UPDATE: Since I wrote this post about TVNZ banning climate sceptic Lord Monckton, it so happens that I myself have been invited to appear on Close-Up tonight to talk about race issues. Should this drive more visitors here, I’m promoting this post to the home page so it’s the first thing they see! I saw and met Monckton today in Wellington and his accounts of similar attempts by the Left to shut him down and smear him were chilling. I’ll be posting on the experience soon. Now on with this post of two days’ ago…
You may recall the recent Close-Up interview with global cooling-warming (take your pick — he does) proponent James Hansen.
And do you recall which sceptic our government TV channel brought in to debate with him to provide balance?
Me neither.
That’s because they didn’t make him debate anyone.
(The science is settled, remember?)
Now fast forward to this week. Same programme. Same channel. Same issue.
Only this time, the visiting climateer is a sceptic — with a flair for political incorrectitude.
He’s none other than Margaret Thatcher’s former science advisor Lord Christopher Monckton, here for a few days after a rip-roaring tour of Australia.
Now whatever else Monckton may be, he’s not boring. He’s articulate, amusing and opinionated, in the great tradition of British celebs.
In other words, he’s great television.
So why won’t TVNZ let him on?
Because they can’t find anyone to debate him.
Huh?
Seems at government TV, only the sceptics get challenged. Warmists — even confused ones who used to be coolists — just get believed.
We’ll come back to TVNZ’s obvious bias later.
But isn’t there something fishy about not one of our loud, proud warm-mongers being prepared to defend their position on this supposed crisis?
After all, the government has just conspired to ratchet up the price of your food and petrol and most everything else.
Why? Because of the supposed desperate need to impose a carbon trading scheme on our already struggling economy.
So wouldn’t you think Nick Smith would be itching to get stuck into the guy who’s been telling him for years that the climate crisis is a hoax?
Or John Key, who used to agree it was a hoax — till he figured there were more votes in saying it wasn’t?
Or any number of Greens, those brave eco-warriors whose relentless pessimism and loathing for their species got us into this mess?
Or one of the eleven experts at the so-called Victoria University climate debate I went to and blogged about — all of them clustered courageously on the same side?
Why doesn’t even one of these ‘believers’ have the courage to defend their position against the man they like to dismiss as a ‘potty peer’ and a ‘swivel-eyed loon’?
Seems Monckton is a man the warm-mongers love to hate, but hate to debate.
Why?
Seems that after all their huff and puff about the science being settled, Messrs Key, Smith, Norman, Trenberth and co. are decidedly unsettled by the thought of being found out.
(As, of course, was Al Gore.)
Of course, they’ll say tangling with Monckton is beneath them. He’s a nutter. Must be. Listen to that posh voice! Get a load of those big bug eyes!
(The result of an hereditary condition, oddly enough unconnected with the ability to think.)
No mention of why Margaret Thatcher would choose him out of thousands to advise her on matters scientific. They didn’t dub Maggie the Iron Lady for being soft in the head.
If these climate sages are so sure of their case, why not front up and use their superior logic to shut Monckton up once and for all?
Isn’t that what a real expert would do?
What does their mass no-show tell you about the honesty of our nation’s climate scientists and cabinet ministers?
And prime minister?
And anyway, why does TVNZ feel the need to have anyone at all debate Monckton? Why not apply the same standards to the sceptic as they applied to the scaremonger/warmist/coolist?
Is TVNZ trying to outdo the Biased BBC?
New evidence of eco-exaggeration
How ironic that Close-Up’s attempt to close down the climate debate should come in the same week as the Daily Mail ran this story:
Climate change far less serious than ‘alarmists’ predict says NASA scientist
Dr Roy Spencer, who works on the space agency’s temperature-monitoring satellites, claimed they showed ‘a huge discrepancy’ between the real levels of heating and forecasts by the United Nations and other groups.After looking at the levels of radiation in the atmosphere over the past ten years, he believes the Earth releases a lot more heat into space than previously thought.
In other words, the computer models were wrong — just as thousands of sceptics (sorry, deniers; sorry, denialists) have been saying.
Now, come to think of it, this is not the first time I’ve heard about global heat escaping harmlessly into space. I first heard a leading sceptic bring it to light about two years ago.
And which sceptic would that have been?
You guessed it: the apparently not-so-mad Monckton.
I’ll be at his Wellington talk on Friday. I hope to see you there. (Whether you see him on state telly is another matter.)
For details of how to see Lord Monckton in Auckland on Thursday, Wellington on Friday and Whangarei on Saturday, hurry to the Climate Realists website.
Warm-mongers pressure PRINZ into pulling plug
Neil and Esther Henderson have been doing an excellent job bringing a dose of sanity to the climate debate — and Lord Monckton to New Zealand.
But one of Monckton’s scheduled events lost its original sponsor thanks to pressure from our brave eco-exaggerators.
Rest assured, though, Neil and Esther have saved the day.
Read this excerpt from their latest newsletter to see what they’ve been up against:
PRINZ, having volunteered to host two of the public events, has received an overwhelming barrage of negative publicity for their gall in allowing someone whose opinions are perceived as being ‘outside the politically correct mantra’ to speak in public.
PRINZ hunted far and wide to find someone to oppose Monckton in a debate and was unable to find anyone willing to front up.
Funny that.
PRINZ was prepared to continue and turn the debate into a ‘discussion’, but the vitriolic hatemail continued to such an extent that PRINZ has now made the decision to pull out of the Auckland event, and we, the CLIMATE REALISTS have taken over the arrangements.
Well done, that couple.
(And a brickbat to PRINZ for being cowed — but a bouquet for still going ahead with their Wellington event.)
The organisers of the business luncheon with Lord Monckton on Thursday have also received some very strongly worded correspondence questioning their integrity in hosting Lord Monckton and urging them (pressuring them!) to cancel.
Are business people are made of sterner stuff than communication people? Surely not!
Neil and Esther continue:
People, this is horrific!!!
What has happened to free speech in New Zealand?
We would like to urge every single one of you who is concerned about what is going on here, to contact Close Up closeup@tvnz.co.nz and challenge them about their decision not to interview Lord Monckton.
Do it now. I sent them this:
Your bias is showing
Mark and team,
I was going to say I can’t believe your cowardice in canning your interview with Christopher Monckton.
But then I guess I can.
If any of you at TVNZ still believe in free speech, I urge you to reconsider, stop being brainwashed by socialist liars, and let the man be heard.
Otherwise be prepared to incur the wrath of the blogosphere – a not-insignificant challenger to your supposed omnipotence.
John Ansell
Back to Esther and Neil:
Did Jim Salinger, Gareth Morgan, Rod Oram, Martin Manning, James Renwick, Kevin Trenberth, James Hansen….(think of anyone else you’ve heard prating the AGW mantra) need someone to present an alternative perspective before they were reported in the mainstream media?
We strongly believe Lord Monckton has a right to be heard. And we believe the public of New Zealand has a right to hear him and make up their own minds. There are an amazing number of accusations flying around the internet about Christopher Monckton. Here is a quote from one of our members who shall remain anonymous:
- “Until this week, I thought Christopher was a rather obscure eccentric Englishman, with a keen interest in mathematics and climate change and a talent for entertainment. “Now, after dredging through endless pages of biography by Greenpeace, Bickmere, Abraham, etc, I’ve discovered that he is an international celebrity of huge importance. “Whole libraries havebeen written about his exploits; newspapers and bloggers record his every move and mood; scholars minutely analyze his spoken word, correspondence, logo, status, etc; activist groups mobilise at his approach.“Seldom does little New Zealand have the opportunity to hear directly from an orator capable of generating such controversy and excitement on the world stage.”
For my money, Monckton did more than any other single person to inform the world about the Climategate scandal and the shonkiness of Al Gore’s movie, and to neuter the Copenhagen talkfest.
I confess I believed Gore at first.
I was wowed by the slickness and clarity of his PowerPoint show.
I loved the way he got up in that cherrypicker to highlight the hockey stick graph.
And I had no reason at all to doubt his facts. (Like the fact that his hockey stick graph was bogus.)
It took brilliant communicators like Monckton — and Bob Carter and Ian Wishart and Jo Nova — to alerted me to the depth of my own gullibility.
Never again.
Neil and Esther:
We need to get out there and let people know that we have a right to doubt — we have a right to be skeptical about everything we are spoonfed by the media, and having just witnessed what manipulation goes on behind the scenes, we need to call the media to account and demand balanced reporting and open debate.
Damn right we do.
The real deniers are the scientists and journalists who try to deny us our right to be sceptical about scientists and journalists.
I know from personal experience that the media are far more interested in entertaining than informing. And if the facts aren’t entertaining enough, they just make up facts that are.
They need to be exposed every time they do that. Which is almost certainly many times a day.
I am, of course, rather sensitive to press bias, given that less than a month ago the Dominion Post refused to run ACT’s 40 true statements on the race issue.
What has happened to free speech indeed.
John Ansell 
If you want to understand the true issues behind the climate change debate and the motivation behind the overwhelmingly pro-AGW propaganda in all our media, read James Delingpole’s book Watermelons. It is available as an eBook here: http://www.amazon.com/Watermelons-Green-Movements-True-Colors/dp/0983347409/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1312335134&sr=8-1
yes, I also agree with your point that We need to get out there and let people know that we have a right to doubt — we have a right to be skeptical about everything we are spoonfed by the media, and having just witnessed what manipulation goes on behind the scenes, we need to call the media to account and demand balanced reporting and open debate. keep up the good job. PDF to ePub converter
JA: Thanks emilyjery. The irony, of course, is that scientists are supposed to be the ultimate sceptics.
I don’t know about you, but the climate debate has shattered my faith in experts of all kinds. I think that’s probably a good thing.
We’ve tended to treat experts as gods, encouraged to believe by the various trappings of their craft (doctors’ white coats, lawyer’s wigs, professors’ gobbledygook, etc.), and our newfound scepticism is a healthy sign we’re growing up.
This isn’t ‘horrific’ John, it’s hilarious!
Monckton has been treated exactly as he should have been here in New Zealand – that is, like a crank. Russel Norman’s call to let Monckton jabber away to himself has been a master-stroke and has starved the old codger of all attention, save that you’re trying to whip-up. Let Monckton go John – like the dodo, he’s gone.
