Lord Monckton Reports on The Climate Change Scare Machine

Of course this is the well known Aristotlean fallacy of logic :

Argumentum ad Verecundiam - Appeal to Authority - Argument from Authority
Translation: "Argument from respect/modesty" (Latin)

or Ipse Dixit (Translation: "He, himself, said it") (Latin)

A Quote…

"It is not what the man of science believes that distinguishes him, but how and why he believes it. His beliefs are tentative, not dogmatic; they are based on evidence, not on authority or intuition."

Source: Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy, p. 527.

The original seed was a link to and a couple of quotations from the actual story at the UKIP Scotland Blog. My posting made no other comment than what was already to be seen at that webpage. However your comment contained no explanation other than a simple URL reference to a document which is an appeal to authority. No empirical repeatable experimental evidence is offered.

Worse still this is a complete red herring, so far as the originally seeded story is concerned. The main gist of Monckton's argument is that this is a political and fiscal matter, and that the "climate scare" as he calls it is but a mere instrument of opression which is causing millions of deaths worldwide.

Monckton again invites the audience to check the facts for themselves, and indeed upon doing so, I did find that there have been food riots, caused by diversion of land and food crops to create biofuels, which themselves consume more fossil fuels in creating them, than they actually produce as a result.

Again your scientific arguments are fatuous, and largely irrelevant, since as Monckton points out, this is a Political and Financial issue, and most likely a fraudulent one at that. See the videos, check out the claims, and read the UK Fraud Act. People made claims "knowing them to be, or might be, untrue or misleading". As a result, people have "made a gain for themselves or another", people have been "subject to a loss or the risk iof a loss". This is the definition of fraud in the UK.

The National Academy's, or indeed Lord Monckton's personal "knowledge" is unimportant in the final analysis. It is the Facts, based upon repeatable empirical Evidence which count. Monckton invites You All to check the facts which he informs you exist, whereas the National Academy and indeed other such organisations, tend to obfuscate the facts by using a barrage of unsubstantiated rhetoric, and other Aristotlean errors of discourse.

Sadly you are repeating yourself and offer no new arguments of ANY empirical evidence or repeatable experiment with data to back up your assertions. You speak as if you, yourself are in fact a member of the "National Academy" and actually understand what is in that document you quote from. The document itself offers no empirical evidence to back up what you (and they) maintain. The logical conclusion that you (and they) draw from what is presented is false.

Whilst neither I, nor I believe Lord Monckton, deny that the climate changes, as it has done for 4.5 Billion years (billions of years before man even existed as a species), we both take issue with the illogical conclusion that man has had in the last fifty years some catastrophic effect on it which superceeds the gargantuan natural planetary & cosmic forces.

Monckton points out that there are other reasons for wanting to control energy and food production. Those reasons are well reported in past Human history, in numerous texts from even as far as early Roman & even Assyrian, Babelonian and Mongol Empire times. For you to remark that such suggestions are a "conspiracy theory", only goes to show your ignorance and lack of knowledge on these subjects.

Yes there may be a conspiracy (A plot to carry out some harmful or illegal act - especially a political plot), and yes Lord monckton has a theory (A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of an organized system) about that. So then it is indeed a conspiracy theory, was that meant to be an insult?

Can I recommend that you view the following video by Dr. W. Soon, a Reseacher in Solar Physics, and Climate Change. In this lecture to a group of Academics, and Reseachers he explains that the Sun is mostly responsible for climate changes we see here on Earth.

The View from Galileo's Window - the Sun, the CO2 Monster, and Earth's Climate.

Well Mr. "Jack O Lantern", this is what we have come to expect from the likes of you. You are prepared to just dash of some snide comment backed up by a passing reference to a six years old opion piece by some so called authoritative source. However when this is challenged, then you have no answer other than to rehash this tired old paradigm.

When it is pointed out that your argument is fatuous, and indeed irrelevant, you again then resort to petty analysis of some insignificant points, and then resort to the old battle cry of "conspiracy theorist", without even knowing what that actually means.

Even when it is pointed out to you the meaning of the phrase (and it was you who wrote that), you then retort that you are "not interested". You refuse to even view a short lecture with slides which would go a long way to explaining to you how the Earth/Sun?CO2/Climate system works in practice, and indeed points out a number of instances of fraud within the so called "evidence" used by the UNIPCC.

You refuse to look at any contrary evidence to your own personal theory, and now claim that you are bored. It is a sad endightment on our educational system, however I am not going to delete your name calling and ad hominem remarks. They will be left for all to see just how egregious you and your ilk really are.

What a load of old pompous baloney that is Mr. Jack O' Lantern. It is literally hokum.

Not once did you offer any empirical evidence to the contrary of what Lord Monckton claimed during his video exposé on the Alex Jones Show, which is what this posting was actually about.

Instead you chose to foist your own narrow view that so called "academies" must be right about their own theories of climate change, simply by virtue of being in that exalted position, and even quoting from a childrens' magic storyteller, J.K.Rowling.

You failed to understand that even though the title of the article is "Lord Monckton Reports on The Climate Change Scare Machine", that the main thrust of his argument was that the "machine" is not a scientific one, but instead a political, financial, and barbarous one. Still you continued to offer so called "scientific" arguments, but again with zero empirical evidence to back up what you claimed.

When it was suggested that you watch a video by Dr. Soon, and again he explains not only the science, but also the political aspect, by invoking the story of Galileo, and how he was treated when his empirical evidence went against the considered majority view at that time. This is an important episode in science history, but you denigrate this and call it a "wacko conspiracy theory". This is a debasement of empirical science that is hard to comprehend.

Still you continue to use the phrase "conspiracy theory" as an intended insult, even after it was explained to you what these words actually mean. In your latest diatribe you embarrass only yourself, as you throw in the old "denier" accusation with all it's overtones. Well I don't suppose you even know that virtually nobody is denying that climate change exists and is happening as it always has happened in the last 4.5 billion years since our planet was born.

As usual when an alarmist is losing the argument, you run away to mutter under your breath.

Ladies and Gentlemen, please do watch those videos, read The United Kingdom Fraud Act 2006, and the associated report by Australian climate researcher, Joanne Nova. See the evidence for yourselves, and then you decide what is true and what isn't.

Lord Monckton is right to call for criminal prosecutions, if as a result of false prospectuses offered by tainted "scientists", people suffered a loss or were subject to a loss. If promoters of misleading advice to Governments resulted in those persons "having made a gain for themselves or another", then according to UK Staute Law, there would seem to be a Prima Facie case of Fraud. Of course this is all over the head of the blinkered ideas, of writers like Mr. Jack O'Lantern, whose analysis is as obviously false as his name.

QED