Lack of Environment

A blog on the politics and psychology underlying the denial of all our environmental problems

On the trail of Christopher Monckton – part 2

with 2 comments

I reviewed the backstory to this yesterday; and concluded with the first of Monckton’s responses to me this week (which I cannot share with you because he has asked me not to publish them). However, you can get an idea of the main (coherent and vaguely sensible) points he made from what I said in return:

——————————

Dear Viscount Monckton,

Thank you for giving me the benefit of your superior knowledge of 11th Century history. I have never claimed to be an expert on this; or anything else.

However, neither do I repeatedly attempt to dismiss the opinions of the vast majority of relevantly-qualified active climate science researchers with a track-record of peer-reviewed publications – and the very carefully considered public statements of institutions with huge reputations – as all being part of some global conspiracy, stupidity, or insanity (and/or “murderers, tyrants or madmen” – according to the Heartland Institute).

Neither of us is a climate scientist, we are both just interested amateurs: You are interested because you see environmentalists as attacking the primacy of the free market in the affairs of mankind. I am interested because I see libertarian ideology as “treating the Earth as if it were a business in liquidation” (former World Bank economist, Herman E Daly).
See: http://lackofenvironment.wordpress.com/2012/05/21/it-doesnt-have-to-be-like-this/

I don’t need to quote or even misquote scientific research. There is only one of us that is denying what the majority of scientists are telling us; and the small minority that continue to tell you what you want to hear have never been truly objective – they have allowed their political and/or religious views to cloud their judgement (one Richard S Lindzen being a case in point). However, one by one, they will either die of old age or admit they were wrong; as have done physicist Richard Muller and economist William Nordhaus.

The only question that therefore remains is just how expensive will dealing with the effects of anthropogenic climate disruption be by the time the fossil fuel lobby funded climate change denial machine finally loses the fight it appears to have picked with history, science and reason.

I was wondering what could possibly cause you to preface your email with the word “confidential” but then I found it: However, it is absolutely ridiculous and contemptible for someone like yourself – who has no scientific training or qualifications – to label [...Ooops - that's confidential I'm afraid!...] as being scientifically illiterate. All the more so since every single attempt you have made to besmirch his reputation and/or challenge his academic position has been comprehensively rebutted. At least the AGU agreed with me that what Lindzen has been doing is questionable (but admitted they had no Code of Conduct via which to reprimand him for his “propagation of misinformation about scientific research”).
See: http://lackofenvironment.wordpress.com/2012/03/24/on-the-subject-of-professional-ethics/

Regards,

Martin Lack.

——————————

Dear Mr. Lack,

[Sorry - Confidentiality has been invoked by the author]

Monckton of Brenchley.

——————————

Dear Viscount Monckton,

Whilst I am grateful to you for taking the trouble to respond to me (rather than ignore me), I do wish you would stop repeating falsehoods for no reason: I have not used your responses without your permission. On the contrary, as I have said previously, I asked for permission; you declined it; and I did not publish.

Since neither of us is a climate scientist; we must both appeal to the authority of others. Whereas you appeal to that of a minority of scientists who insist the majority are wrong; I appeal to the authority of the majority who insist the minority are prejudiced against accepting human responsibility for any and all our environmental problems.

Your position requires the existence of a scientific and/or governmental conspiracy on an unprecedented scale – for which here is no evidence (that has not been already comprehensively debunked). I know it may have become something of a personal mantra but no-one has yet falsified my argument that:

There is simply no evidence for your left-wing conspiracy to over-tax and over-regulate people (so as to make everyone poorer). Whereas, there is a great deal of evidence for a right-wing conspiracy to under-tax and under-regulate industry (so as to make a few people richer).
See: To all who say AGW is junk science (4 October 2011)

For your information, I do not hate Professor Lindzen, you, or any other so-called “sceptic”. However, because of its increasingly-obvious adverse consequences, I am very angry about the ideologically-prejudiced and irrational nature of the fight so-called “sceptics” have picked with history and science. Gordon Brown once equated your position with that of Flat Earthers. In my opinion, this was a rare occasion on which he was right about something.

Although I am grateful to you for engaging with me, I do not feel that you are taking on board anything I say. Furthermore, since I am now repeating myself as well, I think these exchanges have reached their natural end…

Regards,

Martin Lack.

About these ads

Written by Martin Lack

26 May 2012 at 00:02

2 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. No, no! Don’t stop engaging the prevaricating peer: while he’s composing responses to you, he can’t be out there peddling his misinformation to others! :)

    In relation to 11th Century English history, I’d love to know what His Esteemed Lordship claims is the ‘truth’ regarding King Canute. Unless he’s recanted his earlier position, I suspect more reality inversion.

    The official website of the British Monarchy and the UK Parliament website both agree with my understanding of history: far from being a fool who believed he could command the sea to do his bidding, Cnut the Great was a very wise man who tried to demonstrate to his subjects that he could not do any such thing.

    (It was allegedly Christian humility which made him reject his courtiers’ flattery by demonstrating that even he could not stop the waves; later hostile chroniclers were to claim it showed madness.) [Source: official website of the British Monarchy]

    King Cnut (Canute) famously attempted to control the waves of River Thames from the site of his royal palace to show his nobles that he was not omnipotent [Source: UK Parliament website]

    pendantry

    27 May 2012 at 15:13

    • Thanks for the moral support, Colin. As I intimated in my response to the Viscount (he may be an hereditary peer but he is not a member of the House of Lords so it is not correct to call him ‘Lord Monckton’), in confirming to me that he knew the popular perception of Canute is all wrong (i.e. he did not try to hold back the tide), Monckton had in effect confessed to deliberately misleading people on the Yale Forum on Climate Change and the Media (i.e. by telling them to “Remember Canute”)… As usual, having lost the argument, Monckton has disappeared…

      Martin Lack

      27 May 2012 at 16:36


Please join the discussion

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 316 other followers

%d bloggers like this: