Did Monckton have breakfast with ABC chairman Maurice Newman?

Graham Readfearn writes about how Monckton is threatening the sue the ABC because he didn't like Wendy Carlisle's Background Briefing episode. This isn't really that interesting, Monckton has also threatened to sue Al Gore, John Abraham, Scott Mandia, The Guardian, as well threatening to jail Rajendra Pachauri for fraud. None of these threats materialised.

No, what interests me is this:

"I have written to the chairman of the ABC who is a shrimp-like wet little individual and I have said to him, right mate, I warned you about this woman (Wendy Carlisle) orally over breakfast"

ABC Chairman Maurice Newman is a global warming denier. Did he really have breakfast with Monckton? Or is this another one of Monckton's fantasies? Would a climate scientist get similar access to Newman?

Update Readfearn has more at Crikey

ABC corporate affairs director Michael Millett said in a statement to Crikey: "The ABC has received a number of complaints from Lord Monckton about its coverage of him and is working through them. We have no further comment." Crikey requested a response from Newman but this request was turned down by Millett.

Update 2 In this interview Monckton claims that Wendy Carlisle is now facing "a writ from my lawyers for libel" Listen.

More like this

Check out Wendy Carlisle's Background Briefing episode on Monckton and the Galileo Movement I'd like to highlight a couple of things. Monckton denied that he compared Garnaut to a fascist (at 15:20): Monckton: You said that it's been reported that I compared Ross Garnaut to a fascist? Carlisle:…
Maurice Newman, the chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation has come out as a global warming denier in a speech to the ABC. Michael Ashley replies here: Scientists are fairly measured in their public statements. Years of training instils a care with words, and avoidance of value…
The Australian is notorious for its attacks on climate science and its hypersensitivity to criticism, so this segment on the Science Show on the psychology of the rejection of climate science where this Maurice Newman opinion piece in the Australian was (correctly) described as "drivel" was pretty…
Maurice Newman, former chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, has the necessary lack of scientific qualifications to write about climate science in The Australian (Google “Losing their religion as evidence cools off”): So when in 1969 Paul Ehrlich claimed because of global cooling it…

Apparently Monckton also wrote a letter:

I then wrote to you saying she is going about my friends pestering them and then she produces and broadcasts this garbage because you did nothing about it.

Can someone FOI for the letter or something?

-- frank

He seems to be obsessed with shrimp comparisons.

By Spongebob (not verified) on 21 Jul 2011 #permalink

I have said to him, right mate, I warned you about this woman (Wendy Carlisle) orally over breakfast

How cozy! Did Maurice whip up some omelets or did the manservant bring them breakfast in bed?

Heh, heh, Zeno, great dirty minds think alike.

By Holly Stick (not verified) on 21 Jul 2011 #permalink

Before I make any judgement I'd like to know if the chairman of the ABC truly is shrimp-like.

What I really would like to know is if the shrimp and the shrimp look-alike will ever paaartay together again after this exchange?

By Torbjörn Lars… (not verified) on 21 Jul 2011 #permalink

More to the point, Monckton lies as soon he opens his mouth. If he had access, why would he spoil that?

OTOH, "Nothing in denial makes sense, except in the light of stupidity."

OK, it *is* a conundrum.

By Torbjörn Lars… (not verified) on 21 Jul 2011 #permalink

I'd be agitated too if somebody would go all shrimp-like on me while I was busy orally delivering something. Over breakfast, to add insult to injury.

And to the threats:
- Monckton threatened Barry Bickmore as well.
- via his catspaw, Schulte, demanded apoligies or resignation from Naomi Oreskes.
- and claimed I was under investigation:

'"Dr." Mashey is now himself under investigation for circulating his complaint publicly, in a form in which which inter alia he breaches doctor-patient confidentiality. For this reason, please remove all links to "Dr." Mashey's document.

One realizes that the news that the scientific "consensus" no longer believes in climate alarm (if it ever did) is unwelcome in certain political circles. But the science is the science.

Perhaps it would be better if "Dr." Mashey were to write a peer-reviewed rebuttal of Mr. Schulte's paper, rather than interfering in an unlawful manner on the blogosphere, which is not the best place for serious scientific discourse.'

Fortunately, I have long been supplanted from Monckton's Bad List. However, I am still puzzled by the heinous crime of intefering unlawfully with blogosphere, not a crime with which I am familiar, it being akin to interfering with chaos.

By John Mashey (not verified) on 21 Jul 2011 #permalink

What bothers me about Monckton - he *knows* that what he is saying is wrong. He's seen the corrections, yet he carries on because his lines of argument are persuasive in a lay audience. He's not actually stupid - he knows that he's manipulating quotes and removing context, he knows that his math is spurious, and intentionally obfuscatory.

So that's what gets me. He is hell bent on self promotion above all other concerns, with seemingly no qualms about lying and distorting to get there. It is transparent, naked and shameless - yet he gets away with it and displays no conscience about it.

I find this completely disturbing. At least some people seem quixotically attached to pet theories at the expense of accepting that they might be wrong, or are too blinded by ideology to have their worldview changed. But Monckton seems to *relish* the spinning of fanciful tales, and the getting away with it - purely for its own sake, and the acclaim and self-advancement it brings.

10 John Mashey,

interfering in an unlawful manner on the blogosphere

Comedy genius. Thanks for the reminder. :)

I think that the very greatest comedy is unintentional. I doubt that anyone could've come up with that without intending to be serious.

...unless Lord Munchkin really is a comedy genius, of course.

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 21 Jul 2011 #permalink

I find one of the most cringeworthy aspects of his act is his posturing, theatrical use of Latin. If only he could tell me the Latin for "wanker", I might find that useful.

interfering in an unlawful manner on the blogosphere

Perhaps he meant "unlordful".

By Ezzthetic (not verified) on 21 Jul 2011 #permalink

#13: Hmm.. I have very little knowledge of Latin, however it could be useful as in the following:

"Lord" Monckton has, once again, engaged in coitus ipse voluptas with his referral of Dr John Mashey as being under investigation due to his alleged inter alia unlawful use of the blogosphere while under the influence of facts.

Dave H:
Yes, but as I've pointed out elsewhere @Deltoid, Graves's Disease is a plausible organic explanation for Monckton's behavior, so the real question is why people pay attention to someone who may well be seriously ill. Ask the ABC chairman, for example.

By John Mashey (not verified) on 21 Jul 2011 #permalink

I hope no one minds if I do a little cherry picking and quote mining, but I believe "Lord" Monckton stated that the share market would plunge with the announcement of the Carbon Tax.

So, as of 13:19 today, the share market All Ordinaries is up 3.5% since the Carbon Tax was announced.

One of the problems with Monckton is that he is a very good debater. For a while I thought it amazing that no one could get the better of him in a one on one debate. Then it dawned on me - for it to be a fair fight the person on the other side of the debate should not be handicapped by sticking to the truth. The should, with a straight face, quote whatever they like, and say that it comes from "Proctor & Gamble, 2007". If they want to be slightly more convincing, they could memorise a list of real papers, and then whenever they want to make a point, just say it came from one of the papers on the list.

So, have we got any volunteers?

By John Brookes (not verified) on 21 Jul 2011 #permalink

But Monckton seems to relish the spinning of fanciful tales, and the getting away with it - purely for its own sake, and the acclaim and self-advancement it brings.

Or it may be that he is doing it to fight the forces of darkness, as David Archibald says.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 21 Jul 2011 #permalink

"Monckton is that he is a very good debater."

Speak for yourself. Even apart from the content, with his blustering style and embarrassing attempts at humour, the gratuitous Latin, as well as the imitation House of Lords emblem thingee he uses on his overheard slides, he should have already lost anyone within 30 seconds of opening his mouth.

My dad sends me a press clipping (SMS to the editor?) from a Brisbane paper:
"After seeing Lord Monckton's impressive performance at the National Press Club on Tuesday, I can understand why the climate catastrophists want him silenced."

So, as of 13:19 today, the share market All Ordinaries is up 3.5% since the Carbon Tax was announced.

You are are obviously reading that graph the wrong way. Turn it upside down to get Teh Truth â 'Carbon Tax, Ergo Market plunges 3.5%! Civilisation Rooooned!' (Tits and fluffy kitten on page 3).

Dominus meus vere est wanker.

By Uncle Buck (not verified) on 21 Jul 2011 #permalink

On reading the transcript,Carlisle is in no danger of losing a libel case.She should counter sue.

Nick, is it possible to counter sue if you're not going to be sued in the first place?

John Mashey @17: I've treated a number of patients with severe Grave's disease, and their encephalopathy is not what Monckton is demonstrating. I don't think even Monckton could use it as an excuse. He may be somewhat bipolar, but his pathology is behavioural, not "organic". He is an insecure narcissist using an elaborate con to fleece some willing fantasists and fools of 50's Australian cultural cringe. It's no accident that some his most ardent supporters are Alan Jones (who was once arrested for soliciting in a London public loo) and David Flint (Chairman of the Australian Monarchists). I think the French has a better approach.

Mayhap it's all about money, as usual. With the "greedy baby elephant" Rinehart funding his activities, and billions of dollars in dirty coal profit at stake, it's no wonder he's suing left and right. He's the monkey Monckton who dances for the fat organ grinder.

> he is a very good debater

I'd say he's a master debater.

Or something like that.

First time I've posted and it's OT but does anyone have a link to the page on a denialist site where Monckton was looking for more recruits to test his cure for Graves, MS, HIV etc.? I think it was posted in comments here a while ago. Thanks.

@Roo

I first became aware of Monckton's cure for various diseases via his CV posted on the website of the political party he is now joint deputy leader of (UK Independence Party):

[Christopher: A man of many talents](http://www.ukip.org/content/latest-news/1675-christopher-a-man-of-many-…)

I have wondered about how he is planning to trial his cure.

Earlier today I came across this amusing account of an encounter with Monckton:

[The Mad Monckton](http://crookedtimber.org/2010/10/29/the-mad-monckton/)

I found his conversation rather unsettling: a blizzard of statistics and anecdotes on everything from climate to Europe, all delivered with supreme confidence and a slight gleam in the eye. I began to think that Viscount Monckton might be a formidable opponent during the debate. Then he told me that he has discovered a new drug that is a complete cure for two-thirds of known diseases â and that he expects it to go into clinical trials soon. I asked him whether his miracle cure was chiefly effective against viruses or bacterial diseases? âBothâ, he said, âand prionsâ. At this point I felt a little more relaxed about the forthcoming debate.

By lord_sidcup (not verified) on 22 Jul 2011 #permalink

I wonder what body regulates drug trials here in the UK? Although I like the thought of Monckton tesing his drug on his denialist coterie, doing so would be highly illegal (I would hope). Perhaps someone should alert the regulatory authorities that Monckton is planning clinical trials.

By lord_sidcup (not verified) on 22 Jul 2011 #permalink

Is there any instance of Monckton actually carrying out one of his legal threats and if so what was the result?

StuN@26,of course you're right,I was just getting a little excited at the prospect of Moncky actually committing himself...how many such threats has he made again?

I wonder what body regulates drug trials here in the UK? Although I like the thought of Monckton testing his drug on his denialist coterie, doing so would be highly illegal (I would hope). Perhaps someone should alert the regulatory authorities that Monckton is planning clinical trials.

Since his UKIP CV claims

2008-present: RESURREXI Pharmaceutical: Director responsible for invention and development of a broad-spectrum cure for infectious diseases. Patents have now been filed. Patients have been cured of various infectious diseases, including Gravesâ Disease, multiple sclerosis, influenza, and herpes simplex VI. Our first HIV patient had his viral titre reduced by 38% in five days, with no side-effects. Tests continue

and the UK Law The Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations 2004 states that:

Requirement for authorisation and ethics committee opinion12.â(1) No person shallâ(a)start a clinical trial or cause a clinical trial to be started; or(b)conduct a clinical trial, unless the conditions specified in paragraph (3) are satisfied.
(2) No person shallâ(a)recruit an individual to be a subject in a trial;(b)issue an advertisement for the purpose of recruiting individuals to be subjects in a trial,unless the condition specified in paragraph (3)(a) has been satisfied.
(3) The conditions referred to in paragraphs (1) and (2) areâ(a)an ethics committee or an appeal panel appointed under Schedule 4 has given a favourable opinion in relation to the clinical trial; and(b)the clinical trial has been authorised by the licensing authority.

I sent requests for the Ethics Committee for the ethics reports testing which Monckton claimed on his CV to the National Research Ethics Service and the Appointing Authority for Phase 1 Ethics Committees (AAPEC) which governs ethics committees for research linked to the NHS and independent institutions respectively. I also sent a request to the Office for Human Research Protections because in the article you linked Monckton claimed to be setting up trials in the US soon.

Also I doubt that testing will be done on denialists. If he is testing his cure on HIV positive people he is going after the desperate. Read about what [Matthias Rath](http://www.tac.org.za/community/node/2024) did in South Africa:

On 15 April 2005, Rath ran an advertisement in the Mercury, in which he published the results of what he called a âclinical pilot studyâ in Khayelitsha. The study purported to show that multivitamins alone reverse the course of AIDS. Rath had no ethical approval or authorisation for the study. The law requires all clinical trials to be authorised by the Medicines Control Council. Various organisations subsequently documented a number of deaths on the trial. Rath's study has never been published in a peer-reviewed journal. It contained no control arm and a disproportionate number of patients on it appear to have died, including one of Rath's loudest supporters, Marietta Ndziba. In the court papers, two relatives of people who died on the Rath trial have written affidavits.

The Treatment Action Coalition eventually managed to stop Rath after the South African courts ruled his trials were illegal.

But back to my original request. My memory may be off but Iâm pretty sure I read a climate denialists blog or website which was looking for volunteers for one of Moncktonâs trials. This would have been about a year ago. Does anyone else remember this?

Actually, I see another XKCD cartoon in the making:

I can't come to bed, someone is interfering in an unlawful manner on the blogosphere.

