|
Post by steve on Sept 28, 2010 13:48:18 GMT
icefisher. For the zillionth time Monckton makes incorrect inferences, obfuscates *and* lies. Referencing a personal communication with Plimer is an example of his obfuscation, not lying - it is an appeal to authority that cannot be checked. As we know he often fails to reference things properly and then cheekily complains when people misunderstand him.
Lying is misrepresenting the IPCC CO2 and warming projections, claiming to have a cure for HIV and the cold, claiming to be a member of the British legislature, spouting pseudoscience about ocean chemistry, claiming that arctic sea ice level is steady for a decade.
Incorrect inferences are getting people to believe that sea levels have not risen and sea ice is safe by showing cherry picked graphs.
I don't know how I'm supposed to make it any clearer than that.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 28, 2010 15:22:25 GMT
So your claim of lying is that he in fact did not have a personal communication with Ian Plimer? How do you know that?
icefisher. For the zillionth time Monckton makes incorrect inferences, obfuscates *and* lies. Referencing a personal communication with Plimer is an example of his obfuscation, not lying - it is an appeal to authority that cannot be checked. As we know he often fails to reference things properly and then cheekily complains when people misunderstand him.Not providing what you wish for "a reference to published document" is NOT an obfuscation! And since its not a lie by your own admission it isn't what we asked for. Lying is misrepresenting the IPCC CO2 and warming projections, So you need to focus on providing the exact statement he made and proof it is a lie. claiming to have a cure for HIV and the cold, Near as I can tell this is a lie propagated by people attacking Monckton. I have seen no claim for an absolute cure of HIV or the common cold. What he has done is applied for a patent on a therapy that he invented that helped him recover from an immune disease. Like claiming aspirin prevents heartattacks. It doesn't it just reduces your chances of having one. But I suppose you brought this up because this is the only thing you can think of as a specific claim. LOL! claiming to be a member of the British legislature, spouting pseudoscience about ocean chemistry, claiming that arctic sea ice level is steady for a decade.
Incorrect inferences are getting people to believe that sea levels have not risen and sea ice is safe by showing cherry picked graphs.
I don't know how I'm supposed to make it any clearer than that. Cherry picking graphs? So you are now saying cherry picking references is lying! LOL! That I think makes just about the entire field of science liars. Do you know what sour grapes are?
|
|
|
Post by steve on Sept 28, 2010 17:20:06 GMT
The principle aim of my last post was to point out that cherry picking graphs to infer something that is untrue is not, in my view, technically a lie. I have provided evidence for all the claims I've made. The trouble is I need to spend so much time explaining Monckton's method of operation to you that the details are lost in previous pages. Why is it so difficult for you to understand? It's the only thing apart from: misrepresenting the IPCC CO2 and warming projections, claiming to be a member of the British legislature, spouting pseudoscience about ocean chemistry, claiming that arctic sea ice level is steady for a decade.
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Sept 28, 2010 22:01:32 GMT
The principle aim of my last post was to point out that cherry picking graphs to infer something that is untrue is not, in my view, technically a lie. That's a stretch. There is such a thing as lie by omission. If that doesn't do it for you then how about deception? Cherry picking graphs to infer something untrue is deception. Morally deception is just as wrong as lying.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 29, 2010 2:16:51 GMT
icefisher. For the zillionth time Monckton makes incorrect inferences, obfuscates *and* lies. Referencing a personal communication with Plimer is an example of his obfuscation, not lying - it is an appeal to authority that cannot be checked. As we know he often fails to reference things properly and then cheekily complains when people misunderstand him. Lying is misrepresenting the IPCC CO2 and warming projections, claiming to have a cure for HIV and the cold, claiming to be a member of the British legislature, spouting pseudoscience about ocean chemistry, claiming that arctic sea ice level is steady for a decade. Incorrect inferences are getting people to believe that sea levels have not risen and sea ice is safe by showing cherry picked graphs. I don't know how I'm supposed to make it any clearer than that. it is an appeal to authority that cannot be checked. Um no, that is not an Appeal To Authority. I've read several papers where the author referenced information via communication with one or more individuals. What do you want, a notarized letter of authentication? Why can't it be checked, don't you have email? Steve McIntyre caught the Team fibbing on many occasions, but being the gentleman he is, calling them "liars" was something he doesn't do and forbids it on his forum. In your book, Oxburgh should be a certified "liar". Is a false claim the same as a lie? A misrepresentation? Was Michael Mann a "liar"? Oh of course not, right..... climateaudit.org/2010/09/16/who-chose-the-eleven-an-answer/climateaudit.org/2010/09/10/more-oxburgh-misrepresentations/ You still haven't given one specific example of Monckton lying. Cough it up or drop it. What this is about is AGW is on its last leg and the True Believers are getting desperate because their house of cards are crumbling. You don't have one shred of direct evidence to support your claims, and with each passing year since IPCC AR4 your arguments are getting shot down one by one.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Sept 29, 2010 9:45:34 GMT
The principle aim of my last post was to point out that cherry picking graphs to infer something that is untrue is not, in my view, technically a lie. That's a stretch. There is such a thing as lie by omission. If that doesn't do it for you then how about deception? Cherry picking graphs to infer something untrue is deception. Morally deception is just as wrong as lying. I didn't mean exactly what I said. To correct myself: In the context of the discussion it is useful to separate out Monckton's explicit lies from his "lies by omission" or "deception". The reason is that certain skeptics such as some WUWT regulars can only cope with the simple logic involved in bare-faced lies. Anything that is a bit more indirect, such as a lie by omission, does not appear to be regarded as improper by some WUWT regulars. When "AGW people" point out that many of Monckton's techniques are improper (eg. showing a plot of sea level with a flat arrow going off to the right that will infer to many people that no further sea level rise is expected), these WUWT regulars complain bitterly that the AGW people are accusing Monckton of telling bare-faced lies. They then demand to see evidence involving nice simple quotes of Monckton telling nice, simple to parse, direct lies despite that not being the original accusation.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Sept 29, 2010 9:56:54 GMT
Yes I have, but you aren't listening: misrepresenting the IPCC CO2 and warming projections, claiming to have a cure for HIV and the cold, claiming to be a member of the British legislature, spouting pseudoscience about ocean chemistry, claiming that arctic sea ice level is steady for a decade.
See also my last post. Currently I have you in the same category of certain WUWT people who are confused by "complex" lies such as "If A caused B, B could not possibly cause A".
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 29, 2010 16:37:20 GMT
Yes I have, but you aren't listening: misrepresenting the IPCC CO2 and warming projections, claiming to have a cure for HIV and the cold, claiming to be a member of the British legislature, spouting pseudoscience about ocean chemistry, claiming that arctic sea ice level is steady for a decade. See also my last post. Currently I have you in the same category of certain WUWT people who are confused by "complex" lies such as "If A caused B, B could not possibly cause A". You are making statements Steve but not providing evidence that your statement is correct. Using your logic it appears you are the one lying. At least Monckton provides some references you provide nothing. Just leaving the implication and misleading people to a conclusion for which you have provided zero support. Take for example you claim that Monckton claims to be a member of the British Parliament. In a sense he is in that he is a member of a select club eligible for seat in the Parliament. He once had a hereditary seat in the Parliament and currently is limited to being seated by a limitation on the number of hereditary peers that can be seated at one time rather than by an abolishment of his club. This has been a controversial issue for centuries in Britain and like religion in government in America is a constant point of contention. So he has consistently said he is not seated and he does not vote, but that he is a member of the club and despite the intent to abolish it the job was never completed sort leaving parts of it in limbo. So in effect some of his statements of his status could be misconstrued but I think to actually rise to the level of intent to deceive is a bit over the top. People in the public spotlight all have moments like this, some simply have more teflon than others. Likewise his alleged claim to have cured HIV. Its not a claim he runs around promoting. Its more akin to the Al Gore invented the internet claim used by Al Gore foes to continually take pot shots at Gore over a statement of his long ago. Here Monckton invented a therapy that worked for him in curing a immune deficiency disorder, he applied for a patent and suggested it might help those with common colds and HIV as well. It is the people who continually sacrifice their own integrity, which never seems to be a problem because they have never earned any recognition for integrity in the first place, that run around spouting such nonsense that Al Gore claims to have invented the internet and Monckton claims to have cured HIV. Those are the liars. You can't back up your claims because they are all of this nature. Those kinds of claims simply cannot be backed up in a way that establishes Al Gore really thinks he invented the internet or that Monckton really thinks he cured HIV. So instead you simply use the technique of repeated accusations and snippets of stuff they have said in the past. None of it really deserves a response and merely reflects on your own lack of integrity. Further there is no question in an independent mind that the IPCC has misrepresented a lot about climate science and their estimated impacts. It would be pretty difficult in my view to misrepresent the IPCC as they so carefully constructed an illusion themselves. The IPCC reports are so amorphous and so carefully choreographed just about any criticism will be met with claims of misrepresentation. The world only had to see the discussion of "hide the decline" to see what the IPCC was all about Steve. You and Socold can try to explain that away but the common independent man is not buying your arguments. When that happens its time to take restock of the situation and realize that the IPCC has damaged its credibility perhaps fatally. Right now all they are is a useless appendage