The House of Lords and Christopher Monckton

It seems, like Galileo before him, Lord Monckton is facing persecution from the established institutions of his day.

This has Mike Mann's fingerprints all over it. Will "The Team" stop at nothing?

More like this

It would be preferable to simply ignore Christopher Monckton's seemingly laughable attempts to undermine climatology, but given the power of the Internet to turn long-discredited arguments into serious threats to academic freedom, such a strategy would not be wise. Monckton has launched a campaign…
You've heard about "ClimateGate." ClimateGate was a very successful but illegal campaign by anti-science to discredit climate science and climate scientists. Rest assured, the climate science is fine and the climate scientists are just trying to do their jobs, and doing quite well at that.…
Graham Readfearn writes about how Monckton is threatening the sue the ABC because he didn't like Wendy Carlisle's Background Briefing episode. This isn't really that interesting, Monckton has also threatened to sue Al Gore, John Abraham, Scott Mandia, The Guardian, as well threatening to jail…
Here we continue our examination of the final report (PDF) of the Investigatory Committee at Penn State University charged with investigating an allegation of scientific misconduct against Dr. Michael E. Mann made in the wake of the ClimateGate media storm. The specific question before the…

I have to say this:

The photo of him in that article looks like an unsuccessful audition to be the fifth Doctor.

By greatbear (not verified) on 12 Aug 2010 #permalink

Great comment greatbear - I see that as well.

But I wish they would stop calling Monckton a skeptic - he isn't. I am a skeptic. He is a denialist Walter Mitty with an narcissist complex.

The latest in the Monckton saga.

The opinions of a group of climate scientists have been sought regarding the claims made by Monckton in his statements before the US Senate. Their reponse is contained here:

Of course, Monckton gave a predictably paranoid delusional response, discussed here:…

How anyone can be taken in by this Walter Mitty like lunatic beggars the imagination. People who are that stupid should not be allowed to breed.


Can i make two assumptions? Firstly lets assume that everything Monckton said is incorrect and the second is that he is not an idiot (read he knows what he is saying is incorrect) then what is his motivation, what does he gain out of this? Any thoughts.

Also and a little bit off topic we and others have discussed the merits of CO2 emission reduction and whether we should apply a tax or some type of trading scheme to tackle the problem.

The way i see it our problem is that we are digging coal up out of the ground and burning it so therefore if we dug less up in one year and even less the next year and so on then this would surely lead to less and less CO2 emissions to the point where we emit none.

So my question is rather than apply some type of TAX to CO2 emissions why dont we simply put a limit on the amount of coal/gas we can dig up. I would be interested in your thoughts on this issue.




The problem with Monckton is - as I have suggested on several occasions - is that he has a vastly inflated opinion of himself and delusions of grandeur. He is a real Walter Mitty. If you know the movie or are old you will know the metaphor, but in essence he sees himself as knowing and being far more that he really is. You can see that in all his claims about a Nobel 'Pin', or being Margaret Thatcher's science advisor, or being a member of the House of Lords - none of which are true. He carries these delusions into his opinions of his knowledge of science. He is as transparent as a pane of glass, but too many people are blinded by the sun shining out of his arse. His motivation is purely and simply narcissism - he wants to assume the mantle of an important person who people fawn upon.

On the issue of carbon tax etc, I am not really an expert but do have a few views, which I must admit do change over time. We have to reduce our emissions, but I think like most things economic there is no one 'right' answer - the best approach will depend very much on your personal circumstances. My view is that you cannot rely completely on market forces - the market is the problem, not the solution. So that means some form of intervention in the form of taxes and incentives. But it should be a wide range of mechanisms, not just a cap and trade or similar. I would like to see a tax on carbon, and the proceeds used to subsidise alternative energy sources such as rooftop solar panels to reduce our reliance on centralised power stations. Place heavier taxes on 'gas guzzlers' and reduce or eliminate taxes on fuel efficient vehicles. Mandate solar hot water and rooftop solar panels on new construction houses. Stricter standards on vehicle emmissions. Favour 'green' suppliers for all Government contracts. The possibilities are endless and are only limited by your imagination.

Really, when you think about it, coal is the energy source of the 19th century, and we need to move on. The problem is, there is no real incentive to do so when it is so cheap. I don't think you can artifically limit what you dig up, but you can start to reduce the need to use it by declaring that no new coal fired stations will be built, and by reducing support for the industry by not building any more infrastructure to assist it. The problem is that a lot of jobs rely on the coal and associated industries, and it has a powerful political voice and bottomless pockets to mount campaigns against anyone that opposes it. But it needs to happen - but unfortunately I don't necessarily have the answers.

Crakar, Monckton is self-delusional to the extreme. Rule 1: Monckton is always right, Rule 2: if he's wrong, revert to rule 1. Even some 'skeptics' have apparently tried to educate him, for example on his botching of the IPCC 'predictions', but he simply won't listen; he is right, period.

I read as much of the scientists' commentary as I had time for, Mandas, and then the article on Monckton's response. Thanks.

I think things like stupidity-insanity-dishonesty-vanity can coexist and overlap in three-dimensional space on a continuum, and Monckton is your case study.

He is more deviations from the mean than even his absurd CO2 forcing projections.

To what extent he is actually responsible for his own actions and statements will remain an intractable mystery. The bigger issue is what it says about anyone who would invest any credibility in him. That is of greater interest and terror to me.

"then what is his motivation, what does he gain out of this? Any thoughts."

Remind me - how much did he earn on his last tour of Australia?

Skip "The bigger issue is what it says about anyone who would invest any credibility in him. That is of greater interest and terror to me."

My shallow and unconsidered view is that an 'English' accent opens many doors in USA. It doesn't even have to be English. I remember a discussion with an American woman who said that she'd started minding her ps and qs because she was spending some time with a 'well-spoken' visitor from ...... New Zealand!

And in this man's case, he's also got a peerage. Silly girls jumping up and down at a rock concert aren't in the same league as a Republican faced with this seductive combo.


I'ts not just an English accent. I lived in the US for a year and my accent opened a few things other than doors.... but you probably didn't want to know about that! (think US sailors coming to Australia)

Mandas in 5,

I have never heard of a Walter Mitty but based on your comments re Monckton would i be wrong in substituting a Walter Mitty comparison with one Kevin Rudd?

I asked about the limit on digging up fossil fuels because to me it would be more effective at reducing emissions and currently we are getting plenty of mixed signals on this issue from Canberra.


I am sure financial gain plays a part and also what Mandas has said is also a contributing factor but the man does go to great lengths to tell the world "we need the courage to do nothing".


Doing nothing--not giving a rat's ass about environmental hazard, living in the same inertia of the energy economy we've built in the 20th century (which is doomed anyway, whatever you think of AGW)as if no other method of living is possible--that takes real brass balls now, doesn't it?

Sorry, Crakar. There's nothing courageous about just sitting on your ass and not giving a shit.


'The Secret Life of Walter Mitty' is a famous book and movie from the 40s, starring Danny Kaye. A little bit about it here:

Its pretty obvious that Monckton is seriously delusional. Look at all the things he has claimed about himself - Nobel pin, science advisor, member of the House of Lords, etc. If I was to make those claims they would lock me up in a mental hospital - and Monckton has no more claims than I do to any of those things.

I would not give Kevin Rudd the title of Walter Mitty, but I am sure as a hater of all things to do with the Labor party and the left of politics in general you will be able to stick the label on him.

No doubt there are a lot of mixed signals coming from Canberra, and these will probably be clarified over time. Interesting how the CEO of the world's largest mining company BHP Biliton has called on the Government to institute a carbon tax. Of course, he is not supported by other mining company executives, which is a pretty good indication of the state of play on this issue. Its also a pretty good indication of why it is difficult for the Government to form a coherent policy on the issue.

