Talk:Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 17:55, 26 May 2010 editDarknessShines2 (talk \| contribs)11,264 edits →salon.com: hmm← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 06:19, 13 May 2024 edit undoHob Gadling (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users18,379 editsNo edit summary
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Talk header\|noarchive=yes}}
	{{WPBiography\|living=yes\|class=Start\|peerage-work-group=yes\|peerage-priority=Low\|listas=Monckton Of Brenchley, Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=C\|living=yes\|listas=Monckton Of Brenchley, Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount\|
	{{Community article probation\|main page=Climate change\|] for full information and to review the decision}}
			{{WikiProject Biography\|peerage-work-group=yes\|peerage-priority=Low}}
	{{talkheader}}
			}}
			{{Contentious topics/talk notice\|cc}}
	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
	\|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav\|noredlinks=y}}		\|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav\|noredlinks=y}}
	\|maxarchivesize = ~~100K~~		\|maxarchivesize = 250K
	\|counter = 4		\|counter = 6
	\|minthreadsleft = 5		\|minthreadsleft = 4
	\|algo = old(~~60d~~)		\|algo = old(14d)
	\|archive = Talk:Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley/Archive %(counter)d		\|archive = Talk:Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley/Archive %(counter)d
	}}		}}
	{{Archives \|bot=~~MiszaBot~~ I \|age=60 }}		{{Archives\|search=yes\|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III\|age=14}}
			{{clear}}

	== NASA conspiracy ==

	Christopher Monckton recently implied that ] sabotaged a ] in order to prevent the ] from reaching space: "Not greatly to my surprise—indeed I predicted it—the satellite crashed on take-off because the last thing they want is real world hard data".<sup></sup> Might we consider adding this to the article? <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 01:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:Unsure really, I don`t think the age is a ] especially when it come`s to lord monckton, they are very pro agw and will misquote him at any given chance. Are there any other sources for this story? ] (]) 10:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
	:I'm surprised it's not included, I'm also surprised his wacky views on DDT, 'new world order'/one government and other things aren't included in the article. It makes it seem more of a puff piece.] (]) 06:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
	::Plenty of sources. - ] ] 08:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
	:::Sorry Kitty, but in those two pages from google not one is a ] for a blp ] (]) 16:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
	::::''The Age'' meets criteria. ] (]) 19:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
	:::::Yes i know that Wikispan, but as they appear to be the only ] reporting this then it falls under ] ] (]) 19:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
	::::::Not so, it's also in the ''Sydney Morning Herald'' . -- ] (]) 20:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::Just so you're aware, SMH and The Age are sister papers in Australia -- The Age is the Melbourne equivalent and much of the content is identical. This is one such example. ] (]) 20:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
	::::::::Would video and his personal blogs etc be evidince of some of the wacky things he believes in/has said? He seems to think he's invented a drug that's the best yet for AIDS, Cancer etc, he thinks there's a secret organisation that's going to create a one world government/NWO looney type thing and a wholeeee lot more crazy ideas. ] (]) 06:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::::It's ] that's the issue here, not ]. It's certainly verifiable that Monckton has said these things. The question is how notable it is. People say crazy things all the time (admittedly Monckton seems to have a higher than average batting rate in that regard) but notability derives from how widely something is reported. If it's only been reported in one newspaper (thanks StuartH for that clarification) then it may not be particularly notable. -- ] (]) 08:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

	== Qualifications ==

	(Moved from above)
	With relation to "However, his credentials as a commentator on climate change have been questioned by some commentators" - How does this differentiate him from Al Gore, who has no qualifications in the field and yet his article relating to "Inconvenient Truth" stands as testament to expertise. Al Gore, famously, failed to realise Mr Fuji was a volcano.
	:That sounds to me unlikely. ] ] 18:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

	== Publicity Stunt? ==

	I click through to the source and read, "Monckton, the son of a viscount, denies conning the public. He says selling his home is '''not''' a PR stunt to boost sales of Eternity. He also denies his claims about the game are a clever ploy to promote the sale of Crimonmogate, expected to fetch between #2.5 to #5m." This seems rather clear. ]<sup>(])</sup> 15:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

	: Really, you clicked through to the first source and found that? The source titled "Aristocrat admits tale of lost home was stunt to boost puzzle sales." How many times are you going to misrepresent sources, exactly? ] (]) 15:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
	:: Hipocrite, you've already been warned regarding civility in your interactions with me. Would you please strike your personal attack? The text I quoted is directly from one of the sources already in the article, where he specifically denies the allegation. I didn't read the other initially, but now that I did, I still don't see "publicity stunt".. and even the world "stunt" itself is only in the title...and (as KDP, who reverted my changes has often pointed out) an article headline is dicey material for trying to source a claim.

	:: Still, I won't quibble about the language, but I'm honestly confused by the contradiction in the sources. One says he admits something, one says he denies it utterly. Which one is correct? If there's a contradiction and verifiability issue, we need to capture that in a BLP. ]<sup>(])</sup> 15:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

			== "overwhelming consensus" v "consensus" ==
	::: Gee, perhaps the timeline would make things more clear to you? One story was from when he was lying about what he was doing to make money, the other was from after he came clean. That you are embarassed you have yet again either deliberately or carelessly misrepresented sources is not a personal attack, no matter how bad it makes you feel. ] (]) 15:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

			The adjective appears to be, at best, redundant, and, at worst, to be placing an opinion in Misplaced Pages's voice with regard to what "consensus" means. "Consensus" generally means "general agreement" and that is sufficient here. I believe terser is generally better, and using non-utile excess verbiage does not improve any article. ] (]) 12:47, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
	:::: That sounds like synthesis. I don't see your interpretation in the source. Could you quote the relevant passage explaining the dichotomy? ]<sup>(])</sup> 15:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
			:It is redundant. There isn't a "marginal" consensus equivalent, it would just be "disputed" or similar. The variable existence of consensus be it 70% or 99% is irrelevant.
			:The sentence should make it clear though that any consensus is by the specialists and professionals that are studying climate change to highlight that this is not a "lay" consensus, or just random polling. It would be better to cite some of the many studies to that goal. ] (]) 13:41, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
			::Has anyone checked to see whether "overwhelming consensus" is used in reliable sources? ] (]) 14:43, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
			::If we wish to use "overwhelming consensus" as a quote, it ought be in quotation marks and ascribed to a source. Meanwhile, I do not think the adjective really ''adds'' to the BLP here as such. ] (]) 14:46, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
			:::What if it's used in of sources? To which of these sources should we attribute it? ] (]) 15:21, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
			::::Collect, ascribing the word "overwhelming" as a quote is even more redundant and makes what is an otherwise simple statement into a synthetic concoction. I would avoid quoting, and instead go for strong sourcing of the "consensus".
			::::Thank you Shock Brigade. I don't think anyone disputes the phrase is used, just what is the appropriate way to present it. ] (]) 15:32, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
			:Applying the term "Consensus" to science at all is questionable. It amounts to Argumentum Ad Populum which, historically, is overturned in the scientific community with regularity. A better term might be "The Currently accepted theory of Anthroprogenic Global Warming" instead of any mention of "Consensus". The term is simply misapplied here. ] (]) 16:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
			::Of course, people who do not like a scientific consensus will use any "reasoning" they can find to discredit it. Your reasoning is faulty (by the same reasoning, you can reject whatever scientific fact you wish to dispute), but it is irrelevant anyway. Misplaced Pages is based on ] instead. They understand science far better than you do. --] (]) 14:01, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
			:::"''Applying the term "Consensus" to science at all is questionable.''" - Nonsense! This is on a par with that other typical denier speak: "''This is only a Theory''". If there were no "consensus" in science there could hardly be any such thing as any agreed scientific theory. ] (]) 16:37, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
			:::: "Denier speak"? There has been a clear and increasingly well documented pattern of authoritarian gov. entities and their institutional proxies shutting down actual scientific inquiry and discussion. The actual physicists (RIGOROUS SCIENTISTS) do NOT have a consensus on the so-called "climate crisis" and are highly critical of the political class's attempts at claiming there to be one. As always, politicians lie. They lie early, often and whenever a chance presents itself, in order to consolidate power for themselves and their patrons. The fact is that the so-called "climate consensus" is little more than an article of faith of the neo-Marxist, secular religion put forth by the trans-national totalitarians who have subverted and destroyed much of the West. It goes against actual science, progress, reason and humanity itself. DOWN WITH IT! DOWN WITH THE LIARS! DOWN WITH THE TYRANTS! SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS! <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 12:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			:::::Misplaced Pages is not interested in what happens in the fantasy world you live in. Misplaced Pages is only interested in what reliable sources say. The article is based on those. --] (]) 07:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

			== External links modified ==
	::::: Are you kidding? You can't understand why a story from 24 January 2007 says that something was a PR stunt when a story from 1999 seems to take the stunt seriously? You know what - no. I won't explain it to you. Misrepresent another source and I won't go to toothless GSCC, I'll just arbcom it. Misrepresenting sources due to either malice or carelessness is worse than vandalism, and you've done it twice in two days. If you lack the intellectual capicity to understand why what you are doing is wrong, you need to be banned to protect the encyclopedia. If you're just playing, stop. ] (]) 15:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

			Hello fellow Wikipedians,
	HC, I remind you that one source specifically ''refutes'' what is in the text, and the other source says it was a "story cooked up by PR people", not "a publicity stunt". ]<sup>(])</sup> 15:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

			I have just modified 3 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
	: Yeah yeah, you're unwilling to every admit error. Everyone gets it, now. You can walk away with the last word below, unless, of course, the fact that I added this episode to your GSCC report means that an admin actually sanctions your disruptive behavior. ] (]) 15:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150531034732/http://m.startribune.com/local/99072699.html to http://m.startribune.com/local/99072699.html
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111104033417/http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/greenhouse_warming_what_greenhouse_warming_.html to http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/greenhouse_warming_what_greenhouse_warming_.html
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070811104539/http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20061121_gore.pdf to http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20061121_gore.pdf

			When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
	== Catholic ==

			{{sourcecheck\|checked=false\|needhelp=}}
	We seem to be mentioning that he's a Catholic all the time. We might need it once, but repeatedly makes it look like it's being used as a slur. ] (]) 16:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

			Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 19:59, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
	== Press Complaints Commission ==

			==Dispute over membership in the House of Lords==
	This PCC ruling relates to an article about Monckton written by George Monbiot on his Guardian blog. The Guardian admitted fault on some points and offered corrections. After taking into account the Guardian's offer, the Commission rejected the remainder of the complaint.

			This subheading is misleading. The subject is NOT a member of the House of Lords, it would be accurate to say that he claims to be a member of the House of Lords. I suggest it is changed to reflect that. But as he is not a member of the House of Lords any subheading referring to his membership of the H of L will be erroneous. Also membership <U>in</U> the House of Lords is not grammatically correct it should be membership <U>of</U> the House of Lords . Also why is unprecedented step in inverted commas ? ] (]) 16:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
	http://www.pcc.org.uk/news/index.html?article=NjQwMg
			:Good points, have clarified the heading as "Dispute over his non-membership of the House of Lords" and removed the unnecessary quote marks. . ], ] 16:31, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
	Of some general interest is the statement of the Commission that it expects the same editorial standards of such blogs as it does of articles appearing in print editions.
			::Looks like neither of you have done your research...
	] (=] ) 20:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
			::https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/commons-committees/energy-and-climate-change/Christopher-walter-viscount-monckton-of-brenchley-IPC0005.pdf
	:Ya i saw that slimvirgin had posted that on the bishop hill talk page, we can now put to rest the constant arguements over delingpole being a reliable source :) ] (]) 20:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
			::He is a peer and entitled to use the title, Lord.
			::He is referred to as a Lord in official UK parliament documents..... ] (]) 13:46, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

