tip off

Hamilton: Viscount Monckton of Brenchley’s over-egged CV

When he arrives on our shores later this month Viscount Monckton of Brenchley will be greeted as a saviour by local climate change deniers. He will be chaperoned by Ian Plimer, and Monckton’s sponsors, engineer John Smeed and his friend, retiree Case Smit, are hoping for big things. He’s already booked on Alan Jones’s show; I’m guessing Andrew Bolt is drafting an encomium to the English lord; and it’s a sure thing that The Australian will give over its opinion pages to him.

Here’s Monckton’s current itinerary:

monckton itinerary

One thing’s for sure, Monckton — the “high priest” of climate scepticism soon to tour Australia — does not lack self-belief. His significance on the world stage is enough for him occasionally to forget himself and rewrite his biography.

He has claimed to be a member of the House of Lords (well, he once tried to become one), to be a Nobel Laureate (he wrote a letter to the IPCC which won a Nobel Prize, a connection close enough for him to commission his own gold Nobel prize pin), to have single-handedly won the Falklands War (he persuaded the British Army to use germ warfare on the Argies), and to have invented a cure for Graves’ disease, multiple sclerosis, influenza, food poisoning, and HIV.

In principle, over-egging one’s qualifications ought not to invalidate one’s arguments, but why are we not surprised that his statements about climate science have been debunked as amateurish, confused and full of school-boy howlers?

But the real fun starts with his politics. Here he is three months ago in a bravura performance before the Minnesota Free Market Institute:

“So at last the communists who piled out of the Berlin Wall and into the environmental movement and took over Greenpeace … now the apotheosis is at hand. They are about to impose a communist world government on the world.

You have a president who has very strong sympathies with that point of view. He will sign anything … in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your president will sign your freedom, your democracy, your prosperity away forever.

So you see, Obama is in on it; after all, his Democrat party believes in “the tyrannical, anti-democratic system of command economy administration that we in Europe would call Communism, or Fascism, or International Socialism”.

It is tempting to scoff at the simple-minded mid-west Americans who lap up these fairy stories, until we remember that Senator Nick Minchin believes them too.

Monckton travels the world alerting anyone who will listen to the secret plan for a United Nations world government, referring to it as the “New World Order”, the term of choice of American wingnuts and televangelists like Pat Robertson whose 1991 book of that name uncovered a conspiracy by Wall St, the Federal Reserve and various others to create a world government serving the Antichrist.

The Viscount can see the extreme left lurking everywhere; not only at the heart of the environment movement, but in the corridors of EU head-quarters (“a tyranny ruled by the unelected Kommissars”) and the scientific establishment itself, characterising the venerable Royal Society as “a mere Left-leaning political pressure-group”.

It was perhaps at the Copenhagen conference last month that Lord Monckton’s eccentricity reached its zenith. He described the entire conference as “a sort of Nuremburg rally”, including “the Hitler Youth marching in and breaking up meetings”.

If you’re wondering how the Copenhagen conference could be a conspiracy to impose communist world government and at the same time be populated by Hitler Youth, Monckton reminds us that “of course the Hitler Youth was also left-wing and green”.

The Viscount even made a point of confronting the Hitler Youth, whom he found lurking at a conference stall masquerading as bright-eyed environmentalists. One of them took exception to being called Hitler Youth, explaining that he is Jewish and his grandparents escaped the Holocaust.

Still, in a spirit of healthy debate the young man offered Monckton his card so as to engage in a follow-up discussion. Monckton would have none of it, retorting: “I do not take the cards of the Hitler Youth.” (Watch it and weep on YouTube.)

There is much more one could say about Monckton — for him Zimbabwe will always be “Rhodesia”; and he has argued that blood tests should be compulsory for all, with those found to have the HIV virus locked away for life — but it feels cruel to go on.

During his visit here, it’s unlikely Monckton will receive an invitation from the “nasty fraudsters” at the Bureau of Meteorology, but those stumping up the $100,000 for his visit are expecting an invitation from the National Press Club. If they succeed, it will show that even the peak body of journalists can be suckered by the denialist strategy — worked out over a decade ago by PR operatives in the pay of Big Oil — to sow doubt by exploiting the media’s commitment to balance.

In Canberra, Monckton is already good mates with Steve Fielding, with whom he wrote a letter to IPCC chair Rajendra Pachauri pointing to the “fraudulent” nature of the Panel’s reports. The reception he receives from the Coalition will be an indication of the extent to which the outbreak of denialism under Tony Abbott has damaged its political judgment.

Lord Monckton concedes that he is used to looking like “an absolute prat”, which explains why in Britain moderate conservatives keep their distance. The Spectator’s Rod Liddle — himself sceptical about global warming — describes him as “a swivel-eyed maniac”.

Monckton and his associates are to climate scepticism what black-clad anarchists are to the anti-globalisation movement, except that the Moncktonians are no longer just embarrassing parasites on the body of sceptical thought but have colonised the host entirely.

  • 1
    Evan Beaver
    Posted Tuesday, 12 January 2010 at 1:29 pm | Permalink

    Tee hee.

    What I’ve seen of Plimer and Monckton I am genuinely surprised the denialists even bother listening to them. If they were on my side, I’d be trying to hide them at all cost.

  • 2
    Posted Tuesday, 12 January 2010 at 1:29 pm | Permalink

    There’s no irony in Monckton’s Perth gig being organised by someone from Hancock Prospecting, is there?

    If this buffoon did not exist, I’m sure Monty Python would have invented him.

  • 3
    Posted Tuesday, 12 January 2010 at 1:33 pm | Permalink

    This is wonderful!!!! Lordy! Lordy!! Come on down!….

    I so relish watching the rope play out slowly….oh..so…s-l-o-w-l — y.

    These pathetic sods hang themselves!!

  • 4
    kebab shop pizza
    Posted Tuesday, 12 January 2010 at 1:50 pm | Permalink

    The Irish Club !

  • 5
    Ben Carew
    Posted Tuesday, 12 January 2010 at 2:40 pm | Permalink

    This guy reminds me of that doco by Errol Morris called Mr. Death: The Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter, Jr.

    It is a story of a little man getting a lot of attention for apparently proving (through a bogus experiment) that the Nazis used no gas at Auschwitz. He became a hero amongst dubious groups who all came to see him talk and cheer him on. He clearly enjoyed it.

    I ask, who would have ever heard of Monckton if it weren’t for his stance on this issue?

  • 6
    Most Peculiar Mama
    Posted Tuesday, 12 January 2010 at 2:40 pm | Permalink

    …But the real fun starts with his politics…”

    That’s rich coming from someone who spews such politically charged bile as:

    …The only hope for the world lies in a campaign of radical activism aimed at shifting power away from those who do not care about the future…”

    …morally justified (in) breaking the law…”

    …it is legitimate to step outside the usual boundaries of protest…”

    …Personally I cannot see any alternative to ramping up the fear factor…”

    …Instead of dishonouring the deaths of six million in the past, climate deniers risk the lives of hundreds of millions in the future…”

    …Holocaust deniers are not responsible for the Holocaust, but climate deniers, if they were to succeed, would share responsibility for the enormous suffering caused by global warming…”

    … climate deniers are less immoral than Holocaust deniers, although they are undoubtedly more dangerous…”

    …So the answer to the question of whether climate denialism is morally worse than Holocaust denialism is no, at least, not yet…”

    And let’s not forget the disgracefully execrable “A Letter to your Father” last December.

    Clive sounds jealous of all the attention Monckton’s getting; magnified no doubt by the spectacular failure of his own political aspirations.

    Only an ignorant fool would call others on their political philosophy whilst making such vile and stupid statements.

    It means you have nothing left to offer but abject hysteria.

    Well I’m laughing at you Clive.

