Monckton answers a troll

This is a response by Christopher Monckton to the comment on the Nurse anti-science thread yesterday by anonymous commenter “The other Brian” who in typical troll style, tries to distract away from the post and point being made with noise.- Anthony


By Christopher Monckton

I seem to get more than my fair share of ad-hominem attacks from trolls. One such has recently posted up a lifetime list of my supposed “errors”, and has made some nasty allegations. May I for once reply? The troll’s allegations are in bold face: my replies are in [italics].

Monckton said he advised Margret Hatcher on climate change – HE DIDN’T.

I have never met anyone called “Margret Hatcher”. However, like it or not, I did advise Margaret Thatcher on many scientific and other matters, including climate change. However, it was my successor, George Guise, who helped her to write the speech that announced the funding for what became the Hadley Centre for Forecasting. At that time (1988) she predicted that the world would warm at 1 C/decade. I certainly wouldn’t have gone that far.

He said he wrote a peer-reviewed paper – HE DIDN’T.

In the summer of 2008 Jeffrey Marque, the then commissioning editor of Physics and Society, which at that time advertised itself as publishing “reviewed” papers, asked me to write a paper about climate sensitivity. As was usual for Physics and Society at the time, the journal’s review editor, Professor Alvin Saperstein, reviewed the paper. After my revisions (chiefly to explain the derivations of several new equations) both editors strongly endorsed the paper. It was published and Dr. Marque wrote a supporting editorial. Within days, the usual suspects Remote-Sensinged me. Both editors resigned, and a mendacious disclaimer was added to the online version of my paper, saying it had not been peer-reviewed. Besides, has Al Gore written any peer-reviewed papers?

He said the earth has been cooling – IT HASN’T.

In 2008, I said the Earth had been cooling since the turn of the millennium on 1 January 2001. So it had, at that time: do the linear regression for yourself and see. Recent warming, however, means there has been little change in temperature since 2001.

He said a leading Danish expert found that overall Greenland ice has not been melting – HE DIDN’T.

Johannessen et al. (2005), whom I cited, reported a substantial net accumulation of snow, firn, and ice on Greenland from 1992-2003. In 2009 Johannessen published a further paper saying that since 2003 some 273 bn tonnes of ice had melted in Greenland. A simple calculation shows this represented one-quarter of the ice that had accumulated over the previous 12 years, and it raised global sea level by 0.7 mm, restoring a quarter of the 2.8 mm drop caused by the previous ice accumulation on Greenland.

He said there has been no systematic ice loss in the artic – THERE HAS.

One assumes the troll means the Arctic. In 2009 I reported that the summer sea-ice minima in 2008 and 2009 had both shown greater ice extents than in 2007. The same also now applies to 2010 and (on most datasets, and subject to final confirmation that the summer sea-ice minimum has passed) to 2011 as well. Arctic ice has certainly declined ever since the satellites have been watching, but there is some evidence that there was less Arctic ice from the 1920s to the 1940s (and even into the late 1950s in Northern Greenland) than there is today.

He says there has been no correlation between CO2 and temperatures over the past 500 million years – YES, THERE IS.

There has indeed been a remarkable correlation between CO2 and temperatures over the past 500 million years – but repeated reanalyses of the data have shown that it was temperatures that changed first and CO2 concentration change that followed. Though it is possible that the additional CO2 concentration reinforced the original warming in each of the past four interglacial warm periods (all of which were warmer than the present), it plainly did not trigger the warming, because the warming occurred first.

He says a pre-Cambrian ice planet shows that CO2 has no effect on the climate – SHOWS THE OPPOSITE.

In the Neoproterozoic era, some 750 million years ago, sea-level glaciers a mile high came and went – twice – at the Equator. There are no sea-level glaciers anywhere near the Equator today. At that time, CO2 was 30% of the atmosphere: today it is 0.04%. The reasonable point that I made, quoting Professor Ian Plimer, a geologist who has made a particular study of the period, was that even allowing for the fact that the Sun was 5% fainter in the Neoproterozoic than today, and for the fact that the planet’s albedo was much greater then than now, equatorial sea-level glaciers could not have come and gone twice if CO2 had the very large warming effect that is now imagined. Of course CO2 has some warming effect. The central question, however, remains how much warming CO2 will cause. My best estimate is 1 Celsius per doubling of CO2 concentration.

He says there has been no change in Himalayan glaciers for 200 years – THERE HAS.

Professor M.I. Bhat, of the Indian Geological Survey, whom I consult regularly and cite on the state of the glaciers, has consistently said that except in areas of local geological deformation the pattern of advance and retreat of the glaciers is much as it has been over the past 200 years since the Raj first kept records.

