His Lordship, the Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (glory be to his Beneficence) has long since careened over the Cliffs of Insanity, but we keep listening to no avail for the “splat.” It was proven that he had been falsely claiming to be a member of Parliament, but the climate change contrarians just kept lapping up his nonsense. He admitted that he had made false claims about the temperature evolution the IPCC had projected, but claimed he was right to do so, and Anthony Watts still kept publishing Monckton’s nonsense on his popular blog. John Abraham destroyed one of Monckton’s presentations, showing that His Lordship had misrepresented almost all his sources, but Monckton was still invited to testify before Congress as an expert witness on climate change. Monckton claims to have developed a Miracle Cure-All, but his admirers didn’t bat an eye. Just how far does this guy have to go before his ardent admirers start looking at their watches and pretending to have an urgent appointment to keep?
Well, we won’t have to wonder for long, because if there’s anything we can count on in this world, it’s the fact that Christopher Monckton will keep pushing the Crazy Envelope.
Not satisfied with his usual conspiracy theories and pseudoscientific nonsense, Monckton has graduated to become Hero of the Birthers. That’s right, he’s been touring the country with a fake Hawaiian birth certificate he had made, claiming that he has hired independent experts who have showed that Obama’s birth certificate is likely a forgery. He recently made the claim on Geraldo Rivera’s radio show, after which Geraldo said he thought Monckton was “smoking crack.”
Here’s the thing about this Birther business. I can’t prove the birth certificate wasn’t forged, but I can look up Obama’s birth announcement in a couple 1961 Honolulu newspapers. Unless I want to believe that Obama’s granny faked the announcement in anticipation of her infant grandson’s future run for President of the United States, I have to conclude that he was, in fact, born in the United States, and therefore the question of the authenticity of his birth certificate makes no sense.
Obama’s birth announcement from the Honolulu Advertiser on Sunday, Aug. 13, 1961.
What I’m saying is that this is THE STUPIDEST conspiracy theory I have ever seen. And yet, the Heartland Institute recently invited Monckton to talk at their climate change disinformation conference, at which time he repeated his claims about Obama’s birth certificate, to the delight and applause of the attendees.
So hang on, Monckton admirers! When the “splat” finally comes, you can trust the rest of us to politely refrain from mentioning your complicity. 😉
P.S. No, I didn’t vote for Obama.
Climate Asylum 
Nice one, Barry. Monckton clearly has an entirely boundless ideologically-driven need to discredit anyone other than adherents to the the dogma that libertarianism is the sole bastion of political virtue.
My most recent run-in with him also revealed a deliberate attempt to perpetuate yet another myth he knows to be false, i.e. that King Canute attempted to hold back the tide (when in fact the 11th Century Saxon monarch actually sought to demonstrate that humans cannot do so):
On the trail of Christopher Monckton – Part 1 (25 May 2012) (story concludes in 26 May post).
One thing no-one should therefore be surprised about is that he continues to peddle the myth that human activity is not the primary cause of ongoing climate disruption.
By: Martin Lack on May 29, 2012
at 10:23 am
His purpose here is to remain a part of the pack. He persues the Birther meme as much or more because this ensures he is accepted and adored as he does because of his lunacy.
If he didn’t pander to the prejudices of the teaparty, he’d not get invited out any more.
By: Wow on May 29, 2012
at 11:20 am
Monckton has been going around Arizona lately on his birther tour. This YouTube video is almost beyond belief, from the outfit Monckton is wearing alone.
By: Dana Nuccitelli on May 29, 2012
at 11:12 am
Just a little correction.
As far as I’m aware, Christopher Monckton has never claimed to be a Member of Parliament (MP), who are the elected constituency representatives of the voting public. His claim is that he is an hereditary member of the House of Lords; the UK’s upper (second) chamber which consists of (supposedly) worthy appointees.
The principle of automatic hereditary membership was dropped in 1999, though clearly Monckton had hoped to follow his father into that house and is in denial over this change to the political system. Previously the system had resulted in there being too many cantankerous old buffoons in the Lords who were there for no other reason than in the mists of time a King had bestowed the honour on their great, great, grandfather as a result of a favour they’d done for the monarchy several centuries ago.
Luckily these sort of people are no longer able to use their hereditary positions and inbred arrogance to influence the UK’s political life. Unfortunately the word has not yet disseminated to the former colonies where, for reasons that defeat me, people are still in awe of their now pretty meaningless titles.
By: John Russell on May 29, 2012
at 11:45 am
Hi John,
You’re wrong about Monckton’s claims. See Lord Monckton’s Rap Sheet for the details. Parliament consists of the House of Commons and the House of Lords, and Monckton has publicly claimed to be a member of the House of Lords. I started just saying that he’s falsely claimed to be a “member of Parliament” because so many people hear that he’s not really a member of the House of Lords, and assume that means he isn’t a “Lord” at all. He actually is a “real Lord”–just not the kind that is an automatic member of Parliament (there still are a few).
By: Barry Bickmore on May 29, 2012
at 2:32 pm
Barry. I’m not wrong, but I agree that there is confusion.
In the UK, the term ‘Member of Parliament’ (MP) — which you write Monckton claims to be — refers specifically to the democratically elected members of the lower house. The term ‘Member of Parliament’ is never used to describe members of the upper house (House of Lords) of which Monckton claims to be a member.
Monckton is a hereditary ‘Lord’, but as such, since 1999, does not have any right to take part in proceedings of the upper house, or to use their logo on his correspondence.
Martin Lack’s comment below confirms this (“I am quite sure he has never claimed to be an MP”).
By: John Russell on May 29, 2012
at 4:31 pm
Gotcha. Although you have to admit it’s kind of nuts when Monckton can refer to himself as “a member of the Upper House of the United Kingdom legislature”, and that legislature is Parliament, but he’s not claiming to be a “member of Parliament”. 😉
By: Barry Bickmore on May 29, 2012
at 10:56 pm
If he is still claiming to be “a member of the Upper House of the United Kingdom legislature” he is still misleading people and disregarding an explicit instruction from Parliament itself.
http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2011/july/letter-to-viscount-monckton/
By: Martin Lack on May 30, 2012
at 1:01 am
Martin, that “explicit instruction from Parliament itself” was a an opinion from one man, the Clerk of Parliament, it was no more voted on than Monckton’s claimed hereditary status.
And it’s been contested:
NB: I am no friend of Monckton myself.
By: Carrick on June 7, 2012
at 7:04 pm
Hi Carrick,
You’re splitting hairs. Parliament already voted on it in 1999 when they passed the House of Lords Act, which says that “No-one shall be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage.” Why should they have to vote again every time some crackpot goes about claiming they’re a member?
But what if the Clerk of the Parliaments was mistaken in his interpretation? Actually, one peer already took that to court, and he lost.
But what if the court was mistaken? Well, the court actually dismissed the case because the judge said the HOL Act clearly contradicted the claims of this peer, and in any case he didn’t have jurisdiction to tell Parliament how to conduct its business. So if Monckton has a problem with how the Clerk of the Parliaments is interpreting what Parliament has already voted on, he needs to take it up with… Parliament. Wouldn’t his fellow members of the House of Lords be indignant that one of their own was being unlawfully expelled by their hired help?
So, has Monckton tried to force the issue in this way? (Crickets chirping.)
I assume you fall somewhere on the contrarian end of the climate change opinion continuum. If so, just look at what a position you’ve been put in. You say you don’t particularly like Monckton, but you find yourself defending his claim to be a secret member of the House of Lords on an Internet forum. Why would you bother? Because like it or not, he’s been invited to testify before the U.S. Congress as an expert witness on climate change something like 4 times. It’s difficult for people on that side of the fence to just dismiss Monckton as a crackpot fringe-figure when Rep. Joe Barton once called him “one of the most knowledgeable, if not THE most knowledgeable experts from a skeptical point of view.” Dismissing Monckton now would throw a whole lot of people under the bus.
I don’t envy you. (But if you feel so compelled, you might try defending Monckton’s claim to have developed a miracle cure-all. That’s much easier, since nobody knows exactly what his cure-all is.) 😉
By: Barry Bickmore on June 7, 2012
at 8:53 pm
Barry: “I assume you fall somewhere on the contrarian end of the climate change opinion continuum”
No, definitely not contrarian. Just definitely not CAGW activist, or activist of any sort.
I don’t particularly care for Monckton (in fact I can’t stand him, I don’t find his word-smithing all that charming either, and find myself disagreeing with I’d guess about 95% of what he says substantively), I was just pointing out that this particular claim has seen pushback.
I hadn’t heard the story of the Baron Oranmore and Browne.
As to why I bother? I think this sums it up
By: Carrick on June 9, 2012
at 10:37 pm
Barry, if you want to judge where I sit on some of this A recent thread on Lucia’s blog on Monckton.
This thread has the type of discussion I find “most” interesting.
In particular this comment
Since you asked two questions, I thought I’d give semi-serious responses to them.
By: Carrick on June 9, 2012
at 10:45 pm
Martin; It would appear that you are so afraid of the truth, even though you seldom bother yourself by getting caught up in what is true but seem to believe that lies are more appropriate, as witnessed in your, “I blew my chance to ask a question. However, Prof. Lindzen kindly invited me to email them to him instead.”
http://lackofenvironment.wordpress.com/2012/02/28/an-open-letter-to-richard-lindzen/
Now it appears that Martin is asking people to believe what he has to say about Christopher Monckton when we can not believe what he says about himself. If one would find it difficult to tell the truth about his own actions during Prof. Lindzen’s well presented discussion when he asked his question: Martin did not agree with the answer that Prof. Lindzen’s presented him with and tried to press on with a second question, then just what can we believe that Martin puts forth, about anything?
“Martin you do not correct your assertion in this article, that you were NOT Allowed to ask questions..
You were, you asked a question..
Why did you say you were not allowed to ask questions..
