I'm dead. Send flowers

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

Recently my lovely wife and I visited a hotbed of British totalitarianism, Anglia Ruskin “University” at Cambridge, to gather evidence for the courts in connection with a death threat that the “University” and one of its students had made against me in the form of a widely-publicized tombstone with my name on it, under the hate-speech slogan “Lest We Forget Those Who Denied”. I should explain that there are two universities at Cambridge: the real one, my own alma mater, which tops the league-table of Britain’s 133 universities, and Anglia Ruskin, a jumped-up polytechnic which, from what we saw of it, ranks about 250th out of 133.


Anglia Ruskin “University” suffers from an identity crisis. So its public relations people recently spent some taxpayers’ money buying advertising signs at Cambridge railway station, which, like the “University”, is 1½ miles from approaching a real University. These hilarious signs have done much to damage what little reputation the joke “University” may have had.


Sure enough, in a dusty corner of a grubby gallery on a tatty campus (why do grime and the hard Left have such an affinity for one another?) stood the tombstone on which the “artist”, a student to whom the “University” had awarded a prize for it, had engraved my name and those of five other British climate skeptics:

Ø Christopher Booker of the Sunday Telegraph, the world’s best regularly-published climate-skeptic columnist in any mainstream news medium;

Ø James Delingpole, who has transformed Breitbart London into the news website that everyone in Britain wants to read;

Ø Melanie Phillips, the redoubtable and always trenchant Daily Mail columnist, writing for the only daily paper that regularly reports how much nonsense global warming is;

Ø Lord Lawson of Blaby, Margaret Thatcher’s former Finance Minister, and founder of the authoritative Global Warming Policy Foundation; and

Ø Owen Paterson, the affable squire who, like most country folk, does not believe a word of the urban-myth cargo-cult doctrine of global warming, and is a former Secretary of State for the Environment.


Now, to put a victim’s name on a tombstone while the victim is still alive is to make a death threat, the nastiest and most repellent form of hate speech. If the tombstone had been erected anywhere in Scotland rather than on a manifestly dysfunctional campus in England, I could have had Professor Michael Thorne, the “University’s” Vice Chancellor, tried, fined, and bound over not to repeat that or any suchlike offense.

Professor Thorne had caused or permitted a press release to be issued, promoting this unspeakable death threat. The release explained that the tombstone bore the words “Lest we forget those who denied”. The implication was that, if we were not already dead, the “artist” and the “University” that promoted his “work” would very soon see to it that we were.

Indeed, the press release reinforced the threat in several unpleasant ways. Like the tombstone, it used the word “denier” or its derivatives – and did so five times in a single page. The intent of this hate-speech word, banned throughout Scotland by the law against threatening communications, is to compare climate change “deniers” with Holocaust deniers.

It mattered not to the Vice Chancellor, nor to the “artist”, that I do not deny the existence of climate change, which has, after all, been happening for 6000 or 4.5 billion years, depending on your point of view. I do not even deny that Man may have some as yet unquantified but probably insignificant and even net-beneficial influence on the climate.

Indeed, I have recently published with three distinguished colleagues – Dr Willie Soon, Professor David Legates and Dr Matt Briggs – a scientific paper making that fact quite plain. It’s well worth a read. Go to scibull.com, click on “Most Read Articles”, and ours is the all-time no. 1 in the 60-year archive of the Science Bulletin of the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

Please download it now from scibull.com, and get all your friends to do the same. The more the Science Bulletin’s own ticker for our paper counts up, the more it will be realized that the scientific viewpoint we represent – the technical term for it is “the objective truth” – is widely supported.

The mere truth, however, did not stand in the way of the “University” or of the “artist”, who is recorded in the “University’s” press release as having said: “With this work [work?] I envisage a time when the deliberate denial of climate change will be seen as a crime because it hinders progress towards a low carbon future.” Kill them, kill them all!

To make the air of menace worse, “Dr” Aled Jones, the director of the “Global” “Sustainability” “Institute” at the “University”, said the “sculpture could be viewed in decades to come as a monument to a period of history that saw scientific knowledge battle to be heard above political ideologies.”

In the context, what this numpty meant was that climate “deniers” like me, even though our detailed and legitimate scientific objections to the climate scam have been reviewed and published in the Science Bulletin (have you and all your friends downloaded our paper from scibull.com yet?) and many learned journals, were mere political ideologues, while totalitarian true-believers like him, with little knowledge of and no interest in the scientific truth, were the sole repository of “scientific knowledge”.

In fact it is the other way about.

Every so often, I decide not to do what a couple of the other names on the tombstone did. I decided not to laugh it off. A death threat is a death threat. It is no laughing matter.

I have recently been reading Richards’ masterly three-volume history of the Third Reich. The first volume deals with the perplexing question how that monstrous regime came to be. And it is plain that the long, relentless campaign of intimidation by the Nazis of their opponents, with name-calling and death threats very similar to that perpetrated by the “University” and by all too many others over the past ten years, was an essential part of the process.

Most people laughed off the Nazi threats, at first. In Britain and in many other countries, full-on appeasement followed, in the hope that looking the other way would make the threats vanish.

It didn’t work. Tens of millions died because too few – the few including such honorable and courageous men as Popes Pius XI and XII and Cardinal Faulhaber of Munich – openly spoke out against the terror. Too many, including Britain and most European governments, went along with it and tried to appease it until it was suddenly too late.

The Nazis then, like their irrational, unlearned, hate-filled ideological successors at the “University” today, meant what they said. They killed those they had said they would kill.

So my clerk wrote to the Vice Chancellor, listing a couple of dozen previous instances, all of them in the past decade, where death threats and demands for trial, imprisonment and execution had been made, very publicly, against climate skeptics. This is by no means an isolated or exceptional incident. There is an increasingly dangerous pattern to it.

I also wrote to the police and the procurator fiscal in Edinburgh, warning them that if the “University” did not remove the press release from the web and the tombstone from the gallery I should expect them to prosecute the internet service providers who were carrying the threat into Scotland.

The “University’s” first instinct was to call in the shysters who are always willing, if paid enough, to come to the defense even of the nastiest totalitarian bullies. In this case, the shysters were Anderson Strathern LLP, of Glasgow. Don’t use them, ever, for any purpose. For they pretended there was no connection between the phrase “climate change denier” and “Holocaust denier” – though all they had to do was to Google the two terms together to see just how deliberate and how widespread that connection is. And they said the “University” had “no proposals to make”.

By then, however, the police and the Fiscal were in the picture, so the “University” found it expedient to ignore its shysters and to come to its senses. The press release has been removed from the web, both by the “University” and by another Cambridge website that had unwisely reproduced it. And the tombstone is now gone too.

The poisonous air of palpable menace remains. Dr Roger Pielke Jr., a scientist who has taken a gently sceptical view on some aspects of the climate question, has recently announced that he can no longer conduct climate research, because he fears for the safety of himself and his family.

No doubt many more scientists would have spoken out by now against the totalitarian profiteers of doom who are doing so much to destroy not only the economy but also the freedom of the West.

As the danger that an unelected world government will be inflicted upon us at the Paris climate summit this December draws ever closer, we are expecting more such malevolent attacks by the environmentalist Sturmabteilung. But we shall not be deterred by totalitarian thuggery. We shall continue to speak the truth as best we can discern it, whether today’s Nazis like it or not.

And if you are tempted to cite Godwin’s “Law” to the effect that he who calls his opponents Nazis has lost the argument, let me cite Monckton’s Law in return: those who cite Godwin’s Law confirm ipso facto that they are active supporters of today’s Fascists.


Whatever you do, don’t send your daughter to Anglia Ruskin “University”. And don’t ever send it so much as a dime. It is an unworthy institution. Send the money to Cambridge University (above) instead. We’re the real thing. We’ll put it to good and proper use: the advancement not of crude, Fascist propaganda but of learning.

I might have been tempted to leave the matter there, given that the “University” had had the sense to take down its press release and, eventually, the tombstone too. However, the shysters’ letter indicates a cast of mind I don’t like the smell of. I’m preparing a detailed report for the police in Cambridge, for under English law the tombstone and the press release together constitute – at minimum – conduct likely to cause a breach of the Queen’s peace, contrary to s.1, Justices of the Peace Act 1361, the most commonly-cited provision of English criminal law in the magistrates’ courts.

I’m going to have these wretches prosecuted: not the student, who is manifestly not adult enough to understand the seriousness of what he has done, nor even the dreadful “Dr” Aled Jones, who is arguably too blinded by Marxist prejudice and too ignorant of the true science behind the climate scam to think rationally at all.

But an outfit that describes itself, however implausibly, as a “University” ought at least to have made some attempt to behave like one, and not to have made death threats by way of press releases. It should have kept the peace. Now it will reap the whirlwind.

Ø This is an extended and illustrated version of my regular and unmissable Monday column at wnd.com. Click “Opinion”, then “Commentator line-up”.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jenn Oates
May 19, 2015 8:08 pm

Go get ’em. 🙂

Reply to  Jenn Oates
May 19, 2015 9:53 pm

Indeed. Monckton is one of a kind. Hats off for fighting back.

Reply to  Brute
May 20, 2015 12:50 am

The work is made of plywood so what it will be used for next in order to demonstrate its sustainability is an interesting question. Answers on a postcard….
The artist appears to have imagination and some talent. It would be good if he used it in a less intimidating manner. The artist is presumably young and naïve and has been indoctrinated with a one sided view of climate change. He will be affected by police action. How about he publically apologises and agrees to listen to sceptical arguments as an alternative?
The University ought to know better however and can not promote this sort of nonsense. I note that any legal action is going to be aimed directly at them.

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Brute
May 20, 2015 2:04 am

Climatereason: The student ‘artist’ is probably the kind of student who will switch to PPE, get a job as a researcher for an MP and then advise some aspiring politician to carve his election promises in stone. Oh, that’s already been done…?

Reply to  Brute
May 20, 2015 2:05 am

In response to Climatereason, I’m going to keep the student out of this. In general, I support freedom of speech and of artistic endeavour, as well as the right of the young to be foolish without undue penalty. He has wished me harm, but I do not wish him harm. For who can say they did not transcend the bounds of taste and decency when young?
The “University”, however, is a different kettle of noisome fish. It’s press release was unacceptable ind unlawful. It will face trial. It will lose. It will learn. Peace will be restored.

Billy Liar
Reply to  Brute
May 20, 2015 3:32 pm

IIRC the ‘student’ is a ‘mature’ student – in his forties?

Billy Liar
Reply to  Brute
May 20, 2015 3:39 pm

He won 3rd prize for the same competition in 2014 – see pic at link, his beard looks a bit too grey for a callow youth.

Reply to  Jenn Oates
May 19, 2015 10:18 pm

Indeed, show then no mercy. They deserve the public ridicule and humiliation of their cowardly, deeds.

Reply to  cnxtim
May 20, 2015 1:27 am

It’s ironic that climate liars…. call us deniers

Jay Hope
Reply to  cnxtim
May 20, 2015 3:31 pm

The world is cooling and these morons still think it’s getting warmer! Ha ha. However, I wouldn’t put too much trust in Cambridge University. These institutions are all corrupt, and, sadly, many of the decent scientists seem to be afraid to speak out against it……I wish there were more people like you. The good news is that when the cold really kicks in, all these little ‘warmists’ will be begging for a lump of coal to keep them warm. The jokes on them!

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
Reply to  Jenn Oates
May 19, 2015 11:35 pm

I have to say, I admire people who go after wrong-doers with zeal and gusto. It’s no good just going for a cut, you must go for the jugular. I’m the same, I’m glad to say (though less than I used to be).

Reply to  Jenn Oates
May 20, 2015 6:50 am

I’m of two minds on this issue.
I can see the value of laughing it off, not drawing more attention to these idiots than they deserve.
On the other hand I agree with Lord Monckton that the Nazis were also ignored, until they could no longer be ignored.
While in the midst of the conflict, it is almost impossible to tell which idiots will deservedly disappear into the mists of history, and which will metastasize into a cancer that could kill millions.

Reply to  MarkW
May 20, 2015 7:46 am

I should add that there is a difference between lone wolf nut cases and people who are part of a movement.
Had the same tombstone been created criticizing the Lord for the type of clothes he wears or the restaurants he frequents, everyone would agree that ignoring the so called artist would be the best course.
The fact that the guy is a supporter for a movement that already has lots of political power, makes it an entirely different case.

May 19, 2015 8:25 pm

So Monckton’s Law is a double Godwin? Or is that a reverse Godwin?

Reply to  Bulldust
May 19, 2015 10:33 pm

A reverse Godwin. Godwin’s law is an idiotic monstrosity that demands in-effect that no one ever learn the lessons of WWII and the ascendance of fascists around the world to almost complete power. It takes the trivial — the sometimes over-use of analogy to fascism, and places it lexically above what is of gravest importance — the recognizing, naming and stopping of the repetition of great evil.

M Courtney
Reply to  Alec Rawls
May 20, 2015 1:24 am

No. Godwin’s law is a call for remembering amplitude as well as sign.
Banning children from playing on the grass is totalitarian in sign. It leans that way.
But in amplitude it is not Kristallnacht.
Debate, particularly online, is often derailed because people forget the amplitude and go straight to the extreme.
You can’t talk with those kind of crazies.

Reply to  Alec Rawls
May 20, 2015 1:49 am

The amplitude, frequency and tone of the death threats made by the pre-Reich Nazis against their opponents were very similar to those made against skeptical climate researchers today. If we forestall the rhetoric of hate by not appeasing its perpetrators and not looking the other way, but by speaking out in good time, we may hope to forestall another Kristallnacht.
My late mother-in-law witnessed Kristallnacht. She returned to a Britain still gripped by appeasement. She found it impossible to get across how dangerous Nazism had become.
Environmentalist totalitarianism is now deploying all the propaganda tricks of Goebbels and all the crazed, hate-filled rhetoric of his goons, and with no more justification. The time to speak out against the Eco-Fascist thugs is now, not after they actually start putting us on show-trial for our lives.
If the Nazi regime taught us anything, it is that the assumption that a death threat is mere braggadocio or rodomontade is unwise and may prove fatal.
When I go before Cambridge magistrates, I shall plead in mitigation that the student was young, hot-headed and foolish, which is why I shall not charge him, for I was once all three, and that “Dr” Jones was Insufficiently aware of the scientific evidence against climate panic. But the “University” ought to have known better. To its credit, though it’s shysters sent me a remarkably injudicious letter, it had the sense to back off and take down the offending press release. I shall plead that in mitigation when asking for a summons. But, in the end, the magistrates will have to issue a summons against it. There will be a trial, a conviction, and probably a binding over to keep the peace in future.

