Reading a post dated July 5, I learn that some of Monckton’s speeches have been cancelled. Specifically those in Perth, Adelaide, Brisbane and Windsor, Australia.
According to the article “[Monckton] accused the people who cancelled the speaking events of ”kicking democracy”. But as far as I can tell, a group of private clubs changed their mind about hosting a lecture after the speaker made his presence so embarrassing no one wants to connect themselves to him. Seems to me private clubs deciding who to invite and who to dis-invite is entirely consistent with democratic principles.
To Americans: Happy Independence Day. We’re eating ribs, potato salad, wine, watermelon, coleslaw, baked beans and fruit pops!
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/doi/text.html
Andrew
We sometimes use the term democracy to encompass more than its definition allows. Democracy allows the eligible public to vote with more or less equal leverage, but that alone does not protect individuals or groups of individuals from the tyranny of the majority. Private groups (as in this case) are protected by limits (constitutional in the case of the US) placed on democracies, i.e. we do not get to vote on who an individual or group of individuals is allowed to invite or uninvite onto their premises to talk.
“We’re eating ribs, potato salad, wine, watermelon, coleslaw, baked beans and fruit pops!”
That is very close to our menu just add brats, hamburgers, sauerkraut, beer, cake and whatever others might bring. I have been attempting to get my wife to cut back on the number of items on the menu when we entertain and so far have been unsuccessful. As a matter of fact that is why I am at my computer waiting for the guests to arrive: the wife was a little bit annoyed with my comments.
you mean that they are not all celebrating my birthday?
Kenneth–
We will certainly also have beer.
Doc– Happy birthday!
Monckton should have known how sensitive the German public is about it’s nazi history. This “Gore of the Sceptics” should now shut up for a year or 2 as he only harms the good cause.
.
Happy Independence Day to the US folks!
Dontcha know the law is neither mention nor deny the Holocaust?
====================
Wine eating… interesting.
Happy 4th, colonial cousins… luv George III
Quite off topic, sorry, but I think is worth some commenting:
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/7/4/testing-two-degrees.html
Lucia nice try
Leon Ashby, president of the Climate Sceptics Party that has partly sponsored Lord Monckton’s Australian speaking tour, said replacement venues had been organised in all cities except Melbourne. They included the University of Western Australia and Port Adelaide Football Club.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/sceptics-nazi-jibe-ends-his-lectures-20110704-1gz4r.html#ixzz1RAjFEpxN
Please report honestly or we will now even lose credibility on your models
Have a look at recent items at
http://joannenova.com.au/
And the look at the 50 of the list at
http://bunyipitude.blogspot.com/2011/07/finnish-cinema-and-climate-change.html
totally of topic,
How many years have sceptics been saying that the last decade tempuratures were flatish.
To be met with it’s the x,y,zth warmest on record – you denier..
Well we have some good news in a Guardain article some NEW research says that the decade 1998 to 2008 the temperatures were indeed flat…. so good news…
Yet, the bad news is, using computer models (again) the explanation is that because china has doubled its coal use, all that sulphur dioxide that has gone into the air has ‘masked’ the global warming.. other explanations, solar,etc in the computer models don’t fit..
at what point do people just start saying b***s**t, stop playing with computer models!!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jul/04/sulphur-pollution-china-coal-climate
Guardian: Sulphur from Chinese power stations ‘masking’ climate change (MY CAPS)
“Research reveals decade of global warming from China’s coal power stations has partly been offset by ‘cooling’ effect of sulphur pollution
The huge increase in coal-fired power stations in China has masked the impact of global warming in the last decade because of the cooling effect of their sulphur emissions, new research has revealed. But scientists warn that rapid warming is likely to resume when the short-lived sulphur pollution – which also causes acid rain – is cleaned up and the full heating effect of long-lived carbon dioxide is felt.
The last decade was the hottest on record and the 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1998. But within that period, global surface temperatures BUT DID NOT SHOW A RISING TREND, leading some to question whether climate change had stopped. The new study shows that while greenhouse gas emissions continued to rise, their warming effect on the climate was offset by the cooling produced by the rise in sulphur pollution. This combined with the sun entering a less intense part of its 11-year cycle and the peaking of the El Niño climate warming phenomenon.”
————
They even have a M Mann quote to say, the world was warming (but masked presumably.. 😉 !) I wonder if any apologies will be forthcoming, to sceptics, who said that the decades temp real data has not shown a rising trend, of, course the argument is now, it was warming, but it was masked by sulphur.
No apologies for the abuse given out though for pointing the real observed data showing a flat period
Now they have a semi plausible explanation, I doubt if there will be any blushes forthcoming.
Not that I’m any fan of Monckton and his crazy rhetoric but his visit has certainly been stirring up some parts of the Australian community. Up till now the pro AGW national broadcaster (ABC) had been following his antics and trying to “bag” him with experts, but I sense they may be resorting to Plan B i.e. treat him as persona non grata.They have probably realized to someone like Monckton bad publicity is good publicity.
Barry, I know I’ve been proposing increased sulfate emissions from China as a partial explanation for the lack of warming. I can provide a link to RealClimate where I brought this up with Gaven. At the time, he basically said that the sulfate emissions were poorly enough constrained that it couldn’t be ruled out.
