Lord Monckton of Brenchley making a point. A consummate, level-headed, moderate protagonist of the truth about global warming. On his last visit here the Greens were vociferous and vile in trying to silence him. But, after initially agreeing, they refused to debate with him because they knew they couldn’t beat him and spent the rest of their time slandering him. Look out for more nasty games this time round. Powerful opposition often encourages tactics of last resort that betray one’s frailty and vice. The Greens and warmists seem to have a surfeit of bad humour when strongly opposed.
Lord Monckton of Brenchley has agreed to visit New Zealand next year for a lecture tour.
The Australians just invited him back, and he has agreed to include NZ. Dates have not been set, but planning is under way, under the expert guidance of Esther Henderson, from Climate Realists.
Views: 88
Yaaaayyyyhh..! Lord Monckton is coming back. Can hardly wait. New Zealand’s good people were taken first & further down the road than many on this lost cause, to influence Surface Temperatures Globally with a Tax.
Yes, no novel with this premise would be taken seriously.
It goes to show what delightful, public spirited people Kiwis are, with a well developed sense of community and themselves. Always ready to help in a crisis. I’m sure they’ll be as quick to adapt as the truth filters in and leave those who would exploit their good nature behind.
Typo – “protagonist of global warming” should be “opponent of global warming”?
Protagonist:
Definition: person who takes the lead; central figure of narrative
Synonyms: advocate, central character, champion, combatant, exemplar, exponent, hero, idol, lead, lead character, leader, mainstay, prime mover, principal, standard-bearer, warrior
Thanks Mike. The wording changed and left it ambiguous. Fixed.
Monckton is a level-headed moderate? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8594194/Outrage-as-Lord-Monckton-calls-Australian-climate-change-adviser-a-Nazi.html
Professor Garnaut’s words are on the screen in that link. Read them. They fulfill the requirements of the National Socialist party. They define fascism, Simon. Do you agree that “specially trained philosopher-ecologists will either rule themselves or advise an authoritarian government?
Ever heard of Godwin’s law? As soon as you invoke it you open yourself up to ridicule. The Nazi Party were pro-technology but anti-science, nuclear physics was seen as Jewish science and therefore incorrect. Hitler, Goebbels et. al. had all sorts of mad theories that he ordered his scientists to study with no hope of success. I very much doubt that this is the hypothetical future that Prof. Garnaut was alluding to.
“…..mad theories……with no hope of success”
Doesn’t geo-engineering fit that description Simon?
“I very much doubt that this is the hypothetical future that Prof. Garnaut was alluding to”
Then perhaps he was alluding to the social engineering in this one:-
Effective World Government Will Be Needed to Stave Off Climate Catastrophe
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/03/17/effective-world-government-will-still-be-needed-to-stave-off-climate-catastrophe/
It took 32 authors to write this “policy article” (appeared in ‘Science’) that Gary Stix quotes from in his Scientific American opinion piece:-
*****************************************************************************************************************
‘Navigating the Anthropocene: Improving Earth System Governance’
Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University “Research for Governance of Social-Ecological Systems”
http://www.stockholmresilience.org/publications/artiklar/navigatingtheanthropoceneimprovingearthsystemgovernance.5.1fc8315a135cb03b5591aa7.html
Publication review
Science assessments indicate that human activities are moving several of Earth’s sub-systems outside the range of natural variability typical for the previous 500,000 years.
“Human societies must now change course and steer away from critical tipping points in the Earth system that might lead to rapid and irreversible change. This requires fundamental reorientation and restructuring of national and international institutions toward more effective Earth system governance and planetary stewardship. We propose building blocks of such a new institutional framework”
*****************************************************************************************************************
They (“We”, all 32 of them) “require” a “fundamental reorientation and restructuring” (“Seven Building Blocks”) on the basis of a flimsy premise. Seems more than a little arrogant and extreme wouldn’t you say Simon?
