Opinion: Life as a Target

English: Lord Monckton in Washington, D.C.

Monckton in Washington, D.C. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Attacks on my work that are aimed at undermining true climate change science have turned me into a public figure. I am not vain enough to embrace that role.

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley (with no apologies to Michael E. Mann)

As a climate researcher, I have seen my integrity perniciously attacked. Politicians have demanded I be tried for “high crimes against humanity”, for which the penalty is death, because of my work demonstrating the reality and threat of exaggerations about human-caused climate change.

I’ve been subjected to congressional investigations by congressman in the pay of the environmental lobby and was the target of a scientifically-illiterate eight-month “witch hunt” by a Minnesota Trotskyite. I have even received a number of anonymous death threats. My plight is dramatic, but unfortunately, it is not unique; climate skeptics are regularly the subject of such attacks.

The cynicism of my attackers is part of a destructive public-relations campaign being waged by banks, “renewable”-energy companies, insurance giants, front groups, and individuals aligned with them in an effort vastly to profit by vastly exaggerating the science in making suggestions that the burning of fossil fuels may cause potentially dangerous climate change.

My work first appeared on the world stage in the mid-2000s with the publication of a series of articles in the London Sunday Telegraph indicating inter alia that estimating past temperature trends using information gathered from tree rings to piece together variations in the Earth’s temperature over the past 1,000 years had been proven unreliable. What I found was that the recent small warming, which coincides with the fastest growth in solar activity in 11,400 years, is a much-precedented event in this period of reconstructed temperature changes. 

Though recent work published in the journal Science suggests that the recent warming trend has no counterpart for at least the past 11,000 years, and perhaps longer, the central England temperature record, which has proven a less inaccurate proxy for pre-thermometer temperatures than dubious tree-rings dubiously processed on dubious computers by dubious zitty teenagers paid by dubious rent-seekers like Michael E. Mann, confirms historical evidence that at the end of the Maunder Minimum temperatures rose at a rate of 4 Celsius/century for 40 years. Nothing like that has been seen since: the 20th century saw just 0.7 Cº of warming, and the 21st century shows none at all. In a graph showing the linear trend for the last 23 years, the trend line looks like a billiard cue.

Since the Doha climate conference of 2012, at which I inadvertently represented Burma, the graph – now known as the billiard-cue graph – has become an icon in the climate-change debate, providing potent, graphic evidence of the recent total absence of human-caused climate change. As a result, governments, banks, renewable-energy hucksters, academics, journalists and those who do their bidding saw the need to discredit it in any way they could, and I have found myself at the receiving end of attacks and threats of investigations, as I describe in my forthcoming book Climate of Freedom. In 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) praised my work publicly; and, jointly with Congressman John Linder, I have been awarded the Meese-Noble Award for Freedom for my work on climate change.

On three occasions, Representative Joe Barton (R-TX) invited me to testify before the Energy & Commerce Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives. On the third such occasion, the Democrats – for the first time in the history of Congress – refused the Republicans their free choice of witness because they wanted to protect their own witness, Al Gore, from the public humiliation to which my testimony would inevitably and deservedly have subjected him. I have also testified before the House Ways and Means Committee and the House Climate Change Committee. Inhofe and Barton are just two of the growing number of members of Congress who have seen through the climate scam.

More recently, Vaclav Klaus, as President of the Czech Republic, cited me twice in a speech on climate change in Washington DC, and subsequently accepted my invitation to deliver the annual Magistral Lecture at the World Federation of Scientists’ annual seminar on planetary emergencies.

The Chinese Ambassador to Italy forwarded my seminal, published paper on Clouds and Climate Sensitivity to Peking after his Scientific Counsellor, on hearing me present it, had commented: “This changes everything. It is clear there is no significant manmade influence on the climate.”

I, too, can name-drop sanctimoniously, just like Michael E. Mann.

Meanwhile, I’ve also been subject to a constant onslaught of character attacks and smears on websites, in op-eds, by a politicized and now-discredited clerk in the House of Lords acting without the authority of the House, in Michael E. Mann’s Climategate emails, and on left-leaning news outlets, usually by front groups or individuals tied to global-warming profiteers of the traffic-light tendency (the Greens too yellow to admit they’re really Reds): groups like Greenpeace, Deutsche Bank, the Environmental Defense Fund, Munich Re, and the World Wide Fund for Nature.

As the website WattsUpWithThat has frequently pointed out, climate researchers are in a street fight with those who seek to discredit the data that now comprehensively disprove the once-accepted scientific “evidence” simply because it is inconvenient for many who are profiting from attacking fossil fuel use.

Being the focus of such attacks has a lead lining: I’ve become an accidental public figure in the debate over human-caused climate change. Reluctant at first, I remain reluctant embrace this role, but nevertheless I choose to use my position in the public eye to inform the discourse surrounding the issue of climate change.

Despite continued albeit diminishing skepticism in official quarters, in reality the evidence against dangerous human-caused climate change is now very strong. By digging up and burning fossil fuels, humans are releasing carbon that had been buried in the Earth into the atmosphere, helping to stave off the mass extinctions that would follow from the next – and long overdue – Ice Age. And storms like extra-tropical system Sandy and hurricane Irene, and the oft-precedented heat, drought, and wild-fires of last summer cannot in logic, reason, or science be attributed to “global warming” that has become conspicuous chiefly by its near-total absence over the past two decades and perhaps more. In a deterministic climate object operating on a rational world, that which has not happened cannot have caused that which has.

If we continue down this path of lavishly-funded nonsense, we will be leaving our children and grandchildren a different planet—one with more extreme Socialism, more pronounced and widespread scientific illiteracy, worse episodes of cant even than those of Michael E. Mann (if that were possible), and greater competition for diminishing taxpayer subsidies. It will be worse than we ever thought.

Greater competition for diminishing taxpayer subsidies, even at a time when global population growth is declining, in turn, is a recipe for a national security nightmare. The worst thing we can do is bury our heads in the Cypriot sand and pretend that national bankruptcy doesn’t exist.

It is imperative that we take no action now to squander trillions enriching charlatans like Michael E. Mann. It would be one or two orders of magnitude less cost-effective to spend a single red cent today than to let global warming happen, enjoy the sunshine, go surfing, and pay the minuscule cost of adapting to its consequences the day after tomorrow.

Global warming? As we shivering Scots lairds say as we carry glasses well filled with single malt whisky to our aged retainers as they gallantly shovel feet of unseasonal snow off our three-mile driveways, “Bring it on!”.

Christopher W. Monckton of Brenchley is a Distinguished Expert Reviewer for the IPCC’s forthcoming Undistinguished Fifth Assessment Report. Last year he was the Distinguished Nerenberg Lecturer in Mathematics at the Distinguished University of Western Ontario, where he discussed the mathematics of Doric architercture, probabilistic combinatorics, logic, climate sensitivity, feedback amplification, and climate economics in a Distinguished fashion. He directs Distinguished Monckton Enterprises Limited. He is the Distinguished author of numerous Distinguished reviewed papers in the Distinguished learned literature, and of the Distinguished forthcoming book “Climate of Freedom”. He is Distinguished for his notorious self-effacement, modesty, and humility – which is more than can be said for the Undistinguished Michael E. Mann.


newest oldest most voted
Notify of

“Since the Doha climate conference of 2012, at which I inadvertently represented Burma,”

Michael in Sydney

Priceless retort – well done:)


Way to go, Lord Monckton … sic itur ad astra !!!

Dear Lord Monckton
Six years ago I sent you the equations regarding CO2 and the reasons why what was being said was impossible regarding the increase in the absorption spectrum to a 0.012% increase (against the entire atmosphere) of a trace IR absorbing gas. These equations, originating in the Quantum Mechanical relationships of the absorption and emission of radiation, by the CO2 molecule, were developed by the U.S. military and scientific organizations in the 1940’s-50’s as a result of their studies of the upper atmosphere in the development of heat seeking missiles. These physical studies could easily be repeated today and compared with the data gathered in that earlier era. This comparison will settle the question one way or another, once and for all.


Marvelous 🙂
I was reading the earlier post re: Mann and immediately thought to myself ” hey Mikey, I don’t doubt what you say regarding attacks upon you and even accept that you may have had death threats, such is the sad nature of the human race but as for you complaints of persecution? Surely the same if not worse happens to those scientists who choose to speak out against the party line and try to give their evidence-based opinion?”
I was hoping someone would comment about that and I’m so glad that it’s my many-times distinguished and learned friend ( can I say that, we are not acquainted but name-dropping is the order of the day ) Lord Monkton.
Despite the hilarious comedy in this post that might be lost on some, there is much, much truth and I’m thankful for it.
However I would couch Lord Monkton to call it a ‘pool stick graph’ lest he lose the majority of his audience with the billiards reference 😉
made my night to read that.

P@ Dolan

Bravo! My humble thanks for your efforts infighting these jackals lo these many cooling years, and for the many entertaining article, op-ed pieces and interviews! You are, sir, an International Treasure! (Enjoy your well-earned Lagavulin! Slainte!)

Green Sand

People in green glasshouses should not swing hockey sticks.

Ian W

I think I distinguish a red rag being waved to a bull ……

Jack Savage

Someone had to say it…and you say it so well!


Touche’ Sir.


The published paper is Global Brightening and Climate Sensitivity.

John Bell

I agree! The “Greenies” are socialistic, no, even worse, they want humankind to return to cave days, to live in simple agrarian societies without any real technology. This was the aim of Pol Pot, and he killed many to try to acheive that goal. The tide now seems to be turning in our favor, thanks to falling temps and WUWT, et al.

Hilarious :-). Keep poking the charlatans with your sharp wit Lord Monckton!
I saw Lord Monckton in person at his Brisbane speech, fantastic presentation – I thoroughly recommend anyone who gets a chance to see him live do so.

View from the Solent

“…global-warming profiteers of the traffic-light tendency (the Greens too yellow to admit they’re really Reds)….”
Applause. Standing applause. Ovation.


That was amazing.

What a hoot. But really, isn’t parodying Mann a case of shooting fish in a barrel? Or, maybe dynamiting said fish.

William Astley

It appears Mann is attempting to distract people from observations and related analysis that indicates the extreme AGW paradigm is not correct. Mann does not want to debate the current observations and the extreme AGW paradigm as he cannot defend his position scientifically. Mann appears to be opposing freedom of information requests as he and others have something to hide.
It appears Mann created the Hockey Stick graph that is displayed in IPCC AR3 report in the summary and four other promote locations in the report) by cherry picked tree ring data (finding trees in a region where precipitation is reduced when the planet is warmer and increased when it is cooler, so tree rings width for the trees in that region is inversely proportional to temperature) and then used a analysis technique enables the cherry picked incorrect data to make the cyclic warming and cooling go away.
The climategate memos appear to indicate Mann and others are working to push an ideological agenda. There is no global warming crisis based on the science. The science does not support the extreme AGW paradigm. The planet warms and cools in cycles. The warming and cooling cycles show up in the climate record in both the interglacial periods and in the glacial periods. The warming and cooling cycles correlate to long term solar magnetic cycle changes. That is a scientific fact, an observation. It is obvious from the correlation of cosmogenic isotopes with long term climate change cycles (warming followed by cooling and in some cases abrupt cooling) that the sun is forcing the cycle. The scientific questions are how and why is the sun changing and how do those changes cause the cyclic climate changes.
What is the ‘Hockey Stick’ Debate About?
… At the political level the emerging debate is about whether the enormous international trust that has been placed in the IPCC was betrayed. The hockey stick story reveals that the IPCC allowed a deeply flawed study to dominate the Third Assessment Report, which suggests the possibility of bias in the Report-writing… …The result is in the bottom panel of Figure 6 (“Censored”). It shows what happens when Mann’s PC algorithm is applied to the NOAMER data after removing 20 bristlecone pine series. Without these hockey stick shapes to mine for, the Mann method generates a result just like that from a conventional PC algorithm, and shows the dominant pattern is not hockey stick-shaped at all. Without the bristlecone pines the overall MBH98 results would not have a hockey stick shape, instead it would have a pronounced peak in the 15th century. …. Of crucial importance here: the data for the bottom panel of Figure 6 is from a folder called CENSORED on Mann’s FTP site. He did this very experiment himself and discovered that the PCs lose their hockey stick shape when the Graybill-Idso series are removed. In so doing he discovered that the hockey stick is not a global pattern, it is driven by a flawed group of US proxies that experts do not consider valid as climate indicators. But he did not disclose this fatal weakness of his results, and it only came to light because of Stephen McIntyre’s laborious efforts. …Another extension to our analysis concerned the claims of statistical significance in Mann’s papers. We found that meaningless red noise could yield hockey stick-like proxy PCs. This allowed us to generate a “Monte Carlo” benchmark for statistical significance. The idea is that if you fit a model using random numbers you can see how well they do at “explaining” the data. Then the “real world” data, if they are actually informative about the climate, have to outperform the random numbers. We calculated significance benchmarks for the hockey stick algorithm and showed that the hockey stick did not achieve statistical significance, at least in the pre-1450 segment where all the controversy is. In other words, MBH98 and MBH99 present results that are no more informative about the millennial climate history than random numbers. …”
From Christopher Booker’s “The Real Global Warming Disaster: Is the Obsession with “Climate Change” Turning out to be the most costly scientific blunder in history?
“Because ‘they thought I was one of them’, as he (William David Deming)later explained, he was contacted by a ‘major person working in the area of climate change and global warming’. The identity of this scientist was later to be revealed as … John Overpeck … an IPCC lead author. Overpeck ‘let his guard down’ in sending Deming and ‘astonishing email that said “We have to get rid of the Mediaeval Warm period”
“Whether evidence was taken from lake sediments or ice cores, glaciers in the Andes or boreholes in every continent (Huang et al, 1997), the results had been remarkably consistent in confirming that the familiar view was right. There has been a Little Ice Age, across the world. There has been a Mediaeval Warm period. … …The first comprehensive study (William: Of the published papers that analyzed the proxy data) was published in 2003 by … Soon and Baliunas … They had examined 140 expert studies of climate history of the past 1,000 years, based on every kind of data. The question … asked of every study (William: The survey study examined many different sets of proxy data from independent researchers) was whether or not it showed a ‘discernible climate anomaly’ at the time of the (1) the Little Ice Age and (2) the Mediaeval Warm period (3) whether it had shown the twentieth century to be the warmest time in the Millennium. There conclusion was unequivocal. Only two of the studies they looked at had not evidence of the Little Ice Age. Only seven of the 140 studies denied the existence of a Mediaeval Warm period, while 116 confirmed it. (William: Note the proxy studies that did not support the existence of the Medieval Warm period focused on a single region. Due to changes in prevailing winds specific coastal regions did not match the prevailing planetary climate change. i.e. The conclusion is still valid that there was a Medieval Warm period.)
Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years