into which people are pouring money in hopes that lightning will strike and redeem them. But anybody who thinks there is an utility in pouring that money in or that the IPCC has anything to offer the world is simply deceiving himself. Bottom line if it doesn't start getting warm fast it won't matter what the IPCC does and even if it does start getting warming fast all that money will only be useful as an "I told you so". Some actually recognize that fact, others continue to cling to the sides of the sinking ship intent on going down with it. Politically its a lame duck doing nothing more than spending huge sums of taxpayer dollars for the sake of their own image. The IPCC lays there as an icon for the US tea party movement. The more money poured into it the louder it becomes the bigger tea party movement will grow. They couldn't have better advertising than the IPCC. . . .not that they don't have a few other icons to work with as well. . . .the IPCC is kind of like in the NWO in the WWF. The perfect villain. Lie, cheat, conspire, break the rules. . . .its the whole nine yards. Bottom line there is no future in accusing people of misrepresenting the IPCC the IPCC has proven themselves as being unmisrepresentible. Defending the IPCC is like defending OJ Simpson on anything. The best you can hope for is a 11 to 1 for conviction deadlock blocking a conviction.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Sept 29, 2010 17:36:38 GMT
Icefisher, I do give evidence, then after a few pages over worrying about whether Monckton lies or obfuscates I have to go and dig it out again. It's easy enough to Google for the evidence. If you don't believe it, there is enough information given to check it out: www.skepticalscience.com/How-Monckton-got-his-IPCC-predictions-wrong.htmlLet's be clear. Whether or not Monckton is a peer or technically a member of the House of Lords for some obscure archaic reason (I don't think he is), he has never been a member of the legislature, since he came by his peerage after voting rights for peerages were removed from his father. Claiming to be a member of the British legislature when giving evidence to the US legislature is a lie. His lie about the treatment of HIV and curing the cold is significant more because it puts him in the bonkers category. On page 1 I showed you the plot about sea ice that shows that this is a lie: We spend a lot of time discussing the tiny numbers of errors and areas of controversy in the IPCC reports. Bringing them up doesn't justify Monckton.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 29, 2010 19:19:20 GMT
Icefisher,
I do give evidence, then after a few pages over worrying about whether Monckton lies or obfuscates I have to go and dig it out again. It's easy enough to Google for the evidence. If you don't believe it, there is enough information given to check it out:
www.skepticalscience.com/How-Monckton-got-his-IPCC-predictions-wrong.html
Let's be clear. Whether or not Monckton is a peer or technically a member of the House of Lords for some obscure archaic reason (I don't think he is), he has never been a member of the legislature, since he came by his peerage after voting rights for peerages were removed from his father. Claiming to be a member of the British legislature when giving evidence to the US legislature is a lie. I have heard him questioned on that and he says he doesn't vote and doesn't currently have a seat. Prior to the recent reforms in the House of Lords all hereditary peers (which he is one) were members of the House of Lords and had voting seats. The reform legislation said that "seats" would be limited to 92 hereditary peers (down from over 700). The legislation did not address "membership" and the hereditary peer seats are allocated via a vote of the hereditary peers. So technically he does have arguments that he is a member of the House of Lords, he just isn't voting but is a member of a select group of people eligible for selection to a voting seat via a vote of his peers. Like most legislation all the nuances in the reform are seldom settled and for Monckton it is an important issue for obvious reasons. Clearly he is a member of a select club with an exclusive hold on a portion of the British Parliament. Whether he is a member or not is a debatable issue what isn't debatable is whether he is a "voting member". Whether his some other sort of member probably cannot even be resolved via legal research. There are plenty of gaps like this in laws as it becomes a matter of honor for some and of no consequence to others, so the gap is left intact kind of like a "pretender to a throne" in exile. Namely was there ever a legal paper that made them members? Or did they just kind of show up show their coat of arms and take a seat in kind of an informal round table of knights. British history is full of people getting run through with swords over issues related to whether somebody was a part of the circle or not and many Kings were on the wrong end of that sword. Its pretty clear the matter is still not completely resolved although no doubt there are a lot of people with different opinions on the matter. One of the fun things of English law is a lot of it still remains unwritten but has been passed on by tradition more than actual written code. But you are not very experienced in legislation are you Steve? You don't understand very well the law of unintended consequences and other matters of law that employs armies of attorneys and volumes of opinions and conflicting opinions on literally millions of matters. Its all just black and white. . . . right? And of course you know what is right also. . . . right? Here you are accusing him of holding a different opinion than you, not lying! ut the treatment of HIV and curing the cold is significant more because it puts him in the bonkers category.