JA: Norman’s cowardice is indeed a master stroke – but only because the media have collaborated with him, instead of calling him for what he is.
Good on you John, take the fight to the cowardly snake oil salesman. It’s all about the money and traitors pretending to be our politicians and their unending desire for more and more of the peoples wealth.
JA: Quite so. The whole thing’s a side show, Bob – one we can ill afford.
Cowardice? pfffffffft
His was the right call and one that cut ol’ Moncky off at the knees.
Isn’t Russel coming up well btw?
A real bright spark in the political firmament.
JA: We’ll just have to agree to disagree on that one, Robert. I’d have advised Russel not to debate him as well – because he’d lose.
But IF word gets out to voters that the Greens won’t debate the guy they so love to mock, that’s going to backfire on them royally. It’s just down to whether all the media collaborate, or just TVNZ.
robertguyton, has your mate Martin Tegg lost his job yet for writing, during work time, propaganda attacking Monckton?
http://whaleoil.gotcha.co.nz/index.php/2011/08/the-climate-of-fear/
Monckton is a genius – apart from being the only journalist who knows that the moon landings were faked and climate change is a global cummunist hoax he’s invented a cure for AIDS, Grave’s Disease and Herpes.
heh heh
I’m British and I can hardly believe that this crackpot, whose serial lies have long since rendered him a Pythonesque comic figure over here, can still gain an audience down in the colonies. Hilarious.
But please – don’t stop him speaking – he is the greatest asset educated people have for demonstrating just how desperate and bereft of scientific facts the denial industy has become.
I don’t see too many facts in this comment, Leslie. I do see the use of the word denial instead of scepticism. Both are tell-tale signs of a Leftie. Lots of vitriol, lots of exaggeration, no logic.
A logical person would surely ask: “Why do the greenies run away en-masse whenever Monckton approaches? (Since we share a love of Python, see that song in the Holy Grail that goes “Brave Sir Robin buggered off”.)
If they’re so sure of their science, and if they’re so sure that Monckton is wrong, why don’t they put up and shut him up?
What does it mean when they love to hate him, yet hate to debate him? Why would they take this stance unless they knew they were frauds?
Truly shameful behaviour for NZ. Where us that pioneering spirit that brought your forefathers to this land?
Is this ‘Close Up’ outfit any relation of the ‘Get Up’ outfit in Aus, that was behind the Shutting Up of so many of Monckton’s venues?
There were very few scientists, pollies or economists prepared to take on Monckton in Aus, but kudos to those that did.
While that chap at the Canberra Press Club was clearly out of his depth, economist I think, I do admire him as a person for having a go and keeping the debate so civilised too. Wish I could remember his name though,
Harr, harr. Certainly gives a new twist to the old Water Melon analogy:-
Greens that are too Yellow to debate Monckton (or admit they’re really Red). Or are they just shy?
My Gawd John – You really are letting yourself down.
It’s like you are on the wrong side on everything!
JA: Happy to be on the wrong side of you, Sue.
Sadly, this debate is as much a loser as the moot is.
Regardless of whether there is planet warming/cooling or exploding, the solution is totally unrelated to taxing New Zealanders. The real issue is that the issue became simply an excuse for a new tax on gullible and misguided (clean green thinking) New Zealanders.
We now have a tax that is going to change nothing. The tax is a fraud. The fact is it doesn’t matter whether or not the planet is warming. The tax is a government fraud.
And here’s a question none of you have ever considered. How do we even know that the planet will be worse off if it does warm, Maybe the result will be the improvement the planet, by killing off a few of its worst enemies, called homo sapiens.
Over the decades, why have local councils taxed (called licences) dogs but not cats, and budgies and pet rocks? Answer because they can.
Governments find a tax base first. Then they invent the case for it.
Ultimately, this moot is going to change nothing. It is a waste of blog space. Unless it is going to lead to the removal of our ETS, then so effing what.
For mine, the biggest issue by a very long way in New Zealand, is that there is no mood whatsoever in ordinary New Zealand voters for a reduction in the size of government.
I would go so far as this. I would even go for a separate Maori government in New Zealand alongside the Wellington one, on the condition that the combined budgets of the two were something like half the current budget, and on the condition that it saw an end to the fu***ng grievance industry.
I’m not suggesting the above paragraph is a realistic dream. It is though a representation of my personal priorities.
John. You ask: ““Why do the greenies run away en-masse whenever Monckton approaches?”
Have you read the Greens explanation for turning down Monky’s offer? Or that of the scientific community?
If not, why not? If you have no understanding of why so many people are blowing Monky off, why do you pretend to have a valid point of view?
Find out why ‘greenies’ can’t be arsed talking with a person Leslie describes as a “Pythonesque comic figure” then make your argument. We greenies haven’t got time to hold your hand.
JA: I’ve read it, Robert. It’s exactly what you would say if you were afraid of the other guy’s arguments.
What have they got to lose by debating Monckton if he’s as wrong as they say he is? What politician ever waives a chance to publicly destroy his opponent?
Answer: one who knows that he’s going to be the one who gets destroyed.