By Ezzthetic (not verified) on 22 Jul 2011 #permalink

It's hilarious how these loons bang on about nobody wants to debate them then when somebody says something, they are totally comfortable with suing that person to restrict their speech.

Is truth an absolute defense against libel in Australia?

By Jeffrey Davis (not verified) on 22 Jul 2011 #permalink

re: #27 rhwombat
(I don't think we disagree, exactly. As I am sure *you* know, attribution in psychopathology is tricky, even trickier than in climate, where at least physics supplies useful constraints. A close relative is a clinical psychologist who has done a lot of work on classifying psychopathologies and it seems really hard, sometimes.)

Well, I wouldn't claim that Graves' is *the* cause, but it certainly seems plausible that it be a strong contributor.

a) a (credible) psychologist friend tells me:
"I checked into the epidemiological literature some time ago, and delusions of grandeur are one particular named consequence of GD that occurs in about 30% of all cases."

That seems high to me, but one never knows.

b) I would guess that being born a hereditary peer may well remove certain constraints. It may also set certain expectations, like sitting in House of Lords.

c) I know one person who encountered Monckton at college ("always stirring up controversy") and another close friend who went to boarding school with him. I can summarize the comments as being "the child is father to the man", but people agree that the behavior pattern has gotten progressively much worse. Worsening seems plausibly a mixture of behavioral or organic.

d) Anyway, I do not pretend to be a doctor, nor make diagnoses.

I simply raise the issue that IF there is an organic component to Monckton's behavior (and with Graves', there certainly could be, even if most sufferers are far less extreme), no amount of refutation or mocking him will have the slightest effect on his behavior, especially as long as many people are perfectly happy to support him. He first got on my radar screen in 2007 (with attack on Oreskes), but I would say the behavior has become stranger since, repeatedly.

Once again, I remind people of AFA's Big Footprint conference, where in one day, Monckton did the keynote (the swastika speech), and was involved in 4 panels, surely good for the ego.

Peter Wood reported admiringly in Tyranny or Theft - Part 1" @ CHE.

"The UCLA conference, on the other hand, was rambunctious and rather assertive in its diagnoses and prescriptions. It aimed at kicking out the props holding up bad science, worse economics, and really awful politics.

Big Footprint

The tone of âBig Footprintâ was set by the opening keynote address by Christopher MoncktonâLord Moncktonâa hereditary peer and deputy leader of the UK Independence Party who is an outspoken skeptic about anthropogenic global warming. âSkepticâ is perhaps an understatement in his case.

Lord Monckton is an agile, nose-tweaking, derisive foe of those who believe that significant global warming has resulted from human contributions of CO2 to the atmosphere. He is more caustic still towards those who believe that carbon reductions, cap and trade, windmills, and the like can be deployed to achieve any meaningful reduction in greenhouse gases. Letâs say Lord Moncktonâs keynote address was not an attempt to find the redeeming features of a flawed movement, or to discover a winsome approach to those who are ambivalent about the alleged threat of global warming.

Several other speakers took similar tough-minded approaches, though none were so wry in delivery."

Remember, that was describing the swastika speech.

By John Mashey (not verified) on 22 Jul 2011 #permalink

#38 Jeffrey

Is truth an absolute defense against libel in Australia?

No, it isn't! But it is a defence.

A mate of mine, who, along with an impressive rollcall of other relevant - and often rather entertaining - experience (I used to share a house with the guy who put pizza ham in the pending-live-export sheep troughs at Portland), acted as an instructing solicitor to The Wilderness Society when they were being sued by Gunns Ltd., has put together this web-site, which any Australian who chooses to take on the powerful should read. The book's good, too.

I'll include a quote -

We need law reform. We also need to play hard and use the equine nature of the law to our advantage. But we also need to recognise that being "litigation conscious" actually makes for more informed and effective political activism!

Actually Bill, I disagree. My opinion is that truth ("subtabtially true") IS an absolute defence:

25 Defence of justification

It is a defence to the publication of defamatory matter if the defendant proves that the defamatory imputations carried by the matter of which the plaintiff complains are substantially true.

stopmurdoch

I did say it's a defence! I don't believe it to be an absolute defence, judging on experience from a series of lawsuits, however. One might have considerable fun with 'substantial'!

But I'm sure any lawyers' opinions on the matter would be appreciated by us all.

And, as we know, it's not always (or even often) the verdict that counts; people have been sued for saying readily-proven 'substantially true' things. Often the point of a lawsuit isn't about whether it will ultimately be won, it's about whether it will likely intimidate the other party. Or the anticipation of it will intimidate the other party*...

Particularly if one side of a dispute, say, owns the family home (and accompanying mortgage, 2006 Commodore, and dog), and the other has several skyscrapers and a couple of floor's worth of lawyers.

I'm sure we're not in substantial disagreement.