And btw, warming implies a measured increase in temperature, so it can’t be “warming” and staying flat in temperature at the same time. Sulfates may be “masking” anthropogenic driving from CO2 emissions, but they can’t be “masking warming” (unless it’s really warming, and something is interfering with our ability to measure the temperature increase)…
In any case for the sulfate emission hypothesis to work, I suspect you need climate sensitivity on the lower end of the scale.
Barry here’s the relevant thread on realclimate.
Also I believe this is the paper you were thinking of: Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998–2008 Robert K. Kaufmanna, Heikki Kauppi, Michael L. Mann, and James H. Stock.
I definitely agree that clubs are free to choose whom to hire their venue to, and you’d hope the 3 German clubs cancelling his use of their venues might give Monckton a clue as to why he shouldn’t have displayed a swastika in his recent presentation.
Its a more awkward question for a university. I’d say a university should allow a venue to be hired for Monkcton to speak and allow his ridiculous views to be aired – even though this implicitly, whatever the uni says, gives Monckton’s views a little more authority – compared to for example him speaking at the Brisbane Broncos football club.
As I understand it Monckton gave an invited lecture at a donor’s request at Notre Dame uni in Perth – which suggests the university has entered into an unwise arrangement with the donor.
“But as far as I can tell, a group of private clubs changed their mind about hosting a lecture after the speaker made his presence so embarrassing no one wants to connect themselves to him.”
That is not the case as the cancellations came about following a campaign by GetUp, a pro AGW lobby group. Alternate venues were arranged and well attended so not everybody was embarrassed. In a similar vein 50 academics petitioned a WA to cancel an appearance but M without success.
The MSM are rather duplicitous, while decrying M for using a Nazi symbol and referring to Garnaut as a fascist in the same week we had one columnist advocating that skeptics be gassed by exposure to high concentrations of C02 and another suggesting that skeptics should have their beliefs tattooed on their bodies.
oops! a WA university.
andrewt;
Freedom of speech at a university – indeed most unwise.
Monckton speech is no danger of being suppressed with news ltd giving him plenty of airing in Australia’s largest newspapers. But the issue at Notre Dame is not freedom of speech, its Notre Dame by inviting him to give a lecture is giving Monckton unwarranted authority. It would be reasonable to invite Spencer, Christie or Lindzen to lecture within their expertise and it would be reasonable for UWA to let Monckton speak on their campus – although I’m sure there are plenty of academic who will disagree.
Allen Mcmahon refers to Jill Singer suggestion in an Australian newspaper that those who believe CO2 is harmless because its colourless&odourless should expose themselves to high concentrations of it or CO (also colourless&odourless ) – which is a stupid, but not offensive, retort to a stupid argument. This sort of argument is Monckton stock-in-trade which is why a university should not be inviting Monckton (or Singer) to lecture.
Barry said
“Well we have some good news in a Guardain article some NEW research says that the decade 1998 to 2008 the temperatures were indeed flat…. so good news…”
I get a pretty big trend in GISS.
Boris [78617]
Yes, with GISS you would Boris.
Andrewt
Jill Singer suggested that skeptics expose themselves to CO.
Quote: “You wouldn’t see or smell anything. Nor would your anti-science nonsense be heard of again. How very refreshing”.
How very “refreshing” that you think that is merely stupid and not offensive….. Maybe a good idea to refresh your definition of offensive.
Lucia,
We all know you don’t like the man, but I’m afraid you are allowing your “Moncktonitis” or Moncktonphobia” to get the better of you.
Andrew_KY said in Comment #78593
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.â€
______
Except for slaves, who had little more status than livestock, and Native Americans, who had little more status than slaves.
Lucia,
The menu sounds delicious. But why no corn on the cob?
andrewt (Comment #78616)
For better or worse Monckton is, for some, the public face of AGW skepticism and if the university had cancelled his speech it would have been a PR disaster. Also the argument that elevated levels of CO2 are beneficial to plants is not stupid it is a scientific fact.
Max_OK
It only took the U.S 200 years to achieve the goals. How does one explain the rest of the world?
allen mcmahon said in Comment #78623
“Also the argument that elevated levels of CO2 are beneficial to plants is not stupid it is a scientific fact.”
_______
Sounds like a free lunch. I’m skeptical of getting “something for nothing.”
References to Nazi’s are the least of his problems.
From “Prison Planet” no less.
He is a raving nutcase.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/lord-monckton-shut-down-the-un-arrest-the-warmist-criminals.html
I wonder who Monckton thinks should lead this worldwide ‘freedom party’. 😉
Max_OK (Comment #78626)
“Sounds like a free lunch. I’m skeptical of getting “something for nothing.â€
Nope, we need to keep pumping out CO2 or install greenhouses.
bugs (Comment #78628)
” He is a raving nutcase.”
A result of centuries of inbreeding by the British upper classes and exposure to Latin from an early age.
“Except for slaves, who had little more status than livestock, and Native Americans, who had little more status than slaves.”
Max_OK,
Hey, they had to start somewhere. Gotta play the cards you are dealt. There were no magic government solution wands laying around. And there still ain’t.
Andrew
“Don’t Mention Ze War”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xnNhzgcWTk
Max_OK:
When CO2 is needed for plants to function, the possibility that more CO2 improves their function wouldn’t be an example of something for nothing.
The people who like to argue that climate change is harmful never normalize it to the impact on humanity of natural variability of climate. The Little Ice Age in particular brought untold suffering to millions of people—never mind that the harm was through the cooling—drought, famine, pestilence (and even sometimes war and the extinction of entire cultures) are a consequence of natural climate variability.
And yet, the majority of discussions from warmists I see are of the form a) every spot of bad weather is due to humans, and b) before anthropogenic forcings the world was idyllic, nobody ever died from famine or flood.
That may not be “something for nothing”, but it’s pretty blind to history all the same.
I think most of the people who say Monckton hurts the message are big global warming believers who don’t like him. Honestly, you’re going to tell me that Gavin Schmidt, Raypierre Humbert or Michael Mann are more respectable than Lord Monckton? Also for you, Lucia. I’ve told you about a million times that the radiative forcing value that is being used is wrong. Furthermore, you can pretty much bet that almost all of the numbers are incorrect, biased high. If you’re interested later, I would love to trade you some magic beans for your fatted cat.
“The transformation effected by the IPCC, by recasting Forster/Gregory 06 in Bayesian terms and then restating its results using a prior distribution that is inconsistent with the regression model and error distributions used in the study, appears unjustifiable. In the circumstances, the transformed climate sensitivity PDF for Forster/Gregory 06 in the IPCC’s Figure 9.20 can only be seen as distorted and misleading.”
Now ya’ dunnit, Nic.
===========
Carrick said in Comment #78633)
“When CO2 is needed for plants to function, the possibility that more CO2 improves their function wouldn’t be an example of something for nothing.”
__________
If larger plant yields were the ONLY result of increased atmospheric CO2 from burning fossil fuels, the additional yields might be an example of a free lunch, unless the larger plants took a toll on soil and/or were less nutritious.
Max_OK:
The question is whether increasing CO2 to say 600 ppm would have a net benefit or net harm. (An example of a benefit of increased CO2 is the reduction in stoma size and the subsequent improvement in plant resistance to disease.) The “free lunch” have nothing to do with it, since that appears to create a false dichotomy of either all good or all bad.
Given that most plants were evolved in a climate with a much higher CO2 level than is currently present, it wouldn’t be particularly surprising if adding CO2 had a net benefit.
“Honestly, you’re going to tell me that Gavin Schmidt, Raypierre Humbert or Michael Mann are more respectable than Lord Monckton?”
Yes.
Boris,
I have to agree with you about Gavin Schmidt and Raypierre Humbert compared to Monckton. With Micheal Mann, I think it is a lot closer contest; Mann does not strike me as a very likable fellow, and has behaved rather badly. I don’t think much of him as a scientist either.
Annabelle
Leon Ashby and his club has every right to do that. But by the same token, the German club is free to cancel. They aren’t required to associate with Monckton if they find they can no longer in good conscience do so. My point is: the German club deciding to cancel the tours is not â€kicking democracyâ€
OT:
Is there going to be a sea ice minimum pool this year?
Carrick said in Comment #78637
“Given that most plants were evolved in a climate with a much higher CO2 level than is currently present, it wouldn’t be particularly surprising if adding CO2 had a net benefit.”
_______
“Net benefit” is the free-lunch, and I ain’t buying it.
Lucia,
re: “democracy” and invitations from private groups
I have little knowledge of the facts in the Monckton situation, but I think that the issue can be a bit more complicated than you want to acknowledge. As Kenneth observes in the 2d comment, we often use the term “democracy” more broadly than its technical definition. In this case, it appears that Monckton means “freedom” more generally.
I think most of us are sensitive to the potential abuse of freedom when special interests use power to “persuade” private groups to invite or disinvite speakers. Just as implied threats were used by the KKK to keep whites ‘in line’ in the South in the early 60s (nice store you got here, be a shame if anything were to happen to it) and recognized by the Supreme Court as a valid reason why donor lists could be kept secret, we can imagine powerful interests using implied threats to convince private groups that it would be a bad idea to let a renegade speak.
If a group decides on its own that it no longer wishes to hear someone speak, fine. We have a simple exercise of freedom.
If the group buckles to outside pressure groups using threats or implied threats, I hope we all recognize the danger to freedom that represents for all of us.
Stan– I see no reason to think the German groups “buckled” under any outside pressure. He did something; they dis-invited.
Other groups are finding replacement venues. If they want to dis-invite Monckton, they can. If they want to invite them they can. I should think this suggests that groups are free to decide their own course and no one is “buckling”.
Carrick,
But don’t Tamino et al point to aerosols (ie, largely sulphur emissions from coal fired power plants) as the likely cause of cooling temps in the 1960s/70s?
The West, of course cleaned up its act because of the, supposedly, related acid rain problem. Temps then seemed to increase until along came the Chinese with their ‘dirtier’ coal stations.
Perhaps we need a fundamental reappraisal of our approach to coal burning.
Superficially, it therefore seems that ‘clean’ coal stations cause
warming whilst less sophisticated ones help cooling.
Drat!
Somehow mamanged to mangle the last two sentences of my previous comment. The ‘fundamental reappraisal’ one should have come at the end.
The difficulty is the cooling effect vanishes as the aerosols drop out. The warming of the CO2 remains.
Lucia,
Yes, but all we need to do is keep on producing aerosols at a faster rate:-)
Max_OK
I think the entire question of plants ‘benefiting’ is complicated.
I wouldn’t be surprised if– from an isolated, individual plant’s point of view– all other things kept equal, more CO2 was generally a net benefit. This ought to be something there is literature on. I haven’t read it, but I wouldn’t be surprised if plants benefit in this sense.
However, that’s not the same as figuring out whether crops will benefit relative to weeds nor whether one species might not benefit more than another. If so, the plant that benefits less might be squeezed out.
After that, assessing ‘net benefit’ would likely be done from the point of view of humans. We care disproportionately about food crops and don’t like weeds. I suspect from this point of view, it will be difficult to figure out the net benefit. Possibly, the crop plants will benefit, but the benefit to the weeds will make crop growing more expensive. Or, possibly not. I can’t really begin to guess.
Some plants, for example, create more toxins when they get the opportunity to take in more CO2. That is, rather than just growing more, they take advantage of the opportunity to improve their defences.
Growth will also be limited by several factors. Just adding CO2 alone without extra nutrition or water is often just a waste of CO2. It will be the component that is in shortest supply that will determine growth, and that may not be CO2.
Plants are also dependent on temperature and other climate factors. Growing seaons are starting earlier, crops are moving north. In a period of flux, it is the opportunistic weeds and pests that can take advantage of the unstable conditions.
I believe it is more important in light of current events, that we expand our remembering of The Declaration of Independence:
“When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.”
We could, at this point, replace King of Great Britain with the UN and be pretty close to our current situation.
IF there is to be climate change beyond what we have already experienced as a species, the best way to deal with it, based upon our collective history, is by having access to the resources that give us the best chance of survival. The proposals I have seen put forth to combat climate change will, at best be, “destructive to these ends”.
Will there be CAGW? I am not sure. I do know that what is being proposed will not save us if CAGW is true, but rather the opposite.
Roy Weiler
Liebegs law of the minimum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebig%27s_law_of_the_minimum
CO2 only matters when it is the limiting nutrient, fair enough in heavily watered well fertilised greenhouses, bit different in most other situations.
Apparently the football club Port Adelaide cancelled Mongkton use of its venue, when the club manger heard on the radio that it was the replacement venue after the adelaide German club cancelled. And the club has this right but I think it is unfortunate that Mockton is denied this venue to present his ridiculous claims .
My previous comments might not have been clear. I think if Allen McMahon wants to present his views about climate change being beneficial because plants consume CO2, universities should let him rent a lecture theatre – even if he puts up slides of swastikas when talking about those that disagree with his views on CO2&plants.
But a university should not invite Allen McMahon to give a lecture on CO2&plants – Notre Dame in WA did this for Monckton and it shouldn’t have – and its what the 50 academics & students were writing a letter about.
dolorimin:
Not quite applicable here…CO2 is thought to change the structure of the stoma, and increase the resistance of the plant to disease.
Beyond that, Liebig’s Law is only an approximation of the truth:
Any gardener will tell you that appropriately fertilizing your plants makes them more resistance to extreme conditions (heat, cold, drought, deluge). It’s pretty well recognized that if you have a plant that is marginal for your region, that fertilization (and other “babying”) allows you to grow the plant in a zone where it’s not supposed to grow.
There isn’t any a priori reason to not expect plants to thrive when their growing conditions improve, even if the improvement is in something that isn’t growth limiting.
(Put another way, when you have a nonlinear system of equations, Liebig’s Law is more of a quick and dirty rule of thumb about how the system behaves, rather than any absolute physical principle that rigorously gets obeyed.)
Dave Andrews
My understanding is that the effects of aerosols are poorly quantified, altitude and cloud-interaction dependent, and the data on aerosol levels themselves are sparse. The GLORY satellite mission that was supposed to resolve some of these issues failed when the rocket was lost. Any study trying to link temperature plateaus with Chinese sulphate emissions is going to have a lot of lattitude to play with, starting with whatever the Chinese emissions actually are.
For the record, the Chinese are very aware of the dangers and polluting power of coal and their more recent plants are MORE sophisticated than most of ours. They operate in the critical and supercritical steam regimes to allow efficiencies of 40-50% (old coal plants are around 30%) and implement stack scrubbing to remove SO2 and NO2. Older plants are being retrofitted with the scrubbing technology. See: http://www.engineerlive.com/Power-Engineer/Focus_on_Coal/China%26%23039%3Bs_coal-fired_capacity_overtakes_US/23143/
I am of the view that anybody should be allowed to speak at any venues.Some will take their lives in their hands doing it,that’s on their head.I imagine some walked out of Monckton’s talk when he showed the swastika,some would have loved it.
A favoured few are allowed to preach violence and hate,usually the favoured few are preaching some philosophy that allows hate to foster,like Americans and their allies are baby killers.
Given a choice between Monckton and the preachers of hatred of the west I will take Monckton any day.
But I am not given a choice am I?
After posting that message I see I am to be given a choice.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/capital-circle/controversial-climate-sceptic-lord-monckton-set-to-speak-at-national-press-club/story-fn59nqgy-1226088881113
Yay for free speech.
For what it’s worth, the Australian reports that Monckton has received an invitation to speak at the International Press Club in Canberra on July 19th.
All other considerations aside, that beats the German clubs and the footbal venue.
andrewt (Comment #78654)
‘But a university should not invite Allen McMahon to give a lecture on CO2&plants – Notre Dame in WA did this for Monckton and it shouldn’t have – and its what the 50 academics & students were writing a letter about.’
Wow Monckton lectures on C02 and plants- is there no limit to the Lord’s ability.
Notre Dame is entitled to invite anyone to give a lecture and they rightly ignored the demands of a bunch of AGW advocates. That you think that this gives Monckton legitimacy with his public persona is rather strange.
Oh Dear! Lord M has been invited to speak at the prestigious National Press Club in Canberra on the 19th July. Seems that the furor surrounding his lecture tour has made him eminently newsworthy. Well done to the academics and students who attempted to have him banned you have now provided him with a national platform.
The National Press Club! I wonder if the ABC will send anyone? The way he has got the elites running around in circles, not only has the man studied Latin but also Bjelke Petersen.
Dr. Jay wonders
“Honestly, you’re going to tell me that Gavin Schmidt, Raypierre Humbert or Michael Mann are more respectable than Lord Monckton?”
Yes, if nothing else they don’t run around telling you they are going to cure AIDs, the common cold and everything else that ails you
Also they have much higher h-numbers.
Nolene
Sure you are. You can organize a group, get a hall you control (either through contract or by owing it) and invite Monckton. But the German club — a group that is particularly likely to not want Nazi associations– doesn’t have to host the talk.
(I’m waiting to read if there were any breeches of contract in scheduling. One restaurant cancelled. They may have had a contract and deposit. If so, in the US, they might have a breech and be liable for things like ticket sales.)
Lucia
I think the German club in Windsor hires out their venue.
I agree that they have the right to choose who hires their venue,just wondering why they would be a big fan of censorship given the history of their country.
The only person who Monckton offended was Garnaut.I don’t think he commented on the issue at all.
THis has really backfired on you. He is now getting top exposure in the top venue in Australia because of stories like this your only helping what a joke keep it up
The banning of Christopher Monckton is not a strike against free speech, it’s a strike against cheap entertainment.
Also, he claims to have a cure for Graves’ Disease? I thought that was the eye thing that he had. Does he no longer have it?
Some of the damage from Graves is irreversible.
==============
Noelene–
Private clubs forgoing income generating opportunities by not renting halls to people whose message they prefer not to promote is not censorship. If you are a private individual or club, not lending or renting your megaphone to someone whose message you do not share is not censorship.
If the government pressured a person or club to rent their hall or megaphone to someone whose message they despised, that would amount to forcing the private or person to “speak”. This would be a supreme violation of freedom of speech.
So, on the balance: The german club– a private entity– has ever right to decide they aren’t going to rent their club to “X”. Their not renting their megaphone to “X” does not amount to censoring “X”. If the german club was forced to rent their megaphone to “x” that would violate free speech.
As you can see, “X” managed to get a megaphone from a different group. He has certainly not been censored.
Boris
Maybe the effects are irreversible even if the disease is cured?
I’ll believe Monckton has a cure for Graves disease when wikipedia says a cure exists and credits Monckton. 🙂 Otherwise, I’ll assume the credit goes to this site that wants sell you $20-$40 books. I’m sure we can find more.
kim:
Given current art.
That too may change (we are definitely moving upwards on the learning path of healing neurological injuries).
Boris:
I don’t know if it’s “cheap entertainment” (haven’t seen the ticket prices 😉 ), but some people clearly need to review their civics lessons if they think a private club saying “you can’t speak here” is a violation their “rights” for free speech.
Like many Commonwealth members, Australia has no constitutional protection for freedom of speech in any case (so technically it doesn’t matter even if it were a “violation” of freedom of speech). One issue is the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, secondly no such specific protection is ensconced in the Australian constitution.
Matt,
Wouldn’t disagree with what you say about aerosols but do find it ironic that one of the reasons why the most modern Chinese coal plants are more sophisticated than many of those in the West is because of environmental groups objections to new build in the latter.
FYI
http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermail/andrewbolt/index.php/couriermail/comments/monckton_offered_a_debate/
Apparently the National Press Club event is a debate between Monckton and economist Richard Denniss from The Australia Institute (leftwing think-tank). Should be some good (cheap) entertainment 🙂
dlb (Comment #78664)
“The National Press Club! I wonder if the ABC will send anyone?”
Yes. He will be the bloke in the rainbow beanie, argyle socks, with the garland of garlic and a large crucifx hanging from his neck.
Carrick
I think most Australians do not need a constitution to tell us we are entitled to free speech.
Usually the courts rule on those sort of issues.
Lucia
I see it as censorship,sorry.
The government does impose what a person can say.They make up laws and call them hate crimes.
How do you recognise a hater if he has been muzzled?