			== Political views: Climate change ==
	:: No. Delingpole's column is a reliable source for his opinion alone. Mere publication in a newspaper or on a newspaper blog does not make a statement a verifiable fact, otherwise we'd be writing articles containing all manner of nonsense dressed up as fact. ] (=] ) 08:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
			Am I the only one who thinks this is weird? Climate change itself is a scientific fact, and his opinion on it is pseudoscience. The only thing that is "political" about it is the motivation: he wants to avoid market regulation, which will be a consequence if people take climate change seriously. So he denies it.

			But I have no idea what to change. Make another section with "pseudoscientific views"? Nah. Rename "Political views" into "Views"? Maybe. --] (]) 17:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
	==Member of the House of Lords==
	* Although he has asserted that as an hereditary peer he is "a member of the ], though without the right to sit or vote", the House of Lords has stated that "Christopher Monckton is not and has never been a Member of the House of Lords. There is no such thing as a 'non-voting' or 'honorary' member."<nowiki>{{verify credibility}}<ref name="Fahys">{{cite news\|last=Fahys\|first=Julie\|url=http://www.sltrib.com/ci_14856887\|title=Debate on climate heats up online\|work=The Salt Lake Tribune\|date=2010-04-10\|accessdate=2010-04-10}}</ref></nowiki> He was an unsuccessful candidate for a Conservative seat in the House of Lords in a March 2007 ] caused by the death of ]. Of the 43 candidates, 31 – including Monckton – received no votes in the election.

			:No one, including Lord Monckton, disputes the existence climate change. Only dead planets don’t have climate change. His position is that, global warming isn’t catastrophic and mankind’s contribution to it is insignificant. He, and thousands of other objective scientists, see much benefit to Earth, humans, and all other life forms, of minor increases in CO2, as CO2 doesn’t cause global warming, rather, it results from global warming. ] (]) 00:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
	:It is surely true that he has falsely claimed to be a member of the House of Lords. So what is for discussion? ] ] 17:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
	::~~Agreed.~~ ~~The~~ ~~cited article~~ is a ~~report~~ ~~from~~ ], a ~~major~~ US ~~newspaper~~, so ~~there's~~ no ~~doubt~~ ~~that~~ ~~it's~~ a ~~reliable~~ ~~source~~. -- ] (]) 18:21, 25 May ~~2010~~ (UTC)		::] is not about the {{tq\|existence climate change}}. Read the article. Also, Monckton is not a scientist, and your claims about climate change are massively ignorant. --] (]) 06:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

	== ~~salon.com~~ ==		== Disinformation ==
			Please remove the term "climate change denier" from this article, it is a cheap, baseless propagandist description which could not be further from the truth. The subject of this page publicly concedes that the climate is changing constantly. It would be better and more intellectually honest to rephrase "his views on climate change". This article is as fraudulent an ad hominem hit piece as the science and scientists who have been pushing inaccurate and patently flawed pseudo scientific scare models in the international globalist publications for back handers from the would be carbon traders who finance both the research and the organisations that publish the resultant drivel. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 13:49, 18 April 2023 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			:Read our article ] to find out what the term actually means.
			:Also, this is ]. Do your science hating somewhere else. --] (]) 14:03, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
			::That you reply with a temper tantrum, and offer no proof of your assertions, is why you should be banned from editing anything, as you’re not an objective editor. ] (]) 00:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
			:::Again: Read the article ]. But since you perceive helpful pointers as {{tq\|a temper tantrum}}, I do not expect you to. --] (]) 06:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