I've been taking on the hubris of the mining industry and the state government collusion for more than a decade now - latest victory announced yesterday - and Greg's advice has been invaluable, even if only for reassurance that a position is soundly defensible.

(*Notably it's becoming apparent that the anticipation of the Murdochracy's displeasure has had a 'salutary' effect on far too many governments for far too long...)

Not being difficult Bill, but that WAS lawyer's opinion.

Since the uniform defamation laws came in in 2006 "truth" IS an absolute defence (i.e.final, conclusive without further qualification). The onus is on the Defendant, but once you prove truth that is the end of the matter. The word "substantially" actually works in favour of the Defendant.

Previously most jurisdictions had the qualifier of "truth AND public benefit". Ironically, the major reason for the Howard government bringing in the absolute defence of truth was to make it easier for large media organisations (like Murdoch's) to win defamation actions against them.

Otherwise I agree wholeheartedly with everything you've said.

Keep up your great work vis miners and governments.

Aha! I walked into that one...

Always pleased to be firmly contradicted by good news. ;-)

JM@39: I agree that we agree!

I have a research interest in encephalopathy and delirium due to extra-CNS disease, hence my somewhat pedantic decrying of Graves' disease (GD) as a rationale/excuse for Monckton's public behaviour.

The encephalopathy of GD is primarily due to excessive release of thyroid hormone, referred to as thyrotoxicosis. While mild thyrotoxicosis usually presents as anxiety and/or confusion, severe GD (thyroid storm) usually results in obtundation (delirium and decreased level of consciousness) which (usually) responds to a combination of thyroid blockade, corticosteroids, beta-blockade and anxiolytics. Occasionally unusual, bizarre and even psychotic behaviour may occur when either the anxiety or delirium associated with thyrotoxicosis exacerbates underlying psychopathology, particularly depression and bipolar affective disorder. These behavioural changes respond better to anti-psychotics than to anxiolytics or beta-blockade.

Monckton is a propagandist political PR creature with Graves disease and an hereditary peerage - without which we would never have heard of him. He's not unintelligent, but has the intellectual morals of Rasputin (I was going to say Tony Abbott, but that may be going too far). His grandiose statements about 'his' cure for Graves', HIV, influenza and other autoimmune disease may reflect delusional hypomania, narcissism or rank cupidity, but they serve his jackdaw purpose, provided he can find a sufficiently needy audience.

In other words, active Graves' disease may make Monckton's psychopathology more overt, but it's not a sufficient explanation for his bullshit...er...symptoms. A far as psychiatric co-factors in his behaviour, I agree that, absent clinical examination (...and perish that thought), I'm no better placed to slap labels on him than the next exasperated observer. Unless, of course, he actually does more than just blather on about his 'cures' for HIV, in which case I'll go after the bastard with the fury of someone who's spent 35 years treating those that suffer from it.

For some reason we in Canada don't hear much from Lord Moncton but I was interested to hear about him on a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation program, As It Happens, last night.

They treated him and his views with great respect. Fans of Lord Moncton might want to listen to the piece at http://www.cbc.ca/asithappens/ Part 2 at 7:30 . It is quite interesting.

By jrkrideau (not verified) on 23 Jul 2011 #permalink

"In other words, active Graves' disease may make Monckton's psychopathology more overt, but it's not a sufficient explanation for his bullshit"

Yes, we agree. It is certainly *not* a rationale/excuse; after all, there was a period when I think I was #1 on his Bad List.

By John Mashey (not verified) on 23 Jul 2011 #permalink

I noted that, in the audio from the Update 2 that Tim has put up, monckton not only rehashes the meme from Tims 'The Australian's War on Science 65: Stuart Rintoul misrepresents a scientific paper', but also continued with his claim that there are scientists from the University of Virginia who are currently under criminal investigation?

I have searched, but the most comprehensive breakdown of this I can find is on the wikipedia page

And that states that, whilst there have been numerous filings, none have progressed, and the latest one is still being decided as to whether it will proceed or not.

Which would mean that the scientists have never been under criminal investigation, which would (if my assumption there is true) really just add to his list of lies.

Have you seen this? (Link to Bolt for verification purposes only - don't follow it, you'll only encourage him.)

Challenge to an absolute banker

The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, following what the great Alan Jones has described as his â6-0, 6-0, 6-0 victoryâ over the director of the Australia Institute in a debate about the climate at the National Press Club in Canberra early this week, has today issued the following challenge to Malcolm Turnbull, the former leader of the Liberal/National Coalition, whom his party recycled last year for his naïve belief that âglobal warmingâ is some sort of âglobal crisisâ â

Whereas one Malcolm Turnbull, Member of Parliament for Goldman Sachs, self-appointed leader of the Absolute Bankersâ Get-Rich-Quick, Gimme-the-Money, Subsidy-Junkiesâ, Profiteersâ-of-Doom and Rent-Seekersâ Vested-Interest Coalition Against Hard-Working Taxpayers, has this day demonstrated wilful but indubitably profitable ignorance of elementary science by declaring that since all relevant matters of climatology are settled no one should pay any heed to a mere Peer of the Realm who dares to question the imagined (and imaginary) scientific âconsensusâ to the effect that unless the economies of the West are laid waste and destroyed we are all doomed;

And forasmuch as it is easy to identify the said Turnbullâs aircraft when it arrives at Canberra Airport because when the engines are turned off the whining carries on;

Now therefore I, The Right Honourable Christopher Walter, by the Grace of God and Letters Patent under the Hand and Seal of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second (whom God preserve) Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, do by these presents challenge the said Absolute Banker to a Debate on live television, during which each party shall have the opportunity to state his case and to examine the otherâs case, with a view to informing Hard-Working Taxpayers and allowing them to decide for themselves whether the truth is being told by me or by the said Member for Goldman Sachs, upon whom I call to take up this challenge, if he dares.

Given under my sign manual this twenty-second day of July in the Year of our Lord Two Thousand and Eleven,

VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY

'Given under my sign manual'!? 'Pretentious, moi?' doesn't even get close...

To which his host appends -

What I find remarkable is that the Turnbull-type disparagement of Monckton seems to be in inverse proportion to any success in disproving him.

There's a full Psych conference in this one tour alone!

Yep, 'Heil Hitler' Garnaut's a 'fascist' (note the very important small 'f'), the ABC are 'supporters of utilitarianism, socialism and of fascism' (and he's 'proud to say it'), Wendy Carlisle is 'an appalling woman', and even contrarian Howard-appointee Newman is 'shrimp-like wet little individual'(recalling bizarre-crustacean-abuse levelled at John Abraham; 'at least we are spared his face â he looks like an overcooked prawn')

But other people are threatened by, and are disparaging of, Monckton!

Living in Australia at the moment is like some first-as- tragedy, second-as-farce rerun of the last days of the Weimar republic re-purposed for a Big Brother audience... Laugh? Cry? (Hurl?)- would it make any difference?

Does anyone else get the feeling that the combination of corporate-funded lies and denialism + growing climatic chaos and devastating effects + inevitable public awareness of the scam is going to = violence at some point? Will the Monckton's of the world be hung upside down on lamp-posts at some point, a la Mussolini? Or will they get away with it, the way a similar cadre of liars seems to have escaped real consequences in the tobacco sphere?

Bill@49: I'm reduced to quoting Grahame Kennedy, imitating a crow.

The real question is bill, will the munktoon sue if Turnbull doesn't pick up the glove?

> Prof. Barry Bickmore recommends responding to Monckton by counter-proposing to do a written debate.

Anything like the large ongoing multi-party debate scientists have in the literature? ;-) The one Monckton's "contribution" doesn't satisfy the entry criteria for?

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 24 Jul 2011 #permalink

1) Monckton has been challenging people to debates, started at least as far back as at Cambridge Union debates in the 1970s.

2) It is always easier to generate confusion than to create clarity, and the Gish Gallup works. In particular, misleading graphs generate strong impressions, which are difficult to counter with words alone, and of course, debates on climate without graphs are silly.

3) Of course, Tim Lambert handled Monckton well in 2010, but in general, such debates are a really bad idea except under a really strict set of rules and requirement for exchanging slides well-beforehand, but allowing for preparation of rebuttal graphs, and requiring that the full sets be made available,
plus having a fair referee with chess time clocks...
(fair) conditions ... that very few would agree to, although Monckton possibly might.

4) The closest I've sen to a productive "debate" was Ryan vs Valentine, a week+ debate-via-blog, giving time for people to check statements, look at graphs, ask questions.

By John Mashey (not verified) on 24 Jul 2011 #permalink

lord s, colour me unsurprised! I figured in 1500 apparent pages of far-right rambling the 'climate scam' would have to have come into it somewhere...

Those poor bloody kids - imagine being cut down by that species of idiocy!

@lord_sidcup

Thank you for your neat summary and encapsulation of the standard Left/Green view of, and attitude to, the world.

By Rick Bradford (not verified) on 24 Jul 2011 #permalink

Amongst Monckton's plethora of lies in his Press Club debate he claimed to be close friends to one "Eric Ellington", an alleged founder of Greenpeace who had passed away, and who told Monckton in private correspondence that he had left because of the environmental extremists taking over.

Now, there is no "Eric Ellington" listed among the founders of Greenpeace, and the only references I can find of his existence and link to Greenpeace come from Monckton.

Unless anyone can prove to me the existence of this mystery man we can chalk up another blatant lie.

We could ask Paul Watson. He was certainly a founder.

What are you on about Barford? You know nothing of my politics.