“with no apologies to Michael E. Mann” I totaly Agree
I Guess with all the AGW BS going over the years I have never seen what Christopher Monckton has had to say..
Christopher Monckton in a good video on You tube from May 2012..

Ian H

Take care Christopher. As well as the punishing schedule of talks you have planned, please try to take time out to enjoy the place during your trip to New Zealand. The weather is wonderful at this time of year. You sound to me like a man under a bit of pressure. A nice relaxing holiday could be just the ticket.

Peter in Ohio

This made my day! My wife asked what I was chuckling about. I tried to explain…*sigh*

In some future life I hope to be so clever. One of many items on my “bucket list” is to shake the hand of Lord Monckton.

Gene Selkov

Hero’s welcome to Lord Monckton!
It is so good to have an unelected representative of such ability while the peoples of both Europe and America allow themselves to be manipulated into electing their foes.

Joe Public

You cite an impressive list of qualifications, but have you ever shared a Nobel prize?


In today’s world many live life in a different, digital and seemingly anonymous, way.
Most folks don’t have the ability to cover their tracks on the internet or email and can be subject to “great scrutiny” if necessary.
We have the tools to find nearly anyone or at least identify the device used with the digital fingerprints on it.
“Death threats” are not acceptable and should not be tolerated, period!
If assistance is needed, I am certain we have many here, including myself, who can help find the perpetrators and bring them to justice!
Nice write up to boot, BTW 🙂

Nay he is a Distinguished humorist as well:

begin 2 minutes 30 seconds to 3 min. 4 sec.


Hear, hear, well said, my lord.


Well done, as usual….
Even Mann supporters will be laughing at him!

Matt in Houston

Lord Monckton,
I cannot speak for anyone else here, but I can say with certainty, I am with you. We (freedom loving people in a global sense) are facing a tyrranical shift in the world these last few years especially, and without good people like you it would be a quicker trip to the butchers block. You are a good man and we seem to be a bit short on those at the moment. I suspect unfortunately that the dawn is still a ways off and the darkness is working feverishly to enslave us all before the rise of the sun. Godspeed in all your endeavors.


Thank you for your work. It’s so satisfying to read this.

William McClenney

My sides are hurting, I smiled with them so much…….

If we are going to have a non citizen as President, why couldn’t it have been this guy?


