Saturday, May 31, 2014

The world domination ultra-paranoid conspiracy theory at WUWT

Sou | 4:50 PM Go to the first of 58 comments. Add a comment

Anthony Watts has posted another "world domination" conspiracy theory at WUWT (archived here, latest here). This time it's not been written by the uber-conspiracy nutter Tim Ball or the paranoid conspiracy theorist Alec Rawls. This one is by the potty peer and birther conspiracy theorist, Christopher Monckton.

Christopher Monckton is attacking Prince Charles for suggesting that, in preparation for the UN climate summit in Paris to be held in December 2015:
"Over the next 18 months, and bearing in mind the urgency of the situation confronting us, the world faces what is probably the last effective window of opportunity to vacate the insidious lure of the 'last chance saloon' in order to agree an ambitious, equitable and far-sighted multilateral settlement in the context of the post-2015 sustainable development goals and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change," he said.

Notice Charles' words - agreement, multi-lateral and sustainable development. He isn't talking about anyone taking over the world. He is saying that all 193 UN member nations have to work together to resolve a global problem. They have to put aside political differences and come up with a workable solution to mitigate global warming.

Christopher probably thinks he's on a winner attacking Prince Charles, who has some nutty ideas of his own. Which is nuttier - Christopher's "cure for AIDS" or Charles' homeopathy? Christopher's "birtherism" and "hitler" accusations or Charles' proposing we act on scientific advice?

If you're on the home page, click here to read on...

How do conspiracy nutters survive the modern world?

It's hard to fathom what goes on in the brain of conspiracy nutters like those who inhabit WUWT. Christopher seems to think that all the member nations of the UN are led by puppets.  I'm trying to figure out how he reckons this works.  He must imagine that some faceless, nameless group of people have somehow managed to corrupt democratic election processes. In other words, he must believe that the person you thought you elected is actually a surrogate for some imaginary behind the scenes cadre of puppet masters. (There are people who like to think of themselves as puppet masters who pull on the strings of some political leaders, but not to the extent or in the manner that Christopher sees it.) In totalitarian and other nations where democracy isn't fully fledged, the puppet masters would have to be at least equally sneaky. Imagine how long they must have been working behind the scenes in places like China.

The other thing is that the potty peer's imagined puppet masters aren't very smart. They keep changing their mind. These global puppet masters couldn't decide between Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard, Bob Hawke, John Howard, and Paul Keating. For now they're trying out an arch conservative - Tony Abbott, who thinks climate change is crap and coal is king. Not the best choice for a group of faceless nameless world rulers who the potty peer reckons are out to destroy the world by building windmills and putting limits on how much carbon waste that giant rubbish tip (the air we breathe) can tolerate.

Christopher Monckton the Anarchist

Here is one item from today's conspiracy theory:
His is the bloodless, alien tongue of those who have conceived so total a contempt for democracy that they cannot wait to stifle it under a mountain of treaties and carbon controls and reporting requirements and quotas and taxes and subsidies and regulations and restrictions and Thou-Shalt-Nots.

Going by that passage, I'd say that Christopher doesn't agree that people elect leaders to lead. He thinks that we should be electing leaders who promote anarchy and who'll rip multilateral treaties and agreements to shreds. How does the potty peer think our elected leaders should find solutions to world-wide problems or settle disagreements? The alternative - fighting bloody wars and dropping nuclear weapons wouldn't be the first choice of most people. But that's what Christopher seems to want, with his strong opposition to mutually acceptable agreements.

Christopher likens the United Nations - a body that brings almost all nations in the world together to sit around a table and agree on whatever they can agree on - to Hitler and Stalin. That's nuts. This is what he wrote:
And the Press will not come to the aid of the people. Before the Second World War, they near-unanimously fawned upon Hitler. After it, they near-unanimously fawned upon Stalin.
Now, they near-unanimously fawn upon the UN, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the Framework Convention on Climate Change, the European Union, and a Lernaean Hydra of pampered, me-too, supranational bureaucracies whose defining characteristic is that not one of them is answerable either via the ballot-box to any electorate or via the courts to any jurisdiction.

I don't know about "unanimous fawning" upon Hitler. If there was fawning it wasn't unanimous. I wasn't around back in those days, but I've dug up articles like this one from 1933 and this one from 1934 which show that there was a distinct discomfort with what was happening in the 1930s in Germany (and Italy).  Although some people's attitudes could definitely be described as "fawning". As for the press fawning on Stalin after the second world war, in 1946 it would be more appropriately termed concern or even alarm than fawning.  A short article in 1947 wryly noted that Stalin was "elected" without opposition. And in 1948 there were articles about the Berlin stand-off - and how the USA and Britain were attempting to work through the UN, while Russia was playing to its own crowd.

As for Christopher's "pampered, me-too, supranational bureaucracies whose defining characteristic is that not one of them is answerable either via the ballot-box to any electorate or via the courts to any jurisdiction". Maybe he doesn't remember that Rajendra Pauchari replaced Robert Watson at the behest of the US government (and lobbying by the oil industry).  I'm trying but failing to imagine the state of our research institutions if professorships were awarded by votes from the scientific illiterati at WUWT.  Imagine the state of climate science reports if Christopher Monckton or Anthony Watts were to chair the IPCC! I suppose they'd be much shorter - with chapter headings like "OMG it's insects" and "Ice Age Cometh, sections 1, 2 and 3" and "the Thunderstorm Hypothesis".  Donna Laframboise would have a field day!

The potty peer thinks Prince Charles is going to be the new world leader

Remember how Tim Ball decided that climate scientist Tom Wigley was ruler of the world?  Well, Christopher Monckton disagrees. He reckons that Prince Charles is going to rule the world.  He's as nutty as a fruit cake or else he assumes WUWT readers are ignorant or stupid or both. The potty peer wrote:
The Prince of Wales has morphed into just one more dirigiste, etatiste contre-capitaliste. His speech was framed as a warning – and it is just that: a warning that he and his ilk are intending over the next 18 months to bully or badger or bribe the world into ceding all political power by treaty to them and to those whom they approve. Ballot-box? What’s that? Never heard of it.

Ceding all political power to Prince Charles? No, Christopher. Not only would no world government do that, through the United Nations no world government or group of governments could do that. As for his "dirigiste, etatiste contre-capitaliste" - does Christopher really think that agreeing to shift to renewable energy, all governments are going to transfer private property of their citizens to Prince Charles? Does he seriously think that China and Brazil and Saudi Arabia and the USA and Canada and Russia are going to hand over all their nations' wealth to an ageing member of the English royal family?

Alarmist, paranoid conspiracy theories from Anthony Watts' WUWT and the potty peer

Anthony Watts published dozens of articles protesting that deniers aren't necessarily conspiracy theorists. Then he turns around and publishes fantastically weird and paranoid conspiracy ramblings like this. Here are some more choice snippets from Christopher Monckton and WUWT:
That aim is the worldwide annihilation of the democratic and capitalist system
...a concerted campaign on the part of the international classe politique to persuade the world, with the active assistance of the sycophantic Marxstream media, to agree to a binding treaty by which sovereign nations would abandon their right to set their own environmental policy and allow a vast, entirely unelected international bureaucracy to rule them all. 
...the vast army of princes, potentates, plutocrats, paper-pushers and pusillanimous panty-waists who have long wearied of democracy and have been quietly misusing the treaty-making power and abusing the scientific method with the undeclared but undeniable aim of eradicating all but the appearance of democracy, worldwide.
...how desperate the totalitarians are to persuade the world to let them establish for the first time a global regime of absolute power wielded by supranational institutions entirely beyond the reach of any electorate
...Britain’s oldest taxpayer-funded pressure-group, the Royal Society

Is Christopher going to renounce his title?

There's a hint that Christopher might be thinking about giving up the title he inherited from his father, which I expect wouldn't have been made hereditary if the Brits knew what they know today. He wrote:
Charles must go. His future, along with that of the thousand-year monarchy, is in the past. 
It's more likely that he won't though, since he still tries to claim that it makes him a member of the House of Lords - which it doesn't.

WUWT believes "Lord Monckton" to be real...

Before we get to the comments, here again is an interview with the potty peer persona.


