Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:16, 20 July 2010 editFormerIP (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers17,570 edits →JA?← Previous edit Latest revision as of 06:19, 13 May 2024 edit undoHob Gadling (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users18,386 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}}

== 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)

On a related issue: I've removed the assertion that he was a science adviser to Thatcher, because this is contradicted by the more categorical and detailed statements under "Career". I've also removed the countervailing statement a bit later saying he was an economic adviser, because without the former the latter is not necessary. Hope it's OK to just do that rather than asking here? I'm still a relative newbie here.
] (]) 13:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
:Sure. Be bold; revert; discuss. I am unsure what the original reliable source for this was. ] ] 13:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
::The original source for "science adviser" was the ] (]) 07:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
:::Well spotted, Jondoig. The Winnipeg Sun is clearly wrong; Monckton was an economic adviser. It wouldn't surprise me if he's claimed to have been a science adviser but that's not what the Downing Street Policy Unit did (the clue is in the word "Policy"). The PM's adviser on scientific matters is the ]. -- ] (]) 08:14, 29 May 2010 (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.

: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)

:Here is a more credible source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/apr/20/monckton-mp-general-election <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

All references to Christopher Monckton being a hereditary peer and to him being part of the peerage of the UK should be removed from the article as these are false claims made on his part. Or, rather, if there are any references to his hereditary peerage and his position in the House of Lords, they should reflect that these are false claims. Unlike his peerage, the sources for this can be cited. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

The article quotes Monckton's claim that he is a member of the House of Lords and quotes a denial by the House of Lords that he is a member, which leaves the possibly libelous impression that he has simply made a false claim and has been exposed. It is only fair that the article should point out that Monckton claims that the 1999 act by the House of Lords did not legally remove his claim to the title of member of the House of Lords, to spite the Lords claim otherwise. At http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/12/a-detailed-rebuttal-to-abraham-from-monckton/ Monckton explains

:“The House of Lords Act 1999 debarred all but 92 of the 650 Hereditary Peers, including my father, from sitting or voting, and purported to – but did not – remove membership of the Upper House. Letters Patent granting peerages, and consequently membership, are the personal gift of the Monarch. Only a specific law can annul a grant. The 1999 Act was a general law. The then Government, realizing this defect, took three maladroit steps: it wrote asking expelled Peers to return their Letters Patent (though that does not annul them); in 2009 it withdrew the passes admitting expelled Peers to the House (and implying they were members); and it told the enquiry clerks to deny they were members: but a written Parliamentary Answer by the Lord President of the Council admits that general legislation cannot annul Letters Patent, so I am The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (as my passport shows), a member of the Upper House but without the right to sit or vote, and I have never pretended otherwise.” ] (]) 06:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikispan, why did you revert my edit explaining that Monckton disputes the House of Lords claim that he is not a member of the House of Lords? Your edit summary says "How is that relevant and poor sourcing" When Misplaced Pages gives a possibly libelous accusation or impression about someone, that person's response to the accusation is obviously relevant. As far as the sourcing, my citation links to a statement made by Monckton himself, giving his defense. Do you seriously doubt that those are Monckton's words? If a short reference to the defense of the accused can't be allowed, then Misplaced Pages can't make the possibly libelous accusation without very well established support, if at all. If Monckton's defense isn't allowed then the entire section must be removed as the references don't even come close to settling the question of whether he has made a false claim. The Lords claim he's not a member, but he claims they're wrong. What evidence is there to settle it? If Misplaced Pages can't cite extremely strong evidence that the House of Lords is correct, then Misplaced Pages either can't make the accusation, or must at least allow a short mention of Monckton's defense. ] (]) 11:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

== salon.com ==

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)
: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)
::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)
This is where you drop the stick and back away, or I do file the enforcement request I just reconsidered. ] (]) 17:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
:Lets keep this on here instead of back and forth between my talk, i am quite simply following what i have read were several users have said that proof needs to be supplied that this blog is under full editorial control, do you have this proof? ] (]) 18:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
:: This is your final chance to back away before I file that enforcement request. Yes, or no? ] (]) 18:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
:::I`m sorry you are threatening me with enforcement unless i ignore the use of a blog in a blp? Very nice. Either provide proof that salon has full editorial control over this blog or it comes out. Now you can go file your request and say that because i took a blog out of a blp you want me sanctioned ] (]) 18:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
::::Perhaps this would be a better source for this? Although it is an op-ed it is in the Washington Times almosr certainly better than a blog in salon, i`ll see what else i can find ] (]) 18:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::There are very few sources for this, i suspect it is a bit undue to have this in the article given how little coverage it seems to have gotten ] (]) 18:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

== Debunking by John Abraham ==

Another one bites the dust. Please work this into the article. ] (]) 14:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
:Please feel free to have a run at it. The responses have already started to appear ] (]) 16:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
::The response to that response (plus a posting by Monckton) - http://www.skepticalscience.com/Abraham-reply-to-Monckton.html ] (]) 01:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
:::The latest from Abraham. ] (]) 00:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

== Claims of winning a Nobel prize ==

I couldn't find any reference to his supposedly winning a Nobel prize in the article. Is it true that he was awarded the prize, as he claims in this letter to John McCain. ] (]) 18:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
:Totally bogus. ] ] 19:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

== Deleted Telegragh blog ==

Google "Viscount Monckton is an embarrassment to global warming sceptics everywhere" points to a blog entry on the Telegraph by Tom Chivers which has now been deleted. One can't but wonder whether a threat of a libel suit is behind this. ] (]) 00:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
: Monbiot in the Guardian today has an article on this and he thinks as much. However Chivers' article was already reproduced on the web elsewhere so is still out there. Curious that Monckton's standard response to criticism is to threaten libel. ] (]) 18:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
:: Yes the article is archived at http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com/2010/06/telegraph-steps-outside-its-alternate.html and Chivers twitter provides some additional details. ] (]) 00:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

== Monckton debunked , but still an unduly positive wikipedia profile ==

This page is being protected to prevent vandalism. That's fair enough but means a contribution from anyone (and wikipedia claims to be the encyclopedia anyone can edit) is going to be moderated. The latest and most comprehensive debunking of Monckton has now been worked in to the article but not fairly. You give him just one sentence to summarize an 80 minute presentation. Dr John Abraham has comprehensively debunked Monckton's presentation it deserves a section on its own in my opinion. But thats just my opinion, you might disagree.

It is followed by the statement "However, Vaclav Klaus, the president of the Czech Republic, defended Monckton's views, commenting: "I agree with Lord Monckton that the cap-and-trade bill 'is the largest tax increase ever to be inflicted on a population in the history of the world'", and nationally syndicated U.S. radio commentator Michael Savage praised Monckton's tour, saying: "it is very rare we get someone as succinct, and as literate, and as passionate ... as Lord Christopher Monckton."

The first word in your script "however" falsely suggests that they are responding to Abraham. Klaus 's contribution first appears on the net November 5th 2009, whilst Dr Savages interview is posted November 26th 2009 . Dr Abraham's work is published June 2010. Klaus and Savage cannot possibly be responding to Abraham 8 month's before Abraham has published. The chronology of your references is disingenuous.

I have to put it the editors of Misplaced Pages this is biased reporting. Monckton has been comprehensively debunked on Global Warming and you are choosing to bury that in the detail of this entry. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

I'd like to add a couple more points. Fourth Paragraph of Personal Life, the one that begins with "Although he has asserted that as an hereditary peer he is "a member of the House of Lords, though without the right to sit or vote". Falsely claiming to be a member of a legislature , repeatedly and to do so to real members of another legislature of another country is pretty outrageous behaviour. Being found out ought to impinge on one's reputation and credibility somewhat. Monckton's false claims in this matter were deliberate, we all have our personal doubts but everybody ought to know whether or not they are a member of the house of Lords. This wikipedia profile glosses over it.