Right and the world is nice orderly place. No place for Gods, homeopathy cures, ESP, or any kind of nonsense you don't completely understand. . . .because thats just too scary for you. . . .right? Here you are really accusing him of being more open minded than you, not lying! On page 1 I showed you the plot about sea ice that shows that this is a lie:
We spend a lot of time discussing the tiny numbers of errors and areas of controversy in the IPCC reports. Bringing them up doesn't justify Monckton.You are accusing him of nitpicking Steve. Not lying!
|
|
|
Post by steve on Sept 29, 2010 21:59:18 GMT
Icefisher, Monckton has *never* had the right to sit in the House of Lords and has never had the right to vote on or propose or modify law in the House of Lords. Therefore he has no right to claim that he is or has ever been: He is basically claiming to be analogous to a US Senator, and he thinks he is entitled to: As a diversion, he has come up with a fairy story that tries to justify a different thing - that he is a member of the House of Lords but with no voting rights despite the fact that the first line of the House Of Lords Act 1999 which was passed before Monckton inherited his peerage is: www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/34/section/1While I may not be a lawyer, but that seems pretty clear cut to me. That and the fact that the House of Lords, which is most certainly full of lawyers, has seen fit to slap him down. But his defence to membership of the HoL is not what he claimed. Someone who is a member of the Legislature has influence because they have voting rights. He had and has no voting rights. I am quite familiar with the legal tactic of spreading doubt where there is no doubt and making up a case where there is no case. The legal system allows people to play games involving threats of high cost if you or your lawyer can't lie as well as the other lawyer, or if you can't tell the difference between the law and lies. You are entitled to your view, but homeopathy is pseudoscience. ESP in its narrowest sense of detecting thoughts without seeing, hearing, touching, smelling or tasting a person is pseudoscience. People who peddle quack remedies are usually quacks. No. You asked for some lies and I've given you some lies. I note you don't seem to have addressed the most relevant and substantive lies are you catching the eye disease that causes blind spots off magellan?
|
|
|
Post by steve on Sept 29, 2010 22:16:48 GMT
I finally watched Magellan's video on page 4. Basically it is a load of science-free nonsense with Monckton claiming that the Copenhagen agreement was designed to enforce communist world government.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 29, 2010 23:24:44 GMT
Icefisher, Monckton has *never* had the right to sit in the House of Lords and has never had the right to vote on or propose or modify law in the House of Lords. Therefore he has no right to claim that he is or has ever been:
A member of the Upper House of the United Kingdom Legislature
He is basically claiming to be analogous to a US Senator, and he thinks he is entitled to:
As a diversion, he has come up with a fairy story that tries to justify a different thing - that he is a member of the House of Lords but with no voting rights despite the fact that the first line of the House Of Lords Act 1999 which was passed before Monckton inherited his peerage is:
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/34/section/1
While I may not be a lawyer, but that seems pretty clear cut to me. That and the fact that the House of Lords, which is most certainly full of lawyers, has seen fit to slap him down.
