Anthony Watts posted another article from his resident greenhouse effect denier, Tim Ball (archived here). This time he put a caveat on the top, but he posted it anyway. The only other article he's posted in the last day is something from Christopher Monckton, which can best be described as seeming to come from a raving lunatic (archived here). Someone let him out of Bedlam.
Seriously? It's less than six weeks to Paris, and all Anthony Watts has is years' old denier memes of wrong CO2 measurements, and a hysterical (I'm not exaggerating) article from the potty peer?
Sky Dragon Slayer Tim Ball's article is pointless
Up top of the Tim Ball article, Anthony wrote:
[Note: Some parts of this essay rely on a series of air sample chemical analysis done by Georg Beck of CO2 at the surface. I consider the air samplings as having poor quality control, and not necessarily representative of global CO2 levels at those times and locations. While the methods of chemical analysis used by Beck might have been reasonably accurate, I believe the measurements suffer from a location bias, and in atmospheric conditions that were not well mixed, and should be taken with skepticism. I offer this article for discussion, but I don’t endorse the Beck data. – Anthony]Well, whoopie doo. So why did he post the article? What hold does Tim Ball have over Anthony Watts? The article is all but unintelligible. It's a mish mash of name-dropping (Hubert Lamb and George Beck, may they rest in peace), and various incomprehensible charts and garbled words. There is no rhyme or reason in the article. There is no point being made, other than that Tim Ball has lost it.
Christopher Monckton FOIAs the UK Supreme Court
Christopher Monckton's article reads, as usual, as if it's come from a deranged citizen. I mean that seriously. He has written it as an FOIA request, and begins with the following:
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000: NOTICE OF REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
Supreme Court pantomime of hate on climate change, 17-19 September 2015
Where he gets the "hate" from is probably the same place that Anthony gets his "hate" from. That is, anyone who talks sensibly of climate change is "hateful" in the disturbed minds of science deniers.
Christopher's article is in protest to a three-day symposium on Climate Change & the Rule of Law, held last month. The opening lines of the press release describe it as:
21 September 2015
Some of the world's leading judges, lawyers and legal academics met in London last week (17-19 September) for a special three-day symposium on climate change and adjudication, hosted by the Dickson Poon School of Law at King's College London, with the support of The UK Supreme Court, HM Government, the Journal of Environmental Law, the Asian Development Bank and the United Nations Environment Programme.
However, there remains the probability that the event did not take place and that the YouTube record of it, together with various web links and documents about it, are fake. This request is intended to discover whether – per impossibile – the Supreme Court’s pantomime of hate indeed took place and, if so, at whose instigation and at what cost, and who was approached for funding, and who agreed to fund the event, and how much was paid and by whom, and how much was spent, and by whom, and on whom or on what, and whether the passages of overtly and nakedly partisan political hate-speech attributed to one of the justices and to an invited lecturer were in fact uttered by them.
And went downhill from there.
Is this the best that deniers have?
I'm thinking that both Tim Ball and Christopher Monckton have gone over the edge, and they've taken wattsupwiththat with them.
From the WUWT comments
There aren't sufficient "thoughts" under Tim Ball's article yet, so the following are to Christopher's waffle:
LarryFine probably can't think of a better person to have on "his side", and got lots of plus ones from the WUWT deluded:
October 17, 2015 at 8:48 am
I’m glad he’s on our side.
Bob Lyman wants to create a fund to sue the UK Supreme Court, the highest appellate court in the United Kingdom (yes, really!)
October 17, 2015 at 9:00 am
I would assume that, if the Supreme Court grants disclosure and the evidence proves illegal or prejudicial actions on the part of some or all Justices, legal action will follow. I hope that Viscount Monckton will establish a fund to which supporters may contribute to support such legal action.
ferdberple compares the three-day symposium to the betrayal of Jesus:
October 17, 2015 at 10:45 am (extract)
a very dangerous precedent. lawyers and judges seeking to use the courts to enforce their belief systems.
...The Betrayal by Judas is mild in comparison. Our ancestors that fought and died for our freedoms are turning over in their graves.
Billy Liar says sack all the Justices:
October 17, 2015 at 1:43 pm
They should all be sacked and more thoughtful judges appointed.
jimheath opts for a conspiracy theory:
October 17, 2015 at 1:14 pm
There has to e a reason intelligent people consistently lie. I can only conclude Agenda 21.
[No. Now, April 15? That is a reason (for the government) to lie. .mod]
NZPete is stunned that legal experts would have a symposium on the law:
October 17, 2015 at 5:59 pm
I’m stunned to think that this can even happen in the British legal system. That is:
“21 September 2015
Some of the world’s leading judges, lawyers and legal academics met in London last week (17-19 September) for a special three-day symposium on climate change and adjudication, hosted by the Dickson Poon School of Law at King’s College London, with the support of The UK Supreme Court, HM Government, the Journal of Environmental Law, the Asian Development Bank and the United Nations Environment Programme”.
My first reaction was ‘WTF”. Unbelievable.
Beck to the future - article at RealClimate.org on CO2 measurements and E-G. Beck
For HotWhopper articles on Tim Ball and Christopher Monckton, use the search bar up top.