He says only one Himalayan glacier is retreating – NO, LOTS OF THEM ARE.

The Ronggbuk glacier has disappeared altogether; the Gangotri glacier has been receding for 200 years; and many other glaciers are receding. Merely because I mentioned one glacier as receding, it is not legitimate to infer that I said or implied that only one glacier was receding.

He claim that CO2 forcing is 1.135 watts per square meter when it is three times higher.

A finding of low climate sensitivity in Lindzen (2007) suggests that the warming exercised by CO2 is equivalent to assuming a forcing of 1.135 W m–2. In saying that, I explicitly referred to the forcing of 3.7 W m–2 at CO2 doubling that is the IPCC’s current estimate (interestingly, down from 4.4 W m–2 in its first two assessment reports).

He confuses forcing with sensitivity.

A radiative forcing is a change in the net (down minus up) flux of radiation at the tropopause resulting from some perturbation of a presumed pre-existing equilibrium in the climate object, such as a doubling of CO2 concentration in the air. The resultant warming, or “climate sensitivity”, is the product of three parameters: the radiative forcing, the Planck or no-feedbacks sensitivity parameter; and the overall temperature-feedback gain factor (Monckton of Brenchley, 2008). Dividing any one of the three factors by, say, 3 to take account of an important discrepancy between models and observations, such as that which Lindzen identified, has precisely the same effect as dividing any of the others by 3.

He says a leading climate researcher found a loss of cloud cover is responsible for recent warming – SHE SAYS IT SHOWS NO SUCH THING.

The researcher in question had demonstrated that the loss of cloud cover between 1983 and 2001 had caused a very substantial radiative forcing, which, I hypothesized, was the main reason for the rapid warming between 1976 and late 2001, since when there has been no warming. Many papers (e.g. Tsonis et al., 2006) note the links between the Pacific and other oceanic oscillation indices, variations in cloud cover, and variations in global temperature, on a timescale of approximately 60 years. This cyclicity – which long predates our influence on the climate – is startlingly visible in the global instrumental temperature record. In an invited presentation to the World Federation of Scientists’ annual seminar on planetary emergencies in 2011, I drew some legitimate conclusions about climate sensitivity from the researcher’s observations. I did not, of course, ascribe these conclusions to her: I merely used her result as an input to a determination of climate sensitivity. My paper has now been published in the Proceedings of the seminar, and separately in a book of scientific papers about climate sensitivity.

He misquotes scientists to mislead his audience.

No instances are given to support this libel, so I cannot comment. This unpleasant allegation was originally made by an associate professor in a non-climate-related field at a Bible college in Minnesota: however, he had repeatedly misquoted my words and had put then his misquotations to third-party scientists, using their understandably furious responses against me. He will be dealt with firmly in due course. Serious academic dishonesty of this kind, wilfully persisted in, is not something to be encouraged.

He says planets with a high albedo are cooler than planets with a low albedo – WRONG.

If all other parameters be held constant, increasing a planet’s albedo (for instance, by covering it with ice) will act as a mirror reflecting more of the Sun’s radiation back into space, rather than allowing the radiation that reaches the ground to be displaced from the visible spectrum to the near-infrared, where – on its way out – it can interact with greenhouse gases. Or has the troll decided that there is no such thing as the greenhouse effect? Since there is, ceteris paribus a more reflective surface makes for a cooler world.

He gets information in peer-reviewed science papers wrong.

Not a single instance is cited. This is pure yah-boo.

He says some planets are warming because of the Sun – NO THEY’RE NOT.

There has indeed been evidence of simultaneous warming in many planets of the Solar system, and I have mentioned this. However, given the difficulties of reliable measurement and imaging, I have not sought to draw definitive conclusions about the role of the Sun in “global warming” from such observations.

He said the International Astronomical Union has declared that the Sun is responsible for the recent warming – IT DIDN’T.

I cited a paper given by Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov at the 2004 symposium of the IAU in St. Petersburg, Fla, but put “IAU” at the foot of the slide rather than Dr.

Abdussamatov’s name. Dr. Abdussamatov, like other researchers in the field (e.g. Solanki, 2005; Shaviv, 2008, 2011; Svensmark, 2011; Kirkby, 2011), offers evidence to the effect that the role of the Sun may be rather greater than is found congenial by those who would like to blame nearly all recent warming on CO2.


The moderators should perhaps be more vigilant in banning contributions from trolls who state in terms, as this one does, that I “misquote scientists to mislead [my] audience”. One understands the trolls’ increasing desperation as their scientific and economic case collapses: but lying about those of us who have long seen through the nonsense is not going to help them now.

The science is in, the truth is out, the game is up, and the scare is over. Get used to it, get real, get a job, and get a life.


And now a response from Anthony to the second to last paragraph about moderation.

As Mr. Monckton knows, I don’t always agree with him.

That said, it is an unfortunate truth that people that haven’t the courage to use their own full names when publicly criticizing others (“The other Brian”) spend so much time trying to beat down others while not having to worry about consequences. Unfortunately, that is the reality of the Internet today. The best choice is dealing with such individuals is to take their claims head on, which you’ve done.

WUWT does not approve a few comments that fall outside of our commenting policy, but as a recent analysis by Ian Rons Further Down the “Bore Hole” shows, we do in fact publish the vast majority of comments compared to other blogs, even some that are not necessarily fair. This is by design, because having a debate with opponents is something other blogs refuse to have. Otherwise, we’d be no better than RealClimate, “Tamino” aka Open Mind, or Joe Romm, all sites which heavily censor opposing viewpoints. [Update: Another example is Skeptical Science, which invoked a grade school level tactic (strikeout) in attempting to refute Dr. Roger Pielke Senior – see here]

While there’s always something in an endeavor that can be criticized, the fact is that our moderation policy is one of our best strengths, and why WUWT consistently outperforms these other blogs in traffic, reach, and total number of comments. Therefore I think we’ll keep the policy that has worked so well. Besides, if those comments had been deleted, we’d not be having this entertaining discussion now.


newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Greg, Spokane WA

Nicely answered, as always.


Potholer54 hides his identity? Please Anthony, potholer has made a video detailing who he is:
And he has referred to his identity and what his job was in a multitude of videos.
I find it also very interesting that, if I’ve read it correctly, that Monckton still insists he has published a peer reviewed paper. Which he simply hasn’t, pointing this fact out is not trolling.

I wasn’t aware of the other videos, I’ll remove the claim then- Anthony

David Davidovics

Monckton is hated because he is effective. People will stop hating him when he stops being effective – but they will never stop attacking him. Since pretty much all of his detractors are cowards that hide behind pseudo names or otherwise refuse to talk to him face to face or debate live in public, I think their actions speak for themselves.
I don’t always agree with Monckton either, but thats how we are on this side of the fence. Differning views are welcomed because we value freedom before all else, rather than place all our faith in one single untestable iron clad ideology. We tend to be extremists in that way 😉


I agree with Anthony as long as trolls are civil they should be allowed to speak. As part of the discourse they will have a response. It is unfortunate that this forum which has such a wide following can be used to potentially libel someone. The moderators do a tremendous job in keeping this forum open and the discourse civil. WUWT has set a very high standard for scientific communication that includes the common man and scientist as well.

Mark S

For clarity, ‘Potholer54’ is journalist Peter Hadfield.
‘The other Brian’ (whom Christopher Monckton labels ‘a troll’) merely gave a summary of Hadfield’s devastating critique of Lord Monckton.
Hadfield’s YouTube account is here…
And the videos (1-5) are as follows…

Trolls are a sad fact of life on the internet. Most serious commenters simply ignore them, once it becomes obvious what they are. However, I am pleased to see that Monckton has taken this troll head on. I wish more of those who are maligned by such trolls would do so as well.

Engaging with trolls is always a useless pursuit — however, “The other Brian” is not a troll. Trolls post pointless and inflammatory comments purely for the sake of getting a rise out of someone. The other Brian, on the other hand, is merely misinformed and obnoxious, and in that respect is little different from David Suzuki or Al Gore. By thus countering TOB’s vehement rantings, Monckton has done us all a great service, since we are now all better informed on how to answer such attacks on him in the future. For that, much thanks, Lord Monckton.
As for better moderation — please don’t change the policy. By all means, snip real trolls as fast as they try posting, but it isn’t enough to simply hear the facts and analyses of a controversy, it is imperative that we also get to hear the lies and distortions and the answers to them. This is one of the greatest strengths of Watts Up With That — the ability to listen in on, and occasionally take part in, the give and take of information. This even includes intermittent slaps on the wrist for Anthony, such as the general response to his recent post concerning diamonds and the carbon cycle.
As always, Lord Monckton has done a bang-up job of answering a critic. What “The other Brian” posted may have been ignorant and bordering on calumny, but it is something that one could easily read on a number of other climate sites. The difference is that on the other sites no rebuttal would have been allowed. Here we get to hear both the lies and the truth.
Ultimately, that’s why I come here.

Mr. Monckton should be appreciative of the commenter who verbally attacked him. By so doing he gave Mr. Monckton the opportunity to once again put his intelligent views before the public. A public that is becoming more knowledgeable and understanding of the issues as a result of the continued exposure provided by WUWT and other internet sources. I agree with your policy concerning comments Anthony , please don’t change.


Thank you for addressing these.
IMO When trolls go unanswered…It’s not fair to kids trying to understand this mess caused by such, and as some claims made by IPCC – and others. 🙁

Many thanks to Monckton for all his dedication and insight.
As to moderation – I think that the current system works well. People want to understand the character of the debate and debaters and this comes through, even with anonymous comments.
Anyone who has read and posted on realclimate and read and posted on WUWT understands the difference in character between the sites.
As to peer review – I’m not sure why anyone would place any stock in peer review in climatology. Dessler 2010 tried to make much of regression coefficients close to zero in Science, no less. No wonder peer reviewers like to maintain their anonymity, right Eric Steig?

Bloke down the pub

My Lord Monckton has the knack of retaining and recalling facts, and the ability to use them in a succinct way to make his points clearly. I envy him.

Mark S says:
September 18, 2011 at 10:12 am
For clarity, ‘Potholer54′ is journalist Peter Hadfield.
‘The other Brian’ (whom Christopher Monckton labels ‘a troll’) merely gave a summary of Hadfield’s devastating critique of Lord Monckton.

So, the troll known as “the Other Brian” was merely parroting the disinformation of Peter Hadfield.
Thank you for clarifying that for us, Mark.

Doug Proctor

Having entered the Climate Debate and the blogosphere just around the e-mail revelations from UEA less than two years ago, I understand the tendency towards impassioned outrage; I have evolved, I’d like to think, a bit myself, having had my initial share of indignant responses. Each medium of communication has its weakness as well as its strengths. The internet appears to encourage emotion as well as reason by its nature. We do not have a dialogue, but two time-separated monologues. It is easy to do so when there is no immediate feedback to moderate one’s views, while the immoderate feedback we have in our minds as we type supports our feelings of being diminished or abused.
The internet discussions as developed by WUWT, though, have a huge benefit for all those involved, even the “other Brians”. Despite its weakness in the feedback area, there is a learning going on about your own views as well as those of others. Strong statements that are untenable are obvious once you read what a) you wrote, and b) what others think of what you wrote. I can’t recall who said, when asked what he thought about something, “I don’t know. I haven’t heard myself say it yet,” but he was spot on when it comes to the internet discussion. I cringe at some of what I wrote in self-righteous rage early on in my climate education. Not that I disagree in principle with my earliest feelings that a politicized agenda under the mantle of science was being pushed on us, but that I was reacting in a black-or-white way to an uncertain and subjective situation involving socially driven people.
I don’t always agree with my fellow skeptics; that should be the case, as no one with more than one thought is likely to be “right” or right enough, all the time. I find, in particular, the defence of Arctic non-melting to be a tad disingenuous at times (there has been a large sea-ice loss since the late ’70s, and were it to continue, it would be alarming/significant), a sign that this one point is an awkward reality for those who do not see CO2 as the IPCC-Gore villain claim it to be. But the skeptic sites, and especially WUWT, have far more of a tolerant, reasoned approach than the warmist sites I cruise. But when you are not on the team that is “saving the planet”, I suppose facts have less inherent threat to them.
Trolls are not an important part of an internet discussion, but I suggest that the access of trolls to the internet discussion is an important part. I have been told that there are two aspects to coming to a new truth: the awakening, in which you become aware that something is off in how to viewed things, and the trigger, in which you incorporate and act upon the new truth. Troll-speak is an awakening event, possibly to other trolls, if not to themselves. Thrashing around in public is an obvious way to let others know that you are probably reacting to your own mind rather than the world around you.
Anthony, you (and others) do a great job. As long as solid ethical or legal lines are not crossed, I’m fine with seeing what trolls or troll-lights say. Somewhere in their sputterings might be a point, and I certainly need to know what the Others, even the fringe Others, feel, if not think, about the most important non-war subject of our times.


To be fair, Monckton has done his fair share of trolling too, like saying John Abraham looks like an overcooked prawn, among other oddities.

We have some out and out trolls and others who are sometimes called trolls because most here do not agree with the,
R Gates (for example) falls firmly into the latter category but he is always polite and well informed and from my viewpoint is most welcome otherwise we end up singing from the same hymn sheet.
Its a shame that such people as Scott Mandia and Joel Shore don’t appear as often as they used to and I also miss Brendan. That’s not to say I often agree with ANY of them but the cut and thrust of debate is much improved by the prsence of intelligent people with a different viewpoint.

