Most toddlers grow up and learn to control their anger. Most toddlers grow up and learn the rules of polite discourse.
Not all, however. Some remain at that rude stage. Some adults still throw their metaphorical teddies. That's why we have anger management courses. I think I've found a customer, though this is not a clinical diagnosis.
|The camel is called Richard. Dick is on the right. Not sure about the camel.|
Reintroducing Christopher Monckton.
Lord Monckton has become interested in democracy. He thinks that the unelected heir to the throne, Prince Charles, is going to take away the right to vote of the hereditary peer and unelectable Lord Monckton, and hand the reins of government to some shady organisation that will rule the world.
I don't know if Monckton has been trying out his snake oil elixir recently but, honestly. If half a brain cell is residing in that distinguished cranium of his and is turned on, it should be enough to work out what a load of codswallop Monckton has written. If you really want to read it, here is an archived copy.
Monckton has some previous at dissing Prince Charles. So when Charles opens his mouth and something unacceptable in the Monckton manor house comes out, I suppose we shouldn't expect any rational argument to emerge from the typing fingers of the one that Sou rightly calls the Potty Peer.
Charles was speaking at a conference in London called Inclusive Capitalism. You'd have thought that Monckton liked that, since it seems to be more about freedom from intereference and not about world government but you can't please all the people all of the time. Here is the full list of speakers. Charles's contribution lasted a buttock numbing five minutes. Not much time to take over the world. Here is Reuters report on Charles's speech.
Monckton's main method of argument is to use florid language to obscure the fact that he really doesn't have anything to say but he's going to say it anyway. Analyse these two paragraphs:
The first paragraph is a single, breathless sentence which has plenty of bile but no meat. It adduces no evidence to support it. There is nothing but the imaginations of Monckton's helical mind. As for Marxstream media - ho, ho, can you see what this hyper-intelligent man has done there? - in Britain there is one mainstream left of centre newspaper, two quality newspapers with relatively small circulations compared to the right of centre Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph, neither of which supports the science of climate change. The BBC is by law neutral even if it does sway a little left of centre. In an effort to maintain neutrality, it bends over backwards to include climate science deniers in discussions of climate change.
And the second paragraph? At least there is a full stop in it. But it still isn't much better - it is more hot air. Perhaps Monckton is the reason the planet is warming. There is much heat but no light in that paragraph. "The increasing brazenness and frequency of the lies being told about the climate" - doesn't that apply to Monckton and his cronies? The Royal Society a pressure group? Only if you think doing science and publishing the results of science is acting as a pressure group then, marginally, yes. But I don't think so. The Royal Society describes itself:
The Royal Society is a self-governing Fellowship of many of the world’s most distinguished scientists drawn from all areas of science, engineering, and medicine.And they are open about their funding. How about the GWPF, run by Monckton's in-law, Lord Nigel Lawson.
Interestingly, a consensus on how to govern countries seems to be emerging:
The day before yesterday, one nation might adopt Fascism, another Socialism, another Communism, another theocracy, another democracy. The systems competed, and democracy prevailed. The day after tomorrow, if the unholy alliance prevails, there will be one system, and no competition.Perhaps that's because a system that pretty much works is emerging and more countries are adopting it. Perhaps. Clearly Monckton is nostalgic for the days when fascism and communism murdered and starved millions. One of the ways those systems competed was war. Doesn't seem like Monckton has thought that one through. What a camel!
It is hard to know what to say when someone who reckons he is rational produces such undiluted tripe as Monckton's latest tirade against Prince Charles. Is it envy? Is it something else? The echo chamber of WUWT laps it up, of course, but their ability to read for understanding is weak to say the least. Even if you accept everything Monckton says on climate, which I certainly don't, his world government argument is non-existent.
One wonders, finally, what Monckton's attitude is to organisations established by treaty that do have political and physical power and which work above the normal democratic process, not answerable to the voters in the way that Monckton presumably would like. Does anyone know what Monckton thinks of NATO? I bet he's forgotten that 28 states are working together and I can't vote for any of the people who run it.