After The House of Lords wrote to Monckton telling him that he should not claim to be a member, Monckton kept doing it. So now The House of Lords has written an open letter to Monckton:

My predecessor, Sir Michael Pownall, wrote to you on 21 July 2010, and again on 30 July 2010, asking that you cease claiming to be a Member of the House of Lords, either directly or by implication. It has been drawn to my attention that you continue to make such claims.

In particular, I have listened to your recent interview with Mr Adam Spencer on Australian radio. In response to the direct question, whether or not you were a Member of the House of Lords, you said “Yes, but without the right to sit or vote”. You later repeated, “I am a Member of the House”.

I must repeat my predecessor’s statement that you are not and have never been a Member of the House of Lords. Your assertion that you are a Member, but without the right to sit or vote, is a contradiction in terms.

Leo Hickman has more:

Buckingham Palace was drawn into the dispute when it was revealed that Pownall had sought advice from the Lord Chamberlain, a key officer in the royal household, on the potential misuse of the portcullis emblem due to it being the property of the Queen. The Buckingham Palace website states that any misuse of the emblem is prohibited by the Trade Marks Act 1994, meaning Monckton could potentially be liable for fines and a six-month prison term if the palace pursues the matter and successfully prosecutes him.

As far as I know, I was the first person to note that Monckton was lying about his membership of The House of Lords, way back in 2007.

See also: John Quiggin:

That’s typically the opening lie in a Monckton presentation that misrepresents everything from the United Nations to the laws of arithmetic. It’s hard to imagine how many cease and desist letters would be required to stop all the falsehoods, or what would be left of his presentation if they were removed[1].

Comments

  1. #1 Lord Blagger
    July 18, 2011

    And over three hundred peers have claimed for more days of attendance allowances than they have used their pass to attend parliament.

    Presided over by Michael Pownall

  2. #2 John
    July 18, 2011

    Obviously Bob Brown is behind this.

  3. #3 vagueofgodalming
    July 18, 2011

    It’s a sad state of affairs when a man can’t show off his his kinky pink portcullis in public.

  4. #4 Paul D
    July 18, 2011

    I like the way The House of Lords is getting Web 2.0 friendly :-)

  5. #5 Baron Von Münchausen of Obfuscation
    July 18, 2011

    The Communist World Government is targeting a Nazi conspiracy smear-campaign against me.

  6. #6 Lionel A
    July 18, 2011

    Having listened to that excerpt of Background Briefing (warning have a barf bag ready for some sections and a punch bag for others) demonstrates what a dangerous influence Monckton is having and acting like a common rabble rouser.

    Nice to hear Oreskes being given time to speak.

    And then Monckton trots out more Latin, which I won’t repeat, in interview, what ‘…a very model of a modern pompous prat’!

    Monckton, after a rousing and deceptive introduction, ‘Lords, that’s me, ladies and gentlemen, GUDAY I’m back!’ Where’s that barf bag? Monckton is a circus act.

    We also hear from Joe Nova on ‘broken peer review’ – Australia’s answer to Ann Coulter perhaps? Nova really needs to learn about the true state of the cryosphere at both Arctic and Antarctic. Painfull to listen to.

    This explains why I have, yet again, had a repeats of emails from an ex-pat now in Australia pushing Ian Plimer’s non-science on volcanoes and CO2.

    Galileo Movement name chosen because they are fighting the ‘religion of AGW science’, Orwellian or what! Should they not be subjected to FOI requests for their sources of funding.

    Perhaps it is time that Monckton was detained ‘at Her Majesties pleasure’ to take the shine off his reputation. Perhaps we should then have a whip round to provide him with jig-saw puzzles, of polar bears and Adélie Penguins perhaps, to exercise his mind.

    Overall that Background Briefing a well presented and thorough revealing of the denier circus.

  7. I can hear inactivist trolls such as “Lord Blagger” yelling to the House of Lords: ‘Oy, you better recognize Monckton as one of you now, or I’ll call you a bunch of lard-ass welfare junkies!’ (Without noticing the logic fail, of course.)

    – frank

  8. #8 pough
    July 18, 2011

    House of Lords to Monckton: you are not a member.

    Me to Monckton: you are such a member.

  9. #9 Marcel Kincaid
    July 18, 2011

    Lord Blagger: could you please explain WTF that has to do with Monckton’s lie?

  10. #10 SteveC
    July 18, 2011

    Richard Denniss (Exec Director of The Australia Institute) is to debate his Lordiness Monckton at The National Press Club in Canberra today, on the subject of climate change.

    By some accounts there may be one or two GetUp members in the audience, which should errmm… liven things up a bit.

  11. #11 Watching the deniers
    July 18, 2011

    I’d love to see that letter printed on the front page of The Australian.

    Nahhhhhh.

    Not gonna happen ;)

    But I can see Andrew Bolt writing an outraged blog post about how Lord Munchausen is being unfairly targeted by the HoL and the Nobel Foundation.

    If his Lordiness wants to claim both the Nobel Prize and a seat on the HoL why should reality get in the way?

  12. #12 Watching the deniers
    July 18, 2011

    @ Tim,

    He is still claiming to be a Nobel Peace Laureate on his think tank website:

    >>>His contribution to the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 – the correction of a table inserted by IPCC bureaucrats that had overstated tenfold the observed contribution of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets to sea-level rise – *earned him the status of Nobel Peace Laureate.* His Nobel prize pin, made of gold recovered from a physics experiment, was presented to him by the Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Rochester, New York, USA.

    No I think that claim is unambiguous is it not? It states he is a recipient of the Nobel Prize.

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/personnel.html

    Even though [they claim it is a joke](http://sppiblog.org/news/on-moncktons-nobel-prize-claim):

    >>On Tuesday it reported: ”He said with a straight face on the Alan Jones radio program that he had been awarded the Nobel, a claim Jones did not question.” The Herald repeated the accusation on Thursday. It was repeated a third time in a commentary in Saturday’s Herald. In 2007 the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change shared the Nobel Peace Prize with the former US vice-president Al Gore. The prize committee, in citing its selection of the IPCC, said: ”Through the IPCC . . . thousands of scientists and officials from over 100 countries have collaborated to achieve greater certainty as to the scale of [global] warming.” Thousands of people were thus collectively and anonymously part of the prize process.

    When backed into a corner he claims it is a “joke”.

    But for the ill informed or unwary, he’ll wear the mantle of “Nobel Peace Prize” winner.

    So when is SPPI going to amend their site?

    Not ever I suspect. And I think if we digged into presentations and clips of Monckton’s talks in obscure places we’d find the Nobel claim.

    He also still occassionaly wears the pin “for a joke”.

    Riiight.

  13. #13 Watching the deniers
    July 18, 2011

    Even Andrew Bolt is a little perturbed:

    >>Lord Monckton would find he’d be far more effective if he resisted the temptation to overstate his case. The Clerk of the Parliaments in Britain writes to him:

    It’s on his blog, but I’m not providing link so we don’t bump up Bolt’s stats.

  14. #14 Jeremiah
    July 18, 2011

    How much do you want to bet if Monckton was on the warmist side of the debate they would be falling over each other to sweep this all under the rug?

  15. #15 Lordy Lord
    July 18, 2011

    HG Nelson and Dan Ilic took the p* out of Monckton recently (4min video): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZauvd2XgZM

  16. #16 Mikem
    July 18, 2011

    @14.

    How much do you want to bet if Monckton was on the warmist side of the debate they would be falling over each other to sweep this all under the rug?

    What exactly is the “warmist” side of the debate? The side which accepts the observed physical reality? Is it anything like the “heliocentrist” side of the debate over planetary orbits?

    In any case, there is nothing on the “warmist” side to sweep under the rug. You tend not to get climate scientists quite blatantly misrepresenting their qualifications.

  17. #17 Jeremiah
    July 18, 2011

    The side which accepts the observed physical reality?

    The reality of the warming that hasn’t happened since 1995, according to Phil Jones?

    You tend not to get climate scientists quite blatantly misrepresenting their qualifications.

    No, they just hide the decline instead.

  18. #18 Mikem
    July 18, 2011

    Ugh, here we go again. I guess there’s not much point in explaining the actual meaning of the “hide the decline” email regarding the divergence of one set of tree ring data from real measured temperatures for the one hundred thousandth time. If a limited intelligence level means you haven’t got it by now, there’s no chance you’ll get it any time soon…..

  19. #19 pough
    July 18, 2011

    This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

    That’s what Jones said a while back. Emphasis on positive added by me. What’s he said more recently?

    Basically what’s changed is one more year [of data]. That period 1995-2009 was just 15 years – and because of the uncertainty in estimating trends over short periods, an extra year has made that trend significant at the 95% level which is the traditional threshold that statisticians have used for many years.

    Don’t bother reading for comprehension or paying attention, Jeremiah. You’d likely just continue to fail even if you put some effort into things.

  20. #20 mb
    July 18, 2011

    I find the Phil Jones reference more delicious. If I didn’t know any statistics I don’t think I’d go around showing that off under the pretense of making a devastating rejoinder.

    “Oh yeah? I don’t even know what statistical significance is! Suck on that!”

    That should be really embarrassing.

  21. #21 Chris O'Neill
    July 18, 2011

    In particular, I have listened to your recent interview with Mr Adam Spencer on Australian radio.

    Spencer is getting his own back now. Ha ha ha.

  22. #22 Watching the deniers
    July 18, 2011

    @ Jeremiah

    >>The reality of the warming that hasn’t happened since 1995, according to Phil Jones?

    Lol, ohhhhh Lord! (Pun intended).

    Love a pit of cherry picked nonsense.

    You be funny Jeri.

  23. #23 Lotharsson
    July 18, 2011

    > His contribution to the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 – the correction of a table inserted by IPCC bureaucrats that had overstated tenfold the observed contribution of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets to sea-level rise – earned him the status of Nobel Peace Laureate.

    In addition to the Nobel Laureate claim false, I believe the claim that this correction was “his contribution” is also debatable, given that the error had been discovered by others prior to Monckton noting it.

    > Thousands of people were thus collectively and anonymously part of the prize process.

    IIRC this is also false – wasn’t the prize specifically given to **the IPCC itself**, not to everyone who collaborated with it?

  24. #24 Chris O'Neill
    July 18, 2011

    The reality of the warming that hasn’t happened since 1995, according to Phil Jones?

    Make that the reality of the warming that wasn’t 95% certain from 1995 to 2009 for the statistical illiterates. On second thoughts, don’t bother. It exceeds the attention span of those illiterates.

  25. #25 Toby
    July 19, 2011

    Lord DeBunckton?

    Lord DeFuncton?

  26. #26 Marcel Kincaid
    July 19, 2011

    How much do you want to bet if Monckton was on the warmist side of the debate they would be falling over each other to sweep this all under the rug?

    Only pathetic cowards offer bets on counterfactuals. And in this case, your bet demonstrates you to be an intellectually dishonest moron, as all evidence and logic goes against you.

    The reality of the warming that hasn’t happened since 1995, according to Phil Jones?

    You’re a liar.

    No, they just hide the decline instead.

    And a willful ignoramus. Please tell us what decline they hid, and how they hid it.

  27. #27 Marcel Kincaid
    July 19, 2011

    “Oh yeah? I don’t even know what statistical significance is! Suck on that!”

    That applies to the usual lyingPOSist claim that Jones said that “there’s been no significant increase”. But Jeriliar takes the telephone game that passes for “research” amongst these anuses one step further, claiming that Jones said there’s no increase at all.

  28. #28 Chris O'Neill
    July 19, 2011

    But Jeriliar takes the telephone game that passes for “research” amongst these anuses one step further, claiming that Jones said there’s no increase at all.

    He’s not the first and probably not the most qualified to do that. Useful fools can be quite intelligent.

  29. #29 Wow
    July 19, 2011

    > The reality of the warming that hasn’t happened since 1995, according to Phil Jones?

    You mean the 0.12C per decade that Phil Jones calculated? The one that is statistically significant now?

    That cooling-in-an-increasing-temperature-way?

  30. #30 Scribe
    July 19, 2011

    I am an admin at SourceWatch. I regard this as a serious issue, this blatant and outrageous dishonesty from a supposed “sceptic”. I added the following text to Christopher Monckton page at SourceWatch:

    Monckton is given to lying about his credentials, often falsely claiming he is a member of the British House of Lords.

    The deniers eventually all show their true colours; one merely has to wait.

  31. #31 Stu N
    July 19, 2011

    Hmm, was Jeremiah was Poe-ing? I think I detect satire, though I may be wrong!

  32. #32 lord_sidcup
    July 19, 2011

    I’m pretty disappointed this story isn’t making a bigger impact here in the UK. Claiming to be a member of the houses of parliament when you aren’t is an incredibly serious matter. Monckton must be obsessed with his inherited right as a member of the aristocracy to rule over the rest of us. Are Monckton apologists going to defend that?

  33. #33 Wow
    July 19, 2011

    I’d just like to see Lord Monkfish taken to court and banged up for it.

  34. #34 Lotharsson
    July 19, 2011

    > Lord DeBunckton? Lord DeFuncton?

    Lord MyClaimsAreSunckton?

    Lord MyTheoriesAreBunckton?

    Lord I. Ped L. Junckton?

    Lord U. R. Punckton?

    Now we’re just getting silly ;-)

  35. #35 Quentin Prideaux
    July 19, 2011

    Tim,
    You rock, thank you.
    Quentin

  36. #36 sambo
    July 20, 2011

    prime example of the lies his people can tell and the idiots that eat it up

  37. #37 bill
    July 20, 2011

    I’m not quite sure why we’re not making more of the obvious narrative here.

    Monckton is pursuing exactly the same strategy with regard to the House of Lords as he does with all the other authoritative institutions.

    The House of Lords is the authority on who is, and who isn’t, a Member of the mighty House of Lords, right? What debate could there possibly be? Even the most bone-headed ‘conservative’ must be able to grasp this – after all, isn’t this one of the grand institutions the forelock-tuggers claim stands between us and the dreaded Bolshevik tide?

    And yet this prattling upstart struts about the colony (definitely not a Republic, remember!) claiming he knows better than they do what constitutes a true Lord! It’s on his passport. ‘Get used to it’!

    It isn’t an issue of his ‘credibility’ – *cough* – it’s an issue of this being the perfect example of his being in consistent denial – and flagrant, bafflegab defiance – of any credible authority that dares resist the fantasy. Even the most ludicrously conservative and venerable authority!

    We should be asking our local Tories precisely what they have against the HoL, that they are apparently content to allow this blatant pretender to strut around unmolested, merely because he is a virtually unsealable font of nonsense, some of which is convenient.

    Are they closet Republicans, or what?

    And if they must agree that there’s no case for his being a member of the House, and yet he chooses to bustle about sententiously in peacock defiance of that fact – why is it they are all standing behind his superior grasp of ‘the facts’ as determined by other credible and authoritative bodies, exactly? This is national institutions of the calibre of the CSIRO and BoM they’re besmirching-by-proxy here. Where the hell is their national – as well as Commonwealth – pride? Really, could they look any sillier?

    What the hell does it say for ‘Conservatism’ that they have sunk to cowering behind such a risible champion? Where the hell are the decent Liberals denouncing this circus? Some of them must be feeling very queasy indeed…

  38. #38 Marion Delgado
    July 20, 2011

    Looking back on my science blog commenting, i notice i was stalked and attacked by the denialists for, among other things, my evaluation of Monckton. Like that was some ne plus ultra. Now, he’s just a feint – kept going so the real thrust – delay – looks sensible compared to denial. and even delay is only part of the real thrust the other part is diverting – into, e.g., geoengineering and pitiful half-measures.

  39. #39 Keith Hunter
    July 20, 2011

    The simple solution would be for Buckingham Palace to revoke his peerage. This was, I understand, de rigueur for Elizabeth II’s ancestors. I’d draw the line at sending him to the Tower, in deference to modern morality, but stripping his historical trappings would be be most appropriate.

  40. #40 Chris O'Neill
    July 20, 2011

    Now, he’s just a feint – kept going so the real thrust – delay – looks sensible compared to denial. and even delay is only part of the real thrust the other part is diverting – into, e.g., geoengineering and pitiful half-measures.

    Indeed, there was one question at the National Press Club that asked Monckton if he thought the Austrlalian Opposition’s “direct action” policy was sensible and of course Monckton said it was a pointless waste of money. However, Monckton helps to put “direct action” into the middle ground by being science denialist. So even though the Opposition leader doesn’t want anything to do with Monckton, Monckton is helping the Opposition’s position.

  41. #41 Mikem
    July 20, 2011

    @39.

    I’d draw the line at sending him to the Tower

    Well that’s just being a softie……

  42. #42 rhwombat
    July 20, 2011

    @41.
    …. I don’t think the ravens would tolerate Monckton, and I’m fond of ravens.

  43. #43 Surgoshan
    July 20, 2011

    I just like that the House of Lords used to have a Sir Pwnall.

  44. #44 silkworm
    July 21, 2011

    Discount Monckton’s response to this charge at the National Press Club was something to behold – he went apoplectic. His face turned purple, and steam shot out of his ears. It was a fitting way to end that conference.

  45. The Discount Monk,
    he spews much bunk.
    The House of Lords,
    he tried to board,

    But failed he did
    to win his bid.
    So loud he fumed,
    in ‘s study room,

    “It ‘s Masons’ plot,
    that I won not!
    But none can fight
    my basic right –

    “The Upper House,
    I’ll give my spouse!
    And warmists now
    to me shall bow!”

    And Sir Pownall
    a clerk on call,
    did so reply:
    “Now stop thy lie!”

    But Discount Monk,
    he preens his bunk;
    his motley crew,
    thinks false is true,

    and up is down,
    and truth ‘s a clown,
    and good is bad,
    and science is mad,

    “Praised Monckton be,
    a noble he!
    The Pownall bloke,
    he must be broke!

    “We wage a war,
    against Al Gore!
    Now join the dots,
    and hail free thoughts!”

    So with his tosh,
    he earns much dosh –
    the Discount Monk,
    who spews much bunk.

    – frank

  46. The Moncktoniad.

    – frank

  47. #47 TomG
    July 21, 2011

    About Monckton’s passport….
    Just because it says “Right Honourable” does not mean he’s a member of the House of Lords.
    You do remember he’s a Vicount don’t you?
    That entitles him to that Right Honourable tag.

  48. #48 Ed Darrell
    July 26, 2011

    Monckton is too a member. He’s about the biggest member I’ve ever seen.

  49. #49 Craig Thomas
    July 26, 2011

    I think Abbott will go down in history as a far bigger member than Monckton.

  50. #50 Medlem Skapp
    April 20, 2013

    Christopher Monckton is a Member of the House of Lords.
    The right to sit and vote has been withheld since the Act 1999, which sought to limit the influence of Hereditary Peerages. Membership however is conferred by the Monarch personally and is not withdrawn by an Act of Parliament.
    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/odonoghue-lords-opinion.pdf