From Climate Science Watch
Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, global warming denialist du jour on Capitol Hill
Posted on Friday, March 27, 2009
The bizarre decision by some members of Congress to use Christopher Monckton as their expert science witness at recent hearings on climate change shows that politically-driven abuse of science is alive and well on Capitol Hill. For those who take Rush Limbaugh as a leader, the colorful Viscount, a scientific amateur who refers to President Obama as “Osamabamarama,” might be just what they’ve been looking for.
Post by Rick Piltz
On March 25 the U.S. House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment held a hearing on “Preparing for Climate Change: Adaptation Policies and Programs” – the eighth thus far in a series of hearings the subcommittee has held this year as part of the development of major climate change legislation. Among the seven witnesses were Tom Karl (written testimony here), Director of the National Climatic Data Center at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and co-chair and editor of the forthcoming U.S. Climate Change Science Program synthesis report, Global Climate Change Impacts on the United States (public review draft here). Karl, along with several other government and nongovernmental witnesses, presented useful testimony to the effect that global climatic disruption will require efforts to adapt to disruptive impacts in addition to efforts to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.
But something else that really caught my attention at the hearing was the presence, and performance, at the witness table of The Right Honourable Christopher Walter Monckton, Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, also known as Christopher Monckton (also here), who was identified as Chief Policy Adviser, Science and Public Policy Institute.
SPPI is a global warming denialist/contrarian operation based in Haymarket, Virginia, and headed by a long-time former Republican congressional staffer. On their web site you’ll find numerous pieces by Monckton (a recent example: “Global Warming is Not Happening”). One also finds Willie Soon, David Legates, and Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso, joining Monckton in a recent publication, The Unwisdom of Solomon, which aimed at countering an important study by IPCC Working Group I co-chair Susan Solomon et al., “Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emisions,” in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, February 10, 2009.
This was not Monckton’s only Capitol Hill appearance this year. He was also a witness at a March 12 hearing of the House Ways and Means Committee, which is also developing climate change legislation.
Energy and Commerce Committee Minority Ranking Member Joe Barton (R-TX) referred to Monckton, in his opening remarks, as being generally regarded as “one of the most knowledgeable, if not the most knowledgeable, experts on the skeptic side.” Mr. Barton, who has a history of warring with the mainstream climate science community, went on to say: I think the Earth’s climate is changing, but for natural variation reasons. Mankind has adapted to climate as long as he has walked the Earth. When it rains we find shelter. When it’s hot we get shade. When it’s cold we find a warm place to stay. As Lord Monckton will testify, the Middle Ages were warmer than today. Then during the Little Ice Age people responded to the cold by adapting. Adapting to shifts in temperature will not be difficult. What will be dificult will be adapting to the damage to our economy if a cap and tax bill is passed. In the name of the house of cards posing as scientific certainty, and with alarmism about global warming, the Majority seems hell-bent on….”
You get the picture. Countering decades of advancing understanding by the leading climate scientists by going straight to the Viscount – who has zero science credentials – and manufacturing a supposed scientific debate in order to justify the usual anti-regulation policy stance. One of Mr. Barton’s fellow members said, “It’s nice to have Lord Monckton here, he was a senior policy advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, so he’s a good witness to have.”
Read his testimony here.
http://energycommerce.house.gov/Pres...y_monckton.pdf
And finally for those that are following this "thread" read carefully John's responses. Do they make any sense? Not if you know anything about logic, critical thinking, science, or understanding how to absorb and respond to information PROPERLY. It's about time that everyone realize that the robot just deflects, ridicules, and uses only those sources that support his positions. (and criticizes others that use sources they like.) Others here have noted his avoidance of information and questions that are uncomfortable. When in a corner attack is his MO.
The climate problem, whatever its seriousness, is to be understood as INCREDIBLY complex. The
truth is what matters not positions that are changed
based on this complexity and the evolution of climate science. If one has a
non-ideological interest in the science and want it to be accurate then it follows that wherever the science takes us is okay. If I learned that the problem was overstated my reaction would be "great".
This is what John said recently when confronted with overwhelming information contrary to his position: "The problem is do you want to ruin our economy and make government bigger and pay more takes on the kind of science that they have been putting out lately. "
THAT is what he cares about. F*** science, truth, and man's interest in protecting his world. Big government and taxes are what count not the health of the world we live in.
How does someone become so indifferent to humanity and a slave to ideology? How does one become such a sub-human?
Sad.
