it remains to be seen if their moderator decides to trash it...
thus for good measure I figured I should
document the post over here:
gotten side tracked on Monckton's peerage rather on
Monckton's serial misrepresentations of science and quotes.
Well it's official this comment did not get through
the censors at WUWT,
although their comments are finally moving away from peerage nonsense.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
What's with this diversion about the Lord this or Lord that?
Monckton misrepresents both his standing as a member of the House of Lords as "FaceFirst" pointed out [January 16, 2012 at 5:16 am], if you don't believe him try to find Monckton's name on the official list of members [http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/lords/]
And then there's this official reprimand demanding Monckton stop making these false claims: http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2011/july/letter-to-viscount-monckton/
~ ~ ~
quoting from that letter:
"Letter to Viscount Monckton of Brenchley from David Beamish, the Clerk of the Parliaments.
Dear Lord Monckton
My predecessor, Sir Michael Pownall, wrote to you on 21 July 2010, and again on 30 July 2010, asking that you cease claiming to be a Member of the House of Lords, either directly or by implication.
It has been drawn to my attention that you continue to make such claims. . ."
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
He has also misrepresented is roll as Prime Minister Thatcher's advisor.
From SPPI's personnel page: "SPPI's Chief Policy Adviser: Lord Monckton, UK: -- Christopher, Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, was Special Advisor to Margaret Thatcher as UK Prime Minister from 1982 to 1986. . ."
and then the lavish claims made here at WUWT see:
“Margaret Thatcher: the world’s first climate realist”
Posted on June 16, 2010 by Anthony Watts
Yet the man isn’t mentioned once in Margaret Thatcher’s 914 page autobiography. In fact, she credits one George Guise as being her science policy advisor.
~ ~ ~
Why don’t such “inconsistencies” send up red flags to thinking skeptics?
And isn’t all this attempting to build up the Lord’s supposed “authority” in the eyes of his audience nothing more than an appeal to authority? I thought you folks attack ‘appeals to authority’ why is it OK for the Lord to play that card so eloquently?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
But the real concern should be over his constant misreporting scientific work as
John Abraham [http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/] and
Peter Hadfield [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbW-aHvjOgM] have documented?