Think Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant?

[orogenicman]

Not a meaningless title in England. The history and heritage is deep and full of tradition..

To answer the original question from Abraham..
"Why do you insist on calling him Lord?".. Because he IS a Lord of Great Britain..
Your rabid partisian sources of spin did you you in yet again..

The squabble about honorary membership in the House of Lords is a separate domestic issue for THEM to sort out. England STILL recognizes the titles...

What part of this do you not understand?

"You are not and have never been a member of the House of Lords. Your assertion that you are a member, but without the right to sit or vote, is a contradiction in terms. No one denies that you are, by virtue of your letters patent, a peer. That is an entirely separate issue to membership of the House. This is borne out by the recent judgement in Baron Mereworth v Ministry of Justice (Crown Office)."

And, until the 1999 Act he DID have the right to sit. His father sat, and Monckton as well would have sat, till that time. There is some question about the act itself and you may see it reversed. There was considerable politics involved in it.

And until that law is reversed, it remains the law of the land, which means that he has no legal right to call himself a member of parliament. Next.

 

[orogenicman]

Beamish's letter states, quite clearly, that Monckton "is not and never has been a member of the House of Lords". That seems quite clear and indisputable to me.

Monckton is a fool; also clear and indisputable.

Yes, a political hack like you would claim that. However, back in 2010 he was invited to debate at the Oxford Union against AGW supporters and he won the debate. So...once again you lose. Doesn't it bug you that you fail so epically so often?



Oxford Union Debate on Climate Catastrophe

Source: SPPI

Army of Light and Truth 135, Forces of Darkness 110

For what is believed to be the first time ever in England, an audience of university undergraduates has decisively rejected the notion that “global warming” is or could become a global crisis. The only previous defeat for climate extremism among an undergraduate audience was at St. Andrew’s University, Scotland, in the spring of 2009, when the climate extremists were defeated by three votes.

Last week, members of the historic Oxford Union Society, the world’s premier debating society, carried the motion “That this House would put economic growth before combating climate change” by 135 votes to 110. The debate was sponsored by the Science and Public Policy Institute, Washington DC.




the Oxford Union - Formal Thursday Debates

Fortunately for all of us, science is not decided by a debate club.

 

[westwall]

Beamish's letter states, quite clearly, that Monckton "is not and never has been a member of the House of Lords". That seems quite clear and indisputable to me.

Monckton is a fool; also clear and indisputable.

Yes, a political hack like you would claim that. However, back in 2010 he was invited to debate at the Oxford Union against AGW supporters and he won the debate. So...once again you lose. Doesn't it bug you that you fail so epically so often?



Oxford Union Debate on Climate Catastrophe

Source: SPPI

Army of Light and Truth 135, Forces of Darkness 110

For what is believed to be the first time ever in England, an audience of university undergraduates has decisively rejected the notion that “global warming” is or could become a global crisis. The only previous defeat for climate extremism among an undergraduate audience was at St. Andrew’s University, Scotland, in the spring of 2009, when the climate extremists were defeated by three votes.

Last week, members of the historic Oxford Union Society, the world’s premier debating society, carried the motion “That this House would put economic growth before combating climate change” by 135 votes to 110. The debate was sponsored by the Science and Public Policy Institute, Washington DC.




the Oxford Union - Formal Thursday Debates

Fortunately for all of us, science is not decided by a debate club.

I agree, so why do you accept it when the IPCC sits around a room and parses their "consensus"?
I see a logic fail on your part.

 

[westwall]

What part of this do you not understand?

And, until the 1999 Act he DID have the right to sit. His father sat, and Monckton as well would have sat, till that time. There is some question about the act itself and you may see it reversed. There was considerable politics involved in it.

And until that law is reversed, it remains the law of the land, which means that he has no legal right to call himself a member of parliament. Next.

He doesn't. He is however still a LORD. Which you claimed he wasn't. You failed. NEXT!

 

[orogenicman]

And, until the 1999 Act he DID have the right to sit. His father sat, and Monckton as well would have sat, till that time. There is some question about the act itself and you may see it reversed. There was considerable politics involved in it.

And until that law is reversed, it remains the law of the land, which means that he has no legal right to call himself a member of parliament. Next.

He doesn't. He is however still a LORD. Which you claimed he wasn't. You failed. NEXT!

Jon Lord (deceased keyboard player for the rock group Deep Purple is also a "Lord"). But so what?

 

[westwall]

And until that law is reversed, it remains the law of the land, which means that he has no legal right to call himself a member of parliament. Next.

He doesn't. He is however still a LORD. Which you claimed he wasn't. You failed. NEXT!

