Thursday, June 13, 2013

Denier weirdness: Monckton sings the praises of the anti-science blog WUWT

Sou | 2:21 PM Go to the first of 9 comments. Add a comment

Christopher Monckton of Brenchley has written a gushing tribute to the anti-science, scientist-bashing blogger Anthony Watts for WUWT getting 150,000,000 slaps hits.  Would that be 10,000,000 from people and 140,000,000 hits from bots or something like that?  I've added examples to illustrate the points he is making.  Monckton's points are in italics:

WUWT Fictions

Monckton: It (WUWT) puts more emphasis on hard-headed assessments of what has happened than on the fanciful predictions of what might happen that are their mainstay.

Here are some examples of hard-headed assessments rather than fanciful predictions - courtesy of WUWT.  First from Monckton himself writing about global warming - from less than a month ago, saying that the surface temperature has not risen for 18 years (he's also said it hasn't risen for "approaching two decades").

Then there is this "non-fanciful" prediction on WUWT from David Archibald:

Then there's Anthony Watts' big fat lies about the 97% consensus.

For more WUWT "hard-hitting assessments and non-fanciful predictions" see the HotWhopper blog archive.  Or see a selection of them here.

Prejudices are quaveringly intense

Monckton: It discusses the science and economics of the climate debate, accessibly but in depth. They don’t do much science; and, when they do, their prejudices are so quaveringly intense that they distort it.

Yes, I'd have to agree that WUWT does not do "much science" and I suppose you could describe WUWT prejudices as "quaveringly intense".  One has to assume that is what he meant by "they".  Surely he couldn't mean proper climate sites such as realclimate.org or skepticalscience.com.

Lots of space to protesting science

Monckton: It does not take sides. It displays a genuine interest in all sides of the debate, and allows them space. They don’t do that.

Click here for a typical example of the "genuine interest" WUWT takes in science.  It is the WUWT reaction to the Marcott et al reconstruction and analysis of the Holocene surface temperature record.  There was certainly a lot of space devoted to that study.  Twenty eight protest articles and counting!

Refusing to publish critical comments

Monckton: It does not, as they do, sullenly refuse to post every comment that is critical of it. It allows both sides to be fairly heard.

About that "sullen refusal".  Sullen is indeed the wrong adjective.  Here are two more examples in the discussion of this very article by Monckton - here and here.

[Snip. 'Case closed' means move on. — mod.]

In regard to the topic of the censored comment, here is what really happened, as opposed to the WUWT version. (re Reginald Perrin's comment below.)

Definition of a "troll"

Monckton: It is tolerant of all but the most persistent and malicious trolls.

See above.  WUWT has an interesting definition of 'troll'.  On WUWT a "troll" is anyone who writes about climate science or points out facts, as shown in this example (in an article in which Anthony tries to deny that climate scientists received death threats, which they did).

Monckton's Newspeak

Monckton: It is transparently, persistently, meticulously honest. Mistakes are admitted and corrected swiftly.

Monckton is in error here.  Check almost any WUWT article, such as this one, for the evidence.

Quantity not quality (or accuracy)

Monckton: It is up to date. It posts more items daily than some of them post in a month.

Quantity not quality is the motto of WUWT.

On the topic of disinformation

Monckton: It is on topic. Occasional departures are allowed, when something catches Anthony’s ever-interested eye, or when Willis is in story-telling mode, but otherwise you know what you are going to get.

The art of disinformation
Pinocchio by André Koehne
The topic of WUWT is anti-science and scientist bashing.  Occasionally it does depart from that as evidenced by this gush.  Although Monckton's "they" is probably a reference to climate science blogs, so I guess you can argue even this article of his is on topic.

The reward?

Monckton: It isn’t subsidized. They have taxpayers’ money thrown at them to flog the long-dead horse of global warming. It gets by, but it does not reward Anthony at even a tenth the rate he deserves.

Anthony will probably eventually get what he deserves.  As for the taxpayer subsidy, given that the Heartland Institute gets an effective taxpayer subsidy because, for some ungodly reason, it apparently still has charity status - one might consider this and this.

