Complaint of Breach of Poynter Institute Principles on the Part of the Far-Left “Climate Feedback” Propaganda Website

Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

Poynter Institute:                                           

Gentles,                                                                                                                         20 April 2022

Complaint of breach of Poynter Institute principles on the part of the far-Left “Climate Feedback” propaganda website

The “Climate Feedback” propaganda website alleges that you have certified its compliance with your “fact-checking” “principles”. “Climate Feedback” is one slimy tentacle in a writhing network of far-Left soi-disant “fact-checking” organizations whose true purpose to silencing those of us who, on sound scientific grounds, oppose the crippling of our energy infrastructure in the specious name of Saving The Planet from an imagined emergency or catastrophe arising from mildly warmer weather worldwide.

If you have indeed “certified” that website, I now request that you will decertify it.

A recent hit-piece published by the “Climate Feedback” website, and directed at me personally, manifests the following breaches of the “principles” laid down by your organization:

  1. “A commitment to non-partisanship and fairness”

Ground #1 of complaint: I can find no record of any request by the “Climate Feedback” propaganda website for comment by me on its prejudiced, anti-scientific allegations before those allegations were published. Had I been given the opportunity to comment, I should have been able to explain – to name but one instance – that the control-theoretic formula that my team uses, under the guidance of a tenured Professor in that subject and three control engineers” – is not, as the hit-piece mendaciously asserts, an “invented formula”. That is a grave and libelous allegation, and it ought not to have been published under any circumstances unless it had been put to me for comment first.

Ground #2 of complaint: The “Climate Feedback” website is not non-partisan. It only publishes hit-pieces against those who, on sound scientific grounds, question the climate-Communist Party Line that it espouses, while fawningly supporting those who endorse the Party Line. For instance, the current homepage mentions the following items, each of which portrays a relentlessly one-sided, narrow-minded, partisan view of the climate-change question, contrary to your “principle” of “a commitment to non-partisanship and fairness”:

  1. The hit-piece against me;
  2. An adulatory endorsement of a whining article in the far-Left Washington Post to the effect that three-quarters of the Amazon rainforest is losing “resilience”, whatever that may mean;
  3. A hit-piece against the non-Communist Wall Street Journal and against Steven Koonin, for having suggested that Greenland’s melting ice is no cause for alarm. I say “correctly” because the published data for ice loss, particularly when netted off against ice gain on the high plateau ringed by mountains that constitutes nearly all the Greenland land area, would imply a sea-level rise of little more than 0.7 mm per decade. The hit-piece contains numerous nonsenses, such as “… most glaciers around the planet are also melting at an accelerating pace”, when, in reality, most glaciers around the planet are in Antarctica, where the 30-year trend shows accumulation of ice, and very nearly all of the world’s 160,000 glaciers (most of them in Antarctica) have never been visited or measured by Man.
  4. A hit-piece on Prager University for “repeating a range of misleading claims by Steven Koonin”. Again, the pattern is to cite only climate-Communist sources and to suppress or water down evidence contrary to the Party Line.
  5. A fawning support for CNN’s contention that rain had fallen on the summit of the Greenland plateau for the first time on record. There was no mention of the fact that monitoring of that vast plateau is sparse and incomplete; that the temperatures on the Greenland summit have been declining for many millennia; or that it was almost certainly warmer on the Greenland summit in the 1930s than it is today. It is the relentless suppression of all sources, however credible, that counter the Party Line, and the glorification of all sources, however dubious or dubiously-funded, that endorse the Party Line, that is the chief reason why the “Climate Feedback” website should no longer be regarded as plausible. It should certainly no longer be “certified” by the Poynter Institute.
  6. A bed-wetting piece on how all the sea ice in the Arctic will be gone at midsummer by mid-century, but no mention of the fact that scientists had confidently predicted there would be no summer sea-ice in the Arctic by 2013. It is now 2022 and the summer sea-ice is still there, underlining the point of my article – to which the “Climate Feedback” website’s childish hit-piece was a counter-factual response – that the rate at which the planet is warming is very considerably below what had originally been predicted, and that no small part of the reason for the climate Communists’ past over-predictionis the elementary error of control theory that the soi-disant “editor” and “reviewers” at the website were and are entirely unqualified to understand, let alone to criticize.
  7. A fawning piece congratulating Google/YouTube for demonetizing any content on its platforms that “contradicts well-established scientific consensus around the existence and causes of climate change”. The use of the word “consensus” is a red flag for Communism. The use of the word “around” in the manner shown in the above quotation has also been flagged by Western intelligence services as an indicator of a Communist mind-set. It does not matter how “well-established” a “consensus” is, if the “consensus” is flat-out wrong.

Ground #3 of complaint: The “Climate Feedback” website advocates for only one policy position on the climate question: the sullenly anti-Western position that has enriched Mr Putin by helping him to knock out coal-fired competition for Siberian gas, and Mr Xi by banning real autos and enforcing replacement of them by electric buggies that consume 30% more energy per mile travelled, add to emissions in levelized-cost terms, and depend utterly on lithium carbonate of which China controls about 100% of the global supply.

Ground #4 of complaint: The hit-piece talks of an “overwhelming consensus” about climate change. The notion that any scientific question may be decided by “consensus” is totalitarian and anti-scientific. Argument from consensus is an unholy conflation of two logical fallacies: argument from mere headcount and argument from appeal to the authority or reputation of imagined or self-proclaimed “experts”. No website purporting to “check” facts on any scientific question should ever present an imagined “consensus” as an argument for its position. In any event, there subsists no consensus as to the quantum of global warming that may be expected to arise in consequence of our sins of emission. Our research indicates it will continue to be slow, small, harmless and net-beneficial.