If it helps, Iâve looked at Breivikâs manifesto and would say that the blog I linked to above does go too far. Climate change appears on a few pages of a manifesto that runs into 1500 pages and is a long way down Breivikâs list of 'grievances' (for want of a better word). However, the pattern of a demented individual immersed in a world of conspiracy theories, paranoia and lies ought to be a concern for the likes of Monckton and other propagators of conspiracy theories and lies.

By lord_sidcup (not verified) on 24 Jul 2011 #permalink

I was wondering exactly this about our latest mass-murderer.

He'd ticked the boxes on all the other far-right delusions, so I expected that he might likewise exerccised about the nasty socilist takeover of the world via climate science.

Did Monckfish really "warm him orally over breakfast"?

:-)

> Does anyone else get the feeling that the combination of corporate-funded lies and denialism + growing climatic chaos and devastating effects + inevitable public awareness of the scam is going to = violence at some point?

It's close now.

However you haven't considered the ordering. It'll be the denialists who will enact overt violence to get the populace frightened to gainsay them. With a generally willing media machine, it will be "seen" to be a "grass roots" action rather than the terrorism it will be.

The backlash against that will only come when a large US, AU or CAN city is depopulated by a catastrophe.

As to debating Mad Lord Monckfish, you have to get organised and crowdsource your responses if you aren't going to lie like a bastard (my personal favourite method in the case of the REALLY mad liars like Monckfish).

Every time he mentions something, get the counterfact and interrupt WHILE HE'S LYING. Do it each and every time. Hammer him into the ground with "That is false". Every single time, before he finishes the lying sentence.

Insist on a PC connection and a display board and put the proof of the lies on there.

It's much easier to just forget the idea and lie your ass off like he does. Don't respond to his counters and claims of your lies, just like he doesn't bother with anyone else's. If cornered with someone else in an interview, point out the lies and just say that in the face of such bald-faced and unprepentant lies, it's rather off to take Monkton's statements as correct when he claims that you have told porkies.

Never answer questions on your statements, just point out Monckton's lies and ask "In the face of this evidence of his cupidity, why do you take his word for anything?".

The upside is that the mad bastard will spend all his time talking about how you lied, not spreading his own.

> ... the pattern of a demented individual immersed in a world of conspiracy theories, paranoia and lies..

Well, of course, that applies equally well to Michael Mann as it does to Christopher Monckton....

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

I am leary of ascribing invalidity to Monckton simply because Breivik referenced him in his 'manifesto'. This sails close to the logical fallacy of poisoning the well, to which denialists are frequently prone.

Having said that, Breivik also referred to John Howard, George Pell and Keith Windshuttle ([see Lateline archives for 25 July Breivik piece](http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/)). Of course, he also quoted Shakespeare, so once again one has to be careful not to fall for the well-poisoning fallacy. Nevertheless, it's revealing that an extreme conservative psychopath seems to find intellectual comradeship in so many right-wing, fact-denying points of view...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 25 Jul 2011 #permalink

>Well, of course, that applies equally well to Michael Mann as it does to Christopher Monckton....

What's your evidence that such applies to Mann? What exactly is your case?

Oh, and do yourself a favour learn what a real elipsis looks like...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 25 Jul 2011 #permalink

Lotharsson:

Prof. Barry Bickmore recommends responding to Monckton by counter-proposing to do a written debate.

Anything like the large ongoing multi-party debate scientists have in the literature? ;-) The one Monckton's "contribution" doesn't satisfy the entry criteria for?

Probably a lot easier than "debating" via the literature, since neither side will have to do original research to qualify. ;-)

But Monckton will still be at a disadvantage, simply because he's a liar.

-- frank

Bernard J.:

What's your evidence that such applies to Mann? What exactly is your case?

Nah, it's just that any mention of any denialists lies has to be balanced by name-dropping "Michael Mann! Hockey stick!" for no reason whatsoever. And that's how it is.

-- frank

... the pattern of a demented individual immersed in a world of conspiracy theories, paranoia and lies..

One of whom believes that predictions of Arctic sea ice disappearing (which was forecast to disappear by 2040) have been proven false because the ice hasn't disappeared yet. (That demented individual was Rick Bradford by the way.)

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 25 Jul 2011 #permalink

@luminous beauty

You dare to talk about 'decency' when one of the posters here (lord_sidcup) links the appalling tragedy of nearly 100 dead innocent young people, to Monckton, an unrelated person whose views on climate 'lord_sidcup' disagrees with?

And not a word of criticism to be seen anywhere.

You don't even know where decency starts.

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

I emailed Malcolm Turnbull urging him to accept Monckton's challenge for a public debate, but following the advice of someone else here, I said only on the proviso that its a written debate e.g. by email or in the South Gambia Real Estate Gazzette.

