PJ Media

To tom swift & Brett Mc_S, You might have done me the courtesy of reading what I had written before leaping in. I was not addressing Monckton’s climate science (I am no climate change expert); what I was addressing was the dishonesty of the specific claim with which he started out his diatribe above.

Monckton’s claim (“Goebbelian propaganda” to borrow his words) was that, until John Abraham, there had been CAREFUL AVOIDANCE of debate with ANYONE on the “skeptics” (I find the word “deniers” more appropriate) side who “happens to know anything about climate science or economics” (I believe that the word “happens” would more appropriately be replaced by the word “claims”).

Monckton’s claim is BLATANTLY FALSE even where he himself is concerned.
- JohnQ 7:51 5 Jun has drawn attention to some YouTube clips which demolish Monckton on climate science.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfA1LpiYk2o (that’s Part 1; there’s also a Part 2)
- Paul A 7:27 6 Jun has drawn attention to a very detailed demolition of Monckton on climate science.

http://www.altenergyaction.org/Monckton.html

My post then addressed the fact that Monckton’s BLATANTLY FALSE claim covered not only himself but ANYONE on his “side”.
I took as a prime example the extensive debate and demolition of his fellow denier, Ian Plimer. I gave chapter and verse.

So now Monckton’s claim has clearly been shown to be FALSE – both as it applies to himself, and as it applies in general to his “side”.
Monckton is a master of false claims.

Posters here have used various words to describe Monckton including entertaining. Personally, I don’t find ridicule, insults and mangling of names remotely entertaining. I am always gratified to find that George Monbiot is unfailingly polite – both in written and verbal exchanges. As are climate scientists and others who have analysed and identified the deniers’ errors.
Other words which have been used about Monckton include charming, witty, eloquent, etc. Well, yes (I perceive him as a snake-oil salesman – and those are pretty essential qualities for a snake-oil salesman). He has also been described as a self-aggrandizing charlatan.
But discussing his personal characteristics (positive or negative) is completely irrelevant to whether or not his statements on climate science are correct.

Like most sensible people (including most current climate scientists), I am interested in the science and its accuracy.

In my view, the whole topic of global warming (i.e. whether or not it is happening; and whether or not it is in whole or in part anthropogenic) is far too important to be treated as a jolly school boy debate a la Monckton & his team of deniers. Unless and until they take the non-deniers seriously and enter into co-operative and polite discussions with them, I can only see them as on a par with flat earthers and creationists.