Vida Enigmática

"Who speaks for Earth?"

Who speaks for Earth?

atmosphere Australia biodiversity buying case climate climate change consumerism don't Earth environment environmental extinction food home humanity know Leslie Dean Brown life Mars materials money natural nature oxygen part planet power products reason rich science scientific scientists sustainable technology tell thing trees value want water what work world

Webdesign by thelastpistachio.com
Logo by logobrain. All rights reserved © 2025.

What I think of ‘Lord’ Christopher Monckton.

February 14, 2017 — leslie dean brown

I‘ve become tired of being ‘nice’. So two years ago, okay, I got hypnotised. And this is basically the result of that. Now I call it like I see it. I don’t really care if I offend people. If they want to be stupid and remain ignorant, then that’s there perogative. Fine by me.

But don’t expect me to shut up and listen to you without calling you out on it. What am I talking about? This is what I am talking about. It is pretty hard to watch.
What kind of BULLSHIT is this? Seriously. The first thing I do is look up people’s credibility. And what do I see with this “Lord Muck” fellow? I see a degree in classics (languages). And another one in journalism. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. But I don’t see any science education anywhere in his CV.

Lyubomir Gizdarski
A degree in classics includes classical mathematics and feedback mathematics, which he studied in Cambridge. He is an expert reviewer for the IPCC.
leslie dean brown
Not a scientist. No training.
Lyubomir Gizdarski
If he didn’t have any training related to climate change, then why was he an expert reviewer for the IPCC? That doesn’t make sense.
Lyubomir Gizdarski
He wouldn’t be allowed to review their papers, if he didn’t have the relevant training.
leslie dean brown
There’s a difference between ‘authorisation’ and ‘qualification’. He might have the former, but he doesn’t have the latter.
leslie dean brown
Oh and then I find this: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/jul/18/climate-monckton-member-house-lords
Lyubomir Gizdarski
No, sir. Only qualified individuals sit on the IPCC review committee. Your argument is invalid, and so is you article in relation to this topic. You’re too butthurt to accept the fact that he has legit mathematical arguments undermining the IPCC models.
leslie dean brown
How many times do I have to to fuckingwell explain it to you ? Mathemeticians are not scientists. Scientists know about mathematics. The reverse is not necessarily true.  I don’t remember a single fucking mathematics major in my science degree. He might know about maths, but right there is part of your problem. The world is more than just maths. And it just pisses me off that people come onto YOUTUBE of all places and talk shite. For fucks sake.
Lyubomir Gizdarski
You idiot! What discipline do you think is required to generate all the IPCC models? To make predictions? Mathematics! Lord Monckton is very knowledgable about science, if you look at some of his other conferences.
leslie dean brown
https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-moncktons-rap-sheet/
Lyubomir Gizdarski
leslie dean brown A blogpost? Really? What a pile of shit! Fake news
leslie dean brown
No. It’s not fake news. The man isn’t a scientist. Isn’t even a lord apparently. Hired and supported by people like gina rinehart no doubt. You know, the companies that cause more emissions than anyone. Now go and do your homework. Look up the difference between ‘scientist’ and ‘mathematician’. Oh wait. He isn’t even really a mathematician either. See, I’d have a million times more respect for him if he did have a maths degree. But he doesn’t. It’s journalism. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. It’s just that, most journalists don’t go around trying to convince people that they are climate scientists.
Lyubomir Gizdarski
He has training in classical mathematics and mathematics of feedback mechanisms from Cambridge as part of the classics curriculum. In today’s world, multiple talents give a greater value in the job market.
will ernst
You’re duped. Grasping at straws to discredit him.
leslie dean brown
The guy’s a fucknuckle. Alright? He would be laughed out of any science faculty. Real scientists speak a lot less and put up way more graphs. He’s not even a lord apparantly, not that that even matters as far as climate change goes. Pull your head out of your arses already! You’re all using computers based on scientific principles even though you don’t know how they work. Same fucken thing with the climate.
The reason, lord mucko, that 97+ % of scientists shoot you down in flames now IS BECAUSE THE PERIOD OF SCIENCE DEBATE ALREADY HAPPENED IN THE 80’s 90’s and 00’s.
And now the real scientists are just FED UP explaining it to a few truly dimwitted individuals, who seem to be about 20 years behind in terms of knowledge.
Deniers should all put their personal ‘wealth’, current lifestyle and job aside and *then* revaluate their position by reading climate journals (not blogs that can be written by anyone, including myself).
Having a posh accent and being a schmuck does not give you more clout in the world of science. ;)
In summary, I don’t always think science has the answers, no, but solar and wind are still WAY better than any fuckin’ 19th century coal ‘technology’.
Wow. Just wow. So this is what the guy has studied?
Classics at Cambridge
Classics tries to understand the writings, thoughts and culture of Greece and Rome, which have been so influential in the creation of the modern world. It’s a broad and exciting subject that looks at many different areas, including literature, history, archaeology, art history, philosophy and linguistics.
Rated the best undergraduate Classics course in the country for the last two years (The Guardian), you don’t need to have studied Latin or Greek to take Classics at Cambridge. The Faculty has several different degree programs depending on your experience. Some students have done lots of languages, others have none. What matters is that you are fascinated by the incredibly complex worlds of antiquity.
You’ll start by focusing on the languages and the core literature, but as you progress you’ll be really encouraged to pursue what interests you the most. By the final year you’ll be free to choose subjects ranging from the Late Roman empire and ancient Idols to the Aeneid and the art of collecting.
https://www.chu.cam.ac.uk/study-us/undergraduates/subjects/classics/
Shit! I mean literature, history, archaeology, art history, philosophy and linguistics have TONNES to do with climate change. Lots of overlap.

And here’s my fuckin’ FULL internet reply to people like this. Because there’s only so much space in a youtube comment.

Yes I know that. All science is based on maths. I know that. I fuckin’ studied enough of it.

But what mathematicians don’t seem to appreciate is the fact that small scale changes frequently influence the big (macro) scale. You have a very hard time grasping that. Science, including climate science, is all about explaining the world.

I really don’t care who you are.

Sorry in advance if what I am about to write comes across as somehwat ‘cocky’, it’s just that, well, there’s a lot at stake. But here goes: if you love maths so much, I suggest you go and read about chaos theory.

I admit that I don’t understand it all that well. But I do get the *concept*.

So I’m ready to admit that maths is definitely not my strong point. What is more my strong point is how understanding different scales can effect each other. That is what materials science is all about.

The models are one thing. And then the results are another. And if the models don’t fit the results, then the models are wrong. And it is scientists job to figure out why mathematical models break down in the real world. To put it bluntly, that is not the job of a mathematician.

And here’s yet another problem. Mathematics alone cannot even explain the phenomenon of turbulence.

Do you know what the problem I have with people climate deniers? [I’m talking about the ones that aren’t hardcore scientists]? You’re actually extremely biased and I’m starting to see that it’s all based on your lifestyle. Your future investments.

You are unwilling to accept that a change of lifestyle is in order. It’s a psychological problem. It’s not a maths problem or even a science problem. And that is actually being written about in psychology books.

And what I have noticed is that people never EVER start ‘denying’ (for want of a better term) electron-phonon interactions, or semiconductor physics, or anything else that gives rise to computers. You just don’t.

But you can’t have it both ways. Lay people can’t deny one part of science and wholeheartedly embrace the rest (the good bits). It’s the same science. The same approach. Verifying data. The same. The very same. So you have to take the good with the bad. And this, now, is the bad.

Do you know how long it has taken me, a former scientist, to fully come to terms with the fact that my lifestyle affects the environment? About two decades.

But I look at the evidence now, and that seems to back the theory.

I am not even a scientist anymore. I’m a designer/illustrator. But still, I was originally trained in science. And I wouldn’t be a very good scientist if I didn’t believe in my training.

Sometimes I wish I had have studied something else. And then I could have had a bit more of a ‘normal’ career life.

I don’t expect mathematicians will understand. Not until the millenial prize is solved. Because I for one think that that problem has a basis in the real world. It’s not purely a mathematical problem. It’s a physical one. ;-)

I suggest you rethink your position. Stop being such a child and thinking of ‘me’, ‘me’, ‘me’. “I’m the smartest”. “I’m the smartest”. “I’m the smartest”.

Well let me tell you something, mister, I am certainly *not* the smartest person. All I know is that if I want to know about climate change science, I will read all about it – in science publications, written by scientists. I won’t read about it on a blog. I won’t read about it on some website funded by the fossil fuel industry.

And I’ll also have a close look at whether the scientist truly does care about getting to the truth, or whether there is the possibility of them being financially motivated.

If they, the climate scientists, say there is a consensus, then so be it. It’s no different than saying there is a consensus about crystal structures or anything else. I would hope that people respect my studies, as I do theirs.

Be willing to accept that other people know more than you in their own fields.

Now if you want to carry on, fine, but best to continue to my blog.

This man would be laughed out of any science faculty. Really. Note the clever girl at @17:22. Appears to be the only real scientist in the room and says: “it is happening”.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *