Wednesday 9 December 2009

Lord Monckton on Climategate

Thought I'd better get on the climate debate bandwagon.

Here's Lord Christopher Monckton speaking at the second International Climate Conference, addressing the so-called Climategate scandal, which he says "appears to be one of the biggest science scams of our time."

Monckton is a former policy advisor to British PM Margaret Thatcher, and has been a vocal critic of global warming proponents and the conclusions of the IPCC. In 2006, he published in The Daily Telegraph a widely publicized article critical of the prevailing climate change opinions.


Martin Bedford said...

Climategate? you've gotta be kidding me.

Mike K said...

Monckton is a potty peer, and a well known fraud and liar. He can't even tell the truth about his position - he's not in the House of Lords, and when there was a chance he could get elected by the peers he got zero votes. He has a history of fabricating stories to inflate his importance, and of fabricating data and graphs. He has no scientific qualifications. He just has lots of money and too much time on his hands. He also didn't win the Falkland Islands War, nor did he win a Nobel Prize, despite previously claiming both.

As for "ClimateGate", people really should read Nature's discussion of it ( see )- the claims of the denialists are "paranoid" and "laughable".

To give just one example from the emails, "Mike's Nature trick" to "hide the decline" was a reference to a technique (trick doesn't necessarily mean deceiful) that was described in Nature, the world's number one science journal, to correct a known error in a tree-growth ring dataset by using real, measured temperatures.

J Cooper said...

Your right there fnqhome. When you do a bit of research, Climategate is really grasping at straws trying to make something out of nothing.

I heard Monckton on radio and he is a crackpot. He himself says 'there are thousands of so called climate experts pumping out their climate hoax falsifications on governments, but you know what, there is hope, as there are a few who are don't believe it, who are saying no, we won't have it'

Geez. If 98% of doctors told you that you have a particular disease, but say, vets made up the other 2%, would you go with what the vets say? If 98% of aircarft mechanics told you where the problem is with your plane, would you go with the other 2%, which comprise of auto mechanics.

That is what this climate debate comes down to. 98% of climatologists tell us what they know, yet its the geologists, botanists etc etc who say its crap and its them who the deniers seem to want to believe.

Keep an open mind people. I used to swing to the 'deniers' side, thinking it was all just natural variability, but took an interest in it over the last few years, and the more you study the science of climate, it does becoem more apparent to you that humans are the cause. I can also see now how websites like manipulate data to promote their agenda.

George Monbiot said...

Even if you were to exclude every line of evidence that could possibly be disputed (regarding Climategate) – the proxy records, the computer models, the complex science of clouds and ocean currents – the evidence for man-made global warming would still be unequivocal. You can see it in the measured temperature record, which goes back to 1850; in the shrinkage of glaciers and the thinning of sea ice; in the responses of wild animals and plants and the rapidly changing crop zones.

No other explanation for these shifts makes sense. Solar cycles have been out of synch with the temperature record for 40 years. The Milankovic cycle, which describes variations in the Earth's orbit, doesn't explain it either. But the warming trend is closely correlated with the accumulation of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere. The impact of these gases can be demonstrated in the laboratory. To assert that they do not have the same effect in the atmosphere, a novel and radical theory would be required. No such theory exists. The science is not fixed – no science ever is – but it is as firm as science can be. The evidence for man-made global warming remains as strong as the evidence linking smoking to lung cancer or HIV to Aids.

Denis Walls said...

In his book Carbon Detox, George Marshall argues that people are not persuaded by information. Our views are formed by the views of the people we mix with. However, we are more likely to listen to those opinions which offer us some reward. A story which tells us that the world is frying and that we’ll have to make sacrifices for the sake of future generations is less likely to be accepted.

Denial is a kind of self-defence mechanism. It’s more convenient for deniers, and the business as usual industry that supports them, to see global warming as a conspiracy hatched by scheming governments and dishonest scientists, and that strong, independent-minded people – so-called ‘sceptics’ - should unite to defend their freedoms.

Lance Royce said...

And Denis you have no personal bias on Climate Change? I suggest you ID you affilations with the Left and The Greens!

Denis Walls said...

Sure Lance, everyone has pre-conceptions and biases. That's why I look to the science on this issue. The two excellent paragraphs by George Monbiot above summarise the matter in a most concise way.

So Ali said...

For all the denialist/conspiracy theorists - did you know that Monckton is actually Marty Feldman's lovechild. Watch the video - play it backwards if you must, but Lance, you know its the truth! It's all in the eyes.

Skins said...

You are all so convinced that the 'science is in'.
Please explain why the average global temperature has fallen over the last 8 years whilst CO2 levels have risen?
Like other warmist believers you have decided to pay no attention to the obvious manipulation & witholding of data carried out by key IPCC climate change authors & have forgotten to note that 2 of the scientists involved are being investigated due to their involvement in Climategate.
The science isn't in & we are only now having a debate that we should have had years ago.
You warmist bullies wouldn't allow any contradictory views based on the science & Climategate has, by way of the www finally given alternate scientific views the free air they deserve.
Have you have forgotten that you changed sides recently George? You are now a denier so better change your moniker if you are going to sprout on with your line of debate .

Michael from Mooroobool said...

I know this won't broaden your narrow denialist mind Skins, but every argument you have just put forward has been proven wrong or conveniently taken out of context. For those prepared to listen, this was from a post on

skins said...

You haven't answered my question M of M which is not surprising because even your mates at IPCC
'can't explain where the warming is & it's a travesty that we can't'
While you are busy reading the Climategate emails I suggest you read the one about hiding the decline, might broaden your outlook a bit.

cold hard facts said...

Hi skins. I can answer one of your questions, about why the average global temperature has fallen over the past eight years. The answer is that it has not, it has risen. I don't have to believe in anything to know this either, I just consult the Bureau of Meteorology records at

Mike of Mooroobool said...

Skins, I think the explanation is obvious. The video attempts to put it into simple terms. The "decline" was also explained. It didn't happen! It has been supported by numerous measurements from organisations around the planet Maybe something distracted you during that bit of the video. The last part features sceptic scientists who had to admit that there was a slowing, but not necessarily cooling at that time. But then again, just like YOUR mate Andrew Bolt don't let the truth get in the way of a good conspiracy story.

Mike K said...


The "hide the decline email"? You mean the one I explained in the second comment? The "trick" was described in Nature, the leading scientific journal in the world, and was correcting tree ring data by using actual measured temperatures.

The "travesty" one was also in relation to one data set and you will find a URL to the journal article about that one in the very same email.

As for your claim temperatures have dropped, we need to remember that CO2 emissions are one factor. There is variation around the trend. You are cherry picking one year (199, the hottest year on record in some data sets but not others), and ignoring the overall trend.

You really need to approach the subject matte rin a less simplistic manner.

Monty said...

Skins, this might help you in future posts (stolen from Carbon Fixated). Actually it sounds like you might already have it:
If you have just learned that global warming was all a massive fraud being perpetuated by Commie scientists in East Angular, your blood is all angried up and you can’t wait to just jump right in and start SHOUTING about it - but don’t quite know where to start – then this post is for you!
Just copy and paste the following texts, remembering to delete the words you don’t want. Otherwise people might think you are a bot and your post won’t get past the spam filter! Don’t let that happen: the world needs to hear your opinion!! The internet has given ordinary people a way to fight back against the received wisdom of the so-called “wise elites”. You can force the Climategate scientist’s media enablers to start covering this story that they would rather ignore!!!

First, choose your personality type. You are:

…all rogue n’ mavericky:
"Global warming is nothing but a [plot/conspiracy/giant lie] by [Big Government, Big Green and Big Business / the trillion dollar wind power industry / Big Energy / Al Gore] to [give all power to the UN Climatocrats / create a one world government / tax the US into bankruptcy / force you to bow down to its agenda of enforced austerity / enrich Al Gore].
These emails just go to show what a [scam / con / fraud / giant Ponzi scheme] global warming really is.
We need to stop [the “cap and kill” law / mortgaging our children’s futures on pseudoscience / the Socialist Agenda] before the [eco-fascists / warlarmists / greentards] [tax us into the stone age / exploit us like the third world peasants they want us to become / destroy our liberty / force us into solar powered death camps].
[AGW is a myth / There is no Mann-made global warming / the Greenhouse Effect is just a theory, not a fact]. Get over it."

…some twit that went to a posh school and now writes a blog {*}:
"This is the end of the [IPCC-endorsed AGW scam / Al Gore’s great big AGW conspiracy].

Climategate is [the game changer that will make people listen / the end of the Al Gore-approved AGW narrative].

AGW is [about raising taxes / increasing state control / about a few canny hucksters who’ve leapt on the bandwagon fleecing us rotten with their taxpayer subsidised windfarms and their cabon-trading / about the sour, anti-capitalist impulses of sandal-wearing vegans and lapsed Communists who loathe the idea of freedom and a functioning market economy / little more than a scheme by bullying ecofascists to deprive us of our liberty].

We know it’s all a crock and we’re not going to take it.

But the vested interests behind AGW are going to make darned sure that [the AGW bandwagon keeps roll roll rollin’ along / we push this utterly disastrous, economy-destroying measure through / spend vast amounts of public money on a problem that doesn’t exist].

This is our Berlin Wall moment! They can’t stop us now!

Rationalist said...

Skins, you obviously don't have kids otherwise you might be more inclined to hedge your bets. I'm with you. I'm in my fifties with no kids and like you I have no interest in the possible future scenarios of life on Earth. As long as say, the next 30 years are reasonably comfortable and we don't totally engulf the planet with people and the consequences of their actions that might make my life more uncomfortable. After that, like you, I don't give a rats. Quite honestly, and I'm sure you would agree, we as a species have probably had our time. Time to to move on like the dinosaurs and give someone else a chance.

Skins said...

You need to find another graph Cold Hard Facts & you also need to learn how to read a graph. The link you supplied shows Australia's annual maximum temperature & does not show what you claim it shows. I am talking about average global temps, so you haven't answered my question.
M of M if you are going to base your global warming beliefs on the rantings of a far left environmental amateur movie maker whose sole scentific credential is that he has attended one of Al Gores warming recruitment drive lectures, then I suggest that you do just a bit more research before embarrassing yourself further.
FNQ Home I am not cherry picking. Temps have declined since 2001 &
CO2 levels have risen since 2001 you cannot deny this & you can't explain it.
As for the tree ring data, I don't believe that we should be taking notice of the data taken from only 12 trees when for some reason the data from hundreds of others was ignored.. That's cherry picking. The results weren't what was required, obviously. You have your opinion about the leaked emails & I have mine. I am not the one in denial here though.
Playing the man & not the ball so early Monty! Can't wait for your next post. You are hilarious!
There is nothing rational about you Rationalist & please don't think that I have anything in common with you or that I agree with any of your totally irrational thoughts.

cold hard fact said...

Wrong skins. The graph I linked to does show global temperature anomolies, based on an average taken between 1969 and 1990. It clearly shows that global temperatures over the past ten years have been way above average. Therefore, it does answer your question. I can see no evidence for a reason to doubt these figures and I believe that the Bureau of Meteorology strives to provides us with accurate data.

You might think that thousands of scientists and hundreds of governments across the world are involved in some kind of conspiracy on global warming, but the overwhelming evidence suggests it is something we should be taking seriously.

Mike K said...


Different data sets have different years as "the hottest". In some it's 1998. In others it's 2005. I'm not sure which one says 2001 is the hottest. There's a cluster of hot years in the 2000s. Why do you think that is?

The "global temperature" has a number of different factors involved. When some of those factors are pushing it up, others are pushing it down. One factor is CO2 emissions, and they push the mean around which the temperatures vary up. Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are a relatively new upward force. It doesn't mean the other factors no longer play a part.

You're picking a year with a high positive variation from the trend and judging other points from that. Just as it would be dishonest to pick a year with a high negative variation from the trend would be dishonest, so is what you are doing. You have to look at the whole trend, and it's up.

Oh, and you didn't address your paranoid and laughable claim about the UEACRU emails, particularly "Mike's Nature trick". Do you understand how the denialist claims about those emails are dishonest?

Warren Entsch said...

Yeah but thats if one reads the graph in the northern hemisphere. If one must read it in the southern hemisphere one must turn it upside down stupid.
Sinus is always rational but mostly at the equator where all the live food raw vegans have migrated to get their fill of cheap durians. Gardening is a gift. Use it or lose it.
Everyone wanting to pay for carbon should sign equal obligation payments slip and everyone not wanting to pay simply refrain. Who will sign? Bryan Law (from his welfare), Rudd, Wong (is the spelling wong) Turnsour and no one else. This thing should not be compulsory but for them wish passionately to pay. Pauly would definitly not pay though he in love with bryan.
Tax at the point of a gun is evil. Reminds me of King Herod's command to kill all the boys under two years old.
Roll on the central bankers and one world govt. police state new world order RFID. First step Copenhagen. Are ya Jammin'?

S. Ureza said...

Hey folks, as tempting as it is, don't feed the TROLLS (Skins) They'll keep regurgitating the same crap over and over again no matter what evidence is provided. Old Joh Bjelke Petersen used to call it "feeding the chooks". They have nothing to offer to the debate except their one track diatribes. Hopefully they'll get bored and go somewhere else.Perhaps the Andrew Bolt blog might give them some supporters.

Mr T said...

Premdas, Where did you get it from and how much did it cost? I want to be up there with you brother.

Skins said...

What an extraordinary group.
It appears that when someone has a different point of view to those who blog here they are set upon like a fox is set upon by a pack of hounds. It is obvious to me that civilised debate here is impossible.
In the last few days I have been called narrow minded, paranoid, dishonest & now a troll.
My argument is far from finished however I will find a more mature forum in which to discuss issues and one where there is some respect among bloggers.
I hope to see FNQ Home & CHF out there somewhere.