Categories

Archives

A sample text widget

Etiam pulvinar consectetur dolor sed malesuada. Ut convallis euismod dolor nec pretium. Nunc ut tristique massa.

Nam sodales mi vitae dolor ullamcorper et vulputate enim accumsan. Morbi orci magna, tincidunt vitae molestie nec, molestie at mi. Nulla nulla lorem, suscipit in posuere in, interdum non magna.

Wendy Carlisle on Mr. Monckton

This is a wonderful radio report – fairly long but please take the time to listen to it.  The ABC delivers a news and current affairs service in Australia that no other service provider comes close to providing.

Climate change scepticism is a mental illness of the current era.  Its proponents are liars and/or fools. There is no mid ground.  Buffoons and frauds should be denounced for what they are.

10 comments to Wendy Carlisle on Mr. Monckton

  • bianconieri

    I thought Monckton smoked Denniss today. You need a bit more than everyone else agrees with me, so you should too.

    It’s a peer pressure argument and your name calling is not much above that schoolyard ploy.

  • hc

    There is more to making an argument on climate change than theatricality. When you misrepresent the science and knowingly misrepresent it – the errors having been repeatedly pointed out – you are lying. This is not name calling but an accurate description. Monckton’s buffoonery over his lordship claims suggest he is also a fool.

  • KB Keynes

    I see that Catallaxy believes it is all true.

    They have well and truly traveled to Charlatan territory now

  • observa

    There you go again Harry, conflating skeptics on the ‘science is settled’ with skeptics on their policy prescriptions. Putting aside the former disagreement as Monckton did, he provided the figures from the warmists’ own science to show the policies they advocate were futile economically(both Gillards and Abbotts remember?). All Denniss proferred in defence was the insurance principle which Monckton rightly called cricket bats for comets. That was the disgrace of the media hacks who didn’t ask the rationally obvious of Denniss. ie- are you refuting Monckton’s actuarial analysis and figures and if so where are yours? Monckton’s figures are transparent and on his blog to be challenged yet all we get from warmists is- We gotta do sumpink! As Monckton rightly asked of the Fourth Estate children’s gathering- where’s your homework on this kiddies?

    Well if the science is settled by consensus, their policy prescription is likewise with those polls. Why are the polls like they are? Because wiser heads who should have known better, turned a blind eye to the outrageous claims by the Gores and Flannerys that every bad weather event or catastrophe scientifically proved their cause. Same with the Exaggerationgates of the Greenpeace IPCC. That’s what happens when you don’t speak to truth and the weather eventually turns on your spruikers and their outrageous crap. The consensus is the punters were getting bull-shitted and now they’re bloody angry. The simple question for them now is- how much cooling for how much bucks warmists and when they can’t or won’t answer that, then they choose the best alternative going around. All they need now is their taxes rammed down their throats on the nightly nutbox to really egg the pudding

  • observa

    “It’s not a question of challenging the science,” he[Peter Anderson] said. “It’s certainly a question though of challenging the proposal that’s on the table because it is deeply flawed.”

    http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/breaking-news/business-begins-anti-carbon-tax-ads/story-e6frea7c-1226098859288

    Well Peter it’s like this. Either we can find one economist (John Quiggin can you spare a moment from your echo chamber?)who can scientifically debunk Monckton’s actuarial figures or we rely on the warmists’ post-normal, consensus science of the polls. Post Copenhagen it would appear to any reasonable intelligence that their arguments are cooked either way. Now what about some comet bats folks?

  • observa

    It’s like this with the watermelons in Canberra at present. It’s pissing down everywhere filling Flummery’s MDB and dams that would never fill again because Gaia was manifesting itself with a brain and a nervous system apparently (hold that thought working families!)while the UN Security Council just pooh poohs their whole global warming threat thingy. What impeccable timing for our Iron Lady who’s not for turning apparently. Perhaps she should try fitting instead? (presumably with Mrs Slocombe in the men’s swimsuit Dept just as soon as she’s free) Someone, somewhere in the Labor Party has to step up to the plate and rescue the dire situation before Gillard and that cheshire cat Treasurer trash Labor’s brand for good.

  • hc

    I listened to Monckton today Observa and I retain my earlier view. This guy is a dishonest clown. He provides a series of wrong arguments in rapid succession that have theatricality about them. They remain however false. His arguments on the economics are as phoney as his arguments on the climate science. You are not a fool Observa, how can you fall for this charlatan

  • johno

    Climate change alarmism is a mental illness of the current era. Its proponents are liars and/or fools. There is no mid ground. Buffoons and frauds should be denounced for what they are.

  • Maggie

    Let’s not confuse climate deniers with skeptics. The word “skeptic” comes from the Greek “skeptikos: one who reflects upon” (Collins Australian Dictionary). It is healthy to be skeptical about many claims, for example that there is a God, that you can predict someone’s personality from their horoscope sign, and so on. In contrast, a climate denier is a person who ignores the overwhelming scientific evidence of the existence of facts, for example those who clung to the belief that the earth was flat, those who railed against Darwin’s theories of evolution in preference for the Bible’s claim that God created everything in the known universe in 7 days and those who argued that smoking does not cause cancer. Monckton’s views on climate change fit into the category of denial and he should be called a climate change denier.

  • hc

    Strongly agree, Maggie, and welcome to my blog!

Leave a Reply