Gentle Tramp
Reply to  Alec Rawls
May 20, 2015 2:53 am

Godwin’s law is not completely wrong because one should avoid to make disproportionate comparisons.
But – so long as the anti-CO2 fanatics are using their most beloved hate speech term “denier” (with its plain implications to “holocaust denier”, that is to say “Nazi”) against CAGW skeptics – they cannot use Godwin’s law as an argument for their own moral integrity…

Reply to  Alec Rawls
May 20, 2015 6:56 am

In the general, I agree completely regarding the issue of keeping in mind the amplitude.
In the specific, the warmistas are seeking, and in some cases have achieved sufficient political power to start implementing their threats.

Reply to  Alec Rawls
May 20, 2015 7:55 am

Godwin’s Law violates itself by bringing up the Nazis.

Jeff Mitchell
Reply to  Alec Rawls
May 21, 2015 3:24 pm

I would suggest not mitigating on behalf of the student or Jones. If they don’t suffer consequences, you will be doing them a long term disfavor as it will take them longer to learn the lesson.
Unfortunately, my first reaction was to wish I got to be listed on the tombstone too. The reason people laugh these things off is that most of the time it is an over exaggeration that is understood by the recipient to not be quite that literal. The problem here is that with global warming, people have been fired, threatened or harassed for legitimate skepticism. So the amplitude has now risen above just over exaggeration, for threats to be taken seriously whether or not that level of seriousness was intended. So what I would suggest is to show good humour and use a big stick to paraphrase a former U.S. president.

May 19, 2015 8:29 pm

I think a better title would be:
“So you think I dead? Save the flowers for your reputation.”

May 19, 2015 8:30 pm

Fantastic Christopher! What great publicity it will be to expose these ratbags.
Well done on getting to No1 too.

george e. smith
Reply to  Tony
May 19, 2015 9:13 pm

Well I didn’t know your AM had an underworld connection Lord Monckton.
I’m inclined to send you flowers anyway, if only for condolences for that unfortunate outcome of The Boat Race. And twice too, with the Oxford ladies putting on a show as well.
But if I’m not mistaken, I believe you are still ahead on the score card.
Well the engraved stele is a rather low class proxy for expressing an opinion, so steam them.

May 19, 2015 8:32 pm

I’m glad we have another British bulldog.

May 19, 2015 8:43 pm

Monckton is not the first to wonder about the affinity grubbiness and leftists have. P.J. O’Rourke asked almost the same question years ago. (We also have to think of the unwashed out protesting whatever.)

Reply to  inMAGICn
May 19, 2015 8:51 pm

I think you should go ahead and sue the lot of them.

May 19, 2015 8:45 pm

“And the tombstone is now gone too”
It’s gone not because of Monckton’s actions, its because it was only to be on display until the middle of May!
And a press release is still up too!

Reply to  spaatch
May 19, 2015 10:52 pm

That is not a press release. That’s an article in an independent magazine that “University” has no control of.

May 19, 2015 8:48 pm

Get ready for the plaintive howling of artisitc freedom. So long as they are trashing your reputation that is art, but when you protest that is suppression of art. Hypocrisy, they name is global warming.

Ben Of Houston
Reply to  Jack
May 20, 2015 2:39 pm

If it was America, you would probably be right. Wishing for someone’s death is not the same as threatening them. Putting names on a tombstone is not speech that is immediately inciting to violence, so there would not be criminal penalties. However, I think Monkton would still prevail on a legal request to have the work removed, even with America’s ludicrously high standards. It is unquestionably calling for his death.
However, this is not America, it is Britain, and hate speech is illegal there and they have much MUCH lower bounds for speech crimes, most notably libel.

May 19, 2015 8:50 pm

It’s not a tombstone, it’s a plywood oil waterfall sculpture.

george e. smith
Reply to  spaatch
May 19, 2015 9:19 pm

Are you suggesting that the medium of an implied threat, makes a difference of scale ??

Michael D
Reply to  george e. smith
May 19, 2015 10:38 pm

Perhaps spaatch was under the misapprehension that a tombstone must be … stone ??

Reply to  george e. smith
May 19, 2015 10:56 pm

So, what would you and spaatch call a wooden cross on a grave?

Reply to  george e. smith
May 20, 2015 7:48 am

Michael, it does have the word “stone” in it, which in my mind at least implies it’s supposed to be made of stone.
However it is legitimate to refer to a representation of a tombstone as a tombstone.

Reply to  spaatch
May 20, 2015 12:37 am

Rather clueless aren’t you?

Reply to  spaatch
May 20, 2015 6:59 am

It’s a representation of a tombstone.

May 19, 2015 8:59 pm

Excellent Call Lord Monckton. Force that pseudo elite mockery of education to face up to their elitist notions backed with their dire threats.

Repel space Damocles swords
May 19, 2015 9:07 pm

The only Damocles swords that distractors fear are those from space: National Space Weather Strategy Released for Public Comment | NOAA / NWS Space Weather http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/news/national-space-weather-strategy-released-public-comment

May 19, 2015 9:14 pm

I find the art in ill taste. Having said that, as an American, this speech would be 100% protected in the the US. I am able to hold both thoughts at once. The best way to deal with speech you don’t like is with more speech.

Reply to  Manos
May 19, 2015 9:40 pm

You are BS. Try that in the US and you would likely end up in court. Free speech does not mean you can say anything you like without repercussions. I suggest you do something like that for Obama and we will see how easy it will be for you to travel by plane.

Reply to  Alex
May 19, 2015 9:53 pm

An artistic tomb stone wouldn’t be actionable in civil court and would not be investigated criminally in the US. I’m disappointed that a web site that I like and support as fact based is willing to turn to the weapons of the thuggish enemies of real science. How boorish.

Leonard Lane
Reply to  Alex
May 19, 2015 10:29 pm

Yes, Alex you are correct on that point. But try it for any conservative and nothing would happen but cheers from the radical left.

Reply to  Alex
May 19, 2015 10:41 pm

As a sheep I guess you would let it lie. Being a wolf, I don’t. As for this site, it has been the subject of vitriol for years. Insult upon insult. It’s time to draw a line in the sand and say ‘no more’. I applaud Lord Monckton for his actions. He has the power and resources that I don’t. He has shown that he has teeth and if anyone is stupid enough to stick their neck out like that deserves to have their head lopped off. He didn’t use a sword but used the law, that these morons try to hide behind, against them.

Reply to  Alex
May 19, 2015 10:52 pm

Spoken like a true Englishman. The UK has a rich history of elites using the law to censor anyone who offends them. Just as Orwell.

Reply to  Alex
May 19, 2015 11:06 pm

Haha. I am not English. I am of russian heritage. Perhaps it’s the siberian wolf’s blood that speaks to me of honour and respect. You are probably still a young man, so I will forgive you. One day, when you are older and wiser, you may realise that honour and respect are more important than life and friends. It’s better to die on your feet than live on your knees. I will die with a smile on my lips and you will probably live whimpering

Reply to  Alex
May 20, 2015 2:43 am

The laws are different in the UK than they are in the US. In the US, libel is actionable – slander not so much. If you say something untrue about someone, that’s just opinion (in the US) but if you publish something untrue, then it is actionable. In the UK even verbal slander is against the law, or that’s how I’ve always understood it. This would probably go beyond verbal slander as the sentiments were published. Thus Lord Monckton would have a platform for his litigation, probably even in America though his efforts would be met with much less effect. In America, the right to free speech is abused like a red-headed step-child.

Reply to  Alex
May 20, 2015 4:44 am

Alex, you do not have a clue. In the US any speech that doesn’t threaten harm, or excites others to riot, or illegal activity is not protected. Yes hate-speech, offensive as it may be, IS protected in the USA.
I sympathize with Christopher Monckton, and in the UK he may have legal standing. In the US he would not.

Reply to  Alex
May 20, 2015 5:49 am

Roy Denio
You are right. I don’t have a clue about the US justice system or civil cases. That’s why I said ‘likely’. I too can use weasel words like the IPCC.

Reply to  Alex
May 20, 2015 6:32 am

An artistic tomb stone wouldn’t be actionable in civil court
Create such a tombstone with Obama’s name on it and issue a press release and see what happens to your door at 5 AM in the morning. Add Hillary’s name and see how far 100% protected free speech takes you. No doubt the courts will rush to your defense.

Reply to  Alex
May 20, 2015 7:03 am

Gary: Even speech can be actionable depending on the situation. While I was in Atlanta one of the local weather guys gave a speech during which he off handedly repeated the myth that the Proctor and Gamble logo had satanic origins. He was sued by P&G. In the settlement he gave an on air apology to P&G.

Stevan Makarevich
Reply to  Alex
May 20, 2015 9:53 am

Haha. I am not English. I am of russian heritage. Perhaps it’s the siberian wolf’s blood that speaks to me of honour and respect. You are probably still a young man, so I will forgive you. One day, when you are older and wiser, you may realise that honour and respect are more important than life and friends. It’s better to die on your feet than live on your knees. I will die with a smile on my lips and you will probably live whimpering”
I know this is late, but having just read this, and my wife and I being of Russian heritage, I wanted to say your post made our day! Spasiba!!!

Reply to  Manos
May 20, 2015 8:33 am

In the U.S. just about anyone can sue just about anyone else over just about anything with, usually, the deepest pockets winning. I personally think that this is lawyers/judges protecting lawyers/suers and their income much like lobbyists/congress etc. And as Steyn found out, the so called anti-slapp rules aren’t very effective. There are even some law professors that require their graduates to sue someone just for practice.

May 19, 2015 9:15 pm

Monckton is trying to use the leftist concept “hate speech” against the left, and not doing a very good job of it. Freedom of speech implies no sanctions against hate speech. Death threats are not hate speech, they are violent criminal offenses. Writing someone’s name on a fake tombstone is a lame joke, not a death threat.

Reply to  Rod McLaughlin
May 19, 2015 9:23 pm

Couldn’t agree more. The whole concept is a lame joke and not a real threat. Monckton needs to grow some skin.

David A
Reply to  Roy Denio
May 19, 2015 9:41 pm

Censorship of free speech and implied death threats is not a joke. However, I suggest Christopher Monckton agree to not raise a ruckus, if the offenders will agree to an open debate!

Reply to  Roy Denio
May 19, 2015 9:45 pm

Yep, now they’re reduced to sending dead flowers every morning …
… I won’t forget to put roses on their grave

Reply to  Roy Denio
May 20, 2015 2:13 am

I like David A’s idea for a debate. But They’d never agree. They know They’d lose.

Sam The First
Reply to  Roy Denio
May 20, 2015 6:13 am

I think you’re missing the point here, Roy Denio. Lord Monckton, as I understand it, is prepared to allow the ‘artist’ his freedom of expression – however ill informed, puerile, or offensive.
But when a body calling itself a ‘University’ attempts to limit freedom of speech and attempts to shut down the publication and sharing of genuine research, by disseminating crude threats and implications of a lack of morality (which the epithet ‘denier’ is intended to imply), then it’s time to take a stand.
Impressionable young people are at the mercy of such institutions: should they be encouraged to think such bullying and brow-beating is acceptable? Public discourse is rendered dangerous and one-sided by such actions. It’s high time someone took a stand.

David A
Reply to  Roy Denio
May 20, 2015 11:12 am

I appreciate that Christopher Monckton would clearly dominate in a debate on CAGW, and the University would likely refuse. I suggest he offer to drop all in exchange for a debate anyway.
It is a win anyway. If they refuse,they demonstrate their closed minded fear of rational debate. If by some miracle they demonstrate the courage of their convictions and accept, then the field is won.

Reply to  Rod McLaughlin
May 19, 2015 9:33 pm

How about I make a tombstone with your name on it? Laugh that off and dismiss it. D*ckhead.

Reply to  Alex
May 19, 2015 9:35 pm


Reply to  Alex
May 19, 2015 9:46 pm

Lord Monckton is a gentleman, I’m not. Sit back and sip your latte.

James Allison
Reply to  Rod McLaughlin
May 19, 2015 9:47 pm

Its weird but people like Rod and Roy here always turn up to tell others how they should think and behave.

Reply to  Rod McLaughlin
May 20, 2015 2:49 am

Rod, you are missing the entire point of the article. Suggesting death while calling someone a “denier” has a very serious and very specific message. It was a crafted message with a very real world point: death to those who oppose. You need to go back and watch the “exploding children” video where global warming pundits made light of blowing people up who do not agree. Literally blood and guts. Literally. It was one of the most grotesque things I have ever seen in my life, as far as propaganda. Rod, if you do not believe that there is a fascist movement behind the global warming movement, you haven’t been paying attention. And if you didn’t know that fascist ideals were dangerous, well, maybe you should have stayed in high school. Lord Monckton made a very good assessment on what is actually going on.

Reply to  Gary
May 20, 2015 6:08 am

Correct interpretation here. The more you expose underhanded propaganda *as* underhanded propaganda, the less of this nonsense you will get.

Reply to  Gary
May 21, 2015 11:52 am

No, I’m not missing the point of the article at all. Yes, I’m very aware of the anti-free-speech nature of the global warming movement, which I’ve followed closely since before Climategate. Monckton wrote: “Now, to put a victim’s name on a tombstone while the victim is still alive is to make a death threat, the nastiest and most repellent form of hate speech.” There are two glaring problems with this. There was no death threat. A “death threat” means threatening to kill someone. “Hate speech” is not a death threat, and should be allowed.

Reply to  Rod McLaughlin
May 20, 2015 3:00 am

Except in England there really insnt freedom of speech, at least not as we in the States recognize it. A man was arrested there recently for reading publicly, from Churchill’s memoir. If youre ever curious about the English people’s history with freedom of speech, do a bit of research on”hang, draw and quarter” thats how the english used to deal with unpopular speech….

Sam The First
Reply to  davideisenstadt
May 20, 2015 6:21 am

Sadly that is true, in that freedom of speech does not have a blanket legal protection here, although there is the defence that the words printed or spoken must be ‘in the public interest’, much used by journalists accused of libel.
Freedom of speech is not that well protected in America however, especially in Academia. Anyone stepping out of line is now liable to lose his or her job after having his/her reputation trashed. You may have freedom of speech given a platform, but finding or keeping an effective platform is not that easy

Reply to  Rod McLaughlin
May 20, 2015 6:37 am

Writing someone’s name on a fake tombstone is a lame joke, not a death threat.
how about if someone wrote your child’s name on a tombstone and publicized this? would you still see it as a lame joke?

