Tuesday, August 31, 2010

{#7} SPPI - Lord Monckton's "Nils Axel Mörner" claims examined

Dear Mr. Ferguson, and Lord Monckton,
It would be nice to keep this civil. Simply, because you may not like me, or what I’m writing, doesn’t mean I can’t ask you, Robert Ferguson... Science Public Policy Institute, and SPPI’s brain trust: Lord Monckton, some pointed, and public, questions.

I shall continue my little examination of the way you folks present science to a public in need of real and complete information, learning, understanding and appreciation for the global situation humanity is in. In this email {#7} I shall review statements made on SPPI’s website and in the MFMI talk by Lord Chris Monckton regarding Nils Axel Mörner PhD and his claims.

Quoting the 10/14/9 MFMI talk -
MFMI 27:35
LM: “Nickolas who has written 520 papers on the subject.” Then, there is Monckton’s often repeated sentiment: “Professor Niklas Mörner, the world’s foremost expert on sea level.”

Wednesday, August 25, 2010

{#6} Examining Lord Monckton's Rhetoric

This is the sixth email in my series examining Lord Monckton's 10/14/9 presentation to the MFMI in Minnesota. The talk can be found here.

Lord Christopher Monckton,
Early in your 10/14/9 Minnesota Free Market Institute presentation you make the following promises to your audience:

“But, one point I do want to make, is that you must not believe a word I say.
... I am not gonna to tell you what the truth about the climate is.
I am simply going to tell you a series of facts from the science and the data and the peer reviewed literature...
“And that is what we are going to do tonight, there won’t be rhetoric, there will just be boring fact after fascinating fact.”

~ ~ ~
In this sixth segment of our correspondence and my examination of your 10/14/9 MFMI presentation, allow us to examine how well your actual words live up to your promise. Early in your presentation you did give us your word that you would present the latest science facts sans “rhetoric.”

Tuesday, August 24, 2010

{#5} Lord Monckton about your claims regarding AIT and the UK Trial

{This is the fifth in my emails to Lord Monckton, examining his 10/14/9 MFMI presentation}

Lord Monckton,
You seem to be avoiding me, but my examination into your claims will continue - as will my attempt to engage you in a frank discussion on the matter of the voracity of your many claims regarding your promulgation of the notion that AGW is a hoax. Today, I ask about your often repeated implications that a UK Judge found AGW to be a hoax.

Sunday, August 22, 2010

{#4} Questioning the veracity of Lord Monckton’s attributions

{This is the fourth email to Lord Monckton examining his 10/14/9 MFMI presentation}
Considering that Lord Monckton’s PowerPoint presentation offered the best venue for clear citations or reference to the many quotes the Lord tosses out. I thought it would be interesting to look at the side notes with his slides and see if LM offered any information that would help in tracking down the veracity of his various quotations.

From his 10/14/9 PowerPoint presentation: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/13460116/

Saturday, August 21, 2010

{#3} Citizenschallenge v Monckton

my 2nd email to Lord Monckton 8/16/10
Lord Monckton’s 2nd reply to me 8/17/10
my response (3rd email) to Lord Monckton 8/20/10
Dear Mr. Miesler, - Answers are in the body of your email below. Since you have chosen to be impolite, these are the last answers you will receive. All further emails from this address will be auto-deleted before I see them. - Monckton of Brenchley

Lord Monckton, please don’t run and hide. You claim yourself ready to debate.
Therefore, please allow us to take part in a frank discussion.
Sincerely, Peter Miesler August 20, 2010

(ps. I sent my email by way of a new email address, so Lord Monckton did see it, whether he's willing to reply remains to be seen.)

Tuesday, August 17, 2010

“What is Science Without Religion?”

my CFI Forum post
Lord Monckton replied to my letter by sharing a 3070 word essay he’d written a while back: “What is Science Without Religion?” Unfortunately, it side stepped rather than answered my questions. The essay drifts, in that it’s about religion and science, but he manages to fit in all sorts of political rants (DDT, HIV, dishonesty of money grubbing, and serial cowardice of scientists, etc.). I’ve tried pruning the essay to its salient points and it still weights in at 850 words. I have only cut, otherwise I haven’t changed a word.

