Really Sciency

Visit my other blog 'Really Sciency' looking at Climate Science and its portrayal, misrepresentation and denial in the media.

Thursday, 8 December 2011

Good COP Bad Cop


With the latest UN talks on climate change, officially known as COP 17, drawing to a close and with the likelihood of nations agreeing to disagree high, it is somewhat optimistic to describe it as a good COP.

Considering the US and some other countries turned up with little intention of agreeing to anything, with developing countries and developing superpowers looking for as much latitude to emit as possible and the EU Block hardening it’s attitude on committing to anything without others making comparable commitments, even the most optimistic delegate must have expected little progress and they seem assured not to be disappointed - Which probably accounts for the almost nonexistent news coverage of the event in mainstream media compared to other attempts like Copenhagen.

But there are definitely bad Cops. The usual ‘skeptic’ officers have turned up trying to enforce their laws that go against those of physics.

This was all unoriginally pre-empted by the illegal release of some more private emails between climate scientists for the bad cops to pour over and cherry pick and cynically create as much smoke and mirror publicity just before the whole event kicked off. But like the talks themselves, it failed to generate much true media interest – this was just old news.


So the award for the best stunt must go to Lord Monckton, more a Keystone Cop than a bad cop, who decided to drop in by parachute. Other than a publicity monger, I can’t see the significance of parachutes and climate ‘skepticism’ unless he thought such antics would make him look like a super anti-climate hero swooping in on the scene. But in my eyes it is more likely to suggest he is a puppet with others pulling his strings!


It would seem that most people have already forgotten that Moncton at one of his infamous ‘climate science’ lectures, just before Copenhagen when there was genuine optimism that a lasting deal could be struck, claimed to have already seen the treaty the worlds nations were going to sign. At that time he certainly suggested that the Copenhagen treaty would amount to a new world order with dire consequences for all, but he was very vague on the details.

Perhaps he did actually see a leaked copy of the treaty, written even before the worlds nations pretended to negotiate it, but decided not to tell his audience that it would amount to the nations agreeing to agree something at a later date yet to be agreed? With that later date still as far away as ever, perhaps Lord Monckton didn’t think that sounded scary enough for his purposes?

Would Lord Christopher Monckton object to me suggesting what he might do for his next anti-climate science stunt?







5 comments:

  1. Pity the parachute openned.

    ReplyDelete
  2. That's a rather nasty thing to say. Monckton is a delusional or lying buffoon, but doesn't mean you wish him dead. Incidentally, if the chute didn't open, the paratrooper would also be dead.
    --Dan J. Andrews

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks Lazarus,

    Dan J Andrews,

    My money's on Monckton being delusional, with a mix of something he shares with Booker: A kind of borderline oppositional defiance disorder thing. I really don't think he lies, I really think he believes he's right, he just seems to deal wit being shown wrong by ignoring it and continuing, that's pathological behaviour, not that of a scheming liar.

    As a former sceptic I may be harsh, a bit like some former smokers (a club I'm soon to join - though not on the harsh wing). But I just don't see real reason to doubt that humans are behind the recent (post '75) warming, and if we're causing that we've caused a substantial part of the post 1880 warming too.

    I too don't wish Monckton dead, I pity him. History will not remember him kindly.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Monckton is the typical Eccentric crank and anyone with any level reasoning who is aware of hid odd ball claims, particularly his claims to have a cure for AIDS and other diseases, would see him for what he is.

    Unfortunately not everybody is aware of his background and some might think that just because he is given a platform and publicity he has validity.

    I doubt very much that the first poster really wished him dead by their comment, just an off the cuff remark, any more than I wish he would really get fired from a cannon.

    ReplyDelete