			:In fact it used to be "controversial views on climate change" but was changed on . Your suggestion is appropriate but I believe there's not enough support for it at this time. ] (]) 14:58, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
	An op-ed in salon.com is being used to make a statement of fact, this is not good enough as op-eds are only good for the writers opinon and certainly not good enough for a blp ] (]) 16:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
			::Please offer proof of your assertions, rather than political rhetoric. ] (]) 00:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
	:The Salon article is quoting a statement made by Monckton. Is there any dispute that he made this statement? You can read a transcript of his speech and watch the speech itself . You apparently haven't bothered to make the slightest attempt to find an alternative source. Kindly grow up. -- ] (]) 17:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
	:~~What~~ ~~leads~~ ~~you~~ to ~~believe~~ ~~the~~ ~~column~~ in ~~question~~ is an ~~op-ed~~ ~~exactly?~~ ] (]) 17:02, 26 May ~~2010~~ (UTC)		:::Again: Read ]. This is a Misplaced Pages talk page. Its purpose is to improve the article, not to educate aggressive newbies. --] (]) 06:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
	::Your right, it`s not an op-ed it`s a blog. Did you revert a blog back into a BLP hipocrite? ] (]) 17:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
	::: Yes, I did. "Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." ] (]) 17:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
	::::Hmm, and were is the proof that this blog is under full editorial control? ] (]) 17:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 06:19, 13 May 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Peerage and Baronetage

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage (assessed as Low-importance).

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to climate change, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

"overwhelming consensus" v "consensus"

The adjective appears to be, at best, redundant, and, at worst, to be placing an opinion in Misplaced Pages's voice with regard to what "consensus" means. "Consensus" generally means "general agreement" and that is sufficient here. I believe terser is generally better, and using non-utile excess verbiage does not improve any article. Collect (talk) 12:47, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

It is redundant. There isn't a "marginal" consensus equivalent, it would just be "disputed" or similar. The variable existence of consensus be it 70% or 99% is irrelevant.

The sentence should make it clear though that any consensus is by the specialists and professionals that are studying climate change to highlight that this is not a "lay" consensus, or just random polling. It would be better to cite some of the many studies to that goal. Koncorde (talk) 13:41, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Has anyone checked to see whether "overwhelming consensus" is used in reliable sources? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:43, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

If we wish to use "overwhelming consensus" as a quote, it ought be in quotation marks and ascribed to a source. Meanwhile, I do not think the adjective really adds to the BLP here as such. Collect (talk) 14:46, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

What if it's used in a whole bunch of sources? To which of these sources should we attribute it? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:21, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Collect, ascribing the word "overwhelming" as a quote is even more redundant and makes what is an otherwise simple statement into a synthetic concoction. I would avoid quoting, and instead go for strong sourcing of the "consensus".

Thank you Shock Brigade. I don't think anyone disputes the phrase is used, just what is the appropriate way to present it. Koncorde (talk) 15:32, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Applying the term "Consensus" to science at all is questionable. It amounts to Argumentum Ad Populum which, historically, is overturned in the scientific community with regularity. A better term might be "The Currently accepted theory of Anthroprogenic Global Warming" instead of any mention of "Consensus". The term is simply misapplied here. 67.164.19.171 (talk) 16:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Of course, people who do not like a scientific consensus will use any "reasoning" they can find to discredit it. Your reasoning is faulty (by the same reasoning, you can reject whatever scientific fact you wish to dispute), but it is irrelevant anyway. Misplaced Pages is based on reliable sources instead. They understand science far better than you do. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:01, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

"Applying the term "Consensus" to science at all is questionable." - Nonsense! This is on a par with that other typical denier speak: "This is only a Theory". If there were no "consensus" in science there could hardly be any such thing as any agreed scientific theory. CatNip48 (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

"Denier speak"? There has been a clear and increasingly well documented pattern of authoritarian gov. entities and their institutional proxies shutting down *actual scientific inquiry and discussion*. The actual physicists (RIGOROUS SCIENTISTS) do NOT have a consensus on the so-called "climate crisis" and are highly critical of the political class's attempts at claiming there to be one. As always, politicians lie. They lie early, often and whenever a chance presents itself, in order to consolidate power for themselves and their patrons. The fact is that the so-called "climate consensus" is little more than an article of faith of the neo-Marxist, secular religion put forth by the trans-national totalitarians who have subverted and destroyed much of the West. It goes against actual science, progress, reason and humanity itself. DOWN WITH IT! DOWN WITH THE LIARS! DOWN WITH THE TYRANTS! SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.125.28 (talk) 12:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not interested in what happens in the fantasy world you live in. Misplaced Pages is only interested in what reliable sources say. The article is based on those. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:59, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Dispute over membership in the House of Lords

This subheading is misleading. The subject is NOT a member of the House of Lords, it would be accurate to say that he claims to be a member of the House of Lords. I suggest it is changed to reflect that. But as he is not a member of the House of Lords any subheading referring to his membership of the H of L will be erroneous. Also membership in the House of Lords is not grammatically correct it should be membership of the House of Lords . Also why is unprecedented step in inverted commas ? Hmcst1 (talk) 16:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Good points, have clarified the heading as "Dispute over his non-membership of the House of Lords" and removed the unnecessary quote marks. . dave souza, talk 16:31, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Looks like neither of you have done your research...

https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/commons-committees/energy-and-climate-change/Christopher-walter-viscount-monckton-of-brenchley-IPC0005.pdf

He is a peer and entitled to use the title, Lord.

He is referred to as a Lord in official UK parliament documents..... 144.177.6.61 (talk) 13:46, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Political views: Climate change

Am I the only one who thinks this is weird? Climate change itself is a scientific fact, and his opinion on it is pseudoscience. The only thing that is "political" about it is the motivation: he wants to avoid market regulation, which will be a consequence if people take climate change seriously. So he denies it.

But I have no idea what to change. Make another section with "pseudoscientific views"? Nah. Rename "Political views" into "Views"? Maybe. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

No one, including Lord Monckton, disputes the existence climate change. Only dead planets don’t have climate change. His position is that, global warming isn’t catastrophic and mankind’s contribution to it is insignificant. He, and thousands of other objective scientists, see much benefit to Earth, humans, and all other life forms, of minor increases in CO2, as CO2 doesn’t cause global warming, rather, it results from global warming. JacobJingleHymer (talk) 00:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Climate change denial is not about the existence climate change. Read the article. Also, Monckton is not a scientist, and your claims about climate change are massively ignorant. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Disinformation

Please remove the term "climate change denier" from this article, it is a cheap, baseless propagandist description which could not be further from the truth. The subject of this page publicly concedes that the climate is changing constantly. It would be better and more intellectually honest to rephrase "his views on climate change". This article is as fraudulent an ad hominem hit piece as the science and scientists who have been pushing inaccurate and patently flawed pseudo scientific scare models in the international globalist publications for back handers from the would be carbon traders who finance both the research and the organisations that publish the resultant drivel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.177.6.61 (talk) 13:49, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Read our article climate change denial to find out what the term actually means.

Also, this is not a forum. Do your science hating somewhere else. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:03, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

That you reply with a temper tantrum, and offer no proof of your assertions, is why you should be banned from editing anything, as you’re not an objective editor. JacobJingleHymer (talk) 00:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Again: Read the article climate change denial. But since you perceive helpful pointers as a temper tantrum, I do not expect you to. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

In fact it used to be "controversial views on climate change" but was changed on 2 May 2015. Your suggestion is appropriate but I believe there's not enough support for it at this time. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:58, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Please offer proof of your assertions, rather than political rhetoric. JacobJingleHymer (talk) 00:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Again: Read WP:NOTFORUM. This is a Misplaced Pages talk page. Its purpose is to improve the article, not to educate aggressive newbies. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Categories: