Monckton debunks Monckton

Posted by Tim Lambert on December 11, 2011
(58)
More »

Peter Hadfield dissects Monckton’s response to Hadfield’s demolition of Monckton’s claims about climate science. Hadfield coins the term “Monckton maneuver” to describe Monckton’s tactic of changing his position when shown to be wrong and pretending that his position hasn’t changed.

In other Monckton news, he is still claiming to be a member of the House of Lords, despite what the courts and the House of Lords say. This time he’s got a lawyer to argue the case for him. If we assume that Monckton’s lawyer is competent, this would be the best case that can be made for Monckton, so it is telling that it is so weak. Barry Bickmore has the details.

Update SPM comments:

Monckton posted a response to the videos on WUWT, wherein he states:

Finally, I understand that someone called “Potholer” has produced some sneering videos about me. I have looked at a few minutes of one of these, which seems rather intellectually dishonest. “The pothead takes me to task, inappropriately, for having said (correctly) that I had given advice to Margaret Thatcher on various scientific matters, including climate change, on the ground that “my supporters” had in his view mischaracterized the position by referring to me as her “science advisor”. The potboiler also said that I had claimed in 2009 that global cooling since 2001 had been statistically significant, but that I had rebutted myself the following year by saying the cooling since 2001 had been insignificant. To 2009 the cooling had indeed been significant, but the rapid warming of 2010 meant that the trend from 2001-2010 was insignificant: both my statements, therefore, were correct, and they were not incompatible with one another.

I was disinclined to look any further at that drivel. Given the amount of time the pinhead seems to devote to such nonsense, one wonders who is paying him. Perhaps he is convincing the usual suspects, but on the little I have seen he is unlikely to convince anyone else.

The comment regarding significant cooling from Jan 2001 was made at a presentation Monckton gave in Melbourne on 1 February 2010. Please note that the graph he uses finishes at Dec 2009.

The comment regarding insignificant cooling from Jan 2001 was made at a presentation Monckton gave at Bethel University on 14 October 2009. Please note that the graph finishes at July 2009.

So Monckton claims the rapid warming of 2010 meant the trend from 2001 was insignificant. He clearly has not noticed both graphs do not include any data from 2010 and that both statements were made well before any data from 2010 was available.

And you will see he’s thrown in a few insults for good measure.

In a later post on WUWT he claims that Central England Temperature data is a good proxy for Global temperatures, and Global temperatures have risen 3C since pre industrial times. The most outstanding new claim however is C02 levels are currently 560ppm.

Keywords: ,
(58)
More »

Comments

  1. #1 Composer99
    December 11, 2011

    Hadfield’s careful deconstruction of Monckton’s claims, and his follow-up (in this post) are devastatingly brilliant.

  2. #2 John Mashey
    December 11, 2011

    Having had my turn with the Viscount in 2007/2008, I haven’t been tracking him so much of late.
    This was a dandy debunk.
    I’m working on a project of which the Viscount is a small piece, but perhaps people can offer suggestions.

    I’d love a list of the top 10 debunks of Monckton, with links.
    There are certain circumstances in which presentation of misleading information can have legal consequences, and it would be nice to have a choice list to show that
    “Monckton as climate expert” might contradict reality.

  3. #3 Scribe
    December 11, 2011

    My position is simple: It’s time for someone to kill one of these *&^%%^$^ bastard deniers to show them that the attention and financial profit they garner for this deception is not worth the attendant risk. Where are the noble assassins who will kill to protect this planet? Where is the Earth’s John Hinckley, Lee Harvey Oswald, or John Wilkes Booth? Do these lying deniers realize that as the situation becomes more urgent, they stand a good chance of being hunted down and hacked to pieces by angry, homeless, starving crowds wielding machetes?

  4. #4 TrueSceptic
    December 11, 2011

    3 Scribe,

    Err … not sure what you’re doing here. Is this satire?

    The apparent freedom to lie and to defame must at some point be addressed, though.

  5. #5 bill
    December 11, 2011

    This is a highly entertaining – and thorough – de-pantsing, as was the original ‘Monckton Bunkum’ series itself.

    I wonder if any of The Usual Suspects will show up to offer anything by way of spluttering defence? Given the way this was studiously ignored by their ilk when it first arose on the Open Thread, my guess is this will be consigned to the Denier memory-hole, a capacious orifice indeed!

  6. #6 Lotharsson
    December 11, 2011

    Saw these a few days ago – very powerful, and amusing. Anyone who feels like defending Monckton on these grounds *ought* to think twice (but probably won’t).

  7. #7 Jason
    December 12, 2011

    The “Monckton manuever” already has a name — it’s called the fallacy of shifting ground. This guy Monckton doesn’t deserve his very own fallacy named after him — he’s not that original.

    A philosophy major might not be useful for much, but I am acquainted with virtually every technique of arguing honestly and every technique of arguing dishonestly that’s ever been used in the history of civilization, along with their technical names.

  8. #8 JamesA
    December 12, 2011

    > A philosophy major might not be useful for much, but I am acquainted with virtually every technique of arguing honestly and every technique of arguing dishonestly that’s ever been used in the history of civilization, along with their technical names.

    I expect you could probably have a field day with some of Monckton’s nonsense. It would be priceless if someone did do a proper dissection of his argument style (as distinct from focusing on points of fact). Even better if the jargon was given in Latin where possible.

  9. #9 Lotharsson
    December 12, 2011

    What JamesA said :-)

  10. #10 John Mashey
    December 12, 2011

    re: #2 and another Monckton request

    Does anyone have a good terse list of dates & sponsors for Monckton talks in Australia?

    (Like #2, I can certainly dig this out, but help is appreciated, and I’m busy “following some money” to see if it got to Oz.)

  11. #11 ianam
    December 12, 2011

    Monckton not only shifts ground, he lies about having done so. And it’s a lot more effective to call this “the Monckton Manuevre” than to say “Monckton commits the fallacy of shifting ground” — no one is claiming that it’s original, but Monckton most certainly does deserve having his name attached to fallacies and bad faith.

  12. #12 Anonymous37
    December 12, 2011

    he is still claiming to me a member of the House of Lords

    Typo: should be “he is still claiming to be a member of the House of Lords”.

    *[Fixed. Thanks]*

  13. #13 Mark Shapiro
    December 12, 2011

    John Mashey @ 2,

    John Abraham of the University of St. Thomas debunked a 2009 Monckton talk and gives his rebuttal presentation here:

    http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/

    The Melling paper that Monckton misrepresents (Abraham slide # 19) here:

    imb.crrel.usace.army.mil/pdfs/Change_in_Beaufort_SeaIce_1990s.pdf

    Of course, you’ve probably seen all this, and Monckton’s vituperative response to Abraham is priceless:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/monckton-tries-to-censor-john-abraham.html
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/jul/14/monckton-john-abraham

  14. #14 SPM
    December 12, 2011

    Monckton posted a response to the videos on WUWT, wherein he states:

    Monckton says:

    December 6, 2011 at 12:12 am

    Finally, I understand that someone called “Potholer” has produced some sneering videos about me. I have looked at a few minutes of one of these, which seems rather intellectually dishonest. “The pothead takes me to task, inappropriately, for having said (correctly) that I had given advice to Margaret Thatcher on various scientific matters, including climate change, on the ground that “my supporters” had in his view mischaracterized the position by referring to me as her “science advisor”.
    The potboiler also said that I had claimed in 2009 that global cooling since 2001 had been statistically significant, but that I had rebutted myself the following year by saying the cooling since 2001 had been insignificant. To 2009 the cooling had indeed been significant, but the rapid warming of 2010 meant that the trend from 2001-2010 was insignificant: both my statements, therefore, were correct, and they were not incompatible with one another.

    I was disinclined to look any further at that drivel. Given the amount of time the pinhead seems to devote to such nonsense, one wonders who is paying him. Perhaps he is convincing the usual suspects, but on the little I have seen he is unlikely to convince anyone else.

    ===================================================================

    The comment regarding significant cooling from Jan 2001 was made at a presentation Monckton gave in Melbourne on 1 February 2010. Please note that the graph he uses finishes at Dec 2009.

    The comment regarding insignificant cooling from Jan 2001 was made at a presentation Monckton gave at Bethel University on 14 October 2009. Please note that the graph finishes at July 2009.

    So Monckton claims the rapid warming of 2010 meant the trend from 2001 was insignificant. He clearly has not noticed both graphs do not include any data from 2010 and that both statements were made well before any data from 2010 was available.

    And you will see he’s thrown in a few insults for good measure.

    In a later post on WUWT he claims that Central England Temperature data is a good proxy for Global temperatures, and Global temperatures have risen 3C since pre industrial times. The most outstanding new claim however is C02 levels are currently 560ppm.

    You can read it all here : http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/09/durban-what-the-media-are-not-telling-you/#more-52760

    I am now convinced he has AIDS.

    Acquired Intelligence Deficiency Syndrome.

  15. #15 adelady
    December 12, 2011

    One thing I’d never do is discount the viscount’s intelligence. He’s smart, but he’s also a smart aleck.

    He’ll do *anything*, he’ll say *anything* just to stir up his supporters. One of the most despicable things I ever saw him do was at an outdoor rally in the US. He played the audience like a violin – reciting crude anti-Obama dishonesties – and there was no need. The remarks weren’t related to climate, and the attendees were already enthusiastic about seeing him.

    He just couldn’t resist the snake oil salesman’s drive to raise the emotional temperature and bring out the worst in his marks.

  16. #16 bill
    December 12, 2011

    Given the amount of time the pinhead seems to devote to such nonsense, one wonders who is paying him.

    The irony, it burns!

  17. #17 bill
    December 12, 2011

    And Adelady, the genuinely scary anti-ABC (a ‘fascistic’ organization) rabble-rousing that was documented by Wendy Carlisle for Background Briefing also springs to mind.

    One of the things that fascinates me is his supporters’ claim that he’s always courteous and polite – part of an elaborate collective fantasy spun around the English aristocracy, methinks – though he routinely resorts to asinine abuse (‘pinhead’ ‘overcooked prawn’) at the first sign of a challenge.

  18. #18 sailrick
    December 12, 2011

    Thinking of Monckton and Watts brings to mind this quote from Isaac Azimov

    “There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”

  19. #19 Nick
    December 12, 2011

    Plimer has now popped up with a corrigendum to “Heaven & Earth”…only joking.

  20. #20 Bernard J.
    December 12, 2011

    >Monckton says:

    >December 6, 2011 at 12:12 am

    >Finally, I understand that someone called “Potholer” has produced some sneering videos about me. I have looked at a few minutes of one of these, which seems rather intellectually dishonest.

    [My emboldened emphasis]

    Yes, I can’t say it any better than Mr Monckton himself…

    It is intellectually dishonest to predicate a response to hours of Peter Hadfield’s analysis, by having “looked at a few minutes of one of these [videos]“.

    It is not surprising though – this is exactly how Monckton conducts his pseudoscience.

  21. #21 bill
    December 12, 2011

    sailrick, great quote: a very similar thread runs through false-populist / squawkback discourse in this country.

  22. #22 jakerman
    December 12, 2011

    Monckton:
    >*To 2009 the cooling had indeed been significant*

    Rubbish, there has been no statistically signficant cooling trend in the [last 30 years](http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/12/06/the-real-global-warming-signal/).

  23. #23 bill
    December 13, 2011

    Nick @ #17

    Plimer has now popped up with a corrigendum to “Heaven & Earth”

    Not at all; you know he has a new book, and it’s aimed at kids, don’t you?

    As launched by John Howard himself…

  24. #24 Russell
    December 13, 2011

    One of my darker closet corners has just reminded me of Monckton’s real metier.

    In 1996, BAC misplaced my luggage en route to London, and in danger of being late for dinner, I set out from my host’s Chelsea home in search of the nearest serviceable shirt shop.

    This, the labels reveal was Monckton in the Kings Road, the short-lived shirtmaking outlet of the viscount-to-be.

    Decades later, the undiminished snap of his collars suggests that ,in the spirit of the season, we should set his scientific demerits and parliamentary delusions aside and encourage his outstanding talent for haberdashery. He could yet be an ornament to the Worshipful Company of Merchant Tailors.

  25. #25 Lionel A
    December 13, 2011

    Monckton’s pal Plimer cuts up rough.

    As Joe Romm would add, ‘have a head vice handy‘ before listening and listening is required to appreciate the full noxious effect of Plimer’s behaviour.

  27. #27 Mikem
    December 13, 2011

    Monckton’s debunking of Monckton is very much par for the course when it comes to climate change pseudo-scepticism.

    I can’t even begin to count the number of discussions or arguments I’ve had with self-professed “sceptics” who make ridiculous statements like “well it’s not actually warming anyway, and besides, it doesn’t matter that it’s warming, because it’s just a natural cycle”. After my brain recovers from the logical implosion which results from listening to someone completely contradict themselves in literally the same sentence, I try to repeat back to them what they just said and ask them if they see a problem with their argument. Nope. Doesn’t work. They seriously don’t see an issue with it.

    At times, I just want to give up. It must be dietary or some food additive which is dumbing down certain sections of the human race.

    As for Plimer……after his credibility self-destructed with “Heaven and Earth”, it seems difficult to believe that something which no longer exists can take any more of a hit. But at least his ego is still in extremely good shape.

  28. #28 Ark
    December 13, 2011

    @ Mikem, 25

    Plimer may have zero credibility, but you wouldn’t know it reading the fawning coverage handed to him on a silver platter by the Murdoch press. Methinks another grilling on Lateline is in order – I’d love to see John Cook do the job.

  29. #29 Harry
    December 13, 2011

    That link from Lionel is well worth a look. http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2011/s3390224.htm

    Plimer dancing around a simple fact like a dervish, all so he doesn’t have to admit he was wrong about asbestos. He can’t barely even bring himself to say the word.

    “MATT PEACOCK: With respect, Professor, it’s called asbestos scientifically too.

    IAN PLIMER: I’m sorry. You are just a journalist. I have spent my life studying minerals. Look up any basic mineralogy textbook, the sort of thing that we give to 18-year-old students at university, and you’ll see that chrysotile is a serpentine mineral.

    MATT PEACOCK: Called asbestos.

    IAN PLIMER: A family of serpentine minerals.

    MATT PEACOCK: Called asbestos.

    IAN PLIMER: Whereas asbestos minerals are amphibole minerals.

    MATT PEACOCK: Amphibole but crocidolite and amosite but chrysotile but is part of the family called asbestos. Is it not?

    IAN PLIMER: I am sorry. You are demonstrating mass ignorance. You are out of your depth. I invite you to come to some elementary first year mineralogy lectures and you will learn…

    MATT PEACOCK: And isn’t chrysotile ….

    IAN PLIMER: … the difference between amphiboles and….”

  30. #30 Bernard J.
    December 13, 2011

    Has anyone figured out what Plimer’s inaudible muttering was?

  31. #31 Sascha Tavere
    December 13, 2011

    Whooping joy! I just fell in love with you, Peter Hadfield.(.. to give you cool assessment ..)

  32. #32 Vince Whirlwind
    December 13, 2011

    Thanks Harry – I would have missed that otherwise.

    That’s got to be the end of Plimer. What a tool.

  33. #33 adelady
    December 13, 2011

    Sorry, Vince. The zombie moves on.

    He’s going to have to be deaded over and over again by the science teachers of Australia. This latest publication for schools is deeply disturbing. (Being a pretty unimpressed old fogey looking at the science textbooks some students bring to me, I hate to think what might get taught in some schools where there are no science trained teachers available.)

  34. #34 Nick
    December 14, 2011

    Bill @21,that’s what I was referring to,obliquely. His new book should have been a corrigendum to H&E,but,yes,it’s just more ugly rubbish launched by influential old boys.

  35. #35 bratisla
    December 14, 2011

    @23 : forget my heade vise :/
    I can’t even imagine how this man does even manage to look at his face in a mirror. So full of lies (saying that the fact that abestos is a carcinogen was debatable in 2008 ?? Really ???) and projection (“you sir are an ideologue).

    At least the journalist is good enough not to let pass such bullcrap. In France (except for a very few) journalists would have smiled and handed silver plates …

  36. #36 lord_sidcup
    December 14, 2011

    About 7 min 30 sec into this recent interview the litigious Lord promises to have certain people prosecuted for scientific fraud:

    [Lord Christopher Monckton on yadayadayada](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQre5fV9a9Y)

    Presumably he will be turning himself in shortly. There are laugh out loud moments at the end of the video where His Lordship refers to an “electronic Berlin Wall” and “Marxist journalists”.

    Am I the only one having problems typing comments on Deltoid at the moment? A lot of my keystrokes don’t get recognised.

  37. #37 Lionel A
    December 14, 2011

    Plimer tries to obfuscate his way out of denying that chrysotile is asbestos.

    Here is what a science book, ‘Concise Organic Chemistry, Fourth Edition (1991) J.D.Lee, page 441′ has to say:

    A layer of brucite Mg(OH)2 may be combined with a Si2O5 layer to form a two-layer structure. This gives the mineral chrysotile Mg3(OH)2[Si2O5] (white asbestos),…

    If that isn’t unequivocal enough on the preceeding page under a listing of sheet silicates we find:

    2. White asbestos (chrysotile, biotite)

    So there we have it and to use an analogy to demonstrate the logic (that Plimer seems to lack here) we could write that as:

    2. Cats (tigers, lions)

    It is clear that as tigers are cats thus chrysotile is asbestos.

    Plimer demonstrates a apprehensible lack of the very logic he entreats others to. He also demonstrates that he is in irascible old rogue who can now only use bombast to counter truth. Plimer displays here the same overbearing style that Morano uses which for a one time scientist is a scandal.

    Any seat of learning still associating themselves with this creature should be thoroughly ashamed.

  38. #38 Mercurius
    December 14, 2011

    Asbestos isn’t asbestos and oils ain’t oils.

    Still, I must tell my aunt the good news that asbestos isn’t carcinogenic.

    Oh, wait, oops, too late. She died of mesothelioma having grown up in an asbestos-mining town.

    As my colourful old boss from Kansas used to say, Plimer “can go take a flying f*** at a rolling donut”.

  39. #39 FrankD
    December 14, 2011

    Amusingly, Plimer pulls a “Monckton Manouevre”. He tries to steamroll the interviewer, claiming that he could have found out that chrysotile was not asbestos by checking Min Data(sic).

    So when one checks [mindat.org](http://www.mindat.org/min-975.html), one finds a list of the synonyms for chrysotile – “white asbestos”, “Canadian asbestos”, “lefkasbestos” etc. Plimer has shown …umm…doubtful judgement on the issue of climate change, but to show incompetance in mineralogy is a pretty hard fail. And having your stated source prove you wrong is always funny.

    “But have you, sir, ever taken any money from the tax payer” is also a cheap shot. Assuming I read University of Adelaide’s annual financial statements correctly, either Plimers pay comes from their industry grants (in which case a simple “yes” would have sufficed), or else the majority his salary is paid for by the taxpayer. I’m happier with my taxes going towards Matt Peacock’s salary than Plimer’s.

  40. #40 Russell
    December 14, 2011

    34
    to demonstrate the logic (that Plimer seems to lack here) we could write that as:
    2. Cats (tigers, lions)
    It is clear that as tigers are cats thus chrysotile is asbestos.

    Ah, but crocodilite is tiger’s eye, and since cats are not reptiles, and chrysotile is serpentine, when asbestos is outlawed, only lungfish will have lungs.

  41. #41 bill
    December 14, 2011

    My father died of Mesothelioma. It was not pleasant. I second Mercurius’ suggestion.

  42. #42 frankis
    December 14, 2011

    Plenty of grist in the post and comments above!

    The British House of Lords has rejected Monckton. Pity the University of Adelaide won’t apologise for Plimer. What is it they think he’s teaching their students?

  43. #43 Bernard J.
    December 14, 2011

    [Mercurius](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/12/monckton_debunks_monckton.php#comment-6178639) and[Bill](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/12/monckton_debunks_monckton.php#comment-6185067).

    I have an alternative suggestion.

    Ask Plimer if he would be willing to breath for five minute eachs day, over a period of one year, from a bag filled with chrysotile dust. More interestingly, would he be willing to let his grandchildren do so?

    That would get to the nub of the issue.

  44. #44 ianam
    December 15, 2011

    Am I the only one having problems typing comments on Deltoid at the moment? A lot of my keystrokes don’t get recognised.

    There’s no way that could be caused by Deltoid … it’s your keyboard or connected hardware, or your browser or supporting software. Try rebooting your system.

  45. #45 MikeH
    December 15, 2011

    Matt Peacock has written a book on James Hardie and Asbestos.

    http://www.harpercollins.com.au/books/Killer-Company-James-Hardie-Exposed-Matt-Peacock/?isbn=9780733325809

    When he asks Plimer whether he has taken money from the asbestos industry, there is a fair chance that he already knew the answer.

    Peacock should publish Plimer’s letter.

  46. #46 Lionel A
    December 15, 2011

    MikeH

    WRT Killer Company – the book.

    Unfortunately other than a Kindle version the only copies I find at Amazon UK are second-hand paperbacks with prices ranging from UKP £39.00 to £152.81 – a bit steep.

    So is Plimer mentioned in that book?

  47. #47 Donald Oats
    December 15, 2011

    That playin’ footsies that Ian Plimer engaged in with Matt Peacock is par for the course, but worth reading the transcript to (or listening to), just to remind oneself that there are people who are roguish in their playing with words, equivocating when caught out, etc.

    BTW, a quick trip to the US Geologic Survey website gives more than enough information on scientific definitions and facts concerning asbestos to prove Plimer is 100% incorrect in his initial bluffing manoeuvre, and it just goes from bad to worse—let’s face it, Matt Peacock called Ian Plimer out, on the record. If Plimer wants to make outrageous claims about various matters that are so at odds with the extensive scientific literature, then he should expect to be judged on his own determined ignorance whenever he taps the “I’m the expert here” manoeuvre, while in the same breath he is arguing against claims to authority when they’re made by his opponents. Risible, is he.

  48. #48 Bernard J.
    December 15, 2011

    Donald, risible indeed, but also a fool.

    Matt Peacock is no slouch when it comes to the nature of asbestos, and he surely anticipated that Plimer would try the prevarications that he did in fact engage in. Although I suspect that even Mat Peacock probably couldn’t have expected and exchange like this:

    IAN PLIMER: I’m sorry. You are just [sic] a journalist. I have spent my life studying minerals. Look up any basic mineralogy textbook, the sort of thing that we give to 18-year-old students at university, and you’ll see that chrysotile is a serpentine mineral.

    MATT PEACOCK: Called asbestos.

    IAN PLIMER: A family of serpentine minerals.

    MATT PEACOCK: Called asbestos.

    IAN PLIMER: Whereas asbestos minerals are amphibole minerals.

    MATT PEACOCK: Amphibole like crocidolite and amosite, but chrysotile is part of the family called asbestos. Is it not?

    IAN PLIMER: I am sorry. You are demonstrating mass [sic] ignorance. You are out of your depth. I invite you to come to some elementary first year mineralogy lectures and you will learn…

    MATT PEACOCK: And isn’t chrysotile…

    IAN PLIMER: …the difference between amphiboles and…

    MATT PEACOCK: Well another simple question. Is chrysotile a carcinogen?

    IAN PLIMER: The literature is quite varied on this now. There’s been a lot more work done.

    MATT PEACOCK: You told me it wasn’t. You told me it wasn’t, three years ago. Do you still have that view?

    IAN PLIMER: I’m sorry, I’m sorry you are letting your ideology run loose.

    Plimer did get one thing right though – he should be “sorry”…

    Sorry for his mangling of science in a manner worse than that of the creationists he attempted to take to court decades ago, and very sorry that he walked into Matt Peacock’s snare. Professionally, he probably could not have picked a worse way to say to his colleagues “I’m a fuckwit, kick me”, short of indelibly tatooing that message on his own forehead.

  49. #49 MapleLeaf
    December 15, 2011

    Believe it or not, it gets worse for Plimer. He just doesn’t know when to stop telling porkies.

  50. #50 Chris McGrath
    December 15, 2011

    Matt Peacock’s interview is great but I don’t think it is possible top the demolition of Plimer by George Monbiot when interviewed on Lateline by Tony Jones in 2009: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2009/s2772906.htm

    The transcript doesn’t do it justice – you should watch the clip.

    Like a punch-drunk fighter being pounded on the ropes – Plimer just hangs in there and takes the punches full in the face without even putting up his gloves in the end. You get the feeling he should have run from the room screaming with his pants on fire.

  52. #52 Lotharsson
    December 15, 2011

    Good grief, harvey – Monckton is getting even less embarrassed about telling porkies in that screed. For example, he argues that we’re already 3 C above pre-industrial levels thus the Durban agreement implies there will be an agreement to cut temperatures by up to 2 C from today’s levels.

    And I haven’t gone looking, but at the bottom it appears WUWT have the same or a similar article.

  53. #53 Ed Darrell
    December 15, 2011

    I’d love a list of the top 10 debunks of Monckton

    I don’t usually deal with the climate stuff, leaving that to more edified experts, but I was shocked at the fiction Monckton invented about DDT, JFK and Jackie Kennedy discussing Silent Spring in bed, and JFK appointing William Ruckelshaus to head EPA (which actually occurred in the Nixon administration, about eight years after JFK died).

    So I detailed his errors.

    He’s repeating parts of the story in Australia now, I hear.

  54. #54 Lotharsson
    December 20, 2011

    As posted on the Open Thread: interesting [account](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/12/climate-cynicism-at-the-santa-fe-conference) of the Third Santa Fe Conference on Global And Regional Climate Change.

    I note on this thread that Schmidt had some conversations with most of those who might be called deniers, including Monckton:

    > He has no understanding of science or the scientific method, and when I asked him about scientific prediction, he called it a “fool’s errand”. He has a strong authoritarian approach to those with whom he disagrees, and his conspiracy theories run deep and dark. He names specific names and calls IPCC contributors “malevolent”. I asked him to share the very worst hacked email he could remember. The only specific example he gave was the one in which someone referred to him as a “charlatan”.

  55. #55 Lotharsson
    December 20, 2011

    Correction: it was not Schmidt but Mark Boslough wrote that article and had the reported conversations.

  56. #56 John
    December 20, 2011

    >The only specific example he gave was the one in which someone referred to him as a “charlatan”.

    A remarkably accurate appraisal.

  57. #57 Luke Scientiae
    January 21, 2012

    I know it’s not much, but I made a video detailing some of Monckton’s most obvious lies (principally about himself) that is a little shorter than Peter Hadfield’s detailed and excellent debunkings. Hope you like it:

    [The ridiculous and false claims of Christopher Monckton](http://youtu.be/Z0LTCjYv2kk)

  58. #58 Bernard J.
    January 21, 2012

    [Luke](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/12/monckton_debunks_monckton.php#comment-6215593).

    A link to [Skeptical Science's recent summary of attribution](http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-comprehensive-review-of-the-causes-of-global-warming.html) would have been good support for the part at the end when Monckton was questioned about stating that the International Astronomical Union attributed 69% of warming to the sun. In fact, SkS also has [an excellent series on Monckton](http://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton_Myths_blog.htm) that is worth referencing.