2011-12-04 16:40:52The Monckton Maneuver
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

This is a repost of Peter Hadfield's latest...  http://www.skepticalscience.com/the-monckton-maneuver.html

2011-12-04 17:19:12
Brian Purdue

bnpurdue@bigpond.net...
60.228.22.178

Short and sweet Rob (plenty of viewing time in videos though). Let's hit the streets and see what happens.

2011-12-04 17:25:23
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
203.173.243.99

Barefaced bunkum!

2011-12-04 17:26:57
Brian Purdue

bnpurdue@bigpond.net...
60.228.22.178

PS Did you intentional leave out related WUWT links? Reader may need context?

2011-12-04 17:35:06
Brian Purdue

bnpurdue@bigpond.net...
60.228.22.178

Second thoughts, that may be a red rag to Watts - good or bad idea?

2011-12-04 17:36:35
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.106.161

Typo -Monckton the Anit Nurse, hyper-linked under part 2.  

2011-12-04 17:38:21Likee-likee
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

Brian, it beats having to use the No Follow code all the time:

<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.website.com">

Don't wanna give him the free hits.


Monckton, the Anit Nurse is spelled wrong.

2011-12-04 17:39:49
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

Also:

where his lordship inneptly

should be:

where his lordship ineptly

2011-12-04 17:59:49
Brian Purdue

bnpurdue@bigpond.net...
60.228.22.178

Agree Daniel, but just remembered there is an indirect link to related WUWT post in dana's SkS post that is not obvious and will do the trick.

2011-12-04 18:52:44
Glenn Tamblyn

glenn@thefoodgallery.com...
124.181.146.117

The tit;le really bothers me. Call me dated or what but combining a young William Shatner or Patrick Stewart with Monckton just makes my stomach do flip-flops. Monckton is more like several adversaries that Kirk saw off. And Q ran ringes around M.

2011-12-04 18:54:51
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.194.38.194

"botton" --> "button"

Looks good otherwise.

2011-12-04 19:34:00
Brian Purdue

bnpurdue@bigpond.net...
60.228.22.178

Rob, picking up on Glenn's comment, maybe title would be better to contain familiar wording like "Monckton Bunkum Rolls On"? 

2011-12-05 00:32:49Monckton Manouver
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
208.181.69.201
I like that phrase, it alliterates well. And it encapsulates the idea that Monckton contradicts himself. If we can help reinforce a meme that M is internally inconsistent and hence unreliable, and the Monckton Manouver becomes a standard phrase on the blogosphere, we will have done well.

In fact, I'll launch Plimer vs Plimer this week while in AGU then perhaps we'll launch the same page of contradictory quotes for Monckton. But rather than the title "Monckton vs Monckton", perhaps we call it Monckton Manouvers and use a classical, flourishy font as the heading. Thus further reinforcing the meme.

2011-12-05 01:39:38
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

Monckton Manouver:  set it to the tune of the Monster Mash and you'll have something!

2011-12-05 03:34:54
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

Brian...  Yeah, totally wanted to avoid directly linking to WUWT.  No need to give him traffic.

Will make the other corrections right now.

2011-12-05 03:39:27
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

If folks don't mind I think I'd rather keep the title just The Monckton Maneuver.  I'd like to keep the full weight of the punch of Peter's phrasing.

2011-12-05 05:33:20
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.137.110.252

I agree on keeping Monckton Maneuver.  You can also link to WUWT without giving him credit for increased traffic by adding rel = "nofollow" to the HTML code.  I can add it if you want to put the links in.

2011-12-05 06:29:23
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
166.205.139.56
I'm at the park with the kids right now. I can add the link with a no-follow when I get back home.
2011-12-05 07:47:57
Glenn Tamblyn

glenn@thefoodgallery.com...
124.181.146.117

Don't get me wrong. I like the title. Thats why it bothers me!

2011-12-05 08:52:31
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
198.53.65.178

I was wondering wehether or not this is an opportunity to reinforce the ties between Monckton and Watts and Watts and Pielke Sr. Recall, Pielke believes to be "devoted to the highest level of scientific robustness".  Maybe that could be included in the text somehow?

I could be wrong, but I think we need to reinforce the reality here.  That, is Pielke Sr. et al. are endorsing Watts and Watts is in turn not only supporting Monckton but aiding and abetting him in disseminating his disinformation (and lies) and providing him a podium from which to attack scientists and the science, and even at times threaten them.  That is probably too much to say in a blog post, but I think it important to at least highlight their social network and highlight the idiocy of their claims that they support the science and engage in science.

If Monckton goes down he should take Watts and Pielke and whoever else supports and aids him down with him, so we need to keep demonstrating how closely tied they are.  

2011-12-05 09:18:45
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

Let's see what happens.  It'll be Peter's piece to write.  We can certainly feed more information to him.  I'm going to email him right now about the exchange between Bickmore and Watts.  If Watts rejects his request then I say let's feed Peter as much information as possible.

2011-12-05 09:56:14
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

Nofollow link added.

2011-12-05 10:18:40
Brian Purdue

bnpurdue@bigpond.net...
60.228.22.178

Watts will live to regret saying this in Monckton post too.

“--------Therefore I think we’ll keep the policy that has worked so well. Besides, if those comments had been deleted, we’d not be having this entertaining discussion now.”

He admits it’s entertainment time not science time – one for the quotes.

Hope to see maneuver post soon because looks like others will pick up on videos.

2011-12-05 11:13:16
Tom Curtis

t.r.curtis@gmail...
112.213.187.48

Brian, I believe there is a significant measure of irony in the Watts quote.  Therefore it is not an admission of anything.  Just as we criticize deniers for quoting out of context, we also ought to be carefull of context in the quotes project.  A quote is only juicy if it admits something, not if it can be interpreted as admitting something regardless of the intentions of the author.

2011-12-05 12:24:13
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

This is going to be a tough one for Watts.  Monckton, even if Watts sometimes doesn't agree with him, still is a very successful promoter of the position that Anthony believes in.  If he allows Hadfield to rebut him it's going to be scathing.  Monckton will get pissed at Watts for allowing "the troll" to post "such libelous bile."  If Watts refuses he's going against what he's clearly stated before.  Peter Hadfield is clearly not just a nobody.  He's a respected reporter with 25 years experience.

Very tough position for Anthony.  It's going to be very "entertaining" (as Anthony says) to see how this plays out.

2011-12-05 12:57:54
Brian Purdue

bnpurdue@bigpond.net...
60.228.22.178

Rob, if Watts publishes don’t forget he gets to write the intro – he will rally the troops to appease Monckton. It will be our job to post comments supporting Peter that contain the science and see if they get posted.

But agree – it will be entertaining no matter what happens.