“Lord” Monckton calls Garnaut a Nazi, to visit Adelaide

Page 15 of today’s Tiser (which of course does not contain any letters rebutting the “it’s all volcanoes” crap that they spewed on Wednesday).

Monckton called Garnaut a Nazi in a presentation in Los Angeles. Monckton has form (he tastefully flung around the term “Hitler Youth” at Copenhagen) and this was no slip of the tongue – his powerpoint presentation has the swastika on a white circle against a red background. On the red background is “Australian government economist Final Report, 2011”.

Tony Abbott will share a stage with this clown at a Perth conference on mining. Meanwhile, Monckton’s booking at the Adelaide German Club on July 22 is being “looked into” by its president. Um, reputational risk, much?

Advertisements

6 Comments to ““Lord” Monckton calls Garnaut a Nazi, to visit Adelaide”

  1. Strangely I am not surprised that you would comment on this, however it does show a great deal of hypocrisy that you do, Quite simply as you insist on labelling anyone who is sceptical about the AGW theory as a “denier” or a “denailist” and that is a very clear attempt to associate sceptics with holocaust deniers. I would think that you should be the last person to complain about making allusions to the Nazi’s in one’s rhetoric.

    As it stands Monckton has apologised for his intemperate remarks and I wonder if you can do the same?

    Cheers Comrade

    • Oh how you make me laugh Iain.

      You would prefer the term skeptic, because skepticisim has an honourable tradition. Deniers and skeptics are different beasts. You’re simply trying to conflate. Sorry chum(p), won’t work.

      I also love how you try to smear me by comparing me to that joke “Lord” Monckton.

      While we’re on the subject of hypocrisy and telling people what they are and aren’t allowed to write about/comment on – I notice you didn’t come out with your usual idiocies when I posted about the parlous state of the world’s oceans. Is that because, as a red-hot keen environmentalist (sic), you acknowledge there’s a problem? Or is it because you don’t have a ready slur/false analogy/set of bullshit to fling out?

  2. Vail Lord Monckton? More crap!

  3. Oh how you make me laugh Iain.

    The feeling is entirely mutual 😉

    You would prefer the term skeptic, because skepticisim has an honourable tradition. Deniers and skeptics are different beasts. You’re simply trying to conflate. Sorry chum(p), won’t work.

    Are you really so naive about your own rhetoric? 🙄

    I also love how you try to smear me by comparing me to that joke “Lord” Monckton.

    If the cap fits then perhaps you should be prepared to wear it. For someone who claims to be all about the way that the science supports your argument you seem awfully keen to use the ad hominem when dealing with your interlocutors.

    While we’re on the subject of hypocrisy and telling people what they are and aren’t allowed to write about/comment on – I notice you didn’t come out with your usual idiocies when I posted about the parlous state of the world’s oceans.

    You know what, I don’t comment on every post that you put up here but to some extent I agree that the oceans of the world could do with some cleaning up and reducing the use of disposable plastics and a better control of the way that fishing is carried out would be good too, however I don’t think that all lfe will vaniush from the oceans any time soon either.

    Is that because, as a red-hot keen environmentalist (sic), you acknowledge there’s a problem? Or is it because you don’t have a ready slur/false analogy/set of bullshit to fling out?

    It saddens me that a fellow Englishman misunderstands the correct use of “(sic)” in English prose, but besides that you obviously have the mistaken belief that one has to be a follower of the Gaian warming cult to care about the planet. Now as I write this I look out of my window upon the bushland where I live at trees that I have planted and nurtured and I want to ask you just what you have done, in real terms, contribute to the well being of the biosphere?

  4. I have created a post and addressed each of your points that you raise. Hope this helps. ACN

    It is my understanding that satellite thermal data has been left out of the Governments Climate Committee’s computer modelling because it conflicts with the data gathered on the ground. (i.e. ground data when allegedly collected in carefully selected places show increased global temperatures and satellite thermal data shows a cooling earth. (I think it was Dr David Evans who was a committee member who left to committee because of dishonesty in recording and selecting of data to prove a point.
    I still don’t know what to think about data apparently showing Arctic ice thinning – in the meantime the last two European and North American winters have been particularly cold.
    Further data shows a slowing of sun spot activity with eminent global cooling.
    Julia Gillard announced yesterday that CO2 levels are the highest they have been for millions of years. I would like to know why they were so high before and why was life on earth not wiped out? Indeed in the time of the dinosaurs, CO2 levels were much higher and life thrived. Am I missing something here or what?
    It is these missing links which fail to prove the argument in the Global Warming argument. I am a former police officer and whilst I am not a scientist, gathering of evidence to prove a case – either on the balance of probability or beyond all reasonable doubt is my area of expertise. It is on this basis I am not able to accept the argument at there is in fact global warming or any kind of rapid climate change. One of the things I have also been very suspicious of as a copper was when witnesses were untruthful or failed to tell the entire truth. This was a way to determine if a witness was a hostile witness and therefore sided with the accused and not to be trusted or was a truthful and honest witness and produced evidence to support their argument or claims and even identified evidence that was not in their favour. Climate change protagonists have allegedly persistently hidden evidence that did not support their argument or tended to debunk their argument. This is why people such a Dr David Evans left the Government Climate Committee and Patrick More, a co-founder of Green Peace left that organisation.
    The global warming protagonists call us sceptics, rednecks and in general insult us or belittle those of us who do not accept their argument. Since when has science been proven by the biggest insult? I have also taken note of human behaviour in conflict as a police officer and largely, people who have lost the argument, debate or whatever and have little or no evidence to support their claims, resort to insulting the other party. This again is evidence that global warming is not well supported by scientific evidence.
    Assertions about humans not even being able to predict the weather is a prime example. Yesterday in Adelaide I was supposed to receive a blast of winter with strong winds and up to 30 mm of rain. I had a few drops (2mm) and some wind, no damage to trees or anything.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: