Not being a Royals fan, I knew nothing about Monckton until one of the newspaper's readers sent me an e-mail about that EcoWorld article that quoted his list. Between work and the holiday, I didn't have time to read the entire lengthy thing.
But, you may recall, I've got personal reasons for my position. I had published what was basically a paraphrase of Wikipedia's entry on CO2 in the newspaper because several of my readers had asked me if it was poisonous. I explained it was not, although it could be dangerous under the correct conditions. It was its growing accumulation in the atmosphere that was the instant concern.
I do recall, and I recall how the Monckton-friendly blogosphere dragged you into limelight you weren't seeking. Monckton, on the other hand,
does seek the limelight. It's the likes of Monckton that bring up the idea of CO2 as a poison in order to knock it down; it's some of your readers who do not read
beyond that point.
Nobody else is out there claiming that CO2 is poisonous, there are only
claims that such people exist as a prelude to rubbishing the idea. Which is, of course, rubbish, and makes it a perfect strawman. Some people actually get frightened by strawmen, but that's people for you. None too bright, on average.
And that angered the folks at RealClimate, which brought in the cavalry from ClimateAudit. (I'm sorry, I can't see how either RC or CA can be taken too seriously. They're too factional to be capable of any kind of objectivity, much less scientific objectivity).
RealClimate - by which I mean the bloggers behind it - wasn't angered by that. As I recall there was a misunderstanding on that point, but by then another of your articles was already being trumpeted by
ClimateAudit and the rest of the anti-AGW blogosphere. There was no reponse from RC before they were asked for one because it became so big in what is a desperate enclave. Desperate enough to promote a fart like Monckton. It's a dream come true for him.
Nonetheless, I don't think it's irrelevant to keep the discussion about AGW as accurate as possible, not just scientifically, but linguistically, as well.
But by all means, accomplish a worthy goal at the mere cost of the language.
You can rest assured that
I will not do that. I have a particular affection for the English language. And another one for science. None for Monckton.
By the way,
real British aristocracy despises the Royal Family - aka "the Germans". The Hanoverians were a step too far. Monckton's affinity - even as a wannabe
real aristocrat - is with the Thatcherite Tories, who are a weird and wonderful clique. Weirder than the Bush White House, if you can picture that, and Monckton was on the fringe of
that. Thatcher's lot were actually up for AGW because it was an argument
for nuclear power (and the nuclear weapons capability that comes with it).
It's all rather complicated, you have to have mixed with these people to get any sort of grip on them.
