Why do deniers continue to think Christopher Monckton is an even slightly credible source?

I don't know, when you put him next to their other sources (Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Fred Singer, Sen. Inhofe, Anthony Watts, John Coleman, etc.) he seems to be just as credible as any of them.

Mockingtone and is gaffs are pretty well known

I do like how deniers are always telling us we are being rude for calling then deniers because of some esoteric link between the term and the Holocaust, I have a number of Jewish friends and they don't seem to get the connection at all as apart from the direct meaning of the word 'denial' there is no connection.

Yet Mockingtone spouts of about Nazis, secret conspiracies, and secret societies all the time (he has many YouTube vid on the subject, in one of the better known he is yelling at a group of teens calling them hitler youth (over and over) he then does the same to the slightly older man who is obviously looking after these kids, the man quietly informs mocingtone that he is fact Jewish, Mockingtone ignores him and just keeps ranting. This young Jewish guy has more self control than I would, if my grandparents and or parents had been through that I would have decked Lord Monkeyshine, might have even improved his looks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ne-X_vFWMlw

As for more direct statements he makes, one of the most glaring is reference to the climate and Co2 levels of 500 million years ago, such comparisons are meaningless given the long term changes in the Sun, Continental drift and the small fact there was virtually no life on land, points LM does not mention to his faithful followers.

I have said this for some time and the several Dr's in your link are basically saying the same thing.

I think many denier are trying to distance themselves from LM as he is to over the top even by their standards, in fact only Ottawa has even half heartedly tried to answer. Monckton has actually gone a bit quite I've heard little of him for months, no more set up debates, they may have quietly retired him.

He has his very own unusual following between the Europhobic astonishing in the united kingdom, yet especially because of the fact he's articulate, a impressive self-publicist, properly-linked, and says what they decide directly to hearken to. Which final is the only element that concerns to them. Liberal, "Lord Monckton" is a wonderfully astonishing way of bearing on Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. MeadowF: AGW exponents do no longer quote stupid outdated Charles as an expert. a great number of AGW deniers do quote Monckton. So what's your factor?

What exactly is it that Monckton is saying that has not already been said by some other skeptic like Lindzen, McIntyre, Spencer, etc.? Do you really think that painting Monckton as a non-credible source makes all his (actually all other skeptics) arguments go away?

What I find funny is the responses to Monckton's assertions at the beginning part of your link. Monckton makes a claim (well several which are identified as assertions) and the responses are basically skepticism and criticism of things like time intervals, not considering all factors, failing to mention natural variability, results that are not robust, applying regional effects globally, etc. This is exactly how skeptics of AGW talk about climate science and how they question AGW claims. Yet, I don't believe you would consider AGW "debunked" now would you?

And the first part of your link talks about Monckton and the House of Lords and his membership. Well I remember reading about that a while ago. This seems to be a disagreement and it's really quite a complicated system they have over there regarding their royalty. It's really a British thing that I don't quite understand.

In the end, it appears your source is simply taking sides, first for the House of Lords and second for AGW supporters. So claiming the other side is not "credible" isn't really earth shattering. This all a non sequitur as far as the climate debate.

Yeah, I hear what your saying. Chris is a fine chap, but when it comes to his hot topics of royal peerage and global warming, then I think everyone just changes the subject.

I don't know that anyone is really giving him much credence on this subject these days, Questioning science on either side is a tough thing, And sometimes some cracked eggs are in the bunch - doesn't mean you throw out the whole lot though.

Anytime any one or any group gives to much credibility to one source or organization, in my opinion that gets to close to group-think, and that's not thinking.

They'll grab onto anything to avoid admitting the truth

They think he is a credible source because they will blindly accept what anyone who agrees with them says on the subject, no matter the comical nature.

_

Because he agrees with them. Nothing else matters.

Edit:

Whoops, I forgot one more. - Many seem unduly impressed by his status as a "Lord." Rather comical in this day and age.