But there are worrying signs in denierland that in the garderobe of Lord Monckton all is not well. In fact, some are wondering if the man has not overdone it.
The evidence is plain. For someone who used to go out of his way to be civil and polite, Monckton seems to have succumbed to a form of cliched Aspergers. He is now standing on the WattsUpWithThat street corner and shouting abuse at all and sundry.
A few days back, he was calling John Cook of SkepticalScience, a properly referenced and evidenced climate science site notable for setting the truth before the public, a stream of invective that reminded one of either Nigel Molesworth of St Custards Skool, or the French taunter from Monty Python And The Holy Grail.
Monckton described Cook as a paid schoolboy intern, a kid, zit face, tiddler, little one, teenie, goo-goo, writing on SkS, a "lavishly-subsidized internet sandpit, misleadingly called “Skeptical” “Science”. It goes on in similarly puerile style for some time. Even the normally illiterate at WUWT found it distasteful.
Before that, he had tried to give a science history lesson that owed much to his newfound inability to string a sentence together as it did his understanding of the history of science. Needless to say, that is pretty minimal.
Now he is back with another pile of insults called "Dodgy statistics and IPCC assessment reports". Oh, dear.
For example, Monckton prints this graph then moans about the fact that it has a perfectly fine scale on the y-axis that enables one to read the graph with ease. That's what graphs are for. To enable one to understand the data. We are, after all, visual animals. Graphs for dogs would be rather different.
There follows another of Monckton's snide comments (in bold for those that have trouble with reading this sort of thing):
Well, durr. I don't think the "pointy head" was confusing the two. But Monckton clearly was. Or at least, he thought the SmugBlogger was. But then it is hard to be quite as smug as Smaug Monckton.
The commenters believe in magic:
Sorry, Jim. If it didn't exist, they couldn't get rid of it.
Not half as desperate as the deniers though, eh, rabbit?
Sometimes there is wisdom (and from an Engineer to boot):
But back to normal:
The Order Of Merit is the personal gift of the monarch. Our current Queen has far too much intelligence to let an idiot like Monckton loose amongst the merry band of current OMs, such as Aaron Klug, Lord May, Sir David Attenborough and Martin Rees (although Fred Sanger is a member). And the Queen's first born is unlikely to be sympathetic to the potty peer.
But then one commenter links to this and my heart really sinks. What, I ask, does the Flying Spaghetti Monster have to say?
In a comment to another of Willard's reading fails, Monckton write this:
Ignoring the fact that I don't think the paper Monckton is complaining about says what he thinks it says, Monckton ought to know better in the bits I've picked out in bold. Firstly, classical logic does not take a capital letter. Secondly, a Classicist would not take any looks at an argument if they knew a priori that it was wrong. They would not need to. Monckton either doesn't know the meaning, unlikely, or gets it confused with a posteriori, which is what he actually seems to imply. Either way, it shows a sadly lacking critical function. And why would it need a classicist to look at the argument. Surely a classicist is one who is unlikely to be able to follow a scientific argument. Oh, I forgot. Monckton cannot.