Lord Monckton wows Melbourne

Highlights of Lord Christopher Monckton’s Melbourne Presentation at the Sofitel Melbourne. Recorded 1st February 2010. There are two parts below.

Part 1

Part2

Slides used in his presentation:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/8057274@N05/sets/72157623339675684/

Photos for use in blogs and articles:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/8057274@N05/sets/72157623340036206/

Share

Advertisements

88 thoughts on “Lord Monckton wows Melbourne

  1. OT but have you seen this?

    India to ‘pull out of IPCC’
    India has threatened to pull out of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and set up its on climate change body because it “cannot rely” on the group headed by its own Nobel Prize-winning scientist Dr R K Pachauri.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7157590/India-to-pull-out-of-IPCC.html

    Surely that ratchets up the pressure for him to resign, first Greenpeace, now Indian government!

  2. Good job mate!

    I’ve seen the underwear slide before… excellent false proxy of climate change… hilarious. Could have made it to AR4 based on the way they selected publications.

  3. Lord Monckton is very entertaining as well as a scathing critic of the alarmists. I wish we had more people with his common sense in public life. Did the Melbourne press comment on his performance?

  4. If he only could come to Norway too! It would be totally silenced by the media, of course. The Norwegian BBC, called NRK would’nt mention it with a single word, of course.

  5. Definitely a wow – lets hope that the Aussies can lead the revolt because the UK public seem to have been doped into silence.

  6. I’m glad Monkton is getting recognition over this, and I hope the trend continues, but I can’t help but think of him as the good guy’s Al Gore. Brighter, better spoken, but ultimately just another politician profusely pontificating. It’s a shame scientific issues are reduced to this. Can you imagine Al Franken getting all worked up with slides and charts over leptons and muons? Or Arnold Schwarzenegger making the rounds with discussions about Eta Carinae?

    It’s repugnant to see any science become a war of sound bites.

  7. The great orator did a reasonable impersonation of another great orator – herr Hitler. I hope that doesn’t backfire on him in the lamestream media. I also like the way he always attacks the EU commisars, “accountable to no one,” as a warning to the audience.

  8. Ahhh, Monckton. Our version of the Goracle. Probably good to have out there to influence people, but I still don’t care for him.

  9. kiyan (11:07:26) :

    telegraph got it wrong! Pachauri has highest level support from government: Ramesh- http://www.hindustantimes.com/india/Pachauri-has-highest-level-support-from-government-Ramesh/505242/H1-Article1-505344.aspx

    That sounds to me like the “dreaded vote of confidence speech”, just before he gets sacked. There is a long standing convention in politics to issue some public statement of support just before some one “decides to retire” for personal reasons, as a face saving gesture so the amount of egg on everyone’s face is minimized.

    If I were inclined to bet I would say that he has about 2 weeks left, to sort out his affairs before he walks out of the office with his stuff in a card board box.

    Larry

  10. Pachauri

    In Britain when a football manager receives the absolute and unconditional support of his board, it is the precursor to his imminent defenestration.

    Rather similar in British politics.

    Paul

  11. M.A.DeLuca (10:46:56) : “It’s repugnant to see any science become a war of sound bites.”

    CAGW was never about science. If it had been, nobody would be worried about it.

  12. M.A.DeLuca (10:46:56)

    I think he’s just fighting fire with fire at this point. I think the fact that much of his presentation has a light-hearted overtone to it is redeeming, but I can understand where you’re coming from.

  13. I think that many or even most regret that Monkton’s style of approach is now absolutely necessary to offset similar techniques employed earlier by AGW alarmists, Greenpeace etc, and still used by the BBC. It would be so nice to not have science reduced to a battle of sound bites and oratory.
    But the battle isn’t won yet, bureaucratic wheels are still turning and laws being passed – UK is just implementing a carbon pricing regime of its own.
    A black time for real environmental concerns of course, which may be the baby thrown out with the AGW bathwater, if and when the alarmists are totally exposed in the publics’ eyes.
    Meantime, more power to Lord Monkton’s elbow!

  14. While he is entertaining, LORD Moncton comes across as far too arrogant for most Australians. He will never be taken seriously while he insists on emphasising his title of “Lord.” Most of the Australian media treat him as a joke. If anything, the fact Lord Moncton is viewed as the leader of the sceptic movement only discredits the movement.

    Anthony, how can you honestly support this guy when he runs rough shot over the facts? For example, his discussion surrounding the so called Arctic ice recovery since 2007 in his presentation is a joke and very misleading. Ice never fully recovered following the 2007 record low — it is still way below the long term average and you know it. http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png

  15. In this particular tour of Australia, Monckton is revealing a showmanship that I believe does not serve him or his cause well. I think he is much more effective debating or plainly explaining his position and outlining the facts without putting on a show.