Rhys Jaggar

I agree fully with Mr Watts’ comments on moderation and like this site precisely because it DOES promote vigorous and open debate..
I can state, with a matter of scientific exactitude, that the following supposedly reputable UK brands exhibit political-based censorship of blogs:
All regularly defend ‘Press Freedom’, when what they actually mean is that they must be allowed to say what they want but their critics mustn’t. The difference between that and Communism in China or Russia is unclear to me……
Mr Watts may, however, at some stage face censorship if he seeks to become dependent on major advertising revenues from those with defined political positions.
It never ceases though to amaze me how partisans on any side of a debate use the word ‘troll’ to their debased opponents whilst allowing absolutely shameless trolling by their own supporters.
The following subjects have fanatical trolls:
1. Islam and its role in the West.
2. The EU and its implications for Britain.
3. The mantra that competition is the only thing that is good for human beings, as opposed to the subset of human beings who thrive under it.
4. Christianity is benign and good, whereas other religions aren’t.
5. Grammar schools are the sole route to restoring education in the UK.
I guess those still so unsure of the reasons why they feel the way they do have not yet reached the maturity to understand the assumptions they make about life and the fact that others may make different ones.
One can but hope that a victory in cliamte science will be a prelude to similar victories for rational approaches in broader areas of society.

Mark S

Christopher Monckton writes: “I cited a paper given by Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov at the 2004 symposium of the IAU in St. Petersburg, Fla, but put “IAU” at the foot of the slide rather than Dr. Abdussamatov’s name.”
That is not a satisfactory reply.
As can be seen in Potholer54’s fifth video (4:42) you also claimed “the International Astronomical Union in 2004 had a symposium on it [i.e. the Sun is responsible for recent warming] and they concluded that was the case.”
A typing error does not help explain why you made the same mistake elsewhere.

As the lawyers say, truth is an absolute defense. Have you ever seen Abraham?☺
Besides, Lord Monckton promptly apologized, putting him in a class far above the Team. He’s only human, and he simply got mad at Abraham’s constant pot shots from the safety of his Ivory Tower.
Abraham is still too cowardly to accept Monckton’s debate challenge. And I notice Phil Jones never apologized for his dancing with joy comment over John Daly’s premature death. And Santer’s impotent threat against Pat Michaels. I could go on and on. But if course, you have access to the Climategate emails and can see for yourself. Where are their apologies?

Mark S

JohnWho wrote: “So, the troll known as ‘the Other Brian’ was merely parroting the disinformation of Peter Hadfield.”
I strongly urge you to watch Peter’s Hadfield’s videos (above).
Just for once, try listening to the other side of the argument.

Lord Monckton deserves the space to refute the closet hate mongers who as he states so eloquently clear: “The science is in, the truth is out, the game is up, and the scare is over.get used to it, get real, get a job, and get a life.”
Gary Krause

Steve from Rockwood

WUWT does a very effective job of “troll control” – to limit but not eliminate. I find it fascinating to see how effective trolls can bait people into a discussion that rapidly derails. On occasion, it’s a fun read.

Colinmaessen, Viscount Lord Monckton’s paper WAS reviewed, by the then Review Editor and that was endorsed by the then Commissioning Editor. The fact that these gentlemen were then forced to resign and their Review “lost” by the new Editor does not alter the fact that a review was done, changes and corrections the reviewer required were made.
Frankly, in terms of the process the “pro-AGW” papers get of “review” by panels selected for their sympathetic (possibily sycophantic) views, I would suggest that Viscount Monckton is correct. He has published a “Peer Reviewed” paper.

collinmaessen says:
September 18, 2011 at 10:00 am
I find it also very interesting that, if I’ve read it correctly, that Monckton still insists he has published a peer reviewed paper. Which he simply hasn’t, pointing this fact out is not trolling.
What part of reviewed and then published do you not understand? Collin this isn’t a tricky concept.

Neal Bridges

Anthony —
The lines
“He says planets with a high albedo are cooler than planets with a low albedo – WRONG.”
“He gets information in peer-reviewed science papers wrong.”
REPLY: Fixed, the MS Word import to WordPress feature is broken these days, and lots of formatting got dropped. – A
should be broken out as paragraph heads, and bolded.