Ground #5 of complaint: Contrary to the requirement in the “Principles” that certified fact-“checking” entities should not participate in campaigning on one side or another of an issue, the “Climate Feedback” website has been actively campaigning to induce internet providers to demonetize all websites that publish any material contrary to what the website’s operators call the “overwhelming consensus” about climate change.

  • “A commitment to standards and transparency of sources”

Ground #6 of complaint: The hit-piece lists various sources in support of its mendacities, but it fails to reveal that all of those sources are from only one side of the climate debate – the far-Left, totalitarian side. Sceptical sources are not cited at all. The sources cited include the following –

  • Schmidt, a known climate-fanatic campaigner, writing at a long-discredited and now-moribund climate-Communist website;
  • Oreskes, a self-confessed lifelong Communist who argues solely from the notion of “consensus”; but no mention of Schulte (2008), updating Oreskes’ figures and showing them to have been false;
  • Anderegg, another pedlar of the anti-scientific “consensus” notion, whose sample size was far too small for significance, but no mention of Legates et al. (2013), showing a mere 0.3% “consensus” to the effect that recent warming was chiefly manmade’
  • Cook, another self-confessed Communist investigated by police in Australia for having published a paper asserting that 97.1% of 11,944 papers published on climate and related topics over the 21 years 1991-2011 had said recent warming was mostly manmade, but no mention of the fact that Cook’s own list of all 11,944 papers, marked up by him, showed that only 41 papers, or 0.3% of the entire sample, had said that;
  • NOAA, which has long and profitably championed anti-scientific catastrophism, but no mention of the fact that its climate-fanaticist former director, one Karl, had been humiliatingly debunked by me in front of the U.S. Congress on the temperature record;
  • Cheng on sea level, but no mention of contrary sources such as Mörner, the world’s ranking expert, who published more than 600 papers on the subject in his long career, or the Envisat satellite-altimetry record, or Wysmuller’s research on adjustment for regional variability in post-Ice-Age tectonic recovery rates.
  • HadCRUT4 surface-temperature dataset, but no mention of the University of Alabama at Huntsville dataset that was the focus of the article the hit-piece purported to fact-“check”.
  • WMO report on “acceleration” of climate change, but no mention that the WMO is highly partisan and gave great prominence to the long-discredited “hokey-stick” graph purporting to find recent warming unprecedented on the basis of incorrectly-assessed dendrochronology combined with outright data-tampering.

Ground #7 of complaint: Though the hit-piece aimed to make the false and grave allegation that I had used an “invented formula” from control theory, not one of the sources cited in the hit-piece has any expertise in control theory, the well-developed and amply-demonstrated branch of engineering physics devoted to the mathematics of feedback analysis. Yet the hit-piece fails to make it clear that it has no suitably-qualified source for its false and baseless allegation.

Ground #8 of complaint: The hit-piece deliberately misrepresents the sources I had used for the assertion that there has been no trend in global mean temperature over the past seven and a half years and more. It states that I had relied on a single surface-temperature dataset, when my primary source was in fact the UAH lower-troposphere temperature dataset, whose output I have been tracking for more than a year with monthly updates. The hit-piece fails to mention the UAH dataset at all, inferentially because the authors are desperate not to let it have any publicity.

  • “A commitment to transparency of funding and organization”

Ground #9 of complaint: Though your “principles” require those whom you certify to provide easy means of communication with the “editorial team”, no email is provided for the listed “guest editor”, one Doherty.

Ground #10 of complaint: Neither of the two soi-disant “reviewers” had his email address listed on the “Climate Feedback” website.

Ground #11 of complaint: The “Climate Feedback” website, which provides a contact email address, did not respond to two emails from me to that address requesting a right of reply.

Ground #12 of complaint: Neither of the two soi-disant “reviewers” replied to emails sent to them at their university addresses.

  • “A commitment to standards and transparency of methodology”

Ground #13 of complaint: Though your “principles” require that evidence on both sides of a question under consideration should be presented, the hit-piece cites sources and evidence only on one side of that question, and actively suppresses evidence for the truth of various matters it alleges I had stated incorrectly.

Ground #14 of complaint: The hit-piece did not follow any standard methodology for deriving the trend on monthly global mean surface or lower-troposphere datasets. Instead, it not only suppressed all mention of the UAH dataset that was the foundation of the article it was attacking. Instead, it stated that datasets for ocean heat content continued to show increased warming of the ocean. However, no attempt was made to translate the ocean heat content into ocean temperature (which has barely changed in decades), and no attempt was made to identify the extent to which natural factors such assubocean volcanism, particularly at the divergence ridges that meet under el Niño regions 1 and 2, are responsible for such little ocean warming as is evident.

Ground #15 of complaint: The hit-piece displays a striking ignorance of control theory, the field of science borrowed and fatally misunderstood by climatology, leading it to make grossly excessive predictions of temperature-feedback strength and consequently of global warming. Yet nowhere is it explained that none of the “authors” or “reviewers” or “sources” has any relevant training, certification, knowledge or experience in control theory, and that the hit-piece’s conclusions on that subject are simply made up. They are a lie.

  •  “A commitment to an open and honest corrections policy”

Ground #16 of complaint: No response has been received to my request to be given a right of reply so as to set the record straight and provide sources other than climate-Communist sources.

I now require the Poynter Institute to instruct the handsomely-funded operators of the “Climate Feedback” website either to grant me a right of reply or to publish the statement of which a draft follows.

Yours truly,

Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

Statement by the Poynter Institute

Lord Monckton has complained to the Poynter Institute that the “Climate Feedback” website certified by the Institute is in breach of the Institute’s fact-checking principles. The Institute has upheld His Lordship’s complaint and has directed the website to publish the present statement within seven days.

The Institute has issued the following findings, following Lord Monckton’s numbered grounds of complaint:

  1. The Institute finds that no one for or on behalf of the “Climate Feedback” website contacted Lord Monckton to hear his side of the case before it saw fit to publish a hit-piece calculated to be detrimental to His Lordship’s reputation and to mislead the public. The Institute reminds all those whom it certifies that they are required to adhere to the two principles of natural justice: namely, that both sides should be fairly heard and fairly allowed to express their opinions, and that no one should be the judge in a cause that he has made his own.
  2. The Institute finds that the “Climate Feedback” website is not non-partisan, in that, as Lord Monckton demonstrated in his letter of complaint, all of its recent articles on the climate change question have reflected only the catastrophist side of the case, with little or nothing fairly to reflect the skeptical side of the case. The Institute is particularly concerned at the evidence that the “Climate Feedback” website has been actively suppressing data that point against what the website calls the “consensus” position, even where those data were presented in the articles the website’s operators have seen fit to “fact-check”.
  3. The “Climate Feedback” website has been reckless as to whether its partisan approach to the climate question may contribute to the harm caused to Western nations by international climate policies that give an undue terms-of-trade advantage to Russia through the enforced removal of coal-fired competition, and to China through the enforced replacement of gasoline-powered vehicles with heavily-subsidized electric vehicles dependent upon lithium carbonate, of which China is the near-monopoly supplier worldwide. The Institute will be following up indications from Lord Monckton that certain of the “Climate Feedback” website’s corporate funders may be, or may be acting under the influence of, or under financial subornation by, Russian and Chinese agents of influence.
  4. The Institute was particularly concerned at the evidence that the “Climate Feedback” website has sought publicly to justify its partisanship on the climate question by asserting that there is an “overwhelming consensus” on the climate-change question. The Institute’s principles are clear: fact-checking websites must neither be, nor be seen to be, partisan. The Institute is persuaded by Lord Monckton’s statement that argument from “consensus” is a conflation of the logical fallacies of argument from mere headcount and argument from appeal to authority, and that to appeal to “consensus” in any scientific matter is to be partisan.
  5. The Institute hereby instructs the “Climate Feedback” website to cease all campaigning activities on the climate question if it wishes to remain certified. In particular, the Institute was concerned at the evidence provided by Lord Monckton to the effect that the website’s operators have been applying pressure to internet content providers so that they will censor views on the climate question with which the website’s operators disagree.
  6. The Institute finds that, in respect of the article attacking Lord Monckton, many of the sources the “Climate Feedback” website had relied upon are known partisan sources, some of them wholly unreliable by any objective standard. If the website wishes to retain its certification, it must henceforth properly present evidence from sources on both sides of the climate-change question, not merely from the side that its operators favor, and it must cease to cite dubious or defective sources.
  7. The Institute finds that the “Climate Feedback” website was wrong to state that Lord Monckton had used what its operators saw fit to describe as an “invented formula” in support of His Lordship’s argument that an elementary error of physics had misled climatologists into imagining that global warming would be far more rapid, severe and disruptive than has since proven to be the case. His Lordship had contended that in the 1980s climate scientists had first borrowed feedback formulism from control theory, but had misunderstood it. They had assumed that at the temperature equilibrium in 1850 the 8 K direct warming by preindustrial noncondensing greenhouse gases had driven the 24 K feedback response, chiefly through more water vapor in warmer air, so that for every 1 K of direct warming by greenhouse gases one might expect 4 K of final or equilibrium warming after allowing for feedback response. Lord Monckton is correct that at any given moment (such as 1850) the feedback processes then acting upon any dynamical system, such as the climate, must perforce respond not only to the perturbation signal (which, in climate, is direct warming by greenhouse gases) but also to the base signal (which, in climate, is the 255 K emission temperature that would prevail on Earth even if there were no greenhouse gases in the air at that moment). Therefore, Lord Monckton is correct in stating that the correct formula for the system-gain factor derivable on the basis of data for 1850 is not 32 / 8 = 4, as numerous climatological papers have erroneously stated, but (255 + 32) / (255 + 8) > 1.1. Therefore, on that basis, each 1 K of direct warming by greenhouse gases can be expected to engender not 4 K but 1.1 K of final warming. The Institute is concerned that the “Climate Feedback” website’s operators should have dismissed Lord Monckton’s formula as an “invented formula” when none of the editors or reviewers in question possessed any relevant expertise or practical experience in control theory. Their false statement that His Lordship’s was an “invented formula” shows a reckless disregard not only for His Lordship’s reputation but also for any of the Institute’s principles.
  8. The Institute finds that the “Climate Feedback” website, in attacking Lord Monckton for having said there had been no global warming for seven and a half years, had deliberately withheld all mention of the actual dataset on which Lord Monckton’s series of monthly articles is based – the University of Alabama at Huntsville dataset. That dataset indeed shows a zero least-squares linear-regression trend for seven and a half years. Withholding that fact was calculated to mislead the website’s readers.
  9. The Institute finds that the “Climate Feedback” website acts in breach of the principles by withholding the email address of the “guest editor” in charge of the piece attacking Lord Monckton.
  10. The Institute finds that the “Climate Feedback” website acts in breach of the principles by withholding the email addresses of the two “reviewers”.
  11. The Institute finds that the “Climate Feedback” website, in not replying to two requests from Lord Monckton for a right of reply, has acted in breach of the principles, which require those certified by the Institute to make sure that corrections are promptly published. Significantly, neither the website nor the two “reviewers” challenged the point-by-point refutation sent by Lord Monckton. Inferentially, they realized they were in the wrong, but were unwilling to admit their errors.
  12. The Institute finds that the two “reviewers” of the piece attacking Lord Monckton were under a general obligation to reply to his email to each of them drawing attention to their errors. Their failure to reply was a serious breach of the principles, and is not to be repeated.
  13. The Institute finds that the “Climate Feedback” website’s choice of sources and presentation of material on the climate question, both in the attack piece against Lord Monckton and generally, are breaches of the principles.
  14. The Institute finds that the entire basis for the “Climate Feedback” website’s attack piece against Lord Monckton was defective, in that that piece did not make sufficiently explicit the fact that the least-squares linear-trend analysis used by Lord Monckton – and used correctly – by His Lordship – is a standard method of analysing time-series data. Furthermore, the attack piece withheld all mention of the UAH dataset that was the chief focus of Lord Monckton’s article, inferentially because that dataset verifies the truth of Lord Monckton’s assertion. In essence, the hit piece sought to maintain that Lord Monckton was obliged to mention every dataset, including ocean-temperature datasets, even though the subject of his articles was global mean surface air temperature. That is not fact-checking: it is prejudice. The operators of the “Climate Feedback” website, committed to what, on the evidence, is a non-existent “overwhelming consensus” as to the magnitude of the anthropogenic contribution to the small warming over the past century, tried and failed to hold Lord Monckton to account by saying that they preferred to rely upon data that suited their own belief, and that Lord Monckton was not entitled to present, or to draw conclusions from, data that ran counter to their belief. That was an abuse of the process of fact-checking in science, and one which, if it is repeated, will lead to the permanent decertification of the “Climate Feedback” website.
  15. The Institute finds that the failure of the operators of the “Climate Feedback” website to consult anyone with sufficient expertise in control theory to comment fairly or competently on the research by Lord Monckton’s team concerning climatologists’ application of control theory to temperature feedback analysis was a particularly serious breach of the principles. One cannot state that a scientific fact is incorrect if one has not consulted anyone with sufficient scientific knowledge upon which to found any such statement. Particularly having regard to this ground of complaint, the Institute has instructed the “Climate Feedback” website’s operators to apologize to Lord Monckton and to retract their attack piece, which contravenes the principles in multiple respects.
  16. The Institute finds that the “Climate Feedback” website has failed to respond properly or at all to Lord Monckton’s complaint, and that it is accordingly in breach of the principles. If, therefore, the website’s operators will not give His Lordship the right of reply to which he is in the circumstances fully and fairly entitled, the Institute instructs them to display this statement in full and in perpetuity, and to keep it prominently displayed and directly (one-click) linked from the homepage for as long as “Climate Feedback” remains certified by the Institute. failing which the Institute will, without further notice, decertify the “Climate Feedback” website and flag it as unreliable.
4.8 31 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
M Courtney
April 21, 2022 6:04 am

the climate-Communist Party Line

Such intemperate language will not lead to the complaint being taken seriously. Regardless of any other merits the language may conceal.

Reply to  M Courtney
April 21, 2022 7:09 am

It would appear by the Poynter Institutes detailed response that it has been taken seriously.

Mark BLR
Reply to  Sunderlandsteve
April 21, 2022 8:38 am

It would appear by the Poynter Institutes detailed response …

Read the end of the article, just before the “signature”, again :
“I now require the Poynter Institute to instruct the handsomely-funded operators of the “Climate Feedback” website either to grant me a right of reply or to publish the statement of which a draft follows.”

Everything after the “signature” is what CMoB would like the PI to issue as a press release, not what they have actually released …

Reply to  Mark BLR
April 21, 2022 10:41 am

The wording does lend itself to ambiguity –

“of which a draft follows” could be taken to mean that the draft had been sent.

But then the placement of the next header – “Statement by the Poynter Institute” – is not introduced as the draft statement to which as yet no response has been received.

And so readers could be excused for thinking that Poynters had responded by publishing the draft as a statement.

My old sub-editor from my early days as a cadet reporter would have sent this piece back to me with a red pencil insert to the effect that it needs to be made clearer at the outset that Lord M is still waiting for a response to his draft statement.

Ron Long
Reply to  M Courtney
April 21, 2022 8:14 am

Considering his disgusting treatment Lord Monckton is entitled to “intemperate” language. I would even consider sending him some of the colorful (really intemperate) comments I learned from Australian drillers.

Reply to  M Courtney
April 21, 2022 8:26 am

I challenge your claim, Courtney. Lord Monckton correctly established that the use of “consensus” reasoning and the disregarding (and downright shaming) of claims against the established consensus is a tactic both of historic communism and historic totalitarianism for the purpose of filtering out “dissident” information. His categorization is sharp but correct. I would expect his audience to have the mental fortitude to persevere through stinging rebukes in pursuit of genuinely understanding his complaints. Lord Monckton did not overplay his response.

Reply to  leowaj
April 21, 2022 12:44 pm

Even if it were not accurate – you do not drain a swamp by refusing to get muddy.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  M Courtney
April 22, 2022 4:15 am

It is objectively true that the originators and the majority of the perpetuators of the official narrative on climate are Russian or Chinese Communist agents of influence or supporters of Communism. That is not to say that everyone who follows their lead and drifts along with the official narrative, as I originally did, is Communist. As Lenin made clear, there are plenty of useful idiots.