    Obviously if you are speaking before a large audience one might change the tone somewhat ( as opposed to a debate), but I think he has gone too far and leaves himself open to what I would have to agree would be legitimate criticism that detracts from the main message. His tendency towards hyperbole is disturbing to me as I agree with almost all of what Monckton says and believe that he may be undermining himself.

    Nonetheless it was encouraging to see what appeared to be a large crowd there to hear him. I trust that those who attended take away the meat to of the presentation and ignore the show.

  16. “MJK (12:22:19) :
    […]
    Anthony, how can you honestly support this guy when he runs rough shot over the facts? […]”

    Nicely disguised writing, troll. We remember your name, though. Why would you ever care what Anthony supports or not? You’re an AGW fanboy.

  17. Australians will not be leading the way on climate rationality. People here still believe all the nonsense, mainly because it still floods the mainstream media (with The Australian newspaper being about the only exception). And Australians are very much led by their tv’s.
    The ABC’s 7.30 Report – one of the most prominent current affairs programs in the country – covered Monckton’s visit. The ABC has not mentioned one single word on climate-gate until now – this is their very, very first forray into the issue. They have long been at the extreme left of politics. So 7.30 Report did everything it could to assasinate Monckton’s credibility, and spent most of the program talking to a couple of scientists to reinforce the ‘science completely rejects climate denial’ non-argument.
    Thus is the state of play in Australia. At least we have an opposition leader in Tony Abbot who is no fool on this matter.

  18. Lord Monckton did and outstanding job in Australia but it was not all smooth sailing. He also had to endure one of the most vicious ad hominen attacks I have ever seen in some of the MSM and was set up most of the time when on public TV. Looking on the bright side that means the AGW lobby are running scared and getting desperate.

    I guess when you have to endure such attacks it is natural to fight back but if I may make just one small suggestion to the Lord and that is if he toned down the politics and stuck purely to the science he would win over many more people that dwell in the middle ground. As it is, if you keep attacking the left, none of them will ever listen no matter what you have to say.

    Sure there are those that will never change their mind even if the world freezes over but there are many closer to the centre that can be won over and it is these people that the anti AGW movement needs if political issues and measures like crippling emissions taxation schemes are to be defeated.

  19. MJK (12:22:19): “He will never be taken seriously while he insists on emphasising his title of “Lord.”

    Why? Just because Australia doesn’t have such a title doesn’t mean that Australia can disrespect the practice done in other parts of the world. Or are you saying that his Lordship is somehow illegitimate?

  20. DirkH (12:38:04) :

    Getting a bit personal don’t you think? Can’t you tolerate other perspectives or views? Isn’t that what being a sceptic is all about?

    Although I disagree with Anthony on some points, does not mean I do not respect his view point. That is why I asked him the question. But if that makes me a “Troll” so be it.

  21. MJK, how can you honestly support the IPCC when they run rough shod over the facts? For example, there discussion surrounding the so called melting of the Himalayas by 2035 in the latest report is a joke and very misleading…..

    Can’t have it both ways MJK.

  22. The ABC’s 7.30 Report certainly did a hatchet job on Monckton but their website was inundated with howls of protest. The media has used all its energy to discredit Monckton rather than engage with him but his talks have all been sold out across Australia.

  23. I’ve always seen Monckton as the Joe Romm of the skeptic side. Sure, he throws lots of red meat to the base, but he probably does the movement more harm than good in the long run.

  24. I must say that the Indian Position amazes me. Australia has had it’s own own Independent climate change office and scientists for years. We certainly don’t rely on the IPCC for local matters.

  25. MJK,

    “If anything, the fact Lord Moncton is viewed as the leader of the sceptic movement only discredits the movement.”

    Viewed as leader of the sceptic movement? Really, by whom? Yourself?

    I don’t even know where you get the idea that there is a sceptic movement. In the first place, how can scepticism be described as a movement? How does it make you part of a movement to believe that the science of AGW has many flaws and is unsupported by hard data?

    Science is itself the manifestation of scepticism which seeks to challenge and falsify any new hypothesis. Without such challenges it would be no more than a faith based system that is built upon the simplist and most uncomplicated of observations.

    So Monckton can only discredit himself. He cannot discredit scepticism. How did you ever come to such a silly notion?

  26. MJK (12:22:19) :
    First of all you won’t gain much credibility with straight ad hominem attacks. Secondly he is a Lord… should he deny that? I can garauntee you I have more respect for him than Al Gore (former VP USA) or many of the “respected” Climategate correspondents that are trying to warp the truth into a political agenda.