  • 7
    Posted Tuesday, 12 January 2010 at 2:42 pm | Permalink

    Come on Clive, what we really want is ‘in the red corner the totally discredited swivel-eyed maniac and in the blue corner the totally discredited boggle-eyed looney’. Stop the long distance name calling, gird your loin and get into him in person ….. if you have the courage ……. yeah, thought not.
    Instead you keep pointing out Moncktons propensity to draw association with the nazi’s and no doubt when he does get here and somebody tells him who you are and does a bit of research he can question your likening of a sceptic to a holocaust denier or what you think about censorship.

    Pot, kettle an abject hypocracy, with loons like you two hows a chap to know what to think?

  • 8
    Evan Beaver
    Posted Tuesday, 12 January 2010 at 2:43 pm | Permalink

    Thanks for that Mama. I didn’t think you’d have the stomach or fortitude to defend Monckton, or his views.

  • 9
    Posted Tuesday, 12 January 2010 at 2:43 pm | Permalink

    Who is paying for this dingbat to pollute the Australian air?

  • 10
    Ben Carew
    Posted Tuesday, 12 January 2010 at 2:51 pm | Permalink

    Mama all those comments by Clive are justifiable if you believe what mainstream climate science is telling us. The trouble is you don’t believe the science so the comments seem extreme. OBVIOUSLY.

  • 11
    Posted Tuesday, 12 January 2010 at 3:04 pm | Permalink

    So let’s not bother answering the really damning scientific arguments that Monckton’s pseudo-science is gibberish, eh Mama? Nor the fact that this self-aggrandising loon is touting ultra-rightwing nutbag dribble of the first order, let’s have a swing at Clive Hamilton?


  • 12
    Most Peculiar Mama
    Posted Tuesday, 12 January 2010 at 3:09 pm | Permalink

    …Thanks for that Mama. I didn’t think you’d have the stomach or fortitude to defend Monckton, or his views…”

    A shortage of unicorns today?

    Unlike the predictable dog whistling Christopher Dunce, I credited you with more intelligence than that Evan.

    Show me where I have offered support to Monckton?

  • 13
    Posted Tuesday, 12 January 2010 at 3:33 pm | Permalink

    I’m not yet au courant with the players here,-so this question has no agenda:

    MPM: irrespective of your views of Hamilton,-are you really defending Monckton? Not through opinions of Monckton,- but what Monckton himself is saying?

    Do climate sceptics REALLY see this fella as an asset? Really??

  • 14
    Graeme Lewis
    Posted Tuesday, 12 January 2010 at 3:55 pm | Permalink

    Thanks Mama, Tom and (a few) others. Clive pontificates using personal attacks, but as usual makes only extremely minor real contribution to any realistic debate.

    I look forward to hearing what Monckton might have to say - a man of such experience must be heard.

    Poor Clive really believes that he is the oracle, yet his whole argument comprises slinging personal abuse, while totally failing to input real information.

  • 15
    Chris Johnson
    Posted Tuesday, 12 January 2010 at 4:07 pm | Permalink

    Lord Chris certainly looks and sounds half-baked - still he’ll give Alan Jones a lift if not in his ratings. Cheap gate fees will pull larger audiences but I doubt most will gel with Monckton unless like Jones they assume peerage and intellect go hand-in-hand. Is the Lord’s itinerary light on or seemingly flexible during federal parliament for any reason?

  • 16
    Posted Tuesday, 12 January 2010 at 4:09 pm | Permalink

    Graeme Lewis,
    Exactly how does quoting lies, mistatements and abuse Monckton has uttered in public, on the record, constitute “slinging personal abuse”?

  • 17
    Posted Tuesday, 12 January 2010 at 4:30 pm | Permalink

    What I find really telling about this article and the comments that follow is that not once do you attack the data supported facts this so called ‘nut job’ presents. Instead of attacking the man, why don’t you try refuting the real world data he presents? Why is it exactly that not one trend predicted by the IPCC has come to pass?
    Unfortunately we ‘Man Made Global Warming’ deniers don’t have anybody as high profile a Global Warming zealot like Al Gore to step to the plate to present our own understanding of what is really going on with the climate system. At least Monckton doesn’t have the power to enforce his own beliefs on others as our Prime Minister has and appears to want to. Where is the public debate, before we go off spending billions of dollars. In a future article I look forward to you balancing your commentary by providing a look into the other side of the ‘coin’ - Al Gore, who has gone from a personal wealth of $2M in 2001 to $100M this year on the back of this whole farce. He recently made a single investment of $35 million in Capricorn Investment Group, a private equity fund that also deals in Carbon Credits. Gore’s investment company, Generation Investment Management, which sells carbon offset opportunities, is also the largest shareholder of the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) who deals in carbon Cap & Trade. He has never publicly defended his Global Warming scare mongering in an open debate nor will he do interviews where he doesn’t set the questions or agenda before hand. He is even less qualified to talk on the subject than you make out Monckton to be. Then again, I won’t hold my breath for the article.

  • 18
    Posted Tuesday, 12 January 2010 at 4:32 pm | Permalink

    Isn’t it exciting watching Hamilton behave like a pubescent teenage girl in a rage over a boyfriend she really likes but who doesn’t like her? You can see who won’t be invited to the meetings. Man up Clive and admit you’ve met your match.

    ps. temperature in Stockholm this morning was -42C - it’s getting hot up North.

  • 19
    Evan Beaver
    Posted Tuesday, 12 January 2010 at 4:35 pm | Permalink

    The statement “not one trend predicted by the IPCC has come to pass?” could do with some support or clarification Wayne. The IPCC said it will generally get hotter. It is. Please clarify.

  • 20
    Posted Tuesday, 12 January 2010 at 4:42 pm | Permalink

    Waynet -


  • 21
    Posted Tuesday, 12 January 2010 at 4:51 pm | Permalink

    @ Ben Carew - No it most certainly does not! Under any circumstances marginalising yourself by becoming an extremist undermines perfectly the (any) cause you might hope to advance.
    @ Christopher Dunne “…let’s have a swing at Clive Hamilton?” …..a self aggrandising nutbag loon that is touting ultra left-wing dribble of the first order. Point is they are both E grade unelected (unelectable) nutbags that distort, lie and exaggerate and distract from the central question.
    Hands up, I am sceptical. I’m not in denial or a denier which would definitively mean I have made my mind up. I have not, I’m an agnostic (fence sitting show me the proof merchant) not an atheist. I’m also a scientist and a mathematician that’s not convinced if it’s 17 degrees at 8 in the morning and 22 degrees by 9, it does not necesserily follow it will be 67 degrees by 6 in the evening (although it felt like that in Melbourne yesterday).

  • 22
    Posted Tuesday, 12 January 2010 at 4:53 pm | Permalink

    ps. temperature in Stockholm this morning was -42C - it’s getting hot up North.’


    See? THAT is what causes problems;-on BOTH sides. This is simply untrue.

    Or provide the evidence.

  • 23
    Posted Tuesday, 12 January 2010 at 5:04 pm | Permalink

    From the video evidence, it’s pretty clear that this Monckton fellow is an eccentric nutter.

    That any elements of the so called ‘mainstream’ media would give him the authority of a public platform from which to spout his paranoid nonsense shows a disdain for their own trade.

  • 24
    Posted Tuesday, 12 January 2010 at 5:10 pm | Permalink



  • 25
    Posted Tuesday, 12 January 2010 at 5:20 pm | Permalink

    Elan who cares if it’s true? This is 2010 my boy. Facts will NOT be allowed to get in the way of a good story. Capish?

  • 26
    Posted Tuesday, 12 January 2010 at 5:22 pm | Permalink

    …and even though I’m sceptical, I have solar at home, use public transport wherever possible, re-cycle (and choose to buy best packaged as opposed to best marketed), catch and utilise rain and grey water and am insulated to the extent my bloody loft is not an option when I need to store my junk. I eat meat without guilt. All that said and while I have never had the urge to chain myself to a tree, I understand (even believe) that unnecessarily polluting the environment is a bad thing and should be avoided wherever possible. Carbon trading as a croc and I suspect would be as effective as a one legged man in an arse kicking competition. I don’t think my life will be shortened by pollution but am concerned that my children’s might.

    In respect of idiots Monckton and Hamilton, I have never been to a boxing match but would happily pay a weeks wages to see the pair of them kick the crap out of each other.

  • 27
    Evan Beaver
    Posted Tuesday, 12 January 2010 at 5:31 pm | Permalink

    Tom, no kicking in boxing. Unless it’s Thai or something like that. Some Greco Roman could be truly amusing.

  • 28
    Posted Tuesday, 12 January 2010 at 8:09 pm | Permalink

    So what’s the problem mama, can’t you actually make an argument for Monckton’s jibberish, pseudo science?

    Nasty little troll and a total waste of space, yet again.

  • 29
    Skepticus Autartikus
    Posted Tuesday, 12 January 2010 at 8:26 pm | Permalink

    All this from the man who gave us the Climate Skeptics = Nazis trope.


  • 30
    Dr Who
    Posted Wednesday, 13 January 2010 at 11:24 am | Permalink

    How strange this.

    With the history of competely weird sayings that can be attributed to Hamilton.. and he has the temerity to write about the same thing being evident in others.

    At least Monckton has done some homework, and is more likely to be nearer the mark than the crooks that inhabit the GW space..you know people like Mann Bradley Hughes,Briffa Jones Hansen.. etc and the CRU, and not to mention the money crooks like Gore and Pachauri.

    Monckton has donee veryone favour by exposing the thread bare nature of the GW scam.

    If the IPCC proceeds to the next assessment report without radical overhaul then it have have no credibility and be worth less.

  • 31
    Frank Campbell
    Posted Wednesday, 13 January 2010 at 11:27 am | Permalink

    Nasty little troll and a total waste of space…”

    Jesus Christ, here we go again…the Crikey Punch ‘n Judy from the same tiny bunch of head-bangers. What happened to the startling pre-Xmas resolve to cease spitting and try argument? Gone the way of the new diet already?

    At least upgrade the standard of insult.

    To be fair, the spectacle of Hamilton v Monckton is a red rag to the kinderbulls. A pair of shrieking woady tribals.

    Monckton is a fly-blown Thatcherite relic. Savonarola Hamilton a publicly-funded ideologue devoid of original ideas.

    I spent the last three weeks reading (and editing) every one of the hacked “climate” emails. Excruciating and stupefying, but a sociological El Dorado. About a million words reduced to 120,000. Much to give both sides pause for thought…

  • 32
    Posted Wednesday, 13 January 2010 at 11:31 am | Permalink

    The quotes of Monckton’s hysteria about the coming global communist dictatorship, would be funny, if quoted by anyone other than Clive Hamilton.

    But Clive Hamilton is exactly the sort of fanatical, ends-justifies-the-means, latter-day Vladimir Lenin that will give Monckton’s claims an element of credibility.

    Hamilton, if you want to do Monckton a huge favour, just keep talking.

  • 33
    Posted Wednesday, 13 January 2010 at 11:33 am | Permalink

    Aw c’mon Clive – I think Mr Monckton’s kinda cute. He’s a dead ring-in for Marty Feldman, wouldn’t you agree? They say having poppy eyes makes one more prone to brain damage too – well at least in Pekinese dogs. Anyhow, he must be a Lord because it says so on his letterhead so don’t be so nasty:


    You know Clive, I’ve worked out why Mr Monckton’s on the hop. It appears that not only is Plimer dodging George (Monbiot that is) but so is the “Lord”:

    “Email from George Monbiot to Lord Monckton, 30th August 2007.

    “Dear Lord Monckton,

    “I hope this finds you well. I am puzzled to hear that someone who identifies himself as you has been claiming on Wikipedia that the Guardian has paid you £50,000 in damages as a result of an article I wrote. Could you please let me know whether or not it was you who made this claim, and if so what the meaning of it is.”



    Perhaps we could get the honourable gentleman onto Lateline and invite George too. What say thee?

  • 34
    Evan Beaver
    Posted Wednesday, 13 January 2010 at 11:41 am | Permalink

    I note a strong tendency here for people to get hung up on the messenger rather than the message. In my view, this leads to pointless and endless discussions of character and perceived this and that. All I care about really is the message. Couldn’t give a rat’s ahse about the messenger.

    I find Monckton’s message hilarious. All this One World Government (and never detailed, it’s just OBVIOUSLY a bad thing) nonsense is conspiracy theorism of the worst kind.

  • 35
    Posted Wednesday, 13 January 2010 at 11:50 am | Permalink

    Oooh, can’t wait to hear Frank’s digestion of the “climategate” emails. I’m sure he’s applied his substantial knowledge of the minutiae of climate science to correctly interpret them. Do share, Frank!

  • 36
    Posted Wednesday, 13 January 2010 at 11:51 am | Permalink

    Evan, I think we also need to focus on the media’s role in giving extremists and ideologues the credibility and authority that follows a public platform, and hold them to account for it.

    The media are the gatekeepers of public discussion, and it’s when they send in the clowns that the public is either distracted from issues of import, or misinformed to the point of being turned against their own interests.

    It might tickle the fancy of the audience to shine a spotlight on a hatter with such a wondrous name, but it’s hardly responsible.

  • 37
    Evan Beaver
    Posted Wednesday, 13 January 2010 at 11:55 am | Permalink

    Yeah, agree there Jeebus. It shits me to tears the way ‘every view is sacred’ is presented by the media. One lunatic opposing the view of thousands becomes ‘dissent’.

  • 38
    A government big enough to give you everything, is strong enough to take everything you have.
    Posted Wednesday, 13 January 2010 at 11:59 am | Permalink

    I love how some people get so butt hurt about these things. Its not really that big a deal is it? He will come, give a lecture on some thoughts to about 200 people in each of the 3 cities. so 600 tops…geez, thats some far reaching media. Plus for what its worth people probably already know what hes going to be talking about. Low care factor here, but the levels of anal rapage of crikey readers by the Viscount are on show for all to see.

    I don’t think their is a One World conspiracy per say Evan, but anything that puts Australian Sovereignty into the hands of anybody except our elected leaders needs to be stopped, by force if neccesary.

    Every time an Australian PM signs up to a UN convention, Liberal or Labor, they should be taken out the back and beaten. It diminishes our ability as a nation to make our own directive decisions.

    Do i need to count the many local laws that affect and afflict australians because our leaders in Canberra decided to sign up to a bio-diversity convention for example. The binding resolutions are often then left in the hands of individual states to make up their own versions so Australia keeps its promises to the conventions, and this inevidably filters down to local government and we have RED TAPE, red tape with no judicial oversight. No to mention the convention has no oversight from our parliament. We are effectively ruled from Brussells.

    Its BS, so no conspiracy, but we should all be ardently against Australia signing anything from the UN. Its a usless organisation that does a terrible job with allot of money.

    I don’t mind Monckton, he is a good performer, he riles the left (always fun) and he actually makes some good points, im more of a Bjorn Lomborg fan, but Monckton does what many do not, question the status quo, that should be something our usless media does, unfortunatly we need show ponies from the UK to do it for us.

  • 39
    Evan Beaver
    Posted Wednesday, 13 January 2010 at 12:19 pm | Permalink

    Flower, have you seen the Monbiot/Plimer interview? Can’t remember what program it was on. Lateline? Worth a watch, easy to find.

  • 40
    Posted Wednesday, 13 January 2010 at 12:54 pm | Permalink

    Your superior story related to this good post goes side by side with the thesis titles. Hence, you have to work for dissertation service.

  • 41
    Posted Wednesday, 13 January 2010 at 12:58 pm | Permalink

    I agree with Jeebus. Those controlling the media are obsessed with the idea that there must be two sides to every story.

    So, give airtime to fanatics at the polar extremes of any topic, and the result is balanced coverage, right? For example, the h0locaust “debate” is kept alive by producers giving airtime to a h0locaust denier one night, and a h0locaust survivor the following night.

    All in the name of “balance”, right? Oh, and of course freedom of speech, because as we all know, freedom of speech equals a guaranteed platform. Or does it?

    What a load of crap. Some topics have a whole spectrum of reasonable views, some have just one. The professional responsibility of media gatekeepers is to pick the most informed sources, not the most hysterical.

    Neither Hamilton nor Monckton belong in the mainstream of an enlightened marketplace of ideas. They both belong out on the fringes, along with the moon-landing conspiracy theorists.

  • 42
    Posted Wednesday, 13 January 2010 at 1:26 pm | Permalink

    I did see that interview Evan and I note that the hapless Plimer has not yet answered Monbiot’s questions nor has he resorted to his usual trick of litigation. Of course should a court find in Monbiot’s favour - that is that Plimer lied on TV and misled his readers, all those people who purchased H&E may demand back their money and Mr Plimer would have to resurrect his begging bowl - left over from the creationist saga.

    In the meantime I have enjoyed the interview between Mr Monckton and Al Gore. By joves, I must agree with some that Mr Monckton is a splendid performer:


  • 43
    Posted Wednesday, 13 January 2010 at 3:17 pm | Permalink

    Monckton is a fly-blown Thatcherite relic. Savonarola Hamilton a publicly-funded ideologue devoid of original ideas. “

    That’s Frank’s “upgraded insult” option then, is it?

    Just mama pizza with added cheese.

  • 44
    Ian Amos
    Posted Wednesday, 13 January 2010 at 3:36 pm | Permalink

    For goodness sake, I’m fed up with this climate change stuff - so 2009. It all ended in Copenhagen, and can all of you believers and denialists please go and do something useful? Charity work? Sports coaching? Join the Toastmasters? Crikey used to be an interesting read before it became a dumping ground for old pyjamas.

  • 45
    Evan Beaver
    Posted Wednesday, 13 January 2010 at 3:40 pm | Permalink

    Good stuff Ian. Since there was no agreement on how to deal with Climate Change at a big meeting, it is no longer a problem. I wish all problem solving was this easy. If it’s too hard to solve, it just goes away.

  • 46
    Posted Wednesday, 13 January 2010 at 3:52 pm | Permalink

    True, Evan. But still, Ian has a point. Crikey’s only got two stories nowadays: global warming and executive remuneration. Or in Ruddspeak: the greatest moral crisis of our times; and unfettered capitalist neoliberal greed. How many issues are we expected to read with those two stories repeated again and again?

  • 47
    Posted Wednesday, 13 January 2010 at 5:05 pm | Permalink

    Evan - the point you make about the messenger rather than the message is what the argument is really all about.

    Climate scientists had been pretty much on the same page for years (well, as close to consensus as you can get in science) … until Al Gore got up in public and started talking about it. Suddenly it became a “left-wing” political issue, rather than a scientific issue.

    I can’t help wondering what the world would be like now in relation to climate change debate had it not been for Al Gore’s Inconvenient Documentary.

  • 48
    Posted Wednesday, 13 January 2010 at 6:23 pm | Permalink

    I’m sorry - humour is the only approach to dealing with people like this…

    I’ve yet to see a better summation of the whole thing than this:


  • 49
    Joe Spencer
    Posted Thursday, 14 January 2010 at 6:49 am | Permalink

    “The question is: who from the climate change mainstream will be available to debate with Monckton during his visit? “

    Since Everyone in the climate change mainstream is so terrified of getting roasted by Monckton, they’d rather run the risk of runaway Global Warming than debate him, how is he to be stopped ?

    Certainly not by sniping innuedo we seem to get here.

  • 50
    Evan Beaver
    Posted Thursday, 14 January 2010 at 8:41 am | Permalink

    “The question is: who from the climate change mainstream will be available to debate with Monckton during his visit?”

    I don’t really like this idea of debate. Science is not done by debate, politics is. Monbiot makes the good point during his interview/debate with Plimer that it’s very easy during a debate to lie your butt off and not be found out until well after the fact. By then, most people already have the take home message they wanted to spread, without the burden of facts.