Jon Lord (deceased keyboard player for the rock group Deep Purple is also a "Lord"). But so what?

Oh, gee I don't know.....maybe the fact that one's a NAME and the other is a TITLE. Maybe you should pull your head from your ass and look up the difference?

 

[Abraham3]

Monckton is a hereditary peer. He deserves the title "3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. He does NOT deserve the title "Lord" and he is not a member of the House of Lords, AS HE HAS CLAIMED.

Note the URL.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Monckton
Political career
Monckton inherited a peerage after the passing of the House of Lords Act 1999,[12] which provided that "[n]o-one shall be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage." Monckton asserts that the Act is flawed and unconstitutional, and has referred to himself as "a member of the Upper House of the United Kingdom legislature" in a letter to US Senators,[13] and also as "a member of the Upper House but without the right to sit or vote."[14]
The House of Lords authorities have said Monckton is not and never has been a member and that there is no such thing as a non-voting or honorary member of the House.[6][15] In July 2011 the House took the "unprecedented step" of publishing online a cease and desist letter to Monckton from the Clerk of the Parliaments, which concluded, "I am publishing this letter on the parliamentary website so that anybody who wishes to check whether you are a Member of the House of Lords can view this official confirmation that you are not."[16][17]
Monckton stood unsuccessfully in four by-elections for vacant seats created by deaths among the 92 hereditary peers remaining in the Lords after the 1999 reforms. He first stood for a Conservative seat in a March 2007 by-election, and was among 31 of 43 candidates who received no votes.[18] He subsequently stood in the crossbench by-elections of May 2008,[19] July 2009,[20] and June 2010,[21] again receiving no votes. He was highly critical of the way the Lords was reformed, describing the procedure in the March 2007 by-election, with 43 candidates and 47 electors, as "a bizarre constitutional abortion."[22]


More importantly, he has no qualifications in anything related to climate science.

 

[flacaltenn]

Beamish's letter states, quite clearly, that Monckton "is not and never has been a member of the House of Lords". That seems quite clear and indisputable to me.

Monckton is a fool; also clear and indisputable.

Yes.

So now you know that Lord Mockton is a proper title.. Our job is done..



Does it hurt THAT MUCH for you to learn something as simple as that??

 

[Abraham3]

I believe he is owed the title Viscount. I believe, however, that since the reform act of 1993 or 4 or whatever it was, he is NOT entitled to the title "Lord". I also believe he has spent a great deal of time claiming he was a member of the House when he never was. I find such behavior egregious. And you know the man has no scientific qualifications. He was educated as a journalist. His primary skill is as a polemicist. He has certainly authored not one shred of recognized scientific writing.

Sorry, the man is a fool.

Does it hurt that much to admit what you already knew to be true?

 

[flacaltenn]

I believe he is owed the title Viscount. I believe, however, that since the reform act of 1993 or 4 or whatever it was, he is NOT entitled to the title "Lord". I also believe he has spent a great deal of time claiming he was a member of the House when he never was. I find such behavior egregious. And you know the man has no scientific qualifications. He was educated as a journalist. His primary skill is as a polemicist. He has certainly authored not one shred of recognized scientific writing.

Sorry, the man is a fool.

Does it hurt that much to admit what you already knew to be true?

What you BELIEVE?? Seems to be a consistent pattern here that MOST of your knowledge is faith-based and rejects the library of mankind's knowledge.

Today you DENY and REJECT the Oxford Dictionary, 400 yrs of tradition and history, and the titles of THOUSANDS of other Lords of England who never served in Parliament.

Not too long ago -- you DENIED and REJECTED the first chapter of every statistics text ever written.. And then in another thread on setting up a polling experiment --- pretty much confirmed that you never ever read even Chapter One..

Glad you think your "BELIEFS" are that powerful man.. But I think the list of knowledge you've rejected lately is becoming comical..

 

[Abraham3]

Christopher Monckton - RationalWiki


“”You won't see them flashing past, as they scuttle down to their noisome lairs—there to snivel in the darkness." —Monckton on the Climategate scientists,[1] who were completely exonerated shortly after

Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley is a British aristocrat, deputy leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) and a climate change denier. He constitutes an excellent argument in favour of revolutionary socialism.

One Guardian commenter said "If he didn't exist you really would have to invent him." It's not entirely clear the amusement gained would be worth it... wait, Sacha? Is that you?