Now after watching that video you might get the impression that the Monckton persona is humourless. After reading the snippets above it in the main article, you might think that the potty peer is a "very serious" paranoid conspiracy nutter. You'd be wrong on both counts. Below is a self-portrait included in the WUWT article, with the caption intact:

Monckton of Arabia, Doha, 2012. The camel is the one on the right.
Source: WUWT

From the WUWT comments

bushbunny sends a warning to Christopher and says:
May 30, 2014 at 7:45 pm
LOL, Didn’t Henry 11, ask this about Becket? Watch out for the Royal squad who see it as a threat.

bushbunny is a bit of a royal expert and has quite a lot to say in the thread, and says here:
May 30, 2014 at 8:59 pm
Prince Charles did quote sometime back, that when he became king, he could not comment on certain issues like he can as Prince of Wales. Queen Elizabeth can not comment on political issues and stays apolitical.

bushbunny also thinks the world should act in the face of an imminent "serious global event". It's just that she or he thinks we should act to prepare for an ice age that will be a very long time comething. bushbunny says:
May 30, 2014 at 9:18 pm
Maybe someone agrees with me, but if some serious global event is imminent, the worst thing is to ignore it and head in the wrong direction, trying to avoid it the inevitable. I’m referring to an impending glacial period or mini ice age. I can’t believe, knowing and studying what I have at tertiary level, that scientists, well some, are stuck on the philosophy that the globe is warming uncontrollably. We are more likely to be effected by a critical global cooling than warming! 

RACookPE1978 wants to spread the WUWT conspiracy paranoia and says:
May 30, 2014 at 8:04 pm
Sobering words.
May we quote them elsewhere? 

Andres Valencia bows and scrapes to his lord and fears "totalitarianism" and says:
May 30, 2014 at 8:18 pm
Thanks, Christopher, Lord Monckton.
These are certainly interesting times, the red tide is raising and the omens are bad for the people.
We see all over the world the terrible consequences of totalitarianism, but the forces of reason are not asleep, as has been demonstrated: “Europe’s most climate-skeptical party had just come top in the recent UK elections for the European Parliament”. 

I don't know what Harold is thinking when he pipes up and says:
May 30, 2014 at 8:38 pm
Again! This time with more tar, feathers, and pitchfork! 

jauntycyclist says:
May 30, 2014 at 10:36 pm
the list of those who have declined titles or given them up look better company that the list of those who hold them. Monarchy is a role game.If you do not like your ‘role’ why play the game? As PC said a while ago people should know their place.

Christopher Hanley says:
May 30, 2014 at 9:44 pm
If that ‘last effective window of opportunity’ that ‘last chance saloon’ passes without the ‘far-sighted multilateral settlement’ will that be it, will he please shut up and go away or will the deadline simply be rescheduled or recast as is typical of bat-crazy doomsday cultists? … Don’t answer.

My thoughts on  that last comment? If the world doesn't act in this "last effective window of opportunity" then democracy will eventually be killed off.  Future governments will find they have to introduce draconian laws to manage disintegrating societies and economies and many more places will fall to anarchy. If we want to hang onto our hard-won freedoms then we need to protect our world and move forward with new technologies, not destroy our world by clinging to old, outdated and dangerous technologies.


  1. There was a man called Monckton, a crank
    Who said he was a Lord, by rank
    But the House in accord
    Said the Lord was a fraud
    But fools still believed the mountebank!!!!

    Yes, I had to use a thesaurus, and every defintion of mountebank sums him up perfectly.

  2. I think Monckton still has a connection to the climate science denying, racist, potty UKIP political party in the UK. They did quite well in the local and European elections last week. Presumably the potty peer thinks there was no point even joining in such a vote. I was hoping my local UKIP candidate had knocked on my door - I was going to discuss climate change and Lord Monckton with them but they didn't turn up.

    1. I was under the impression that he was kicked out.

    2. True


      But in his teddy throwing he celebrates UKIP's poll victory

  3. I just do not know how you can go into that cesspool of idiocy Sou, Without being contaminated or at least uncomfortable. I went in to have a look to Monkton's archived spiel and it is the simple ravings of a lunatic. He is all over the place. Grimly hanging on to his false 'Lordship' while behaving as a true traitor to his delusional position in the hierarchy he seems to be totally beholden to! Bert

  4. Prince Charles - he cannot even get to rule his own inheritance - not much hope for him ruling the world
    UN - so toothless that their troops are basically sent to trouble zones and told not to fire their weapons (if they have any)
    The UN is of course about the only organisation capable of saving lives by negotiation -how well did Russia, NATO troops do in afganistan. How well did numerous nations help the locals in Vietnam. How safe is Iraq now the "monster" of a dictator Saddam has been removed.

    The truth of the matter is that a global problem requires global action to correct. And, in general, the populous is so uninformed that they will vote with their wallets/beliefs rather than take the right action. UKIP got elected because they panda to the wishes of the populous - johnny foreigner coming to the UK to steal OUR jobs - stop immigration now - unfortunately the fruit and farming communities often used to rely on cheap foreign labour to gather crops - it is now quite common to see vast orchards in the Evesham valley UK with apples unpicked. It is too expensive to use local labour - much cheaper to import fruit!

    So, yes, world co-operation is required to defeat a global menace. Now organise that! Even nations that can afford to act refuse to do so because profits will be hit. So what hope is there???

  5. you know who "near-unanimously fawned upon Hitler" (and his home-grown cohorts in the British Union of Fascists)? Monckton's little friends at the Daily Mail.

    1. It was always Herr Hitler (and Senor Franco) in the Daily Mail, and the Hitler Youth were something to be emulated.

      Poor Monckton, he just can't stop himself eating his own poo.

    2. I read a pretty good book a few years back called "Making Friends With Hitler". I covered the subject of the British aristocracy's admiration and acceptance of Hitler. Oh well....

    3. The Duke of Windsor should have been hung for treason, and just for him we should have reintroduced the old refinements. Apparently the Yanks wouldn't wear it; Mrs Simpson had connections :)

      Check out Monckton's teachers at Harrow and Oxford; some very dodgy antecedents there. Mostly they were drawn to Hitler's eugenics (being of superior stock themselves, doncha know) and anti-semitism.

      They thought the man himself was a dreadful little oik, but useful. Hitler, I mean, not Monckton. But then again ...

  6. The fundamental fact of the UN is that it was created by sovereign nations absolutely determined not to surrender one iota of that sovereignty, nor leave open the possibility that it might evolve in that direction.

    The rightwing paranoid construct that is their UN monster is a thing of wonder. I think this mostly stems from the US, where the very fact that the UN involves foreigners is enough to damn it to the same circle of Hell as the State Department.

    1. plus there's the fundamentalist understanding of it: they've decided the rapture will coincide with a single world government. the UN is sort of like a single world government if you squint hard enough, don't understand the first thing about governments and geopolitics work, and are utterly batshit mental. therefore it naturally follows that the UN is the army of the Antichrist (despite not having any troops of its own, instead having to beg them from member states), and the Secretary General is the king of the world (and not a senior diplomat who everyone ignores as he tries to bring order to the crèche).

    2. Good point; I hadn't considered the role of Revelations. When you've lived in the End Days as long as I have you can get a bit blase about Armageddon; there's such a thing as getting too much warning, y'know?

  7. So apearently quoting a very rich man tell a bunch of other very rich men that the world needs a “fundamental transformation of global capitalism” makes you a conspiracy theorist. Because only a nutter would think these people actually intend to carry out their stated beliefs.

    1. If all it takes for a conspiracy is some bloke making a speech, then yes you probably are a conspiracy theorist.

    2. i'm pretty sure that "making a speech laying out your conspiracy at a public conference in front of the world's media" counts as Doing It Wrong at the most fundamental level.

    3. Oh, I must be a conspiracy nutter because I believe North Korea is building nuclear weapons! It's a Conspiracy Theory based on the fact that some people don't believe it's true, even though most of the world governments say it is. And seismologists claim to have measured the shockwaves from the test detonations. And the North Koreans say they are building them.

    4. "Oh, I must be a conspiracy nutter because..."

      Nope: you are struggling to distinguish between genuine facts and conspiracy theories. I will give you another example of this difficulty that you have: you DON'T think there is a conspiracy to pretend there is scientific controversy about the basic facts of climate science. And you have that problem despite all the necessary facts about that conspiracy being in the public domain.

    5. so, wait... I'm a Conspiracy Theorist because I DON'T accept that there is a conspiracy to 'Deny the Science'. Would this be the 'Koch Funded Climate Denial Machine'? Well, you're right about it 'being in the public domain' Greenpeace has their polluterwatch page that goes into as much detail about it as a Conspiracy Theorists could want. $67M to 55 organizations over a 15 year period. WOW! that's, like, over $80k each a year. That's just huge, right? And Greenpeace just knows that all that money was for Climate Denial, because every one of those organizations have had at least one person who said something skeptical at some point. I mean, it couldn't be that the Kochs gave money to them because they were CONSERVATIVE organizations, and conservatives just happen to be to ones most likely to be skeptics. Could it? It just has to be a vast right wing conspiracy to deny climate change.

      (Seriously, $100,000 to the Ayn Rand Institute. The Randies have a mission, all right. And it's not about 'Denying Climate Science'.)