Ian Macdonald
Reply to  ferdberple
May 20, 2015 11:00 am

“Writing someone’s name on a fake tombstone is a lame joke, not a death threat.”
So is threatening to blow up Robin Hood Airport on social media, because a plane was late. That was clearly a joke but the guy was still arrested. No, I think anything which constitutes a death threat as such, is generally not regarded as an accceptable form of joke.
In view of the hostile acts against Nigel Farage by climate alarmists it’s possibly not an entirely empty threat either. A literal murder attempt is perhaps unlikely, but the tombstone could be seen as inciting criminal acts.

Winnipeg Boy
Reply to  Rod McLaughlin
May 20, 2015 7:00 am

Agreed. It is a ‘veiled’ threat and probably would go nowhere in US. Everyone can see where the line is and they will go right up to it. That does not make it less dangerous. The ‘Artist’ is not going to do anything, but he/she is hoping to inspire some nutjob to do their bidding.
Look at the anti-abortion murders in US past. That is their model.

Reply to  Rod McLaughlin
May 20, 2015 8:23 am

The leftist concept of “hate speech” is that the left is firmly against it unless they are the ones doing it, then it is perfectly fine. They say they are against hate and bullying, but in reality they just want a monopoly on it. Do they not hate and bully everyone who disagrees with them, including climate change skeptics? What baffles me is how many commenters here are willing to concede that monopoly to them.

Reply to  Louis
May 20, 2015 8:56 am

Correct as usual. Your comment has been encapsulated in a Law of human nature:
Fen’s Law:
The Left believes none of the things they lecture the rest of us about.

Bob Boder
Reply to  Louis
May 21, 2015 6:43 am

Actually I think they do believe what they lecture us about, from a guilt stand point. The biggest racists I have ever know were all leftists, the biggest wasteful consumers, the biggest fascists, the most restrictive of free speech and on and on.
They think everyone else thinks like this because they do, they feel they need to correct the world of their own evil and the only way the can justify their continuing existences is as a corrector of the evil they see in them selves and project on everyone else. It never dawns on them that there are actually people who don’t think in their bigoted, selfish, childish way.

Reply to  Bob Boder
May 21, 2015 10:37 am

I usually ignore such commentary, since the commenters’ minds are hopelessly calcified, but… those who sit on “The Right” and blame “The Left” for everything are just as bad as those on “The Left” who blame everything on “The Right.”
Until our brains evolve enough to be able to grasp the fact that we all do stupid things in roughly equal proportion, and have ideas that are ghastly and counterproductive in equal proportion, and that calling names and generalizing are also counterproductive when WE ourselves do it, we as a species are doomed to continue the tiresome dance, yelling past each other, proud and righteous, forever and ever. Amen.
Fortunately, the world is still a vast and achingly beautiful place for our species to grow up in…

Reply to  Rod McLaughlin
May 20, 2015 3:05 pm

England is a very different country than the US, if you assume that our respective laws are basically the same, you could be in for a very unpleasant surprise. One example is in the US, speaking the truth is an absolute defense against slander, not so in England.

Tony B
Reply to  Paul Jackson
June 1, 2015 4:30 am

Sorry, but you are totally wrong. Have a read of the Defamation Act 2013, in particular Section 2:-

May 19, 2015 9:34 pm

My short list of the most courageous, intelligent, and historically important people in the last 2 centuries are: Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, and Dwight Eisenhower. However, I am now adding Christopher Monckton of Brenchley to that list.

Reply to  kokoda
May 20, 2015 8:57 am

I didn’t make the list? ☺

Reply to  dbstealey
May 20, 2015 11:26 am

I think you have to be dead to make the list.
(I hope that isn’t interpreted as a veiled threat)

May 19, 2015 9:36 pm

Good on ya, Christopher. Make the folks squirm who are seemingly above the fray while useful idiots express their sentiments.

David Sivyer Western Australia
May 19, 2015 9:45 pm

Thanks for the endorphin rush; I needed that.

Chris Hanley
May 19, 2015 9:54 pm

“Dr Alex Jones, director of Anglia Ruskin’s Global Sustainability Institute, said: “The winner was chosen because of the way they approached their subject by bringing together a powerful message with a beautiful piece of art …”.
To produce what is (laughingly) described as “a beautiful piece of art” nowadays apparently requires absolutely no technique or skill whatsoever.

Reply to  Chris Hanley
May 20, 2015 1:01 am

“To produce what is (laughingly) described as “a beautiful piece of art” nowadays apparently requires absolutely no technique or skill whatsoever.”
That is the definition of modern art. Which makes almost every piece of it forgotten in few months. Some of it gathers dust in “modern art museums” (subsisting on subsidies) and Abramovich’s garbage collections. Who cares.

Sam The First
Reply to  Alexander Feht
May 20, 2015 6:28 am

The ghastly Charles Saatchi has a great deal to answer for.
I used to be heavily involved with young artists in the London art world during the ‘Brit Art’ heyday. It was accepted by everyone in the business that young artists had no chance of making it, unless Saatchi bought their work. In that way, his patronage of ‘conceptual art’ became the driver of ‘taste’, and he became the arbiter of what constituted ‘modern art’.
That’s how this ludicrous but threatening piece of propaganda comes to be accepted as ‘art’ and described as ‘beautiful’. It’s ridiculous, pathetic and depressing.

Ian Macdonald
Reply to  Alexander Feht
May 20, 2015 11:07 am

“[modern art] requires absolutely no technique or skill whatsoever.” Oh I don’t know, it’s all a question of getting exactly the right amount of rust on your sculpture. If you haven’t tried it, you don’t know just how exacting that is.

May 19, 2015 9:54 pm

Sorry Mr Monckton, but you fail to explain where the actual death threat is in this stunt. What in the press release connected the tombstone with your name on it to an incitement to kill you? Perhaps it can be interpreted that way, but it can also be interpreted as: ‘ years from now how will we remember these people?’ When speech or writings can be interpreted in different ways, then I think freedom of speech should apply. Just because you find their view erroneous, tasteless or even offensive, does not give you the right to prosecute them for saying it. In effect you are reacting to fear of one kind of tyranny by imposing your own.
Unless this was clearly an actual death threat, I think you are severely over reacting.

Reply to  wickedwenchfan
May 19, 2015 10:06 pm

You fail to understand principle and honour. Are you too thick to understand a public insult? 200 years ago you would have been challenged to a duel for that. Yes, I know , we are now civilised and don’t do that kind of thing. What a pity. I would call somebody out for the audacity of using ‘the familiar’. How dare they use the familiar unless having been properly introduced and given permission to do so.

Reply to  Alex
May 20, 2015 1:05 am

You fail to understand that an insult is not a death threat, and, and least in the USA, insults and other name calling is covered by the first amendment. Even hate-speech is covered.

Reply to  Alex
May 20, 2015 1:47 am

I never claimed it was a death threat. Just an insult. They deserve to be smacked over the head, like naughty puppies. I wasn’t suggesting they be imprisoned or hung drawn and quartered. However, they do deserve to be humiliated. In our society these days, stupid behaviour seems acceptable.

Reply to  Alex
May 20, 2015 7:26 am

And remember, what with Mockton’s use of titles, he is living 200 years in the past.

Reply to  Alex
May 20, 2015 8:35 am

trafamadore is the one referring to titles, not Lord Monckton.
Why is trafamadore fixated on something which does not matter here in America? Is he jealous? Is that why he uses the title ‘trafamadore’?

Reply to  Alex
May 20, 2015 11:30 am

“Why is trafamadore fixated”
When you can’t refute the science, refute the man.

Reply to  wickedwenchfan
May 19, 2015 11:37 pm


Reply to  Ben D
May 20, 2015 12:00 am


May 19, 2015 9:57 pm

Although it is only my opinion as a fellow American, I second the view of Manos. When speech leads to prosecution, persecution, violence, or anything but more communication, there is equal potential for mischief in every case. I am a confirmed Anglophile and Moncktonphile, but on this, I believe the UK, Europe, and Lord Monckton have gotten it wrong. I am not critical of Monckton for using the laws of the UK to address an obvious violation of those laws, but I prefer the U.S. system of vigorous, free discussion, in which only explicit threats are illegal. It’s messy and causes me much angst, when I read the opinions of some of my fellow Americans, but I think it is still best to have an almost totally free flow of ideas in which the best can come to the top and the others can be revealed to be inadequate. I grew up in the Southern U.S. in the 1950s and I saw the separate accommodations for black and white. I think virtually completely free expression (plus some exceedingly stupid racists who killed 4 young girls in a Birmingham church) caused the transformation that occurred in the U.S. on the issue of race. I am not claiming these issues are solved and much work remains, but if we had been prosecuting each other every time someone perceived a threat, progress would not have been as rapid. Right ideas eventually prevail, and I would even suggest that the “university’s” stupid post will do Lord Monckton’s position much more good than his prosecution of them.

Reply to  Steve
May 19, 2015 10:27 pm

So you are implying that an idiot artist and the supporting idiot professor and university should not get a smack in the head for being stupid?

Reply to  Alex
May 21, 2015 12:30 am

That sure is an idiot comment. No one deserves a smack in the head.

Reply to  Alex
May 21, 2015 1:22 am

Not so. Take a look in a mirror.

Reply to  Alex
May 21, 2015 12:25 pm

Ah Richard!!! Our man of religion advocating violence.

Reply to  Alex
May 21, 2015 12:46 pm

Please do try to be sensible. I was not “advocating violence”. You made a silly comment and I ridiculed it.
Of course, I was making the assumption that you have more intelligence than an average 4-year old. If that assumption was an error then I apologise.

Reply to  Alex
May 21, 2015 2:33 pm

Richard please explain then. Were you not suggesting that some people (me) deserve a smack in the head?

Leonard Lane
Reply to  Steve
May 19, 2015 10:36 pm

Not so Steve. Try hanging a rope noose anywhere and find out how soon the FBI is on you for a hate crime.

Reply to  Leonard Lane
May 19, 2015 11:41 pm

If I have undrrstood the motivation then this is not a reaction to an isolated incident but to a continuing campaign of abusive behaviour by the “university” and its ilk.

Reply to  Leonard Lane
May 20, 2015 5:48 am

In the case of a noose in a workplace, it is not the 1st Amendment
that is invoked but workplace regulations on harassment. One can
still have a noose in their car or front yard in the U.S. Although you
might get pulled over a lot if it was a life-sized noose in the car.
If you tried it on a public university campus they would probably
shut it down but there would probably be grounds for a 1st Amendment
law suit but you are right the FBI would also be brought in to investigate
potentially terroristic threats.
The art display in the US would most likely be allowed although one
could try to argue it was a threat or incitement to violence especially
IF the written press release that went along with it was sufficiently
“threatening” in a connect the dots kind of way. In which case, the
press release might not be allowed to pass without possible legal
action but the artwork by itself would most likely be held up as
1st Amendment protected.
I am not a lawyer. This is just my opinion.

Reply to  Leonard Lane
May 20, 2015 6:45 am

One can still have a noose in their car or front yard in the U.S.
how about a large burning cross with a bunch of people dressed up like Casper the friendly ghost? is this also protected free speech? will your neighbors understand this is “Art”?

Non Nomen
Reply to  Steve
May 19, 2015 11:28 pm

The problem seems to me that there is a more or less subtle strategy behind that piece of bad taste. Lord Monckton quite rightfully mentioned the SA, the Sturmabteilung. They started their campaigns against those of a certain influence in society with very similar methods. Goebbels had the (jewish) Berlin Chief of Police Bernhard Weiss always called “Isidor” and his way of admistration the “System Isidor”. He got stopped by the courts several times but continued relentlessly.
No one by then had the guts to call Goebbels to order. All were already in some state of high expectation of the new “Reich” to come. I think it is pretty similar here.
Reverend Martin Niemöller, who served seven years in Sachsenhausen Concentration Camp, once said:
When the Nazis arrested the Communists, I said nothing; after all, I was not a Communist.
When they locked up the Social Democrats, I said nothing; after all, I was not a Social Democrat.
When they arrested the trade unionists, I said nothing; after all, I was not a trade unionist.
When they arrested the Jews, I said nothing; after all, I was not a Jew.
When they arrested me, there was no longer anyone who could protest.

You must stop these eco-universitarian fascists with their pieces of “fine art” in their tracks before it is too late.
It isn’t a matter of free speech, it is a matter of respecting other opinions and exchanging arguments and not threats. Did Lord Monckton, at any time, produce threats to life of physical condition? He is the mind-over-matter guy. And he, like all the others whose names are on that bad piece of “fine art” has the right not to be treated contumeliously,

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
Reply to  Steve
May 19, 2015 11:49 pm

Steve, usually I would agree. But sometimes, it’s is good to frighten people by using the law. Monckton’s actions will cause some distress and a little fear (I know, I have been on the end of just such a thing). The Left in Britain get away with far too much …by using the law. It’s often good to see the sword being turned.

Reply to  Steve
May 20, 2015 2:00 am

Writing someone’s name on a tombstone is not “vigorous, free discussion”.

Reply to  Steve
May 20, 2015 3:41 am

In the USA about ten years ago(in Texas or New Mexico) a man was jailed for 6 months for uttering the words, in a bar, “If he comes here he’ll be talking through a burning bush.” That’s it. Deemed a death threat and six months jail.
So stop the nonsense about all speech being acceptable in USA.

Reply to  acementhead
May 20, 2015 5:51 am

And if it had gone to the Supreme Court, it might
have been overturned. Many people go to jail for
improper reasons.

Reply to  acementhead
May 20, 2015 8:53 am

And I am sure that if what that “University” did was simply a matter of free speech, they will be eventually found innocent of any wrongdoing by a court after going through fair and simple and speedy legal process, right?

Reply to  acementhead
May 20, 2015 9:35 am

In the UK a man was hanged for uttering the phrase “let him have it.”

Sam The First
Reply to  Steve
May 20, 2015 6:35 am

This IS a matter of free speech, but not quite I think in the way you are putting it.
The University’s support of this offensive ‘artwork’ – which is not more than a propaganda stunt – is aimed precisely at shutting down free speech. It aims to intimidate Lord Monckton and other high profile sceptics, especially those in the press, into keeping quiet on the real issues.
Lord Monckton’s action is ultimately in defence of free speech.

