Here a screen shot from his talk. His comment on Garnaut’s words is “Heil Hitler”.


Graeme Readfearn has the details.

Update: Bolt throws Monckton under the proverbial bus.


  1. #1 chek
    June 27, 2011

    No Rick, you weren’t asked to impart a sense of humour to anyone.

    What you were asked was to explain how a priviliged, pop-eyed, scientific moron calling jewish kids, amongst others, ‘Hitler Youth’ was something you found funny.

    Now, I’m sure that you and the Bishop’s geriatric flock laughed at it like the reactionary dogs you are, but the question remains: what did you find funny about it?

  2. #2 rhwombat
    June 27, 2011

    Frank@99: …and fair enough too, Frank. We marsupial tanks are notorious for our lack of humour and left-wing politics. And don’t get me started on my diprotodon ancestors or I’ll end up sounding like an hereditary peer with Grave’s disease again.

  3. rhwombat: Heheh.

    * * *


    > Cancel Lord Monckton’s university lecture, say academics

    > Academics in Australia are calling for the University of Notre Dame in Fremantle to cancel a lecture due to be given by the prominent climate sceptic Lord Monckton on Thursday.

    > In a letter seen by the Guardian, which is currently being circulated among academics, the undersigned say that Monckton “stands for the kind of ignorance and superstition that universities have a duty to counter” and “Notre Dame has a responsibility to avoid promoting discredited views on an issue of public risk”. Signatories already supporting the open letter include professors and lecturers across Australia, but also academics in the UK and US.

    > The letter, which is addressed “from the Australian academic community” to Notre Dame, a Catholic university in Western Australia, was originally drafted by Natalie Latter, a political science postgraduate student at the University of Western Australia. The letter says Monckton’s lecture is particularly unwelcome in light of recent death threats made against Australian climate scientists.


    > [On Thursday,] he will deliver the Lang Hancock lecture at Notre Dame, a lecture series sponsored by Hancock Prospecting, a mining company owned by Australia’s richest person, Gina Rinehart.

    > Chris Doepel, the university’s dean of business, has confirmed some invited conference guests have also called for Monckton’s speech to be cancelled, but he insisted the event will go ahead. “The university will hold it because we have a commitment to academic freedom,” he told local media over the weekend. “I think Lord Monckton is coming into this country with a clear understanding of the boundaries around polite discussion.” Doepel added that there is no plan to censor Monckton’s presentation and that the 200-strong audience will be free to ask questions.

    > Anna-Maria Arabia, the CEO of Science & Technology Australia, which recently organised the Respect the Science event in Canberra in which 200 scientists marched to show solidarity for climate scientists receiving death threats, also feels that Monckton should be free to speak: “Everyone is entitled to their views, but it is important that personal views are differentiated from the scientific evidence that has been through the rigorous peer-review process. The challenge for Lord Monckton is to have his ideas tested through the peer review process.”


    — frank

  4. Doepel should just admit that the decision to go ahead with Monckton’s talk is a political decision and has nothing to do with “academic freedom”. Because at the end of the day, Monckton’s simply not an academic in any sense of that word.

    — frank

  5. #5 bill
    June 27, 2011

    Presumably the organisation doesn’t actually adhere to it’s own sententious blather, though? How many absurd or irresponsible notions are entitled to claim access to this ‘academic freedom’ and opine within the universities? Homeopathy? AIDS/HIV deniers? Anti-vaxers? 911 conspiracy theorists? Is the university really endorsing the legitimacy of ‘World Communist/Nazi Government’ wing-nuttery in academic debate?

    And there’s that wonderful “he’s free to say whatever he likes as long as he gets the message that we don’t want to hear any more of this ‘they’re all Nazis, I tell you, Nazis’ bullshit, OK?” as contained in the second quotation. If the man knows where his bread is buttered he will now censor himself accordingly. And he’ll be under remarkable pressure from his ‘respectable’ allies who see his ridiculous outbursts – at least when they are widely publicised – as a millstone around their necks. So much for the ‘grand ideal’ of freedom to publicly speak whatever is on your mind, then.

    A good result would be for all the grand claims of ‘freedom of speech’ to be made now but for it to be tacitly agreed that they’ll never invite him again. In fact, that’s almost certainly what will happen.

  6. #6 SteveC
    June 27, 2011

    Chris Doepel, from frank’s Grauniad quote above:

    The university will hold [Monckton’s speech] because we have a commitment to academic freedom

    Could Mr Doepel explain to a lefty beardist simpleton how promoting a speech by an obvious right-wing fringe-dweller who is mostly ignored in his home country, who teeters on the edge of going about under false pretences, who is deputy leader of a political party that only just dwells on the legal side of outright incitement of racism, whose “tour” in Oz this time is largely sponsored by mining interests, and whose appearance at the institution where Mr Doepel works is paid for by a mining prospecting company, can, in any reasonable use of the term, be defined as the university honouring its “commitment to academic freedom”?

    Even ignoring the dubious merits of Monckton’s politics, and the even more questionable value of his opinions on climate science, that the university of which Mr Doepel is an employee quite happily accepts truckloads of cash from mining interests to host this “event” must be a use of the term “commitment to academic freedom” I wasn’t previously aware of.

  7. #7 Chris W
    June 28, 2011

    Sorry to be slightly OT but couldn’t help noticing some strange happenings in 2011:

    (1) John Gummer, Minister for Agriculture and Environment under Thatcher and Major [speaking on the ABC back in March](

    … “Well, Lord Monkton isn’t taken seriously by anybody. I mean he was a __bag carrier__ in Mrs Thatcher’s office.”

    (2) The [BBC]( yesterday:

    … “A __handbag__ once owned by former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher has raised ÂŁ25,000 at a charity auction. … bought by an unamed __Cypriot__ …”

    (3) [Abu Ali Al-Hussain]( bores the hell out of the Climate Science Rapid Response Team.

    Could Monckton’s sock puppet be a *Turkish Cypriot* (with apologies to my Greek friends) and bought the bag in a vain attempt to try and relive the Viscount’s glory years … way back in the seventies when he was at the peak of his powers?

  8. #8 Lotharsson
    June 28, 2011

    Monckton is discussed on a [Pharyngula thread](

    Some idiot tries some of the usual conspiracy and crackpot theories in comments…and gets the usual robust Pharyngula here’s-the-error-of-your-ways treatment 😉

  9. SteveC:

    > that the university of which Mr Doepel is an employee quite happily accepts truckloads of cash from mining interests to host this “event” must be a use of the term “commitment to academic freedom” I wasn’t previously aware of.

    Perhaps the University of Notre Dame should simply run paid ads along with their undergraduate courses. That’ll be a whole lot more honest than what Notre Dame’s doing now with Monckton.

    * * *


    > A good result would be for all the grand claims of ‘freedom of speech’ to be made now but for it to be tacitly agreed that they’ll never invite him again. In fact, that’s almost certainly what will happen.

    …until more money comes in. If Hancock Prospecting can use money to persuade Notre Dame to give Monckton a platform, then they can do the same thing again. And again. And again. And again. …

    * * *


    This wins:

    > > [Troll:] How would you go about measuring the average surface temperature of the mid Atlantic in the year 1127 ?

    > Exactly. WERE YOU THERE??!?

    And this:

    > One thing about conspiracy nuts that fascinates me. So the moon landings were fake, but crop circles just can’t be fake? It blows my mind.

    — frank

  10. #10 rhwombat
    June 28, 2011

    Loth & frank: Interesting to see how a primarily biological blog deals with a troll infestation. I’m beginning to have some hope that we can break the reactionary anti-science conspiracy one troll at a time, even if it does involve shit stains on the playground turf.

  11. rhwombat, I’m not sure I get what you mean. The best way to “deal with” a troll infestation is to make sure that there won’t be an infestation in the first place. This is pretty much the approach taken by blogs like Deep Climate, Climate Progress, and my ex-blog.

    Anyway, while PZ’s blog is open to trolls, PZ at least makes up for it by being belligerent:

    > I reserve the right to publicly post, with full identifying information about the source, any email sent to me that contains threats of violence.

    — frank

  12. #13 Lotharsson
    June 29, 2011

    Good grief, frank – every 2nd comment at that link is touting the Google Galileo Movement. It looks a little … faux, and kinda desperate.

  13. #14 Lotharsson
    June 29, 2011

    Example comment extract from frank’s link, unedited:

    > CLIMATE-IS A SUPERNATURAL PHENOMENON; To all the simplistic, justifing warmers claiming;”CSIRO invented stuff as diverse as the telescopes at Parkes to the banknotes in your wallet” BIG DEAL!!! N.B. There are supernatural, normal, cyclical, climatical changes, happening every minute of the day, all around the world and for countless centuries! The $$$ CSIRO lost any credibility a long, long time ago! Clearly, our ever changing climate is a ‘supernatural’ phenomenon!

    I’m not entirely sure this is not a Poe, but given the plug for the Google Galileo exploitation movement, I suspect not.

  14. Lotharsson:

    It’s archived:

  15. #16 rhwombat
    June 29, 2011

    frank@112: looks like a Tea party to me.

  16. #17 Lotharsson
    June 30, 2011

    Monckton [doesn’t deny climate change is happening]( – but it’s cheaper to live with it than avoid it.

    I’m not sure why he wasn’t laughed out of the room when he claimed that “Australia will be tossed into the Third World if it succumbs to what he calls the federal government’s socialist agenda”.

    Seriously? Has he BEEN to the Third World lately?


    And he – predictably – Godwins on the term “denier”.

  17. #18 Bernard J.
    June 30, 2011

    [UWA distances itself from climate change sceptic](

    [Academics protest Monckton speaking tour](

  18. #19 Lotharsson
    June 30, 2011

    From one of Bernard’s links, it seems the media were denied entry ahead of time to Monckton’s talk at Notre Dame.

  19. #20 FrankD
    July 1, 2011


    Force of habit.

  20. #21 SteveC
    July 1, 2011

    Prof Brian Martin (Uni of Wollongong) article on Notre Dame uni, free speech and Monckton:

  21. #22 Lotharsson
    July 1, 2011

    John McLean, PhD student, links on that thread to and Joanne Nova.


  22. #23 lord_sidcup
    July 1, 2011

    Since Monckton and his apologists are playing the “free speech” and “no to censorship” card, this is a good time to remember the incident where Monckton instigated censorship of crticism of him by UK Telegraph journalist Tom Chivers:

    [Is the Telegraph censoring criticism of climate-change deniers?](

    As the article states:

    …here is the curious thing. First Tom Chivers updates his blog post to say that Monckton had been in touch and, “in a rather charming fashion, expressed disappointment”. He said he refused to take the blog post down but then abrutly deleted it.

    Monckton fails to Tom Chivers to self censor and so goes to his editor to get the blog posting removed. Monckton – crank, charlatan and censor.

  23. SteveC:

    At least Brian Martin is consistent in his own peculiar way: he also defended Wikileaks. Also, this. Basically it seems he’s erring too much to the side of ‘freedom’.

    But let’s not mistake the right-wing’s notion of ‘freedom’ for our own…

    — frank

  24. #25 Bernard J.
    July 2, 2011


    John McLean’s commentary on The Conversation has been grubby, to say the least.

    In any university department in which I’ve worked, if a PhD student spoke like that to professionals in the discipline, the student would be very rigorously counselled. If they persisted, they would be warned, and if further such behaviour occurred, they’d be invited to show due cause.

    Frankly, if he were my student I’d give him one chance only to sort himself out, or find a job flipping burgers. He is using his status as a PhD student to slander professionals, and to pretend to discredit their work, but he does so with no credible evidence. It’s disgraceful behaviour, and it harms the reputations of both his institution and the scientists he contradicts, and all based on garbage science.

    Seriously, if this is how McLean does science, he is not of a sufficient standard to deserve a PhD.

  25. #26 Bernard J.
    July 2, 2011


    Douglas Cotton’s posts on that thread (and on others) of The Conversation are redlining on the crackpotometer, to say the least. Take, for example:

    >Some people probably still think that the sun’s solar radiation is the Earth’s main source of energy. It is not. Its gravity is, with further minor contributions from all the planets, Jupiter, Saturn and Venus having the greatest effect.

    Apparently the moon’s gravity must be of a different sort, as it doesn’t make the list. That can be the only explanation, because my tide charts are calibrated to the moon, and not to Jupiter, Saturn or Venus.

    I can think of several other physical contradictions of Cotton’s pseudoscience, but I’ll see how quickly someone else can spot them!

  26. #27 Lotharsson
    July 2, 2011

    > John McLean’s commentary on The Conversation has been grubby, to say the least.

    That’s the impression I got.

    I wonder whether his university is aware of his behaviour?

  27. #28 rhwombat
    July 2, 2011

    Loth & Bernard: Interesting to google McLean – and search the literature. No hits apart from the E&E paper that I can find (and I thought that was retracted ’cause of the little problem of subtracting the warming trend from ENSO, then declaring that it never existed). According to the bio on the Drum (2010), McLean is ” an IT professional and an occasional travel photographer with a strong interest in climate matters. He is completing a PhD at James Cook University”. I presume Carter or Nichols are likely supervisors. No wonder he’s still a PhD student: I don’t know what the standards are in Denialist-friendly “climate science”, but in my field (medicine), I would find it hard to pass a thesis without at least one peer-reviewed publication.
    I note that in appendix B of the Lavoisier “submission” to the UN re the “Garnaut Climate Change Review”, McLean is listed as PhD. Given that the list of signatories includes Fairbridge, Hoyle, Crichton and Singer (all of whom are a little bit dead) and well as Der Popenfuerer and The Blessed Monckton, I suppose a little bit of licence is “allowed”

  28. #29 John
    July 2, 2011

    How strange that Monckton is crying “censorship” when he has memorably thrown around legal threats like rice at a wedding.

  29. #30 Chris O'Neill
    July 2, 2011

    How strange that Monckton is crying “censorship”

    I’m not aware of anything that would exclude hypocrisy from his list of intellectual dishonesties. It’s probably more true-to-form than strange.

  30. #31 John
    July 2, 2011

    Sarcasm, Chris.

  31. #32 MattB
    July 4, 2011

    Just for interest’s sake the good Lord’s notes for his Hancock speech at Freo’s Notre Dame uni are available for dissection at:

  32. #33 John
    July 5, 2011

    It’s fascinating reading Matt. Only a couple of pages in he’s gone on a tirade about “consensus” by blaming the non-quarantine of the HIV-positive population for the deaths of 33 million people, as well as the usual DDT delusions and comparison of climate consensus to the eugenics policies of Nazis.

    Monckton fails to cite a paper on hurricanes, merely noting it as a “scientific paper, published in the scientific literature”. No mention of the name of the paper, or where it was published.

    Scrolling down, there’s the famous tilted sea-level graph and 1990 schematic and some rubbish about proxies and a lot of tosh about climate-gate.

    So, yes, the usual gish-gallop of discredited and discarded denier arguments.

  33. #34 Bernard J.
    July 5, 2011

    To spare us the necessity of showering after going to Nova’s cesspit, it would be nice if those notes were mirrored elsewhere.

  34. #35 MattB
    July 5, 2011

    I’m not savvy enough to be able to do that sorry Bernard!

  35. #36 Lotharsson
    July 5, 2011

    > …by blaming the non-quarantine of the HIV-positive population for the deaths of 33 million people…

    Yes, he has apparently advocated this in the past. And yet he also considers those who want to reduce carbon emissions the totalitarians.

    Methinks he doeth protest project too much.

New comments have been temporarily disabled. Please check back soon.