Open a restaurant

Monckton: It is beautifully polished. Running any blog is hard work. Running a seriously good blog is even harder than running a restaurant. You have to be there just about every day. You have to keep the content and the quality up.

I advise you to take particular note of the last point.  If you were thinking of going into the business of anti-science thuggery, consider setting up a restaurant instead.  Most especially if you can find a restaurant where you don't have to do any "hard work" and don't "have to be there just about every day" or concern yourself with food "content or quality".

Maybe a restaurant that specialises in fruit cake?

H/T to Reginald Perrin for alerting me to Monckton's latest gush gish gallop.


  1. I believe Willard may have been less than truthful in a response to the poster that had their comments deleted.

    REPLY: My moderator didn’t explain that we had granted Peter Hadfield a full space for rebuttal, which he was happy with. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/07/update-on-the-monckton-hadfield-debate/

    We aren’t going to revisit Hadfield’s issues again, and besides, in this thread they are off-topic. – Anthony

    Based on what I have seen in Potholer videos, Peter Hadfield was less than pleased with Monckton's cowardly refusal to debate.
    One thing that is indisputable is the fact that Monckton lied when he claimed that Watt's science fiction blog didn't censure comments.

    1. Thanks, Reginald. I've updated that bit about censored comments above, with a link to a more accurate and complete version of events about Potholer vs Monckton, rather than what WUWT would have its readers believe.

      Here is what really happened.

  2. Monckton: "Mistakes are admitted and corrected swiftly."

    Well, at least the post about how most of the Greenland ice sheet was built up during the Little Ice Age was swiftly removed once enough of his own followers were complaining.

    1. Yes, Lars. WUWT deniers don't want their precious Greenland sullied. But just think - if Anthony removed every article that was wrong - like these or this or this or this or the zillion other wrong articles, he'd have almost nothing left on his blog.

    2. Yes, the removal of the erroneous Greenland article was a rare exception. And it was rather "swept under the rug" than "admitted and corrected".

  3. "It isnt subsidized"
    I seem to recall Anthony took the fossil fuel coin from the Heartland Institute

  4. Christopher Monckton was a policy adviser to Margaret Thatcher.
    Margaret Thatcher attended a meeting of the Bilderburg Group.
    Monckton says the Bilderburgers are the NWO.
    Therefore Monckton and Thatcher are part of the NWO.
    Moncktons' supporters, like the Church of Scientology, are part of the NWO.
    Moncktons' supporters, like Lyndon LaRouches' Citizens' Electoral Council, are the NWO.
    Moncktons' supporter, Duncan Roads of Nexus magazine, is part of the NWO and COS.
    Duncan Roads fellow traveller David Icke is part of the evil NWO.
    David Ickes' supporters in the Church of Scientology are part of the NWO.

    If this is not true, how is it untrue?

  5. Sou,
    Did you notice the comment by WUWT regular rgbatduke (Dr Robert Brown from Duke University) on Monckton’s No Significant Warming for 17 years 4 months “sticky” post? Dr. Brown, thinking that a graph in Monckton’s post was from an IPCC author says:
    “This is such a horrendous abuse of statistics that it is difficult to know how to begin to address it. One simply wishes to bitch-slap whoever it was that assembled the graph and ensure that they never work or publish in the field of science or statistics ever again.”
    Nick Stokes was kind enough to point out that the graph was doctored by Monckton. Turns out Dr. Brown wants to “bitch-slap” the Good Lord, but no one at WUWT will acknowledge it.

    1. Yes, I did see that. Monckton's trying to say it's not his graph but that's a bit tricky because he's even got his name embedded right in it.

      Watts is scraping the bottom of the barrel promoting Monckton - even making it a sticky. I think it's a sign that WUWT is on its last legs. (Though it will limp along for a few more years yet, I expect.) Watts must be about the last one left standing alongside Monckton, who even Andrew Bolt has disowned, and that's saying something.

      Nick Stokes has a good post on the topic on his website.



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. Details here.

Click here to read the HotWhopper comment policy.