Apparently the 2012 Rio Conference offered “a crucial test of whether political will exists to bring about these urgently needed changes”
*****************************************************************************************************************
Constitutional Moment
The world saw a major transformative shift in governance after 1945 that led to the establishment of the UN and numerous other international organizations, along with far-reaching new international legal norms on human rights and economic cooperation. We need similar changes today, a “constitutional moment” in world politics and global governance.
Such a reform of the intergovernmental system—which is at the center of the 2012 Rio Conference—will not be the only level of societal change nor the only type of action that is needed toward sustainability. Changes in the behavior of citizens, new engagement of civil society organizations, and reorientation of the private sector toward a green economy, are all crucial to achieve progress. Yet, in order for local and national action to be effective, the global institutional framework must be supportive and well designed. We propose a first set of much-needed reforms for effective Earth system governance and planetary stewardship. The 2012 Rio Conference offers an opportunity and a crucial test of whether political will exists to bring about these urgently needed changes.
*****************************************************************************************************************
They got their answer – no.
Monckton is a level-headed moderate?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/youre-smoking-crack-peer-who-doubted-obamas-birth-status-is-told-7794184.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Br9imjm1kvk
If you actually read the article you cite, you find that Monckton said moderately “there are clear irregularities” in Obama’s [birth] status. It was the journalist who went from there to “he really does believe that Barack Obama faked his birth certificate to become US President,” and used that as an excuse to accuse him of smoking crack.
Do you see the disconnect there, Bluebottle? Do you want to comment on the moderate way in which Monckton employs scientific fact in discussing global warming?
Hi Richard
On his last visit Moncktons treatment by NZ’s largely socialist media was churlish in the extreme.
His visit focused attention on the ridiculous ETS. In the last year millions of dollars have gone to waste and electricty costs have increased. The ETS is the darling of the greens and other fellow travellers and in the rush to exploit carbon credits 1.7m ha of forestry land has come under foreign control. The irony here is the greens/labour anti asset sale stance.
All this has been ignored by the media and the public is largely unaware of the waste that is caused by the ETS. I hope you can help with more detailed background material on the subject so we can help pave the way for a successful Monckton visit.
Monckton is a level-headed moderate?
Watch him here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BH6_UgAmdxo&feature=related
pretending that he has read the Copenhagen treaty in advance – “I have read that treaty” – and then pretending that it’s all really about a secret UN plot to take over the world. It’s mad conspiracy stuff.
He is indeed eloquent and intelligent, yes, but he’s as far from level-headed as you can get. One day his adoring supporters will wake up to the fact that they have been had by a most unusual and eccentric man who lives a Boy’s Own fantasy in his head that he’s going to save the world. He’s just another Walter Mitty with grandiose ideas, all of which have him at their centre. He’ll tell you what you want to hear, and say it beautifully, so long as you admire him for it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbW-aHvjOgM&feature=plcp
Goodness – you haven’t read the Copenhagen treaty, have you? It contains everything that Monckton said it did. No pretense was necessary.
Thank you for getting to the party early, though, and confirming that we’ll have to suffer through a green backlash to his visit next year. Heard of climate science?
Richard, thank you for your responses. You are quick to paint my comments as “green” backlash. I hope you will concede that it is possible for me to disagree with you about Monckton yet not be a socialist or a greenie. My comments were inspired only by your choice of the words “level-headed moderate” to describe this peculiar man. I judge people by their friends as well as by their enemies and there is no doubt that Monckton assiduously courts the company of friends who are neither level-headed nor moderate. Conspiracy theorists increasingly permeate the public debate on how we should respond to climate change and offer little more than fear and fevered imagination when it comes to resolving that question. Monckton may be a poster-boy for you, but he’s also a poster-boy for conspiracists, Birthers, survivalists and many others.
He is a former deputy leader of the UK Independence Party (Ukip), which has clearly flirted with the fringes of far-Right racist, anti-Muslim sentiment in Britain to recruit members. Go back to the Independent article and read the closing comments: “A spokesman for Ukip said last night that Lord Monckton’s insistence in the birther argument ‘is certainly an eccentric view’.”
I am not a socialist or a Green. But I repeat, Monckton is not level-headed or moderate. Perhaps you would care to respond to that statement – without dismissing me with a tired personal label that is nothing but an ideological dog-whistle.
“Monckton is not level-headed or moderate”
lev·el·head·ed Pronunciation (lvl-hdd)
adj.
Characteristically self-composed and sensible.
mod·er·ate Pronunciation (mdr-t)
adj.
1. Being within reasonable limits; not excessive or extreme: a moderate price.
2. Not violent or subject to extremes; mild or calm; temperate: a moderate climate.
3.
a. Of medium or average quantity or extent.
b. Of limited or average quality; mediocre.
4. Opposed to radical or extreme views or measures, especially in politics or religion.
In the context of the climate debate (no idea of his other political views), Monckton is a luke-warmer i.e. he subscribes to the idea aCO2 produces warming but that it is inconsequential and he supports that view by theoretical mathematics.
That puts him middle-of-the-road, medium, average, “being within reasonable limits; not excessive or extreme”, a moderate as are say, Anthony Watts and David Evans from what I can make out.
The extreme view at the other end of the spectrum to CAGW alarmists are those that prove that rather than being “heat trapping”, CO2 is in fact a very efficient energy transfer medium and that CO2 levels of 10,000 ppm didn’t result in catastrophic warming (or any warming). Monckton is not at this end of the climate debate spectrum.
The only reason for the focus on Monckton is because he is able to communicate his point of view vocally (speech medium) in public forums and having done so around the world has become a recognizable “face”, mistakenly taken to be the “face” and voice of the entire sceptic viewpoint when that is clearly not so – just ask the “Slayers” about that.
Bluebottle, your sound-bites aren’t convincing in the absence of some specific claim that Monckton takes some position which you can show to be untenable.
UKIP “has clearly flirted with the fringes of far-Right racist, anti-Muslim sentiment in Britain to recruit members”. Does this mean any more than the fact that UKIP has a policy to severely reduce immigration? Isn’t that a valid viewpoint in a democracy? (I note yesterday’s story that the most common baby boy’s name in England & Wales during the past 12 months, and the past 5 years, has been “Mohammed”).
What am I to take from the assertion that Monckton is “a poster-boy for conspiracists, Birthers, survivalists and many others”. I don’t know much about Birthers, but survivalism seems sensible enough. What else?
“Boys Own” fantasy? Walter Mitty? Where on earth do you get all this?Do you have any argument with what he SAYS, or only with who he IS?
I’ve heard Monckton speak and watched him on the tube and read many of his mathematical analyses of the climate alarmist case. Time and again he has been able to substantiate his position, despite initial derision from climate alarmists. He has an extraordinary brain, and that may account for his eccentricity. But it hardly seems a reason for abuse and derision.
I love all these Guardian readers that bang on about “far right” and “racism”
Here’s Pat Condell having a mighty fine rant about the Guardian and it’s foaming at the mouth ugliness
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOgV6Fvc8wc&feature=player_embedded
Bluebottle,
You say I’m “quick to paint your comments as “green” backlash.” Well, that’s exactly what it sounds like. As I said:
I was quick to see the level of your condemnation went beyond the evidence. What you said was rather stupid.
Absolutely. But your initial comment, which consisted of a single question: “Monckton is a level-headed moderate?” did not exclude the topic of global warming, or any topic. You appeared to disagree with everything Monckton stands for.
Well done. Only, the topic here is global warming, or climate change, and not the range of friends or enemies people might have. If you could comment on what Lord Monckton says on global warming, it would be on topic and might be a lot more interesting.
But so what? I don’t know what you’re talking about, we’re talking about the climate.
Certainly. I called you nothing. You’ve adopted the names “socialist” and “Green” without my invitation.
To repeat my initial comments again, if you actually read the article you cite, you find that Monckton said moderately “there are clear irregularities” in Obama’s [birth] status. It was the journalist who stretched that into the extreme accusation that “he really does believe that Barack Obama faked his birth certificate to become US President,” and used that as an excuse to accuse him of smoking crack. You should berate the journalist for exaggerating.