Dr. Dave

I read “the other Brian’s” comments last night but was too weary to address them. The comment thread was polluted with troll dung by the time I quit reading. The name Monckton surely brings out the most odious of the WUWT regular trolls.
I had to chuckle, however. I’m always amused when “intellectual” trolls cite Wikipedia, opinion articles from the NYT or the Guardian, online propaganda pieces from NOAA or NASA/GISS websites or “informed” editorials from Greenpeace or the Sierra Club as the source of their deep wisdom. But “the other Brian” has raised the bar. He’s the first troll I’ve seen who has composed an entire list of libelous ad hom attacks based on watching 5 whole YouTube videos!
I wish to thank Lord Monckton for responding to this. It was incredibly entertaining. I most certainly hope that Associate Professor of undergraduate engineering (air conditioning, heat transfer) at the no-name Bible college up in northern nowhere is indeed, dealt with harshly.

Since one should never trust a man who purports to be a member of the House of Lords, it is worth a critical look at Monckton’s reply. Since I am familiar with Johannessen et al (2005), so I will focus on that.
Monkton wrote “Johannessen et al. (2005), whom I cited, reported a substantial net accumulation of snow, firn, and ice on Greenland from 1992-2003”. This quote neglects a central aspect of Johannessen et al (2005) – it only measures ice accumulation in the interior of Greenland, not over the entire ice mass. This is obvious from the title of the paper: “Recent Ice-Sheet Growth in the Interior of Greenland”, and is explicit in the concluding section of the paper
“First, we cannot make an integrated assessment of elevation changes—let alone ice volume and its equivalent sea-level change—for the whole Greenland Ice Sheet, including its outlet glaciers, from these observations alone, because the marginal areas are not measured completely using ERS-1/ERS-2 altimetry (see Fig. 1). It is conceivable that pronounced ablation (e.g., 10, 11) in low-elevation marginal areas could offset the elevation increases that we observed in the interior areas.”
It is simply not possible to deduce changes in the mass of the entire icesheet by just examining the interior portion of it. This has been pointed out to Monckton several times, yet he ignores it, much like he ignores the Clerk of the Parliaments.
Next Monckton writes “In 2009 Johannessen published a further paper saying that since 2003 some 273 bn tonnes of ice had melted in Greenland.” This appears to refer to a paper by van den Broeke et al titled “Partitioning Recent Greenland Mass Loss”, of which Johannessen was not an author.

Mark S

Christopher Monckton wrote: “I did advise Margaret Thatcher on many scientific and other matters, including climate change.”
To what extent? Please be specific. There is no record of you ever having done so.
Sitting down with a cup of tea and expressing a personal opinion is not the same as receiving guidance from someone with expertise.
Furthermore, when people introduce you (as often they do) saying you are the “former science adviser to Margaret Thatcher” why have you not sought to correct them?

Claude Harvey

I am in 100% agreement with Anthony’s position on WUWT moderation policy and practice. That policy is unique in my experience and is in my opinion one of the distinguishing features that has made WUWT such a dazzling success. Editorial fealty to such a policy means sometimes letting things through that leave the moderators heaving over a toilet. That can’t be easy duty and I applaud them for it.

Doug in Seattle

Thank you Mr. Monckton. And thank you Mr. Watts for allowing both sides to be heard.
Without dissent a debate becomes propaganda. I think we have all had altogether too much of that over the past 20 years of climate debate.

Eternal Optimist

I like Monckers. It’s true that he might have over-egged the peer-reviewed paper stuff, but at least he never claimed to have invented the internet

With due respect to Lord Monckton, when you publish on the internet, your writings are susceptible to challenge from both the intelligent and the mentally handicapped. I believe the internet should be open and free, and sometimes you have to answer both idiots and mavens.
I am glad WUWT allows both the publication of controversial articles, and replies to the same.

Darkinbad the Brightdayler

It saddens me to read both the previous thread and this one.
Such lot of effort and energy is absorbed in both delivering and defending ad hominem attacks.
Surely that intellect, effort and energy would be better spent on developing and extending our understanding of the issues concerned.
I was taught that resorting to ad hominem was an admission of the weakness of ones intellectual stance. Other failures in logic and argument were regrettable but ad hom was always pitiable.
Lord Monckton, If you read this, I find it easy to respect your reasoned responses to your critics whether I agree with them or not. However some of your responses border on the disdainful and sarcastic and don’t sit so easily with me.
Please set the level at one of respect and patience.
Thanks for your efforts

Mark S

Christopher Monckton wrote: “No instances are given to support this libel [i.e. misquoting scientists] so I cannot comment.”
Let me be of assistance.
Peter Hadfield’s fourth video (above) catalogues a number of examples where you appear to misquote people.
His evidence is compelling. Care to address them?


Please Anthony, stay the course on your current policies. After all, if you start blocking the trolls, who will I have left to make fun of other than myself?
As others have said in this thread, the trolls provide a certain value. They expose the utter nonsense that goes unremarked in the bulk of other forums, and, provided that they are effectively responded to, there is much value brought to the debate by the resulting exposure to the trolls themselves of the actual facts, as well as to those who read their comments and also the rebuttals, those rebuttals being something they will see in few other forums.
I disagree with tonyb about the status of R. Gates, but certainly agree that Joel Shore and Scott Mandia brought some intelligent commentary to the table.

It has been an interesting, and informative, back-n-forth. Thank you Anthony for allowing the “troll’s” comments to post, and thank you Lord Monckton for your clear and concise response to its accusations.
I think it a real disservice to society that the internet in general has favored, if not reenforced, an almost total lack of civility and good manners by allowing personal attacks and ad-hominem without requiring the poster to identify him/herself. There now appears to be an entirely new class of people that are what I would call ‘internet socialized’. These are people that appear to perform most of their social interaction on the internet rather than face-to-face and use pseudonyms to hide their identity. They are thus never held accountable for their actions, where, in a normal society, they would either be ostracized (normally), ‘cold-cocked’ (in a bar), shot (in the old West), or challenged a duel (in the old South).
While I do understand the need for anonymity in some, special cases, I think that the almost universal acceptance of it on the internet should be discouraged. There are people that I have know for years with whom I now find it imposable to carry on an intelligent conversation.


For the love of everything that is worshipped by human beings… This “troll” is on our side. It’s reverse trolling; an act which makes the other side look stupid by your stupid actions.
How about instead of feeding loathsome trolls you concentrate on the real science. That’s the only place the debate will be won. Gore et al HATE real debate. That’s where you’re better off concentrating.

R. Shearer

Smokey, I’d like to judge this “truth,” please post a pic of this John Abraham to support your argument.

Stephen Wilde

Well done Christopher in dealing appropriately with matters which had caused me some concern whilst viewing some of the propaganda tirade against him.
It is useful to bear in mind that climatology is an infant science with many of the most important parameters simply unknown at present.
Because of that we are all shooting in the dark and gaining experience as we go along. The image I have is of a large number of individuals shooting blindlyand only the last man standing (in the light of real world climate events) is the ‘winner’.
It is a shame that the alarmist mindset is whollly blinkered to that reality.
I have been constructing a new climate model (or description) for three years now and in the process have said some daft things and adapted accordingly. It is actually helpful to hear from so called trolls because their initial objections alert one as to how one’s own opinion or judgement could be better expressed to appeal to the majority readership.
The trouble with climatology is that it is a multidisciplinary science potentially involving every aspect of physics chemistry and the biosphere yet what we see is latecomers to the subject making pronouncements based on the narrow specialisms in which they have trained and earned a living.
In an infant science such as climatology it is better to have a lifetime of experience and study (even if on an amateur basis) rather than to have come to it at a late stage of life and better to know a little about a lot rather than a lot about a little.
I find it helpful to have personally observed the different climate regimes of the cooling mid 20th century. the warming late 20th century and the plateau (so far) of the early 21st century. Believe me, the differences are far more stark and clear than I have seen expressed anywhere other than in my own writings.
For those reasons I like to feel that I have an advantage over Al Gore (a politician) and Lord Monckton (a political journalist) or James Hansen (an astrophysicist) and many others all of whom have acquired an interest in weather and climate late in life.
The real world is what it is and it will not change what it is to fit an agenda.
I think I have a workable hypothesis set out elsewhere which accommodates the observation of a cooling stratosphere when the sun is active and a warming stratosphere when the sun is inactive.
I have the only hypothesis that fits such observations.
Let the cards fall where they may.

Mark S says:
September 18, 2011 at 10:52 am
JohnWho wrote: “So, the troll known as ‘the Other Brian’ was merely parroting the disinformation of Peter Hadfield.”
I strongly urge you to watch Peter’s Hadfield’s videos (above).
Just for once, try listening to the other side of the argument.

Let me ask you a question, Mark.
If someone finds an error in anything Hadfield says or writes, you’ll then disregard everything he says, right?

The reaction to Monckton is typical to those in a state of “fear”. Those who react in anger are often scared to death that their value system is under attack.
For the AGW’ers, it is certainly dark days ahead as the world has definitively moved on and labelled them as “Manics” – not unlike “Truthers”.

