Even for the most hard-core climate sceptics, the penny can sometimes drop. In this case a discus-sized-penny has dropped on the head of conservative News Limited columnist Andrew Bolt (aka “The Bolta”).
Over the years Bolt has championed both Lord Christopher Monckton and his brand of conspiracy infused climate scepticism – indeed he once referred to him as a mathematician, when he is no such thing.
Now even Bolt thinks Monckton has gone to far:
Why on earth was Christopher Monckton endorsing the nationalist Rise Up Australia Party? Great chance for warmists to paint climate sceptics as fringe dwellers.
Why on earth indeed?
Does Andrew really need to ask himself why Monckton is associating himself with a radical, right-wing, homophobic, anti-immigration, anti-Muslim, fundamentalist Christian sect with aspirations to create a Taliban-style theocracy down under?
Andrew – climate sceptics are fringe dwellers.
The core narrative of the climate sceptic movement is conspiratorial: “climate change is not real, it is a hoax created by scientists and their NWO puppet masters”.
Recall Perth sceptics Jo Nova and David Evans who believe in a centuries long conspiracy involving international bankers and climate scientists. According to this dynamic duo, said bankers may - or may not – have been behind the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. Yes, you read that correctly: they’ve actually made that argument.
I’d also remind readers to take a look at the recent paper Recursive Fury (Lewandowsky et.al) which further demonstrates how conspiracy ideation permeates the climate sceptic movement.
I’m not sure why Andrew is surprised – the evidence has been overwhelming and in the public domain for years.
All you need to do is look. I’ve been writing about climate sceptics and their conspiratorial world view for three years. The amount of evidence supporting this assertion is overwhelming.
Where to begin?
Well, in this 2010 video we see Alan Jones and Ian Plimer sharing the stage with Monckton as he explains what the New World Order is, suggesting it goes all the way back to the Freemasons. Monckton states the New World Order “was one of the things the Freemasons used to advocate three or four centuries ago…”
There is this 2012 video in which Monckton explains how Obama’s birth certificate was most likely faked.
Monckton has also been a regular guest on the Alex Jones show:
If further evidence is needed to support to the contention that many climate sceptics have embraced a cluster of conspiracy theories, look no further than Lord Christopher Monckton.
The prominent climate sceptic – who has been feted by figures such as Gina Rinehart, Andrew Bolt, Alan Jones and Australia’s climate change “sceptics” – now claims the birth certificate on the White House is a forgery (which many of us know, he has been for some time).
Monckton has been spending time in Hawaii “investigating” Obama’s birth certificate and detailing the results of his investigation in a series of ongoing interviews with Alex Jones, host of InfoWars.
Jones is known for his support for New World Order conspiracy theories and that the U.S. government was behind the 9/11 attacks…
Alex Jones is a 9/11 Truther and is one of the most high-profile conspiracy theory peddlers in the United States. Monckton and Jones have been pushing the “Birther narrative” for some time now…
“Why on earth is Monckton associating…”
Does Bolt really have to ask that question?
Now Andrew – if you’d care to stop by the WtD blog I’ll happily share the vast amount of material clearly indicating the link between conspiracy culture and climate scepticism.
Get ready for the lumps if you do: the pennies will fall hard, and fast.
See also Loon Pond for an amusing take.
[Hat tip reader EoR]
Apologies to you, Mike and any other readers who decide to watch all of this without headgear. Anyone who listens to and agrees with or associates with this crackpot is a good candidate for a straightjacket. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDMwpVUhxAo
OK,I’ll be brave… I take the challenge. Shall report back
Don’t forget the , aw too late
Eric, are you ok? Those lumps on your head look painful.
ERIC ” monckton might be a raving lunatic,fringe dweller, conspiracy theorist, ratbag, moron, nutcase, ego maniac, truther, vaudeville act and peddler of snake oil, but al gore is fat, so there”
.
Monckton will forever have our gratitude for turning the America Republicans against the climate lie, regardless of anything else.
I don’t agree with his support of “Rise Up Australia” – they sound like a bunch of d*ckheads.
As for climate skeptics being “fringe dwellers”, its a pretty big fringe – the 30,000 scientists who signed the Oregon Petition (including Physics greats such as Edward Teller and Freeman Dyson), father of the Gaia Hypothesis James Lovelock, who recanted because of the lack of warming (more of a lukewarmer now, but that is also unacceptable to your alarmist eco-Taliban), author of the BEST study Richard Muller, who turns out to be a lukewarmer, and, according to this Climategate email, many in the solar terrestrial physics community.
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=3165.txt
Many
in the solar terrestrial physics community seem totally convinced that
solar output changes can explain most of the observed changes we are
seeing. The far-sighted ones are begining to doubt with the rapid rate
of recent warming, however.
Given the world shows no sign of returning to a rapid warming trend, its not me who is “taking the lumps”.
Eric, I’ll have to do another post on the Oregon Petition. There’s a few things you may be shocked to know. The creators of the petition, the Oregon Institute for Medicine are cranks.
They also publish materials on how to cure cancer by eating fruit: http://www.nutritionandcancer.org/view/nutritionandcancer/s99p1074.htm
According to the American Cancer Society, this treatment is completely, utterly ineffective:
http://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/complementaryandalternativemedicine/dietandnutrition/gerson-therapy
Keep digging Eric, once you start examining the beliefs of these sceptics you will find a cluster of fringe beliefs and conspiracy theories.
“Monckton will forever have our gratitude for turning the America Republicans against the climate lie, regardless of anything else.”
Seeing that the Republicans were trounced, I think President Obama and the Democrats would also like to thank Chris.
Are you suggesting the signatures of Edward Teller and Freeman Dyson were faked? Or are you trying to shoot down the argument by smearing the messenger?
If the latter, why haven’t you repudiated Al Gore? He’s “in the pay of Big Oil”, by many orders of magnitude more than any “denier” you can name (I doubt all of the “deniers” put together ever received a total of $100 million from big oil, the way Al did), and he used to be a tobacco farmer, until well after the cancer risks were known.
If we’re going to start dragging crankish behaviour out of each other’s closets, you of all people should know that your team’s closet is impressively full.
Personally I’d rather focus on the arguments.
Eric concludes:
“Personally I’d rather focus on the arguments.”
Is that a joke? Surely you are jesting. Or are we about to witness a new, logical, reasonable Eric?
Sorry, Eric, but the OISM petition was 30,000 people with Bachelor of Science degrees. My wife and I both have BS degrees – geology and electrical engineering respectively. She’s a teacher and I’m an engineer. Neither of us is a scientist. Nor are the vast majority of the OISM petition signatories.
I dove into the OISM petition years ago and found that, using OISM’s own criteria, there was at least 10.6 million scientists in the US alone. By that metric, the OISM’s petition got signed by 0.3% of all scientists in the US. (source: http://scholarsandrogues.com/2009/08/02/152-oism-scientists-cant-be-wrong/). That’s a miniscule number of “scientists.”
The Doran and Zimmerman 2010 and Anderegg et al 2011 studies are much more representative of actual expert opinion, and both found that practicing scientists and climate experts overwhelmingly agree that climate disruption is real and largely driven by GHG emissions from human industry. I can also point you to a couple of good explanations of those studies, and explanations of why most criticisms of the studies are off-base, if you’re interested.
As we pointed out the last time you dragged this worn out argument into the light, Edward Teller and Freeman Dyson have no credibility in the area of climate science. Their signatures carry as much scientific weight as yours.
I signed the Oregon Petition, as M Mouse, just to see how good it was(n’t). The ignorant trot it out. Slap it with http://www.skepticalscience.com/OISM-Petition-Project-intermediate.htm.
Edward Teller outlived Peter Sellers ? o_O
THIS skeptic may or may not be a crank, but a broad generalization to ALL skeptics makes your claims as much crank as you claim Monckton is. Bad way of making a point.
Agreed. Not all denialists are cranks. But, I am 100% confident that there are far more cranks amongst denialists than there are amongst warmists.
Lewandowsky’s findings ring true.
No one is placing you in that category sheri unless you agree with this
The core narrative of the climate sceptic movement is conspiratorial: “climate change is not real, it is a hoax created by scientists and their NWO puppet masters”.
That is what I have found, very few sceptics disagree with that nonsense
I ask ‘em to explain, without using a conspiracy theory, why the National Academies has called ACC “settled fact” since 2010. Or ask them to count the number of papers in Nature over the last five years. They all flinch and change the subject.
The also get really, really furious if you mention the Lew word. So I do. Recursively.
Yes indeed, that is one way to invite the ridiculous claims of “pal review”. That has always fascinated me. The deniers rubbish peer review but when they think they have a peer reviewed paper that supports their position….. http://uknowispeaksense.wordpress.com/2012/12/28/its-in-the-literature/
The Climate sceptics party are right over the edge of the fringe.
By Alan Caruba
The debasement of science continues as various elements, organizations and publications, and the mainstream media circle the wagons to protect those who continue to spread lies about global warming.
there you have it, it is all lies, a conspiracy
I’ve actually given up commenting on them at my blog because they have pushed themselves beyond the fringe to the point that no lurkers could possibly take them seriously. They are essentially conspiracy theorising their way down the road of inconsequence. I do like to pick on Anthony Cox occasionally though. He’s a climatologist….oh no, that’s right, he lied about that.
________________________________
eric”Many
in the solar terrestrial physics community seem totally convinced that
solar output changes can explain most of the observed changes we are
seeing. The far-sighted ones are begining to doubt with the rapid rate
of recent warming, however.”
that was certainly true in 2000, do you honestly believe that is still the case because it is not, you can email them to find out ”
It was finding the warming and the solar contribution going in the opposite direction that was the game changer
Eric you keep bringing up long rebutted claims, yes 30,000 people involved in science jobs did sign the petition but you ignore the other 13 million who did not,
the Rise-up party – totally cringeworthy I agree. Phillip Adams came back with the Throw-up party last night! He also referred to Monckton’s Marty Feldman eyes! And said this mob made Pauline Hanson look reasonable. Hopefully they’re just too much on the lunatic fringe for most people to take them seriously.
It was hard keeping a straight face watching the Daniel Nalliah, Flawed Monkton love-in on the 7:30 report the other night. It was more like a skit Monty Python could have dreamt up.
Eric seems a bit cranky. Here it is in very simple terms even you tea-party nutjobs can understand:
1. Climate Scientists know about Climate Science
2. Everyone else is not a Climate Scientist
3. Climate Scientists, using Science Facts, tell us there is Climate Change, there is Global Warming, which due to Human Activity
4. Anyone not a Climate Scientist who thinks they have alternative data on Climate Change it talking through their arse
Unquestioning acceptance of the word of experts often leads to disaster.
Let me demonstrate the problem with this argument, with a little paraphrasing:-
1. Eugenicists know about Eugenics
2. Everyone else is not a Eugenicist
3. Eugenics scientists, using science facts, tell us there is a Eugenics crisis, there is a risk of impending racial degeneration, which is due to our societal errors.
4. Anyone not a Eugenicist who thinks they have alternative data on climate change is talking through their arse.
See where this is leading? We all know where that particular set of expert recommendations led. Millions of people died to unravel that scientific falsehood.
I like to think if I was born 80 years ago, I would have listened to Eugenics “deniers” such as Lancelot Hogben, to see if there was anything credible about their arguments.
As Freeman Dyson puts it, the history of science is filled with those “who make confident predictions about the future and end up believing their predictions,” and he cites examples of things people anticipated to the point of terrified certainty that never actually occurred, ranging from hellfire, to Hitler’s atomic bomb, to the Y2K millennium bug
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magazine/29Dyson-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Eric, you’re going to give us a better idea of what you mean by “Catastrophist Eugenics”, since you appear to be the only person on the internet using the term.
Post some links to the research of those Eugenicists that particularly concern you; better still post links to the Academies of Science and other peak bodies which demonstrate your claim that “the science was settled”.
Hint: links to the prattling of Watts, Coddling, Delingpole, Rose or Monckton don’t count.
Abbott still reckons it is a goer
How’s Abbott’s eugenics plan coming along?
Proceeds of the 1933 International Eugenics Congress, complete with detailed statistical models, predictions of imminent catastrophe if we don’t act, and even an expression of association with the NAZI German Racial Hygiene movement.
Be patient with it, its a slow download:-
http://ia700402.us.archive.org/2/items/decadeofprogress00inte/decadeofprogress00inte.pdf
One of my favourite passages is on page 33 – 34:-
The outstanding generahzations of my world tour are what may be summed up as the “six overs”; these “six overs” are, in the genetic order of cause and effect
Over-destruction of natural resources, now actually world-wide;
Over-mechanization, in the substitution of the machine for animal and human labor, rapidly becoming world-wide;
Over-construction of warehouses, ships, railroads, wharves and other means of trans- port, replacing primitive transportation;
Over-production both of the food and of the mechanical wants of mankind, chiefly during the post-war speculative period;
Over-confidence in future demand and supply, resulting in the too rapid extension of natural resources both in food and in mechanical equipment;
Over-population beyond the land areas, or the capacity of the natural and scientific resources of the world, with consequent permanent unemployment of the least fitted.
The above passage could have been written by a modern environmentalist movement.
Eric, if you are to draw a parallel between the Eugenics movement and Climate Science you really have to demonstrate that “Catastrophist Eugenics” represented the research findings of 97% of the life scientists working at the time.
I don’t believe you can.
I am sure that Chris Monckton would never have anything to do with Eugenics scientists……………………..
Hang on, I do see a parallel between point 4 above what the pastor Danny is saying? And Chris endorses Danny.
Now I am confused.
Yes. The Y2K millenium bug was a catastrophic prediction. If only we had listened to the denialsts back then we could have avoided the disaster.
Hang on, there was no disaster. I am confused again.
A quick Google brings up some interesting aspects of eugenics. For example, it hasn’t gone away. Every time a pregnant woman is offered an amniocentesis, and every time couples who carry the gene for muscular dystrophy are counselled to avoid having children, eugenics is being practised.
The eugenics laws which were promulgated in America and Europe during the late 1920s and early 1930s were based not on science, but on prejudice. Politicians like Winston Churchill may have quoted geneticists to support their arguments, but I can find no evidence of it. And the barbarity of the Third Reich was not initiated by any scientific research, it was the culmination of centuries of poisonous anti-semitism (check Luther’s opinion of the Jews). The “science” came later.
Of course Eric wants us to believe that a price on carbon is somehow equivalent to the Holocaust but, as usual, he has constructed a completely specious argument. I suggest we call Godwin on him the next time he drags its rotting carcass into the spotlight.
We have. Countless times.Stop feeding him.
Right wing governments support eugenics. Don’t elect them. Job done.
Eric, if you are to draw a parallel between the Eugenics movement and Climate Science you really have to demonstrate that “Catastrophist Eugenics” represented the research findings of 97% of the life scientists working at the time.
I don’t believe you can.
The “97%” figure is based on a dodgy student survey.
For starters, the questions were deeply flawed.
1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”
2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
I would have answered yes to both questions – if Richard Lindzen’s estimate of climate sensitivity is correct, we are making a significant contribution to global warming – around 0.25c
However 18% of the scientists who responded said no to at least one of the questions. This was obviously unacceptable from the POV of concocting a sufficiently compelling consensus, so the next task was to filter the 3000 to produce the right answer.
This was achieved by finding excuses to discard all but 77 of the 3000 responses.
75 of the filtered 77 said yes to both questions.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/
So to return the challenge, What you need to do is show alarmist climate science is honest.
erics eugenics example is the exact opposite to the reality.of the CO2 greenhouse theory which was still being denied even up to the sixtees, some scientists had been warning about increased level of atmospheric greenhouse gases since 1900
so the same people who were embracing eugenics were denying AGW
as one theory collapsed the other was just starting to gain acceptence.
If you read the history you find that the arguments against the theory over sixty years ago have resurfaced today.
eric thinks the theory only started in the eightees
Multiple studies show the consensus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Surveys_of_scientists_and_scientific_literature.
The real world demonstrates that the climate science is honest:
record low Arctic summer ice extent
the last three decades have been the hottest on record with each being hotter than the one before
glaciers retreating
Greenland ice sheet melting
permafrost melting
flora and fauna habitats moving towards the poles
Need I go on?
George B, you forgot one.
5. When Eric claims X is true, it generally isn’t.
correction, it never is
[...] details and analysis on the Watching the Deniers [...]
[...] Didn't we tell you that if you lay down with dogs, you would be suspected of picking up fleas? Even Andrew Bolt has had enough of Monckton: yes Andrew, climate sceptics are cranks | Watching the … Scepticism damaging the conservative political brand: Aussie media becoming alert to the paranoid [...]
Eric – without using or implying a conspiracy, how do you explain the American National Academies of Science declaring ACC was a “settled fact”?
Jo nova’s answer is that it is not a conspiracy it is just politicians and scientists after power and money.
sheesh
On another board altogether I posed the same question to yet another false sceptic. His blindingly brilliant response is that it wouldn’t take all that much money to bribe 32,000 scientists.
I’m just letting that response simmer.
After all, if bribing 32,000 is affordable how much less expensive would it be to bribe the couple of percent, well below 1,000, of those who have misgivings? It’s much easier to control smaller numbers. And they’re more secretive too.
At least he did tacitly admit that all he had was a conspiracy theory.
I notice Eric hasn’t responded to this, I’ll be generous and assume he’s not read it.
[...] Even Andrew Bolt has had enough of Monckton: yes Andrew, climate sceptics are cranks (watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com) [...]
Great post! It’s so pathetic to see deniers grasp to these conspiracy-prone fantasists. Without Monckton, the deniers have nothing. They just ignore the fact he’s a birther who claims he can cure HIV.