And I am 200% with skip on this one. Doing nothing does not require courage, it simply demonstrates the most extreme form of cowardise imaginable. We need the courage to take action, despite the powerful lobby groups railed against us, and despite idiotic climate change deniers and two faced liars like our opposition leader (who has shown his true colours in the last few days - talk about a poor loser!).


I know i have said this before but it appears i need to say it again, i treat all politicians with the same level of contempt not just the ones you like.

Two faced liars:

Whilst your example of Abbott (our opposition leader) is a good one, lets not forget 80% of Australians voted for a party that said there will be no carbon tax or ETS in the next term of government and yet now Gillard (our PM)is saying we will get one. See how i have shown contempt for both and not just ignoring certain facts to show how one eyed i am.

Gillard has caved in to the greens, so less than 20% of people wanted a ETS etc and so now we all get one, this is the problem with voting for retards and a classic example of why we failed the IQ test.

Here is a wonderful mixed signal, the climate change minister said the coal industry must remain viable in Oz but yet wants to introduce a CO2 tax so if they remain viable who pays the tax? many companies that use electricity (thats about all of them) dont want one and Alcoa will pull out if we get one.

We get mixed signals because the retards that dragged down our IQ score (the 20% that voted green and or independant) chant incomprehensible slogans as they march down the street waving misspelt home made signs with religious overtones.

Gillard and labor are now beholden to the party that these retards put into power so we go from "there will be no ETS or TAX on my watch" before the election to "we need a ETS or TAX" the day after the election result. The difference is the greens dont have the knowledge or foresight to see the destruction their stupid policies will cause (low IQ again) but labor do. So now they are caught in the proverbial rock and a hard place. They tell the public what the greens want to hear but they dare not tell the public what the result will be.


I expect both of you understand the word courage but have never been tested on just how much you actually have, to the point where Skip takes it all out of context and Mandas follows right on cue.

Moncktons point (whether you agree with him or not)is that in many people's opinion there is not one shred of evidence that supports the IPCC theory that a small increase in CO2 will lead to catastrophic global warming or climate change or climate disruption or whatever term you want to use. Therefore rather than have a knee jerk reaction to some wild theory that only lives inside the RAM of a computer we should have the courage to do nothing.

Now from this Skip has added his own twist to support his view by claiming we will just sit on our arses and not give a shit and little Mandas following behind agreeing (looks like a role reversal of the lapdog has occurred).

Environmental hazards:

Skip gibbered on about this but does he really understand what one is? For example there is a floating pool of shit off the coast of Hawaii.

Factories dump shit into oceans and rivers.

Mining sites leach toxins into the ground.

Rain forest are being chopped down for farming.

Elephants are slaughtered for their ivory.

Asian bears are held captive for their bile.

Tigers are killed for some wierd ass asian herbal crap.

Sharks are killed by the thousands for their fins for fucking soup!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The list goes on, the only difference is these things are real, they are happening as i type. I am sure Skip feels some sort of sorry in regards to all of this but it is AGW that really pisses him off because a group of people told it was true. You and others like you need to drop the religious zealousy that you have to AGW and re prioritise what is inportant and what is not.


Miss me while I was away? I will tell you all stories about my trip if you like, but I am sure you will just bang on about me killing native wildlife, so perhaps not. If you really want, I can show you a video of a dingo bitch eating a 1080 bait that I threw to her while I comment in the background (is that a provocative enough statement?).

On to your post though. First of all, thanks for calling me a retard. Yes - I voted Green, and will probably do it again given the deplorable state of our major parties, especially the Coalition that you are so beholden to, despite your statements of denial. But anyway...

"...Gillard has caved in to the greens, so less than 20% of people wanted a ETS etc ..."

You have been listening to your creationist hero for too long. Just because Abbott says that less than 20% of people want an ETS does not make it so, and it is not only Green voters who want an ETS. Remember, the Greens voted against an ETS, so your statement is pretty moronic, even for you. Show me a survey which says less than 20% of the population wants an ETS or carbon tax. I am willing to bet it is closer to the other way around, and there are many who voted for the coalition or Labor who want action on climate change, but voted for the parties for the same reason that you did - because that is who they always vote for no matter how stupid their policies are.

"....Moncktons point (whether you agree with him or not)is...."

Firstly, no-one with an IQ above 50 agrees with Monckton, so even though you like to call me a retard, you did not need to add the rider about "whether I agree with him or not". I have an education in science, so it is pretty obvious that I will not agree with him.

"...that in many people's opinion there is not one shred of evidence...."

Yes, but the opinion of the uneducated general public does not carry much weight in such matters. In the opinion of people who know what they are talking about - ie scientists who have spent decades researching the subject - the evidence is unequivocal.

".....that supports the IPCC theory..."

It is not the 'IPCC theory'. The theory of anthropogenic climate change has been around for decades, much longer than the IPCC. In fact, the IPCC was set up to review and investigate the theory.

"...that a small increase in CO2 will lead to catastrophic global warming or climate change or climate disruption or whatever term you want to use...."

No-one ever said a small increase in CO2 will lead to catastrophic global warming. You need to read more widely than just or or

"...The list goes on, the only difference is these things are real, they are happening as i type...."

Yes they are happening, and are a problem. But that doesn't change the fact that AGW is also real and is also happening as you type.

I am back from the bush, and I am going to recommence calling you out on the stupid things you say, as well as post the evidence that you have no idea what you are talking about, and just cut and paste things that you don't understand from sites written by people who have a philosophical position on climate change rather than an evidentially based one, based on papers they have neither read or understood. You know, people just like you.

Hi all,
I hope you are well.
I just dropped in after I found this video on Jo Nova's site.
(I know she is held in the same contempt as Mr Watts 'round 'ere, but I thought I'd post it anyway.)
I'd really like to know The Thinking and Opinions on this video.
I'd like to know if anyone thinks it's funny, or apt, or reasonable.
Personally, I don't.…

By the way, Matt (Bennett) thanks so much for sending me the "Principles of Planetary Climate" book. I'm slowly getting through it, but it's slow going for me.
I'll stick with it though!)

Cheers everyone.


Thanks for that video link. I think it perfectly encapsulates just how seriously deluded Jo Nova and anyone who supports her or who reads her and links to her website. I mean, quotes like this in the lead in to the video:

"....We could not have come up with better promotion to show how malignantly dangerous the totalitarian eco-fascist dark side of Greens is. Send copies of this to your friends. Send them to your enemies!..."

"...Spot the difference with green terrorism and Islamic Extremists. At least the jihadiâs are not pretending to hide their greedy egotistical self-interest by pretending to âcareâ about the planet...."

She managed to equate Green politics with totalitarianism, fascism, and terrorism. I await the next thread where she compares Bob Brown with Hitler - or maybe she has already done that somewhere else on her site. I felt my IQ diminishing just having her site open on my computer, so I didn't want to read too much further.

What is especially hilarious is she can't even see the irony of this quote:

"...The sore losers are soooooo frustrated...."

She is so pissed off that the Greens hold the balance of power in the Australian Government and she rants and rails against everything Green and those people who dared to vote for them (does that remind you of anyone else you can think of?). Sore losers being frustrated indeed!!

And for the video itself! It is just so laughable that it does not even bear commenting on.

Hey Mandas,
I understand your point, but that's not how I saw it at all.
I must admit, I didn't read all of what Jo Nova wrote about it, I just watched the video, and was sufficiently shocked to send it here to see what you thought.
I don't find that video "laughable" in the slightest.
I understand that you don't like Jo Nova, but I would like to know if you think the message in that video "fits" with Green Politics.
Personally, I can't see how it "fits" with ANY politics except the extremes of either Right or Left.
(I believe it's that "extreme" that is Jo Nova's point)

Hi michael,

I found the video, which I had seen already, to be utterly appaling.

The two possible explanations for it that pop to my mind are:

1. Environmentalists are malignantly dangerous totalitarian eco-fascists who want to murder you and your children if you stand in the way of their greedy egotistical self-interest, or
2. Some environmentalists have terrible PR skills and a lousy sense of humour.

Hard to know where reality lies, isn't it?

Hey Coby,
Thanks for commenting on the video. (and not on Jo Nova, or me)
I do realise you are being sarcastic, and I agree wholeheartedly with point number two!
But point 1 applies, I believe, to SOME environmentalists.
(both 1 and 2 could begin with the word "some" without sarcasm.)
This video is a good example of the sort of ill-advised, overly emotive, immature, bullying rubbish that does a great disservice to the environmental movement in general.

I welcome y'all's thoughts.


Sorry to sound stupid, but I still have absolutely no clue as to what point you are making about the video and what it is supposed to prove. Are you suggesting - sort of like the idotic owner of the wesite, that environmentalists want to go around blowing up people who don't agree with them? Or are you suggesting that the video is just in poor taste?

It is just an advertisement that some will find in poor taste, others will find funny, and others will just ignore. I put myself in the latter category. It really isn't worth discussing or commenting on. But of course, some people with political agendas will try to build it up from a molehill into a mountain. Hence the thread on the website. If that's the best the denialist community can do, then they are a pretty sad lot indeed.

Come on Michael.

Name me one public organisation or movement that hasn't had some kind of clanger or clunker (I think this video is both)dropped by its own supporters. We can't ask for some kind of entry requirement that people who say they support our ideas or our goals must be beyond reproach in intellectual rigour, good taste, impeccable judgment and moral rectitude.

Ask any footie club or political party or anti-racism group. All of them have headdesk moments when a member or supporter does something truly crass or boneheaded. What do they do?

They sweep up the mess, face the cameras, take a deep breath and keep marching on.

Or they could just tell people to get a life and stop worrying about unimportant things and that they should always look on the bright side of life. I mean - have any of these people even heard of Monty Python? (oops I forgot, it is the Americans complaining about a British ad - maybe they just don't get the humour)

let me ask you a question.

What is the legal status of paying privately for health care in Canada? Say, a liver transplant, for example?

Jesus, Paul. Your liver can't be in that bad shape. The Twins won the pennant and the Vikings did get a win--albeit against Detroit.

Ok, in all seriousness: I'll bite. Whats the point?

I'm sure you know exactly where this is going.

btw, it's Paul in MIchigan, not MiNnesota

You have pointed out that before; apologies.

But the Wolverines *and* the Spartans are undefeated and in the top 25 (they both beat my beloved Irish so I'm painfully aware of this) so you have little reason to hit the bottle, so that part of my point stands in principle.

Again, why the interest in liver transplants? Was there an analogy there?


I will be honest that I am not exactly sure of the details, especially WRT an organ transplant, but I do know that there is a private health insurance market here and there are private hospitals.

People pay insurance in addition to the government provided insurance for extended benefits, like dental coverage. And they pay extra for bigger and better rooms in private hospitals, I don't know if the care is better or not.

Thanks, Coby.

So at minimum, one would be restricted by the organ transplant waiting list like here (US). As one does not own their own organs, they can not be sold, so the number available is less than it could be. People die.

Sort of goes to your comment -
1. Environmentalists are malignantly dangerous totalitarian eco-fascists who want to murder you and your children if you stand in the way of their greedy egotistical self-interest

A good example why you're not far off the mark when it comes to government types behavior.
It's not (usually) that the intentions are bad, it just comes out that way.