Brian H

Edit note:
Some of Monckton’s cites of toB’s assertions aren’t bolded and para-separated from the surrounding text.
Christopher is almost unique in the degree to which he invites attack and rebuttal, since that pretty generally winds up with generous distributions of egg on said attackers’ and rebutters’ faces.
Oh, re Abraham: he writes like one, too.

G. Karst

Dissenting, contrary, opposing, rebuttal comments and views must always be allowed, if civil. However, NO anonomous ad hominen attacks should be allowed.
This enables an injured party to seek relief from the assault. Only fair!
This in no way impedes the flow of information, data, and ideas, which is the only thing, of importance, concerning editor control.
Assuming everyone agrees, that it is OPEN, HONEST discussion, that most of us, want to write and read. A honest man can be corrected. A dishonest man is trying to deceive you and cannot be corrected. GK

Regarding Lord Monckton’s advising Lady Thatcher on climate change, Mark S says:
“To what extent? Please be specific. There is no record of you ever having done so.”
Mark S is a troll – and I very rarely label anyone a troll. Mark S is clearly implying that Lord Moncktonis lying, based on absolutely no evidence. If there was any discussion at all regarding the climate change issue between Monckton and Thatcher, even once, then Monckton is correct.
Mark S is deliberately bearing false witness, a vile characteristic of many in the alarmist crowd. Disgusting, shameful and dispicable troll behavior. Mark S should go back to tamino where he belongs, with the rest of the trolls and misanthropes.

Lord Monckton:
I was the moderator who approved TOB’s comment. I had to think about it a bit, but there were several considerations, not the least of which is that WUWT prides itself on being open while maintaining civility. The other is that we have seen all of these “refutations” at one time or another, but never so many in one place and lamentably lacking any form of documentation… mainly assertions. I was sure that other commenters would take on these allegations but didn’t think it would be you personally. I believe getting your responses on the record, sort of a one-stop-shop, can only be a good thing. I am a personal admirer of yours and regret any distress such comments may occasion – since I’ve been moderating here at WUWT I’ve had to approve comments responding to comments I’d made in my persona as a regular commenter that were harsh and even derogatory. Wish I could fault the moderator for allowing those to go through!
Thank you for your efforts and your participation here.
Best wishes,
REP, mod

G. Karst


Dear REP, mod: – I’m most grateful for the work that you and all the moderators at this splendid and valuable site do. And of course I was not suggesting that the entire heap of drivel from the cowardly, anonymous troll in question should be deleted. However, I do think it would be right for you and Anthony to consider whether the occasional snip to remove the more serious allegations would be appropriate. I’m very much a supporter of letting all sides have their say, which WattsUp does and the climate-extremist sites don’t: but perhaps just a little editing now and again to remove the more grievous libels would not be a bad idea. – M of B
[REPLY: Your Lordship, frankly, I have a very difficult time deciding which are the most outrageous and grievous. There is so much to choose from. You seem to have a talent for releasing the inner-rabidness of those of the true faith. Well done, sir. -REP, mod]


I feel Monckton was correct to reply. It is perhaps pointless arguing with a real troll – but in this instance, the predominantly ad hom nature of the attack warranted a defence.
I am sure Monckton has overplayed some of his CV, but it is hardly important – and those that seek to make it so, are largely trolling!
What matters is the subject and it is largely evident that Monckton is sufficiently eloquent and dilligent when he makes most of his presentations. Looking for pedantic reasons for complaint is somewhat pathetic in my opinion. Put it this way, if the peer review process of some of the published climate science BS had been a millionth as pedantic, we would likely not have had the hockey stick paper, at least half of the IPCC ‘productions’ and indeed, AGW may have long since been half abandoned!
To those honest scientifically based advocates of AGW (and I don’t mean the fanatical ‘believer’ types) I am sure that they would not act in such a trolling manner as to try and provide a discrediting presentation based on what are effectively pure semantics/pedantics and ad homs.


Smokey says:
September 18, 2011 at 11:35 am
Agreed in principle! But at least he provides us with good ole belly laughs – at his own expense – which is nice!
These troll types are being recorded within the annals of blogging history (I hope?) and will hopefully be exposed one day for the cowardly charlatans that they are.

tom T

I’m glad you aren’t moderating out every stupid thing people say, otherwise noting I’ve written would be posted.


You would think that the Warmistas would decide to pretend that Monckton doesn’t exist, every time they try to engage him intellectually, they just get mauled Even their argumentum ad hominem don’t get any traction because he simply doesn’t get side-tracked into a personal defense and stays laser-locked on the issue at hand. Dudes, Monckton is a world-class debater, baiting him has in the past and will likely continue to result in your being humiliated.