But his defence to membership of the HoL is not what he claimed. Someone who is a member of the Legislature has influence because they have voting rights. He had and has no voting rights. [/color][/quote] Now your argument is getting convoluted. I am not a lawyer and much less an expert on UK law but it appears he has a llegal argument for membership based upon superior law. Here it is: "The House of Lords Act 1999 debarred all but 92 of the 650 Hereditary Peers, including my father, from sitting or voting, and purported to - but did not - remove membership of the Upper House. Letters Patent granting peerages, and consequently membership, are the personal gift of the Monarch. Only a specific law can annul a grant. The 1999 Act was a general law. The then Government, realizing this defect, took three maladroit steps: it wrote asking expelled Peers to return their Letters Patent (though that does not annul them); in 2009 it withdrew the passes admitting expelled Peers to the House (and implying they were members); and it told the enquiry clerks to deny they were members: but a written Parliamentary Answer by the Lord President of the Council admits that general legislation cannot annul Letters Patent, so I am The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (as my passport shows), a member of the Upper House but without the right to sit or vote, and I have never pretended otherwise."What I read into that is opinions are cheap and the only thing that could extract his membership in the House of Lords is legislation that specifically names his "Letters Patent". It sounds like an incomplete process of expelling him, though the legislation may stand effectively barring his voting as a matter of legal House of Lords procedure. When you have papers from the Monarch giving you membership in the House of Lords the only way they can be annulled is by a law specifically annulling the papers. Thus while you can probably round up scores of folks with opinions on the matter none matter and would only matter in perhaps a Supreme Court-type decision on the matter. I can see a parallel where I would take the course of Monckton. If somebody passed a law saying anybody living on my street cannot live in their house; the police might be able to enforce it and by threat of force keep me out of my house but I have a deed to the house so is it still mine? If I were Monckton I would probably do the same thing and not give up readily. At any rate no matter what you think the answer is, the fact is he is not lying. Lying requires intentional deception and Monckton is not making his claims to deceive but instead to retain what is his. He believes he is a member, has at least a decent argument for it, and until some court says otherwise can honestly continue to pursue his claim. You might not like but but as they say Steve . . . .tough nutz! You are entitled to your view, but homeopathy is pseudoscience. ESP in its narrowest sense of detecting thoughts without seeing, hearing, touching, smelling or tasting a person is pseudoscience. People who peddle quack remedies are usually quacks.[/color][/quote] I would say all people who peddle "quack" remedies are "quacks" Steve; not just usually! But homeopathy cures are for the most part not quackery. And stuff like ESP is simply stuff we understand too little about. We are a victim of our perceptions and humans are not very perceptive compared to animals in the wild. Its probably most a case of just being lazy and overly sure about what we know and don't know. Animals though are tuned in and I believe people can tune in as well. And thats not in the Timothy Leary sort of way but that was an element of its attractiveness. Problem with sensory stimulants like all stimulants it comes at a cost of overall virility, unlike when you find a natural way to get there that is attributed to many. Science? The amount of it documented as science is quite limited. The primary reason is that it is extremely expensive to patent medicines and most natural homeopathic medicines are not even patentable so there is no profit potential to motivate somebody to carry it through the convoluted and expensive process. So the result is it cannot be marketed as a cure, thus relegating it to a narrow portion of the population that knows about it and co-mingles it with the quacks. The word for it is Catch 22 and a great example of what is wrong with government making policy and the law of unintended consequences. No. You asked for some lies and I've given you some lies. I note you don't seem to have addressed the most relevant and substantive lies are you catching the eye disease that causes blind spots off magellan?[/color][/quote] Well the House of Lords claim isn't a lie and I showed clearly why. He is a member by virtue of superior law. But the superior law doesn't help him on the voting issue possibly because HoL procedure is not outlined in the Letters of Patent. The issue with his therapy isn't a lie either. You didn't even pursue the issue of lying on the homeopathy issue so I guess thats already a dead argument in your view. You have lain your entire case on and issue of conflicting certificates of rights to membership in the House of Lords in a legal system that has yet to adjudicate the matter nor has any real burning need undergo the process except to assuage the nincompoops that think a title actually means something beyond a reward for historical accomplishments by the person or his ancestors. Dang Steve that is the whole issue. If you weren't so tied up and embroilled on being a follower of what somebody else tells you is so, and so supportive of government's using elitists to selectively weight what is important and not important to the alleged ignorant masses like some tyrannt's sycophant we wouldn't have a disagreement on any of this.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 29, 2010 23:27:31 GMT
I finally watched Magellan's video on page 4. Basically it is a load of science-free nonsense with Monckton claiming that the Copenhagen agreement was designed to enforce communist world government. Well thats a bit of an overstatement but not too far off as most socialists and communists support it strongly. . . .except for when it applies them being the giver rather then receiver. In America among the poor socialists of course its more a matter of ignorance and misunderstanding about who the givers and receivers are going to be. They have been receivers so long they have no idea where they stand in this.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 30, 2010 1:22:02 GMT
I finally watched Magellan's video on page 4. Basically it is a load of science-free nonsense with Monckton claiming that the Copenhagen agreement was designed to enforce communist world government. Well thats a bit of an overstatement but not too far off as most socialists and communists support it strongly. . . .except for when it applies them being the giver rather then receiver. In America among the poor socialists of course its more a matter of ignorance and misunderstanding about who the givers and receivers are going to be. They have been receivers so long they have no idea where they stand in this. The language in the Copenhagen document is not difficult to interpret, but notice steve does not argue the specifics, but descends again into attacking the messenger. steve is coming unglued because he and his have nothing else to offer, so like every Leftist sour grapes loser in a debate, demonizing your opponent is first and foremost. It's no different than socold's constant attempts at discrediting Roy Spencer.
|
|