Media watch on Monckton

Eyeballing, based on professional experience? Let's not use Hissink's eyeballs for any judgment.

Do we have any mental health professionals in attendance? How does Monckton stand in front of an audience or microphone and blatantly lie with such assurance and without a hint of shame or guilt?

I don't get it! I'd be twitching and stuttering throughout.

1 carrot,

Am I missing something here? Those graphs *do* appear to show an upward trend by eye. Can anyone provide a source for the data?

David @2. God only knows and he is not telling. There is something very wrong with the world when someone like Monckton can say these things in public, over and over and over and never suffer any consequences. It blows my mind....

Maybe some of us could help Media Watch out with this?

Also on Media Watch we discover that by "under formal criminal investigation" Monckton means that he made a complaint.

This is why debating people like Monckton is dangerous. He will deliberately and cheerfully exaggerate, distort and lie, without the slightest twinge of shame or regret. And he will do it again, and again, and again,...

It takes two to have a fair and honest debate. But it only takes one side to drag it down into the gutter and poison the whole thing.

> There is something very wrong with the world when someone like Monckton can say these things in public...

Welcome to the corporatocracy! His fantasy and fiction is well-received in some boardrooms - as much as they may find him unhinged as the rest of us, his message is sufficiently confusing and convincing to the masses that he's given airtime. /conspiracy theory

I've just imagined Munchkin debating the composition of the moon:

* Munchkin: "The moon is primarily composed of cheese, it's..."
* Lambert: [interjecting] "That is not true, the crust is composed of oxygen, silicon, iron and..."
* Munchkin: [interjecting] "My data comes directly from NASA. I have it on my slideshow. It clearly shows majority composition of pyroclastic Wensleydale with nodules of 73% brie and trace elements of gorgonzola with cataclastic cheddar lodes. This is not disputed by any reputable scientific body on the planet. It is fact."
* Lambert: [on the phone - whispering] "Bring a tranquillizer gun with you. I'll keep him talking - shouldn't be difficult."

Who are we going to believe, Mediawatch on the one hand or the entire Australian media from Fairfax to the 7.30 Report to ABC news to His Rupert's Voice on the other, all of whom helped promote Monckton's vaudeville-fraud tour downunder? To the MSM this self-infatuated wanker - check him out from Melbourne if you dare at - was a "scientist" all the way. Clownish times we live in, ya gotta laugh.

@ Krusty

Even his ardent fans barely laughed at his "joke".

Monckton seems to have painted himself into a corner.

Either he makes a public apology to Sir John Houghton for saying:

I think the United Nations Climate Panel is now a busted flush. For instance, Rajendra Pachauri, its chairman, Sir John Houghton, its former chairman, and a number of other people associated with it, are now under formal criminal investigation in the United Kingdom for filing false accounts of a charity known as TERI Europe of which they are all trustees. For the last three years they have under-declared their income of that charity saying there was less than ten thousand pounds income each... We've now discovered they were getting income certainly in the millions and this wasn't being disclosed.

or Houghton, who [emphatically replies](http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/1001_houghton.pdf
):

I am not and have never been a Trustee of Teri Europe...
I have never received any money at all from Teri Europe...
I am writing to Lord Monckton demanding an apology and a public retraction of the libelous statements about me that he has broadcast.

has a rather clear case for legal action.

If he apologies to Sir John, Monckton then exposes himself to the indefencible conclusion that he either lied, or that he is incompetent in his establishment of facts. I truly hope that Monckton doesn't apologise though, because I'd love to see Houghton have a bash at suing the litigious 'lord'.

This dissection is exactly why I love Media Watch, and why gutter radio jocks like Alan Jones hate its scrutiny:

Alan Jones: I mean that rubbish program which is called Media Watch, and it is rubbish, and the people in charge of it are rubbish, and the researchers are rubbish... They're rubbish, and junk, have been and always will be, but then they run around sniffing, as I think Paul Keating once said, sniffing bicycle seats to see if they can find out a little bit of rubbish and grub on someone.

â Radio 2GB, The Alan Jones Show, 5th February, 2010

This is the same Alan Jones, incidentally, who is MC for Tim Lambert's head-to-head with Monckton...

Does Monckton operate as a 'company'??

I was wondering if it was possible to bombard him with Freedom of Information requests?

That might keep him at home.

Paul UK: If Monckton does operate as a company, then it would probably be as a private company and he wouldn't come under the auspices of the FoIA.

However, Lord Lawson of Blaby's comms with him might be a matter of public record. If not already recorded somewhere in the written parliamentary proceedings then they might be subject to FoI requests, if not right now, then sometime soon when the act is supposed to be amended to allow such requests (and presumably like the act itself, it's scope will be retroactive) where "business" impinges on public office.

Hmm, that said, you could probably request Lawson's comms with regard to climate under FoI now anyway, but with redactions. Possibly a grey area then (apart from my first para), and I've no time to check this out today/tomorrow.

For anyone who wants to understand the deep multi-cultural roots for gobbledegook and crowd-deception of the kind routinely being used by Monckton, take 2 minutes to absorb the following: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8IBnfkcrsM

>*as I think Paul Keating once said, sniffing bicycle seats to see if they can find out a little bit of rubbish and grub on someone.*
>â Radio 2GB, The Alan Jones Show, 5th February, 2010

I think Paul Keating really nailed Alan Jones with that description, I'm not surprised that Jones would comit to memory such a line.

I wonder if Jones also revived that quote to describe the sniffing of bicycle seats in the CRU email smear up? Or he could have used it to describe the smear job that is endlessly waged against Mann and Gore. And to do that accurately he'd name Monckton as one of the Chief fecal olfactory fetishists.

I wonder if Alan Jones can smell hypocrisy? If he can, he'd need to bathe more regularly than a devout Muslum with OCD.

Regarding the GBR perhaps you should listen to Alan Jones interview Professor Peter Ridd from James Cook University, regarding the state of the Barrier Reef.

Not all scientists believe the GBR is in danger and what he has to say about the scientists involved is condemning.

http://www.2gb.com/podcasts/alanjones/alanjonesridd040210.mp3

Janama.

Oh, you mean this [Peter Ridd](http://www.climateshifts.org/?p=44), and [this one](http://www.climateshifts.org/?p=62), and [this one](http://www.climateshifts.org/?p=133), and [this one](http://www.climateshifts.org/?p=4383), and [this one](http://www.climateshifts.org/?p=4418), and [this one](http://www.climateshifts.org/?p=32)?

Get a clue, and listen to the experts, rather than a pretend one fawned over by a shock-jock.

Oh, and you mate Spangled Drongo is being turned into a Mangled Drongo on the [Andrew Bolt in One Graph thread](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php). Perhaps you could wander over and assist him in his science there...

Peter Ridd? Yes, he doesn't believe it's in danger, and yes, he is condemning a lot of scientists. And because Alan Jones had him on it must all be true!

Unfortunately his claims don't seem that ... accurate.
Has he published his scientific claims in a peer-reviewed journal yet? Apparently peer review by Alan Jones isn't very effective.

are you inferring that Prof Ridd is not involved with the GBR?? he does write papers on the subject.

http://www.jcu.edu.au/school/mathphys/staff/physics/Ridd.shtml

[Janama](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/media_watch_on_monckton.php#com…).

I am inferring that [Ridd is not a credible commenter on the Great Barrier Reef in matters beyond his expertise](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/media_watch_on_monckton.php#com…).

If you disagree, you are welcome to deconstruct the many posting that I linked to, written by some of the most pre-eminient reef experts in the world.

I await with much anticipation your critical challenge to these experts.

[Janama](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/media_watch_on_monckton.php#com…)?

Yeah, I thought so.

[Nothing](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/media_watch_on_monckton.php#com…)...

Monckton is not perfect, but he gets the sceptic view in the media and that's good work! http://www.climatejournal.org/