Facebook Google Menu Linkedin lock Pinterest Search Twitter


People & Ideas

Jan 12, 2010

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

One thing’s for sure, Viscount Monckton of Benchley -- 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.


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.


We recommend

From around the web

Powered by Taboola


Leave a comment

72 thoughts on “Hamilton: Viscount Monckton of Brenchley’s over-egged CV

  1. Evan Beaver

    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.


    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. Elan

    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

    The Irish Club !

  5. Ben Carew

    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

    “…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. Tom

    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

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

  9. RaymondChurch

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

  10. Ben Carew

    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.


    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

    “…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. Elan

    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

    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

    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. JamesH

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

  17. WayneT

    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. Michael

    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

    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. Tom

    @ 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).

  21. Elan

    ‘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.

  22. jeebus

    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.

  23. Michael

    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?

  24. Tom

    …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.

  25. Evan Beaver

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


    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.

  27. Skepticus Autartikus

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


  28. Dr Who

    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.

  29. Frank Campbell

    “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…

  30. Secularist

    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.

  31. Flower

    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?

  32. Evan Beaver

    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.

  33. gregb

    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!

  34. jeebus

    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.

  35. Evan Beaver

    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’.

  36. A government big enough to give you everything, is strong enough to take everything you have.

    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.

  37. Evan Beaver

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

  38. Rebeccazq25

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

  39. Secularist

    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.

  40. Flower

    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:



    “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.

  42. Ian Amos

    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.

  43. Evan Beaver

    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.

  44. Secularist

    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?

  45. chinda63

    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.

  46. quinch

    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:


  47. Joe Spencer

    “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.

  48. Evan Beaver

    “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.

  49. Joe Spencer

    “Science is not done by debate”

    Maybe so, but how do you persuade an electorate without debate.

    Debate is not an interview.

    Debate should be between equals, capable of countering & exposing each others “lies”, whereas interview can (as Monbiot suggests) be just a platform.

    Granted scientists may be uneasy with the theatre of debate , which is more the realm of courtroom lawyers and politicians.

    Isn’t Gore a conviction politician ‘though, who was almost President !

    What’s his problem with debate ?

    Or is it the science ?

    Is there no-one else who can do both ?

  50. Flower

    Isn’t that nice? Mr Monckton has made the list of the “14 most heinous climate villains.”

    But first:

    13) Bjørn Lomborg, Economist

    “Misdeeds: A serial liar, whose books have spawned a cottage industry for scientists who debunk them, Lomborg reluctantly admits that the earth is getting hotter, but insists that we’ll like the warmer weather. He has opinions about many scientific issues, but is trained only in economics and game theory. His love of numbers and arguments does not extend to facts.

    “Corporate teats: Denier conference speaking fees, book sales and Lord Monckton knows what else.

    “Most egregious lie: “The Kangerlussuaq glacier is inconveniently growing.” (Actually, this glacier lost 55 billion tons of ice from 2000 to 2006 alone, and loses several gigatons of ice annually.)

    “Comeuppance: Dropped into the Sahara to do penance among climate refugees. Lomborg’s Danish skin can’t take the sun, so he’s buried entirely in sand, save for a mouth hole. Incoherent shit streams continuously from the hole, so the natives assume it’s a latrine.

    “14) “Lord” Christopher Monckton, Viscount of Brenchley

    “Misdeeds: Admired by Glenn Beck. His Lordship’s hysterical condescension and anger flashes are classic examples of dangerous Royal inbreeding. Can be found at all the big denier fests, including Blankenship’s nightmarish blasted mountaintop jamboree. Habitually confabulates his autobiography and fabricates scientific facts. Monckton recently called a gathering of activists in Copenhagen “Hitler Youth.”

    “Corporate teats: Heartland Institute, SPPI and Frontiers of Freedom—all recipients of oil money.

    “Most egregious lie: “The right response to the non-problem of global warming is to have the courage to do nothing.”

    “Comeuppance: Climate refugees storm his castle in 2030 and pillage everything but Monckton’s prized medieval pear of anguish, which he cleverly hides up his own ass. Unable to remove the excruciating device by himself, The Lord checks into the hospital. The doctors are brave enough to do nothing.”


  51. Kevin Herbert

    Evan Beaver:

    Tee hee: have we had the advantage of hearing the detail of your take on Plimer’s and/or Monckton’s views?

  52. JESSICA31

    This brilliant fact as this post could be shown at dissertation or at the thesis to buy a paper from the custom writing services.

  53. Evan Beaver

    Kevin, not sure what this turn of phrase means “have we had the advantage of hearing the detail of your take on Plimer’s and/or Monckton’s views”, but here’s what I think of Plimer.

    I’d been ignoring him completely for the most part. Heaven and Hell or whatever his book is did not cross my radar at all. I read some excerpts and noted that CSIRO took it to pieces.

    When I heard that he’d agreed to an interview with Monbiot (despite not answering his written questions before hand) I thought it a good opportunity to give him a chance. I thought his performance was embarrassing and made me very relaxed about my faith in the AGW theory. He spoke not like a scientist but a politician. Monbiot asked him some very direct questions about incorrect and badly referenced passages in his book, yet Plimer did not answer one of them. Each question was met with a stream of nonsense and non answers, and often a lot of inective. He said nothing that even damaged my confidence and actually hardened my resolve against the sceptics.

  54. USEmily

    You know that you would to see the smashing knowledge associated with paper writer and about this good post at the professional essay writing service. Hence, you can to test it.

  55. SBH

    Evan, I thought he spoke like an old man confronted by a rapidly changing world who was totally thrown by the realisation. His references to ‘young man’, ‘manners’ and so forth were illustrative

  56. hopede

    A month ago I believed (on the basis of little direct knowledge and a lot of media-inspired fear) that global warming was imminent and likely to be disastrous.

    Now the world has changed (oh NO – we may not be doomed after all…..)

    – Key climate scientists are under investigation by two universities and by a UK parliamentary committee re possible data manipulation and suppression
    – There are daily revelations of the questionable financial dealings of the IPCC head honcho
    – There are daily revelations of seriously incorrect statements and overstatements in the IPCC reports, where the process should have been so rigorous as to eliminate any such possibility.

    I think there’s a serious chance we’ve all been well taken in. There’s a lot of triumphalism about Climategate on the right wing sites but in reality, climate sceptics have been pushed to the “right wing” media whether they want to be there or not, because of just the sort of intensely personalised attacks of the kind Clive has made here. At least Monckton’s writings address the scientific issues. Clive doesn’t get within a bull’s roar of them.

    It’s obvious from the UEA email store that the data handling and coding left a lot to be desired. There’s a real case to answer that there may have been intent to mislead within papers that were crucial to the AGW case and to the IPCC process.

    A few predictions: Climategate is going to get bigger, and suck in more agencies in more countries, maybe our own BOM and CSIRO. Deep Green is going to be an unpopular colour when more people realise how they’ve been led down the garden path. And media outlets that failed to cover Climategate fairly from the outset are going to be looking less relevant. It’s a sad day when Fox News is providing better coverage than Australia’s ABC (boo to Robyn ‘there’s nothing to see here so I won’t look ‘ Williams). Congrats to Crikey on its early articles and news trawl cover.

  57. Frank Campbell

    Belief in the climate cult has been falling for several years (see polls). Support for its pop-eyed alter ego, denial, has risen. Today, The Age for the first time has a negative AGW story on page one. The Age has long been culpable for acting as an uncritical conduit for AGW cult belief. Hopede’s post indicates why the tide is turning.

    Fallout from the cult is twofold: (a) neglect of the real environment by greens and especially The Greens, coupled with the AGW monopoly of Federal Labor’s attention (b) Empowerment of the forces of reaction- the execution of Turnbull and the rise of the hard, nasty Right under the underestimated Abbott (remember the scorn heaped upon him by Keane and Rundle- imminent collapse of the Libs etc?)

    Rudd may eventually pay a price for all this. He should shift Wong to another portfolio immediately, or she’ll be forever identified with idiotic AGW policy. A new ALP policy on climate change adaptation is a priority, minimising the “carbon pollution” hysteria. All changes (not “reforms”) should have multiple environmental, social and economic justifications- eg closing brown coal powergen promptly (ignore the hypocrites in the Vic ALP), fund research into base-load renewables, cease the “wind-farm” scam immediately, stop clear-felling of native forests, etc etc.

    We can’t hide the decline in policy credibility any longer…

  58. David

    Frank I agree Rudd would be wise to shift Ms Wong to another cabinet portfolio, BUT wouldn’t that be admitting defeat, almost, on the Govts climate change stance? I cannot imagine Kev will admit to be wrong on anything.Can’t recall it happening since Nov ’07. And who would replace her? He may have to burn the ‘midnight oil’ coming up with another sucker 🙂

  59. Frank Campbell

    David: Not for nothing was Rudd known as Dr Death when he was Goss’s headcrusher. Latham loathed Rudd because he knew Rudd was relentlessly undermining him (see diaries). Latham probably would have detonated anyway but the point is Rudd is just another ruthless politician. Doesn’t matter either that he’s just another Queensland Philistine nerd, except to the likes of Bill Henson.

    Rudd’s worldview is as could be predicted from his background- a vulgar ALP developmentalist (“I want a big Australia”). AGW is potentially fatal for this mentality. As a technocrat, he tries to balance the putative “experts”, aka “climate scientists” (actually computer modellers) against his desire for Growth. No doubt he’s a tad bewildered by the lengthening odds against AGW and sagging popular support for the hypothesis.

    As many have observed, he’s not especially decisive. But power is everything and this will concentrate his mind. A cabinet reshuffle will see Wong moved, masked by other shifts, maybe before the next election, or just after. The hard question isn’t Wong, it’s GW policy. AGW is probably dying, but GW isn’t. The current plateau in global temps may just be remission. No one has a clue. To put this in measured scientific terms, no one has a fucking clue. So GW policy is still a priority, but utterly different policy if “carbon” is removed from the equation. Copenhagen-style hysteria is absurdly counter-productive in either case.

  60. Flower

    “A month ago I believed (on the basis of little direct knowledge and a lot of media-inspired fear) that global warming was imminent and likely to be disastrous.”

    Hopede – do read more and try to keep up. I can see why you have jumped camp so readily if you only read the tabloids. Clearly you are unaware of the scathing reviews by Australia’s most respected scientists on Plimer’s Heaven and Earth? That alone should have supplied you with a good pair of antennas to detect the stupefying swill peddled by this gentleman (and others!)

    To quote another where I am in total agreement:

    “To maximize my chances of being right, I will try to collect what information I can and evaluate it rationally. But part of that information has to include the nature of the people making arguments on either side of a debate. If one side consists of scientists who have spent years trying to understand a complicated system, and the other is a ragtag collection of individuals with perfectly obvious vested interests in the outcome, it makes sense to evaluate their claims accordingly.”

    Yet you claim: “……..because of just the sort of intensely personalised attacks of the kind Clive has made here. At least Monckton’s writings address the scientific issues. Clive doesn’t get within a bull’s roar of them.”

    As advised previously, do not put your faith in tabloids alone. Christopher Monckton’s “scientific writings” include insults of unacceptable reprehensible slander against the whole climate science community. In fact the Heartland Institute published his Keynote address at their “2009 International Conference on Climate Change,” Such insults against the science community and AGW proponents included:

    ‘Arrogant fraudsters, huckstering snake-oil salesmen, global warming profiteers, crooks, bed-wetting moaning Minnies of the Apocalyptic Traffic-Light Tendency–those Greens too yellow to admit they’re really Reds, , Dr. Strangelove of NASA – “und anyvun zat disagrees viz me vill be arrested und put on trial for high crimes against humanidy und nature.”

    Excerpts from his closing remarks:

    “Love and serve the Lord,
    “Rejoicing in the power of the Holy Ghost;And the blessing of God Almighty,
    “The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost,
    “Be upon you and remain with you always. Amen.”

    And also to you “Lord” Mockton for it appears that for “Lord” Monckton, the compelling science on climate change is a shonk but the “science” on a supernatural deity drifting around in space somewhere is conclusive – such is the hypocrisy of many of those in the denialist camp!

    Mr Monckton’s tour of the “colonies” is a well orchestrated strategy planned by the big time denialists. His Canadian tour was the brainchild of the notoriously fraudulent “Friends of Science” devoted to opposing the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change. I trust you have not fallen for the tabloid spin that two unknown Aussie blokes enticed Mr Monckton to tour Australia?

    I sincerely trust Monckton, whilst on his Australian tour, will plot and scheme with his science advisor (Robert Carter) who says one thing while Monckton says another. Oh dear!

  61. Frank Campbell

    Touching to see Flower trying to coax Hopede back into the fold. We’ll see a lot more of this as desperation grips the AGW movement.

    Apart from patronising Hopde (“try to keep up”), Flower fails to acknowledge that both sides of the cult are bedevilled by noisy nutters: the floating Thatcherite carcass of Mad Monckton and (for example) our own Little Aussie Prattler, Calvin Hamilton. Both are burdened with more baggage than Paris Hilton.

    The AGW cult is in strife because observational data have not matched the predictions made over a decade ago, and because the climate modellers masquerading as “scientists” controlled the peer review system- they assessed each other. Read all the emails, not just the handful of headlines. Read Kevin Trenberth’s 2009 paper (Trenberth the leading climate modeller)- he lists a dozen crucial areas where evidence is lacking.

  62. Flower

    Frank Campbell

    As an ordinary punter, I try to keep up.

    In addition, peer-reviewed scientific climate science papers are published all the time without any involvement from the IPCC. There remains uncertainties on climate change but the evidence on fossil fuel emissions of CO2, the desecration of life-sustaining ecosystems and the subsequent delayed warming is compelling. As an ordinary punter, I spend a good deal of time endeavouring to digest the contents of these papers. Those more qualified than I, offer assistance with the bits beyond my comprehension.

    Therefore, perhaps you could advise me who the “Aussie prattler, Calvin Hamilton” is?

    Apart, from the obvious vagaries and the vacuous claims in your post, I suggest you learn a little more about human nature. When a body of reputable climate scientists are abused and ridiculed for years, by those feigning superior knowledge on climate change but can’t find anyone silly enough to peer review this swill, reputable scientists will retaliate.

    Hacking private and confidential emails is a criminal offence. Are criminal offences OK by you?


  63. Frank Campbell

    Flower: the Little Aussie Prattler is “professor of ethics” Clive Hamilton, whose quasi-religious crusading is reminiscent of earlier fundamentalists, like Calvin and Savonarola. He’s an ideologue, pure and simple. Knows nothing about “climate science” but “knows” that AGW is Armageddon. Has preached internet censorship, and the “suspension of democracy” to force good AGW behaviour. Hamilton ran in Costello’s seat for The Greens: various over-heated commentators predicted a Prattler win or at least a big scare for the Libs. Didn’t happen.

    Re peer review independence from IPCC: this is why people have to read all the emails. Mind-numbing, but the only way to put things in context over 14 years. A staggering amount of time was spent by the AGW modellers tailoring their work FOR the IPCC. The IPCC became their raison d’etre. They relentlessly suppressed deviants from within their own ranks, rigged peer reviews, fought over control of journals etc.

    As for “abuse and ridicule”- they were prime offenders. The paranoia sets in as opposition scientists question their modelling and graphics (eg the notorious “hockey stick” graph of 1998) and as observational data fail to back up their predictions.

    Your characterisation of AGW climate modellers as decent, reputable etc misses the point. They didn’t freak out because of jerks like Monckton, the machinations of Big Oil or legions of snotty internet trolls sitting in front of their PCs in their underpants- they disintegrated because of panic: they had the entire world in thrall. The social and economic order was to be revolutionised. What a burden for a handful of computer modellers in provincial institutions to bear!

    The “uncertainties on climate change” are endless. The science is undeveloped. Therefore to say as you do that ” the evidence on fossil fuel emissions of CO2, the desecration of life-sustaining ecosystems and the subsequent delayed warming is compelling”is at best unproven, at worst a disastrous mistake.

    As for the “criminal offence” of hacking emails- there should be a lot more of it. The corporate state and big capital have made the world less transparent, while ostentatiously pretending to be more transparent.

  64. Flower

    “Your characterisation of AGW climate modellers as decent, reputable etc misses the point.”

    Err….no Frank – it is you who misses the point. Problem is Frank that without any substantiation, you have already decided that the contents of the hacked emails are original and they prove that all climate scientists are frauds and that AGW is a myth. Regardless of the outcome, one black goose does not make a gaggle!

    Alas for you, Frank, the UK parliamentary enquiry has not yet arrived at any conclusions – nor has the internal enquiry by the East Anglia University. Therefore, unless you can provide evidence beyond reasonable doubt, I have to conclude that you are prejudiced.

    In the meantime, whilst so many froth with glee over CRU, will you lobby for a parliamentary enquiry into the lack of integrity by one of Australia’s scientists – Ian Plimer who has brought disgrace to Australia’s reputation and the university where he hangs out, in between private engagements of course? After all, reputable scientists have published their reviews on Plimer’s pseudo science.

    Descriptions of the pseudo science in these published reviews come to mind – “fabrication,” “distortions,” “falsifications.” Indeed Professor Enting discovered a “mere” 143 flaws in the jabber wonky that Plimer published, who btw, has made a killing by defrauding the public.

    ‘Therefore to say as you do that ” the evidence on fossil fuel emissions of CO2, the desecration of life-sustaining ecosystems and the subsequent delayed warming is compelling”is at best unproven, at worst a disastrous mistake.’

    Well I daresay that Clive Hamilton is much more au fait about atmospheric FF emissions than you Frank. The “disastrous mistake” is all yours since you clearly have no idea of chemical reactions. Fossil fuel emissions of CO2 are the progeny of many very dangerous and eco-destructive hydrocarbons and several pesticides which foul everything including ecosystems, biodiversity and human health, prior to oxidizing to CO2 at some stage.

    Stack emissions and diffuse sources of industrial CO2 also include the release of heavy metals, radioactive emissions and with poor combustion, are responsible for the formation of dioxins if there’s a bit of chlorine in the mix.

    Without environmental justice Frank, Nature packs a heavy punch so don’t you worry about whether it’s warming or freezing because either way, the only thing you may have to eat is money.

    Evidence provided at your request – reams of it!

  65. Frank Campbell

    Why is it that so many comments like yours, dear Flower, misrepresent your interlocutors? Insult and hyperbole are routine- scarcely noticed. But misrepresenting is another matter: for example you say I think the emails “prove that all climate scientists are frauds”. They don’t, to say so is absurd and I claim no such thing. Likewise “AGW is a myth”. It isn’t. It’s a hypothesis.

    So don’t demean your own position.

    Keep a copy of your opinions as expressed on this topic, and see how they look in say five years time. And please read all the emails. A tiresome task, but they are empirical evidence (and no one now doubts their authenticity).

  66. Flower

    “Insults and hyperbole Frank?” “Aussie prattler, deviants, Armageddon, hysteria, f****ing clue, more baggage than Paris Hilton, ideologue etc” Ah…my dear Frank, why do you do not see the plank in your own eye?

    Why do you chatter on about hacked emails, urging readers to access these revelations yet fail to provide us with a link? Where is your source Frank? Are the emails piecemeal in nature – excerpts perhaps taken out of context? Has the language been mutilated? What is the reasoning behind these criminal hacking activities when the IPCC reports assure the reader that these “hypotheses” are ones of “observation, estimates and projections and that models can not simulate all aspects of climate?” Aren’t your “hyperboles and insults” somewhat premature?

    Nevertheless Frank if it’s hyperbole you’re after consider the Guardian report in 2007, that the right-wing think tank, the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI) was offering scientists and economists $10,000 each, “to undermine a major climate change report” from the IPCC. AEI asked for “articles that emphasise the shortcomings” of the IPCC report. AEI visiting scholar Kenneth Green made the $10,000 offer “to scientists in Britain, the US and elsewhere,” in a letter describing the IPCC as “resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent.” Yeah …there you go Frank, the plot thickens – bring out the noose but make sure you hang the right criminals! We don’t need another contentious issue like Ronald Ryan, do we?

    And of course, the word conspiracy has been distorted to mean not its dictionary definition but any and all who challenge the reasons supplied by our corporate masters. Hey perhaps it’s a global conspiracy by the captains of industry? What about the Bilderberg Group? Royalty, former Prime Ministers, oil barons etc etc. After all AEI are connected – so is Royal Dutch Shell, the third largest corporation in the world – pipped only by Exxon Mobil actually. Shell have 70 companies I believe – operating in 140 countries but we all know about Exxon’s donations to AEI dont we? We all know that both Shell and Exxon have trashed the environments of poor nations around the planet with impunity and continue to do so!

    Yep – control the oil, control the nation, control the food (aka Monsanto et al, Gates and Rockefeller), control the world!

    Yay – Bilderbergs of the World unite!

  67. Frank Campbell

    Calm down Flower- overheat and you’ll wilt…

    As I said, insults and hyperbole are fine. Misrepresentation of specific statements isn’t.

    The authenticity of the emails is unchallenged. Read them on eastangliaemails.com

    Judge for yourself if they’ve been fiddled with. I’ve read them all and they seem unfiddled. Haven’t heard the authors denying anything…

    As for the badness of Big Oil, it comes naturally to them. Do you really think the collapsing credibility of the IPCC and the climate modellers is caused by Shell and Mad Monckton? If so, you underestimate “the punters”, as you call them.

  68. Flower

    “I’ve read them all and they seem unfiddled.” “Seem” Frank? Not quite good enough since the veracity, or the correct interpretation of the contents has not been established, however, thank you for the link (at long last!)

    The website you provided to prove “authenticity” of the emails is the Opinion Times owned by a right-wing, religious fundamentalist, Jim Pfaff:

    “Opinion Times – A Conservative, Christian Perspective”

    There you will find one of Jim’s articles: “CO2 or CFCs’? I always get those two mixed up.” Really Jim then perhaps those who are ignorant on the compositions of anthropogenic chemical emissions should squawk on something else?

    Jim advises: “Through many years of working as a volunteer and running statewide political efforts, I still find that many Christians simply will not get their hands dirty in the political realm.

    “To be certain, we have come a long way since the late 70’s when Jerry Falwell woke us all up to the need for involvement, but we have much farther to go. I want to make a case to the reader that he or she is commanded by scripture to be involved in the political process.

    “……….Jesus is the only way to salvation, and there is no other way to heaven but Him.”

    There you go Frank – “commanded by scripture” so if it’s only your own skin you’re concerned with, do not flinch from an opportunity to scheme and plot, however sordid or demeaning.

    Which reminds me of Godbotherer, Monckton’s duckshoving endeavours: “the planet was saved two thousand years ago.” No scientific data provided to substantiate the claims of these fanatics, no empirical evidence required, no hotline to heaven for the gullible punter to prove “authenticity,” for truth is irrelevant. No hacking of God’s emails or 0f the voice messages in the heads of the deluded. The gullible punter just cops these stupefying rounds of swill or else he’s a dead man!

    Do you like mixing politics with religion Frank?

    You know Frank, I went to work at thirteen so I’m not the brightest star in the galaxy but anyone with half a sensory neuron would cut these megalomaniacs loose though I must congratulate you bloke. Excellent bait and switch – a stirling endeavour indeed!

  69. Frank Campbell

    I couldn’t care less who puts the emails up for view Flower. They should be a special liftout in the Fairfax press, but no sign yet of that happening. Strange, since the entire future of the world is alleged to hang on the prognostications of a handful of climate modellers… As an atheist I couldn’t give a damn if the emails are made public by mad yank Christians or even the NRL…well, maybe not the NRL….

    No one has, to my knowledge, queried the authenticity of the emails. Do you think that that the two inquiries now underway would have started if they were bogus? Goblin Wretch this isn’t.

  70. Flower

    Good morning Frank

    By joves Frank your talents far exceed those of Fred Astaire’s. Fred’s sidestep, soft shoe shuffle is amateur in comparison.

    Hasta la vista!

    “Weak eyes are fondest of glittering objects.”

Leave a comment


https://www.crikey.com.au/2010/01/12/hamilton-viscount-monckton-of-benchleys-over-egged-cv/ == https://www.crikey.com.au/free-trial/==https://www.crikey.com.au/subscribe/

Show popup

Telling you what the others don't. FREE for 21 days.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.