Another person at the event, has made a similar observation at Climate etc.”
Barry Woods
29 February 2012 at 11:39
http://lackofenvironment.wordpress.com/2012/02/28/an-open-letter-to-richard-lindzen/#comments
If anyone is interested in seeing and hearing Martin ask his question:
By: jdouglashuahin on June 20, 2012
at 12:45 am
JDS. This is pathetic (and off-topic). However, it does not take much investigating to establish that even Barry Woods later thanked me for amending the words that so pedantically offended; and for good measure, I added a repeated explanation after the video was posted on my blog:
Yet again you have shown yourself either unable or unwilling to modify your trolling behaviour; and your accusation that Barry Bickmore knows the truth and is now lying about it is absolutely patently ridiculous. So much so, I just had to include it my latest post: Denial… is not a river in Egypt!
By: Martin Lack on June 20, 2012
at 2:53 am
It is ‘kinda nuts’, to an outsider, but there are also quirks of the American system that seem equally strange to us: I still can’t get my head round all the drawn out razzmatazz associated with electing a President. Our Prime Minister is elected just by members of the party that wins most seats in parliament.
Imagine; before 1999, the upper house included many hereditary peers who would make Monkton look calm and rational.
By: John Russell on May 30, 2012
at 2:02 am
The Houses of Parliament are the House of Lords and House of Commons.
His claim is still that he is a member of parliament, just not an MP.
The reason why he proclaims his unearned title is because HoL is part of the UK parliament, and he wants to say he is a member of parliament.
By: Wow on May 30, 2012
at 3:34 am
Now wait a second…
If you read the official explanatory notes for the House of Lords Act 1999 it says this:
“The Act deprives excluded hereditary peers of all the privileges of membership of the House of Lords, including the privileges they enjoyed as members of Parliament.”
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/34/notes/division/4/1
Now, if Parliament can call members of the House of Lords “members of Parliament”, then so can I. I think Wow is right that members of the HoL are “members of Parliament,” but not “Members of Parliament.”
By: Barry Bickmore on June 7, 2012
at 9:06 pm
Most members of the House of Lords were formerly MPs — ie formerly members of the House of Commons but now retired from there. If you re-read the quote in that light it makes sense in a different way to the way you’re interpreting it, Barry.
This thread is becoming rather silly. Sure, Wow is technically correct that, “members of the HoL are “members of Parliament,” but not “Members of Parliament.” …however the phrase “members of Parliament” (with a small ‘m’), is confusing — for obvious reasons — so it’s never used when referring to ‘Members of the Upper House’. They’re invariably referred to as ‘peers’, and not ‘Lords’ — because that would confuse them with hereditary ‘Lords’ like Monckton.
By: johnrussell40 on June 8, 2012
at 2:02 am
On re-reading, I’ve just realised that my last sentence is likely to lead to even more confusion. Yes, we do refer to the upper house as ‘The Lords’ and we would address individual members as ‘Lord’ this and that. The protocols of using the description ‘Lord’ are very subtle though they have perhaps have changed a little since 1999.
I’m going to leave it there as I’ve had enough. It doesn’t change the fact that Monckton is not a member of any part of the British Parliament.
When you meet him call him ‘Lord Monckton’ to his face if you’re so minded — it is the correct form of address for a Viscount. But it has no bearing on his credibility as a climate sceptic. In print just ‘Monckton’ is good enough — it’s how he would refer to himself.
By: johnrussell40 on June 8, 2012
at 2:20 am
Ok, I know it’s silly, but it’s kind of important to me because Americans generally don’t know what the House of Lords is, but they do know what Parliament is. Anyway, I e-mailed the House of Lords Information Office about it and referred to the language in the House of Lords Act 1999 Explanatory Notes. Their reply seems to indicate that it’s ok to refer to them as “members of Parliament”, especially if you’re talking about their privileges stemming from membership in a house of Parliament, but they’re “generally” not referred to that way in other contexts. Here’s what they said:
‘
By: Barry Bickmore on June 8, 2012
at 1:23 pm
Well I think we’ve done this to death rather but I’m happy (of course) with the clarification from the HoL information office. The subtleties of usage are actually quite astonishing and it’s amazing how even a slight quirk in wording can let one know immediately, “aha! This person’s not British…” or (from your perspective), vice versa. Cheers!
By: John Russell (@JohnRussell40) on June 8, 2012
at 2:33 pm
Barry, I see no reason here for you to modify your position.
Hereditary peers are no longer entitled to call themselves members of the House of Lords and they are not entitled to the privileges the enjoyed as members of Parliament. Thus, given the past tense of all relevant verbs used, they are no longer either members of the House of Lords or Parliament. End of story.
However, even if Monckton is still claiming to be something he is not, at least he has had the decency to admit he is no scientist:
(If pressed for time, view from 3min 24seconds)
Someone really ought to tell Peter Sinclair to stop calling Monckton a Lord. If he ever deserved such deferential treatment, he has surely lost it now by siding with those that dispute Obama’s US citizenship?
By: Martin Lack on June 8, 2012
at 2:49 am
Well, at least in America making a big deal of his title opens the door for some prime mockery. We’ve all watched Monty Python. 😉
By: Barry Bickmore on June 8, 2012
at 1:25 pm
It was not that easy to find this You Tube video since they have been taken it down for obvious reasons; but, see which you think is the most offensive, this Guardian video or the bill board. One must also wonder at why and how a small organization like Heartland that gets no federal funding, like most of the Alarmist organizations do, should be such a threat to these people such as Peter Sinclair. Is the reason that these anthropogenic global warming alarmist, or what ever they call them selves, do not feel comfortable enough with their flawed believes that they feel they can stand to be questioned? J Doug Swallow
“Guardian UK 10:10 vid – VILE ECO-TERROR PROPAGANDA!”
By: jdouglashuahin on June 19, 2012
at 11:59 pm
One can wonder when Peter Sinclair attempts to make an issue out of what was in the Heartland documents that were gained illegally by Peter Gleick that said that “Behind the Controversy, an Effort to Rewrite Curriculum on Climate Change”…
[Snip continuous stream of nonsense that has little to do with the subject at hand. Take the hint, Doug.]
By: jdouglashuahin on June 20, 2012
at 11:08 pm
Where were you when UEA was hacked and the “illegally gained” documents were published?
But lets get to the meat of it: did the papers revealed show that the HI were engaging in illicit if not illegal acts for personal enrichment?
Yes.
By: Wow on June 21, 2012
at 4:36 am
I really don’t know why so much confusion persists over the issue of Monckton’s Title. He is an hereditary peer (i.e. a member of the British aristocracy – hence the title Third Viscount of Brenchley) but he is no longer a member of the House of Lords (and has been asked by Parliament to stop claiming that he is one). I am quite sure he has never claimed to be an MP (since he never was one).
By: Martin Lack on May 29, 2012
at 2:37 pm
He never was a member of the HoL, Martin. Never. Not once. His dad was, but when Viccy wanted to put himself forward for membership (it required being voted in), he failed to get any votes.
By: Wow on May 30, 2012
at 3:35 am
Wow, I think you are taking pedantism to new heights: What is important is that everybody (Monckton himself and the author of this blog included) should stop calling the Viscount a Lord. End of story.
By: Martin Lack on May 30, 2012
at 6:42 am
But he is a “Lord”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viscount#Viscounts_in_the_United_Kingdom_and_the_Commonwealth
By: Barry Bickmore on May 30, 2012
at 7:15 am
He may be officially entitled to be addressed as “my Lord” (i.e. verbal shorthand) but, I think it best for all concerned, if we stop feeding his ego (and aiding him in his deliberate attempt to associate himself with the UK’s legislature) and just stick to using his aristocratic title of Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (an inherited – as opposed to merited – title).
By: Martin Lack on May 30, 2012
at 7:55 am
Actually, he’s a Viscount. A lord is a lower rank, so calling him a Lord is a demotion, but one accepted in feudal society for those who are peers (in the sense of being nobles too).
I prefer to call him a loon.
By: Wow on May 30, 2012
at 10:07 am
not quite right. Lord is a generic term used to describe a peer. the hierarchy goes, from lowest: baron, viscount, earl, marquis, duke. for example i once heard on tv an exchange between the Queen and Earl Spencer {Diana’s brother} when they met, he bowed, and said “Your Majesty” and she replied “Lord Spencer”
By: billr on June 4, 2012
at 7:51 am
Bill, you missed a bit:
“a Lord is a demotion, but one accepted in feudal society for those who are peers (in the sense of being nobles too).”
Now, guess what the Queen is.
Commoner or Peer?
By: Wow on June 20, 2012
at 4:57 am
Ah Barry, but will you vote for Obama, given that Romney is going the full Monckton? See the recent Ornstein and Mann book for why you need to consider doing so
By: Eli Rabett on May 29, 2012
at 12:03 pm
I don’t know. Quit making me depressed.
By: Barry Bickmore on May 29, 2012
at 10:57 pm
A fossil tool playing fossil fool for fossil fuel.
By: ahaveland on May 29, 2012
at 12:53 pm
a couple of months ago I went through the first 75 points in Moncton’s rebuttal to Abraham on SkSc, and only found a couple of instances where Moncton had a reasonable point (polar bears is the one I remember). In almost every case his argument was flawed either on basic logic or contradicted by the sources he used or in some other way not accurate or irrelevant. As someone with no training in climate science and just a general background in physics it is astounding to me that it was so easy for me to rebutt almost all of his contentions since most of them do not require more than a high school knowledge of physics and an ability to use google. Moncton and a few others like him are a reason why i think it is acceptable to use the word denier for people who are not interested in the truth unless it conforms to their ideological needs
By: Tony Duncan on May 29, 2012
at 2:23 pm
He’s telling people what they want to hear, therefore they will NEVER check up on his factoids, because that could only cause them to be proven wrong.
By: Wow on May 30, 2012
at 3:36 am
So you voted for Palin? Or Greens? Or you just didn’t vote?
(none of my business actually).
By: Xray on June 7, 2012
at 2:42 pm
I voted for McCain, and wished he wasn’t running with Palin.
By: Barry Bickmore on June 7, 2012
at 8:57 pm
As Eli has often said, Barry and Eli are well separated by politics, but agree on facts, or at least can reason their way to what are the facts, which means there can be both interchange of ideas and the possibility of agreement on actions.
Frankly, doing so with Monckton or Inhofe is not in the cards.
By: Eli Rabett on July 9, 2012
at 2:05 am
1) I don’t care what Mockton does. If anything Mockton, Trump and the like often damage the credibility of those wanting proof of natural born status for Obama than anything else.
2) An announcement, while it might seem nice and feel good for those who don’t want to be pedants regarding this issue, is not proof of anything since the newspaper does not actually verify the legitimacy of an announcement.
3) The white house published birth certificate is now an admitted forgery according to reports, and document and typesetting experts also believe it to be a forgery ( http://www.vectorpub.com/Obama%20affidavit%206-24-2011.pdf ). Which is, in itself, a much bigger issue than the still unproven issue as to if Obama is a natural born citizen or not. Forging such a document should get him impeached at the least – making the case of his birth place less important.
Everyone wants to gloss over the real problems here. There is a proper way to do this, like showing us some real proof. And that hasn’t really happened yet. Insulting people who have legit gripes against government is shameful, and a bad habit to be in with the likes of TSA and other similar obviously tyrannical organizations in existence.
By: None on June 20, 2012
at 12:36 pm
Hi None,
What the newspaper announcement proves is that if there is a big conspiracy, it began a few days after Barack Obama was born. To me, it seems pretty idiotic to believe this is the case. Please explain what the motivation would have been for faking the birth announcements back in 1961.
On the other hand, you seem to glom onto any questionable bit of evidence that tells you what you want to hear. You say, for instance, that Obama’s birth certificate “is now an admitted forgery according to reports.” Who, exactly, is “admitting” anything? Obama’s detractors? Monckton? And then you post a link to an affidavit by some guy who says he is qualified to judge forgeries because he owned a typesetting company and knows a lot about Photoshop. I just don’t find that kind of thing convincing.
By: Barry Bickmore on June 20, 2012
at 2:59 pm
Barry; Are certain that this is what you wanted to state: To me, it seems pretty idiotic to believe this is the case. “Please explain what the motivation would have been for faking the birth announcements back in 1961.”
There is no mention of this beginning in 1961 in the document.
“Then I remembered that in the early 1960s there was no
phototypesetting and this form was set in hot metal from a linotype machine. The type design I think
is Times Roman but they could never replicate the exact design. They were stuck having to use
existing forms that were scanned in using binary and grayscale”
“Then some time after 2004 the paper original copies, in
post binder books, were scanned using a commercial document scanner with a flatbed, scanned as
grayscale images. The forger was working with two types of images”
“The first Certification of Live Birth Obama the candidate produced in June of 2008 was the
“Short Form” of the COLB.”
J Doug Swallow
By: jdouglashuahin on June 20, 2012
at 7:42 pm
Doug,
I was talking about the birth announcements in the newspaper, not the birth certificate.
By: Barry Bickmore on June 20, 2012
at 7:44 pm
“admitted” forgery?
Wow, talking about lying. If something is “admitted”, this means the person who did or had seen the forgery take place, states that it indeed was a forgery.
All you have is some guy claiming it is a forgery, provide something he considers evidence, and doing what conspiracy theorists do best: anything that can be twisted such to confirm the conspiracy theory is direct evidence, and any alternative explanations are never ever considered.
By: Marco on June 22, 2012
at 3:52 am
To your first point, this looks like an attempted straw man. I have not alluded to a grand conspiracy and if you’re setting me up to provide proof of it, that’s simply an intellectually dishonest debate tactic. There needs not be some grand conspiracy, there are many motives for one to want to appear to have been born in Hawaii. Including something as simple or mundane as impressing an acquaintance or wanting to get into the school system or some other nebulous benefit. I have no need of isolating that motive as you insinuate, the newspaper is simply not proof of birth and it will continue to be so. The motive for publishing the announcement is irrelevant to this plain and simple fact.
I don’t find it desperate or “glomming onto any evidence” to seek out a good faith effort on the part of our sitting President to prove eligibility. This is simple to provide, if it exists. Instead we have a sitting president who has spent literally hundreds of thousands if not millions in legal fees to avoid doing just that over several years. Then we have an apparent forgery published several years later by his representatives and then an apparent admission (link: http://www.pakalertpress.com/2012/04/18/obama-lawyer-admits-in-court-birth-certificate-on-white-house-website-is-a-forgery/ for some background since you can’t seem to be bothered to search) that it is, indeed, a forgery. The “who” is Obama’s lawyer, Alexandra Hill while in court as part of her legal defense to Obama’s being on the New Jersey ballot. If it wasn’t a representative of Obama, it wouldn’t really be an admission now would it?
As for the affidavit. You don’t find it convincing eh? Did you actually read it all or just skim and gloss over what you are predisposed to not believe already? If you have any experience with scanning documents you would easily understand that the evidence he points out is impossible to get with the simple scan it is claimed to be. Even 5 minutes switching between binary, grayscale, and color modes with a scanner shows you what the results look like and the only conclusion to the presence of any 2 of the types on a single line is that it’s a digitally crafted composite of at least 2 documents that were scanned using the different modes used. Not difficult logic to follow or verify. Now, explaining how that happened on a legit document? Please, I await your expert testimony, reasoning, or logic behind your doubt.
By: None on June 26, 2012
at 1:11 pm
Dude, you either became the victim of the tea party extensive mis-information and smear campaigns, or you are part of it.
Alexandra Hill did not “admit” forgery of the document. Not even close.
The link you refer to is a re-spin of an earlier article by “teapartytribune.com”, which is packed with mis-information and conspiracy-like perceptions (e.g. suggesting that there is a smiley face in the signature of the State Registrar, which is supposed to suggest forgery).
They however do NOT show what Alexandra Hill actually literally said, and in which context. For that, you need to watch the court hearing itself. That’s what this guy did :
So, in good old Karl Rove – style propaganda, myth-creation and smear campaigning, the truth was deliberately obfuscated with massive smoke and mirrors, with the sole purpose of creating a “myth”. That story is then spinned and re-spinned in friendly media channels so that the myth gets some credibility and poor souls like None start to believe it.
The scary part is that there is now more than $ 500 million (with much of it Koch money) available for exactly this sort of myth-creation and smear campaigning against Obama. It’s like the swift-boat squared and then quadrupled and once more quadrupled.
By: Rob Dekker on June 28, 2012
at 2:24 pm
And the fact that Obama doesn’t actually provide real evidence of his birth doesn’t phase you in the least? The fact that it’s spin spin dance dance around actually producing it doesn’t even raise a doubt in your mind? And you speak of truth?
I did couch my claims with some uncertainty because I did not, and do not have time to source it all and cannot view your youtube link at present (do you have a link to a written transcript? I haven’t been able to source one). I generally readily admit my failings, though my logic and reasoning still holds even if this admission is a fabrication and not true. It looks credible with the legs it has, but bigger lies have been trumpeted farther and wider before. I should note that your claims are just as spurious about huge sums of funds for “myth creation” and “smear campaigning” as if the world was out to get Obama. [sarcasm]Oh noes! Some big nebulous well funded entity is out to squash him the poor poor man![/sarcasm] The man has done plenty of despicable things and does not need “myths” to argue against him.
By: None on June 29, 2012
at 1:04 pm
Well, if you’re willing to go around accusing people of conspiracy and fraud without being willing to watch the video of the hearing from which your claim is supposed to stem, that doesn’t say much for you.
Just watch the video and see whether it really supports the claims you repeated. If not, you’ll know that your source isn’t very reliable, and if you admit that we’ll all know that you are at least trying to be reasonable.
By: Barry Bickmore on June 29, 2012
at 11:16 pm
I guess that’s a no on the transcript.
Regardless, it is still a pseudo admission if they don’t present the birth certificate as evidence for admission on the ballot. Something fishy there. But I’m getting side tracked now with what I intended to say.
Actually critical thinking or real discussion about topics just doesn’t happen here. So I’m done, I’m tired of 10% of what I say being slammed down with prejudice and 90% ignored simply because you’re so caught up in the 10% you can’t actually see or reason about anything else. Core arguments are ignored in favor of latching onto bits of evidence you find weak. Even when I grant axioms regarding some of those things you still can’t seem hear any actual logic or reasoning. You just pound pound pound away at any part you think you might find purchase using whatever ridiculous or intellectually dishonest debate tactic that comes to mind. And then you suppose you are enlightened in your reasoning and understanding when in reality there’s simply a good deal of arrogance and blindness.
G’day.
By: None on July 20, 2012
at 4:33 pm
This claim is rather like the one about Al Gore in AIT saying that Florida would be flooded this century.
Despite many many places saying this, nobody has ever found it actually being said. Not even Barry here, who thought it existed (if irrelevant to the AGW issue) has found it.
A claim about somoene else’s statements are merely claims about that statement, they aren’t necessarily the truth of the statement.
By: Wow on August 30, 2012
at 6:27 am
Martin; One would hope that you are old enough to know that no matter how many times or different ways you tell a lie it will always be that, a lie. Attacking me has no bearing in this matter at all. I am somewhat angry that you, after inviting me to your blog, then redacting every pertinent comment that I submitted while offering up nothing but your usual nonsense, but I should not care about that either because no one visits your blog anyway.
Your final post to me is this:
You are then, by your own confession, a shameless troll (probably the kind that sends climate scientists hateful emails). Didn’t you sent the respected Dr. Lindzen an email?
http://lackofenvironment.wordpress.com/2012/06/15/the-yellow-river-basin-in-china-part-4/#comments
I have never been thanked for anything quit like this before.
“Getting facts straight. Is not side tracking. You were allowed to ask question, you just made a mess of it, Lindzen did try to get to what you were on about.
Why not clearly list, concisely, your three questions here. I’m sure that Mark would be interested as we both thought they were incomprehensible.”
Barry Woods 29 February 2012 at 13:25
“Ok, Martin, so you were “allowed” to ask questions, but instead took your time to make a statement. Sounds like you prevented yourself from asking questions.”
John Kosowski 29 February 2012 at 12:16
“So then, Martin, perhaps you should correct the untrue assertion that you weren’t allowed to ask questions above. The truth is important here, Martin.”
John Kosowski 29 February 2012 at 12:24
http://lackofenvironment.wordpress.com/2012/02/28/an-open-letter-to-richard-lindzen/#comments>
Then you even have to exacerbate the dilemma by going over to Judith Curry’s blog and bothering her with your deceptive ways.
Martin Lack February 28, 2012 at 9:31 am | Reply
“Dear Judith,
With respect to you, and all your readers, I was there. In an attempt to address one of the many misrepresentations or omissions of relevant facts, i was prevented from actually asking a question.”
It appears that folks on Judith’s blog know you well, Martin.
• hunter | February 28, 2012 at 4:46 pm | Reply
Martin,
You come across as a typical AGW extremist- iow a pedantic twit.
• timg56 | February 28, 2012 at 7:19 pm | Reply
Martin,
How about those of us afflicted with MLAD?
(Martin Lack Attention Deficit ) – as in paying attention to you is difficult.
• Don Monfort | February 28, 2012 at 10:11 am | Reply
There is a Lack of substance to Martin’s yammering.
• Eddy | February 28, 2012 at 5:29 pm | Reply
Brilliant
Mr Lack did seem somewhat blinded by his own genius. Still I suppose the dimmest bulb will dazzle if you are close enough.
• Don Monfort | February 29, 2012 at 1:37 am | Reply
Thank you, Mr. Eddy. And you are correct. It does seem that the great (in his mind), Lord Martin Lack, is suffering from a scorching self-illumination.
I will not address this on this thread again but people need to know just what kind of a person you are, Martin, and the more you attempt to attack me will more clearly show them who you TRULY are.
By: jdouglashuahin on June 20, 2012
at 8:29 pm
Doug,
Why don’t you go somewhere else with this? You quoted Martin saying “I blew my chance to ask a question.” He wasn’t accusing anyone of preventing him from asking a question–he said HE blew his chance by making a statement, rather than asking a question. Then he remarked that Prof. Lindzen had been kind enough to allow him to ask his questions via e-mail. So you are blowing up something utterly innocuous into a federal case.
In any case, I watched the video you posted, and although Martin said he was going to ask a question, he clearly never got around to it. He made a statement, and he was going to go on, but Lindzen jumped in and responded to the statement. How was Martin mischaracterizing the event, then? If you can’t deal with the clear facts of the case as evident in the video you posted yourself, what are the rest of us supposed to make of you?
I don’t censor many of the comments here, but I do have a low tolerance for crackpots who can’t stop talking about things that make no sense, and don’t matter, anyway. Either make some small effort to say something reasonable about a SUBSTANTIVE issue (preferably the topic of the blog post) or I’ll have to start putting your comments in the spam bin.
By: Barry Bickmore on June 20, 2012
at 9:36 pm
JDS, As Barry has pointed out to you very eloquently, I have already refuted this nonsense. Although I am grateful to him for his support, he should not have to do this because you are repeating yourself (again) and you are off-topic (again).
You are also cherry-picking your quotations (so you cannot complain about your comments being redacted by anyone). On the subject of redaction, I think there is ample scope for redaction of this repetitious garbage which, as you seem to think of Barry, I think you know to be untrue. If not, just how many times do the flaws in your own arguments need to be pointed out to you in order for you to stop repeating yourself here (or anywhere else for that matter)?
By: Martin Lack on June 21, 2012
at 1:15 am
“no matter how many times or different ways you tell a lie it will always be that, a lie”
When will you learn that?
“I will not address this on this thread again”
Your post contains nothing other than “I have been mistreated by uh Barry or Martin, not sure which”.
No matter how badly treated you feel, it doesn’t make you right.
By: Wow on June 21, 2012
at 4:38 am
And why would the Obama’s get such a special mention in a newspaper? There are large cities like Honolulu all over the U.S. and they don’t list the births of every baby.
Why does the Obama’s get this special mention?
Also, if that’s true, then where are those newspapers? Have you gone to Hawaii to the library to look up the microfiche? You know microfiche’s can be edited right, they’re digital after all. Regardless, I doubt it’s even there because newspapers don’t usually mention all the babies that were born in their city everyday.
And it’s not a crazy idea to question Obama’s legitimacy because one, there are a few reasons to question it, not the least of which is his own grandmother misspeaking about his birth.
And 2, the most condemning, Obama acts just like someone who’s trying to cover something up. Every other president in the history of the U.S. didn’t wait 2 years to make their certificates public, didn’t choose a small select group of people coming from biased organizations to claim they were able to verify it’s authenticity, most of which weren’t forgery experts of any kind anyhow. And even those certificates he did release, they were digital!!!
I’m not saying birther’s are right, but you’re rather convinced they’re wrong, and you haven’t even asked the obvious question yet.
You think that politicians, especially at the level of the presidency do anything by accident?
You’re not even asking why Obama intentionally acted like someone trying to cover up his legitimacy. Waiting 2 years, having the might of all of government that was controlled by a party with record levels of power that had everything to lose if Obama were found not to be a born citizen in a city and state who’s government consisted of primarily that same party.
Why would Obama even challenge our right to verify his legitimacy? Why, especially when it’s written in the Constitution that we have the right to ask about it of any president regardless of the reason.
The answer is either the birthers are right and Obama was honestly trying to cover up his lack of legitimacy, or Obama’s truly legitimate like he claims, which implies something a heck of a lot more sinister about why Obama would use such a tactic of mass manipulation in the first place. What does Obama expect to achieve by creating this atmosphere of question regarding his legitimacy?
That’s what you should be asking. You’re so caught up in your self-righteous maligning of a certain group and how stupid they are or what fools they must be that you’re completely missing the real question here, the important question, why would Obama do this if he were truly legitimate?
Presidents don’t do things by accident. Everything they do in politics, especially at that level is meticulously considered and thought through before anything is done. And it’s not me saying this, I’m getting my wisdom from someone who’s been there, a Democrat named Franklin D. Roosevelt.
So, you can be a fool who thinks he’s smart all you want, but in the end, it’s you who’s being manipulated. You’re being manipulated by Obama into either ignoring the real question or into not being objective and believing whatever it is you are told to believe like most Liberals are.
I know you, like most liberals who love to be told what to believe, are disregarding the truth of what I’m saying because you don’t want to leave your comfort zone of thinking your smarter than me and others who disagree with you, and because of it you’re completely missing the fact that I don’t even necessarily agree with the birthers.
I say, if they’ve done the research and have a claim to make, then let them bring their claim, and provide the evidence they’ve discovered, and we’ll see how much legitimacy there is to it. And I’ll say this because unlike you, I’m not so convinced of my own wisdom or intellect that I will disregard those making seemingly nonsensical claims, especially not with the atmosphere that Obama has intentionally created regarding this issue.
By: Jerald on June 22, 2012
at 12:33 am
So your answer to the birth announcement issue is:
1. Maybe all the reporters who looked up the newspapers to verify the birth announcement were part of the conspiracy, too!
2. Maybe the Giant Conspiracy collected ALL copies of the microfiche in ALL libraries, EVERYWHERE, and doctored them!
As I said, I don’t consider this believable.
As far as Obama acting guilty goes… when, exactly have any other presidents been hounded into releasing their long-form birth certificate to the public?
Aside from that, Obama would have automatically been a citizen of the US, since his mother was a citizen. So if your Mom is taking a vacation to Canada when you are born, does that mean you can’t become the President?
By: Barry Bickmore on June 22, 2012
at 10:40 am
Obama’s black.
Really, that’s their problem.
They hated a white Democrat in the House, but they didn’t stymie EVERYTHING, even when their own policy was adopted.
However, when a black Democrat got in, they killed every bill by filibuster, stopped all progress and no matter what he said, they’re against it (Ever seen Horse Feathers? Just like Groucho).
The only other option is that Junior expanded the powers of the Presidency so far that, though they’re absolutely happy with their own side getting those unearned and dangerous powers, they’re cacking their pants over a Democrat getting it.
If a white Democrat gets in and they stop making so much fuss, we’ll know which one it was.
My money is on the “But he’s a niggah!” (say it like Slim Pickens in Blazing Saddles).
By: Wow on June 26, 2012
at 10:42 am
FWIW, birth announcements are/were a common thing in many newspapers. Sometimes like wedding announcements they came in paid (longer) and unpaid (shorter) versions. Even the NY Times had some.
By: Eli Rabett on July 9, 2012
at 2:12 am
You know microfiche’s can be edited right, they’re digital after all.
Yes; much like sausages, microfiche’s are digital.
By: pough on September 11, 2012
at 10:16 pm
[…] My last post, a few weeks ago, was about Lord Christopher Monckton’s new role as hero to the Birther nuts here in the U.S.A. I asked, Just how far does this guy have to go before his ardent admirers start looking at their watches and pretending to have an urgent appointment to keep? […]
By: The Monckton Files: Back in the Attic « Anti-Climate Change Extremism in Utah on June 22, 2012
at 11:34 pm
[…] https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2012/05/29/the-monckton-files-cracked/ […]
By: Climate denier guilty of syntax avoidance « Lack of Environment on February 11, 2013
at 6:02 pm