    Thirdly no one disputes that the max/min ice extent was decreasing for a period, just like no one disputes that it has recovered the last two years. But the IPCC in recent reports still insists on showing the 2007 end point like that was the end of the known data. We are interested in the last two years because it is a distinct reversal of the previous 30-year trend. You don’t think that is significant? I certainly find turning points in data interesting, especially when they persist for a couple of years.

    Cherry picking is not science… you would have been far better off attacking Monckton on his claim of 9-10 years of temperature data being sgnificant with the graphed downward trend. Yes, the trend based on monthly data might be statistically significant, but was it significant from a perspective of climate change? That one is a lot more woolly IMHO.

  27. I must admit I have a feeling that Monckton would do better if he just stuck to the science as well.

    But he has done well in Australia with sell out crowds everywhere he’s appeared and some people like a bit of showmanship to break the ice.

    But there is a part of the science that completely wrecks the AGW argument even if you are a fanatical religious believer.

    The International Energy Agency ( IEA ) has stated that by 2030 the OECD countries will be producing less than 15,000 billion tonnes PA of GHG’s while the NON OECD countries ( China, Brazil, India SA etc, etc. ) will be producing more than 25,000 billion tonnesPA of GHG’s.

    The simple first grade maths of subtracting 15 from 25 justs proves what a waste of time and waste of trillions of dollars will take place in just the next 20 years. In other words whatever we do in the 1st world will be easily out done by the developing world and this new growth will wreck any chance of reducing GHG’s in the next 20 years.

    The answer is probably widespread use of Nuclear energy ( France has 75% nuclear now ) as well as new nano battery cell technology, but whatever you believe there is no chance without new technology of holding or reducing GHG’s over the next 2 decades.

    Lomborg has been correct all along about the stupidity of trying to reduce GHG’s as a first priority because we can only adjust the change ( spending countless trillions ) by 2100 by a few years, but if we spend a tiny ammount of dollars on adaptation we will get a much bigger reward.

    So using up endless acres of newsprint or filling up the blogosphere with arguments for and against AGW won’t change the simple 15/25
    comparison by 2030.

    We may as well flush those trillions of dollars down the toilet for all the good it will do, because that simple 15/ 25 bummer wrecks every argument.

  28. Zeke Hausfather (13:39:22) :

    “I’ve always seen Monckton as the Joe Romm of the skeptic side.”

    But unlike Soros’ hand puppet Joe Romm, Viscount Monckton’s got class, intelligence and the correct facts. And he’s internationally popular, drawing sellout audiences.

    Poor Joe, such a has-been.

  29. Hi Bulldust, it seems to be quite a robust discussion here. I must say that I like the use of the word ‘recovered’ and you have indeed highlighted how Lord Monckton uses the word. The real situation of the arctic ice is pretty woeful (not a scientific term) http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/index.html. However we can still say that it has ‘recovered’ because the measure used is not as low at the minimum as it was two years ago. It is like the difference to recovering from an illness where one would say ‘I have recovered’, meaning fully recovered. Whereas a boxer losing a boxing match is struck, recovers (for a moment), and then falls to the canvas.

    My point here is that those accusing the good Lord of lying should be aware that sometimes he is just exercising the language in a creative fashion. In fact you could even say that he never lies at all because he is only stating his opinion. If he was a member of Actors Equity he would be have even further license.

    Tootle Pip

  30. Re: MJK (Feb 4 12:22),

    Actually, the expression is “roughshod”. And nobody knows what “fully recovered” is since there is insufficient data to determine a “long term average” of Arctic ice area or extents. So in your criticism you are employing hyperbole just as strongly as Lord Monkton.

    The guy is a great speaker and has a sense of humour. He may have an ego but you need lots of ego to forge on against the kind of abuse he receives. And if Australians dismiss him as an arrogant toff, you can’t be popular with everybody. We arm chair quarterbacks pontificate with all this sage advice for the guys like Lord Monkton who are slugging it out on the front lines. As for his use of his title, at least it is a counterbalance to the weight given the views of the fruit bats of the royal house of Windsor.

  31. I was there and he is, indeed a great showman and entertaining speaker. I have to admit that I am somewhat uneasy that he is the major spokesman for ‘our’ side of the argument, especialy when he assumes that our politics are to the right. It would be better if he presented from a politically neutral stance. A couple of alarmists were there trying to engage with fairly petulant and childish ‘questions’ that were really statements. As in Gore metings, security was used to control them. I don’t really know why, but I quite enjoyed this.

    The best part of his visit so far has been the way he has carved up aggressive ABC interviewers (who take their cue from the BBC’s stance) in a way that I’ve not seen or heard anyone else do. Despite their best efforts none of them could lay a glove on him. And I thought the 7.30 Report Special on his visit was reasonably well balanced for that outfit. They must be visiting WUWT.