Yep…its an old truth that when you don’t have the facts on you side you play the man instead. The AGW hoax is terminal and liars and frauds like this Guyton creep are feeling the heat (pun intended)
“This Guyton creep” – ah, intelligent debate, I just love the engagement. John – if you’ve ‘just read it’ and come to the conclusion you claim to have, then there is no point in further discussion between us as your ideology has filtered out the meaning of the Green statement and no amount of chiding from me will cause you to see it the way I do. This is a fault that affects much of the discussion on the blogs where right seeks to enlighten left and vise versa. I certainly believe I understand exactly what you mean but I’m not at all sure you take my meaning.
C’est la vie.
JA: Au revoir! (Another one bites the dust.)
I see Mr Guyton has been very restrained in his comments regarding Lord Monckton, but critical of an ‘intelligent debate’ in reference to James. Have a look at what he had to say in response to my question on the 2nd August. “Why won’t the Greens provide an alternative view to Lord Monkton?”
http://alfgrumblemp.wordpress.com/2011/08/02/climate-change-dogma-is-challenged-by-satellite-data-on-the-earths-release-of-energy-into-space/#comments
Yes, please do.
Cheers Alf.
Monckton has been exposed time and again as a charlatan, liar, bully and joke. When people point this out he screeches and wails and threatens to sue. I can see why you fawn over him.
JA: If you’re right then the best way to expose him is to debate him and defeat him. Yet nobody dares do that.
What do you think that suggests to the average thinking person? Could that be why the public now no longer believe the so-called scientists?
His fibs have been exposed repeatedly, eg his claim to be a member of the House of Lords and a Nobel Prize winner and his ludicrous misrepresentations of the science (although these by simply be a result of him not having any scientific credentials whatsoever). What purpose would a 20 minute debate have other than to give the guy a veneer of credibility? He would simply spout nonsense to sow confusion and doubt, in a way he’s done effectively enough to fool you (not the average thinking person I grant you).
JA: No Judge, the fibs are that he said that. He makes it abundantly clear (as he did yesterday) that he is a hereditary member of the House of Lords without the right to sit or vote. Your lot ignore that last bit.
His Nobel Prize claim was a joke. Of course it was a joke, Judge – why would he say something like that in seriousness when it’s so easy to disprove? Yet the humourless Left either didn’t recognise that it was a joke or – more likely – chose not to.
As for the science, if he’s wrong, they should simply front up and prove it. Their repeated failure to do so suggests to rational people that he’s right.
“He makes it abundantly clear (as he did yesterday) that he is a hereditary member of the House of Lords without the right to sit or vote. Your lot ignore that last bit.”
‘fraid not. He told lies about it until he was firmly put in his place by the House itself. This is easily verifiable with a simple Google search. Similar story with the Nobel Laureate claim.
“Why would he say something like that in seriousness when it’s so easy to disprove?”
He’s a fantasist and he thinks people are stupid. And he wasn’t actually Thatcher’s “science adviser” either. Was that a joke as well?
As for the science, he’s been thoroughly owned on that by John Abraham and others. He got so upset about Abraham he went a little crazy, tried to have him fired, and embarrassed himself thoroughly.
I’m sorry, my mistake John. I said that Monckton lied about being a (hereditary or otherwise) Member of the House of Lords until told to desist by the House itself. It’s obvious from what you are saying that this is false. He is in fact still lying about it. Apologies for any confusion caused.
JA: Apology accepted, Judge.
His version is that the ‘House’ that told him to desist was in fact a clerk – who got it wrong. Diverting to this issue is, of course, a classic lefty trick to take the focus off the points that Monckton makes. These can be best rebutted in an honest no-holds-barred debate.
He also noted the habit of the Left to highlight his lack of scientific qualifications, yet at the same time glorify Al Gore, who is no more a scientist than Monckton, and, like our craven climate cowards, runs away from all invitations to debate him on the science.
Whether you find the Right’s version of climate truth compelling, the public now do. And good honest them for coming round.
By “a clerk” you actually mean “the Clerk”, ie theHouse’s top office holder and adviser on procedure. Anyway, by Monckton’s rationale I can legitimately claim to be a member of the House of Lords, even if the law says otherwise and I can therefore represent myself thus if I think it lends me a fig leaf of credibility.
This isn’t a side issue. It’s central to Monckton’s character that he’s so fundamentally dishonest about pretty much everything.
On the scientific question, it’s fascinating that you characterise denialism as a right wing version of truth. How oddly pomo.
JA: Ah that tell-tale word ‘denialism’. Gotcha! Denialism was coined by leftists to suggest that their target is suffering from an obsessive-complusive disorder – a desire to deny anything and everything one is told. A sort of Asperger’s.
The word denialism immediately brands its user as a card-carrying product of the red-green spin machine.
When a scientist uses it, you know he’s not a scientist. He’s a fraud. Proper scientists are sceptics by definition, and wouldn’t dream of inflating healthy scepticism into denial, let alone the quasi-religious denialism.
As regards truth, the kosher scientist has no problem accepting that, in his field, truth is provisional.
I’m happy to accept your point about the ‘Clerk’. I don’t want to suggest that he said ‘a’ and not ‘the’, as I may have misheard. He was adamant that the person, whoever he was, misunderstood the nature of his title.
Blah blah. Are you denying you’re denying the laws of physics?
JA: No, I’m reporting what I read. And I read the other day, for example, that Monckton’s claim of a few years ago that the earth is quite happily releasing ‘greenhouse’ gases into space has now been verified by a NASA scientist.
Anyway, the same criticism applies double to the term “warm-mongers”. It’s all a little boring.
JA: You find it boring. I find it revealing.
I coined the word warm-mongers to describe people who sell warming by scaremongering.
I coined it after I read that IPCC lead author Stephen Schneider said this in Discovery magazine in 1989:
“…we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.”
Monckton still tells whoppers (member of the House of Lords, Nobel Laureate, Thatcher’s Science Adviser, AGW isn’t happening and on and on) and you believe the fibs you find handy to believe and find yourself desperately making excuses for the others. You should at least get yourself a credible mouth-piece.
JA: You should welcome his repeated invitations to top scientists to debate him. Then they could prove their ‘superiority’ face to face. But no, they – and you – prefer the coward’s option: slag him off behind his back.
This is why the public tide has turned, Judge. Those sensible Aussies can sniff out a fraud, which is why Gillard is history. We Kiwis are more gullible, and less willing to punish the liars.
That’s why Monckton was feted in Australia, but ignored or abused by the media here.
And do you really expect thinking people to believe that there is not one warm-monger anywhere with the confidence and power of persuasion to go head-to-head with Monckton on the facts?
After all, if the emperor is indeed wearing clothes, what has he got to fear from the cocky whippersnapper who says he isn’t?
Just where is that warming JC? Your “settled science” appears to be bullshit.
John.
Have you read The Authoritarians?
It’s quite an eye-opener!
It’s on-line. A bright fellow like you could finish it in a sitting and who knows where that might lead you?
JA: I’ve not heard of it, Robert, but I’ve just downloaded it. I’ll read it when I get time – for as long as it strikes me as clear, credible, balanced and fair.
I can’t ask for fairer than that John.
This is the thing about John Ansell – every reasonable person now realises that he is siding with anything that sounds contra to the mainstream – he is seeking attention for himself by being contrary.
To everything.
JA: I am contrary to lies. And many ‘reasonable people’ agree with me. So your first comment is a lie.
He has hijacked (ineptly and ignorantly) several cause celebre and been soundly and concretely debunked on each case.
JA: Not soundly debunked – roundly abused. Big difference.
It is at best the circumstance that he has argued well some points regarding the official history – yet he dredged up so many untasteful points that his arguments have been rightly suppressed.
JA: It’s a common pattern that the Right wants to expose the truth, and the Left wants to suppress it. Note how I do not suppress you – I prefer to let ‘reasonable people’ judge our arguments for themselves. A typical lefty blog couldn’t stomach that.
So a maori hero staked an unborn child and cooked him/her on a fire and then chewed upon her flesh – how utterly horrible!
JA: I agree it was horrible. And the Appeaser-General, Chris Finlayson, wants us to pay Te Rauparaha’s descendants $10 million (part of a much larger settlement) specifically for their loss of the right to invade the South Island and do that. And that’s wrong. And the only way to show it’s wrong is to expose what the ‘Maori hero’ got up to.
Lets examine then the practices of John’s ancestors in the Congo, or India, or Ireland? Of course there is little point in doing so, because for every nasty point John raises, there are nasty points that anyone can raise in equilibria.
JA: I am no apologist for genuine atrocities committed by the British, or anyone else. But is Te Rauparaha’s tribe paying compensation for its atrocities? No. It’s receiving compensation for loss of its ‘maritime empire’ – the means to cross Cook Strait and commit those atrocities. That’s my point. (And, as a side issue, the naming of a sports arena after said cannibal.)
The issue here is not whether John has a point or not regarding the grievances of Maori – the issue is that he tables his points upon a blanket sense of hatred for all Maori.
JA: Another lie. Unlike you, I don’t hate anyone – let alone people I don’t know. But put yourself in my shoes. I’ve had to put up with decades of being told that the British – my ancestors – were villains and Maori are victims. And that’s nonsense, and it’s time the nonsense was exposed. Then ‘reasonable people’ can make up their own minds.
Oh, and the issue is very much whether John has a point or not regarding the grievances of Maori. It would be good if you would debate that issue instead of resorting to personal attack (that much-loved diversionary tactic of the logic-bereft Left).
“No!” says John….but sorry, when you say that Blacks are lazy, Arabs are killers, Irish are stupid, Maori are bludgers …. then you deliberately concede that you are so disrespectful of these good people that you are prepared to slander the many to hurt the few.
JA: Another lie. I most definitely did not, and would not, say any of those things. Show me where I said them, or apologise.
But in one sense you’re right: I am prepared to highlight grim truths to make my point. And I know that’s going to offend people who share some of the characteristics of the people I’m exposing.
Does it make me feel good to know that innocent, law-abiding, go-ahead Maori people will misinterpret my message and think I’m ‘slandering’ them? No.
But they’d be wrong. I’m fighting an injustice, and I need to prove my case. If you know of a way to bring these truths to the attention of the public without some people taking offence, please tell me.
That’s racism John, and you need to focus your attention on the people you dislike, rather than diluting your English against everyone accordingt to colour or race. You could have easily carried out your program without ever referring to Maori (you could have named people)
JA: Give me a list of all the Maori radicals and their lawyers who’ve been fleecing the public and I’ll be happy to name them.
And beyond the history, the politics and the academic arguments John – a lot or people see you for what you really are – a person willing to upset all the maori in this country to pick at the few. That’s just really disrespectful, and that disrespect is hurtful and you need to reconcile wit the good Maori people of these islands
JA: No mention of the disrespect shown by Maori towards non-Maori, I note. Harawira, for example. And Turia with her holocaust lie (the only holocaust in New Zealand was perpetrated by Maori on Maori in the 1820s and 30s, when half the population was wiped out).
And you’d be surprised how many good Maori people have contacted me to agree with me.
I’m not anti-Maori. I’m anti-the unjustified Maorification of Everything, which if not stopped will result in non-Maori becoming second-class citizens of a country their descendants rescued from ethnic cleansing, slavery and cannibalism and quickly turned into the most prosperous country in the world (a status now destroyed by socialism).
THat’s why I hate you – and I do hate you – -because after 60 years of putting up with slanderers like you (against the purely innocent) I realise that you are willing to hurt the feelings of genuinely good people to make your point.
JA: There is a higher principle than not upsetting people who have (sadly) been raised on a diet of lies. That higher principle is the right to tell the truth. To be hated for telling the truth is a sad commentary on how far New Zealand has sunk, ethically and morally, under socialism.
I want to defend ‘Maori’.
I noticed. And you’re in good company. So does the prime minister. So does the Attorney-General. So do any number of government departments. So does just about every commentator.
But who will defend non-Maori? Who will defend the other 85% of New Zealanders who are being fleeced to compensate part-descendants of the luckiest native race on earth (Maori would have wiped themselves out if the British hadn’t ended intertribal massacres, slavery and cannibalism) for sins supposedly (but often not actually) committed by their great-great-grandparents?
Who?
And why should they not?
What about meeting and discussing these things?
“I am contrary to lies.”
See now that’s not really true is it? Monckton tells easily verifiable lies and has been exposed time and again as a liar, and yet you shill for him. It’s facts you don’t like.
JA: Yeah, but the people who are calling him a liar have themselves been proven to lie. So I think we’re best to debate the issues point-by-point and see who wins.
Oh, but of course we can’t do that, because the scientists, politicians and media have conspired to shut the man down. What does that say about New Zealand’s commitment to democracy, free speech, and government and scientific transparency?
As a member of the forgotten and much put upon third,and by far the biggest party to the Treaty I support John and his efforts on my behalf.
JA: Thank you, James.
This is a bit sad John.
Monckton has claimed he was a ‘science advisor’ to Thatcher, but he wasn’t. He was a policy advisor (even his own inflated CVs make this clear).
He also claimed to be a member of the house of lords, but of course that’s no true
He’s also claimed to be a Nobel laureate (pdf ) but, of course, that’s also a lie.
His errors about climate are pretty well established. And what was this champion of free speech’s response to being shown up by a scientist – he tried to get him fired
I’m afrain Monckton has made himself into a laughing stock, and no serious scientists would share a stage with him anymore than an evolutionary biologists would with a creationist or a real archaeologist would with Martin Doutre and his loons.
JA: “The old mock the messenger ploy!” as Maxwell Smart might have said. Unlike the Left, I prefer argument assassination to character assassination. If their arguments are strong, they’ll have no trouble debating him.
What scientist sure of his facts would turn down the chance to monster such a high-value target? Their blanket refusal to debate Monckton is why the public now see the greens as yellow, and not to be trusted.
I have a comment here held up in moderation that I’d like to see you reply to, do you think you can see your way to clearing it? Wouldn’t want to be seen to be muzzling free expression…
JA: I didn’t even know I had a moderation function, David. Your expression has now been freed. 🙂
And do you really expect thinking people to believe that there is not one warm-monger anywhere with the confidence and power of persuasion to go head-to-head with Monckton on the facts?”
God almighty John, how many times? Monckton doesn’t do facts. He tells lies. When you tell him this, and he’s been told repeatedly, he shrieks, dissembles, obfuscates and threatens to sue and gets his minions to try you get his critics dismissed from their jobs. Why would anyone bother to debate with such a discredited charlatan?
JA: Because they could use all that ‘evidence’ to blow him out of the water once and for all, and become heroes. IF they’re sure of their science, where’s the downside?
More to the point, if they can’t win a debate with a ‘discredited charlatan’, why should we sabotage our economy on the strength of their claims?
I wonder the same thing when people answer you Judge….
My earlier comment still hasn’t appeared, so here’s a copy. Release the moderated version if you want the links
Monckton has claimed he was a ‘science advisor’ to Thatcher, but he wasn’t. He was a policy advisor (even his own inflated CVs make this clear) and he has no scientific credentials (his degree is in classics). You don’t have to be a scientists to make arguments about climate, but when we preface you claims with lies about your credentials you don’t deserve to be taken seriously.
He also claimed to be a member of the house of lords, but of course that’s no true
He’s also claimed to be a Nobel laureate (pdf ) but, then, that’s another a lie.
His errors about climate are pretty well established. And what was this champion of free speech’s response to being shown up by a scientist – he tried to get him fired
I’m afrain Monckton has made himself into a laughing stock, and no serious scientist would share a stage with him anymore than an evolutionary biologists would with a creationist or a real archaeologist would with Martin Doutre and his loons.