 

[Abraham3]

ibid

Science

In his role as UKIP science spokesman, Monckton said that they would cut funding for climate science unless there arose "sufficient evidence" to change his mind. He also said that health risks associated with excessive salt consumption are merely "unjustifiable fears" and compared embryonic stem cell research to "the killing of very small children."[2] Monckton is a big promoter of the global warming conspiracy theory in which Barack Obama will cede US sovereignty to the United Nations, which will then enact a communist world government.[3]
His views on disease aren't much better. He wrote an article entitled The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS for a 1987 edition of American Spectator, stating quite clearly:[4]
“”There is only one way to stop AIDS. That is to screen the entire population regularly and to quarantine all carriers of the disease for life. Every member of the population should be blood-tested every month ... all those found to be infected with the virus, even if only as carriers, should be isolated compulsorily, immediately, and permanently.
He has since conceded that this would presently be unfeasible, but not that it would in any way have been a bad idea.
At least he considers alternative medicine should only be NHS-funded after it has been proven clinically.[2]
According to him, scientists "perhaps" should be required to certify that they are Christian belong to a religion before they are allowed to practice. No kidding:
“”Perhaps, therefore, no one should be allowed to practice in any of the sciences, particularly in those sciences that have become the mere political footballs of the leading pressure-groups, unless he can certify that he adheres to one of those major religions – Christianity outstanding among them – that preach the necessity of morality, and the reality of the distinction between that which is so and that which is not. For science without the morality that perhaps religion alone can give is nothing.[5]

 

[flacaltenn]

Christopher Monckton - RationalWiki


“”You won't see them flashing past, as they scuttle down to their noisome lairs—there to snivel in the darkness." —Monckton on the Climategate scientists,[1] who were completely exonerated shortly after

Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley is a British aristocrat, deputy leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) and a climate change denier. He constitutes an excellent argument in favour of revolutionary socialism.

One Guardian commenter said "If he didn't exist you really would have to invent him." It's not entirely clear the amusement gained would be worth it... wait, Sacha? Is that you?

OMG...

THERE IT IS !!!!! Rejecting the Oxford Dictionary in favor of your Bible, written and maintained by the FAITHFUL at the wellspring of rational human knowledge at

rationalwiki.com

The wiki for folks who BELIEVE they deserve their own truths....

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Three pages of arguing over whether Monkton is a Lord or not?

Really?

How dreary.

 

[Abraham3]

ibid

It's peer-reviewed!

Monckton likes to claim he has "peer-reviewed" publications under his belt. What he's usually referring to when he says this is an article he had published in the American Physical Society's "Forum on Physics and Society" issue of its newsletter. In fact, the first sentence of the article is part of an editor's note reading "The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review since that is not normal procedure for American Physical Society newsletters."[6] Not that it would have gotten past peer review,[7] as just about every sentence contained an error.[8]
In an October 2012 opinion column on World Net Daily in which he insists climate change had nothing to do with Hurricane Sandy, he claimed to be "an appointed expert reviewer for the forthcoming 'Fifth Assessment Report' to be published by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."[9] Blogger Graham Readfearn contacted the IPCC secretariat on how one is "appointed" to be an "expert reviewer." The reply he received follows:
“”Anyone can register as an expert reviewer on the open online registration systems set up by the working groups. All registrants that provide the information requested and confirm their scientific expertise via a self-declaration of expertise are accepted for participation in the review. They are invited to list publications, but that is not a requirement and the section can be left blank when registering. There is no appointment.[10]

 

[Abraham3]

Christopher Monckton - RationalWiki


“”You won't see them flashing past, as they scuttle down to their noisome lairs—there to snivel in the darkness." —Monckton on the Climategate scientists,[1] who were completely exonerated shortly after

Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley is a British aristocrat, deputy leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) and a climate change denier. He constitutes an excellent argument in favour of revolutionary socialism.

One Guardian commenter said "If he didn't exist you really would have to invent him." It's not entirely clear the amusement gained would be worth it... wait, Sacha? Is that you?

OMG

THERE IT IS !!!!! Rejecting the Oxford Dictionary in favor of your Bible, written and maintained by the FAITHFUL at the wellspring of rational human knowledge at

rationalwiki.com

The wiki for folks who BELIEVE they deserve their own truths....

Yet you refute NOTHING they say about the man.

 

[Abraham3]

Three pages of arguing over whether Monkton is a Lord or not?

Really?

How dreary.

No one is either forcing you to attend or preventing you from livening things up.

 

[Abraham3]

ibid

I'm a Lord really, m'Lord

Monckton's father Gilbert was one of those kicked out in 1999 when the hereditary complement of the House of Lords was cut to 92, thus leaving Christopher's status as Viscount of Brenchley a matter only of interest to the aristocracy nerd contingent on Wikipedia. Since Christopher inherited the title in 2006, he has consistently misrepresented himself as being a member of the House of Lords, a spectacular example of style over substance. He has various pseudolegal theories as to why this is the case, usually revolving around the notion that a hereditary peerage can only be withdrawn by the Crown on an individual basis, as the letter patent was granted on an individual basis.[11] This may well be true, but has nothing to do with whether said hereditary peer gets an automatic seat in the upper house of the Parliament of the United Kingdom.[12] The main point appears to be to represent himself in other countries as having governmental power and status that he does not when talking up climate change denial.
The House has asked that he desist in his frequent habit of implying, or outright claiming, to be a member in any way whatsoever. They have also requested, rather stridently, that he stop using a personal insignia closely resembling the portcullis insignia of the House of Lords, and are presently '"taking steps with a view to ensuring that Lord Monckton does not in future either claim to be a member of the House or use the parliamentary emblem or any variant thereof."[13] Buckingham Palace (who control use of the insignia) did not directly comment on the claims, but just happened to point an enquiring journalist at the relevant trademark laws and the possible penalties for their violation.[14]
The House finally got fed up and wrote an open letter to Monckton in July 2011, telling him in unusually blunt language that "you are not and have never been a Member of the House of Lords."[15]

 

[flacaltenn]

You are certifiably nuts and out of touch with reality.. One major gaff after 'nother..

This one started with your simple question of

"Why do you insist on addressing Monckton as Lord" --- which was an admission on your part of massive ignorance about HOW and WHERE you get that title in Britain. And having you INSIST that it all revolves over your access to the House of Lords is patently false as shown in the Oxford Dictionary.

But you spent 4 pages attempting to IMPLY that the only way you get titled as a Lord in Britain is to hold a seat in Parliament. (A blatant falsehood).. And that Monckton claims a seat in a seat in Parliament when he's only stated that he holds a traditional "non-seated" status in that body in spite of a 1999 law that MAY HAVE illegally changed that status..

It was entertaining for awhile to have you squeal about "what you believe" and quote from garbage cans like the rationalwiki.. And THEN --- just when I think the comedy was dying down. You insert the gem that the rationalwiki ....................... "IS PEER REVIEWED"...

HaHaHa HaHa HA HaHaHa HaHa HA HaHaHa HaHa HA HaHaHa HaHa HA HaHaHa HaHa HA HaHaHa HaHa HA HaHaHa HaHa HA HaHaHa HaHa HA HaHaHa HaHa HA HaHaHa HaHa HA HaHaHa HaHa HA HaHaHa HaHa HA HaHaHa HaHa HA HaHaHa HaHa HA HaHaHa HaHa HA HaHaHa HaHa HA

You're killing me here. Let's just flush the rest of your cred while this is still entertaining..

lord (British title) -- Encyclopedia Britannica

LORD, in the British Isles, a general title for a prince or sovereign or for a feudal superior (especially a feudal tenant who holds directly from the king, i.e., a baron). In the United Kingdom the title today denotes a peer of the realm, whether or not he sits in Parliament as a member of the House of Lords.


The prefix “lord” is ordinarily used as a less formal alternative to the full title (whether held by right or by courtesy) of marquess, earl, or viscount and is always so used in the case of a peerage baron (particularly in the peerage of Scotland, where it remains the only correct usage at all times).

Peer Reviewed?? A bunch of rabidly biased primadonnas who need a special version of truth and can't use the same WIKI as the REST OF US? To write large what THEY BELIEVE instead of WHAT'S TRUE??

HaHaHa HaHa HA HaHaHa HaHa HA HaHaHa HaHa HA HaHaHa HaHa HA HaHaHa HaHa HA HaHaHa HaHa HA HaHaHa HaHa HA HaHaHa HaHa HA HaHaHa HaHa HA HaHaHa HaHa HA HaHaHa HaHa HA HaHaHa HaHa HA HaHaHa HaHa HA HaHaHa HaHa HA HaHaHa HaHa HA HaHaHa HaHa HA

Peer Reviewed? Yep.. That's damn funny.. Keep it up man...
I need the laughs.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I believe he is owed the title Viscount. I believe, however, that since the reform act of 1993 or 4 or whatever it was, he is NOT entitled to the title "Lord". I also believe he has spent a great deal of time claiming he was a member of the House when he never was. I find such behavior egregious. And you know the man has no scientific qualifications. He was educated as a journalist. His primary skill is as a polemicist. He has certainly authored not one shred of recognized scientific writing.

Sorry, the man is a fool.

Does it hurt that much to admit what you already knew to be true?

Your beliefs are irrelevant.

By the way, the law you are talking about, which you have not read, was passed in 1999.