“know thy enemy”
Lucia,
Since you are into hypotheses you might also recognise the syllogism
of the form
All is true
Some is not true
Therefore all is not true.
Now, WRT the heading of this post
“Monckton talks cancelled” has connotations of All is true, as it is unqualified
That Some is not true seems to be indicated by this –
“UPDATE
Read on for other Monckton appearances on his Australian tour, with booking details:
NEW VENUES FOR BRISBANE AND ADELAIDE, PLUS ADDITIONAL VENUE AT MT GAMBIER, SA. MELBOURNE VENUE TO BE ADVISED – WATCH THIS SPACE ….
Unsold Ticketek tickets also available at the door at both Sydney venues.
6 July 7.00pm Starlight Room, Wests Leagues Club, 88 Hobart Rd, New Lambton NSW (Ticketek)
7 July 6.30pm Wesley Theatre, 220 Pitt Street, Sydney NSW (Ticketek)
8July 7.00pm North Sydney Leagues Club, 12 Abbott Street, Cammeray NSW (Ticketek)
13 July 7.00pm Bardon Conference Venue, 390 Simpsons Rd, Bardon Qld (ph 07 3217 5333 or Ticketek)
16 July 3.00pm The J, Noosa Junction, 60 Noosa Drive, Noosa Heads, Qld (bookings 07 5455 4455)
16 July 7.00pm The J, Noosa Junction, 60 Noosa Drive, Noosa Heads, Qld (bookings 07 5455 4455)
18 July 7.00pm Ballarat St Patricks Pavillion, Ballarat Vic (bookings 0435 423 636) *
19 July 12.00pm Lunch/Presentation, 401 Collins St, Melbourne (see information below) ***
20 July TBA Melbourne venue cancelled, new venue to be confirmed.
21 July 7.00pm Traralgon Town Hall, Traralgon Victoria (bookings 03 5176 3559) *
22 July 7:00pm Jim Deans Function Room, South Adelaide Football Club, 1 Lovelock Dr, Noarlunga Downs, SA (bookings 0435 423 636) *
24 July 7:30pm Mount Gambier Sportsmans Club, Cnr Wilson & Commercial St West, Mount Gambier, SA (bookings 0435 423 636) *
Ticketek Phone 132 849 or Ticketek
Lord Monckton, Joanne Nova and Dr David Evans will speak at New Lambton, Sydney and North Sydney.
Lord Monckton and Professor Bob Carter will speak in Brisbane and at Noosa.
All other venues: Lord Monckton only
Update ***
19th July Extra Monckton Melbourne session ”
(From http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermail/andrewbolt/index.php/couriermail/comments/monckton_offered_a_debate/
Might be that you ought to ammend that headline?
Ian–No. I am not amending the headline. It is fine as it is.
The red ball is red.
The blue ball is blue.
The ‘no adjective’ ball may be any color at all.
Omitting “all” does not connote “all” anymore than omitting red or blue connotes ‘red’. Sorry, but your logic is faulty.
@Eli Rabett
I went to that link you took me to but I can’t read that timeline its too long. Either way, Thatcher was a wonderful leader and I think some of that is attributable to Monckton.
Nolene
If the government creates a law limiting what a person can say, that is censorship. But the German club is not the government. It’s a private club.
Monckton hasn’t been muzzled. You perceiving the German club not being forced to let him speak in their halls as censorship doesn’t magically create any sort of muzzle.
BTW: If the Australian government makes laws limiting what you can say, you might actually benefit from a constitutional amendment forbidding the government from doing that. We have one. In the US the government can’t forbid Monckton or anyone from calling anyone a Nazi in the US.
In fact, there is a famous case that was propagating up to the US Supreme Court involving Nazi’s marching in Skokie. It got as far as the Illinois Supreme court which ruled the Skokie must permit the Nazi’s to march on the same basis as other groups that apply. (This meant they must be given permission to march.)
It’s pretty clear an appeal to SCOTUS would have ruled that Skokie must permit the Nazi’s to march on the same basis they permit anyone else to march. This would have meant the Nazi’s got to march. You can read it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skokie
But by the same token, in the US a private club– like German club would not be not required to facilitate anyone’s speech by renting him their hall. The synagogues in Skokie would not be required to rent halls to Nazis and no one would think Jews who own a synagogue were “censoring” the Nazis by not allowing them to rent their private hall in the synagogue for Nazi functions. That would be seen as an absolutely nutty, insane application of the right of free speech.
As far as I can see:
1) The German club– an entirely private, non-governmental entity– is electing not to host Monckton’s talk.
2) Monckton is free to find halls rented by people who are willing to rent him space.
3) Monckton is even succeeding in finding venues.
Monckton has not been censored. Nothing remotely approaching censorship is happening. Those complaining what to use the word “censorship” to create a false impression and it’s just nuts.
Oh…. BTW: The Nazi – in – Skokie didn’t go to the US Supreme Court (i.e. SCOTUS) because Chicago oferred them the right to demonstrate in Marquette Park. The Illinois Nazis evidently saw this as a “win” because , in principle, getting to demonstrate in Marquette park is even better than marching in Skokie. (More visibility. Ability to use megaphone. Belief that like minded ‘ethnics’ living in the various Chicago neighborhoods would be attracted to their message and come by all made Marquette park attractive in their eyes. )
The Blue Brother’s (who would be ‘ethnics’ in Chicago ) commemorated the event in this clip:
It’s a fictional depiction. No one drove a car into the demonstration and as far as I am aware, the head of the Illinois Nazi party did not end up in a pond.
The Nazis get free speech in the US. They can speak on the same basis as anyone else. But you can’t force private groups to host them. Private groups have their rights to host or not host whomever the please.
Boris
Several wondered about the price of tickets.
Andrew Bolt updates
I suspect this particular talk will draw a more diverse crowd than the others. If attendees mix discussions at lunch could be lively.
Christopher Monckton & his staff actually have turned an unfortunate media PR event (i.e. – making comparisons between Professor Garnaut’s activities and the events that occurred in Germany in the 1930s and 1940s) into a very positive PR event involving the key issue of free speech for Australian people critical of the IPCC AGW agenda. Monckton is capitalizing on it. He is an old campaigner.
Regarding the Monckton audio interview by ABC, the interviewer was uber-offensive . . . . Monckton looked great by comparison. Keep it up MSM, you are making Monckton (whom I enjoy) look like Saint Peter.
NOTE to Lucia – I did find your post title misleading. But it got me to read your post. If you had put ‘a few’ in the title I would probably not have read it. So good technique to pull me in.
John
Noelene:
The point of it not being a constitutionally protected right … means exactly that. It’s not. This is one of those things that either exists or it doesn’t.
The court and parliament can constitutionally decide to abridge your rights for freedom of speech for any reason, and to allow the court to decide is actually worse for you…because that means the abridgment occurred without your consent (expressed via electing officials to represent you) and is therefore undemocratic. However, I think you are probably wrong on this point, because of the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, which is meant to protect your right to democratically choose.
Here’s a little document from a small organization (well your own government) that discusses this issue, and the lack of a real Bill of Rights.
Here’s a selected passage:
It is conceivable that a state might decide to ban “skeptic climate arguments”, and if they did so it would be totally legal, and as far as I understand, bulletproof from challenge through the courts. [This latter point is why I brought up the lack of constitutional guarantees here.]
A fairly technical legal analysis can be found here.
Lucia:
I need to do what Boris does, if $60/head is “cheap entertainment.” 😉
(I need no talk from any of you who fly to Bora Bora for the weekend, and take 20 of your friends in with you on your private jet, unless it involves an invite.)
Carrick– Well… that includes lunch which seems to be eaten around 2pm. Do Australian usually wait until 2pm for lunch? When do they eat breakfast?
The bars don’t open early enough for breakfast.
Lucia pretty much had the right of it, it’s a private club and then can rent their hall to whomever they wish whenever they wish, but John W says something important. Monckton is a world class whiner. Pretty much everyone can see that the loss of a venue of a private club because the people owning the venue didn’t want to be associated with someone is not a free speech issue, but the good Lord whines and people pay attention instead of laughing,
Eli understands that by Chris rules, Lucia has to let Joe Romm publish here everyday.
Right
Eli:
Phfft. Like Romm has the b*lls or the brains to publish in a forum where he can’t control the dialog. My guess this diatribe came after two glasses of scotch. Close?
Eli says;
“Monckton is a world class whiner.”
So there is common ground between Monckton and CAGW advocates.
Eli Rabett (Comment #78769)
“”””Lucia pretty much had the right of it, it’s a private club and then can rent their hall to whomever they wish whenever they wish, but John W says something important. Monckton is a world class whiner. . . “”””
——–
Eli,
Thanks for your comment.
I seldom have agreed with you since we first interacted; first interaction was at Bart V’s blog in early 2010 on the famous VS thread. But today we have some agreement.
I agree that Monckton is world class. We still differ on his stature; positive or negative. I enjoy Monckton’s message & style; finding him a positive in the climate debate.
Imagine having Monckton stand in a discussion with Gore or Pachari (or other IPCC focused AGW leaders) . . . Monckton would have Gore or Pachari spluttering in short order.
World class.
John
“Monckton would have Gore or Pachari spluttering in short order.”
I don’t know about Pachari, but as regards Gore, I doubt that very much. Gore is a politician, and for all the jokes about his lack of charisma, came within a single vote on the Supreme Court of being elected president. Monckton is a talented liar, and more rhetorically skilled than the average scientist, but Gore had a decades-long career in Washington, and compared to the liars he has tangled with, Monckton is bush league (which is to say, not Bush league).
I don’t we’ll ever see a debate, because there is no reason for Gore to elevate Monckton like that, especially given Monckton’s continued self-destruction. But in the fantasy league, I’d take Gore over Monckton any day.
Well, Lucia can always extend the invitation or not as she wishes and Joe can accept or not as he wishes, FWIW. Remember Romm has played in the political ring for a long time.
Re: Robert (Jul 8 08:20),
That’s not true. The decision that the Florida Supreme Court had ruled incorrectly was 7-2. The 5-4 vote was on whether to send it back to the Florida court or end it then. Even if the vote had been to send it back to the Florida court, it was unlikely that it would have resulted in a Gore victory. The likely scenario is that time would have run out and the election would have been decided in the Florida House of Representatives, where there was a Republican majority.
Carrick
It is conceivable that a state might decide to ban “skeptic climate argumentsâ€, and if they did so it would be totally legal, and as far as I understand, bulletproof from challenge through the courts.
I don’t think a state government would go that far,they know what would happen to them next election.That’s what I meant by Australians don’t need a constitution to give us free speech.We trust our government to be sensible in these matters.Any western country is the same.I can’t see a great deal of difference between Americans and Australians as far as free speech goes.Most western nations enforce political correctness.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/act-has-chilling-effect-on-freedom-of-speech/story-e6frgd0x-1226034320717
Robert (Comment #78785)
“”””I don’t we’ll ever see a debate, because there is no reason for Gore to elevate Monckton like that, especially given Monckton’s continued self-destruction. But in the fantasy league, I’d take Gore over Monckton any day.””””
– – – – – –
Robert,
Thanks for extending this fun dialog. Appreciate it.
I will not descend into your ad hominen by your ‘liar’ label for Monckton. I think we can do better, heh?
Here are a couple of points to put forth.
First, you take Gore with his voter terminated political success and zealous religious AGWism. And I take Monckton with his zealous unholy skeptical advocacy and his sometimes extremely hard edged fanatical sounding words. Settled. We know they both have pluses and minuses.
Second, to the extent that the IPPC AGWism leaders and principals do not debate is the extent to which they continue the decline to being irrelevant to the public’s rapidly increasing open debate. By non-debate such IPCC policy supporters contribute to the increasing skepticism of the very IPCC AGWism they advocate. The failure to debate is not a minor tactical error for the IPCC AGWism, it is the final single fatal strategic mistake in the climate discourse.
[Sarc on] I say, “Of course, Gore may be so highly elevated that there is no one who could be given such a privilege to act as a peer in his august presenceâ€. [Sarc off]
Beautiful summer day here by the lake in the Adirondack Mtns of upstate New York. Hope your day is as pleasant.
John
FWIW, Gore had about half a million more votes than Bush, but of course, one less where it counted. Thank you Ralph. John Whitman will always choose his opinions rather than the Google.
Eli Rabett (Comment #78808)
“”””John Whitman will always choose his opinions rather than the Google.””””
– – – – – – –
Eli,
Although it is unclear who you meant by “his” in your above statement, if I find one thing on Google that my ‘opinion’ agrees with, then your statement is disproven? N’est ce pas? So, do you take Einstien’s epistemological position regarding your above statement? Einstein, “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”
I found more than one thing on Google that is consistent with my ‘opinion’.
Have a good day, my protagonist.
John
Re: Eli Rabett (Jul 8 12:25),
It’s worth precisely nothing. As you well know, until the Constitution is changed, the only vote that counts for who is President is the one in the Electoral College. Gore was quoted before the election as not having a problem being President with less than a plurality of the popular vote when the pre-election polls were indicating a probable Bush plurality. And it wasn’t one vote on the Supreme Court as I pointed out above. The decision on the substantive issue was 7-2.
Independent analyses and recounts of the Florida ballots had Bush still winning under the most likely recount scenarios (here and here ). So even if the Supreme Court decision on remedy had been 5-4 the other way, Gore was not a lock to have won Florida and hence the Presidency. Gore lost because he ran a poor campaign, not because of the Supreme Court. He should have won easily based on the state of the economy at the time and other pre-election indicators.
Noelene
Your government passed this act? Wow. Talk about stomping on free speech.
This act would be absolutely prohibited by the US first amendment. Absolutely, positively.
These exemptions couldn’t save that act in the US. It would be unconstitutional.
“But in the fantasy league, I’d take Gore over Monckton any day.”
It would have to be a fantasy league. Big Al is too
fatchicken to debate anyone in real life.Andrew
DeWitt:
All Gore needed to have done to win, is win his own state, which of course he lost. And the counties in Florida where the vote was mishandled were Democratic run ones, liberal tin-foil hat conspiracies not withstanding.
Eli:
Very poorly. Amateurs should stay out of that ring, it harms more than it helps.
Noelene:
You might want to look up tyranny of the majority.
See also this:
“The Need for Formal and Informal Mechanisms to Prevent
‘Tyranny of the Majority’ in Any Democratic Government”
Re: Carrick (Jul 8 13:55),
Indeed. He was a US Senator because his daddy had been Senator, not because he was particularly popular on his own. He flunked out of divinity school.
It’s like blaming an upset in football on a bad call by a referee rather than poor play by the losing team. The point is that the game shouldn’t have been close enough to where a bad call mattered.
DeWitt:
Or maybe the commissioner of the football league. The only way it could get any worse is if liberals blamed the American people for being too stupid to vote for their candidate.
(No wait, they did that too.)
Carrick (Comment #78832)
July 8th, 2011 at 2:55 pm
“””””The only way it could get any worse is if liberals blamed the American people for being too stupid to vote for their candidate.
(No wait, they did that too.)”””””
———
Carrick,
Yeah, that was pretty funny. Thanks, you started my weekend off with a laugh.
John
John Whitman (Comment #78833),
Liberals always think people are too stupid to make their own political choices… loss of personal rights is the logical endpoint.