Dear Lord Monckton,
[Slim Pickens in Blazing Saddles]
You use your tongue purdier than a $20 whore.
[/Slim Pickens in Blazing Saddles]
[Gabby Johnson in Blazing Saddles]
[/Gabby Johnson in Blazing Saddles]

As we shivering Scots lairds say as we carry glasses well filled with single malt whisky to our aged retainers as they gallantly shovel feet of unseasonal snow off our three-mile driveways, “Bring it on!”
Shivering because of Global Warming!!!!
Says Jennifer Francis, research professor with the Rutgers Institute of Coastal and Marine Science. “The sea ice is going rapidly. It’s 80 percent less than it was just 30 years ago. There has been a dramatic loss. This is a symptom of global warming and it contributes to enhanced warming of the Arctic,”
80 percent? Somehow, that doesn’t seem acurate. Am I wrong?


Keep up the good work, your Lordship.
And watch your back, the Watermelons are losing, and they know it.
They’ll fight like cornered rats.

Matthew R Marler

A delight!

Gail Combs

A standing Ovation…
And I agree please take care of yourself, we can not afford to lose warriors of your caliber.

Mark Bofill

🙂 I love it when Lord Monckton posts here. Not only do I always enjoy and appreciate what he’s got to say, but his words inevitably brings the trolls slavering in, and it’s been quiet here lately.
I’m calling first dibs on any trolls tonight, Stealey!
Thanks Lord Monckton, a pleasure as always.

Mark McNeil

Dittos, Wyguy.

Mike Alexander says:
March 27, 2013 at 5:46 pm
As we shivering Scots lairds say as we carry glasses well filled with single malt whisky to our aged retainers as they gallantly shovel feet of unseasonal snow off our three-mile driveways, “Bring it on!”
Shivering because of Global Warming!!!!
Says Jennifer Francis, research professor with the Rutgers Institute of Coastal and Marine Science. “The sea ice is going rapidly. It’s 80 percent less than it was just 30 years ago. There has been a dramatic loss. This is a symptom of global warming and it contributes to enhanced warming of the Arctic,”
80 percent? Somehow, that doesn’t seem acurate. Am I wrong?
LOL, no ….. well, it’s cli-sci math….. Apologies for the self promotion, but it’s easier if you just read it… 😉 http://suyts.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/warmcold-strikes-again-lack-of-ice-blamed-for-snow-and-cold-climate-math-on-display-15-is-20-of-16/


I can hardly wait for the Lord Monckton to get to NZ next week….LOL

I bow to no man as my lord. I bow to Lord Monckton.

Sam'l Bassett

Lord Monkton:
What happened to the “Minnesota Trotskyite”? Did you sue him for libel?

Another Ian

As I sit here on March 27, 2013 enduring well below normal temperatures I came to a shocking realization: I can take the extreme warm weather better than I can take the cold. Last summer I had to endure several days when the high temperature was 103F (42C for most of the world). Being in North Carolina, we call a cool summer one where the temperature never gets above 95 degrees. But this very cool March has made me realize I rather have the hot summer than the cool winter. Sure, I like for it to be cool for a little while. But not in March.
I’ve met many people who moved to North Carolina from one of the northern states. When I ask them why they moved here, just about all of them say because they are tired of the cold. This March I came to realize more than ever that it is better to be too warm than to be too cold.


I agree with your assessment of the situation Lord Monckton. This is a political game that being played by opportunists, not scientists. The details are unimportant. This is a Meta Physical construction that the global warmers want to sell to the world. An abomination and crime against ordinary, hard working people. God speed.


William Astley says:
March 27, 2013 at 4:55 pm
It appears Mann is attempting to distract people from observations and related analysis that indicates the extreme AGW paradigm is not correct. Mann does not want to debate the current observations and the extreme AGW paradigm as he cannot defend his position scientifically. Mann appears to be opposing freedom of information requests as he and others have something to hide.

He ducks like a quack.

Aussie Luke of Australiastan

Don’t stop, Christopher. You are a hero in my household.


[snip. Seitz is Persona Non Grata here. — mod.]


It was frustrating for me prior to Climategate how much benefit of the doubt guys like Mann were afforded when the “mistakes” they relied on for their newsworthy publications did not look very innocent to me whatsoever when made by professionals with mathematical expertise enough to very much know better. This essay cheered me up immensely.