  32. Monckton brought down the house…the lights are fading and the applause is thunderous…

    Great job as always.

  33. What appears to be forgotten by some writing here is that Lord Monckton is not on a speaking tour to affirm to the ‘converted’ what AGW is all about; he is speaking to audiences who have doubts about the route that their Government is taking them.
    He HAS to appeal to a much wider audience and, quite rightly, he adopts a much more popularist manner. He has tailored his presentation to his audience without diluting the basic facts which give the lie to AGW. It would appear that, as his tour is a sell-out, that he has hit upon a winning formula. Humour, fact and comment are presented in an easily digested mix.
    He is much more easily accepted than the ManBearPig.

  34. MJK (12:22:19) :
    ‘While he is entertaining, LORD Moncton comes across as far too arrogant for most Australians. He will never be taken seriously while he insists on emphasizing his title of “Lord.” Most of the Australian media treat him as a joke. If anything, the fact Lord Moncton is viewed as the leader of the sceptic movement only discredits the movement.’

    What makes you think that you can speak for most Australians? While the Australian media may treat him disparagingly, the comments by the public in those same media columns give the lie to you opinion of the Australian public’s view. These comments overwhelmingly support Lord Monkton. The Aussies are nobody’s fools – they are aware of the AGW scam and resent being rorted. BTW the Aussies have played cricket against the Poms for well over a century. They know the nature and ways of the ‘pompous’ Brits and rather enjoy the cultural difference. No sweat baby!

  35. The NSIDC graph is not the only comparison record of Arctic Sea Ice.

    Whilst the Arctic sea ice has not as yet grown to the same area as it was in 1979, if you look at the satellite imagery from University of Illinois, you will see that the 2010 sea ice seems to be much thicker than it was in 1979, as evidenced by the much more solid, deep purple coloration. Furthermore if you look at the Greenland ice sheet it seems to cover a much larger area in 2010 than it did in 1979. The Siberia, Northern Canada, and Alaska Snow & Ice packs would also appear to have grown considerably, in 2010 when compared with the 1979 image.

    http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=02&fd=03&fy=1979&sm=02&sd=03&sy=2010

  36. To put Monckton’s Australian success in perspective, while it did get some MSM coveraged, not all was favourable and there was lots of ad hominem (about his eyes, his cloths, his scientific credentials, his peerage etc) . Here is a sample:

    The ABC 7.30 report story (check out images and music!)
    Climate wars- Lord Monckton visits Australia

    The next night the ABC give a ‘reply’ from Openheimer (at least some of the questions are less then soft):
    IPCC scientists on the defensive as sceptics step up assault

    The opposition leader Tony Abbott, who came to leadership as a climate sceptic, has recently been vilified by the press as the ‘Mad Monk’ based on the fact that he is an ex-seminarian Catholic, and so recently his suggestion of the advice he might give his daughters on sex was distorted by Labor and the press and mock as though it were a policy statement. And so when he decided to meet Monckton, the headline was too tempting:
    ‘Mad Monk’ meets Monckton

    Sydney Morning Herald:
    Climate sceptic clouds the weather issue

    But SMH did also give some discussion of the issues:
    Ten debates the greens didn’t want to have

    Others:
    Climate Change skeptic Lord Monckton debates Rupert Posner from the Climate Group

    Monckton’s Melbourne meeting: a gathering of men in Richie Benaud blazers

    Climate options get airtime as Lord Monckton strides the stage

    Disbelieving fans put faith in the lord

    Lord of sceptics in call for inaction

    Climate change? Not for Monckton

  37. Vincent (13:52:30) :

    MJK,

    “If anything, the fact Lord Moncton is viewed as the leader of the sceptic movement only discredits the movement.”

    “Viewed as leader of the sceptic movement? Really, by whom? Yourself?
    I don’t even know where you get the idea that there is a sceptic movement…
    Science is itself the manifestation of scepticism which seeks to challenge and falsify any new hypothesis. Without such challenges it would be no more than a faith based system that is built upon the simplist and most uncomplicated of observations….”

    Very well said. I do not think the AGW crowd has ever understood that skeptics are just individuals with a great deal of respect for the scientific method. They do not understand we are not some NGO like Greenpeace or WWF and that is why the acquisition we are “paid by the Oil Companies” is so laughable.

  38. From what I can gather from letters and comments, the Australian public is way ahead of MSM journalists and welcomes Lord Monckton’s ideas and his style of presentation and resents references to his appearance.
    MSM is rudderless at the moment, I am sure they scan the comments coming in and do not want to offend their readership but find it difficult to change their CC position. The most important thing at the moment is that the debate is happening at all and that Monckton’s message is slowly etching in peoples consciousness. He is leaving at the end of the week but the debate has been raised to MSM level and the topic is now fashionable to be discussed in public.

    A couple of dates:
    .Tuesday 9th February at 11am (AEDST) on Big Ideas on ABC 1 is an hour long repeat of Lord Monckton’s Brisbane speech.
    .The National Press Club will have “The great Climate Change Debate” on Wednesday 10th February, I imagine this will be broadcast on ABC 1 from 12:30 to 1:30pm (AEDST)

    So we go from ‘the science is settled’ to discussion and debate, a healthy sign, and I trust the general public to make up their own mind seeing that the topic has stopped being ‘underground’.

  39. I suppose I have too much time on my hands, but I watched both the clips displayed by Anthony and the 1hr 35 min film of Lord Monkton’s address in St Paul, October 2009 pointed to by ” Anon (11:50:17)”. There are no graphics in the latter other than Monkton on stage, but early in the film a link appears to a pdf of the slides (86 of them!!). The two talks are very similar, even with the same initial jokes, although they are, as expected, slanted to the audience, first an American one, then to the Australian one. He uses similar dramatic tricks for effect, lowering his voice towards the end, for example, to draw the audiences’s attention to his message.

    In front of the St Paul audience Monkton took about 20 minutes to get to the point, passing via the DDT and HIV examples and a further 10 minutes lampooning “An Inconvenient Truth”. Remember this talk was pre-Copenahgen, when he was spreading alarm about the nature of the draft Treaty. The Oz version is clearly aimed at warning the natives about the dangers of the ETS.

    One might well poo-pooh Monkton’s style of rhetoric, but for the 1 hr between his introduction and the end of his St Paul lecture, he systematically dealt with matters scientific. It is a pity that the full Australian presentation is not yet available, which might exhibit different emphasis. We should debate the substance of Monkton’s lecture here, rather than be sidetracked as to whether he was “too arrogant for most Australians”. Keep the focus guys.

    Whether a believer or sceptic, be thankful there is an eloquent speaker such as Monkton who is able to draw attention to the Climate Change question before reasonably large audiences and gain necessary publicity in the face of general MSM bias and ennui.

  40. Keith Minto (18:39:08) :
    ‘MSM is rudderless at the moment, I am sure they scan the comments coming in and do not want to offend their readership but find it difficult to change their CC position. The most important thing at the moment is that the debate is happening at all and that Monckton’s message is slowly etching in people’s consciousness. He is leaving at the end of the week but the debate has been raised to MSM level and the topic is now fashionable to be discussed in public’

    Hear! Hear!
    The demise of the ‘fourth estate’ (the MSM) as a credible check on the politics and the affairs of the world is a result of business interests being more important than journalism. Journalism is mortally wounded in my view. Journalists are being replaced by ‘mama dolls’. The ‘Fourth Estate’ is now a looking more and more like a deceased estate.
    It is a similar ‘disease’ to that which afflicts universities in their dependence upon funding for research. Who pays the piper calls the tune’. Scientists will ‘follow the money’ and maybe not the science honestly.
    Fortunately the ‘blogosphere’ is replacing the so called news media for immediate analysis of affairs affecting the people. Thank god for sites such as WUWT that has provided effective discussion and analysis of the issues surrounding the so called climate science.
    ‘Joe public’ is not stupid. The public instinctively senses corruption – might take a bit of time to ‘sus it out ‘but inevitably it happens. And that is what is going on around the world now. I have noticed in all the MSM whenever members of the public are given the opportunity to comment, the overwhelming thrust of that comment is one of scepticm of these issues. They ask ‘How can this be?” Then they dig. That is why they are responding to Lord Monckton. He is articulating their own innate scepticism and they resonate with this. MSM people take notice or die.

  41. Keith and Bryn,

    Both of your comments are really excellent. Lord Monckton drives the opposition crazy because he cites facts, while(st) they are used to emotional arguments [“Save the Planet,” etc.].

    The message is getting out. For example, here is a fascinating interview with RJ Pachuri: click

    Pachauri is put on the “hot seat” by the interviewer, who admits that Pachauri is his friend. And Pachauri fails.

  42. MJK (12:22:19) :

    While he is entertaining, LORD Moncton comes across as far too arrogant for most Australians. He will never be taken seriously while he insists on emphasising his title of “Lord.” Most of the Australian media treat him as a joke. If anything, the fact Lord Moncton is viewed as the leader of the sceptic movement only discredits the movement.

    Anthony, how can you honestly support this guy when he runs rough shot over the facts? For example, his discussion surrounding the so called Arctic ice recovery since 2007 in his presentation is a joke and very misleading. Ice never fully recovered following the 2007 record low — it is still way below the long term average and you know it. http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png

    Get your info from another data provider.
    NSIDC is a nest of warmists hyping a scare that isn’t.

  43. Lord Monckton in superb form in Adelaide, South Australia, last night (4 February). Courteous as always, witty, factual, dismissive of his own (manifold) abilities, except perhaps his powers of observation, using, as he put it, the Mk. I eyeball.

    Two standing ovations in the main auditorium holding several hundred. Overflow crowd accommodated in an annex to which Monckton went to answer further questions after the main meeting closed. Unremarked this morning on website of the local daily. No surprise.

    Monckton met with Leader of the Opposition Abbott earlier this week. PM Rudd failed to take up the invitation to meet.

  44. This is where I came across the story, a little while ago: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/climategate-gives-lord-of-the-sceptics-plenty-of-ammunition-20100127-mywc.html That article says:
    “As an adviser to Margaret Thatcher, he learnt that when you make policy about an issue that is outside your expertise, you must distill it down to one proposition. In this case, how much will a given increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere cause warming? The answer determines whether or not you spend trillions of taxpayer dollars ‘and wreck the economies of the West’.
    Monckton pored over scientific papers on climate sensitivity and concluded the IPCC exaggerated climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide at least sixfold.”

    Ah, I see. He admits to commenting on areas beyond his expertise, reads some stuff (he’s a hereditary peer who worked as a journalist then a political advisor) and decides that the mainstream is wrong, and in fact, out by a factor of SIX? Come on, I don’t want this guy to speak for me on anything.

    Later on he says: “The last refuge of alarmists is the precautionary principle, in which we “give the planet the benefit of the doubt”. But Monckton says bad policy guided by the precautionary principle has already led to the death of millions of people as the transfer of farmland to grow biofuels meant less food, higher prices, food riots and starvation.”

    Death of millions of people? Who? Where? What on Earth is he talking about? How can he call the other side “alarmists”?

    And here’s a bit more on this guy: He admitted to lying to the public (http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/Aristocrat-admits-tale-of-lost.3340554.jp) and he’s argued for mandatory blood testing for the HIV virus and isolation of all testing positive for life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley#Views_on_AIDS). [snip]

  45. Nicely done. A good mix of understatement and infectious insinuation. His venture into a Dr. Strangelove accent was very winning.

    The man is an endangered species, alas.

  46. Dean Boulding:

    he’s argued for mandatory blood testing for the HIV virus and isolation of all testing positive for life

    I saw a video clip where that topic was brought up and he responded that he no longer advocates that policy, as it’s too late to contain the virus. He suggested quarantine when the infection was in its early stages and might have been nipped in the bud. He defended his suggestion by saying that if it had been adopted then, the result would have been much less net suffering and death now.

    Cuba has a quarantine policy that it adopted early, and apparently it’s managed to keep the infection rate down.

  47. Death of millions of people? Who? Where? What on Earth is he talking about? How can he call the other side “alarmists”?

    He’s got statistics and supporting quotes from UN experts in the field of hunger and/or agriculture on the deleterious effect of biofuel production on world food prices, and the resulting effect on social disorder (many food riots last year) and deaths. He’s got a website where his articles are stored, with supporting links. (I hope a WUWTer who keeps ammo like this at the ready will supply a few of these quotes and links.)

  48. Monckton pored over scientific papers on climate sensitivity and concluded the IPCC exaggerated climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide at least sixfold.”

    Ah, I see. He admits to commenting on areas beyond his expertise, reads some stuff (he’s a hereditary peer who worked as a journalist then a political advisor) and decides that the mainstream is wrong, and in fact, out by a factor of SIX? Come on, I don’t want this guy to speak for me on anything.

    I read and was very impressed by his paper where he makes his case (once again I don’t have the link handy — I hope someone else will provide it), but it’s not necessary to be a boffin to sniff out BS. The bloggers who’ve been poking holes in AR4 in recent months haven’t been initiated into the Piled Higher and Deeper guild that universally missed, or was too chicken to mention publicly, all those glaring absurdities. Credentials can be a negative factor, inhibiting outspoken criticism.

    Monckton’s criticism can stand or fall on its merits, regardless of his CV. There are certainly credentialed skeptics (e.g., Lindzen and Cristy) who have also claimed that the climate’s sensitivity to CO2 has been vastly overstated by the IPCC. The idea is not some brainwave of of a “potty peer.” The guy has obviously got a sky-high IQ, one evidence of which (besides his immense vocabulary, which is a good clue) is his fluency in understanding and handling of advanced statistics.

  49. >>The Norwegian BBC, called NRK would’nt mention it
    >>with a single word, of course.

    It still beggers belief that EVERYONE is on the same scam. I mean why is there not one regime, company or nation that is virulently anti AGW? Why are they all like sheep?

    The power of group-think, eh?