May 19, 2015 10:26 pm

Dr. Jones should debate Lord Moncton on the subject. Dr. Jones should not fear such a debate as he is a professor on the subject while Lord Moncton is but a layman.

Reply to  Grant
May 20, 2015 3:55 am

Yeah and Tim Flannery is a professor too but he’s still an idiot*
* I don’t claim that all alarmists are idiots; quite a lot are quite smart but are riding the scam for money, lots of it. But there are still a lot of idiots such as Flannery.

George Devries Klein, PhD, PG, FGSA
May 19, 2015 10:28 pm

The issue of university campus ideology is not trivial and it is widespread. Recently, I received two emails from friends in prominent North American geoscience departments within the last three weeks. One wrote that on his campus, academic freedom, particularly regarding speech, was confined only to those who were politically correct but denied to conservatives. Another wrote that he avoided certain discussion topics because “this would pretty well end my career as a sober, well-respected geologist if I were to do so.”
I prefer not to name names, but one is a Tier I Research University in the USA, and the other is a similar university in Canada. It also pervades some scientific/scholarly professional societies too such as the American Geophysical Union and the Geological Society of America.
The real issue is how do we steer these places beck to sanity? Or as I like to put it, “how do we take these places back?”

Non Nomen
Reply to  George Devries Klein, PhD, PG, FGSA
May 19, 2015 11:41 pm


Reply to  George Devries Klein, PhD, PG, FGSA
May 20, 2015 6:19 am

“The real issue is how do we steer these places beck to sanity? Or as I like to put it, “how do we take these places back?” ”
What has happened precisely is that ideological leftists have ‘taken over’ the Universities. They disrespect academic freedom but ironically used the ideal of academic freedom to get a foothold in the 60s, to get momentum after that, and since the 80s and 90s a majority that began to enforce ‘political correctness’. That was recounted in books such as “The Closing of the American Mind” and “Illiberal Education”. Now, conservative dissent is ruthlessly stamped out. The sciences were relatively free of such nonsense until recently, but its become worse in the era of climate change hysteria.
The solution is for men and women of courage to stand up for their rights and what they believe in, just as Lord Monkton is doing.
They might want to (quietly) join the National Association of Scholars, so as to know there are others out there who are concerned.

Sam The First
Reply to  George Devries Klein, PhD, PG, FGSA
May 20, 2015 6:43 am

Precisely – I made the same point without specific examples in a comment a few posts above.
Academia is now a coercive and prescriptive environment, especially in the sciences – all of them. Research is bought, and has an intended result.
How to reclaim the Universities for academic freedom is one of the pressing questions of our age. Intimidation to enforce censorship being encouraged by a University in one of our two stellar university cities had to be countered.

Reply to  George Devries Klein, PhD, PG, FGSA
May 20, 2015 6:53 am

“how do we take these places back?”
I’ve found that arguing both sides of the question when talking to academics is one way they will listen. don’t take a point of view. rather argue both and take them to task if they are one sided in their views, as a one-sided point of view is not in the best academic tradition. don’t argue climate, argue process.

Philip Arlington
May 19, 2015 10:49 pm

If graduates of Cambridge and of Oxford (my university) and their international equivalents didn’t go along with Warmism in their droves it wouldn’t matter in the slightest what people at Anglia Ruskin thought or said about the issue. As always when something is wrong, the crucial failure is at the top.

Reply to  Philip Arlington
May 20, 2015 9:14 am

As always when something is wrong, the crucial failure is at the top.
Or it is being orchestrated.

A Crooks
May 19, 2015 10:54 pm

I am gobsmacked that they would adverise themselves on a sign as a university in quotation matks, i.e. ‘University’. Are they for real! Do they not understand what that implies in basic English? I suppose the hand out “degrees” to their “graduates”. Good luck with your action against “Professor” Michael Thorne, the “University’s” “Vice Chancellor”. I hope he ends up “losing”.

Chris Hanley
May 19, 2015 10:58 pm

The Vice-Chancellor of Anglia Ruskin University is Michael Ashcroft (Lord Ashcroft).
Lord Ashcroft has made substantial donations to Anglia Ruskin and his bust stands in the Business School which is named after him.
His view on Climate Change™ seems to be at odds with the prevailing mood at his and sadly most universities, he is probably eligible for ‘denier’ status:

Billy Liar
Reply to  Chris Hanley
May 20, 2015 3:58 pm

Notice how a number of replies to his tweet don’t consider what he tweeted but go straight for the ad hominem.

Reply to  Chris Hanley
May 21, 2015 12:38 am

“seems to be at odds with the prevailing mood at his and sadly most universities, he is probably eligible for ‘denier’ status:”
Bet they wont return his donations though

Mike Jowsey
May 19, 2015 11:07 pm

The parallel drawn between pre-War Germany and this callous piffle expressed as art is a stretch. I am inclined to think that the “Richards’ masterly three-volume history of the Third Reich” has had undue influence on Lord Monckton’s reaction to this stunt.

Reply to  Mike Jowsey
May 20, 2015 7:55 am

Your error is comparing a single stunt (the tombstone) to an entire movement (the Third Reich). In it’s early days, the Third Reich was nothing to be feared, it was just a small bunch of malcontents who wanted political power. Even in it’s heyday, the Third Reich was supported by thousands of little stunts, which served to remind people who had the power and who needed to stay quiet.

May 19, 2015 11:09 pm

that’s the University I went to, I studied Ecology and Conservation there… they said if you remember nothing else from this course you must at least remember that Theories and ‘accepted facts’ change all the time in science, being sceptical is therefore crucial – even of what we have taught you here on this course. without scepticsim, our scientific understanding might not progress or improve.

Non Nomen
Reply to  Elanor
May 19, 2015 11:32 pm

Obviously, they changed their minds about ‘accepted facts’ as well. “Party line” has become the motto…

May 19, 2015 11:48 pm

Nothing defeats an Infantile Gesture more soundly than an Infantile Gesture Masterfully Executed.
Get thee to a scrap yard. Obtain various bits and pieces of metal and from these assemble your own Infantile Gesture. I’m sure you know plenty of people who can assist by welding them into some random assembly that should stand not less than 8 feet tall. Ensure it had a broad and heavy base to ensure accidental tipping is not possible. Top it with something artistic, such as a model of a famous building half destroyed but still recognizable. Encourage a few friends with suitably imbibed spirits, and armed with spray paint, to enhance your Infantile Gesture in any manner they deem artistic.
Next comes the one and only step that will cost any amount of money, and it will be very cheap for what you get out of it. Have a professionally made bronze plaque, at least 3 feet wide and two high created and affixed to the Infantile Gesture. The wording on it, though I do not have your command of the English language would go something like this”
Ode to Monckton the Deni*r.
See what your folly has wrought.
In smaller print, it should say words to the effect of:
Donated to the Anglia Ruskin ‘University” by (make up a name), artist in residence at (make a name) at a value of $500,000. You can even make up a couple of lines about the artist’s history if the fancy takes you.
When the Infantile Gesture has been so assembled, bring it to campus on a weekend. Don’t sneak in. Call campus security and ask for their assistance in setting up the…. uhm… call it a monument at this point. Leave it in place for a couple of weeks. Ooooh, the fun part is still to come. You’ve erected your own Infantile Gesture, now comes the Masterful Execution.
Assemble a group of your friends and arm them with sledge hammers. You will also need a bull horn. Oh, and a phone. You’ll want to call a few media outlets and let them know that there is going to be an event worth covering, where, and at what time.
At the appointed hour, stride onto campus, right up to your Infantile Gesture. Using your bull horn, announce that you are disgusted and upset with this poor excuse for art, and that you and your friends are there to give it and the artist what it so richly deserves. Make sure everyone knows exactly who you are. Then proceed to smash the thing into tiny pieces.
You’ll be on the news. The head of the university will denounce you. Experts will be interviewed and asked if you’ve gone mad. Every green organization within ear shot will be tripping over themselves to join the media frenzy and trash your good name for destroying this valuable piece of art with such an important message for the world.
When the whole thing reaches Peak Frenzy, and the media can no longer back out of coverage, you call a press conference. You quietly explain that the whole thing was a stunt, that there is no artist of that name, that in fact you are the artist and…. that people are being sucked into believing CAGW nonsense as easily as they were sucked into believing your Infantile Gesture (Masterfully Executed) was real art. The media will have no choice but to admit that they were so easily duped. Some of them (you know which ones) will be so sold on their own BS that they will dispatch investigative reporters to find evidence that you are lying to cover your butt, and not the actual artist at all. They’ll dig their own hole, and pull the dirt in over their heads.
DISCLAIMER: Any similarity to past events 0f 30+ years ago is purely coincidental, I take no responsibility for the actions of others based on my clearly fictional writing which is for entertainment purposes only. And the statute of limitation on public mischief charges expired 20 years ago anyway.

Reply to  davidmhoffer
May 20, 2015 12:32 am

Or perhaps one could simply commission a modest gold-plated loo with the following lettering:
(The letters could be rearranged to say other things, as well…)

Reply to  jorgekafkazar
May 20, 2015 1:17 am

Congratulations to David Hoffer for his idea. We did something similar when I was at Churchill College. The College, which liked to appear trendy, erected various bits of distorted tin all ove the College. So we got our mates in the Engineering faculty to run up half a dozen similar clusters of scrap left over from a hyperdrive motor they were building, which were erected all over the College one night.
The next morning I asked the Bursar whether he could tell the difference between the real ones and the fakes. He admitted he couldn’t. That’s because they’re all fakes, I said. He got the point. They were gone by later that day. He sold the whole lot for scrap. Got quite a good price for the dilithium, by all accounts.

Reply to  jorgekafkazar
May 20, 2015 1:19 am

And congratulations to Jorge Kafkazar for his immortal anagram of ANGLIA RUSKIN.

Reply to  jorgekafkazar
May 20, 2015 9:24 am

Yes, a very good idea. If someone runs with it, I’ll donate my dilitium crystals.

Non Nomen
Reply to  davidmhoffer
May 20, 2015 5:58 am

Have a professionally made bronze place, at least 3 feet wide and two high created and affixed to the Infantile Gesture.

Please do not waste precious material. Resin will do.
And it is an excellent idea you got there….

Darwin Wyatt
May 19, 2015 11:49 pm

Not sure but I think the publicity surrounding this wasn’t the intention lest they advertise your position. Someone messed up as even the mere mention of your names is outlawed.
Regardless, thank you for continuing your work despite such outrageous conduct by despicable people. I can relate somewhat. At my work, I was threatened many times including bomb threats to blow up the weir I worked on. Nothing out of thousands of creel interviews with armed people ever happened save for my personal vehicle vandalized.
Me watts, say the word and I will hold a sign and peacefully protest these losers anywhere anytime (USA). Even a small fraction of mr watts readership is thousands of people here and abroad.
He has practiced great restraint I think.

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
May 19, 2015 11:51 pm

Can I have £1 for every inverted comma used on this page?

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
Reply to  The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
May 19, 2015 11:52 pm

Or perhaps I should have said quotation marks as well.

Reply to  The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
May 20, 2015 9:25 am

£1? Sorry, no. But WUWT will pay in quatloos…

May 19, 2015 11:53 pm

Lord M’s reaction is of course an over-reaction……but it is necessary…de temps en temps…..to give the “other side” a dose of their own medicine in a (usually vain) attempt to keep them honest.
Three hearty cheers for His Lordship!

David Cage
May 19, 2015 11:53 pm

It is time we stopped allowing the use of deniers even as repeated a name.It is time we started referring to ourselves as climate science accusers. They are now clearly either inept of fraudsters. No other option exists.

Reply to  David Cage
May 20, 2015 6:53 am

I think we should use the same term on them. “Climate Reality Deniers” spoken and written with frequency should render the word confusing and meaningless in climate context. And it would be a meaningly sensible moniker as well, unlike the now often used “Climate Denier.”

F. Ross
Reply to  VicV
May 20, 2015 1:53 pm

May I suggest a small change? >>> “Climate Reality’s Useless Deniers”; CRUD for short.

May 20, 2015 12:33 am

I’m fully behind Lord M. on this one.
His point was that nobody drew a line in the sand on the Nazi intimidation tactics, then it was too late.
He is drawing the line for the climate Nazis, fair play to him, I say.
If he can get the word denier classified as hate speech & deny the use of it to the Warmunistas, what a sweet victory.
I recently re-read Michael Crichton’s novel State of Fear, which awakened my interest in the climate ‘debate’.
In it he details how false sciences have lead to millions of deaths: Lysenkoism, & the famines in Russia; & Eugenics, which lead straight to Hitlers’ ovens.
The false ‘science’, actually a religion, of climate change, is designed to facilitate the introduction of a One World Totalitarian Govt, & a vast depopulation of the Earth, a project which is well started, with the EU & the UN. The novel also mentions the EPA “banning” of DDT, June 1972, which caused more deaths through malaria in the third world than Hitler caused.
If he can humiliate this ridiculous ‘University’ that’s a smashing victory.
If he can get ‘denier’ classed as hate speech that will be great.
March on Lord M.

May 20, 2015 12:34 am

I’m offended my initials never make the cut on these displays of hater ignorance. Does one have to be well-moneyed to rise to this level or be well-connected in ways we humble commenters cannot achieve? I’m ready to scream “Listen to me, haters – I’m here and I matter too!” I also hate that hating haters is hate speech in their world. I wonder too why these people can’t simply win the debate with their science, relying instead on hate speech. I can only conclude their best and only rational days are well behind them, and I gift them the notion those days have ever existed.

May 20, 2015 12:55 am

I had expected my decision to take legal action would stir up a lively debate and am not disappointed. To opponents of action, I say two things.
First, action worked. The press release is gone – a telling admission on the part of the “University” that it had done wrong.
Secondly, at US no less than at UK law, the meaning of words is determined by reference to their context. The words “Lest we forget those who denied” stand in two relevant contexts: they were graven on an object intended and worded to resemble a stele in memory of the dead, and the wider context is of more than a decade of demands that those researchers who conclude by legitimate scientific means that the impact of our enhancement of the greenhouse effect is likely to be small, harmless and beneficial should be tried and executed for alleged offenses that carry the death penalty, such as “high crimes against humanity” or “treason against the planet”. It is in thatcontext that the lessons of the Nazis’ rise to power by similar menaces against their opponents are directly relevant, and that is why it is appropriate to label the “University” as Fascist.
The “University’s” logo does not have quote-marks, of course, but my teenage graphics boys, no doubt after OD’ing on Krispy Kremes and at least two kinds of Coke, thought it would be fun to fettle up the logo and the daft station sign. So artful was their artifice – ars est celare artem – that at least one commenter here was taken in.

