Being as I had a quieter morning than I thought work-wise, I decided what the heck:
Emmett Jenner wrote:
the Tories and other parties are under similar pressures for 'group issues' too - can't remember the exact reasons.
Being poorly informed - just what everyone wants in a politician.
It is common for detractors to make the point that if one party is in a group with another then both parties must automatically think the same way in every respect. In many cases the actual truth of the matter is that when it comes time to form a group you have to choose which of the available groups you want to join or play a part in forming. Unlike the English parliament there are lots of un-grouped individuals and MP's. In some cases the un-grouped members are such vile and disgusting individuals that they can't actually be part of any group because people don't want them.
So what if there are ungrouped, unpleasant people? You want brownie points for not being chums with them? Fact: your lot are in a group with some unpleasant people. So unpleasant, that members of your party have left those groups and indeed one has had the whip withdrawn (partly for that, partly for the accusations she made of homophobia and the sexual discrimination case she brought against members of your party. Which, as I'm sure you know, she won). As you've told us, the reason for being in groups is access to money and speaking time. So what impression do you think all that leaves us with, other than money is more important than principle, and stepping out of line gets you thrown out of the club?
What is nice about the EFD is that it stands for Europe of Freedom and Democracy.
Aah, how sweet. Does that excuse the corruption, nepotism and extremism in the Slovak party? The racism and xenophobia shown by some members of Lega Nord? The anti-semitism and homophobia of the Popular Orthodox Rally? etc. No one has suggested UKIP think the same. Just distaste that they're comfortable being in the same club for reasons you yourself have stated are simply about money and speaking time.
Lord Monkton has riled warmists something rotten. What is unusual about Monkton is that he dares to get involved in the debate.
Yes, he has riled "warmists" something rotten. You know why? He takes their work, because he has done none of his own, deliberately misinterprets it and misunderstands it, and repackages it unreviewed through his own publishing front as "evidence" for his opinion. If someone was doing that to publish pro-EU academic articles, you'd be at their throats, but apparently it's fine for him to do it.
You know what's worse than "shutting the door on reason"? (whatever that soundbite is supposed to mean.) Ignoring evidence because you can't be bothered to change or because it doesn't suit you. Or because you don't understand and can't be bothered to listen to people that do. I don't actually care whether Monckton is just an idiot, or selfish, or lazy, or paid off by Koch Industries or all those things. I care about the fact he abuses a position of wealth and (some) influence to spread misinformation and confusion about a vitally important and very complex issue.
Oh, and the accusation was never whether he was a peer or not. It was that he was claiming he was something he was not - a member of the House of Lords (and as an aside, you clearly don't understand what "random" means if you think selection for the Lords is in any way a random process). He's even got in trouble because he used a logo a bit like the House or Lords one on his personal stationary, which suggests a truly hilarious level of vanity and desperation for recognition and credibility:http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010 ... rds-claims
Oh, and here are a few links to people completely demolishing his "science". And I don't mean debating, I mean dismantling:http://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton-response.pdfhttp://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/05 ... bunked.phphttp://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... ipulation/
There are plenty, plenty, plenty more where they came from because he's made the habit of being wrong an awful lot. And just a reminder - he's not a scientist. He has no training in the field at all, let alone in climate science. He is not an expert (or indeed a nobel laureate as he once claimed, or a science adviser to Mrs Thatcher). And when he gets caught, does he fight back with evidence and data? No, he threatens legal action, demands apologies and retractions, and tries to start letter-writing campaigns to get people like John Abraham (who's dismantling of Monckton's claims is absolutely meticulously done and incredibly airtight) disciplined by his institution. Yes, what a debating hero he is, eh? Lucky he didn't lose in Oxford - he'd probably have demanded his opponent be arrested.
What's unusual about Monckton is not that he gets involved in the debate, it's that he's so spectacularly ham-fisted in the way he goes about everything. Still, good bloke to have on board eh?