Lord Monckton has launched UKIP's environment policy which focusses on the climate change scam.UKIP will withdraw funding for the discredited corrupt IPPC, pull out of the EU Carbon Trading Scam and establish a Royal Commission to find the real science about climate change rather than the hysterical propaganda by career climate change "scientists".
Lord Monckton also said that Al Gore's propaganda piece, An Inconvenient Truth, in particular would be banned. People uncomfortable with banning things should note that propaganda is already banned in English schools.
wonkotsane is an author at Bloggers4UKIP.
Posts
9 comments:
The IPPC is totally discredited. Their calculation on melting glaciers in India was 300 years out.
ted
My name is Huw Peach and I am a Green Party activist from Shrewsbury, Shropshire, who finds it difficult to understand the scientific basis for UKIP's position on climate change.
I am very keen to discuss UKIP's environment policy with UKIP activists in as public a forum as possible, so that ordinary people, especially young people, can see how threadbare and irresponsible this policy truly is.
Here is Lord Monckton speaking to a US audience in autumn 2009:
http://mnfmi.org/tag/lord-monckton-climate-change...
And here is a detailed scientific rebuttal of Lord Monckton's slide-show by John Abraham, an associate professor in the School of Engineering at the University of St Thomas in Minnesota.
http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/
Abraham followed up all of Monckton's sources, e-mailing the authors of the papers Monckton cited.
All of them said that Monckton, UKIP's deputy leader, was mis-interpreting or mis-representing the data and their conclusions.
You didn't want to have this discussion while the climate change propagandists from University of East Anglia were in the news because they were exposed for lying, manipulating figures, making stuff up, hiding inconvenient data, destroying evidence, bullying panels into censoring climate change realists, destroying careers of real scientists who had different opinions to them and raked in 10s of millions of pounds in grants from the taxpayer to keep them in the comfortable lifestyle to which they have become accostomed.
Why is that Huw Peach, Green Party activist? And why do you think people should put the opinions of someone who is making a career telling people that we're all going to die from global warming above the opinions of someone with no vested interest other than personal opinion?
Don't forget that in the recent election, global warming realist UKIP got about 4x as many votes as global warming propagandist Green Party and it's only because of the inherently unfair FPTP system that the Greens managed to get that psychotic communist elected in Brighton. So who more accurately represents public opinion Huw Peach, Green Party activist?
Thanks for the welcome, wonkotsane.
I was hoping to discuss the way UKIP's new Deputy Leader, Lord Monckton, repeatedly and demonstrably mis-represented the science of climate change at a talk at Bethel University, Minnesota on October 14th 2009.
I just thought that ordinary people, who are interested in the state of grassroots online politics might also be interested in seeing the level of debate on the vital issue of climate change, between activists who feel disenfranchised by the (I agree with you!) unfair electoral system.
John Abraham, a scientist, who watched UKIP's Deputy Leader, Lord Monckton, speak last October, spent the next few months painstakingly following up all of your deputy leader's scientific references.
He then checked with the authors of the papers to see if they agreed with Lord Monckton's conclusions.
They didn't.
Here is one example.
See: http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/ slide 12.
In his speech (slide 12), Lord Monckton cites a 2006 paper by Monnett and Gleason, which says that polar bears are not dying from global warming, but are dying from storms, so there is nothing to be concerned about.
John Abraham read Monnett and Gleason's paper and found that this was not what they said (see his slide 13).
He then contacted Charles Monnett by e-mail, and asked him directly (see his slide 14).
Monnett replied, 'My published work suggests polar bears may drown under conditions that are expected to develop due to decreasing sea ice...
... I do not believe that Chris Monckton has read my work or recent work of prominent polar bear biologists that is easily obtained thru Google.'
This is just a first example of how your leader is mis-representing the science.
There are plenty more (John Abraham's talk is over 80 minutes long).
What do you think, wonkotsane?
I think you're misunderstanding or misrepresenting science. Science is about looking at the evidence, forming a theory and then testing that theory to destruction. Just because someone who is making a career out of telling people global warming is going to kill half the planet's population doesn't agree with Lord Monkton, doesn't mean that he's wrong. The global warming propagandists are closing down debate and refusing to test their already disproven theories.
What are your qualifications in the field of climate science Huw? My field of expertise is IT but I don't have any formal qualifications for the job I do yet my job title is "Subject Matter Expert". Lord Monkton might not have a degree in a relevant branch of science or engineering, it doesn't mean he doesn't know what he's talking about.
I, like you and Lord Monckton, UKIP’s deputy leader, have no scientific qualifications, wonkotsane.
However, I have read enough about climate science over the last few decades to have an opinion on it, and to know that UKIP’s view on anthropogenic warming wilfully ignores what the vast majority of scientists with expertise in the matter, are telling us.
Far from wanting to ‘close down the debate’, I would like to open up the debate and (like John Abraham) shine a light on the science that underpins UKIP policy.
In my view, the more open and public this debate is, the better.
So, let’s go back to the polar bears (John Abraham's first evidence of mis-representation). After all, as you rightly said, 'science is about looking at the evidence, forming a theory and then testing that theory to destruction'.
In the presentation to the Minnesota Free Market Institute, Lord Monckton says (about polar bears) ‘The whole story was a fiction’ (28:53 minutes into video, http://mnfmi.org/2009/10/22/new-monckton-presentation-video-includes-slides/ )
As I pointed out earlier, the author of the polar bear paper, which UKIP’s deputy leader cited, came to a very different conclusion from that of Lord Monckton.
Charles Monnett said in an e-mail to John Abraham that he thought that Lord Monckton had not read his work or recent work by prominent polar bear biologists.
It appears, therefore, that UKIP’s Lord Monckton mis-represented Monnett’s science.
Could we discuss why that is the case, before moving on to other evidence that John Abraham provides in his excellent, point-by-point, reference-by-reference analysis of Lord Monckton’s presentation:
http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/
Nearly 2 days after your last comment, I am interested in your comment about 'global warming propagandists closing down the debate', wonkotsane.
I asked one rational question about the apparent mis-representation of a scientific source by UKIP's new Deputy Leader.
I referenced the example, but you did not engage.
How have I closed down the debate?
Re: Closing down debate.
I am now being excluded from debate on this thread about Lord Monckton becoming UKIP's Deputy Leader:
http://bloggers4ukip.blogspot.com/2010/06/lord-monckton-appointed-deputy-leader.html
It's understandable why my comments are being blocked, and I fully understand wonkotsane's reasons for doing so, but I just think the rhetoric about 'closing down the debate' might need a fresh look.
Post a Comment