    .

  50. >>t would appear that, as his tour is a sell-out, that he
    >>has hit upon a winning formula. Humour, fact and
    >>comment are presented in an easily digested mix.

    Indeed. But who would have predicted, ten years ago, that middle-class hoards would be turning up for a weather/climate conference as though it were a sell-out rock-gig??

    It demonstrates how out of touch ALL governments are with their people, and so the people have to get their fix of truth and rationality from elsewhere. Again, it beggers belief that this should simultaneously happen all over the world — but it has.

    .

  51. >>The Iceman (16:39:42) :
    >> you will see that the 2010 sea ice seems to be much
    >>thicker than it was in 1979,
    >> http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=02&fd=03&fy=1979&sm=02&sd=03&sy=2010

    Nice comparator.

    And look at the difference in N.H. snow cover. All that extra albedo, forsix weeks, must have an affect on temperature. (Not all those latitudes are in perma-darkness).

    An animation of this would be nice.

    2008/2009 vs 2009/2010

    http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=12&fd=26&fy=2008&sm=12&sd=26&sy=2009

    http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=01&fd=02&fy=2009&sm=01&sd=02&sy=2010

    http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=01&fd=15&fy=2009&sm=01&sd=15&sy=2010

    http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=01&fd=24&fy=2009&sm=01&sd=24&sy=2010

  52. The people should get out and vote! Pointless.

    Who the hell can you vote for when all the politicos, thinking this is what the people want, side with the AGW argument.

    I keep being told that I should have done something to stop the US/UK invasion of Iraq. But millions marched in protest, paying for the privilege out of their own pockets and it still happened.

    It seems only the very right wing opposes this and their cost may ultimately be worse than an AGW supporting party.

    Somehow and frankly I don’t know how, the politicos have got to get off the AGW bandwagon.

  53. Stephen Brown (15:11:31) :

    What appears to be forgotten by some writing here is that Lord Monckton is not on a speaking tour to affirm to the ‘converted’ what AGW is all about; he is speaking to audiences who have doubts about the route that their Government is taking them.
    He HAS to appeal to a much wider audience and, quite rightly, he adopts a much more popularist manner. He has tailored his presentation to his audience without diluting the basic facts which give the lie to AGW. It would appear that, as his tour is a sell-out, that he has hit upon a winning formula. Humour, fact and comment are presented in an easily digested mix.
    He is much more easily accepted than the ManBearPig

    I would say, nail on head! Well put.

    Lord Monkton writes some very good stuff. What I think irks many scientists, paricularly those of a viewpoint on AGW, is that of Professional Pride (PP). Monkton, not being a scientist, but someone who possess great clarity of thought, has the ablility to grasp the principle points of a subject. We all suffer from it at times I would suggest, even me! It would be embarrassing & feelings of resentment are inevitable when PP rears its ugly head as we are all human (well, most of us)!

  54. @Dean Boulding:

    Lord Monckton is a mathematician. He is perfectly capably of assessing the stat-based claims of the various hockey-stick papers and seeing them for the BS that they are.

  55. I dunno, mebee I need some enlightenment from our Loyalist cousins. To my Missouri mind, this fellow Monckton can be pretty subtle. He gives us a hilarious extended definition of a “spade.” He closes by saying “And that, by the way, is what they were talking about.” And he shows us a picture of–a _scoop shovel_! (Not a spade.) Could that be his point? That even after giving the most ridiculously explicit definition possible, we discover that we’re still not talking about the same thing?

  56. I havent found an aussie that doesnt like him! he calls it as it is,
    Bulls**t!!
    and we tend to do the same,
    Abbotts a bit disappointing in his slight recognition instead of outright rebuttal of AGW if he came out and flatly refused to support ANY ETS he would have a massive landslide victory.
    I am hoping we aussies are the first ones to tell the UN and the IPCC to Jam it!
    Truly a world first we could be proud of:-)
    and once again thanks Anthony and team for enabling access to info I can use to better inform the brainwashed:-)

  57. I & 600 plus other South Australians saw Lord Monckton in action in Adelaide & was greatly impressed with his presentation of the facts. I appreciated his sense of humour. I am a layman/bookkeeper & I sat next to two retired scientists. I found it amazing that myself, the layman/bookkeeper & the two academic/scientists were of one mind concerning this great lie about CO2 being the cause of man-made global warming. The audience gave him a standing ovation. He said that he did have a talk with Tony Abbott & believed that the Opposition leader was aware of the shifting mood of the Australian people against this climate hoax.

  58. Christopher Monckton may not be a “scientist,” but he is a brilliant man who understands the science, and more importantly understands the politics. He believes that AGW, for whatever its scientific worth (which he obviously and correctly believes is minimal), is dangerous because of its adherents’ political intentions. He’s got the science right and he’s got the politicis right.

    Some don’t think he has the dramatics right. Sorry to disagree, but he is great theater in the best tradition of the Bard: seeing into the heart of men’s souls telling us how to save ourselves. To whit: off with those whose melancholy is a blight on humanity.

  59. Mick (Down Under) (19:23:59) :

    Fortunately the ‘blogosphere’ is replacing the so called news media for immediate analysis of affairs affecting the people. Thank god for sites such as WUWT that has provided effective discussion and analysis of the issues surrounding the so called climate science.

    This is true for now. However, it is only true as long as the US does not cave in to pressure from European allies to cede greater and greater control of the IANA (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority) to an international body, such as the UN.

    So far, it does not look good:

    “Just this past spring, within months of Obama’s taking office, his administration, through the Department of Commerce, agreed to relinquish some control over IANA and their governance. The Obama administration has agreed to give greater representation to foreign companies and countries on IANA.”

    Of course, countries like China and Iran are the most enthusiastic about internationalizing control of the internet. And, I think, the UN is no fan of WUWT.

    read more at:

    http://www.internationalfreepresssociety.org/2009/05/who-controls-the-internet/

    http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/obama-internet-iana-united/2010/01/31/id/348514

  60. I’m a 21 year old Aussie girl. I saw Lord Monckton in Newcastle, New South Wales. In Newcastle, climate change politics are a huge deal, considering our local economy is built on coal mining.

    The majority of the audience were middle aged apart from me, my boyfriend and a few greeny/university activists. His presentation was met with appreciation (apart from the activists, who had a ‘who cares if thousands of people become unemployed’ stance).

    I thought that he was entertaining and well spoken. The part I liked most about his presentation was that he emphasised how the UN and IPCC have lied, exaggerated and told half truths, using dodgy science and scientists. This is unacceptable. I don’t care if they think that they are ‘saving us’, fraud is fraud.

  61. goldnsilver (19:10:15)
    ‘I’m a 21 year old Aussie girl. I saw Lord Monckton in Newcastle, New South Wales. In Newcastle, climate change politics are a huge deal, considering our local economy is built on coal mining. —-
    His presentation was met with appreciation (apart from the activists, who had a ‘who cares if thousands of people become unemployed’ stance).’

    It is great to see that such a young person as you have got your head around the priorities and not carried away by the ‘idealism’ of saving the world. It gives me hope for the future just to read your comments.

    Thanks
    Mick in N.Z,

  62. Zeke the Sneak (16:44:10) :
    This is true for now. However, it is only true as long as the US does not cave in to pressure from European allies to cede greater and greater control of the IANA (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority) to an international body, such as the UN.
    Thanks Zeke
    But you frighten me. I am paranoid enough about the European mandarins who have usurped democracies in that part of the world like a malicious cancer. I see their shadows in the UN and bodies like the IPCC. Freedom of speech is so precious and so easily taken away.

  63. Lord Monckton is a brave and valiant man. I watched some of his speach in Melbourne on the internet. He is so lucid and articulate and his sense of humour is so refreshing. The attacks upon him are because he is a champion seeking and defending the truth. They who opppose him are attacking the man and not the arguments that he provides. This is simply because that cannot defeat him on those grounds.

    His tour of Australia is a triumph.

    Well done Lord Monckton.

    Mick in N.Z.

  64. Smokey (19:45:04) :
    Interesting link you provide to that interview with Panchauri. At 5:50 in Lord Monckton is mentioned, the answer is garbled but is, essentially, “LM is a joke, he can’t gather 10 people except those……..”. We can fill in the rest, but he could not imagine that Monckton could gather a large crowd from people other than his supporters. Well, wasn’t he proved wrong !. The next breath brought in the Tobacco lobby again, get it, Tobacco, deniers, both undesirable!. Actually the IPCC and Tobacco are both lobby groups, advocating a particular agenda, and have more in common with each other than Panchauri can imagine. From the interview it is clear that he does not possess the intellectual gravitas to even understand that scientific debate is based on empirical data discussed openly.
    Can you imagine how one sided a debate between Panchauri and Lord Monckton would be!

  65. How many AGW alarmists does it take to change a light bulb after 2012?
    Ans: None. After 2012, thanks to them, there is no such thing as a light bulb.

  66. How many USA AGW alarmists does it take to change a light bulb after 2012?
    Ans: None. After 2012, thanks to them, there is no such thing as a light bulb.

  67. I am glad that you linked to the slides, but I would have appreciated some attribution, or a link back to my youtube video where I listed the links. The slides and the poor quality photos were my own, not “Photos for use in blogs and articles”.
    Cheers,
    Sam

Comments are closed.