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
May 21, 2015 12:37 am

So Christopher are you actually going to take action or are you just talking about it again?
As Associate Professor Renwick from Victoria university in New Zealand said
“I understand he has threatened to contact the British authorities and have degrees from Victoria University deregistered. It is an empty threat. He threatens people all over the place.”
Go on Christopher, prove him wrong and do it.

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
May 21, 2015 1:04 pm

Lord Monckton … Having read maybe a hundred or so of the comments, I’m of two minds. Both sides have good arguments (bring legal action vs. leave it alone). My usual instinct is to leave the lawyers out of it … they seem to be the only winners in these kinds of affairs. However, your arguments concerning the direction of ‘climate fascism’ is very persuasive and I tend to agree that a line must be drawn.
If you do go through with your action, I would encourage you to include the artist. Ion Wolter is not a young and irresponsible teenager, and is not a typical college student. He is 48 years old and fully responsible for his actions. Please read the following write-up …
I enjoy your articles immensely … and the lively debates they inspire. Keep up the good work. Thank you.
David M Hoffer … love your suggestion! Very Breitbartian …

May 20, 2015 12:56 am

well, they dishonnour themselves with such a tombstone, and, my lord, i think you make them too much grace by paying attention to this babbling, whose purpose is obviously to harass and divert you from real issues, but also has the effect of advertasing half a dozen dissenting voice, yours included . Let the dogs bark, smile and keep up nonetheless.

Ex-expat Colin
May 20, 2015 1:29 am

Plenty of them in UK and yet to pop up:
Once upon a time Polytechs were of some worth as with Tech Colleges. Since then instructors/teachers have become lecturers. Unfortunate that. The title Professor/Doctor in my view has become somewhat untrustworthy. Perhaps largely so?
Get them when they are young….ram the alarmist climate change cr*p in at primary and secondary schools. Teach them politics at age 10 (Bewdley UK)…FFS why?

Sam The First
Reply to  Ex-expat Colin
May 20, 2015 6:57 am

And Bill Gates is doing a pretty good job of that with the support of the US and British Governments, via his ‘core curriculum’. Is it any wonder students of college or university age now have little critical faculty regarding climate claims when they have bee indoctrinated all their school days?

Jan Smit
May 20, 2015 1:40 am

Give them an inch and they take a mile, these people. That’s the way of the narcissist.
His Lordship is absolutely correct to exercise his God-given right to respond to such an offensive and personal attack within the bounds of the law of the land. Of course it’s a shame that it contributes to a more litigious environment, but that’s not his fault. The blame lies entirely with those who think they can make light of wishing someone dead – in such a public and quasi-official forum – for merely taking a sceptical position on the crisis du jour. And in a way that makes a mockery of the millions of young men and women who died some 70 years ago to defeat that vile and abhorrent creature, National Socialism.
Oh that there were many more brave individuals who, like the Good Lord, have the gumption to stand up to this creeping evil with such resolve. It needs to be checked at every juncture, for it’s like a rat trying to enter a house, constantly searching for a way in, for even a tiny crack through which it can squeeze. It is mind-numbingly persistent, hence the following:
“It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt.”
– John Philpot Curran

richard verney
May 20, 2015 1:47 am

I must confess that I struggle with the concept that a tombstone is a death threat.
Were the builders of the Pyramids of Ancient Egypt threatening death to their Pharaohs?
Were those who were drawing up plans of the state funeral of Margaret Thatcher issuing death threats against her. We have come a long way, in the UK, since the time when the mere talk of the death of the King was seen to be plotting the death of the Kind and hence viewed as treasion as, for example, the fate that befell Anne Boleyn
Death comes to us all in the fullness of time, and there is nothing in the tombstone itself that seeks to hasten the demise of any of the named individuals.
If the tombstone carried a date (detailing the date of death Eg 6th July 2015) then arguably that might be different. It could be a prediction (or in climate science speak a projection) or possibly an incitement to bring about the demise of the named individuals by the chosen date. However, as far as I know no specific future date of death is mentioned.
It is simply a matter of poor taste, and not at all funny. In my opinion, it is a typical childish leftist stunt, but that does not make into something more sinister. i do not consider that the artist deserves the attention that he/she has received from such an purile and infantile waste of space. It reminds one of the other ill judged tombstone that was in the press recently which may have played a role in the demise (in the political sense) of the labour party or its leader .

Jan Smit
Reply to  richard verney
May 20, 2015 3:18 am

And, Richard, in the same way I reprimand my 12 year old son for expressing such murderous thoughts towards his little sister, so too do these infantile minds need reprimanding. And seeing as his Lordship is one of the people mentioned on this gravestone, he is perfectly entitled to take it upon himself to respond by resorting to legal channels.
I understand that it looks to many like overreaction. I mean why not just laugh it off and move on to more important matters. But this is not really a fight against infantile minds. No, it’s a war of attrition against a dark and insidious Orwellilan spirit that is continually trying to normalise the process of criminalising scepticism and contrarian ideas. If you cannot see that the battle here is more profound than meets they eye, then – like the Good Lord has done – you need to study more closely the fertile ground of demonisation into which the seed of National Socialism was planted and then flourished.
History is repeating itself before our very eyes, and only those who wake up to this fact, and the seriousness of its potential consequences, will have the intellectual wherewithal to correctly identify the enemy and take the fight to his front door.
Yes, it ups the stakes, but escalation is precisely what we need right now. Let’s turn up the heat on these people and force their hand, for then the sooner will be revealed the spirit that lurks in the shadows, and the greater the number of sheeple who will awake from their slumber. That way, many lives will be saved…

Non Nomen
Reply to  Jan Smit
May 20, 2015 12:42 pm


Reply to  Non Nomen
May 21, 2015 12:21 am

Because one is entitled to do something doesn’t mean that one SHOULD do something. Sometimes when we are reacting in a counter-productive manner out of anger, we should listen to our friends who are observing from outside the spotlight and have seen identical situations end poorly.
Our cognitively biased brains don’t want to accept such things, but it is true: ignoring the attack, reacting with grace, reacting with pity… any of those would ruin the experience for all the perpetrators. Everything else gives them more of what they crave: attention.
Also, saying that an act deserves the death penalty isn’t a crime. Saying that someone deserves to die isn’t a crime. Soliciting someone’s death IS a crime. Offering a reward for someone’s death IS a crime. Stating that you intend to kill someone IS a crime.
If you don’t think that Lawyers (ugghh) will play on such distinctions until you WISH you were dead, you don’t know lawyers very well…

Reply to  richard verney
May 20, 2015 3:38 am

“I must confess that I struggle with the concept that a tombstone is a death threat”
I see it as encouragement of an actual murderous act by any willing eco-nut-crazy. That, after all, was the purpose of the Nazi propaganda. It encouraged murder.

May 20, 2015 1:48 am

Go Lord M. You are my hero.

Harry Passfield
May 20, 2015 1:58 am

As I commented on another blog, I particularly liked this line:

[…]I do not deny the existence of climate change, which has, after all, been happening for 6000 or 4.5 billion years, depending on your point of view.

I wonder which calendar this ‘university’ uses.

mike hamblet
May 20, 2015 2:06 am

[snip -policy violation, far more than three strikes now, yer out! -mod]

Dodgy Geezer
May 20, 2015 2:22 am

…Send the money to Cambridge University (above) instead. We’re the real thing. We’ll put it to good and proper use: the advancement not of crude, Fascist propaganda but of learning….
I’m afraid that Cambridge may not be totally free of a virus which seems to have even infected the Royal Society…

Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
May 20, 2015 5:11 am

In response to Mr. Monckton (“…Send the money to Cambridge University (above) instead. We’re the real thing. We’ll put it to good and proper use: the advancement not of crude, Fascist propaganda but of learning…”), Dodgy Geezer writes – quite pertinently –

I’m afraid that Cambridge may not be totally free of a virus which seems to have even infected the Royal Society…

Are there universities at which Mr. Monckton and other notable skeptics of the great gaudy anthropogenic global warming/ climate change/ “climate fragility” fraud have spoken? I recall as remarkable Professor S. Fred Singer’s speech at Hillsdale College (August 2007), in those pre-Climategate years of the charlatans’ effectively unchallenged ascendency.

Reply to  Tucci78
May 20, 2015 6:56 am

I have spoken at faculty level or to undergraduates at numerous universities, including Oxford, Cambridge, Durham, St. Andrews, Princeton, Rochester, Prague, Tasmania, Fremantle, Melbourne, Syracuse, Wellington, Texas A&M, Louisiana State, etc. At the last, I discovered from a terrified economics professor who had asked me to speak that a tiny group including John Abraham and other self-appointed busybodies had made determined but furtive attempts to have the invitation withdrawn, including importuning the dean of the faculty and the vice-chancellor, who, however, splendidly said that if Mr Abraham and his cronies wanted to show how higgerant I was they could turn up and try to argue the other side of the case. The meeting went ahead, was well attended, and the faculty and undergraduates present raised some sensible questions.
About half the time, Mr Abraham and his clique of anti-science, anti-freedom creeps succeed in preventing me or anyone like me from being heard. Too many universities will scream about free speech, but will no longer uphold it on their own campuses

Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
May 20, 2015 8:02 am

I hope no one minds a proud papa (me) announcing that his daughter recently graduated from Cambridge with a doctorate in education.

Another Gareth
May 20, 2015 2:30 am

Christopher Monckton of Brenchley wrote: “And don’t ever send it so much as a dime. It is an unworthy institution. Send the money to Cambridge University (above) instead. We’re the real thing. We’ll put it to good and proper use: the advancement not of crude, Fascist propaganda but of learning.”
Sadly, Cambridge do climate propaganda. They have hosted an Al Gore climate leader training seminar and started a Climate Leadership Programme for training business and political people in climate nonsense. It currently operates under the name Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership.

Non Nomen
Reply to  Another Gareth
May 20, 2015 12:47 pm

Sadly, Cambridge do climate propaganda.

They are doing it in grand style, with champagne and caviar. They ARE the ones that are paramount, occasionally even in erring…

May 20, 2015 2:53 am

I want more Monckton videos! Doesn’t the man do public forums anymore? Film them! Post them! I want more Monckton. I love to hear that guy talk. He’s as entertaining as he is informative.

Reply to  Gary
May 20, 2015 3:17 am

Gary is very kind. If he will kindly book for the forthcoming Heartland International Climate Conference in Washington DC on 10-12 June, I shall be making two presentations. Be there or be square!

Reply to  Gary
May 20, 2015 2:17 pm

Hear, hear. The latest annual climate confabs have become such dull affairs without Lord Monckton’s inimitable commentary. I do hope he will be following Paris for us.

Joe Born
May 20, 2015 2:57 am

Like richard verney, I struggle with the concept of interpreting a tombstone as a death threat.
Also, further dissemination of Monckton et al.’s paper is likely to be counterproductive. It bases a couple of otherwise-respectable propositions on the bizarre notion that one can calculate output for a model of a time-invariant system that has memory as though it were a memoryless time-variant system–and it advertises the fact that prominent skeptics had let themselves be taken in by a notion that an undergraduate engineering student should be able to recognize after his first control-systems course as totally wrong.
Much better would be for the authors to make a correction admitting their error and making clear that the respectable propositions depend in no way on the sole new thing (other than cumbersome notation) in their paper’s “model.”

Reply to  Joe Born
May 20, 2015 3:14 am

It is Mr Born who is in error. Nor did he win many plaudits here for his false assertion that I had “refused” to supply information for which he had sent me no request, and which was in any event supplied in our paper, which he had neither sufficiently read nor understood before presuming to comment hastily and ignorantly on it.
Time will tell whether our simple climate model performs better than the general-circulation models that Mr Born fails to criticise. They predict 3.2 K warming this century. We predict <1 K. We shall see.

Joe Born
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
May 20, 2015 4:01 am

Lord Monckton has worked to give the impression that there was something underhanded in my observation that Monckton et al. haven’t been forthcoming about precisely how they derived their transience-fraction values from Roe. Since he has publicly called my intellectual honesty into question, permit me some personal observations about that.
Several commenters had raised questions about the transience fraction on various threads in which Lord Monckton had participated and given (largely, non-) answers. I therefore wrote a post directed to the questions raised by that quantity and stating that the manner in which transience fraction had been derived from the Roe paper wasn’t entirely clear. In the ensuing thread Lord Monckton made a merely conclusory comment that transience fraction is unity for f\le0, and I responded that he could test that proposition’s plausibility by plotting the implied step responses ostensibly obtained from Roe. Lord Monkcton’s subsequent post stiff-armed my post’s question with the (non-) answer that “The table was derived from a graph in Gerard Roe’s magisterial paper of 2009 on feedbacks and the climate.” I then posted R code that would actually provide a plot that illustrates how those values seem inconsistent with each other. I subsequently stated yet again that “Monckton et al. don’t tell how they got from the plot to their table.”
After all this occurred in threads in which Lord Monckton was actively participating and responding (however inappositely) to comments, I submitted a comment expressing my disappointment, in light of the Table 2 rows’ apparent inconsistency with each other, that Lord Monckton had insisted on withholding the requested information about precisely how Monckton et al. inferred the Table 2 values from the Gerard Roe paper. I then submitted a further post, in which by linking “turned down” and “request” to his and my posts, respectively, I characterized his post as turning down my post’s request for that information. (At least one of Lord Monckton’s apologists later actually professed to understand from that link of “request” to my previous post that by “request” I meant an e-mail message, and Lord Monckton jumped right on the theory that an e-mail message is what I had falsely implied. This from someone who presumes to lecture me about intellectual honesty.)
In response, the authors then objected in a further post that “Mr. Born at no time contacted any of us to ask for the information he now says we are ‘withholding” and “refusing to provide.’” Of course, that was disingenuous. In view of the back-and-forth on the various threads in which he actively participated, Lord Monckton could not possibly have been unaware not only that I had asked, repeatedly, for more information but also that I had identified discrepancies that had motivated me to do so. As the repetition of Lord Monckton’s non-answer in that post suggests, moreover, repeating the request through some alternate channel would almost certainly have proved futile; as they did in that post, they would simply have continued their stonewalling.
Let’s look at what they were withholding.
According to their paper, the authors’ intention was that their “model” be used to “illuminate” more-complex climate models. Since the IPCC did not provide its models’ step responses (“evolutionary curves” in Monckton et al.’s parlance), Monckton et al. purportedly “derived” proxies from the Roe paper. They normalized Roe’s step responses and placed the resultant transience-fraction values in their Table 2. Models defined by the thereby-specified step responses are what they plugged into their Eq’n (1) to get all their example results: if the Roe responses are representative, they obtained outputs something like those that the more-complex models would yield under the same feedback assumptions. So it was important to know how they arrived at the transience-fraction values, especially because the relationships among them were puzzling.
Their paper says explicitly that each value in each of Table 2’s five rows came from the Roe paper, but it doesn’t say how. Specifically, Table 2’s heading says: “Approximate values of r_t at values f_\infty\le0 and f_\infty = 0.5, 1.3, 2.1, and 2.9 over periods t = 25–300 years, derived from [the Roe paper]”: each period’s value in each row is “derived from” Roe. But “derived from” is very much open to interpretation, particularly in view of the fact that there are at most three curves, not five, from which to eyeball values in the Fig. 4 graph, by which Monckton et al. illustrate Roe’s step-response range. Did something in Roe’s text provide a basis for the other two rows? I wasn’t able to identify anything. So, again, “derived from” doesn’t tell precisely how they got the Table 2 values. That’s the information I sought.
Now, Lord Monckton’s reply post did seem to add a little information. “The table was derived from a graph in Gerard Roe’s magisterial paper of 2009 on feedbacks and the climate,” he said. “Far from obscuring anything, we had made everything explicit.” Well, okay, then; everything’s explicit: nothing came from the text; all five rows somehow came from that graph.
This tells us that “derived” has to mean something more than just eyeballed; as we noted previously, there are more table rows than there are graph curves. We could speculate about how the “derivation” was carried out. In my second post, for example, I laid out how I had generated five curves from one by making certain assumptions, and four of the resultant curves approximated the values in four of Table 2’s five rows. But the remaining curve didn’t match the first row’s values, so Monckton et al. must have made assumptions different from mine. Why couldn’t they just tell us what they were, as I had in the case of my curves? Why do we have to speculate? I felt like Steve McIntyre trying to get information from Michael Mann.
Moreover, the assumptions they would have had to make are hard to imagine. What set of assumptions would imply that more feedback ever results in less response, as the first three entries in Table 2’s first column indicate (after multiplication by static closed-loop gain to denormalize them)? Actually, I can imagine such assumptions, but they are quite contrived. So those entries at least seem implausible, as I had already pointed out three times when the authors replied in their second post.
And what was the reply?

In our paper, Table 2 gives approximate values of the transience fraction corresponding to equilibrium feedback sums f ≤ 0 and f = 0.5, 1.3, 2.1 and 2.9. Where the equilibrium feedback sum is less than or equal to about 0.3, the transience fraction may be safely taken as unity: at sufficiently small f there is little difference between instantaneous and equilibrium response. For f on 2.1 [1.3, 2.9], the value of the transience fraction is simply the fraction of equilibrium sensitivity attained in a given year after the initial forcing, as shown in Roe’s graph, reproduced at fig. 4 of our paper.

That is, they merely repeated a portion of what their paper had already said. Is that the reply of authors who are honestly trying to explain precisely how they got five curves from at most three? I don’t think so.
Indeed, if it weren’t for their Table 2 heading’s explicit statement that all the f ≤ 0 values were derived from Roe, the “Where the equilibrium feedback sum is less than or equal to about 0.3, the transience fraction may be safely taken as unity” passage would seem intentionally ambiguous. To be consistent with Table 2’s heading, it has to be interpreted as an observation about the values derived from Roe, but one might otherwise have interpreted the reply as saying that the f = 1.3, 2.1 and 2.9 values were eyeballed from the graph but that the f ≤ 0 values were merely the authors’ assumption, that they had just made them up.
Now, I personally think there’s some evidence that at the coarse time resolution Monckton et al. used in their paper it’s a reasonable approximation to treat the climate system as memoryless (as far as the forcings of interest are concerned). But basing Table 2 entries on that assumption would have been a product of muddled thinking. To “illuminate” the “more-complex models,” Monckton et al. were ostensibly approximating them with Roe-like models, so the Table 2 entries needed to come from Roe, as the heading said they did; they couldn’t be just the authors’ postulate.
Yet I now suspect that’s exactly what they are, that Monckton et al.’s Table 2 heading is a falsehood. A subsequent intemperate comment (It was full of puerile language, misrepresentations of my position, and attacks on me, my honesty, and my punctuation) contained the following statement:

He wails that Roe’s paper has only one (or maybe three) curves but our table 2 had not one or three but five sets of values. It is plain to anyone looking at Roe’s graph that there are three curves on it. And it is also plain – and explained in the text of our paper – that our fourth set of values – unity where the feedback sum is sufficiently low – is an approximation that will not lead to significant error. As to the fifth set of values, it falls between Roe’s least curve and the very-low-feedback case.

Obviously, this is as Delphic a statement as his others about those values’ provenance; like them it could indeed be interpreted in a manner consistent with Table 2’s heading: it could be read merely as observations about value the authors obtained in some way from Roe. But to me it sounds like an attempt to provide a basis for later contending that they had all along said they’d eyeballed the graph to get the last three rows, postulated the first the first row’s unity values, and in an undisclosed manner interpolated between the first and third rows to get the second. (Comparison of the second row’s values with the first’s and third’s reveals that the interpolation approach was, well, whimsical.)
If recent history is any guide, Lord Monckton will probably dismiss the Table 2 values’ provenance as a “quibble.” I don’t think it is. Nearly all their paper’s conclusions are presented as the results of a new model that was developed over eight years of effort. Those included their featured Fig. 6’s alleged demonstration of skill. By not unambiguously identifying the first-row entries’ provenance they tended to obscure how little the §8.3 calculation on which Fig. 6 was based follows from the logorrhea that preceded it.
Without the transience fraction’s derivation from Roe, the only contributions the rest of the paper makes to that calculation (which §8.3.5 summarizes) are RCP 6.0 values of forcing and the IPCC’s estimate of open-loop gain, or “Plank climate-sensitivity parameter \lambda_0”—both of which came from the IPCC, of course, not from the authors. The authors contributed only a feedback range and the transience fraction from Table 2’s first row. Despite a nod in the direction of their Fig. 5, that feedback range’s lower limit appears to have been completely arbitrary, and its upper limit came from the almost equally arbitrary “process engineers’ design limit.” If my suspicion is correct, moreover, the transience fraction is merely a value they postulated.
So their featured Fig. 6 represents only the unremarkable conclusion, dictated merely by the definition of feedback, that the RCP 6.0 forcing level implies a temperature change that’s quite modest if the “process engineers’ design limit” and the IPCC’s open-loop-gain estimate are assumed. That recognition didn’t require a new, “irreducibly simple climate model”: the elephant had labored and brought forth a mouse.
Now, the assumption of some lower transience fraction instead of the one they postulated would not have detracted from the Fig. 6 conclusion. But that’s not the point. The point is that their transience fraction is a key quantity in their calculations, that I asked from the beginning how, exactly, Monckton et al. “derived” its values from Roe, and that they have persisted in withholding that information. Lord Monckton keeps misrepresenting my position as being that I want a more-complicated “model” or different transience-fraction values. It should be apparent by now that instead I wanted an explanation that’s clear and coherent. Such an explanation should have been easy to give.
When I accordingly remarked on their conduct the authors reacted as follows:
To allege that authors of a scientific paper have deliberately withheld requested information is to make a very serious allegation of professional misconduct. That is the allegation that Mr Born has now made twice, and in the bluntest terms. . . . He must withdraw that allegation, and be very careful in future not to repeat it.
Well, only Monckton et al. know whether their conduct was deliberate, but their withholding that information is not just an allegation; as we saw above, it’s a matter of record. To withhold means to refrain from giving. Did any of their content-free responses give the requested information? No; merely repeating where the values came from but not telling how is not giving the information. Giving the information would have been saying something like, No, our table heading is false; we really eyeballed only the last three rows from Roe; the rest we made up. They didn’t do that: they withheld the requested information. I leave to others the question of whether that constitutes, as Monckton et al. put it, “professional misconduct.”

Joe Born
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
May 20, 2015 4:22 am

I “fail to criticize” the general-circulation models only because many who are more qualified than I have done a good job of that already. Also, I, too, think that 3.2 K warming this century is highly unlikely.
But much of the public is of the opposite opinion, and for prominent proponents of more-skeptical views to base their positions on theories as mathematically inept as Monckton et al.’s “model” does not help to persuade them otherwise.

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
May 20, 2015 6:46 am

Methinks Mr Born doth protest too much, and off topic, and to no avail. Off topic, because the reference to the paper at scibull.com in the head posting was there solely to establish that in that paper we implicitly acknowledge throughout that there is a greenhouse effect and that Man has some influence on climate; and to no avail, because he said we had “refused” to supply information he had not contacted us to ask for. That was intellectually dishonest, as several commenters here pointed out: and Mr Born’s criticisms of our paper came across as “mean-spirited”, as another commetner pointed out.
The transience function is a simple enough concept. Nothing central to the paper turned on it. Our values are self-evidently a fair representation both at instantaneity and at equilibrium, and tend somewhat to overstate climate sensitivity conservatively at all points in between, and the reader is specifically told he is free to choose his own values, and that is all that needs to be said. I could argue in more detail, but the subject is off topic here and Mr Born, having acted in an intellectually dishonest fashion before, is not worthy of further discussion.

Joe Born
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
May 20, 2015 8:18 am

Monckton of Brenchley: “The transience function is a simple enough concept.”
Perhaps. But it’s too complicated for Lord Monckton to deal with. He demonstrated here and here that he doesn’t understand his own creation.
Contrary to what Lord Monckton said, the transience fraction can, as a mathematical matter, exceed unity for both positive and negative feedback values; whether it does depends on the model. In the case of models one is likely to encounter in the climate arena—and in particular of those whose transience-fraction values Monckton et al.’s Table 2 sets forth—it will never exceed unity, contrary to Lord Monckton’s contention, even for negative feedback values.
Look, Lord Monckton and his co-authors clearly just waded in over their mathematical depth. As another example of that, consider Lord Monckton’s answer to Kip Hansen’s observation that the climate system is governed by nonlinear equations rather than his model’s linear equation. He responded that “our time-series for the transience fraction is non-linear.” He repeated the error here.
Lord Monckton needs to recognize his limitations. He’s good at regurgitating on demand large volumes of what others have done and sprinkling in Latin to frighten the natives; it’s all great showmanship. But he should leave drawing logical inferences to others; his reasoning is much too muddled.
And that paper is an embarrassment.

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
May 20, 2015 1:39 pm

Mr Born continues to be off topic, and characteristically sour. He made the false allegation, twice, that I had “refused” to provide data that he had not sent any request for, and that was already in our paper anyway. He has acted in bad faith. I do not propose to discuss this matter further with one who has proven himself to be intellectually dishonest. He is of course entitled to his opinion about our paper, for the opinion of a dishonest man is little regarded.

Man BearPig
Reply to  Joe Born
May 20, 2015 3:36 pm

It is good to see someone here that understands the current climate models.,
Perhaps Mr Born could enlighten me and some others on this blog as to why the some of the current climate models can be so separate from reality, but still make the claims that they are working perfectly ?

John Moore
May 20, 2015 3:28 am

It is pleasing that the word Nazi is used quite a bit above rather than always using Mussolini’s party or Fascists. The left (used to be the Soviets) like to use the latter as they are reminded that NAZI is an acronym of National Socialism.

Reply to  John Moore
May 20, 2015 4:32 am

It is pleasing that the word Nazi is used quite a bit above rather than always using Mussolini’s party or Fascists. The left (used to be the Soviets) like to use the latter as they are reminded that NAZI is an acronym of National Socialism.

It’s for this reason that since the enactment of Obozocare in 2010, I have refused to refer to the “Liberal” fascist faction in these United States as anything other than the National Socialist Democrat American Party (NSDAP).
They infest the whole of our republic, they’ve proven themselves unremittingly socialist, they call themselves “Democrat” (when they’re anything but), they’re – to our sorrow! – American, and they’re a political party.
What else can truth in advertising admit of them?

Reply to  John Moore
May 20, 2015 7:06 am

It is pleasing that the word Nazi is used quite a bit above rather than always using Mussolini’s party or Fascists. The left (used to be the Soviets) like to use the latter as they are reminded that NAZI is an acronym of National Socialism.

Good point. The Bush Family and their neoconservative allies are the Fascists. So let’s try to keep the categories straight.

Reply to  John Moore
May 20, 2015 10:29 am

Hitler, himself, preferred the term Naso, since Nazi was slang for a bumpkin in some areas of Germany. And, yes, the Communists tried to confuse the issue by calling the German Socialists (NSDAP*) something other than the fellow-Socialists that they were. Their common trait was massive accumulation of power, resulting in State control of all facets of society. The result was 120,000,000 deaths attributable to Socialist governments. That’s 20 Holocausts. And they’re not done, yet.
* It was not merely the NSDAP terminology that identified Hitler’s thugs as Socialists; Socialism was built into their party manifesto. http://www.scrapbookpages.com/DachauScrapbook/25Points.html

May 20, 2015 3:33 am

You say “… not the student, who is manifestly not adult enough to understand the seriousness of what he has done…”. However this website: http://www.saffronwaldenreporter.co.uk/news/saffron_walden_student_wins_art_prize_1_4078710
mentions “… third year fine art student and father-of-three Ian Wolter, aged 48,…”.

Reply to  kalya22
May 20, 2015 3:42 am

Forty-eight? A mere child.

Non Nomen
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
May 20, 2015 12:51 pm

At least he behaves like one. Or rather a brat….

Man BearPig
Reply to  kalya22
May 20, 2015 3:40 pm

Perhaps then it is a list of some of the people that helped right the wrongs of climate alarmism.

lyn roberts
May 20, 2015 3:42 am

I have this week been the unfortunate witness to University Educated hospital staff/nurses knowingly ignoring a patient in severe distress, a diagnosed Anxiety issue, which I was able to recognize. The visitors and other patients in his room had more compassion and empathy than the so called educated elite idiots who choose to close their eyes and ears. I picked up his chart and looked at what his tablets were, to find that he had his own prescribed medicine that was being withheld. I was gently able to ask what the tablets were for, and he was able to tell me, a complete stranger showing some empathy was able to offer care and answer some questions that were worrying him. Over Educated Dunces, I fear for us all, go get em Christopher.

Sam The First
Reply to  lyn roberts
May 20, 2015 7:08 am

People are taught precisely NOT to think for themselves these days, in both schools and colleges. I presume you are, like me, of an older generation, taught to use our minds.

Old England
May 20, 2015 3:44 am

When will the MSM wake up to the fact that the ‘Climate Change’ scam poses the greatest threat to democracy ever seen with its intent to replace elected democracies with an unelected and unaccountable global government? A threat far greater than Hitler or Stalin ever posed – as Lord Monckton mentions above.
This is not just a battle for honesty and integrity in science and academia – something sadly missing in publicly funded ‘clmate change’ scientists – but a battle for the democracy that millions gave their lives for in the second world war. It is a battle for free-market economics against the statist marxist doctrine that is the backbone of the whole ‘climate change’ scam.
We must win it to preserve democracy and freedom for the sake of generations to come – in the same way that our fathers, uncles, grandfathers and great uncles did between 1914-18 and 1939-45 and others did during the cold war .

Reply to  Old England
May 20, 2015 4:57 am

Until the “MSM” are defunded, their position and abuse of common sense will continue.

Sam The First
Reply to  Old England
May 20, 2015 7:13 am

The TPP* is doing just the same: if passed it will enable multinational corporations to sue sovereign countries which resist their products (eg GMOs for which there has been no adequate testing on humans, and the effects of which on soil and species are irreversible). It will signal the death of any kind of democratic accountability.
‘Science’ is now completely in the pay of these tyrannical forces which seek to repress or bypass democracy at every turn.
* Trans Pacific Partnership, which both Obama and Cameron /the EU Bilderbergers are pushing through.

Reply to  Sam The First
May 20, 2015 8:07 am

Of course the definition of “adequate testing” is always, way more than has already done. Or more accurately, “until they come to a conclusion that I agree with”.

May 20, 2015 4:01 am

I can understand Lord Monckton being mightily displeased with this tasteless stunt but consider there have been many equally if not worse utterances all revealing a totalitarian mindset amongst many CAGW believers
eg In my nation Australia a failed Greens candidate for Parliament in 2010 Clive Hamilton once argued that if the public could not get it ( ie CAGW) right in whom they voted for in terms of climate policies then maybe it was time to suspend democracy!
Then there is the disgraceful use of the term “denier “which I had directed at me by a former Premier of the state of Victoria because I had the temerity to question the then carbon tax policy whose economic effectiveness I queried because the compensation to be paid partially negated the switching impact of the tax.
I also recall reading statements by some whose names I now can’t bring to mind demanding prosecution of climate deniers and one beauty which argued for compulsory psychiatric treatment for “deniers”-shades of the KGB and Siberian clinics
Maybe its time readers of WUWT collectively contributed such examples to make up a “shame file”
to be regularly updated to demonstrate the closed minds of many of our so called public intellectuals.
In conclusion it seems that the totalitarian left having abandoned religion still need a cause to believe in
In the 1940s and 50s it was belief in a dilute form of Marxism;now even the most boneheaded of those believers having seen the collapse of command economies,have turned their beliefs to CAGW which also has the double benefit of possibly bringing down their hated capitalism

May 20, 2015 4:25 am

…if you are tempted to cite Godwin’s “Law” to the effect that he who calls his opponents Nazis has lost the argument, let me cite Monckton’s Law in return: those who cite Godwin’s Law confirm ipso facto that they are active supporters of today’s Fascists.

That’s a keeper.
In actuality, of course, what Mike Godwin had proposed in 1990 regarding exchanges on Usenet newsgroups (there was no World Wide Web at the time) was simply that: “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.” This said nothing whatsoever about foreclosing further debate.

Reply to  Tucci78
May 20, 2015 10:37 am

You are correct. The statement says essentially nothing at all about the merit of such comparisons. Yet Leftists parrot “Godwin’s Law! Godwin’s Law!” endlessly, as if it constituted an actual argument. It is no more meaningful relative to the content than saying “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving a vowel approaches1.0.”

May 20, 2015 4:47 am

Did someone mention WWII? Perhaps you should watch this with an open mind.

May 20, 2015 5:24 am

Dr Aled Jones, the director of the “Global Sustainability Institute” at the University, said the “sculpture could be viewed in decades to come as a monument to a period of history that saw scientific knowledge battle to be heard above political ideologies.”

He’s absolutely right … just not the way he intended. It reminds me of:

Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!

Reply to  commieBob
May 20, 2015 5:49 am

“Ozymandias” was Ramesses 2 – who knew?
Also, there were two “Ozymandias” poems, by Shelley and Smith – who knew two?
In antiquity, Ozymandias was an alternative name for the Egyptian pharaoh Ramesses II. Shelley began writing his poem in 1817, soon after the announcement of the British Museum’s acquisition of a large fragment of a statue of Ramesses II from the thirteenth-century BC, and some scholars believe that Shelley was inspired by this. The 7.25-ton fragment of the statue’s head and torso had been removed in 1816 from the mortuary temple of Ramesses at Thebes by the Italian adventurer Giovanni Battista Belzoni (1778–1823). It was expected to arrive in London in 1818, but did not arrive until 1821. Shelley wrote the poem in friendly competition with his friend and fellow poet Horace Smith (1779–1849) who also wrote a sonnet on the same topic with the very same title. Smith’s poem would be first published in The Examiner a few weeks after Shelley’s sonnet. Both poems explore the fate of history and the ravages of time—that all prominent figures and the empires they build are impermanent and their legacies fated to decay and oblivion.
Shelley’s “Ozymandias”
I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: “Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed:
And on the pedestal these words appear:
‘My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!’
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
Smith’s Ozymandias
In Egypt’s sandy silence, all alone,
Stands a gigantic Leg, which far off throws
The only shadow that the Desert knows:—
“I am great OZYMANDIAS,” saith the stone,
“The King of Kings; this mighty City shows
“The wonders of my hand.”— The City’s gone,—
Nought but the Leg remaining to disclose
The site of this forgotten Babylon.
We wonder,—and some Hunter may express
Wonder like ours, when thro’ the wilderness
Where London stood, holding the Wolf in chace,
He meets some fragment huge, and stops to guess
What powerful but unrecorded race
Once dwelt in that annihilated place.

Reply to  Allan MacRae
May 20, 2015 10:46 am

Poetically, Shelley’s is the better. But it’s Smith’s that is most relevant, most striking in its content a hundred years and more after it was written.

May 20, 2015 5:24 am

Thank you Lord Monckton – it is essential that death threats be prosecuted.
Some history – more to come…
Regards to all, Allan
Note to Prof Richard Betts and Dr Tamsin Edwards:
Perhaps some history will help to put Tim Ball’s article into perspective – please see my post below from 2009.
Climate “skeptics” (aka “deniers”) have been the victims of vicious falsehoods, death threats (Tim Ball has received several) and actual violence. That is the reality.
Where were you good people when this was happening, and what did you do then to stop it?
By the way, Tim did not call you Nazis – that contention is a tactical diversion – those who believe he did so should actually read his article.
Regards, Allan
I am concerned that people are losing balance on this very serious issue of alleged humanmade global warming..
Having studied this subject for several decades, I have strong opinions.
For the record, I think the climate changes we have experienced in the past decades are predominantly natural, not humanmade, and probably cyclical, related to either oceanic cycles such as the PDO, etc. or solar cycles, or both.
I believe that Earth’s climate is insensitive to atmospheric CO2, and that recent increases in atmospheric CO2, of whatever cause, are not harmful to the environment, and could even be beneficial.
I believe that many carbon abatement programs are at best uneconomic, and a waste of scarce global resources that should be dedicated to solving real problems – not squandered on imaginary ones.
There is also the compelling moral issue of biofuels raising food prices, thus causing hunger among the world’s poor.
I have grown frustrated by warmists’ repeated attempts to shut down this debate and to bully so-called climate skeptics (aka “deniers”) into silence. This bullying is highly unethical, and has extended to threats of violence, and worse.
I have concluded, reluctantly, that some of the warmists’ research papers were not only in error, but were deliberately misleading.
Nevertheless, it is incumbent on all of us on this side of the debate to not emulate the worst aspects of the warmists and their arguments.
Specifically, hatred is self-defeating. So is excessive polarization.
I think we will win this debate based on science and economics, but only after many hundreds of billions have been squandered on foolish alternative energy programs such as wind power and fuel-from-food.
While this terrible waste is frustrating, it is not appropriate to drag ourselves into the mire in an attempt to compete with the other side.
Frankly, I see signs of mental instability in the wild, irresponsible statements attributed to several prominent warmists. Let us not join them down that self-destructive path.
Best regards to all, Allan

May 20, 2015 5:27 am

As promised above…
Recently sent to a friend who wrote an article critical of global warming alarmism:
You will know you have truly “arrived” when you receive your first death threat from the enviro-nuts. Dr. Tim Ball has received several. I feel somewhat slighted because I only received rather lame one – more than a decade ago.
Warmist violence has been minor – one scientist friend had the family dog killed, an oil industry colleague had his house fire-bombed – as was the Calgary Petroleum Club.
I was concerned that violence would ramp up as the warmists became more desperate – fortunately this has not happened (yet).
I did recommend many years ago that my friends take certain precautions – lock your office entrances, vary your routes home, etc. I still think this is prudent.
Environmental extremism appeals to the uneducated and the feeble-minded – fortunately most of these people are too lazy to take serious action.
Best regards, Allan
Here is a list of those forced from their institutions by global warming thugs:
George Taylor – Oregon State Climatologist
Sallie Baliunas – Harvard University
Pat Michaels – University of Virginia
Murry Salby – Macquarie University, Australia
Caleb Rossiter – Institute for Policy Studies
Nickolas Drapela, PhD – Oregon State University
Henrik Møller – Aalborg University, Denmark
Q – others?

Alastair Brickell
Reply to  Allan MacRae
May 20, 2015 6:32 am

How about adding Bob Carter, James Cook ‘University’, Townsville, Qld. Australia

Bruce Cobb
May 20, 2015 5:36 am

How about a “Lest we Forget Those Who Lied” monument with the likes of Mann, Hansen, Schmidt, Gore, IPCC, etc.

May 20, 2015 5:42 am

And meanwhile, here in the States, in a few hours President Full’O’Crap is going to give a commencement speech in which he says that all “deniers” of Climate Change are Traitors to America, because National Security.
And yet there are still people who think this isn’t a purely political fight.

Non Nomen
Reply to  wws
May 20, 2015 6:23 am

And meanwhile, here in the States, in a few hours President Full’O’Crap is going to give a commencement speech in which he says that all “deniers” of Climate Change are Traitors to America, because National Security.

Saying this ‘ex cathedra’ that fellow becomes a schyzomycete of the nation beyond comparison.

May 20, 2015 6:11 am

Anglia Ruskin, a jumped-up polytechnic which, from what we saw of it, ranks about 250th out of 133.

I wondered what kind of rinky-dink rat hole the university was, so I googled it. The wiki article paints a picture of a pretty reasonable school.
Christopher Monckton is carefully being nasty without exposing himself to legal action. It’s a bit shameful IMHO. He would be the first to point out the logical fallacy of an ad hominem attack on himself but he seems more than willing to employ it on others.

Reply to  commieBob
May 20, 2015 6:32 am

Ok, ok, on the official list it ranks 110th out of 133. It went after me with a death threat. My response has been entirely unthreatening. I’m under no obligation to be nice to the “university” in the circumstances. Their conduct had not been either “pretty” or “reasonable”.

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
May 20, 2015 8:14 am

Monckton of Brenchley
May 20, 2015 at 6:59 am
Matthew W should not be childish. In the head posting I had said the university ranked 250th out of 133. That was what we who are not Marxists or environmentalist extremist (the two political subsets seem coterminous these days) refer to as “a joke”.
My reply was to Commie bob and I didn’t think I actually needed the sarc tag

Reply to  commieBob
May 20, 2015 6:37 am

Oh dear !!
Your incredible intelligence and superior wit has just destroyed good Lord M’s credibility.

Reply to  Matthew W
May 20, 2015 6:59 am

Matthew W should not be childish. In the head posting I had said the university ranked 250th out of 133. That was what we who are not Marxists or environmentalist extremist (the two political subsets seem coterminous these days) refer to as “a joke”.

Reply to  Matthew W
May 20, 2015 7:06 am

au contraire – Anglia Ruskin destroyed it’s own credibility when it allowed itself to be used as a venue for death threats for purely political purposes. In that, Anglia Ruskin has shown itself to hold the same standards as Heidelberg University in Germany, when that institution allowed itself to become the center of Eugenics Studies during the Third Reich.
The Holocaust began in a University classroom.

Reply to  Matthew W
May 20, 2015 8:40 am

I must apologize to Matthew W for having completely misunderstood him.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  commieBob
May 20, 2015 6:41 am

How about you google the difference between satire and ad hominem?

May 20, 2015 7:00 am

Monckton’s accolade of Cambridge university, saying “… Cambridge University. We’re the real thing.” might perhaps remember a) “The Cambridge Five”, and b) the very necessary role of polytechnics such as the one he is disparaging.

Reply to  Fredb
May 20, 2015 8:33 am

I am disparaging A King’s Urinal not so much because it was formerly a polytechnic as because today it plainly has no understanding of the environment of academic freedom of scientific research and discussion that it is its duty to foster. That is why I treat it with the contempt it deserves. It is not behaving as a real university should. The fact that many other universities are similarly acting in dereliction of their duty to be places of light, of liberty and of learning is no excuse.

May 20, 2015 7:12 am

So the question here is…

Did the tombstone constitute a death threat?

I would say not. Rather I interpreted it as political comment, the tombstone representing the purported deaths caused by looming global warming.
In the U.S., Moncton would almost certainly not have a case, as the courts bend over backwards to allow free speech. In Britain free speech is not so well protected, so we’ll see.
But as sympathetic as I am towards Moncton, I value free speech even more.

Reply to  rabbit
May 20, 2015 8:07 am

“Free Speech” in Her Majesty’s kingdom is not the same as in the Colonies

Reply to  Matthew W
May 20, 2015 8:26 am

Sadly this is so. The very wellspring of individual liberty has forgotten what it means.

Reply to  Matthew W
May 20, 2015 8:39 am

“Rabbit” should not be pompous. Our democratically-elected representatives, in one of the very few areas of law in which they are permitted by the Kommissars of the European tyranny-by-clerk to make decisions and laws for us, have decided repeatedly on recent occasions that the citizen now needs protection from hate-speech and from being threatened or terrorized by malicious communications.
Do not pretend that there are no constraints on free speech in the United States. There is, for instance, a law of libel, under which Professor Fred Singer was able to extract an abject apology and retraction from a person who had made malicious and entirely baseless allegations against him. That person tried to plead the Constitutional amendment guaranteeing free speech, but the court snapped back that he was not free to lie to the detriment of another’s reputation. Same in the UK. If you don’t like that, then amend the Constitution to abolish the tort of libel.
There are other examples of the necessary marginal circumscription of free speech in the United States, but that will do to illustrate the point.

Reply to  Matthew W
May 20, 2015 9:06 am

“Rabbit” should not be pompous.

I don’t care who you are, knock off the insults.

Do not pretend that there are no constraints on free speech in the United States.

First, I’m Canadian. Second, there are constraints of free speech everywhere, but the U.S. is particularly reluctant to limit speech, especially if it is political in nature. The tombstone was offensive, but it’s questionable whether it would be considered defamatory under British law, given that In 2013 parliament expanded the defenses against a claim of defamation.

Reply to  Matthew W
May 20, 2015 9:19 am

In reply to Lord M observing
You responded

I don’t care who you are, knock off the insults.

Cue Flanagan and Alan


Reply to  Matthew W
May 20, 2015 9:49 am

Since my computer is mute, that clip fell a little flat.

Reply to  rabbit
May 20, 2015 9:57 am

In hope of helping, I suggest you would do well to follow the example of your computer.

Reply to  richardscourtney
May 20, 2015 10:13 am

Too bad for you, I am difficult to shut up.
Pretty easy to support restricting the speech of those you disagree with.
But what happens when some political party in power want to silence “climate skeptics” for the good of society? Will there be anything left of freedom of speech to shield us?
It takes courage and foresight to defend those we find offensive, but it’s worth it.

Reply to  richardscourtney
May 20, 2015 10:17 am

I did not tell you shut up. I offered some helpful advice.
If you want to continue being a pompous ass then I will enjoy the laugh.

May 20, 2015 7:20 am

Lord M; Slightly O/T…..Have you seen Theresa May’s withering put-down towards the Police Federation today? It was quite the most impressive STFU from a politician who’d just had enough. The best part was she did it right to their faces, no messing about in a press-release. She listed ‘prediction’ after ‘prediction’ of doom from the police – all of which have totally failed to materialise.
Clearly there’s a huge case for the climate debate to match her efforts. The Greens / eco whack jobs have spent decades predicting doom – and all that’s happened is crop yields are up every decade, US storms are down, floods, draughts etc are showing no trend. In fact it’s hard to find anything of substance that the eco-nutters predicted that has actually occurred. Maybe you could compile the definitive list of ‘Climate STFU’, a list of their own predictions matched to failed, non-existent outcomes? Just a thought.

Reply to  cheshirered
May 20, 2015 9:03 am

Start with the global cooling Hype from the 1970’s

May 20, 2015 7:23 am

Thanks, Christopher, Lord Monckton.
Please keep on fighting for us carbon creatures.

May 20, 2015 7:46 am

Searching Anglia Ruskin’s site today- 20/5/15- (don’t you just love that nod-among-equals to Ruskin?) it’s quite easy to find references to the magnificent artwork, and an image of it:
and supporting text:
“‘Oil waterfall’ featuring names of climate change deniers wins Anglia Ruskin prize
The names of well-known climate change deniers feature in an ‘oil painting’ with a difference, which has gone on display at Anglia Ruskin University.
The new artwork includes the names of journalists Melanie Phillips, James Delingpole and Christopher Booker chiselled under the words ‘Lest We Forget Those Who Denied’, while a constant stream of engine oil runs over the 2.2m tall memorial.
Other names to feature on the memorial stone include politicians Nigel Lawson, Christopher Monckton and Owen Paterson, the former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
The work, by third year BA (Hons) Fine Art student Ian Wolter, is the winner of Anglia Ruskin University’s Sustainability Art Prize, which is an annual competition run by the Cambridge School of Art and the Global Sustainability Institute.

Just thought you should know it hasn’t been removed. It’s still on Anglai Ruskin ‘University’ website. It’s a sub-page of the lovely Dr Aled Jones (FSRA). Wonder how long this will stay there?

Solomon Green
Reply to  Capell
May 20, 2015 11:55 am

One small addition to Lord Monckton’spost, Nigel Lawson was not only Chancellor of the Exchequer (finance minister) but had also been Secretary of State for Energy, which is the position from which the disastrous Eds, Milliband and Davey, were able to do so much damage to Britain’s energy supplies (and countryside) in the name of climate change. Sadly, from press reports the new incumbent, Amber Rudd, seems to have studied at the feet of the Eds rather than learnt under Nigel.

Reply to  Capell
May 20, 2015 1:32 pm

Looks as though the offending press release is back up again. In that event, the “university” has sealed its doom, legally speaking.

Winnipeg Boy
May 20, 2015 7:49 am

I say go after them Monckton. Three cheers. It was not meant in good taste and it is potentially dangerous. US laws do not apply, and are meaningless in this situation. The public holds climate change somewhere below a steaming pile of whale pooh on the importance scale. If this event sheds some light on the venom that the left shoots at us daily that would be a plus.
It is a shame that you have to endure this, but facing it head-on is the right move in my opinion.

May 20, 2015 7:54 am

Why fight the foot soldiers, when their orders are coming from some of the highest offices on the planet?
The intent is to sow fear and fear is a precursor to anger. The foot-soldiers are angry because they have been subjected to fear- propaganda from on high.

Matt Skaggs
May 20, 2015 7:55 am

It was in these very pages that ridicule and scorn was heaped upon Australian climate scientists who made a somewhat overwrought claimed that they had received death threats. Yet when an even more overwrought death threat claim based upon the phrase “Lest we forget…” is launched by the ever-bilious Chris Monckton, everyone here lines up in support. You just can’t make this stuff up!

Reply to  Matt Skaggs
May 20, 2015 8:25 am

The remarks by Mr Skaggs are strikingly similar to those made by appeasers in the run-up to the Nazi dictatorship. They, too, did their best to divorces every death threat from its context and characterize it as harmless. The law on both sides of the Atlantic bears in mind the context within which a menacing statement is made. The context is of hate speech directed at us in the most vicious terms, and often by people who are paid to do nothing but try to discredit us. The context is of that hate speech embodied in a shameful but menacing press release issued under the name and with the authority of the “university”. The context is of increasingly frequent and public demands that we should be tried and executed for “high crimes against humanity” or “treason against the planet. These threats are made not only by intellectually-immature students but also by tenured professors and leaders of major scientific institutions, as well as by politicians.
If no one stands up against them, the danger that the “governing body” to be established by the Paris Treaty this December will gradually morph into a dictatorship that uses the proposed “international Climate Court” to put climate skeptics on show trial cannot be simply shrugged off. The rhetoric of hate and threat has become altogether too frequent, too persistent and – the greatest lesson from the Nazi era – too unchallenged.
Mr Skaggs should perhaps read the “University’s” press release before deciding that no offense has been committed. In UK law, threatening or malicious communications that are publicly circulated are a crime. He may wish that that were not so, but I am entitled to take protection from the monsters at the “university”, and I have decided to do so.
It is easy enough for Mr Skaggs to scoff. He has not been on the end of this hate speech for a decade, as I have. And imagine how poor Dick Lindzen must feel, after putting up with a third of a century of continuous malice from the intellectual pymies of the eco-Socialist Left.

Matt Skaggs
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
May 20, 2015 9:20 am

Thanks for the quick response, Chris, you’ve given me much to work with. Do you really think that eco-activists are the moral equivalent of Nazis? How do you distinguish between your phrase “nastiest totalitarian bullies” and “hate speech?” Are you aware that the statements “as the danger that an unelected world government will be inflicted upon us at the Paris climate summit…” and “increasingly frequent and public demands that we should be tried and executed for ‘high crimes against humanity’…” pretty much constitute the apex of hysterical conspiracy ideation? You are quite the piece of work, with your inherited money and your self-worship.

Ian Macdonald
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
May 20, 2015 11:42 am

Matt Skaggs: Just to clarify, I am an activist. I have in the past campaigned on environmental and human rights issues, so I guess that makes me a greenie of sorts. However, the global warming scare is NOT eco-activism. It is a scam, pure and simple. A scam with a political agenda behind it. We activists should not be wasting our campaigning efforts on this nonsense,
If a few more of my fellow activists (some of whom viciously disagree with me over this, even to the point of threatening to start a fistfight over it!) could see the wood for the trees, that they are being cleverly duped into lending their time and effort to spreading AGW propaganda instead of pursuing more worthy causes, then the driving force behind the scam would be taken away, and it would then collapse of its own accord.

Matt Skaggs
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
May 20, 2015 12:35 pm

Hi Ian,
You are preaching to the choir. Based upon what you wrote, it looks like we fit into the same lonely quadrant of the scatter plot showing belief in AGW vs. political alignment. I share your AGW skepticism, you can read the proof of that in my essay published at Climate Etc.
But as for “scam”…what is it with WUWT commenters and conspiracy ideation?

Reply to  Matt Skaggs
May 21, 2015 12:42 am

I believe there was a (laughable) published paper that addressed that very question…

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
May 21, 2015 1:30 am

Matt Skaggs
You ask

what is it with WUWT commenters and conspiracy ideation?

People who frequent WUWT know that a coincidence of interests is usually more powerful than any conspiracy.
“Conspiracy ideation” pertaining to climate realists is a nonsensical idea promulgated by the most lunatic fringe of believers in man-made global warming.

Reply to  Matt Skaggs
May 20, 2015 9:01 am

Matt Skaggs,
The Australian climate scientists’ ” death threat ” ploy was ridiculed here as it was manifestly false, a lie. It was a completely made up and deliberately dishonest scare story intended t draw sympathy and it drew ridicule that it deserved. I suggest that you read up on that topic and what actually transpired before passing comments which show your ignorance on the specific subject.

Matt Skaggs
Reply to  Venter
May 20, 2015 9:23 am

Dunno if you are an American, but we have a saying that is considered “Cowboy Wisdom:”
The first thing to do when you find yourself in the bottom of a hole is to stop digging.

Jay Hope
Reply to  Venter
May 20, 2015 3:46 pm

‘Inherited money’, Skaggs, that says it all………..Jealous???

Reg Nelson
Reply to  Matt Skaggs
May 20, 2015 10:00 am

There was no evidence to support the Australian climate scientists claims. These “threats” were never reported to the police. The scientists were asked to provide the emails and they refused.
In this case, the proof was displayed both on the “University’s” website and reported in the press.
Two entirely different situations.

Reply to  Matt Skaggs
May 20, 2015 10:12 am

Matt Skaggs,
The ” cowboy widsom ” is characterised by your bullshit. I have specifically stated facts of the so called Australian climate scientists’ ” death threats ” . That was a lie created by them. You dd not bother to read the thread you referred to which appeared here some time ago in WUWT and yet you quoted it without knowing what the thread was about. When I pointed out that you had your facts wrong, you are spreading BS.

Reply to  Matt Skaggs
May 21, 2015 5:01 am

@ RSC:
Here’s how it was put here about 4 years ago:
“A conspiracy is unnecessary if a carrot will suffice.”

Dodgy Geezer
May 20, 2015 8:16 am

Do we have a ‘hate-speech’ law in the UK yet? I would have thought this would count…

Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
May 20, 2015 8:27 am

Dodgy Geezer, as often, is on point.
The Justices of the Peace Act 1361, at s.1, prohibits conduct likely to besmirch the peace.
The Public Order Act 1986, at s. 4, makes menacing communications an offense.
The Malicious Communications Act 1988, at s. 1, also makes menacing or malicious communications an offense.

May 20, 2015 8:52 am

There was a time when a man’s reputation was his life. In those days, you could only conduct business based upon reputation. Nobody would buy/sell to/from you without knowing your reputation. People would proudly display letters of reference as proof positive of their character, honor, and station in society. Any transgression could mean public embarrassment, and even the most trusted of friends could shun you for fear of being associated with you. Losing one’s reputation could cost one his living, his family, his friends, nearly everything.
So important was this notion that any challenge to one’s character could draw a demand for a duel. People would quite literally risk their lives in order to maintain their reputation by challenging the offending party to a fight to the death. Formal procedures and laws about how this was to be resolved were in place. Refusing to fight meant the assertion lacked conviction, and this in turn could cast doubts on the reputation of the accuser.
While this whole notion seems antiquated, there was an important societal benefit. Any accusation of dishonesty or attack upon character carried with it the weight and gravity of knowing how quickly and seriously such a charge could escalate. People therefore rarely attacked each other’s character, making society much more civil. And when such rare character challenges did occur, it was a serious matter which drew the attention of all concerned.
It is important to note the laws governing speech and the other freedoms were crafted in such an environment. People then valued their reputations and civility that these were underlying assumptions about societal behavior when the constitution was drafted. Unfortunately those assumptions no longer hold true. People no longer cherish their reputation on the same level as their life, and the absolute decay in character and civility is a result. One need only look at the political process to see the tragedy in this.
I applaud Lord Monckton’s attempt to demand civility. If you wish to take issue with his position, hold a civil debate and win your points in the arena of ideas. Assassination of character is a cowardly way to try to win a scientific debate, and particularly troubling for an institution of higher learning. Any amount of shame and ridicule he can heap upon them is only right and just. Good luck to you, sir.

Mickey Reno
May 20, 2015 9:01 am

Milord Monckton, although I’m a big fan, I hope you can dial back the worst of your more hyperbolic tendencies. This is NOT a credible death threat.
Furthermore, we should all welcome the use by alarmists of the term “denier.” As I once explained to Phil Plait and his silly sycophants, such smears will taint the smear mongers far more than it will impugn their targets. They didn’t listen, of course.