    6. The apparently appropriately-named Schitztree seems to have wandered in having a dialogue with imaginary voices. Medication either nor taken, or dosage due to be revised, methinks...

    7. So Schitzree you think that Koch bros money has little influence do you? Seems there is little hope for you then. Read this article and it's sources.
      Their organisations are said to have spent $86 million dollars in political contributions in 2012 alone. Is it any wonder that the Republicans have become the science denier party.

    8. "so, wait... I'm a Conspiracy Theorist because I DON'T accept..."

      Yes that's right. You are a conspiracy theorist because you cannot distinguish between fact and fiction. In actual fact the fossil fuel industry spends over a billion dollars a year on global warming denial.

      And as I was able to predict you'd deny the one conspiracy that is a matter of public record, Thats A Bingo!

      Will we ever get a single 'contrarian' here who doesn't just parrot from the denialist songbook as though he doesn't have a mind of his own? It is so boring when you know what their answer will be and you can actually steer them in the path of numptiism that you want them to follow.

      Would I be pushing it if I suggest you do a bit of crap about Al Gore next?

  8. I hadn't seen that video -- ouch :)

  9. "... with the active assistance of the sycophantic Marxstream media ..."

    This says it all. Lord Monckton thinks the mainstream media is so left wing it's COMMUNIST? Has he told Rupert Murdoch of this?

    1. Now lets not be silly. Of course Lord Monckton doesn't think Rupert Murdoch is a communist. Murdoch is a RIGHT WING media magnate. He's obliviously a true defender of Freedom, Capitalism, And Ayn Rand. It's all those media outlets that say things he doesn't agree with that must be the commies.

      (Obliviously? Obviously? I don't know, they both seem to fit there.)

    2. You are not doing very good at making a case that what Monckton said isn't steeped in conspiracy theory type hysteria. Perhaps you would care to tell us what he meant by Marxstream media? Which elements of the our mainstream media promote communism?
      The fact is that every Science society in the world supports the scientific view that AGW is a threat. So where are these media organisations that only support the scientific consensus because of their marxist beliefs? Explain why the journalists of every Murdoch media outlet know that the majority scientific opinion is wrong but those few organisations willing to allow the consensus a voice do so because of some left wing conspiracy?

  10. "The potty peer thinks Prince Charles is going to be the new world leader"

    I don't understand where you get this idea. At no point does Monckton say anything like this. In fact, the next quote you provide seems to directly contradict you.

    "The Prince of Wales has morphed into just one more dirigiste, etatiste contre-capitaliste. His speech was framed as a warning – and it is just that: a warning that he and his ilk are intending over the next 18 months to bully or badger or bribe the world into ceding all political power by treaty to them and to those whom they approve. Ballot-box? What’s that? Never heard of it."

    "just one more" hardly sounds like someone who will weild sole power over the whole world, nor does "them and to those whom they approve".. It sound more like Monckton thinks Charles intends to be one of the movers and shakers trying to dictate world events. And if that sounds like a 'conspiracy' to you, then you haven't recognized that Charles is the future monarch of half a dozen 1st world countries. Regardless of what anyone thinks of Charles's opinion or intelligence, he WILL be one of the people shaping the future.

    Monckton is a clown, probably intentionally. He uses it to garner attention, to help promote his beliefs and further his political objectives. If you wish to oppose him he is giving you plenty of things to point out or even mock. But if you make statements like these that are clearly false you just play into his hand and make yourself look dishonest.

    1. I don't understand where you get this idea

      ...that he and his ilk are intending...to bully or badger or bribe the world into ceding all political power by treaty to them...

    2. Right. He and his ilk are intending...to bully or badger or bribe the world into ceding all political power by treaty to them and to those whom they approve.

      There's a distinction here, the difference between being THE new world leader and being A new world leader.

      Charles will one day be king of half the English speaking world. He is already a wealthy man, and a politically active one. Anyone who thinks he isn't already a 'world leader' is greatly underestimating him.

    3. Lots of deniers take to building strawmen, don't they ...

      ... and so.oo..oo serious, defending the "clown" they've only just trashed :(

      Lighten up, Andreas.

    4. dirigiste, etatiste contre-capitaliste

      An' this is the kind of straight-talkin' that'll set all them Tea Party libuuurtarians straight to reachin'-right-on-up to tug a forelock quick-as-you-like, yessirree!...

