while i'm certainly no friend of the enviro's, i would be a little leery of granting Monckton too much play.
he claims in the video to have been awarded a "Nobel prize". this does not seem to be true.
until he produces some reasonable explanation for making what appears to be a non-joking statement like this we should look askance at any claim he makes.
I think he's a bit to canny to make such a genuinely stupid and easily-disprovable claim. It's not a great joke, any more than his Obama birth certificate joke is good, but I took it to be a slam at the Nobel prize that was SHARED by Gore and the UN. He's buying into the UN part of it, as a vested party to the debate. As I say, not a great joke, but it seems to be his sense of humor.
It's not really a matter of granting him leeway, but of checking out his data. He's not really making claims, for all that he relies too much on the verbal convention of talking about "them" and "they."
Personalities shouldn't get in the way of the argument. But honestly, he is so prominent and his life is so documented, that we can't really be supposing he's claiming to have won a Nobel Prize. Really. Did you think that?
Personalities shouldn't get in the way of the argument.
odd. my personality usually causes arguments. at least, that's what they tell me.
yes, this is a joke, of sorts.
I think he's a bit to canny to make such a genuinely stupid and easily-disprovable claim.
nevertheless, he has done so repeatedly.
most disturbing is that he claims that he was given a pin by the Nobel committee. this seems to be delusional.
It's not really a matter of granting him leeway
actually, it is.
this is the same problem that the climate clowns at NOAA, EAU-CRU and NASA have. they may have some ( very little, i'll grant you ) good data but they have so poisoned the well that no rational person will pay attention to them anymore.
i'm not interested in seeing the like happen to our side.
we can't really be supposing he's claiming
prominent people make what would appear to be ludicrous statements all the time.
it usually starts happening shortly before they completely crack up.
I said "to" instead of "too". I must have been high on meth.
I think your point re a Nobel pin is irrelevant to the substance of his case. If it goes to his credibility, then it should be easy to find substantive examples of falsification, a la Gore. If the pin is all you got, asked and answered. You're misunderstanding or he is communicating incompetently on this minor point. You say "repeatedly." I haven't heard him speak except here. Perhaps some other context is more clear? In any event, it's a quibble, and quibbles are petty.
I would hardly compare a misunderstanding about a pin to the fraud of the ecoliars. Please provide an example of a substantive error, in Lord M's case. This will support your skepticism.
One of the YouTube commentsrs made a big deal that M was not a Lord, and didn't get any votes to enter the House of Lords. Just wrong. No votes, true, along with most other candidates, but he is a viscount, the proper honorific for which is Lord. You don't want to be in the same class of critic as the YouTube loudmouth. I think the basis of your singular qualm is infinitesimal. Substance, please, that I may be edified.
4 comments:
while i'm certainly no friend of the enviro's, i would be a little leery of granting Monckton too much play.
he claims in the video to have been awarded a "Nobel prize". this does not seem to be true.
until he produces some reasonable explanation for making what appears to be a non-joking statement like this we should look askance at any claim he makes.
I think he's a bit to canny to make such a genuinely stupid and easily-disprovable claim. It's not a great joke, any more than his Obama birth certificate joke is good, but I took it to be a slam at the Nobel prize that was SHARED by Gore and the UN. He's buying into the UN part of it, as a vested party to the debate. As I say, not a great joke, but it seems to be his sense of humor.
It's not really a matter of granting him leeway, but of checking out his data. He's not really making claims, for all that he relies too much on the verbal convention of talking about "them" and "they."
Personalities shouldn't get in the way of the argument. But honestly, he is so prominent and his life is so documented, that we can't really be supposing he's claiming to have won a Nobel Prize. Really. Did you think that?
Personalities shouldn't get in the way of the argument.
odd. my personality usually causes arguments. at least, that's what they tell me.
yes, this is a joke, of sorts.
I think he's a bit to canny to make such a genuinely stupid and easily-disprovable claim.
nevertheless, he has done so repeatedly.
most disturbing is that he claims that he was given a pin by the Nobel committee. this seems to be delusional.
It's not really a matter of granting him leeway
actually, it is.
this is the same problem that the climate clowns at NOAA, EAU-CRU and NASA have. they may have some ( very little, i'll grant you ) good data but they have so poisoned the well that no rational person will pay attention to them anymore.
i'm not interested in seeing the like happen to our side.
we can't really be supposing he's claiming
prominent people make what would appear to be ludicrous statements all the time.
it usually starts happening shortly before they completely crack up.
I said "to" instead of "too". I must have been high on meth.
I think your point re a Nobel pin is irrelevant to the substance of his case. If it goes to his credibility, then it should be easy to find substantive examples of falsification, a la Gore. If the pin is all you got, asked and answered. You're misunderstanding or he is communicating incompetently on this minor point. You say "repeatedly." I haven't heard him speak except here. Perhaps some other context is more clear? In any event, it's a quibble, and quibbles are petty.
I would hardly compare a misunderstanding about a pin to the fraud of the ecoliars. Please provide an example of a substantive error, in Lord M's case. This will support your skepticism.
One of the YouTube commentsrs made a big deal that M was not a Lord, and didn't get any votes to enter the House of Lords. Just wrong. No votes, true, along with most other candidates, but he is a viscount, the proper honorific for which is Lord. You don't want to be in the same class of critic as the YouTube loudmouth. I think the basis of your singular qualm is infinitesimal. Substance, please, that I may be edified.
Post a Comment