Talk:Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

"overwhelming consensus" v "consensus"

The adjective appears to be, at best, redundant, and, at worst, to be placing an opinion in Wikipedia's voice with regard to what "consensus" means. "Consensus" generally means "general agreement" and that is sufficient here. I believe terser is generally better, and using non-utile excess verbiage does not improve any article. Collect (talk) 12:47, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

It is redundant. There isn't a "marginal" consensus equivalent, it would just be "disputed" or similar. The variable existence of consensus be it 70% or 99% is irrelevant.

The sentence should make it clear though that any consensus is by the specialists and professionals that are studying climate change to highlight that this is not a "lay" consensus, or just random polling. It would be better to cite some of the many studies to that goal. Koncorde (talk) 13:41, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Has anyone checked to see whether "overwhelming consensus" is used in reliable sources? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:43, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

If we wish to use "overwhelming consensus" as a quote, it ought be in quotation marks and ascribed to a source. Meanwhile, I do not think the adjective really adds to the BLP here as such. Collect (talk) 14:46, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

What if it's used in a whole bunch of sources? To which of these sources should we attribute it? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:21, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Collect, ascribing the word "overwhelming" as a quote is even more redundant and makes what is an otherwise simple statement into a synthetic concoction. I would avoid quoting, and instead go for strong sourcing of the "consensus".

Thank you Shock Brigade. I don't think anyone disputes the phrase is used, just what is the appropriate way to present it. Koncorde (talk) 15:32, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Applying the term "Consensus" to science at all is questionable. It amounts to Argumentum Ad Populum which, historically, is overturned in the scientific community with regularity. A better term might be "The Currently accepted theory of Anthroprogenic Global Warming" instead of any mention of "Consensus". The term is simply misapplied here. 67.164.19.171 (talk) 16:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Of course, people who do not like a scientific consensus will use any "reasoning" they can find to discredit it. Your reasoning is faulty (by the same reasoning, you can reject whatever scientific fact you wish to dispute), but it is irrelevant anyway. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources instead. They understand science far better than you do. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:01, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

"Applying the term "Consensus" to science at all is questionable." - Nonsense! This is on a par with that other typical denier speak: "This is only a Theory". If there were no "consensus" in science there could hardly be any such thing as any agreed scientific theory. CatNip48 (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

"Denier speak"? There has been a clear and increasingly well documented pattern of authoritarian gov. entities and their institutional proxies shutting down *actual scientific inquiry and discussion*. The actual physicists (RIGOROUS SCIENTISTS) do NOT have a consensus on the so-called "climate crisis" and are highly critical of the political class's attempts at claiming there to be one. As always, politicians lie. They lie early, often and whenever a chance presents itself, in order to consolidate power for themselves and their patrons. The fact is that the so-called "climate consensus" is little more than an article of faith of the neo-Marxist, secular religion put forth by the trans-national totalitarians who have subverted and destroyed much of the West. It goes against actual science, progress, reason and humanity itself. DOWN WITH IT! DOWN WITH THE LIARS! DOWN WITH THE TYRANTS! SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.125.28 (talk) 12:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not interested in what happens in the fantasy world you live in. Wikipedia is only interested in what reliable sources say. The article is based on those. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150531034732/http://m.startribune.com/local/99072699.html to http://m.startribune.com/local/99072699.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111104033417/http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/greenhouse_warming_what_greenhouse_warming_.html to http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/greenhouse_warming_what_greenhouse_warming_.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070811104539/http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20061121_gore.pdf to http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20061121_gore.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:59, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Dispute over membership in the House of Lords

This subheading is misleading. The subject is NOT a member of the House of Lords, it would be accurate to say that he claims to be a member of the House of Lords. I suggest it is changed to reflect that. But as he is not a member of the House of Lords any subheading referring to his membership of the H of L will be erroneous. Also membership in the House of Lords is not grammatically correct it should be membership of the House of Lords . Also why is unprecedented step in inverted commas ? Hmcst1 (talk) 16:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Good points, have clarified the heading as "Dispute over his non-membership of the House of Lords" and removed the unnecessary quote marks. . dave souza, talk 16:31, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Looks like neither of you have done your research...

https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/commons-committees/energy-and-climate-change/Christopher-walter-viscount-monckton-of-brenchley-IPC0005.pdf

He is a peer and entitled to use the title, Lord.

He is referred to as a Lord in official UK parliament documents..... 144.177.6.61 (talk) 13:46, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Political views: Climate change

Am I the only one who thinks this is weird? Climate change itself is a scientific fact, and his opinion on it is pseudoscience. The only thing that is "political" about it is the motivation: he wants to avoid market regulation, which will be a consequence if people take climate change seriously. So he denies it.

But I have no idea what to change. Make another section with "pseudoscientific views"? Nah. Rename "Political views" into "Views"? Maybe. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

No one, including Lord Monckton, disputes the existence climate change. Only dead planets don’t have climate change. His position is that, global warming isn’t catastrophic and mankind’s contribution to it is insignificant. He, and thousands of other objective scientists, see much benefit to Earth, humans, and all other life forms, of minor increases in CO2, as CO2 doesn’t cause global warming, rather, it results from global warming. JacobJingleHymer (talk) 00:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Climate change denial is not about the existence climate change. Read the article. Also, Monckton is not a scientist, and your claims about climate change are massively ignorant. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Disinformation

Please remove the term "climate change denier" from this article, it is a cheap, baseless propagandist description which could not be further from the truth. The subject of this page publicly concedes that the climate is changing constantly. It would be better and more intellectually honest to rephrase "his views on climate change". This article is as fraudulent an ad hominem hit piece as the science and scientists who have been pushing inaccurate and patently flawed pseudo scientific scare models in the international globalist publications for back handers from the would be carbon traders who finance both the research and the organisations that publish the resultant drivel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.177.6.61 (talk) 13:49, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Read our article climate change denial to find out what the term actually means.

Also, this is not a forum. Do your science hating somewhere else. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:03, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

That you reply with a temper tantrum, and offer no proof of your assertions, is why you should be banned from editing anything, as you’re not an objective editor. JacobJingleHymer (talk) 00:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Again: Read the article climate change denial. But since you perceive helpful pointers as a temper tantrum, I do not expect you to. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

In fact it used to be "controversial views on climate change" but was changed on 2 May 2015. Your suggestion is appropriate but I believe there's not enough support for it at this time. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:58, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Please offer proof of your assertions, rather than political rhetoric. JacobJingleHymer (talk) 00:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Again: Read WP:NOTFORUM. This is a Wikipedia talk page. Its purpose is to improve the article, not to educate aggressive newbies. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)