It would be very cool if some of you deeper thinkers could skim through this list and please comment on whatever talking points catch your attention - be sure to include paragraph #.

Why am I pushing this?: I believe this sort of misleading Pied Piper song should stop being left standing without objection - which is happening too much and is a main reason serious science understanding is in such dismal shape. Please help.


Dear Mr. M, - Thank you for your enquiry. The following essay, “What is Science Without Religion” which appears on SPPI’s blog (http://www.sppiblog.org), should answer your questions. Lord Monckton

{#2} Replying to Lord Monckton's 8-16-10 email

Lord Monckton,
Thank you for your reply of 8/16/10.
However, the essay you shared, “What is Science Without Religion,” side stepped my actual questions. First and foremost, (regarding 5:20; 9:45; 10:45), calling up the Bible in the manner you do demands a fidelity to the notion of a Biblical six day creation that occurred 6,000 years ago. Appealing to the one literal notion of the Bible and ignoring the other seems like a cynical showman stunt - dishonest to all.

Therefore, I have condensed my previous email to better focus on those questions.

As for your essay, I’ve read it a couple times now and in the spirit of better digestion I have decided to share it (a condensed 850 word version... 3,070 words is a bit excessive.) with a discussion group I participate in, CFI Forum. I’m curious to see if it gets any response. I invite you to drop in and see what folks are saying, heck join in on the conversation if you want.


But, back to the 8-15-10 letter I sent you. Here is a more concise version of my questions:

Thursday, August 12, 2010

{#1} Lord Monckton, are you a Creationist? ... an open letter

Lord Monckton,
I’ve been reviewing your Minnesota Free Market Institute presentation. One of many disturbing aspects of your performance are the following statements. But, first to borrow from your 466 questions to Professor Abraham: Could you, Christopher Monckton, confirm that the following quotes accurately encapsulate your recorded comments?

5:20: “... we all love the planet that the good Lord has given us. And he’s given us the stewardship of it, Genesis 1:22, very clear what our obligations are as stewards of the planet. We are to look after all that is in it, and over it and under it and swimming in the sea. We are not therefore to exercise that stewardship given to us by our creator in an irresponsible fashion. Therefore it is important that we do not waste money, effort, time, or resources on non-problems such as global warming. As I shall show you that it is.”

Tuesday, August 10, 2010


This is a first step to a larger project exploring Lord Monckton's presentation to the Minnesota Free Market Institute, given September 14, 2009. The PowerPoint is available at: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/13460116/Lord-Christopher-Moncktons-Power-Point-Bethel-University--Global-Climate-Change-Conference-Oct-14-2009
This is intended as a guide for viewing along with Lord Monckton's illuminating PowerPoint slides.

The presentation can be viewed on YouTube:

Categories :

32..... Gratuitous Political Theater
41..... Gratuitous Misdirection
20..... Mudslinging: malicious, abusive, insulting, and untruths
36..... Scientific Shenanigans
19..... Big Issue Claims
17..... Graphs worth Closer Examination
05..... Looking at the Math
02..... Philosophical Considerations presented with a cynical twist
02..... Informative Slides
174 slides

please read on...

Who Is Lord Christopher Monckton?

Dear Durango Telegraph Editor,
There’s an exciting brouhaha going on within the Global Warming blogosphere these days. Every bit as heated and implication laden as ClimateGate was a half year ago. Not surprisingly, big media isn’t covering this story. Just as they seem to be ignoring the exposure of the fabricated charges and nonexistent sins scientists supposedly perpetrated in “ClimateGate.”

This saga concerns the lowly academician who dared question the darling of the “Man Made Global Warming Is A Hoax” community.