Lord Monckton, Birther: British Climate Change Denier Questions Obama's Citizenship

Washington Post:

Look, I don't like writing "birther" posts.

...

But it was jarring to hear Lord Monckton, the British politician who has become a celebrity in the climate change skeptic community (the BBC was following him for a documentary it was filming), claim that Obama was born outside the United States.

Read the whole story: Washington Post

Comments

[TripleBypass]

03:58 AM on 05/06/2010

I just can't believe they got Marty Feldman to come back from the dead to talk poppycock on Climate Change! Those GOP sure do have some strong ties with the Lord!

[unenergy]

07:50 PM on 04/17/2010

"We are going to concede that Carbon Dioxide and other Greenhouse Gases which possess or mimic a dipole moment, will cause warming if you add them to the atmosphere.
We concede also that human kind is adding CO2 to the atmosphere at about the rate that the NOAA figures mention.
So we're not trying to pretend that we're not the cause of the CO2 in the atmosphere increasing, we're not going to try and pretend that that CO2 will cause no warming."
Lord Monckton Brisbane debate 29 January 2010

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/4/16/857772/-Punkd-or-Monckd

[Sandiaman]

05:34 PM on 04/16/2010

I have an idea. Why doesn't someone like Rachel Maddow, or Bill Moyers, have a 10 to 15 hour mini series debate on GW? I know it's not how science is done but GW has become a pop culture subject with people on both sides not knowing what the heck they are talking about, making ad hominem attacks etc. Statements like "No credible scientist believes" etc are beneath the field of science and belong in the field of religion. I'm so tired of shows like Olberman (whom I watch almost daily) that never have someone with a contrary opinion on their show; Maddow is not afraid of contrary opinions and neither is Moyers. Polarization on this subject needs to end. Just sayin

[edgarcaycedoc]

05:27 PM on 04/16/2010

In the first place this British wanna be has no standing to say anything about diddley about the US systems. I have just about as much right to complain because the British government would not allow Prince Harry to serve in either Iraq or Afghanistan. Their prince--their decision. Our president--our decision (by more than 9 million votes).

[genealogymaster]

05:10 PM on 04/16/2010

Why are the alarmists so afraid of debate. They haven't proven anything to me yet. The emails show some potential nasty activity. An inquiry of this nature to be trusted has to take longer than a couple of days and needs scientists of both sides of this issue and statisticians. Why are the alarmists so afraid?

[Sandiaman]

05:17 PM on 04/16/2010

Because they are treating their data as scripture and not scientific data. A group of real scientists welcomes debate and wouldn't manipulate statistical data to make pieces fit.

[ThatGuyisaGirl]

06:22 PM on 04/16/2010

I think you misunderstand statistics. There is always some level of manipulation that happens. It's called data cleansing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_cleansing

And, by all accounts, that's all the emails show.

[audeo03]

10:01 AM on 05/06/2010

And, you bring up a good point. How can you claim ALL scientists that support the theory of global warming act the same way as this small group that had their emails hacked?

I would assume that there is collusion on both sides.

But, within the scientific community, there are magnitudes more of peer-reviewed papers that support global warming, than deny it. Most of the deniers are not true scientists, or have their degrees from suspect schools. Like this Lord Mockton.

[audeo03]

09:56 AM on 05/06/2010

First off, you are calling the scientists, "alarmists." Which means you have already shut off your reasoning and have discarded whatever they are going to say. Secondly, it takes a basic understanding of mathematics and science, to connect the dots. But, once presented with the bulk of data, it is impossible to say that we are not having an impact.

The simple facts, no matter whether you believe in data or don't:

1.) Greenhouse gasses trap heat in our atmosphere.
2.) Humans emit great amounts of greenhouse gasses that otherwise would not be released.
3.) The rate of change (slope of the curve) of the current warming trend is something not seen before in any of the geological records. And, what's really interesting is to see the slope increase in a dramatic, linear fashion exactly as we entered the industrial age, and then increase again with the widespread use of the automobile.

So, no matter what you think, why would it be bad to curtail our emissions? We could save money, and reduce terrorism.

[Sandiaman]

04:21 PM on 04/16/2010

The entire case for GW hinges on methodical and accurate statistical analysis. Yet this report released the other day fails to give any weight to the last paragraph. This is science at its worst. Read it for yourselves....There was no scientific malpractice at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, which was at the centre of the "Climategate" affair. There was no scientific malpractice at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, which was at the centre of the "Climategate" affair.
This is according to an independent panel chaired by Lord Oxburgh, which was convened to examine the research published by the unit.
It began its review after e-mails from CRU scientists were published online.
The panel said it would be helpful for researchers to work more closely with professional statisticians in future.
This would ensure the best methods were used when analysing the complex and often "messy" data on climate, the report said.
"We cannot help remarking that it is very surprising that research in an area that depends so heavily on statistical methods has not been carried out in close collaboration with professional statisticians," the panel remarked in its conclusions.

[Sandiaman]

04:26 PM on 04/16/2010

In other words; statistics were collected and analyzed in a less than professional manner and as a result there is now a Global Warming cult that rivals Scientology in its suppression of truth.

[CessnaDriver]

06:37 PM on 04/16/2010

Wow. Does it hurt when you twist yourself up that much to allow yourself to be that disingenuous?

[satanlite]

04:18 PM on 04/16/2010

Keep looking. They'll find he's probably a flat earther and a truther.

[Tom Joad]

03:55 PM on 04/16/2010

...he also keep 'Nessie' in a pond on his Scottish highlands estate and has Bigfoot in an adjoining fenced compound...

[satanlite]

04:18 PM on 04/16/2010

That's just dumb.

I'VE got bigfoot.

[William Young]

03:48 PM on 04/16/2010

Shocking....not!

[lisakaz2]

03:32 PM on 04/16/2010

Tells ya all you need to know. Seems one form of inbr-d thought supports the other.

[Sandiaman]

04:23 PM on 04/16/2010

The Pope believes in man made global warming. I guess you're right...sometimes.

[lisakaz2]

03:32 PM on 04/16/2010

Tells ya all you need to know. Seems one form of inbred thought supports the other.

[SidT645]

03:29 PM on 04/16/2010

Add 911 Truther to the list

[CessnaDriver]

06:39 PM on 04/16/2010

We call them "troofers" to avoid even the smallest hint that there is a possibility that they are telling the truth.

[YLS2007]

03:19 PM on 04/16/2010

Does this mean actual proof that Birthers are mor0ns has been found? Man, does this news come out of left field...

[filo]

03:09 PM on 04/16/2010

You can always tell a birther...you just can't tell them much.

[vimmryan]

02:53 PM on 04/16/2010

"Famed Climate Change Denier Is Also An Obama Birther"
lol, ya no kidding...