    5. I take it now I'm a 'Denier', then. Convicted in absentia for the crime of disagreeing with Sou? No less then I would expect, really.

      You hardly need to link back to the top of this Reply thread to point out I called Monckton a clown. Nor am I 'defending' him. I'm stating that what you wrote is simply untrue. You quoted someone else's words and then clamed they meant something else then what they say, and you do this regularly.

      I read your blog regularly Sou, as I think it makes a fairly good counterpoint to WUWT. You're faster on the uptake then SkS and more coherent then the clones. But I do so while keeping in mind that you'll play fast and loose with the facts, and the strawmen I expect to see here are rarely the deniers.

      I just don't trust you, Sou. I think you're just as much playing the clown as Monckton, and for the same reason. I also feel the need to point out when others are twisting the truth. A vanity I'm sure, but that's just me.

    6. I don't know what you are, Andreas. However if you do read this blog regularly you ought to know the style is as often tongue in cheek as serious.

      One thing I don't do is play fast and loose with facts. If you think I do then I'd say you're spot on with your first sentence.

      And seriously - don't be so nitpickingly serious.

      Added: Gotta say Andreas vastly over-rates the power of the British monarchy, too.

    7. @Andreas

      I do not know whether you are a Denier or not either but you sure talk like one and your style is Denialist. By style I mean picking irrelevant (and boring) points and pushing them. Also setting up strawmen words, not listening or examining content critically and only hearing the denier memes.

      I get all this from your comment on the YouTube video "The CO2 Plant Food Crock" in which you say:

      "you finally get around to actually trying to prove that CO2 isn't Plant Food."

      "The thing is, even if it WAS true it wouldn't change the fact that CO2 is Plant Food."

      The thing is nowhere in the video does it deny that CO2 is a "plant food". But you only hear what you think you ought to hear that comes from your strawman meme.

      Try listening to the video properly and critically and think about what it is trying to say. Take your Denier spectacles off and take the Denier Babel fish out of your ear. If you develop these thinking habits you may come across as less of a Denier and you may also become a more interesting person and less of a parrot.

  11. *Ahem*
    That's British Royal family; our king went south to take over England, and the current lot are descended through one of his daughters or granddaughters, I forget which. Not to mention the fillip of Scottish blood from the queen's mother.

    1. The Hanoverian usurpocracy is what we've got since the legitimate Stewart got chased away just for being a Taig.

  12. Damn, was just writing for an hour without saving periodically to a word document, and it all just disappeared. Screw it, too tired to do over. cliff notes time.

    Both - Being honest on the "nitpicking" and "irrelevant" things is what convinces people they can trust you on the important stuff.

    Jammy - It was called "The CO2 Plant Food Crock". most of it was just back and forth between a Monckton soundbite saying "CO2 is plant food" and clips about "Extreme Weather". I and most of the other commenters, both for and against, got the impression it was trying to prove CO2 wasn't plant food.

    All the Ranting about "Denial" - You impress no one but other alarmist. Everyone in the middle is losing interest.

    No, I'm not a "Denier". I'm a Lukewarmer who thinks there's way to much uncertainty to know what the temp will be in a hundred years. I DO NOT think this means we shouldn't try to reduce CO2 production. But carbon taxes and EPA mandates will just push production to India or China or some other developing country. And when the people see they're sacrificing for nothing they'll just vote and end to it, just like Australia and most of Europe.

    What we need are Additive efforts. further support for electric vehicles, realistic renewables growth, nuclear power. Giving more, not demanding less. It won't cut CO2 as fast, but it's a hell of a lot more likely to succeed.

    And what we need most of all is for alarmist to stop acting like this is some kind of holy war. Because every time Mann, or Gleick, or Lewandowski try to 'Help' they do more damage then all the "Climate Denier Crocks" and "Denier Memes" put together.

    1. Yep, His Lordy-Lordyness almost certainly meant that Charles is a would-be Reptilian Overlord, rather than the would-be Reptilian Overlord! Important distinction you raise there...

      And all the rest is just standard 'lukewarmer' do-nothing-ism. I.e. the flip side of the same shopworn coin...

    2. Andreas, on both the ridicule and the important stuff I almost always provide plenty of references so people can check for themselves that what I write is factual.

      Your comments suggest you aren't able to understand science, which is fine. Lots of people haven't done any science. Normally those who haven't will defer to experts. But not you, from what you say. You prefer to pick and choose what suits you.

      BTW "Lukewarmer" = "Denier". One can't be just a "little bit pregnant".

      Hard to credit the effort you're making to turn a humourous playoff between Tim Ball and Christopher Monkton arguing who is going to be the ruler of the world (Tom Wigley vs Prince Charles) into a major earth-shattering event and a "Sou can't be trusted". That of itself falls into the "utter nutter" category - even without your harping on about "CO2 is plant food".

      You don't just suffer a science deficiency - you seem to think that Prince Charles is going to "rule" (ie be a dictator) over however many countries when/if he becomes king. He won't. These days the role is largely figurehead / ambassadorial.

    3. God Sou, Do you ever even read what you write?

      "Your comments suggest you aren't able to understand science"

      Science isn't some kind of holy scripture. It isn't written on stone tablets and handed down by wise men for us to worship. It is a process, one I understand well, and one I don't think you understand at all. You write like 'Science" is some immutable law that has been handed down to you by a high priest, and anyone that disagrees, or even questions the slightest word, is a heretic damned with everyone else that doubts your one true faith.

      BTW "Lukewarmer" = "Denier".

      I really hope you alarmist are wrong about your Climate Crises. I think you probably are, but I'm nowhere near sure. But it doesn't matter, you've already lost. There are simple not enough of you to make any long term changes, and there are fewer every year. And the people you need the most, the ones in the middle? The ones like me, who doubt there's a Crises, but would agree to work with you, just in case?

      You treat us just like you treat your most bitter foes, and label us the same. Because there's no room for doubt in a Holy War.

    4. You know, thinking about it, I don't think I'll be coming back to see what new ways you can call me a denier or what new putdowns you might come up with. I don't think I need to check here anymore to get a counterpoint to any of WUWT's more 'imaginative' posts either. It's gotten so I can pretty much predict what you'll say about them.

      I'm heading back over to lurk at Judith's. Yes, I know by your definition she's a Denier too, which is Ironic as she's pretty much the only reason I still think your Climate Crises is even a possibility.

      So long, Sou. At least I know you'll still be having fun over here.

    5. "I don't think I'll be coming back to see what new ways you can call me a denier or what new putdowns you might come up with."

      Freud says there are three forms of denier: it's not happening, it's not me, and it's not so bad. You have admitted being in the third category. So blame Freud: he was obviously in the conspiracy too.

      Has anyone met a Lukewarmer who actually admitted what denial means? I can't remember doing so: again it seems that they are all singing from the same songbook.

      And grats to all those who spotted he wasn't merely a nitpicker (concern troll?). He had me fooled to start with. But he couldn't keep it going for long :)

    6. he he. No-one comes to HotWhopper expecting to be treated with kid gloves. There are other excellent blogs where you'll get less snark and more of a civil discussion along with good science. But I don't think that is what Andreas is looking for either.

      Unlike HotWhopper, which demolishes disinformation, Judith will actively promote it, which would be much more to Andreas' liking, because as a "lukewarmer" it fits his world view.


    7. "...got the impression it was trying to prove CO2 wasn't plant food."

      Slap of hand to forehead. Exactly. You got the "impression" that it was trying to prove something and your fellow denialist commenters reinforced that with their "impression" fuelled by the stupid plant food meme that just plays into your confirmational bias. So you got your "impression" from other sources than the video. Nowhere does the video suggest CO2 is not "plant food"!!!

      As you put your finger right on the problem I was drawing to your attention but still no self-awareness dawned and no light bulb switched on I have to conclude you are a bit blinkered and denialist.

      Good luck on your JC site. The fact you feel more comfortable there is a bit of a pointer to your state of mind. The point of being a (real) sceptic is you never feel comfortable. And you are willing to engage in debate and discussion with a view to better understanding and the possibility of changing your own position. You have shown none of these traits in your brief foray here or your critical understanding of the crock video.

    8. @Andreas

      "...the only reason I still think your Climate Crises is even a possibility."

      Yup, all "our" Climate Crises. And we are not sharing them with you.

      Good job for you can just opt in or out. That's freedom and democracy for you.

    9. @Andreas

      "It is a process, one I understand well, and one I don't think you understand at all.

      Oh dear.

    10. So, Andreas: imagine two groups of people - a large one accepting the evidence that 2 + 2 = 4, and a vocal, noisy minority that insist the answer is 5.

      All the smart, disinterested, 'above-the-fray', independent, free-thinking, far-seeing, Solomonic money's on the answer really being 4.5, right?

      Oh one 'who understands well', your claiming that others are lost in a 'Holy War' is what's called 'projecting like a firehose!'

      I repeat; the flip side of the same shopworn coin...

  13. Andreas:
    You call yourself a lukewarmer and then attack others for taking a position which is the same as every scientific society in the world. Not one of these societies think that the IPCC reports are not a fair representation of the reams of peer reviewed literature. So who is the one here following religion rather than science?

  14. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.


    For anyone new to climate blogs, Andreas provided a lesson in fairly conventional denier trolling.


    The first step is to find a minor detail, preferably misrepresenting it, and complain long and loud about. Andreas picked a line out of the middle of the article, decided that Monckton meant something different to what he wrote and therefore was able to point the finger and accuse me of writing a falsehood.


    When the flaws are pointed out, the denier's first reaction is to go on the defensive. In this case Andreas rejected the actual meaning of the words again and decided that Monckton must have meant something else because Andreas mistakenly thought the British monarchy still wielded the sort of power it did a few centuries ago.


    After the predictable response, the troll then moves into full on attack mode accusing the blog owner (or a third party) of doing something nefarious. In this case Andreas went further than accusing me of telling a lie, he claimed I often misrepresent what people write, that I play "fast and loose with the facts" and that I am untrustworthy.


    The troll may at this point come out and declare their position while denying it. In this case Andreas denied denying climate science and said he was a "lukewarmer", which is just another way of claiming that the "scientists don't know nuffin'". He also indicated that he doesn't even understand simple science by video explaining why "CO2 is plant food" is not a reasonable rejoinder to global warming. At this point there may be some more passive aggressive tones along the lines of "no-one reads your blog anyway". In this case Andreas obliged by muttering something about "people losing interest".


    After a couple more predictable responses, the denier spits the dummy and declares they'll go back to some denier blog where they feel more comfortable. After falsely accusing the blog owner of all sorts of dreadful things, the troll decides they will feign offense at the predictable response. Andreas muttered a few more words, picked up his bat and ball and said he'd go back to Judith Curry's blog. He maybe felt that if he said one of the more extreme denier blogs he'd not be able to claim he wasn't a climate science denier.


    More often than not the troll returns at some point, usually muttering stuff like "you're all a lot of nasty alarmists" and "nobody listens to alarmists any more" and "nobody reads your blog anyway" or similar.

    As for Mack - well he asked "Hot Wopper, Can I make a comment? on your blog?..." and it turns out that he did have the requisite keyboard and mouse skills to make a comment. What he didn't have was spelling skills among other capabilities. If he'd asked "May I make a comment?" I'd have responded, most certainly - as long as you adhere to the comment policy. He didn't. So his comment has been consigned to the HotWhoppery.

    Now it could be that Mack is not even a person. His comment is not much different to common spam - though not as ingratiating. This is the sort of blogspam that fills up the spam folder:

    I like your post a lot! You should write some more on this!Great job coming with such terrific post!

    1. "...video explaining why "CO2 is plant food" is not a reasonable rejoinder to global warming."

      Ah, good way of putting it.

      Andreas - it is not a good rejoinder to global warming. Read. Contemplate. Meditate on this. When you have reached enlightenment please come back and discuss it.

    2. Oh bugger, you've consigned me to the Hot Whoppery already. Still it's not too bad. I envisiged some form of pergatory with a good Hot Wopping.

    3. Reckon you might have Karen MackSpot from Deltoid there! The smileys'll start any minute now...

  16. I like your post a lot. You shouold write more on this. Great job coming up with succh terrific post.

    I have conspirissy theeries of my own. Surely there is something of the reptile about Monckton? Specifically, he always reminds me of this one...


    1. Or even


      And if that doesn't work, it's Kaa from the Jungle Book.

      You have to admire Lord M's chutzpah. The little Witless are indeed seeing the rights and freedoms and livelihoods eroded - by the increasing power and influence of the corporate lobbyists, the super-rich and massive Wall Street investors such as the Saudi Royal family.

      Monckton is employed by the above to redirect the anger of the Witless at the very institutions that have a rapidly diminishing chance of exerting some restraining influence on the market forces that are intent on permanently ruining the Witless and their world.

      Essentially, he's a spokesman for the "Joy of Christmas" party, adressing his high-falutin demagoguery to a bunch of Witless turkeys.


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.