the planet. A typical shill for the Koch brothers.

  51. lancifer says

    slc1,

    Your paranoid delusions are showing.

    I have never said anything supporting, or even referencing, “Sherrif Joe” (Arpiao?) or the Koch brothers.

    I know that those are popular bogey men of the left (Heath can’t order a ham sandwich without blaming the Koch brothers for something) so I’m not totally surprised your rant contains those names, but you should really try to make points that are at least tangentially related to reality.

  52. dingojack says

    Hey Lance – here’s a fun game for you.
    You bet a sum of money and I’ll match it. Then I’ll write down a number between 0 and 499, and you try and guess what it is. If you guess the number you keep the pool, if you don’t, I keep it.
    Rinse and repeat the procedure in the preceding paragraph until Lancey’s broke. Care to take those odds?
    No? And yet you insist on believing that a series of one-in-five-hundred year rainfalls and temperatures are just the normal run of statistics. There’s a sucker born every minute..
    Dingo

  53. lancifer says

    There is no 500 year record of rainfall or temperature.

    You’re the “sucker” my canine friend.

  54. dingojack says

    And then there’s this*. How long is that sample? Less than 500 years?
    Dingo
    ——–
    * sorry about the pay-wall, but the abstract will give you feel for the article anyway

  55. lancifer says

    Those are proxy studies.

    Do you know what a proxy is? Do you know what proxy resolution means? Do you know what error bars are?

  56. dingojack says

    Yes, do you?
    Dingo
    ——-
    I’m sure you’re going to deny the existence of air next – I mean you’ve never seen it! (Really all this is quite settled, read the literature – oh no of course, that would actually mean you might come across the overwhelming bulk of the evidence that contradicts your set idea. Such as the evidence of increasingly extreme weather patterns, for example [see above].)

  57. lancifer says

    There is no increase in extreme weather. You shouldn’t trust clowns like Tim Flannery.

Leave a Reply