Do you see the disconnect there, Bluebottle? Do you want to comment on the moderate way in which Monckton employs scientific fact in discussing global warming?
Richard,
Thank you for your more considered response. I don’t know about Watts but we seem to agree that David Evans, at least, is at the far end of things with his conspiracy theories about “a small number of European banking families”, particularly two with Jewish names, plotting with environmentalists to introduce a global gold currency that they will control and so subject the world to financial slavery.
As you know, it’s that sort of loopy and distasteful stuff that prompted Andrew Bolt to distance himself recently from the Galileo Movement. But doesn’t Christopher Monckton essentially offer the same basic story, with a switcheroo that substitutes the UN and political slavery for the Jewish bankers and financial slavery? We’ve heard it all before: whether it be the Yellow Menace, nuclear energy, influenza pandemics or extra-terrestrials, it’s still wallowing in the fear-mongering fantasy category: and that’s not moderate, that’s both extreme and no less alarmist than any other “we’ll all be rooned” doomsday scenario. However, I can see that you will not accept that, since you agree with Monckton about the secret UN global domination conspiracy allegedly hidden within the Copenhagen Treaty and climate science, so we must agree to differ: I’m right and you’re mad, as they say.
You’re certainly right about Monckton being able to communicate – he’s a brilliant showman. The pity is that he’s selling snake oil. I know you won’t accept that either, but remember that whatever he says about the detail of climate science, however reasonable he may sound at time, all sits within his big-picture framework of global conspiracy. He’s just another extremist/alarmist in Viscount’s clothing.
“I don’t know about Watts” – Ha! Blog stats 123,600,210 views
You say:-
“….we seem to agree that David Evans, at least, is at the far end of things with his conspiracy theories about “a small number of European banking families”, particularly two with Jewish names, plotting with environmentalists to introduce a global gold currency that they will control and so subject the world to financial slavery”
No we we don’t agree. All I said was that David is a luke-warmer “from what I can gather”, how you read the rest wrt him from that and ascribed my agreement to it is beyond me but perhaps you would care to link to his writings (that you supposedly quote) so I can make up my own mind?
But you seem to have confused David Evans with Malcolm Roberts with your quote:-
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/happy_to_help_those_who_ask_but_not_people_who_peddle_this/
Then you say:-
“…..doesn’t Christopher Monckton essentially offer the same basic story, with a switcheroo that substitutes the UN and political slavery for the Jewish bankers and financial slavery?”
Not quite. Its a case of the UN (and sycophants) seeking to extend a UN charter to a purpose for which it is not intended and to the extent of subverting national sovereignty rights, see:-
CHAPTER X: THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCIL
http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter10.shtml
Meanwhile the UN has been ineffectual in Syria
‘UN leaves Syria to its bloody fate’
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/columnists/robert-fisk/un-leaves-syria-to-its-bloody-fate-16199899.html
Doesn’t the UN Security Council have a “primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security”?
CHAPTER V: THE SECURITY COUNCIL
http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter5.shtml
What I’m getting at is that one arm of the UN is happy to abdicate a “primary responsibility” when the going gets tough and peace and security breaks down but continues to seek further but evermore pervasive power via another arm. Let’s hear about that from Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCC AR4 WG III Co-Chair:-
(NZZ AM SONNTAG): The new thing about your proposal for a Global Deal is the stress on the importance of development policy for climate policy. Until now, many think of aid when they hear development policies.
(OTTMAR EDENHOFER, UN IPCC OFFICIAL): That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.
(NZZ): That does not sound anymore like the climate policy that we know.
(EDENHOFER): Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet – and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 – there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.
(NZZ): De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.
(EDENHOFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.
BTW Bluebottle, try using the “Reply” button and some paragraphs please.
Yes, I know who Watts is and how popular his blog is, but I haven’t taken the trouble to seriously assess whether he falls into the conspiracist camp – although I have seen enough of his views on the land temperature record in the US to expect that he does.
As for Evans, I most certainly have not confused his views with Roberts’s – indeed, I suspect the latter has been singing from the songsheet of the former. Yes, you can read Evans for yourself here.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/manufacturing_money_and_warming.pdf
Whatever you think of his economic and historical analyses, it is framed within time-worn references to the “goldsmiths” and the cabal of “banking families”, replete with “parasite” imagery. Only he knows his own mind, but I am familiar with that terminology and can say that at the very least he has been most careless in using it. Some quotes re what he calls the paper aristocracy or banksters (a word with odious origins in the early 20th century):
p9 “They buy politicians by the truckload. The banksters have even killed the occasional thorn in their side—including, probably, two US presidents, Lincoln and Garfield.”
p32 “There are a small number of families who, over the centuries, have amassed wealth through financial rent seeking. They are leading members of the paper aristocracy. For example, the Rothschilds are the biggest banking family in Europe, and were reputed to own half of all western industry in 1900 . . . The banking families don’t work for a living in the normal sense, like the rest of us. They avoid scrutiny and envy by blending in and make themselves invisible.”
p33 “Perhaps today’s fiat currencies—the US dollar, pound, yen and so on—will go up in smoke in an inflationary crescendo in the next few years, perhaps as planned by the paper aristocracy. Maybe they will reintroduce an asset backed currency. And guess who has all the gold? Those banking families have been salting it away for years. Possibly a global currency, so one cannot escape the predations of the paper aristocracy. This is not just about money, but about power, of course.”
Having raised the bogeyman, he deflects responsibility for the final statement by saying it’s all unsubstantiated rumour. Yeah, right.
And all this mumbo-jumbo is, of course, revealed at the end as Evans’s pitch to flog his own investment advice in – you guessed it – gold!
Why not take out the GoldNerds Australian Professional Subscription for 12 months? Only $449! A bargain when you consider that “other large international groups charge $3,000 – $18,000 per annum for access to their metals and mining databases.”
http://goldnerds.com.au/index.php?option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=7&vmcchk=1&Itemid=7
Sorry, I won’t be drawn into a debate about the UN or climate science. If you think the UN and greenies are trying to take over the world, fine, that’s your right.
Just let it stand that I vigorously challenge your claim that Monckton is a level-headed moderate. Like Evans, he is far from that.
Having studied banking as part of business studies, Evans’ account is as much historical as it is a personal take (I’m referring to the “parasite” snippet).
The removal of the gold standard and replacement with promissory notes (the govt promises to pay unless it’s insolvent – Obama’s US would be except for debt extension) means as Evans states “[m]oney was thereby manufactured, or created out of thin air”. It was with the gold standard too but at least there was some tangible security.
Meanwhile, where’s the gold?
Evans is on-the-money, so to speak, there too. If the moneyed class prefers the security of gold then that’s probably a better bet than the promissory notes of the EU or the US.
Equally, Evans is on-the-money re carbon taxes, cap and trade and banking (and insurance I would add) involvement too. Carbon taxes and the UN’s Fast Start and Green Climate Fund (or would be in the latter case) are the biggest diversions of wealth since Roosevelt outlawed private US gold ownership (except for those privileged few) with the Gold Standard Act.. The unnecessary carbon charge is now factored into economic investment decisions in a market distorting way even here in the NZ energy sector for years ahead in government planning and the ETS levy is an impost on every container leaving NZ with our exports. All that on a bogus thin-air pretext.
Evan’s has a case, I think.
Perversely (but in character), US domestic protectionism has levered UN Fast Start to US advantage and India’s loss. I’m referring to this article:-
‘US is using climate finance to kill the Indian solar panel industry: CSE’
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/pune/US-is-using-climate-finance-to-kill-the-Indian-solar-panel-industry-CSE/articleshow/15560445.cms
The US protectionist animal is as ugly as it ever was no matter whether the handler is wearing an elephant suit or a donkey suit. They’re not going to let “climate” altruism usurp an opportunity to gain votes.
Re climate science, the UN and its Green Agenda, I defy you Bluebottle, to map Edenhofer’s responses to the UN Charter Preamble or a relevant Charter Chapter. If you can’t then the Green Agenda (as espoused by Edenhofer) is questionable isn’t it?
I’m wondering Bluebottle, how do you peg your extreme-moderate-extreme spectrum?
That is, where do the respective positions of Monckton and Shearman/Wayne Smith fit in that spectrum?
I’ve pegged Monckton as moderate in the climate debate by virtue of his luke-warm stance, where do you place him in your climate debate spectrum and why?
The quote in the screenshot that Simon links to (a Monckton presentation) is from ’The Climate Change Challenge and the Failure of Democracy‘, which Shearman co-authored with Joseph Wayne Smith and I reproduce it here:-
“Government in the future will be based upon . . . a supreme office of the biosphere. The office will comprise specially trained philosopher/ecologists. These guardians will either rule themselves or advise an authoritarian government of policies based on their ecological training and philosophical sensitivities. These guardians will be specially trained for the task”. [p. 134]
Where does that perspective fit in your spectrum Bluebottle?
The respective position in your spectrum of those 2 pegs will define your own perspective wont it?
Stanley,
Yes it does mean more than “that UKIP has a policy to severely reduce immigration”. Just Google “Ukip and racist”. Check Wikipedia: Ukip’s founder, Alan Sked, quit the party after four years because he felt “they are racist and have been infected by the far-right”. Today, it is a party twisted by its own internal ideological contradictions. On one hand it wants to assert British “independence, identity and traditions”, on the other it opposes ethnic nationalism. Immigration, it claims, is “a deliberate attempt to water down the British identity”. One recent report noted that Ukip had entered into alliance with the French National Front and the Austrian Freedom Party.
http://cep.rhul.ac.uk/cep-blog/2012/6/20/ukip-in-alliance-with-marine-le-pen-and-the-austrian-freedom.html
That report links to this alliance’s poster – a white sheep kicking a Turkish/Moroccan sheep from Flanders. If it walks like a duck . . . or a sheep. Fear of foreigners, xenophobia: this, too, is Monckton’s heartland.
You say he’s been proved right time and again. Au contraire, the opposite is so if you care to look with open eyes. Yes he is brilliant – at making stuff up around grains of truth, at persuading other people that he is credible and authoritative, at inflating his own role in world affairs. Sorry, but it’s all for show. Look at me!
Do you think someone who wants to limit immigration is “racist”?
Hi all,
Perhaps if Monckton cannot find anyone to debate when he returns to NZ he could debate himself.
Have a look at the whole series if you have time but the first minute and a half of the below gives the general idea.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xx5h1KNMAA&feature=player_embedded
Bluebottle, on global warming, Monckton has a level-headed moderate approach, regardless of your claims on other issues.
Maybe you could debate Monckton, Nick. I am sure you would both have lots of peer reviewed studies that you could discuss together.
I can’t wait, truly I can’t.
Will he be bringing his pals Big Ears and Noddy with him?
It’ll be comedy gold.
Are you a big fan of Big Ears and Noddy, Richard Christie?
The reason I ask is that I assume you’re a grown man and it would be an odd obsession
Or have I got my assumption wrong?
It’s possible – the climate modelers have.
I take it that you will be coming to one of these talks then Richard Christie? That’s great! We can all meet up afterwards for a beer and have a jolly good chinwag old chap
Noddy & Bigears? Ahh, you mean your buddies Cecil and Parrot.
It certainly will be comedy gold watching them coughing and spluttering their way through another futile attempt to prove feedbacks without the tropospheric hotspot – as it always is. When they fail, all three of you could start hurling abuse in an attempt to cover up your total ignorance.
BTW, have you found that hot spot yet Dick? I hear these’s overwhelming evidence for AGW, but there still seems to be something missing. Funny that.
Maybe Monckton could debate Dave Frame? Now that would be something worth listening to.