You say I’m “quick to paint your comments as “green” backlash.” Well, that’s exactly what it sounds like. As I said:

If you actually read the article you cite, you find that Monckton said moderately “there are clear irregularities” in Obama’s [birth] status. It was the journalist who claimed “he [Monckton] really does believe that Barack Obama faked his birth certificate to become US President,” and used that to accuse Monckton of smoking crack.

I was quick to see the level of your condemnation went beyond the evidence. What you said was rather stupid.

I hope you will concede that it is possible for me to disagree with you about Monckton yet not be a socialist or a greenie. My comments were inspired only by your choice of the words “level-headed moderate” to describe this peculiar man.

Absolutely. But your initial comment, which consisted of a single question: “Monckton is a level-headed moderate?” did not exclude the topic of global warming, or any topic. You appeared to disagree with everything Monckton stands for.

I judge people by their friends as well as by their enemies

Well done. Only, the topic here is global warming, or climate change, and not the range of friends or enemies people might have. If you could comment on what Lord Monckton says on global warming, it would be on topic and might be a lot more interesting.

Monckton may be a poster-boy for you, but he’s also a poster-boy for conspiracists, Birthers, survivalists and many others.

But so what? I don’t know what you’re talking about, we’re talking about the climate.

I am not a socialist or a Green. But I repeat, Monckton is not level-headed or moderate. Perhaps you would care to respond to that statement – without dismissing me with a tired personal label that is nothing but an ideological dog-whistle.

Certainly. I called you nothing. You’ve adopted the names “socialist” and “Green” without my invitation.

To repeat my initial comments again, if you actually read the article you cite, you find that Monckton said moderately “there are clear irregularities” in Obama’s [birth] status. It was the journalist who stretched that into the extreme accusation that “he really does believe that Barack Obama faked his birth certificate to become US President,” and used that as an excuse to accuse him of smoking crack. You should berate the journalist for exaggerating.

Do you see the disconnect there, Bluebottle? Do you want to comment on the moderate way in which Monckton employs scientific fact in discussing global warming?

It certainly will be comedy gold watching them coughing and spluttering their way through another futile attempt to prove feedbacks without the tropospheric hotspot – as it always is. When they fail, all three of you could start hurling abuse in an attempt to cover up your total ignorance.

BTW, have you found that hot spot yet Dick? I hear these’s overwhelming evidence for AGW, but there still seems to be something missing. Funny that.

The reason I ask is that I assume you’re a grown man and it would be an odd obsession

Or have I got my assumption wrong?

It’s possible – the climate modelers have.

That is, where do the respective positions of Monckton and Shearman/Wayne Smith fit in that spectrum?

I’ve pegged Monckton as moderate in the climate debate by virtue of his luke-warm stance, where do you place him in your climate debate spectrum and why?

The quote in the screenshot that Simon links to (a Monckton presentation) is from ’The Climate Change Challenge and the Failure of Democracy‘, which Shearman co-authored with Joseph Wayne Smith and I reproduce it here:-

“Government in the future will be based upon . . . a supreme office of the biosphere. The office will comprise specially trained philosopher/ecologists. These guardians will either rule themselves or advise an authoritarian government of policies based on their ecological training and philosophical sensitivities. These guardians will be specially trained for the task”. [p. 134]

Where does that perspective fit in your spectrum Bluebottle?

The respective position in your spectrum of those 2 pegs will define your own perspective wont it?