Just thought I'd add - as an addendum to the coat of arms thingy above Lord Monckton's letter - that Anthony Watts has come up with an alternative.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/14/condensed-monckton/

(apologies to Andy Warhol)

Who says climate debate isn't fun : )

Dear Poirot,

This is indeed fun and something that keeps on giving.

Dear Spindoc and SPQR,

Firstly a small correction, I am the chief prosecutor. Along with the Australian you all stand accused of hyping a 'loop hole' into a charge that the entire body of work on global warming should now be dismissed. It is ignorant, self serving tripe and you all should be thoroughly ashamed of yourselves however let us look at the paltry evidence you have provided to support your very weak defence.

The loop hole is of course the 17 year mark with which you have chosen to make your case. As I have submitted in my prosecutor's brief the assertion that the global temperature has not increased only works at about that figure. It falls down for instance if it is 13 years or 20 years, or 25 years, or 30 years or 35 years.

So what evidence did you bring to this court to defend the charges?

Exhibit 1. Quote from defendant SPQR - “Mr Rajendra Pashauri found fit to make the statement that there has been “17 year pause in global temperatures rises” “.

The prosecution submits this is false, that Mr Pashauri at no time made the statement that there has been “17 year pause in global temperatures rises”. These were not his words. May I draw the court's attention to the defendent's supporting document, an article in the less than completely reputable broadsheet The Australian dated Feb 2, 2013.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nothing-off-limits-in-climate-debate/story-e6frg6n6-1226583112134

Within the body of the piece by reporter Graham Lloyd you will find no direct quote from Mr Pahauri with the said words ascribed to him by the defendant.

I request this court finds the defendant SPQR to be an unreliable witness and that any further evidence he provides is view with the appropriate degree of suspicion.

Cont..

Cont..

Exhibit 2. Quote from defendant Spindoc in reply to a question “Did Rajendra Pashauri actually say the very words “30 to 40 years at least” as suggested in the original post of this thread?” put by this very officer of the court - “Answer, absolutely yes.”

The prosecution again submits this is false, that Mr Pashauri at no time made the statement that there has been “30 to 40 years at least”. These were not his words. May I draw the court's attention to the defendant’s supporting document, the same article quoted by our first defendant.

Within the body of the piece by reporter Graham Lloyd you will find no direct quote from Mr Pahauri with the said words ascribed to him by the defendant. While the prosecution acknowledges the sub editor's summary paragraph at the head of the article may well give the impression that the words “30 to 40 years at least” were a direct quotation, any careful reading of the article itself will show that Mr Lloyd was a little more circumspect.

“He said that it would be 30 to 40 years "at least" before it was possible to say that the long-term upward trend in global temperatures had been broken.”

I request this court also finds the defendant Spindoc to be an unreliable witness but ask that the court is measured in its condemnation since unlike the first defendant his crime was lack of thoroughness rather than blatant misquoting.

I await further submissions from the defense.

Delving a little further into Lord Monckton's claim to veracity on the issue of climate - his claim that he has "...contributed several papers to the learned journals on climate science..."

Not a peer-reviewed paper in sight...because this fella has no expertise to argue the science.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9906&page=0#162536

This, perhaps, was a s close as he got:

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm

A newsletter attached to a journal - which I presume is what he means by contributing to learned journals on climate science. It's merely his opinion (and the APS inserted a disclaimer above his piece)

The "skeptic" movement's Crown Prince complains in his letter to the ABC about being labelled a "charlatan".

But everything about his claims and conduct appear to fit the definition perfectly.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/charlatan

Dear CSteele,

Let the court remind all that what is being determined here is whether or not Mr Pachauri affirmed the proposition that there has been a << 17 year pause in global temperature rises>>.

As such, all the *excited* comments and links from Ms Poirot about Lord Monckton are ruled inadmissible and are stricken from the record. If Ms Poirot wishes to start a witch hunt about Lord Monckton she is welcome to start a new thread. The court orders that Ms Poirot be removed from the court --and in view of some of her recent ranting’s the court recommends she, also, undergo a narcotics swab.

With regard to the other defence witness Mr Steele. Let me remind you Mr Steele that although the court does make some allowances for your behavior –mindful as we are , that you are more familiar with the Sharia system, having been Mr Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s private counsel for 10 years – we will be operating under Australian legal etiquette in this session –so please, behave.

The prosecution has tabled two new pieces of evidence which in the courts view support their case –and quite frankly, also in the courts view, kicks the crap out of the defence teams case:

Firstly, the prosecution has noted the defence (nitpicking) contention that because the words << 17 year pause in global temperature rises>> are not enclosed in quotation marks they may not reflect Mr Pachauri’s intent.

The prosecution has responded that the reporter who recorded the remarks , is a professional reputable person with many years experience and no reason to fabricate things – he simply reported what was relayed to him . Further –and more telling -- the prosecution refers the court to the case of Monbiot v. Plimer http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9891#160058 in which it was established that one Mr Plimer (who some claimed was wrongly cited) had the option to sue. And since “ 34 days [had transpired] since George Monbiot accused Ian Plimer of lying and fabrication…[and] Mr Plimer [had not instigated] legal action against Monbiot, the ABC or the Guardian.” The remarks were likely to be true. Accordingly, the prosecution argues that as it has now been a week –the talk at Deakin (from memory was 15th Feb) –and though widely reported and commented on -- no objection had been raised by Mr Pachauri the remarks in the Australia are likely to accurately reflect his intent.

Secondly, the prosecution has evidence which establishes that the 17 temperature hiatus is not unheard of. Back in 13th February 2010 Mr Phil Jones –a fellow parishioner of Mr Pachauri -- in an interview with the BBC is quoted as saying –and this a direct quote:

BBC Interviewe: “ Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?”

Phil Jones: “Yes, but only just…”
ttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm

The court requests it be read again for the benefit of Mr Steele who appeared to be preoccupied fiddling with something deep in his pocket.

“BBC Interviewer: “ Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?”

Phil Jones: “Yes, but only just…”
ttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm

The court finds in favor of the prosecution and orders Mr Steele to pay full court costs – plus, the accommodation expenses of the prosecution team at a five star Goldcoast hotel –and for his own benefit, the court orders Mr Steele undergo pocket billiards aversion therapy.