Scroll To Top

Thursday, September 22, 2016

It's doozy week at WUWT, with Christopher Monckton and his InfoWar on science

Sou | 4:20 AM Go to the first of 21 comments. Add a comment

With all the record-breaking temperatures and extreme weather lately, Anthony Watts is reduced to published a load of vague unsubstantiated codswallop claiming climate science papers are a "scam". That and claiming that 13,000 years ago there was an even bigger glacial maximum than the last glacial maximum, which so far no-one is aware of except Anthony and his tame cartoonist called Josh. (I'm not certain that they are even aware that this is what they've claimed.)

Christopher Monckton has added to the doozies at WUWT by claiming that climate scientists are committing fraud (archived here). He wrote about a case in the UK and leaped off that in a fit of illogic to claim that public authorities have received reports of fraudulent papers by climate scientists.

Yeah, right!

Has Christopher finally come through with his multiple threats of vexatious litigation against scientists? I'd say the chance of that is between Buckley's and None.

Yep. I call woo. BS. More batshit crazy from Anthony Watts and Christopher Monckton.

Christopher wrote, hinting in his conspiratorial fashion that he just knows there must be nefarious goings on in the world of climate science:

It remains to be seen whether the public authorities, as they gradually awaken to the reality that “global warming” is not a global crisis but a global scam, will follow up reports they have received of fraudulent misrepresentation by climate “scientists” in academic papers.
So far, the authorities are proving reluctant to prosecute scientific scamsters for publishing bogus results in the learned journals, because they still adhere to the misguided belief, explicitly ruled out by a change in the law of the United Kingdom some years ago, that one must be able to quantify the amount of money gained by the fraudsters or lost by their victims before one can prosecute.

Is Christopher Monckton pleading to be sued?


The article reads to me that Christopher is asking to be sued. He's made misrepresentations in scientific papers - yes, more than one - discussed here and here for example. Whether his misrepresentations constitute fraud or not is something I'll let you ponder. It could instead be argued that his public engagements were for profit, and that the way he's misrepresented science in his talks is how he scammed the public.

Christopher went further, but with no specifics, just vague unsubstantiated allegations of fraud in scientific papers, writing:
But, even where the police acknowledge that a false representation has been made in a scientific paper, and even where they also acknowledge that either the perpetrators have made money or their victims have lost money, they continue to regard academic research as somehow sacrosanct, and, in at least one case, they have ducked out of investigating a scientific fraud in a published paper on the ground that they could not quantify exactly how much the scamsters had made for themselves, or exactly how much they had cost taxpayers. 

That's not only a misrepresentation, it reeks of Christopher wanting to bignote himself with all his as yet unrealised threats to sue scientists for pointing out all Christopher's misrepresentations.

Christopher makes another generalised non-specific call which I read as him wanting to criminalise scientific research, writing:
I suspect that the only way to persuade the police and prosecutors to do their duty and move against those who have made downright false claims and have wilfully misrepresented their results at taxpayers’ expense is to shame them by instituting successful private criminal proceedings against one or two of the worst offenders. 

Just who are these "worst offenders"? Does Christopher count himself among them? Except in rare cases, scientists who commit fraud are found out sooner or later. There was Andrew Wakefield for example, who faked results that stoked the anti-vaxxer idiots. His fraud was discovered and he was shamed.

Not happy with making vague allegations against no-one in particular, Christopher wrote the following, which given his habit of making up stuff, I reckon he just made up to make himself look important. If he were writing about a real event it would have been public information and he'd have no reason not to give specifics. He claimed:
By chance, in an unrelated field I once had to exercise this right. A dozen ago, when some consultancy clients of mine were being bullied by a corrupt public authority, that authority made the mistake of circulating a false report to Ministers. However, I had formerly worked at 10 Downing Street, and a copy of the report reached me. I went to London and appeared before the magistrates. Thereupon, heads rolled right across Whitehall. 
Okay, Christopher what was the case? Why don't you tell us how you rolled heads, whose heads were rolled, what was the hearing about, and what you said that caused whoever to bring out the guillotine? Surely it's public knowledge and given your ego, you'd want to boast about it.

There's more. Christopher darkly hints at more nefarious goings on, in another unspecified claim against other unspecified people, writing:
I have been making steady progress in preparing the first of two or three index cases in which scientific “researchers” or the “universities” that shoddily provide cover for them have committed open scientific frauds. It will only be necessary to succeed in one or two of these cases and the rest of the scamsters will realize the game is up and will run for cover. 

What index cases? What field of research? What universities would they be?

Codswallop. Complete and utter bollocks as the Brits would say.

Anthony Watts is in a lull. He can't find anything but "it's cold in Greenland" with which to refute climate science, so he wheels out his trusty potty peer to make puffed up claims that have not a shred of substance to them.


From InfoWars to WUWT - a promotion or a demotion?


When I first came across this (but before archiving, unfortunately), there was more to be had in the "thoughts" at WUWT. Some of the commenters were not at all impressed with Christopher touting his wares at the uber-conspiracy blog InfoWars. Those comments are no longer at WUWT, however there was some discussion about the anti-US sentiment at InfoWars which seemed to be a bigger problem for WUWT-ers than the fact that it's one of the bigger conspiracy websites around.

Here are some archived pages of Christopher resorting to InfoWars for want of any credible place to go:





This is no more credible:


There are lots more articles where Christopher Monckton has peddled his wacky conspiracy theories at InfoWars.

Who to believe (scratches head)? 375 leading scientists or a potty peer from InfoWars?

From the WUWT comments


It was nice to see comments at WUWT pointing out that the person that Christopher used as an excuse to attack science, was given the presumption of innocence unless proven guilty. For the rest, apart from the missing comments complaining about, and supporting, InfoWars, there wasn't much to see except for the usual conspiratorial thinking.

Has the thought ever occurred to richard verney that the fact that other research by multiple scientists working independently of each other is evidence that the findings are supported? His science is not a scam?
September 21, 2016 at 6:50 am
It is more difficult than that.
Given the reliance placed on consensus ‘science,’ it is all but impossible to claim that loss has been sustained as a consequence of any one individual paper. A paper may recklessly set out flawed science, but if Government policy is based upon consensus, no one individual paper can be said to be the cause of Government policy and/or the loss. The innocent victim may well have sustained the same or similar loss even without the offending paper being published in view of other (similarly flawed) papers having been published by someone other than the Defendant hauled before the Court.

References and further reading


Lord Monckton’s Rap Sheet - by Barry Bickmore

A Scientist Replies to Christopher Monckton, excellent and thorough debunking of Christopher Monckton's nonsense, by John Abraham

Pause needed in global warming optimism, new research shows - article by Dana Nuccitelli at SkepticalScience.com

The Wall Street Journal denies the 97% scientific consensus on human-caused global warming - article by Dana Nuccitelli at SkepticalScience.com

Climate Misinformer: Christopher Monckton - selection of wrong quotes from Christopher Monckton compiled at SkepticalScience.com


From the HotWhopper archives

21 comments :

  1. Unfortunately I've also seen an admin posting infowars on this climate adaptation and mitigation FB group. When I confronted him about it, he told me to have an open mind. That's when I was like OK, I'm out.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I notice it is listed as "guest "opinion"

    and like ar5eholes - everyone has one I suppose

    ReplyDelete
  3. "...they have ducked out of investigating a scientific fraud in a published paper on the ground that they could not quantify exactly how much the scamsters had made for themselves, or exactly how much they had cost taxpayers. "

    With his connection to a commercial venture like "Cool Futures", I wonder if the potty peer might be storing up trouble for himself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If Monckton were honest (fat chance) and really wanted to uncover fraud in science, he could model himself on the meticulous work of Brian Deer, the journalist who nailed Andrew Wakefield for the fraud that he is. It's all readily available at http://briandeer.com/ if the potty peer wanted to take a look.

      But Monckton isn't interested in truth so much as winning debates, which is why he uses his rhetorical flourishes and sleight of hand/mathturbation tricks to create a case where none exists. Monckton's current piece sounds a lot like the grandstanding he did a few years back before his busted flush series of no warming since ... articles (RIP). He's self-abusing his ego and his audience will think he is such a superhero because he is doing this public service of nailing these evil fraudulent scientists.

      But it won't happen and pretty much everyone in the world knows it. It must be sad in the Monckton cranium, thinking up yet more ways to big up Lord Monckton without ever actually achieving concrete results. But he keeps coming back because it is the only way he can get an adoring audience to pat him on the back and give him brotherly hugs.

      The slightly ironic thing is that Monckton probably doesn't think Wakefield is a fraud. But since we still have never seen anything like a result of any trial of the Monckton wonder pill and with his history of science denial, it is a fair bet that he's a medical woo believer too.

      Delete
    2. Spot on, Catmando. You may not be aware of this, but Monckton thinks he has a cure for AIDS. Can't dig up references at the mo, but it's all over the internets a few years back. Crank magnetism at its finest.

      Delete
    3. Sorry, that was just lazy. Here ya go, via Barry Bickmore:

      https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-moncktons-rap-sheet/

      Delete
    4. Thanks, metzomagic. That site rewards every time.

      I once had a spat with his lordship over his "cure" for AIDS in which it became clear he was really blustering again. It was the fault of the EU that it wasn't on the market. He dodged a question about how moral it was to claim to have a cure and keep it from the people who need it.

      Delete
  4. Monckton's claim
    "A dozen ago, when some consultancy clients of mine were being bullied by a corrupt public authority ..."

    I wonder if this has anything to do with allegations made in a article from the Sunday Times, 3 October 2014, entitled "Top Tory in a Kilt Hit by 'Visa' racket case".

    I don't want to go into too much detail in case the article is libelous, but the gist is that the police were investigating an employment firm who used Monckton as an immigration adviser. The article says:

    'He [Monckton] is said to be infuriated by the police enquiry,
    which he says is entirely spurious. His lawyers have filed papers against David Blunkett, the home secretary, claiming he is being persecuted in a deliberate, secret and unlawful discrimination" by the government. The case is due to be heard in court during a judicial review set for December.'

    I don't have any more information about that review.
    But David Blunkett resigned as Home Secretary in December that year over allegations he helped fast-track the renewal of a work permit for his ex-lover's nanny.

    Curiously enough, Monckton's sister, Rosa, was also involved in Blunkett's demise as there were allegations he'd helped her when she'd forgotten her passport.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/blunkett-faces-inquiry-over-ex-lovers-claims-534958.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ha ha "being persecuted" - spoken like a true crook.

      It's no wonder he didn't want to talk about the details. Too many parallels and most of the details would be hard to spin in his favour.

      Delete
  5. I like the part in the post where Monckton says that this trial wouldn't have happened under Dave Cameron's regime. Surly a complex tax fraud trial would take far longer to prepare than the three months Theresa May's been in power.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Does anyone know if there has been a reply to Monkton's response to Arthur Smith's critique of his paper on climate sensitivity?

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/monckton_rebutted.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  7. Wow Monckton is a BS artist but he is getting even wackier. I guess that what happens when there are fewer and fewer ways to spin the facts as the world hits another record breaking year.

    By what means does he expect the police to get involved and charge the "dodgy" scientists? Lying is not a crime, luckily for Monckton. I guess he plans to change peer review to police review?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Spurious observation or is Anthony allowing fewer rational comments now the posts are weaker?

    Think there were more when there was a chance of a plausible answer from The D-Team.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I dont know Dennis I only read WUWT when I need to debunk dribble. Most of the denail relies on logic errors or PRATTS that we have all seen many times so I seldom need to reference the source.
    With Sou's blog you usually get the latest nonsense in a more digestible form then the raw version anyway. The deniers do seem to be retreating further into lala land as the effects of warming becomes more evident to the world.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Have never seen such foul language as that Rog Tallbloke is using against WWatts and WWillis and the WUWT crew.
    Internecine warfare amongst the denialists.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I looked up the post and comments on his site. The attacks on the Wattites and in particular the justifications the commenters give are comical indeed. It's the pot calling the kettle black. Or maybe like those birds that attack their own reflections.

      Delete
    2. I assume this is basically a Slayers vs. 'mainstream' Deniers thing?

      Watching them spraying around the same toxic invective they've been attempting to drench scientists and other rational folk for with for years is certainly blackly humorous, and activates no small number of 'Schadenfreude' neurons!

      What a fascinating psychological study. In their minds it really ought to be Nobel Prizes all round for the 'New Dawn of Truth' congregation, and they already have a failsafe explanation for this not happening (as, let's face it, it, um, probably won't) - the evil warmists AND now the maybe-equally-evil 'lukewarmists' won't let it happen!

      If you're reading this, Dear Talkshoppy Lurker - you really are very silly, you know.

      (Well, you don't, but that's the point. Love the references to 'Dunning Kruger'; what's that phrase? 'IMAX scale projection? ;-) )

      Delete
    3. Speaking of internicine warfare, I note that Jo Nova is trumpeting the imminent publication (October - bet you can hardly wait!) of her partner David Evans' Notch / Force X theory, and her anticipatory post refers to chief villain... Leif Svalgaard!

      When such contentious people don't get any attention paid to them by the mainstream - and certainly the heady days of Climategate 1.0 are long gone - well, really; what is there left to do but turn on each other?

      (Oh, and seems Global Cooling is due any day now... any day... there it is!... oh, hang on, no... that was a glacial iceberg calving... still, any day now...)

      Delete
    4. this is certainly what has happened in the wackier end of 911 twooferism

      the "No Planers" – (the planes etc were all CGI) take on proponents of "dustification" or often known as the "space energy beam" theory – pimped by Dr Judy Wood PHD in her seminal work “Where did the Towers Go”

      it is so bizarre to watch them throwing invective after invective at each other – you almost feel sorry for the dear deluded souls who simply think it was a controlled demolition

      what must they think of it all -- lol

      Delete
  11. It appears that among the naive fools who have been fooled by those fraudulent scientists are Caspian terns 1,000 miles farther north than species had been previously recorded

    While it might be argued that as terns can't read they are not susceptible to be fooled by fraudulent scientific papers, what was there to stop Al Gore reading the papers out to them?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nah, I believe the birds in question were merely disoriented after flying through one of those periodic Washington state mass cannabis crop burn-offs.

      No tern unstoned, apparently.

      Delete

Instead of commenting as "Anonymous", please comment using "Name/URL" and your name, initials or pseudonym or whatever. You can leave the "URL" box blank. This isn't mandatory. You can also sign in using your Google ID, Wordpress ID etc as indicated. NOTE: Some Wordpress users are having trouble signing in. If that's you, try signing in using Name/URL or OpenID. Details here.

Click here to read the HotWhopper comment policy.