JA: Sorry David, I had no idea your comment was in moderation. Like most right-wingers, I want free speech to flourish here, so don’t censor anyone unless they insult my family.
Maybe I leant on the wrong button somewhere. I don’t fully understand WordPress’s wacky ways. For example, I now see I have to go to a different place to edit. Weird.
Anyway, I’m happy for you to say what you’re saying about Monckton. I just want to get to the truth, and I can’t possibly know what that is. I know I used to believe Al Gore before he was discredited.
Now I lean towards Monckton because he’s prepared to debate. The other side usually is not. What does that tell me?
And when they do debate, what’s abundantly clear is that the science is a long way from settled. Again, those who say it isn’t are clearly lying and I get suspicious about their motives.
So argue away. But do watch the debate between Monckton and Lambert highlighted on my most recent post. You’ll see both of them making good points. By the end, I suspect, like me, you’ll admire them both, and be less inclined to parrot the party propaganda.
I do wonder at the value of TV, nowadays. Yet people still
watch it, for reasons I can’t grasp. In my imagination, I oft
wonder what wonders of productivity and creation might be
spawned by eschewing the idiot box for what it really is.
I wonder how long before the powers-that-be want to massage
the Internet and its independent messages, to their own ends?
JA: Lord Monckton told us that Google is one of those sinister powers. They put up 25 pages of gibberish containing the words ‘Monckton video’ in order to prevent people seeing the real video. It was only when threatened with legal action that they took down the 25 pages.
This shocked me, as I had hoped the internet was a free market medium, but if a search engine is capable of such skullduggery, evidently not.
The Chinese Government is, of course, an official censor, and it’s ironic that Google took offence at being restrained by them.
JA – “And you’d be surprised how many good Maori people have contacted me to agree with me.”
Yes I would be surprised – only recently you made a similar claim regarding how many women agreed with your chauvinism – but it looked like One sole ( and completely mad) correspondent to me.
So how many Maori have actually contacted you to agree with you?
JA: I’m not counting, Jeeves. I’ve been on Facebook sites and engaged with Maori people. Some just want to abuse me – invariably in pidgin-gangsta-text-English – but I also get my share of Likes from people with Maori names who agree entirely with what I’m saying, and can’t stand Hone Harawira.
I had a 90 minute chat with one of these guys and we agreed on just about everything – except his support for the Maori Party. By the end of it, he’d agreed that the ACT Treaty policy was dead right. He thought the best thing for his people was to get rid of the Maori seats. After our chat he went back to his site and told his friends I was a good guy. I’m certainly not saying they all believed him.
On August 7, 2011 at 10:10 am Die lonely John….. said:
JA ; “Chris Finlayson, wants us to pay Te Rauparaha’s descendants $10 million (part of a much larger settlement) specifically for their loss of the right to invade the South Island and do that. ”
Well here’s an easy challenge about truth: Show any evidence at all that there is a SPECIFIC ( your term) reference to compensate anybody for the loss of ability to disembowel women and skewer unborn infants (oh and cook them and eat them).
Now that’s about as specific as you can get…..
An easily disprovable argument…..
I don’t want to suppress anything – I want to invite you to be SPECIFIC and back up your statement….
JA: Eating his slaves was Te Rauparaha’s habit. That was what invading the South Island led to. That’s what we’re being asked to pay compensation for.
It would be like compensating the Japanese for Pearl Harbour or the Rape of Nanking, or rewarding the Nazis for the holocaust. Madness.
No John. Debating is a sport, it’s easy to sound like you know what you’re talking about if weave disparate bits of data into a nice story, no matter how far from reality that story might be. On the other hand, it’s very hard for someone constrained to telling the truth to take apart every claim that someone with no such constraint can make up. This is a tactic known as the Gish Gallop and perfected by creationists (which is why no evolutionary biologist, my self included, would bother to take the stage with one)
JA: Certainly if you’re hijacked from left field, I know it can be hard to make one’s own honest response sound as credible as your opponent’s false one. To that extent I accept your point.
But Monckton has been making the same claims all around the world for years. Are we to believe that the entire global warming industry could not find a way in all that time to counter his ‘false’ claims in a way that would ring true in a debate?
Are the climate scientists, politicians and media people that devoid of persuasive communicators? Or are they just devoid of accurate facts?
The evidence that Monckton lied abut his seat in the house of lords, lied about his Nobel Prize, lied about his history as a science advisor and lied and lied and lied about climate (then tried to trample on the academic freedom of the people who showed him up) is free for anyone to read, I’ve linked to particular cases, but there are many many more.
Of course we can still debate about climate change, both only with credible people who presented a true case against particular measures. Monckton simply doesn’t meet that criterion, and I’m rather proud that our press by and large seem to have notice that.
JA: The green ‘play the man’ smokescreens about the precise nature of his Lordship’s lord-ship (he is a Viscount, which is a Lord) , his Nobel Prize (an obvious joke, which only the humourless would fail to recognise as such) and the nature of his employment by Margaret Thatcher (the fact that she employed him as an advisor is enough for me, and he did advise on science) do not fool me.
I don’t know the ins and outs of every claim, but I also know that plenty of climate scientists have lied – including the great Goremonger and many on the IPCC – so why should I automatically believe their version?
Why the double standard? Why not watch the video and make up your own mind? And if you agree that’s a good way to make up your mind, why not allow the public to see a similar debate?
Or is your mind already made up based on what one side has told you?
As we say in advertising, nothing kills a bad product quicker than a good campaign. If Monckton had been as widely discredited as you say, no genuine sceptic would touch him – he’d be soiled goods.
But he remains in high demand, and last week when I met him I saw why.
I’m not watching the video in question because I’ve not gone an hour to spend. Perhaps one day. I’m also not a climate scientist – and it takes a lot longer to research every claim that it takes to spin a narrative. Take John Abraham’s destruction of one of his talks, it took literally months for Abraham to do the research to show how Monckton was misleading his audience ( Monckton’s reply sure is something btw). This assymetry is why scientists tend to leave pseudo-scientists to spin alone.
I don’t know what you mean by climate scientists lieing. If it’s the typical ‘hide the decline’ business then you have some research to do.
Finally, Monckton’s history of lies is no simply a series of misunderstandings. Read the bio his lordship gave himself in his letter to McCain (the PDF linked above) and tell the nobel prize was claim was a joke. His lies w.r.t. his position in the lords are outright lies, and he’s been told by the house of lords to stop. He certainly didn’t advise Thatcher on science (she had science advisers for that, and, of course, was a strong advocate for action on climate change).
JA: No time to investigate a two-sided debate, but plenty of time to peddle a one-sided one? That says it all for the Left. (And as a lefty, how did you get into 10 Downing Street to observe the conversations between Maggie and Monckton?)
He said in an interview in Wellington that both he and Thatcher had accepted that global warming was happening. It was only after he conducted his own more thorough research – with no axe to grind either way – that he found that the warming had been grossly overstated. Thatcher looked at the evidence and agreed.
So for the sake of your own credibility with readers who can see you’re playing the man while manfully avoiding the ball, how about either putting up (by watching the video and telling me what you think) or shutting up?
“Lord Monckton told us that Google is one of those sinister powers.”
And you believed him? How many times have the Nigerian scamsters had their way with you?
“The green ‘play the man’ smokescreens about the precise nature of his Lordship’s lord-ship (he is a Viscount, which is a Lord) ”
But he’s not a member of the House of Lords. He tells lies about that.
“his Nobel Prize (an obvious joke, which only the humourless would fail to recognise as such)”
When he first made the claim he wasn’t joking. Look it up.
“and the nature of his employment by Margaret Thatcher (the fact that she employed him as an advisor is enough for me, and he did advise on science)”.
Now you’re just making excuses for his lies. How do you explain away his lies about climate change (see the John Abraham take down, it’s on YouTube)?
And another by John Ansell…
Now that’s about as specific as you can get…..
An easily disprovable argument…..
I don’t want to suppress anything – I want to invite you to be SPECIFIC and back up your statement….
JA: Eating his slaves was Te Rauparaha’s habit. That was what invading the South Island led to. That’s what we’re being asked to pay compensation for.
It would be like compensating the Japanese for Pearl Harbour or the Rape of Nanking, or rewarding the Nazis for the holocaust. Madness.
Jeeves: So you cannot show specifically where anyone is being compensated for not being able to eat unborn babies, because it isn’t happening.
You have yet again taken a ‘truth’ and twisted and embellished a most nasty bile around it until it becomes a plain lie.
JA: Give me a list of all the Maori radicals and their lawyers who’ve been fleecing the public and I’ll be happy to name them.
But surely John as you are the sole arbiter here of what “Maori”,”Radical” and “fleece” mean….
You ARE THE ONLY ONE WHO CAN NAME THEM, and yet white coward that you are you prefer to malign a whole section of New Zealanders with your hate.
You’ve proven an impressive appetite for information gathering when it comes to arguing your points, yet you don’t seem to be able to pin your argument down to ANYONE or ANYTHING actually real.
NAME THE FLEECERS!!!
mikey853nz on TradeMe is at it again: linking your views to causing the Norwegian Massacre
http://www.trademe.co.nz/Community/MessageBoard/Messages.aspx?id=891576&topic=7
allen372 wrote:
I thought he would have realised that when he got banned for blaming John Ansell for the norwegian madman killing a whole lot of people, but he came back just as filled with venom as ever, I think hes to far gone to ever learn
the class of advocates like John Ansell should not be held accountable if the mad and agitated which to apply their rhetoric forcefully?
Quote
mikey853nz (153 ) 2:21 pm, Wed 30 Nov #41
mikey853nz wrote:
the class of advocates like John Ansell should not be held accountable if the mad and agitated which to apply their rhetoric forcefully?
the insane psychopathic gunman would have zero idea who John Ansell was, the fact that you tried to blame John Ansell for the psychopaths action was pretty sick and twisted on your part and you should have been banned for much longer IMO, shame Ansell is not going through with his lawsuit against you, would put an end to your venom
Edited by allen372 at 2:23 pm, Wed 30 Nov
Quote
allen372 (558 ) 2:23 pm, Wed 30 Nov #42
Please contact TM Admin and get his sorry ass banned. And do please feel free to sue his sorry ass.