Monckton says that if you accept mainstream science then you are a Nazi

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.


More like this

Godwin's Law!

The peer seems to be becoming increasingly unhinged.

BTW, what are the libel/slander laws like in Oz. It might be hard to sue in the USA since Dr. Garnaut might count as a public figure there and I vaguely remember hearing that it is much harder for a 'public figure' to sue for libel or slander

By jrkrideau (not verified) on 21 Jun 2011 #permalink

This paranoia sits beside Lord Monckton's regularly expressed view that environmentalists are communists in disguise.

So we are Nazis and Communists? Aren't those two ideologies mutually exclusive?

Not if your brain is as broken as most high profile denialists, Kate.

They can hold up to 20 incompatible faiths at the same time and not even notice the joins.

It's just reality they can't understand.

Sad. Just sad.

By Sammy Jankis (not verified) on 21 Jun 2011 #permalink

Aww shucks. I'm missing the good old days when His Lordship would go around threatening to sue climate folks or get them fired.

It's sad that he's now reduced to painting swastikas and creating Arabic-sounding sock puppets.

(Or maybe it's not sad. Boo-hoo.)

-- frank

On the bright side, this tactic is a tacit admission that Monckton knows that he doesn't have the facts on his side and therefore, his only response left is namecalling.

By Greatbear (not verified) on 21 Jun 2011 #permalink

I've been thinking; maybe that's just Monckton's new logo since the the Lords won't let him use theirs anymore. He needed one that no one was going to pull copyright on.

@Kate: you haven't spent enough time on the INTERNET. The latest trend is that Nazis are from the left-wing, because there is socialist in their name ... so, they are, you see, the same thing as communists. All liberals in the end (actual and factual differences are unimportant details you shouldn't bother yourself with)!

I think Muzz has it.

Monckton, part of the Nazi-like UKIP in the UK, no longer able to use his "House of Princesses" logo with the tiara, has decided to come clean and use the icon he's happier with.

By the way, after looking at Monckton's swastika, I was somehow reminded of the threats against certain readers of the Watching the Deniers blog (bless its soul).

Then I came up with a lame punchline which Rush Limbaugh could use:

"Do you know that one of the symbols of Buddhism is the swastika?

"And do you know who else used a swastika as a symbol of their beliefs? ... ... ... ... ... ..."

OK, OK, I'll stop...

-- frank

Andrew Bolt has recently been mining the same theme by comparing Greens to Nazis and promoting a book he claims he's about to start reading.

When criticised he demanded his critics "read the evidence". Odd, because at the time he had yet to.

Unfortunately the slow slide of political and scientific discourse continues, whereby it is perfectly acceptable to send death threats to scientists and compare economists to Nazis (Bolt, to his credit, didn't compare Garnaut to the Nazis, but rather to Lenin).

I hope this image is splashed around the media when Tony Abbott meets Monckton on his Australia visit.

Truly astonishing.

frank, do you reckon it's "*just coincidence*" that Buddha and Rush Limbaugh both look very similar?

And you've never seen them both in the same room together.

So, (imitating his best Glenn Beck), we go from Buddha to Swastika, to Nazi Death Camps, the mystery of Hitler's body not being found, and all the way to the NaziCommieLibertardMolester Rush Limbaugh!

The circle is complete.

All the way from Pagan God trying to entice people from Christianity (sounds a lot like Satan) to Rush Limbaugh (and I'm not saying he IS Satan, I'm just following the leads and asking questions).

Can I get on Liberal Media Fox now?

@ frank -- Decoding SwiftHack

I'd hate to think what his lordship would say about me. I spend three summers just outside Swastika Ontario.

And, oh dear, my old copies of Kipling (from late 19th C I think) had swastikas on the covers.

By jrkrideau (not verified) on 21 Jun 2011 #permalink

It's not just Andrew Bolt, either. I've seen a number of sites where "environmentalism" (I'm not clear exactly what this means in this context) is explicitly claimed to have been invented by Goebbels and his pals. This is a worrying trend because it feeds directly into the Teabaggers' need for someone to react against.

For example
(cached version to avoid giving them additional pageviews...). Please check your sanity before reading.

Anyone got a link to Monckton's presentation? I'd like to see the swastika slides myself.

There's a link in the Readfearn piece linked to in the OP. The screen shot slide is at 50:00 (this discussion starts about a minute earlier).

His lordship proves once again that those outside climate science who do not accept the significant risks of unmitigated climate change as pointed out by mainstream science are not very rational.

Well then, that's exactly what Prof. Garnaut says.

@wow, #9

The coronet and pink portcullis are prominently displayed on his opening slide at about 4:30.

He's no McBain.

By spottedquoll (not verified) on 21 Jun 2011 #permalink

From the conference program:

c. Is there an Element of Religiosity to Global Warming Advocacy?

Panelists: Michael Chrichton [sic] (decâd.), Lord Monckton, Anne McElhinney, Michael Coffman
Location: California Room

That's right - they had a dead guy on one of their panels.

The infamous rotated sea level graph appears about 14 minutes in. Happy days!

Jeez... And Anthony Watts has a kiniption fit anytime someone calls him a "denier."

You know, this is actually probably good news. Remember how Glenn Beck had to keep getting more and more outrageous in order to maintain interest from his viewers? the point where the extremism of his position began to wear on his core audience?

I think Monckton has hit his wall the same as Beck. The size of the audience that buys into that kind of rhetoric is tiny.

By Rob Honeycutt (not verified) on 21 Jun 2011 #permalink

That's right - they had a dead guy on one of their panels..

We should cut the dead dude some slack -- he didn't tell a single whopper, smear a single climate-scientist, etc. during the entire conference!

By caerbannog (not verified) on 21 Jun 2011 #permalink

I'm trying to cause trouble for AMEC from one angle, but it occurs to me - does anybody here feel confident they can get the Jewish Board of Deputies to do something with this? This is exactly the sort of thing they tend to speak out about, and when they release press statements they tend to get noticed by the media.

By Vince whirlwind (not verified) on 21 Jun 2011 #permalink

Hmmm. Nazi insignia: check. Shadowy fraffly-U, aristocratic, British demagogue, closely associated with far-right UK political organisation: check. Ranks of adoring acolytes: check. Who's doing the audiovisuals, Leni Riefenstahl?

Monckton is no stranger to Godwin - remember the "nazi youth" comments he hurled at young activists at Copenhagen.
Like any other comment this character puts forth; it's all little more than hysterical misinformation to reinforce old-world ideologies (for the age of oil dependence is closing).

@1. Increasingly unhinged?

As a semantic point, I always thought Monkton was just totally unhinged (ie, can't unhinge any further) right from the beginning!

That audiences listen to him is still amazing though.

Of course, the real Nazis were also an angry ultra-conservative populist movement - in collaboration with an industrial elite - that cast itself as merely reacting to defend Decent People from the 'obvious' looming Tyranny of the Communists and Jewish Bankers.

They're not called 'reactionaries' for nothing.

I wouldn't be too sure that this is all funny, or that just because this is outrageously stupid that it will be automatically identified as such. Godwin's Law is not a fact, as such.

Fascism was, in many ways, the institutionalisation of many things little men 'just know' to be true - 'my country is superior' 'other races are inferior' 'we are being persecuted by minorities' 'intellectuals are traitors' 'conspiracies are everywhere'. Many a little man - and woman - still 'knows' exactly the same things, and guess where they generally stand in this debate?! Scare them enough and they can be led to some ugly places...

All this 'they're conspiring against us' stuff is clearly projection, just as it was the first time around... and many who are seeing the menace of Hitler in others cannot perceive the insidious tinge of brown in their own shirts! Precisely because they're 'obviously' good people reacting to the evil in others.

We're nowhere near assembling any floodlights in the Nuremberg plaza, of course. But when elements in the so-called conservative parties start playing to the rabble over an issue as serious as death-threats being issued to scientists I, for one, don't think it's all that funny...

Good to see his Lordship normalising Nazism, nothing like making them relevant to the debate.

NAZI is a form of government.
Carbon Tax is a government action.
Therefore I cannot tell the difference between environmentalists and Nazis.

By Michael Hauber (not verified) on 21 Jun 2011 #permalink

I look forward to Monckton using this slide on Australian soil.

"And Anthony Watts has a kiniption fit anytime someone calls him a "denier.""

Yeah, but, you see, "denier" can _only_ mean that we're comparing them to Nazis, whereas using swastikas and the word "Hitler" is really just generic language that is used to describe people that are doing things that one doesn't really agree with

By that reasoning Michael Hauber @31, education is a government action therefore anyone sending their children to a government school is a Nazi, roads are funded by the government therefore rod users are Nazis.

Many Nazis are indeed enthusiastic rod users! ;-)

> Therefore I cannot tell the difference between environmentalists and Nazis.

Unfortunately, Michael, I suspect that the deniers almost to a man actually have that problem.

> The coronet and pink portcullis are prominently displayed on his opening slide at about

It's not a coronet (since that is the mark over the House Of Lords Monogram), it's a tiara and completely not possible to confuse with the genuine HoL mark.

> We should cut the dead dude some slack -- he didn't tell a single whopper, smear a single climate-scientist, etc. during the entire conference!

His presentation still stank, though.

Quoll: I can think of something worse - "If the effects of the sildenafil do not subside within 4 hours, seek medical advice."

Michael Hauber:

> NAZI is a form of government. Carbon Tax is a government action.

Or as I said, "you know who else [other than Buddhists] used a swastika as a symbol of their beliefs? ... ... ... ... ..."

-- frank

This got a run on Channel 7 news tonight. Monckton came across, as one might guess, quite poorly.

What a bunch of bigots, no doubt most of the posters are Dr Bigots or worse.

Monckton is a bright ray of sanity in this sad world, God bless him.

I find it is interesting that when you get right down to it, Monckton believes that Global Warming is a Nazi conspiracy by Jewish Bankers. I bet it would be very easy to get him to admit this publicly by the right sort of questions.

By Barbalang (not verified) on 22 Jun 2011 #permalink


> a Nazi conspiracy by Jewish Bankers.

Dang it, Berbalang! You beat me to it! I was blind, but now I see! My mind is finally free! With this discovery, I find that nothing's impossible!

As the Latin saying goes, ex âââââ quodlibet...

-- frank


>...Monckton believes that Global Warming is a Nazi conspiracy by Jewish Bankers.

I too immediately wondered about this when I saw Monckton's presentation and its hideous backdrop. I'm curious to know if Garnaut is Jewish, because if so it puts Monckton - and Abbott, and many other people and organisations - in a very sticky situation...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 22 Jun 2011 #permalink

Monckton has got to be a deep-cover green operative. There can be no other plausible explanation. Surely everyone, other than the most unhinged, will look at that slide, and think 'these guys are deranged'.

Surely no one will take the denialists seriously ever again.

Wow. You guys don't get the point. So one of his points about how the warmies will not even consider skeptics to be human, so then you claim that he has no facts. I did not see this presentation, but most of his presentations are packed full of facts (and not those hypothetical computer simulation facts). Of course, this slide shown here goes over the top with the swastika, but I think that this board proves his point.

By Jeff in Ctown (not verified) on 22 Jun 2011 #permalink

> So we are Nazis and Communists?

Consistency isn't needed; the point is to construct a set of stories, so you have ready-made pitches to aim at particular subgroups - e.g. to the neocons.

See: Avi Davis, American Freedom Alliance, Green Hell, with Monckton & Milloy (link).
(This is really, really sad - I hate to stereotype but if any group oughta have the smarts to see through a ploy like this and the values to reject it...)

Tikkun olam.

"but most of his presentations are packed full of facts"

'Facts' don't count when you pull them out of your posterior like Monckton does. He's a pathological liar; I mean that literally. From his lies about being a member of the House of Lords to his preposterous claim he was a Thatcher science advisor, to his serial distortions of what actual scientists have said, he has shown himself to be incapable of honesty. And yet, so many so-called 'skeptics' eat up his crap.

By Robert Murphy (not verified) on 22 Jun 2011 #permalink

Oh dear oh dear

Even Monckton's friends are deserting him.

Check out Mr Watts…

""We donât need to weaken our position on our interpretations of the data uncertainty and the science problems by committing rhetorical suicide."


"However, putting swastikas in planned public powerpoint presentations, and linking that by name to a person, is in my opinion, way over the top and in very bad form and totally hijacks and negates the important messages elsewhere in the presentation."

By cindy baxter (not verified) on 22 Jun 2011 #permalink

So Jeff in Ctown thinks that when Garnaut says

> "The outsider to climate science has no rational choice but to accept that, on the balance of probabilities, the mainstream science is right in pointing to high risks from unmitigated climate change"

he really 'means'

> "Argh, all you skepticos are sub-humans and must die!"

Yeah, right. Begone, illogical idiot in Ctown (wherever that is).

-- frank

cindy baxter:

Anthony Watts makes sense. Swastikas should only be used in presentations meant for private audiences. And they shouldn't be linked to specific individuals, only to whole groups.


-- frank

I'm surprised Blot has a problem with "deeply personal attacks". His column usually consists of nothing but. He's compared greens to Nazis before, too.

By James Haughton (not verified) on 22 Jun 2011 #permalink

Tim@55: ! - If you've been ditched by the Blot, there's not much else to say - though I note that it's taken a Godwin to penetrate that clog-like cranium.

Bolt is a hypocrite of the highest order.

Have a look at this post from [yesterday](…).

The only difference is that Bolt hasn't completely Godwinned himself but goes mighty close to the edge:

>Global warming is the latest refuge of the closet totalitarian ...

>Sense a pattern here? A historical analogy?

pedantic sidenote - that should be 'An historical', not 'A historical'.


Just read the first page of the Blot post, and almost wept.

It is the staggering number of truly ignorant, ideological, and/or outright delusional people peppering the Australian lay public, that is hamstringing our country's participation in efforts to mitigate human-caused climate change.

There are regions in our society where the density of bogons is so great that it bends the light of objective understanding, and curves space-time so much that any approaching scientific fact is either catapulted away forever, or crushed forever into a black hole of ideological ignorance.

At some point in the past Blot's blog manifested its own event horizon, and now we risk the whole of Australia being drawn into the singularity of Stupid.

That singularity of Stupid will eventually evaporate away via a variant of Hawking radiation known as Dunning-Kruger radiation - but probably not before the warming of the Earth does the job first...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 22 Jun 2011 #permalink

Lovely analogy BJ.

>At some point in the past Blot's blog manifested its own event horizon, and now we risk the whole of Australia being drawn into the singularity of Stupid.

very funny - but call me cynical but you use the future tense here... sigh :(

The comments on [the ABC article are informative](

With any luck, this will finally force Tony Abbott out of the closet.

My head just about exploded with this one:
>Science argued for 500 years that the Earth was flat and the middle of the universe.

Yup, Galileo, Popes, etc.

What I'm confused about is where exactly the mining lobby comes into this (apart from coal); is it as simple as they oppose any kind of environmental oversight?

By happy_heyoka (not verified) on 22 Jun 2011 #permalink

It's, interesting this whole 'the Nazis were leftists' thing. There really is nothing so absurd that some bunch of doofuses somewhere won't choose to believe it!

Not only was Hitler a socialist (because, you know, National Socialist and all that - in which case East Germany was clearly a democracy) but for the US wing-nut right (e.g. 1' 23") Pastor Niemöller famous letter now begins -

First they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Rather than, uh, 'the communists'. It went communists, trade unionists, then Jews in the original, and some versions throw in social democrats (which doesn't make sense because aren't they just communists? ;-) ) and the incurably ill, but at any rate this way quoting the most famous first line involves somewhat less strain for those trying to pull off this particular feat of mental gymnastics!

Monckton had a [mention on PM this afternoon](

The mining industry can't see past the nose on its face, but Turnbull at least has his head properly screwed on - I suspect that he has an eye on the future...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 22 Jun 2011 #permalink

Thanks for the link; Turnbull's so good I'm going to have to quote him -

Monckton is a vaudeville artist. He has no credibility, politically or scientifically, particularly in The United Kingdom and he is a professional sensationalist. So he says these outrageous things in order to get into the press.

Sadly, much of the mining industry in this country serves as an exemplar of the kind of dysfunctional elite thinking that always leads to collapse. If their members actually lobbied for this guy then there's not a lot more to say! 'Sustainability and environmental responsibility' my arse...

I love that Turnbull, who basically lost the opposition leadership to climate denialism within the party, sees the chance to get in a few swift kicks.
They should approach Nick Minchin for comment on this sort of stuff at every opportunity.

By mistermuz (not verified) on 23 Jun 2011 #permalink

..He (Monckton) has no credibility, politically or scientifically, particularly in The United Kingdom..

I could add to this that Monckton is practically unknown in the UK - most people have NEVER heard of him. Even amongst UK "sceptic" bloggers he is rarely mentioned. He seems to have built his reputation overseas by massively exaggerating his importance within the Thatcher administration (he couldn't get away with that in the UK) and by using his title to falsely associate himself with the UK House of Lords. Lords are ten a penny here.

By lord_sidcup (not verified) on 23 Jun 2011 #permalink

Of Bolt rejects Monckton. Pictures say a thousand words and most Australians abhor this kind of extremist discourse. it's a massive turn off.

Bolt is smart enough to realise that, as one of Australia's most influential deniers, the Monckton image can do a lot of damage to his reputation very quickly unless he acts. If there's one thing you don't want to be associated with it's some fringe nut parading around with swastikas.

However I note from the comments that a number of his readers are confused. After all, they opine, hasn't Bolt been telling them similar things all along? As a result most of the readers agree with and support Monckton. Que sara sara, Bolta.

Monckton hints he may be driven by religious motivation:

>In his article, Lord Monckton said the cost of carbon reduction schemes ''exceeds that of the imagined [and largely imaginary] damage from unmitigated warming''. ''The Planet was triumphantly Saved 2000 years ago by a carpenter's son from Galilee. It does not need Saving again,'' he writes.

Could he be one of those who thinks God would never let global warming happen?

It's the gusto with which the denialists embrace ignorance that's so surprising. The climate doesn't respond to spin or rhetorical tricks. It's just going to continue to degrade. Weather tragedies like this spring's and like last year's droughts and floods are going to become commonplace and worse. All so the extravagantly rich can get ever more extravagantly rich.

It's like Walter in The Big Lebowski groaning about nihilists. "Say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism, but at least it was an ethos." Somehow I can't see insuring the Koch brothers next billion dollars arising to the level of an ethos.

By Jeffrey Davis (not verified) on 23 Jun 2011 #permalink

John, I don't know. I've given up trying to find any consistent underpinnings for the beliefs of any prominent inactivists, other than "mihi da potestatem omnes librvles delere". And actually I'm not sure that trying to find such an underpinning is even a useful exercise anymore, if it ever was.

Well, if Monckton wants to go ahead with his talk, more power to him! :) Let the whole world see him as the wacko he is.

-- frank

Anna #49

Nice link.

Re. SourceWatch on American Freedom Alliance, paraphrasing that 2011 June 'Green Hell' statement:

"What the Greens really to dictate the very parameters of your daily life... how much you can have, and even how many children you can eat."

That list of attendees is as expected including James 'the interpreter of interpretations' Delingpole, who I suspect will declare himself, 'so happy to be at home with like minds' (as at Heartland) and Benny 'the GWPF tool' Peiser. At last the BBC seem to have stopped using him as the sceptic balance in reports on climate change.

Interesting mention of yet another tax exempt and non-profit organisation a publisher Encounter Books (also supported by the Kochs and other high profile think tank shakers). Is it not time some of these came under a fiscal microscope? As should that Temple of the Air (how ironic) for which Melanie Phillips has been a spokesperson, surprise, surprise:

Global warming is a 'scam' says Melanie Phillips

Now as for Monckton being thrown under the bus by Watts, does this not raise questions about SPPI which Monckton uses as grey publishing support? I thought Watts was involved with SPPI along with Joe D'Aleo.

pedantic sidenote - that should be 'An historical', not 'A historical'.

Here in New England, that's an aspirated h. I suppose it varies.

Interesting that Mr. Bolt has his own issues with inflammatory language. He is being sued under Australia's version of hate speech laws.

Has that been concluded? Scary racist sites turn up when I google. Anyway, from one of those articles by Bolt:

McMillan - whose confusion about his identity leads him also to declare he's both a "proud gay" and a "proud father"

What a vile human being this Bolt is.

John@69: No, I doubt that Monckton is a more than a noblesse oblige Anglican*, but his last remaining constituency, the US Lunar Right, are, so he will craft his honeyed words accordingly.
* I presume he's not one of the dissident Catholic peerage, since his grandfather obtained the hereditary peerage that Monckton now flaunts for services rendered regarding the abdication of Edward V111 to marry a divorcee. Mind you, given his grandson's moral suppleness, I s'pose that being a Crazy Catholic Peer in the Brideshead tradition is not out of the question.

I always think 'Peers' in the sense of needing to put down fresh sawdust! ;-)

bill: : )

Bernard: Thanks. Wonder what he makes of the Vatican's recent pronouncements - or what they make of his.

Monckton the gift that keeps giving.

Seriously though, this is shameful and disgusting act. You know it is bad when Bolt throws you under the bus. I would say that Monckton could not sink any lower, but I know that he would prove me wrong...

And Monckton is a friend/ally of Watts is he not? And didn't Dick Lindzen also speak at the same "conference" as Monckton?

By MapleLeaf (not verified) on 24 Jun 2011 #permalink

I think you're all missing the point.

Monckton has an SOP as follows:

1. Identify opposing actions that you find offensive.
2. Immediately say something along the same lines, but even more offensive.
3. Back down, but cite and hence publicise the initial offensive action.

So we see in this case the recent public references to forcibly tattooing skeptics (Glover) or inviting them to gas themselves with CO (Singer), the obvious Nazi connections of which were ignored by the compliant eco-friendly MSM.

So Monckton deliberately gets publicly offensive, knowing that the lame lefties of the MSM press will faithfully report it, then he gets his shots in on Singer and Glover which the MSM is forced to record.

Plus, he increases the chance that some rabid eco-nuts will try to bust up his lecture tour, with the resultant bad publicity for Green wackodom.

And while you folks are sitting around discussing his Catholic beliefs and hereditary aristocracy, he's way down the road planning something new.

By Rick Bradford (not verified) on 25 Jun 2011 #permalink

Rick, dunno what this Glover business is, but Singer's thing about carbon monoxide was pretty clearly a joke referencing the fact that deniers (eg Rep Joe Barton) regularly say things like "âCO2 is odorless, colorless, tasteless â itâs not a threat to human health in terms of being exposed to it. We create it as we talk back and forth." - as if being odourless, colourless and tasteless somehow made it harmless. Still, despite the bias in your post, you've made an interesting point about Monckton's tactics. Personally I don't credit him with that much self-reflective strategic ability.

By James Haughton (not verified) on 25 Jun 2011 #permalink

Talk about defending the indefensible!

A sorry lot indeed!

Strategic ability? You think? How about 'Oh, goodness me, I really may have gone too far on this occasion and no one who wishes to maintain any scintilla of credibility can be seen to endorse me; I fear the end of the demi-respectable lecture-circuit Gravy Train may have just hoved into view!'?

Really Rick? Monckton lied about Garnaut being a nazi fifty minutes into a speech for an obscure American right-wing think-tank knowing it would explode in the Australian media so he would deliberately look like an ass and be repudiated by the main denialists just to teach everybody a lesson?

It must be really hard work to convince yourselves of these things.

@James Haughton: Richard Glover is a journalist for the SMH who wrote earlier this month: "Surely it's time for climate-change deniers to have their opinions forcibly tattooed on their bodies."

As for Singer, yes, it might have been an example of typical Leftist humour -- utterly mirthless and easy to see as a wish-fulfilment fantasy -- but it's too easy for Monckton to adopt it for his own purposes. Note for the next struggle meeting: Leftists shouldn't try humour; they don't have the necessary self-awareness.

@John: It worked, didn't it?

Monckton is quite prepared to look like an ass to advance his agenda, which is to oppose what he sees as large philosophical visions, wealth redistribution agendas, and world governance goals, under the banner of environmentalism.

By Rick Bradford (not verified) on 26 Jun 2011 #permalink

Rick, no. It discredited him further and made him more of a laughing stock. His response has received next-to-no media attention.

>Monckton is quite prepared to look like an ass to advance his agenda

Granted. But here I was stupidly thinking he acts like an ass because he is an ass.

>which is to oppose what he sees as large philosophical visions, wealth redistribution agendas, and world governance goals, under the banner of environmentalism.

I wanted to repost the above so everyone can read it again, just in case the sight of you scraping the bottom of the fringe-nutter conspiracy barrel wasn't arresting enough the first time.

If you manage to work the Jews into this conspiracy some how - all the best do - I'll be most impressed.

Here's a Rick Bradford classic from Bishop Hill (emphasis mine):

>Monckton is always entertaining and witty -- another reason for Lefties to hate him, since they don't get humour.
The videos of him giving the treatment to various assorted activists at Copenhagen are classics.

Please Rick. Explain to me the humour in calling young adults "Hitler Youth". Obviously I don't have a sense of humour and I would like you to explain how this is witty.


>Note for the next struggle meeting: Leftists shouldn't try humour; they don't have the necessary self-awareness.

Are we to suppose this is an example of 'Rightist' humor? [Very funny!](

I can sympathize. It's hard to see the humor when you or those with whom you identify are the butt of the joke.

But, then again, it is so, so easy to project your own lack of self-awareness on those spoofing you.

By luminous beauty (not verified) on 26 Jun 2011 #permalink

AAP open their article about Monckton with a sizzling line:

>CLIMATE change denier Christopher Monckton has apologised to the government's climate change adviser, Ross Garnaut, for comparing him to Hitler.

"Climate change denier"? Feel the burn!

Monckton will likely threaten AAP with legal action.

Well, according to deniers, climate change 'denier' is alleged to be a contentious term.
I'm quite happy for them to go with climate change 'oaf' instead. 'Swivel-eyed oaf', if possible.

> Leftists shouldn't try humour;...

I didn't read Singer's comment as humour but as sarcasm. That's the problem with "rightists" critiquing "humour" - you can't critique that which sails right over your head.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 26 Jun 2011 #permalink

Yet another extraordinary denier performance from the realm-beyond-parody!

I've been thinking for a while that we probably need to get this remarkably un-self-aware, relentlessly simplistic, strident, monotonous, and above all utterly impervious behaviour located firmly where it belongs; somewhere on the Autism spectrum.

'Libtard' is unkind, and plenty of perfectly decent people have Aspergers. Can I suggest "Rand's Syndrome" in honour of their collective hero? The mother of them all, as it were...

@John 87:

> Obviously I don't have a sense of humour and I would like you to explain how this is witty.

I'm sorry, but you can't acquire a sense of humour by having someone explain the joke to you. You either have one or you don't.

According to psychologists, the lack of a sense of humour usually indicates excessive narcissism and feelings of self-importance, plus the terror of admitting the possibility of error, inadequacy and absurdity in ourselves.

By Rick Bradford (not verified) on 27 Jun 2011 #permalink

Anybody else reminded of GSW's blissfully unaware reaction over the ideologically-acceptable-sections of the paleoclimate record here? I suspect he still has no idea what happened.

Having to have the joke explained for us because we can't get the joke like you can - you great big sophisticated humorous Rightist thing, you - is the joke!


Autism hypothesis confirmed.

>I'm sorry, but you can't acquire a sense of humour by having someone explain the joke to you. You either have one or you don't.

I was being sarcastic Mr. Humour Expert.

That you find Monckton proclaiming activists to be "Hitler Youth" the height of wit, along with your half-baked conspiracy theories, says everything about you I need to know.

Ah, I think I see where Rick Bradford is coming from! By Rick's 'logic', if we don't see Monckton's swastika sign as humorous, it's because we, ourselves, are actually closet fascists.

Note that this Rickbradfordian 'logic' only goes in one direction. If Monckton compares rhwombat to Hitler and rhwombat doesn't find it funny, it means rhwombat lacks a sense of humour. If, on the other hand, rhwombat compares Monckton to Hitler and Monckton doesn't find it funny, it ... still means rhwombat lacks a sense of humour.

Climategate,-- frank

Actually bill, it's not so much a form of autism, which has a fairly clear neuropathological basis, but more of an acquired attachment disorder. Most Denialists are Cons. Most Cons are insecure hierarchs, scared of Others, and dependent on patriarchy for their sense of value. The interesting thing is how these poor children react when confronted with the reality that Daddy is a demonstrably malignant monster with the moral authority of Dick Cheney- as has been demonstrated by recent troll infestations both here and on The Conversation. Right wing humour? Don't make me laugh!

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?

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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 £25,000 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?


> 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

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.

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

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

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 29 Jun 2011 #permalink

Example comment extract from frank's link, unedited:

> CLIMATE-IS A SUPERNATURAL PHENOMENON; To all the simplistic, justifing warmers claiming;âCSIRO invented stuff as diverse as the telescopes at Parkes to the banknotes in your walletâ 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 âsupernaturalâ phenomenon!

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

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 29 Jun 2011 #permalink

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

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".

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 30 Jun 2011 #permalink

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

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 30 Jun 2011 #permalink


Force of habit.

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


By Lotharsson (not verified) on 30 Jun 2011 #permalink

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: is the curious thing. First Tom Chivers updates his blog post to say that Monckton had been in touch and, âin a rather charming fashion, expressed disappointmentâ. 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.

By lord_sidcup (not verified) on 01 Jul 2011 #permalink


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.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 01 Jul 2011 #permalink


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!

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 01 Jul 2011 #permalink

> 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?

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 02 Jul 2011 #permalink

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"

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

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.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 02 Jul 2011 #permalink

Sarcasm, Chris.

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.

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

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 04 Jul 2011 #permalink

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

> 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.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 04 Jul 2011 #permalink