Wednesday, September 4, 2013

The Lord Christopher Monckton Files - an index

I was looking at the actor Topher's "50 to 1 Project's" "supporting data" - it is a single sheet titled  "Is CO2 mitigation cost-effective?" and it was composed by none other than the infamous Lord Christopher Monckton.  

Some fancy terms, lot of numbers tossed out so that the uneducated is expected to be impressed and accept it's veracity, simply because it looks so impressive.  {like that "Oregon Petition" thing}

Thing is, it looks like something a con-man would offer up to convince the gullible to part with their money: "I figured it all out, look at my numbers, we can't go wrong, trust me, now give your cash already!"

As it happens, exactly three years ago I was giving Christopher Monckton's claims a lot of attention.  In fact, we even had a short lived email correspondence going, which lead to a whole series of further emails that I posted at my citizenschallenge.blogspot.

Considering Christopher Monckton seems to be Topher's Braintrust for his 50 to 1 project  - these links to reviews of this scoundrel and serial liar is in order.  Admittedly, I'm no professional writer and these posts were written three years ago, so expect some untidiness, still the information within is sound and supported by links to authoritative sources.  I've also added a few videos.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

The Lord Christopher Monckton Files - an index

Who Is Lord Christopher Monckton?

Dear Durango Telegraph Editor,
There’s an exciting brouhaha going on within the Global Warming blogosphere these days. Every bit as heated and implication laden as ClimateGate was a half year ago. Not surprisingly, big media isn’t covering this story. Just as they seem to be ignoring the exposure of the fabricated charges and nonexistent sins scientists supposedly perpetrated in “ClimateGate.”

This saga concerns the lowly academician who dared question the darling of the “Man Made Global Warming Is A Hoax” community. 
You see, one John Abraham PhD, a professor of Thermo Sciences sat in on the, by now infamous, September 14th 2009 lecture by Lord Christopher Monckton for the Minnesota Free Market Institute. Professor Abraham came to listen and what he heard so disturbed him that for the next few months he turned all his spare time and energy into investigating specific claims Lord Monckton made and then created a presentation of his own: "Abraham v. Monckton" {or}.

John Abraham's 
Original version can be found at

~ ~ ~


This is a first step to a larger project exploring Lord Monckton's presentation to the Minnesota Free Market Institute, given September 14, 2009. 

This is intended as a guide for viewing along with Lord Monckton's illuminating PowerPoint slides.

~ ~ ~ 

{#1} Lord Monckton, are you a Creationist? ... an open letter

Lord Monckton,
I’ve been reviewing your Minnesota Free Market Institute presentation. One of many disturbing aspects of your performance are the following statements. But, first to borrow from your 466 questions to Professor Abraham: Could you, Christopher Monckton, confirm that the following quotes accurately encapsulate your recorded comments?

~ ~ ~

{#2} Replying to Lord Monckton's 8-16-10 email

Lord Monckton,
Thank you for your reply of 8/16/10. 
However, the essay you shared, “What is Science Without Religion,” side stepped my actual questions. First and foremost, (regarding 5:20; 9:45; 10:45), calling up the Bible in the manner you do demands a fidelity to the notion of a Biblical six day creation that occurred 6,000 years ago. Appealing to the one literal notion of the Bible and ignoring the other seems like a cynical showman stunt - dishonest to all.

Therefore, I have condensed my previous email to better focus on those questions.

~ ~ ~

“What is Science Without Religion?”

Lord Monckton replied to my letter by sharing a 3070 word essay he’d written a while back: “What is Science Without Religion?” Unfortunately, it side stepped rather than answered my questions. The essay drifts, in that it’s about religion and science, but he manages to fit in all sorts of political rants (DDT, HIV, dishonesty of money grubbing, and serial cowardice of scientists, etc.). I’ve tried pruning the essay to its salient points and it still weights in at 850 words. I have only cut, otherwise I haven’t changed a word.

It would be very cool if some of you deeper thinkers could skim through this list and please comment on whatever talking points catch your attention - be sure to include paragraph #.

Why am I pushing this?: I believe this sort of misleading Pied Piper song should stop being left standing without objection - which is happening too much and is a main reason serious science understanding is in such dismal shape. Please help.

~ ~ ~

{#4} Questioning the veracity of Lord Monckton’s attributions

{This is the fourth email to Lord Monckton examining his 10/14/9 MFMI presentation}

Considering that Lord Monckton’s PowerPoint presentation offered the best venue for clear citations or reference to the many quotes the Lord tosses out. I thought it would be interesting to look at the side notes with his slides and see if LM offered any information that would help in tracking down the veracity of his various quotations.

From his 10/14/9 PowerPoint presentation
{yes, there was an unfortunate spelling error - but, then, I'm no professional writer, just trying to do the best I can with what I got 
and hoping other more talented folks join in.}
~ ~ ~ 

Uploaded on May 11, 2010
Rep. Jay Inslee of Washington tells climate change denier "Lord" Monckton 
what he thinks of him and what a sad witness he makes against climate change science. 
This took place on May 6th in Washington at a special hearing on 
climate change science called by Rep. Ed Markey.

~ ~ ~

{#5} Lord Monckton about your claims regarding AIT and the UK Trial

{This is the fifth in my emails to Lord Monckton, examining his 10/14/9 MFMI presentation}

Lord Monckton,
You seem to be avoiding me, but my examination into your claims will continue - as will my attempt to engage you in a frank discussion on the matter of the voracity of your many claims regarding your promulgation of the notion that AGW is a hoax. Today, I ask about your often repeated implications that a UK Judge found AGW to be a hoax.

~ ~ ~

{#6} Examining Lord Monckton's Rhetoric

This is the sixth email in my series examining Lord Monckton's 10/14/9 presentation to the MFMI in Minnesota. The talk can be found here.

Lord Christopher Monckton,
Early in your 10/14/9 Minnesota Free Market Institute presentation you make the following promises to your audience:

LCM: 7:10
“But, one point I do want to make, is that you must not believe a word I say. 
... I am not gonna to tell you what the truth about the climate is. 
I am simply going to tell you a series of facts from the science and the data and the peer reviewed literature...
LCM: 9:05
“And that is what we are going to do tonight, there won’t be rhetoric, there will just be boring fact after fascinating fact.”

In this sixth segment of our correspondence and my examination of your 10/14/9 MFMI presentation, allow us to examine how well your actual words live up to your promise.

~ ~ ~ 

{#7} SPPI - Lord Monckton's "Nils Axel Mörner" claims examined

Dear Mr. Ferguson, and Lord Monckton,
It would be nice to keep this civil. Simply, because you may not like me, or what I’m writing, doesn’t mean I can’t ask you, Robert Ferguson... Science Public Policy Institute, and SPPI’s brain trust: Lord Monckton, some pointed, and public, questions.

I shall continue my little examination of the way you folks present science to a public in need of real and complete information, learning, understanding and appreciation for the global situation humanity is in. In this email {#7} I shall review statements made on SPPI’s website and in the MFMI talk by Lord Chris Monckton regarding Nils Axel Mörner PhD and his claims.

Quoting the 10/14/9 MFMI talk -
MFMI 27:35
LM: “Nickolas who has written 520 papers on the subject.” Then, there is Monckton’s often repeated sentiment: “Professor Niklas Mörner, the world’s foremost expert on sea level.”
- - -
{Also see: Dr. Nils-Axel Morner's Maldives Tree - what's up with that?
to learn how Morner photoshop's his evidence. }
~ ~ ~ 

{#7b}Appendix to {email #7} Church et al. 2006, highlights

I received an email this morning, short and sweet, but worth sharing:

Church, J.A., N.J. White and J.R. Hunter. 2006. Sea level rise at tropical Pacific and Indian Ocean islands. Global and Planetary Change, 53, 155-168, doi:10.1016/j.glopacha.2006.04.001. the definitive rebuttal of Mörner.

~ ~ ~

{#8} SPPI & Monckton’s claims regarding David’s: “The Down To Earth Guide to Global Warming” - Examined

LCM: MFMI 54:15
(#79) “And they are lying to children as well. They lie even to children....”
LCM: MFMI 54:25
“What she (Laurie David) did was to switch the captions on the graphs for temperature and CO2 going back 650,000 years so that she could show that it was CO2 that had changed first and temperature that had followed.”

...the rest of the story.

~ ~ ~

{#9} SPPI & Monckton’s claim regarding Greenland's Cryosphere being OK - examined

In this, my ninth email, we’ll examine SPPI and Monckton's claim: “I find it hard to discern anything to worry about in Greenland’s ice.” 

{Tracking down another Monckton lie.}

~ ~ ~ 

{#10} SPPI and Lord Monckton, The Data Creates the AGW Consensus

In my last email {#9} I claimed that increased snow fall in Greenland is tied to AGW and does nothing to support Lord Monckton’s thesis that manmade global warming is a hoax. So, I thought this tenth email should review some of the evidence leading to the AGW consensus.

After spending sometime researching I realized there is no way I can improve upon the work done by John Cook over at They clearly lay out the arguments and point the way to verifying studies and data. In this email I will shamelessly reproduce search results including links.

~ ~ ~ 

{#11a} SPPI, Monckton, Seitz, WSJ - anatomy of a character assassination

Lord Monckton, Mr Ferguson, SPPI, (and Dr. Seitz),
This letter cuts to the heart of your AGWHoax storyline, its fabrication and propagation. To fully appreciate this story, we need to review some history first and look at someone who can be considered your intellectual mentor, one Dr. Seitz. 

In particular, his June 12, 1996 Op-Ed piece in the Wall Street Journal: “A Major Deception on Global Warming.” Even the title is audacious in its open hostility.
~ ~ ~ 

{#11b} Lord Monckton, Mr. Ferguson, SPPI, v. Dr. Ben Santer - anatomy of a character assassination

In this email I want to look at how some lies never die. In particular, today's reincarnation of the Wall Street Journal's travesty, with it's relentless, substance lacking, attacks on Dr. Benjamin Santer.

~ ~ ~

{#11c} Lord Monckton, Mr. Ferguson, SPPI, v. Dr. Rajendra Pachauri (IPCC) - anatomy of a character assassination

Previously, I wrote about the anatomy of Ben Santer’s character assassination. In this next example, we have the added element of “tactical set up.”

~ ~ ~
Has Monckton finally arrived at his Waterloo?

A group of scientists has put together a detailed study of Mr. Lord Monckton’s Congressional testimony, unlike LM’s many lectures and blogs, LM was under oath while giving false testimony to the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

I've given Monckton, the denialist echo-chamber's court jester, center stage long enough.  Now for a refresher as to what serious hard working adults have learned.  Please listen to this full time scientist explain some important aspects of what scientist's understand about global warming.  

Dr. Santer an expert in the field shares the scientific understanding.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

For more videos exposing Monckton's deception, there is the 
Monckton Bunkum collection from
Potholer54 - Peter Hadfield

Monckton Bunkum Part 1 - Global cooling and melting ice

Monckton Bunkum Part 2 - Sensitivity

Monckton Bunkum Part 3 - Correlations and Himalayan glaciers

1 comment:

Wotts Up With That Blog said...

The actual calculation is remarkable and just completely flawed. Yes, they can find a source for every number they've used but that does not mean that they've put these numbers together in a way that makes any form of sense (and it doesn't as you probably know).

It's things like this that really get me down. I'm quite happy for people to be skeptical about climate science and to be uncertain (or disagree) with what should or should not be done. However when people promote something that is clearly garbage, it really does make me think that some are just trying to mislead and that there is no chance of any kind of honest debate. I don't even really care if after a debate no agreement has been reached. I do care if the argument being promoted by some is so nonsensical that it makes it virtually impossible to actually have a debate. At least accept what is clearly wrong and maybe we can actually get somewhere.

Living in hope, but realising its futile!