Monckton in NZ TV

Here is great interview in New Zealand television with the Lord Monckton. He expresses his lack of confidence about the peer review process (in science, not in economics where it is reliable). He also explains that professor John Abraham is about to face a libel charge due to the lies he has been spreading about the good Lord. The Climate Scum supports the good Lord in his effort to go to court. Such measures are sadly necessary to ensure an open and civil debate about the climate fraud. John Abraham, in his puerile efforts to discredit Monckton, is clearly out to intimidate all independent thinkers and lovers of free markets.

We also support the efforts of John Coleman and 30,000 scientist to sue Al Gore.

As a bonus, here is philosopher of science and radio host Glenn Beck revealing Al'Gore's plans to become a dictator and explaining how science funding works.

The Lord Monckton censored at Cancun

Photograph: Jenny Bates for the Guardian

Censorship rules in Cancun! The Lord Monckton was forced to leave the World Climate Summit lunch party at the Ritz Carlton hotel, reports the Guardian. The Lord Monckton had informed the other participants that man-made climate change was not happening, but this wasn't tolerated by the Hitler Jugend organizers of the event. Indeed, their mind-controlling zealotry went so far that they hadn't even invited the Lord Monckton in the first place.

It is evident that the alarmist eco-fascists are getting increasingly desperate as the AGW house of cards is falling apart! And they really have no manners!

Absentem laedit, qui cum ebrio litigat.

In which religions scientists must believe

His Great Lordship, the indomitable Lord Mockton has weighed in on the proper relation between science and religion.
This is his powerful conclusion:

Why did so few true scientists speak out against the eugenic slaughter perpetrated by Hitler, or the famines caused by the Lysenko nonsense, or the millions of deaths from AIDS and malaria and yellow fever that could so easily have been prevented, but were not? And why do so few true scientists today have the courage to stand up and be counted against the cruel absurdity that is “global warming” theory, a theory that is now killing millions in the Third World because, while we can afford to pay $2 rather $1 for a burger, they are below the breadline already and simply cannot afford the doubling of food prices which, according to the World Bank, has resulted directly from the belief that “global warming” is a “global crisis” – a belief gladly fostered not only by the State but also by academe, by the media, and by the commercial world, for all imagine that they can profit greatly by it at our expense.

These dreadful and continuing episodes of careless, callous mass slaughter of innocent people by the governing class have one factor glaringly in common: they occurred because scientists lacked the moral fiber to stand out publicly and persistently against the bastardization of natural philosophy itself. They did not thunder: they cowered. Too many are cowering now, when they should be courageous enough, and true enough to their disciplines, to speak, speak out, and speak on until the truth is heard.

And why? Why this widespread, serial cowardice on the part of the scientific community? Yes, that community is now heavily, indeed almost exclusively, dependent upon the taxpayer for its funding. Science is a monopsony, with the State more or less the only paying customer. Yes, that community may legitimately say that most of its members do not specialize in the increasingly narrow fields in which the scientific debate about “global warming” is taking place. Yet there is another and more terrible reason why our scientists have so often and so catastrophically let down the millions whose deaths their cringing passivity has allowed.

Precisely because the worst sort of scientists are prone to say, intolerantly, that religion is not a legitimate pastime for any scientist, many scientists have come to the view that they no longer need to adhere to any moral precept at all. Morality, they say, is the province of religion and not of science. We, they say, can do what we like as long as we can get away with it, and there is no such distinction any more as true or false, right or wrong, just or unjust.

Perhaps, therefore, no one should be allowed to practice in any of the sciences, particularly in those sciences that have become the mere political footballs of the leading pressure-groups, unless he can certify that he adheres to one of those major religions – Christianity outstanding among them – that preach the necessity of morality, and the reality of the distinction between that which is so and that which is not. For science without the morality that perhaps religion alone can give is nothing.

That is right: evil in the world exists because too many scientists are Godless and spineless atheists. They hate God, and as humans are created to His image, they also hate humans. But if you hate God, then He will be wrathful and he will mess up your experiments, like in Quantum Physics. And the Lord Monckton has the answer: only those who believe in a religion may practice science, so they will have the moral compass (as given by God) to do good and avoid doing evil.
But what religions would be acceptable? Here I say that we need consider each religion carefully. Not just any religion will do. As a renowned expert both in science and in religion, I have separated the wheat from the chaff:

Christianity – obviously, as this is the outstanding religion when it comes to morality. And to science – just look at how many great scientists were Christians: Galileo, Newton, etc etc.

Judaism – well, Einstein was a Jew, and I’m not prejudiced. So Judaism is also acceptable.

Catholicism – no, the papists persecuted both Galileo and the Lord Monckton. They also invented the Inquisition.

Orthodox Church – no, orthodoxy is the opposite of scepticism. And they are heretically wrong about the Filioque.

Islam – no, a religion of oppression and terrorism. Need I mention Usama bin Laden? Need I mention Barack Obama? Need I mention Obama bin Laden?

Hinduism - no, they believe in a lot of weird gods. They believe in holy cows. And need I mention Pachauri?

Buddhism – no, they don’t believe in reality, so how can they then do science?

Atheism aka Humanism– no! This is also a religion, because to not believe in God is also a religious position. But the absence of a punishing but loving God makes it utterly amoral.

Liberalism – no! The Godless religion of Liberalism (aka Communism aka Fascism) is just like Atheism. Actually, they are the same thing. Thus spoke Ann Coulter!

Environmentalism – no! This is a religion of Gaia worship that believes that mosquitoes are more valuable than humans. No other religion has caused more deaths in the history of mankind.

Anthropogenic Global Warming – no! This is also a religion, and their god is CO2. They believe that CO2 has supernatural powers which allow it to control the climate, and that they must appease the wrath of the CO2 god by living in discomfort and misery. Also see Environmentalism.

Witchcraft aka Wiccaism - no! Ritually practiced at the NASA compound, according to information from credible sources. A religion of evil, mocking God!

Pastafaranism aka Flying Spaghetti Monsterism - no, this is not even a real religion. It is just a mock religion invented by atheists in order to make fun of respectable religions (i e Christianity). Pathetic! Has many supporters in academia, but do not let that fool you! They will not fool me again, that's for sure!

So in summary, to be a practicing scientist, you should prove that you either are a Christian (obviously) or a Jew (I'm not prejudiced).

The vicious ad hominem campaign against Lord Christopher Monckton continues

We have written before about the vicious ad hominem campaign against Lord Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, curer of HIV, MS and the common cold, victor of the Falklands War and vanquisher of Al Gore. Now it apaprently time for another ad hominem attack, this time pertaining to a testimony Lord Monckton made in the American Congress, invited as an expert witness (and who could be more qualified?) by the pro-science and pro-Jesus Republican party. A number of alleged "climate scientsts" have written a 48-page letter to the US Congress, claiming they wanted to point out mistakes made by Lord Monckton. But their letter is full of ad hominems and expletives such as “very misleading", "profoundly wrong", "simply false", "chemical nonsense", and "cannot be supported by climate physics". It is blatantly clear that they cannot beat Lord Monckton on the science, so they instead attempt a loathsome smearing attack against His Lordly Highness.
But the Lord Monckton responds that he already has addressed all the points of the attempted rebuttal in a letter to the US Congress, and adds graciously about his detractors:

“One of the lead authors is currently under criminal investigation for alleged fabrication of results: another has been caught out in repeated lies: a third admits to suffering a mental disability: and many of the scientists whom these lead authors invited to contribute are among the long-discredited clique of Climategate emailers. Accordingly, it is unlikely that Congress will pay much attention to their political rant, which displays a lamentable absence of quantitative detail and a pathetic reliance on fashionable but questionable forecasting techniques that have long been compellingly contradicted by hard data.”

This incident, this battle in the Climate Wars ending in yet another decisive victory for us Climate Realists, is evidence that the alarmists are getting increasingly more desperate. If Monckton really was wrong about so many things, why the need for a rebuttal? Any mistakes by Lord Monckton would anyhow easily been spotted by members of the US Congress, by experts like John Carter and his fellow Texans. Indeed, this nasty ad hominem attack proves that Lord Monckton has struck a nerve. The eco-fascists know that their house of cards is falling apart.
It is also clear that the people behind this ad hominem attacks are rabid activists, and do not deserve to be called scientists. They do not possess the scientific objectivity that made Lord Monckton the number one choice for testifying in Congress. Instead, they want to stifle the scientific debate, and prevent other independent voices from being heard. They want to influence the political process, uninvited, and that is somehting an objective scientist never should do. These should be sufficient reasons for the US Congress to throw their ridiculous rant directly into the waste bin.
And Lord Monckton has, according to my excellent judgement, very good chances to win if he sues the people behind this disgraceful defamation attempt.