By now, regulars here should know that I call a spade a spade and not a one-person-operated, manually-controlled, foot-powered implement of simple and robust yet adequately efficacious ligno-metallic composition designated primarily but by no means exclusively for utilization on the part of hourly-paid operatives deployed in the agricultural, horticultural or constructional trades or industries, as the case may be, for purposes of carrying out such excavational tasks or duties as may from time to time be designated by supervisory grades as being necessary, expedient, desirable, apposite or germane with regard to the ongoing furtherance of the task or objective in hand or, on the other hand, underfoot, Comrade Chairman.

Tom Halla
April 21, 2022 6:26 am

Climate Feedback is comprised of True Believers, and are a shining example of Noble Cause Corruption.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Tom Halla
April 21, 2022 4:28 pm

Its just plain corruption: Ideology (political) and money, mostly. Enough facts are out there such that any honest assessment of the science would indicate there is no climate crisis, much less an existential one.

Jim Gorman
April 21, 2022 6:30 am

Right ON!!! 👏👍

Danley Wolfe
April 21, 2022 6:33 am

Saw already, Monckton to me. repost repost repost.

Reply to  Danley Wolfe
April 21, 2022 10:25 pm

So it’s ok for the Misleadia to regurgitate the same left-wing propaganda (Covering Climate Now for example) but not for blogs to repost articles?

John Garrett
April 21, 2022 6:54 am

Now that’s a rogues gallery if ever I saw one.

Reply to  John Garrett
April 21, 2022 7:20 am


John, your climatefeedback link needs a scary-content warning.


Reply to  Bob Tisdale
April 21, 2022 8:11 am

Among their “Reviewers” is Sarah Myhre, a woman who fervently believes, with regard to the AGW issue — and I quote verbatim — “People Respond to Emotions, They Don’t Respond to Facts.” One can only guess how much pure emotion goes into any one of her reviews of fact-based science analysis from AGW skeptics.

Reply to  Russell Cook
April 21, 2022 9:05 am

It’s been my observation that those who respond to emotional arguments rather than factual arguments are the same people who put authority above facts and in both cases, this intellectual shortcoming leads one to become a Democrat whose supporting methodology is purposefully crafted to trigger an emotional response to political authority.

Citizen Smith
Reply to  John Garrett
April 21, 2022 8:33 am

Totally discredits the organization by lack of diversity and inclusion.

Reply to  Citizen Smith
April 21, 2022 9:34 am

Looks to be about 300 people in that gallery and not even a single token black person. If I missed one, then please let me know.

Reply to  Scissor
April 21, 2022 10:21 am

It’s OK.
No doubt about half of them IDENTIFIED as black.

Curious George
Reply to  Mr.
April 25, 2022 4:37 pm

They call it “trans-black”.

Reply to  John Garrett
April 21, 2022 8:49 am

THAT MANY suckers milking the public’s teat!

Wish they’d all go vegan and just chew on grass (like they want the rest of the world to do).

Richard Page
Reply to  John Garrett
April 21, 2022 8:54 am

A bunch of schoolteachers promoted well above the levels of their intelligence, education and understanding. A pitiful sight.

Reply to  John Garrett
April 21, 2022 10:27 am

Notice how many actually work in industry. They are all academics, or wannabes, or work for “institutes”, plus the employee of the Environmental Defense Fund. At least a few have had their pictures taken in the Arctic / Antarctic.

And what is biogeochemistry? Seems to be a popular topic in which to be an expert.

Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
April 21, 2022 9:47 pm


In exploration geology, biogeochemistry means gathering plants and burning them, measure the gold left in the ashes. Its a cheap way to search for gold deposits instead of soil sampling, where its tough to dig. Plants take up minerals, including gold.

Michael in Dublin
April 21, 2022 7:16 am

Lord Monckton is to be commended for his detailed complaint and for standing up to the climate bullies.

I believe it was Mark Twain that said, “Facts are stubborn thingsbut statistics are pliable.

I do not recall “fact checking” in the main publications and media fifty years ago. I recall reading articles and responses by people who countered these with careful reasoning and identifying themselves.

I am a little surprised by the response of the Poynter Insititute. How often have they had to issue retractions over the past four or five years? When I see the list of journalism awards that they have made and where they have been involved, I am not exactly filled with confidence in the journalism they promote. It is good to force institutes like this to be accountable to the public because we desperately need to identify which parts of the media are fulfilling their responsiblity as a reliable public watchdog.

Reply to  Michael in Dublin
April 21, 2022 8:17 am

I would point out that the Response Statement is a suggested draft, written by His Lordship, of one that the Poynter Institute, or Climate Feedback, might like to issue if they don’t give him the right of reply to the original piece which is the subject of his complaint.

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  Oldseadog
April 21, 2022 8:44 am

Thanks for your comment. I missed the final words in the last sentence about the draft statement. My first impression was that this was too good to be true. I doubt they will respond favorably but public pressure may force a watered down response. This will show if they honestly care about responsible journalism.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
April 21, 2022 9:34 am

Unfortunately, “responsible journalism” is these days an oxymoron.

Reply to  Michael in Dublin
April 21, 2022 10:30 am

I doubt that they will respond. The language in the complaint will offend against their delicate sensitivities, and send them in search of a safe place.

Reply to  Oldseadog
April 21, 2022 8:52 am

Yes that’s what I thought too.
It wasn’t made clear in the post.

Mark BLR
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
April 21, 2022 8:40 am

I am a little surprised by the response of the Poynter Insititute.

Read the end of the article, just before the “signature”, again :
“I now require the Poynter Institute to instruct the handsomely-funded operators of the “Climate Feedback” website either to grant me a right of reply or to publish the statement of which a draft follows.”

Everything after the “signature” is what CMoB would like the PI to issue as a press release, not what they have actually released …

jeffery p
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
April 21, 2022 8:51 am

Contemporary “fact-checking” is nothing but a thinly disguised method of censoring free speech. It uses biased checkers to enforce the far-left consensus.

Is Climate Nazi an acceptable term for these people? If we are climate deniers surely they are Climate Nazis? Or is Climate Marxist better?

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  jeffery p
April 21, 2022 9:36 am

I think “Climate Nazis” is perfectly fitting. A good description of what they are – looking to take over the world using junk science as their weapon.

Reply to  AGW is Not Science
April 21, 2022 10:31 am

Remember the photo of John Cook in a Nazi uniform, smiling at the camera.

Reply to  jeffery p
April 21, 2022 11:19 am

Brown Shirts.

April 21, 2022 8:45 am

Well the Monckton article is still up on Climate Feedback – which is of course not a ‘far left’ organisation…

Suppose I complain to Poynter about Watts calling it a far left organisation when it isn’t?

Reply to  griff
April 21, 2022 9:26 am

Go ahead. Why not? It is supposed to be a free country. The only difference is that WUWT is prepared to back up its claims with data.

Reply to  Oldseadog
April 21, 2022 10:31 am

Prepared and capable.

Reply to  griff
April 21, 2022 11:24 am

I thought you would take “far left” as a compliment, griff, identifying yet another convert to your beloved ideaology.

Reply to  griff
April 21, 2022 1:36 pm

griff takes “far-left” descriptor to heart.

Its all relative, isn’t it, little marxist !

Reply to  griff
April 21, 2022 1:44 pm

Griff did you post a dispute to Kevin Kilty In regard the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

Just curious.

It is here.

April 21, 2022 9:21 am

“An adulatory endorsement of a whining article in the far-Left Washington Post to the effect that three-quarters of the Amazon rainforest is …”

Does Jeff Bezos own the Amazon rainforests (and the Washington Post) ?

Reply to  Neo
April 21, 2022 12:28 pm

He is an American oligarch.

michael hart
April 21, 2022 9:31 am

Some years in the past, I recall people as saying that the American self-titled “Moral majority” was actually “Neither.”

I reserve similar thoughts for people in the media who claim to be “Fact checking.”
The general concepts of truth and accuracy seem to have arrived rather late in their lives.

April 21, 2022 9:43 am

Talking of propaganda and indoctrination

“New Natural History GCSE launched to focus on climate change”

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  mwhite
April 21, 2022 12:25 pm

It needs to have its curriculum gone through with a fine tooth comb. It’s guaranteed it will be riddled with errors.

Smart Rock
April 21, 2022 9:50 am

Lord M: identifying or asserting the political views of those whom you take to task, does nothing to advance the prospect that your complaint will be taken seriously by the Poynter Institute. In fact (IMHO) it will have the opposite effect. It will (also IMHO) quite possibly be assumed by the Poynters to verge on ad hominem attacks, and therefore worthy of immediate relegation to the bin. It will further help them to demonise you as “far right” (whatever that means) and/or a member of the Trump-supporting untermensch.

We all know that the science in “climate science” subsists only as far as it supports the conclusions that are pre-determined by the political puppet-masters. But to challenge this kind of “fact fiction-checking”, one should stick to purely scientific argument. Your dignity is diminished by slagging your opponents, no matter how slag-worthy they may be, and no matter how satisfying it is.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Smart Rock
April 22, 2022 4:22 am

“Smart Rock”, from the advantage of furtive anonymity, takes me personally to task for calling Communists Communists. One of the cleverest achievements of the Desinformatsiya directorate of the KGB (now FSB) has been the portrayal of anyone who dares to state the obvious about Communists as somehow extreme.

April 21, 2022 9:55 am

Monckton ==> Have you received any reply from the Poynter Institute?

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Kip Hansen
April 22, 2022 4:24 am

No. It will be surprising if I receive one, for the Institute’s role in fostering and festering the fact-“checking” organisations is to hide their true nastiness under a cloak of spurious pseudo-respectability. Its “principles” are like the parsley in the butcher’s window: they are there for show, and nothing more.

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
April 22, 2022 6:27 pm

Monckton ==> As I suspected, sir.

Do let us know if they do.

April 21, 2022 10:02 am

I hope that WUWT will follow up on this subject, when and if the “Climate Feedback” website publishes a reply.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  littlepeaks
April 22, 2022 4:24 am

Don’t hold your breath.

Kevin kilty
April 21, 2022 10:08 am

After having scanned the list of contributors I am somewhat stunned by how many there are and the list of specialties. Obviously there is a lot of funding available.

Reply to  Kevin kilty
April 21, 2022 11:27 am

Too much funding is barely enough when it comes to advancing “The Cause” as M. Mann calls his version of climate studies.

Jim Gorman
April 21, 2022 10:15 am

The basic problem I have with “fact checkers” is that they are primarily journalists and seldom what we used to call SME’s (subject matter experts). Most journalists I know wouldn’t know a math differential from an auto differential let alone anything about politics to war to owning a business. They know how to Google and pick out the consensus view that has the simplest explanation with it.

How many journalists do you know that could explain a 1500 um wavelength and it’s significance?

Fact checkers my arse!

Reply to  Jim Gorman
April 21, 2022 10:34 am

But the folks aren’t journalists. They are university professors, etc.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
April 21, 2022 4:18 pm

Even sadder!

Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
April 21, 2022 10:37 pm

And all doing the fact-checking in their own time of course

April 21, 2022 10:39 am

The question stands: will “Climate Feedback” respond to this drubbing, or will it sit back and denigrate the Poynter Institute, and say (or imply) that they have become “deniers” and/or “skeptics”?

I would love to send this article to my alarmist friends, but, based upon prior experience, they will NOT read it.

In their case, at least, ignorance truly IS bliss…

Robert of Texas
April 21, 2022 10:53 am

While the emotional appeal of your writing is fun to read and I can agree with the sentiments, I would stick to fact-based writing and leave out the emotional charged “stabs” in a complaint I wanted taken seriously.

On the other hand, your target seems mostly to lack any real fact-based logic idea being driven by a passion for their newly adopted religion, so likely a waste of time trying to engage with them at all.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Robert of Texas
April 22, 2022 4:25 am

What “emotionally-charged stabs”?

April 21, 2022 11:56 am

Monckton seems perpetually determined to write in the most bombastic and buffoonish style imaginable, thereby guaranteeing that almost no one will ever take his points seriously, regardless of whether or not his points are actually valid.

If you are insisting on a reasonable principle of non-partisanship and fairness, how does it possibly improve your case to then rant about about how your intellectual opponents are supposedly nothing but a bunch of fanatics and communists? Surely a calm and rational tone would generate far more respectful consideration by the people he is supposedly trying to persuade.

Monckton seems in many ways to be an intelligent person, but it boggles the mind that he apparently does not understand this point and can’t or won’t express himself in a way that might allow people to take his points seriously.

Reply to  Reacher51
April 21, 2022 12:31 pm

The only way to defeat idiocracy is to make fun of it. Climate “science” is no different. You think Mann isn’t a fraud?

That dude makes bank from misinformation.

Reply to  Derg
April 21, 2022 12:48 pm

Monckton appears to have attempted to make a serious point-by-point argument, only to have devolved rather rapidly into ranting, childish name calling. If his attempt was really to get the Institute to think and change, then he failed utterly. It is hard to believe that anyone there would read more than partway through his letter before laughing at Monckton and throwing it away.

I have no idea what relevance this point has to Mann or anyone else. I simply know that Monckton’s letter is about 1000 times more likely to end up in a special loony bin file than it is to be seriously read and considered like a reasonable complaint.

Reply to  Reacher51
April 21, 2022 1:05 pm

No argument here. the lack of effort to actually persuade is blinding.

This stood out as peak insanity.

The use of the word “around” in the manner shown in the above quotation has also been flagged by Western intelligence services as an indicator of a Communist mind-set.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Charles Rotter
April 22, 2022 4:49 am

By now Charles should know considerably better than to underestimate me. One should not assume, as he unwisely has here, that anything that is surprising and unfamiliar is “peak insanity”. Such yah-boo terms are best avoided anyway, particularly by moderators, whose duty is of lofty impartiality.

The history of linguistic analysis in intelligence is a long one. For instance, before the Second World War every telephone call made in the UK was listened to, for the Post Office (which ran the telephone system) was very close to the intelligence community. As a result, as the director of scientific intelligence told me, at the beginning of the Second World War very nearly every German spy on British soil had been rounded up and either deported or incarcerated. The only exception I know of was Air Marshall Joubert, who was finally exposed when he countermanded the scientific intelligence order for the aircraft deflecting the Nazis’ radar guidance systems to take to the skies one vital day, resulting in the destruction of the city of Coventry.

After the War, as the number of telephone subscribers exploded, a computer system (known as Echelon) was tasked with monitoring telephone calls. The Communists eventually found out, and one of their most prominent journalists wrote a series of “exposes” about it. He and his paymasters were furious that the British people were quite content to have their conversations monitored if it meant that the nation’s enemies – particularly the terrorists – could be identified.

The Echelon data allowed the linguistic analysts – notably but not exclusively at the Government communications headquarters in Cheltenham – to identify linguistic tropes and patterns that indicated the political connections or derivations of those using them. By this method, for instance, a number of IRA terrorist leaders were identified because they were using language they had picked up from their Communist handlers.

Of course, some Communist or Islamicist or other terrorist cliches were easy enough to identify. But one of the most interesting aspects of the lingustic analysis was the alteration by certain political factions of the previously traditional use of prepositions or prepositional phrases. It was a Classicist (no names, no-pack-drill) with a good working knowledge of ancient Greek who pointed out the importance of prepositional analysis. In some cases, such as the misapplication of the word “around”, the intention was to introduce foggy distortions so as to decrease the target population’s capacity for clarity of thought.

Another notorious instance was the misapplication of the prepositional phrase “in terms of”, again as a method of encouraging imprecision of thought and expression. In the UK it had become necessary to monitor broadcasts not only from overseas but also from within the UK (for, as I had reported in the early 1980s, the Farsi language service of the BBC had been broadcasting pro-Khomeini propaganda of the crudest kind, which had led Margaret Thatcher, on learning of this, to threaten to shut the entire organization down). The unspeakable BBC’s “news” “journalists” provide some very interesting examples of Communist-originated prepositional displacement: their startlingly frequent loose usages of “around” and of “in terms of” are a dead giveaway.

Reply to  Reacher51
April 21, 2022 1:47 pm

Do you think peoples feelings are hurt 😉

Reply to  Derg
April 21, 2022 3:16 pm

I think that the people who received the letter may have hurt themselves laughing, and I think that you would have to to be exceptionally immature or mildly deranged not to understand why that would be.

Reply to  Reacher51
April 21, 2022 3:43 pm

Ha…feelings are hurt 😉

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Reacher51
April 22, 2022 4:49 am

Don’t whine.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Reacher51
April 22, 2022 4:28 am

Don’t be pompous.

Reply to  Reacher51
April 21, 2022 1:38 pm

Sorry that English is your second language. !

Reply to  b.nice
April 21, 2022 3:17 pm

Indeed. I never learned the period followed by exclamation mark rule in second language school. Thanks for learnin’ me.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Reacher51
April 22, 2022 4:28 am

So it is OK for the climate Communist fact-“checkers” to say that my only background is in journalism and Classics, which is not true, but it is not OK for me to call Communists Communists? We’re not playing pat-a-cake at the Vicar’s tea party. It is precisely because so many skeptics are so delicate that we have allowed the climate Communists to get away with their scam for so long.

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
April 22, 2022 1:58 pm

First of all, I never claimed that it was either OK or not OK for fact checkers to say anything about you whatsoever. My claim was that your childish name calling is entirely counterproductive to your argument and distracts people from any substantive points that you may be trying to make. If fact checkers erroneously claim that your only background is in journalism and Classics, then simply provide them with evidence to the contrary, or provide it instead to the Poynter Institute. Nothing else is required. The supposed communism of the fact checkers, beyond being a fairly ludicrous assertion, is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether the fact checkers are correct on that point.

Further, I note that your immediate reply to my comments was similarly first to imply that I was whining, which assertion you then immediately followed up by calling me pompous. If you actually had a substantive criticism of what I had to say, then you would have been better off by simply making it.

Secondly, it beggars belief that the reason climate alarmism is so successful is that people on on the other side have not gone around calling people silly names, or that the maintenance of the scam can somehow only be explained by communism, as you suggested above. Climate craziness, in fact, fits perfectly with human nature and our tendency toward tribalism, and it seems not very much different from the religious fervor that has burned in people throughout history.

I imagine that many people in your country 1500 years ago were wondering how their neighbors could possibly convince themselves that the supreme deity was actually a Jewish guy they never met, who was fully God and also separately the son of God, who died- yet without God dying, and whose death represented a supreme sacrifice made by God, even though God was still alive and kicking and doing just fine, etc. It surely turned out that the reason these friends and neighbors believed passionately in all of this gobbledygook was (a) it was apparently written in a book they couldn’t read, (b) priests assured them it was true, (c) how else could you explain the fact that it rained heavily, or that Christians won a particular war, etc, and (d) everyone says that only idiots don’t believe it in it. None of that made any sense either, and the evidence never got any better, and yet a millenium and a half of English history and religious fervor surely demonstrate that human beings don’t need much of a reason to believe in crazy things.

Thirdly, it remains the fact that if you are trying to convince reasonable people that someone is factually wrong, the best way to do so is to simply and soberly provide those people with clear evidence that supports your facts. Name calling and wild accusations as a form of argument works with idiots, but it tends to make reasonable people assume that your objections have no real substance.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Reacher51
April 23, 2022 11:22 am

Don,t whine from your riser-recliner armchair. It’s tough on the front line. I give as good as I get.

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
April 23, 2022 3:34 pm

Give what, exactly? If your intention is to get a fair review of your case, then your needless insults and accusations are giving the very people you hope to review your case every reason they need to fully ignore you.

If your main intention is instead simply to throw insults about people you dislike and force the Institute to read them, then you are giving something that is of no value other than possibly as a small salve for your ego.

I presume that you don’t listen carefully to the complaints or arguments of people who call you names and hurl insults at you or people you respect. It shouldn’t be too difficult to appreciate that the Poynter Institute is unlikely to be much different than you in this regard.

Many people here have given you the same advice. You don’t have to take our advice, but you also really shouldn’t be too surprised when the Institute doesn’t bother to reply, or sends you a short polite note and then files your complaint in the trash.

April 21, 2022 9:38 pm

the climate-Communist Party Line

I would take the Communist name-calling out. Its childish at best.

Nick Graves
Reply to  Lil-Mike
April 22, 2022 12:30 am

Totalitarian might be a more accurate term – I doubt these useless idiots could even do communism properly.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Lil-Mike
April 22, 2022 4:50 am

I call Communists Communists, just as I call spades spades. Get over it.

Can it seriously be imagined that the global warming scam arose and is maintained by some sort of accident?

April 21, 2022 9:41 pm

Also, there is a greater than symbol “>” where you probably want an equality or assignment operator symbol “=” in your control theory formula.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Lil-Mike
April 22, 2022 4:52 am

No. The data for 1850 are quite well constrained. The system-gain factor is of order 1.095. It is less than 1.1.

April 21, 2022 10:39 pm

A worrying aspect is this page:


D Boss
April 22, 2022 5:03 am

Laudable goal, however a factor Lord Monckton should consider relates to how the human brain processes lists. If you keep your list or collection of points to 7 or less, you will have far more success at the communication being read and comprehended.

Majority of people’s eyes gloss over and brains “tap out” once the number of points exceeds 7. If you MUST have more than 7 points or items, separate into different themes, each with 7 or less points or items. (and don’t do more than about 3 of these themes)

This was taught to me by a master at technical communication, and having tried it – it works fantastically in written communication. A shallow search finds the following:

This one says max of 8, but 7 is better and note NASA indicates that no more than 8 steps in an emergency procedure as any more can be overwhelming in a crisis situation. (as evidence this principle is real and a function of how the brain works)

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  D Boss
April 22, 2022 1:23 pm

This is not a PR exercise. it is a complaint. The grounds are what they are.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights