|
Post by steve on Sept 30, 2010 9:49:28 GMT
Er. No. My argument is simple. His father was thrown out of the House of Lords by legislation initiated by an elected body and affirmed by the House of Lords itself and the Queen. This is the actuality. All the stuff about letters patent is archaic nonsense that is about as relevant as to whether he has the right to herd his sheep across London Bridge.
Monckton's argument is complex because confusion and obfuscation can be used to obscure what is essentially the case: that Monckton has absolutely no grounds for claiming he is a representative of the institutions that govern the United Kingdom, and that he has done so to try and give his "evidence" the authority of those institutions.
I guess the make up of the US makes the idea that some "federal" government body has over-reached itself more realistic. But Monckton's peerage is the tiniest of many issues that his UK political party (UKIP) are concerned about (UK membership of the EU) but as an old white man party they are getting very little traction and got stuffed at the last General Election. Perhaps they need some good looking Scottish woman with a low IQ but an abrasive personality to lead them.
Or conmen. I don't know what Monckton's links are to homeopathy, so I didn't have an issue to pursue.
I see you are still ignoring Monckton's misrepresentations of the IPCC CO2 and warming projections.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Sept 30, 2010 10:02:37 GMT
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. Monckton said that the aim of the Copenhagen agreement was to create a world government. Perhaps you could listen again and transcribe the bit where he talks about a "communist" world government. He did use the word "communist". It might all sound very shocking when put into those terms, but we already have institutions such as the World Trade Organisation which has given us the supposed benefit of massive amounts of cheap Chinese tat and a huge trade imbalance that cannot be unwound. Monckton is not a "demon". He's a pompous legalistic showman.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 30, 2010 11:35:36 GMT
Er. No. My argument is simple. His father was thrown out of the House of Lords by legislation initiated by an elected body and affirmed by the House of Lords itself and the Queen. This is the actuality. All the stuff about letters patent is archaic nonsense that is about as relevant as to whether he has the right to herd his sheep across London Bridge. So do you have an authority on that Steve or is that just your opinion? I mean why would their be a partisan attempt to collect the Letters of Patent? Why did it fail to achieve bipartisan support? But that seems to be your story quickly latching on to political points and viewing them as incontrovertible fact. So I am not surprised one whit. Monckton's argument is complex because confusion and obfuscation can be used to obscure what is essentially the case: that Monckton has absolutely no grounds for claiming he is a representative of the institutions that govern the United Kingdom, and that he has done so to try and give his "evidence" the authority of those institutions. My you are also quick to get into somebody's mind also. Is that an ESP power of yours? I would suspect that a grant to membership by the Monarch and a legal opinion on the matter from a UK lawyer Monckton just might have other motives. At any rate I don't get how one member of any legislative body carries the entire "authority of those institutions". After all even if the member can vote, it still requires a majority of members to do what those institutions do. Maybe its just a special interest hanging around like a groupie looking for favors. . . .if so like who cares? I guess the make up of the US makes the idea that some "federal" government body has over-reached itself more realistic. But Monckton's peerage is the tiniest of many issues that his UK political party (UKIP) are concerned about (UK membership of the EU) but as an old white man party they are getting very little traction and got stuffed at the last General Election. Perhaps they need some good looking Scottish woman with a low IQ but an abrasive personality to lead them.I guess that might say something about what the people want. Whether they want somebody to represent them or if they want somebody to think for them. I guess if you need somebody to think for you. . . .well. . . .we know what type you vote for. LOL!
|
|
|
Post by steve on Sept 30, 2010 14:42:42 GMT
Nor do I. But I didn't say "entire" authority.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 30, 2010 15:24:21 GMT
Nor do I. But I didn't say "entire" authority. You said "the" authority. Thats it. . . .entire. I put the emphasis in to wake you up. So you were wrong. Thats fine! So what authority did you believe you were talking about? (notice I did not call you a liar)
|
|
|
Post by steve on Sept 30, 2010 15:55:42 GMT
Icefisher, You are confusing yourself by your attempt to be pedantic.
I don't know exactly how much of the authority he *tried* to give to his evidence. It might have been some. It might have been all. But it wasn't zero. If it makes you feel better:
Still no comment on Monckton misrepresenting IPCC CO2 and warming projections? Are you waiting till we go on a page or two so people don't see the link I put.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 30, 2010 16:58:42 GMT
Considering there are Congressional delegates without voting rights in several U.S. territories why does it bother some so much that Monckton has a title without power? It is just another card played, no different than race baiters and class warfare tactics etc. used to discredit substantive arguments from their opponents. It's the oldest Lefty trick in the book; demonize your opponent.
As far as steve's link to 'SkepticalScience', oh brother......
|
|
|
Post by steve on Sept 30, 2010 17:38:36 GMT
You can't see the faults in it, magellan, so you need to criticize it by having a go at the messenger.
Unlike much of Monckton's output, there is plenty of detail, including citations, to explain how they have come to their conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 30, 2010 23:39:24 GMT
Icefisher, You are confusing yourself by your attempt to be pedantic.
I don't know exactly how much of the authority he *tried* to give to his evidence. It might have been some. It might have been all. But it wasn't zero. If it makes you feel better:
he has done so to *try* and give his "evidence" some or all of the authority of those institutions. You haven't made a connection Steve between Monckton's legal claim to his title and the rights of membership so conferred to some effort on his part to transfer powers/authorities of the UK legislature to any evidence he gave which is mostly self supporting by virtue of the authorities he named as producing the evidence. You have nothing to add here at all. All you have is an ad hominem to throw around about Monckton's legal claim to his title. A title he clearly owns and nobody disputes but over what the title does and does not confer. There is no question Monckton is in high campaigning mode (having stood several times for appointment to a vacant seat) and there is no question you are helping him by playing the role of a fire breathing AGW dragon conveniently positioning itself for decapitation by a knight/Viscount of the realm. Thats a heroic role that is getting more heroic every day. no comment on Monckton misrepresenting IPCC CO2 and warming projections? Are you waiting till we go on a page or two so people don't see the link I put. We wouldn't want that to happen. Which post number was it? All I saw was you complaining about him nitpicking some IPCC graphs.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 1, 2010 9:24:55 GMT
Icefisher, like Monckton, you don't know what ad hominem means.
I'm not playing the role of a fire-breathing dragon. I'm studying the psychology of your and magellan's advocacy of Monckton particularly as you started out by claiming that you hadn't taken much interest in him previously. I think magellan is mainly steering clear, but you like legalistic arguments too much.
You are correct that most of what he does is at the level of the nitpick. But usually he is nitpicking at something that doesn't exist like his representation of IPCC projections.
Basically, he knows that the IPCC report is a good representation of science and its projections are largely playing out, so he modifies their graphs to make them wrong then complains. I'm glad that we are clear that you find that acceptable.
|
|
|
Post by hunterson on Oct 1, 2010 12:39:27 GMT
steve, You are a telepathic genius. Please tell us where Monckton says, "Basically, he knows that the IPCC report is a good representation of science and its projections are largely playing out, so he modifies their graphs to make them wrong then complains." Would you be happier if you had a little red button to deal with Monckton, Lindzen, Spencer, Pielke, Christy, Curry, and others who point out that AGW as pushed in the public square, is crap? Here is your little red button. Have at it. ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UHN3zHoYA0&feature=player_embedded
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 1, 2010 13:01:29 GMT
hunter,
You are underestimating Monckton's intelligence if you think that he is not aware of the techniques he uses to disinterpret the findings reported in the IPCC reports and other science papers. I don't need ESP for that.
|
|
|
Post by hunterson on Oct 1, 2010 13:10:13 GMT
hunter, You are underestimating Monckton's intelligence if you think that he is not aware of the techniques he uses to disinterpret the findings reported in the IPCC reports and other science papers. I don't need ESP for that. So he can't be sincere, he must be cynical and wicked. I suggest you use that red button.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 1, 2010 14:20:36 GMT
Icefisher, like Monckton, you don't know what ad hominem means. I don't speak Latin Steve. But you obviously don't know what it means in English and thats why you guys are losing the war of public opinion. I'm not playing the role of a fire-breathing dragon. I'm studying the psychology of your and magellan's advocacy of Monckton particularly as you started out by claiming that you hadn't taken much interest in him previously. I think magellan is mainly steering clear, but you like legalistic arguments too much.
What I know Steve is your argument did not consist of putting up a graph used by Monckton and then showing how the graph was improperly used. Instead it consisted of a lot irrelevant statements about what he wears, how he combs his hair, that he has strange hobbies, and that he is a liar. All diversions from the fact you have no argument that will win any points it will all be nitpicking and lacking in force. What you don't realize is all the diversions aren't helping.
We wouldn't want that to happen. Which post number was it? All I saw was you complaining about him nitpicking some IPCC graphs.
You are correct that most of what he does is at the level of the nitpick. But usually he is nitpicking at something that doesn't exist like his representation of IPCC projections. The stock in trade of the IPCC has been to create illusions with science. You are angry because Monckton doesn't go after the underlying science but instead he goes after the illusion ("Hide the Decline"). Monckton is quite effective at uncovering the illusion and your response is to invoke plausible deniability (the entire purpose of the email exchange to ensure the backdoor was open to complete the escape) that Monckton is saying something incorrect about the data instead. The problem Steve with that approach is the public gets what you are trying to do. They get what the team was trying to do in the Climategate emails. Its a no brainer for it seems everybody but those without a brain. . . .those that let others do their thinking for them. Basically, he knows that the IPCC report is a good representation of science and its projections are largely playing out, so he modifies their graphs to make them wrong then complains. I'm glad that we are clear that you find that acceptable.The Royal Society disagrees with you. They point out the models have a slope of between .2 and .4c per decade. The actual results are not inside of that. So it is incorrect to say the IPCC projections are playing out. The Royal Society also says that the net effect of all human activity has caused a positive climate forcing of about 1.6w/m2 +-.8w/m2. (para. 28). Net result the biased RS claims that the GHG is responsible for half the warming over the past 150 years (.4C of .8C). The missing heat theory has yet to be fully incorporated into IPCC reports thus it is incorrect to say any projection of the IPCC is playing out as the "missing heat" theory is obviously not part of a projection but instead a theory about why the projection is not performing forming a new projection that hasn't yet played out that eventually the missing heat will appear. So the fact is Monckton gets that, says that, and you claim he is wrong and he knows he is wrong. But the Royal Society paper refutes you and clearly states that there are major problems to be resolved.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 1, 2010 16:01:19 GMT
hunter, You are underestimating Monckton's intelligence if you think that he is not aware of the techniques he uses to disinterpret the findings reported in the IPCC reports and other science papers. I don't need ESP for that. So he can't be sincere, he must be cynical and wicked. I suggest you use that red button. He may sincerely believe that CO2 is not a threat and have justified to himself that it is OK to misrepresent IPCC projections for the greater good. He may believe in a philosophical model of the world where winning the argument is more important than being "right". I don't know how cynical or wicked that makes him.
|
|