Now that Monckton has been exposed as a fraud, who's left to represent the global warming denial movement?
At a recent US Congressional hearing on global warming, Christopher Monckton was chosen as the sole representative for the global warming 'skeptics' side. He seems to have become the face and representative of the global warming denial movement.
Unfortunately for deniers, he's also been exposed as a fraud. Monckton has already been exposed for falsely claiming that he is a member of the House of Lords. Now Prof. John Abraham undertook the task of investigating a lecture Monckton delivered in October 2009 - one which he often repeats.
"The results of Abraham's investigation are astonishing: not one of the claims he looks into withstands scrutiny. He exposes a repeated pattern of misinformation, distortion and manipulation."
"Some of Monckton's assertions are breath-taking in their brazen disregard of facts. He has gravely misrepresented papers and authors he refers to, in some cases he appears to have created data, graphs and trends out of thin air: at least that was how it appeared to Abraham when Monckton gave no references and his graphs and figures starkly contradicted the published science.
The lecture, like all those Monckton gives, looked and sounded like science: lots of charts and graphs, plenty of numbers and citations, all delivered with an air of authority and finality. Abraham's hard grind demonstrates that it was a long concatenation of nonsense."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/jun/03/monckton-climate-change
In just one example, Monckton claims NASA's David Hathaway had shown that any recent warming we have experienced is largely due to sunspot activity. Prof. Abraham contacted Hathaway, who stated “I did not then, nor did I ever, suggest that solar variability plays a dominant role in climate change.”
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton-Chronicles-Part-II-Here-Comes-the-Sun.html
Now that Monckton's presentations have been exposed for falsifying data and grossly misrepresenting climate science studies and their authors, and that Monckton has been exposed as a climate science fraud, who's left to represent the global warming denial movement?
Ottawa - we did let the climate scientists respond to their attacker (Monckton). That's the whole point of the question.
Ottawa - when the climate scientists Monckton refences say he's lying about them, and when their studies contradict his claims about them, how exactly do you expect he could possibly defend himself?
It's like saying somebody who commits perjury should be allowed to explain why they lied in court. That's fine if you want to give Monckton 'the last word', but it won't make him any less guilty.
"Al Gore's tripe was filled with more crap than Monckton"
If you believe that, it's you who doesn't care about the truth.