== "overwhelming consensus" v "consensus" ==
Additionally The last line in Published Works. This could be rephrased to make it clear that these are not peer reviewed scientific papers. Because Monckton has never published a peer reviewed scientific paper. Why not call them articles. He is also Policy Director for the SPPI, I dont know if thats in the piece somewhere or not. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== Monckton curing AIDS ==


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)
''Monckton is reported by the political party of which he is deputy leader as being "responsible for invention and development of a broad-spectrum cure for infectious diseases... Patients have been cured of various infectious diseases, including Graves’ Disease, multiple sclerosis, influenza, and herpes simplex VI." In one patient, the cure is also said to have "reduced by 38% in five days, with no side-effects." Two patent applications in the field of medicine are on file at the UK Intellectual Property Office."
: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">—&nbsp;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 ==
This is cited the UKIP website, which, for obvious reasons, I don't think should be considered a neutral biographical resource. Think it should probably be removed unless it can, in all details, be verified from other sources. --] (]) 22:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
:Agree ] (]) 22:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
:Agreed. It's patently self-serving as well as unverified. -- ] (]) 22:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
::Two thoughts:
::1) Is UKIP related to the ]?
::2) Wouldn't it be sort of lovely if curing global warming turned out to be another of Monckton's Jesus-like powers? --] (]) 23:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
:::1) Erm, no. UKIP is on the near side of the far right. The KWP is about as far left as you can go.
:::2) If you don't accept the problem exists why cure it? :) -- ] (]) 00:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
::::1) Not sure if I need to post this clarification but, for clarification, the ] have a reputation for propaganising that their leading lights are word-class geniuses in various fields. So UKIP claiming Monckton can cure more diseases, it seems like, than anyone else since Jesus is sort of like that.
::::2) Why are you asking questions of the Great Leader? --] (]) 00:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
:::::1) I see what you're getting at. But I'm pretty sure Monckton doesn't routinely sink holes-in-one, or we'd have heard about it by now.
:::::2) That's Great Joint Deputy Leader to you! -- ] (]) 01:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
====The IP Guy====
This looks to me to be ok as a rebuttal of Abraham`s well publicised rant against monckton, what do you guys think? ] (]) 23:00, 13 July 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:
Monckton gave Abraham a month to reply privately to a letter pointing out that the Professor had misrepresented Lord Monckton's talk, had passed the misrepresentations to scientists said to have been cited by Monckton, and had then included their adverse comments in his rebuttal of Monckton's talk. Abraham said he stood by his position, so Monckton published his letter to Abraham, described by James Delingpole of the Daily Telegraph as "classic, funny, lacerating, forensic, magisterial".
*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.
:Nope. You know Delingpole is a junk source. The IP editor is clearly Monckton or someone associated with him, and the apparent reason for this flurry of edits is Monckton's publication of said "rebuttal". If it gets coverage from mainstream sources then by all means mention it, but Delingpole is a dreadful source. -- ] (]) 23:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
:Under british law he is reliable as the rest of the telegraph, you know that, but if we can`t have his rebuttal then the Abraham piece should go as undue i reckon ] (]) 23:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
::It probably should, actually - did it get much media attention? I only read about it on blogs, I don't recall seeing wider coverage of it. -- ] (]) 23:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
:::Mostly a blog thing i believe, but then again what is`nt these days :) ] (]) 23:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
::::Too true. :) OK, let's remove Abraham and Monckton's AIDS cure. -- ] (]) 23:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
:::::Remove the abraham stuff, can`t see the aids cure rubbish did you already get it? ] (]) 23:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
::::::I took it out of the lead and the main body of the article. -- ] (]) 23:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
:By the way, the IP address geolocates to the Glasgow area, which is of course not far from Monckton's estate. I do wish the owner of the IP would own up to his identity. Hiding behind an IP isn't acceptable. -- ] (]) 23:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
::Be best to get it blocked for a week, to much uncited info going into a blp ] (]) 23:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
:::It's grossly self-serving, and not the first time this has happened. I've raised it on AN/I. -- ] (]) 23:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
:::OK, I'm glad to say we have a resolution. The IP has been blocked for 31 hours and the article semi-protected for two weeks. -- ] (]) 01:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


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


==Dispute over membership in the House of Lords==
Is Christopher Monckton a scientist? There are several references that say he is not. But the man himself repeatedly gives the opposite impression. Quote: "As we scientists put it: shit happens." (5:54) Monckton clearly identifies himself in this video as a "scientist". What gives? ] (]) 07:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


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)
:His qualifications are in the classics and journalism, as the article states. I know of no reliable source to corroborate his claim to be a scientist. He's certainly never been published in any peer-reviewed outlets. -- ] (]) 08:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
: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)
::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..... ] (]) 13:46, 18 April 2023 (UTC)


== Political views: Climate change ==
== JA? ==
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)
MN reverted but, characteristically, didn't trouble to justify himself on talk. I've looked; i can't see the consensus he claims is here ] (]) 15:01, 20 July 2010 (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. ] (]) 00:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
:Consensus isn't necessary. It's sourced to the personal web page of a university professor (?), no indication it was published. It's not appropriate for a BLP. ] (]) 15:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
::Assistant Professor, and from what i can determine a published expert on the topic that he is speaking about. Heat transfer and radiative forcing. So it is not as clear-cut as you describe it, since it is not being used for BLP material. --] (]) 15:52, 20 July 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)
:::Look above to section IP Guy, not to hard to find. I will revert it out again if inserted as undue ] (]) 15:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
::::I see a slim consensus for removal of the Monckton repartee, but not much about Abraham. --] (]) 15:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
:::::It all stays out as undue, as was decided ] (]) 16:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
KDP, this is harshly critical of Monckton; how can this ''not'' be BLP material? ] (]) 19:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
:It is harshly critical of Monckton's arguments, not Monckton himself. There is a difference. Its professional criticism. Debunking an argument, is not an attack on the person. BLP material is ''about the person'', and this isn't. --] (]) 19:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
::Kim, it is a hideous attack on Lord Monckton, it is undue to use it. It is a BLP breach to use it, why are you even arguing this? ] (]) 19:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
:::Nope, Mark. It isn't. Its a walk-through of Monckton's ''arguments'' by a professional - its not an attack on the person. And that is not what BLP is about. And strangely enough i'm not arguing about inclusion - but pointing out that certain arguments for removal are invalid. --] (]) 20:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


== Disinformation ==
::Kim, this splitting of hairs is not at all in the spirit of BLP policy. You've made this argument before to justify inclusion of RealClimate to call someone dishonest -- and it's just as invalid now as it was then. ] (]) 19:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
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">—&nbsp;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)
:::No, actually it is not splitting hairs, and it is entirely within the spirit of BLP. BLP was ''never'' intended to remove criticism. BLP policy is about libel and personal attacks. --] (]) 20:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
::::OK, then cite the policy clause in WP:BLP which supports it. ] (]) 20:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC) ::Please offer proof of your assertions, rather than political rhetoric. ] (]) 00:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::Sorry, please cite the policy clause that rejects it. (fallacy of the negative proof). --] (]) 20:06, 20 July 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)
::::::] says "Self-published material may in some circumstances be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer: see ]." so it's out per policy. ] (]) 20:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
:::::::I don't know whether this would be excluded under ] (possibly it would), but to cite BLP grounds against it is a bit absurd IMO. Obviously, ] (same goes for ]) is not intended to be used to remove material indicating that the opinions of a living person might not be universally accepted. That is not what is meant by "about living persons". --] (]) 20:16, 20 July 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.
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:
WikiProject iconBiography: Peerage and Baronetage
WikiProject iconThis 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
Taskforce icon
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 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 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: