One thing I find informative as to whether something is true is how much someone has to lie to try and persuade you there right Judging from the amount of lies he tells about climate change, climate change denial is the biggest fraud out there.
For example the darling of climate change sceptics and birther Lord Monckton, has made a successful career out of distorting the truth and telling outright lies. He is truly an interesting example I found it impossible to find a single interview article or report where he has told the whole truth and nothing but the truth. He does appear to be an absolutely pathological liar from claiming he was Margaret Thatchers science advisor when he was not
He claims to have been an appointed expert reviewer to the IPCC
When there is no such thing as an appointed expert reviewer in the IPCCs own words “Anyone can register as an expert reviewer on the open online registration systems set up by the working groups. All registrants that provide the information requested and confirm their scientific expertise via a self-declaration of expertise are accepted for participation in the review. They are invited to list publications, but that is not a requirement and the section can be left blank when registering. There is no appointment” So yet another lie from lord Monckton, by the way did you see that portcullis symbol in the article? He seems to have a habit of making his presentations look like there somehow official government presentations he used a version that was a lot closer the symbol for Parliament but he was told to stop using the portcullis, it remains to be seen this modification a straight chains to wavy chains is acceptable.
From his claims to be a noble laureate to his claims to be a member of the house of Lords Lord Monckton is pathological liar who was sponsored on his tour of Australia by the Australian Association of Mining and Exploration Companies and supported by coal mining billionaire and AGW denier Gina Rinehart. Who has a lot to lose if green energy becomes more popular.
This takes onto another method for working out what is right. Follow the money ask yourself the question who benefits the most from the denial of reality. Climate scinetist who will get reasearch money regardless of Wheter global warming is real. Or coal minig billionares like Gina Rinehart who will lose millions if Green energy is developed in repsonse to climate change.
In early 2012 Christopher Monckton penned rebuttals to journalist Peter Hadfield's YouTube eviscerations of his work for Watts Up With That. Anthony Watts agreed to publish Hadfield's rebuttals on his website and a debate broke out. After a couple of posts, in which Hadfield made numerous references to the sources that Monckton was misquoting and demonstrated why he believed Monckton to be wrong, Monckton mysteriously pulled out, claiming he was "too busy" to take part in a debate of "inconsequentialities"- an intriguing claim as he doesn't have a real job and the "inconsquentialities" in question concerned climate sensitivity, the main thrust of Monckton's argument. Peter Hadfield responded with an "Open Letter To Christopher Monckton" urging him to return to the debate. No response was received. As of 2012 Monckton has found the time to pen numerous piece for Watts Up With That and travel the world questioning President Obama's birth certificate (see "birtherism"), but still refuses to engage Hadfield.
You can get a good but no means complet list fo the monckton lies here and here.
For example the darling of climate change sceptics and birther Lord Monckton, has made a successful career out of distorting the truth and telling outright lies. He is truly an interesting example I found it impossible to find a single interview article or report where he has told the whole truth and nothing but the truth. He does appear to be an absolutely pathological liar from claiming he was Margaret Thatchers science advisor when he was not
He claims to have been an appointed expert reviewer to the IPCC
When there is no such thing as an appointed expert reviewer in the IPCCs own words “Anyone can register as an expert reviewer on the open online registration systems set up by the working groups. All registrants that provide the information requested and confirm their scientific expertise via a self-declaration of expertise are accepted for participation in the review. They are invited to list publications, but that is not a requirement and the section can be left blank when registering. There is no appointment” So yet another lie from lord Monckton, by the way did you see that portcullis symbol in the article? He seems to have a habit of making his presentations look like there somehow official government presentations he used a version that was a lot closer the symbol for Parliament but he was told to stop using the portcullis, it remains to be seen this modification a straight chains to wavy chains is acceptable.
From his claims to be a noble laureate to his claims to be a member of the house of Lords Lord Monckton is pathological liar who was sponsored on his tour of Australia by the Australian Association of Mining and Exploration Companies and supported by coal mining billionaire and AGW denier Gina Rinehart. Who has a lot to lose if green energy becomes more popular.
This takes onto another method for working out what is right. Follow the money ask yourself the question who benefits the most from the denial of reality. Climate scinetist who will get reasearch money regardless of Wheter global warming is real. Or coal minig billionares like Gina Rinehart who will lose millions if Green energy is developed in repsonse to climate change.
In early 2012 Christopher Monckton penned rebuttals to journalist Peter Hadfield's YouTube eviscerations of his work for Watts Up With That. Anthony Watts agreed to publish Hadfield's rebuttals on his website and a debate broke out. After a couple of posts, in which Hadfield made numerous references to the sources that Monckton was misquoting and demonstrated why he believed Monckton to be wrong, Monckton mysteriously pulled out, claiming he was "too busy" to take part in a debate of "inconsequentialities"- an intriguing claim as he doesn't have a real job and the "inconsquentialities" in question concerned climate sensitivity, the main thrust of Monckton's argument. Peter Hadfield responded with an "Open Letter To Christopher Monckton" urging him to return to the debate. No response was received. As of 2012 Monckton has found the time to pen numerous piece for Watts Up With That and travel the world questioning President Obama's birth certificate (see "birtherism"), but still refuses to engage Hadfield.
You can get a good but no means complet list fo the monckton lies here and here.
No comments:
Post a Comment