Apparently Monckton runs from any written debates which makes Tim's debate with him last yaer all the more admirable.

PS. If you haven't seen Monckton's challenge to Tunrbull you can see it on Jo Codling's site where Monckton uses his usual mocking, denigrating language about Turnbull ....... which Jo Codling always rails against unless it come from someone she approves of.

Ahh,

Yes it was Lotharson with the info about using the tactic of a written debate with Monckton,.

Tahnsk Lotharson

So Rick Bradford, are you abandoning your 'argument' that Michael Mann is somehow the 'warmist equivalent' to Christopher Monckton?

So are you admitting that your reference to Mann was merely a vacuous talking point with no evidence or logic behind it whatsoever?

Are you admitting that, as I wrote,

it's just that any mention of any denialists' lies has to be balanced by name-dropping "Michael Mann! Hockey stick!" for no reason whatsoever

...?

-- frank

...links the appalling tragedy of nearly 100 dead innocent young people, to Monckton, an unrelated person whose views on climate 'lordsidcup' disagrees with?

It isnât a question of my views versus Moncktonâs views. Monckton is a liar - it has been demonstrated time and again. Lies bother me, and when lies contribute to extreme world-views that bothers me hugely.

By lord_sidcup (not verified) on 25 Jul 2011 #permalink

Bernard J #66

'Having said that, Breivik also referred to John Howard, George Pell and Keith Windshuttle (see Lateline archives for 25 July Breivik piece).'

What? No mention of the level headed Luboš Motl!

I won't be able to get used to that.

>You dare to talk about 'decency' when one of the posters here (lordsidcup) links the appalling tragedy of nearly 100 dead innocent young people, to Monckton, an unrelated person whose views on climate 'lordsidcup' disagrees with?

Bradford,

My question as to decency was your equating Mike Mann's victimization at the hands of conspiracy theorists to Viscount Monckton's (and your own) offensive promotion of conspiracy theories. A clear cut example of Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender.

But, to carry on your misperception and red herring, it isn't just that sidcup's disagreement with Monckton's demonstrably fallacious and mendacious views on climate isn't in any way indecent, but Anders Behring Breivik's use of Lord Monckton's demonstrably fallacious and mendacious views on climate as partial justification for murdering all those innocent young people is more than merely indecent, but vile and disgusting.

That you would deny the Monckton inspired motives of the perpetrator of such vile acts by making Monckton the victim and sidcup the offender, is beyond indecent. It's pathological.

But that's nothing we didn't already know.

By luminous beauty (not verified) on 25 Jul 2011 #permalink

Can you even begin to imagine what we'd be going through now, or what the various contrarian trolls would be declaiming, if Breivik had been some uber-Trotskyite nutter out to save the world from the Kochs, and had cited Mann, Trenberth and Gore with approval? And then suggested there might be more crazies out there waiting to further the cause, as Breivik has?

Fox would be demanding sweeping arrests and advocating waterboardings with barely-concealed glee. There'd be solemn, 'serious' discussions about whether the first amendment might just need to take a back-seat for a while, and whether Europe's own 'liberal' decadence had just imploded on itself.

As it is, I'm not surprised, as I said, that in 1500 pages of far-right nuttery the 'Climate Scam' and Monckton's ravings get a mention - Howard and Pell's names are more surprising, and just show what an interlinked world we all now live in.

What the kind of people who routinely used the terms 'Marxism' and 'socialism' when decrying 'the Climate Conspiracy' to establish 'world government' and 'destroy the economies of the West' need to do is sit down and wonder why they sound so much like this loon's manifesto. Not run round projecting their own dissonance onto others.

I've lost count of the number of deniers I've encountered who routinely use this kind of extremist, inflammatory rhetoric. It's bullshit. Nonsense. It's simply not true, and never will be. Grow-up - accept the fact. Drop the routine! Or are you afraid you'll have nothing left to throw into the debate?

Of course, it doesn't cause the Breivik's of this world - there'll always be loons (though one might well endeavour to keep automatic weapons away from them) and he's clearly first-and-foremost a racist kook - but it sure appears to help them feel vindicated.

Well, Monckton is wrong because he's wrong, regardless of what some deranged person writes. Still, the AAAS Board recently wrote about Personal attacks on climate scientist, and people may recall Rush Limbaugh's urging to draw and quarter them. Glenn Beck's comment there were not enough hari-kari knives in the world, although Marc Morano was lenient, only suggesting public flogging. Over at Stoat, Nicholas Nierenberg demands proof of death threats, since eviscerated rat left on your doorstep is not a death-threat.

But people might want to recall that Monckton is a prominent member of UKIP.

See swastika speech at this conference. Monckton gave keynote and was involved in 4 panels in one day. Do read the agenda, it is illuminating.

See about AFA. or this.

It is almost certainly a deliberate tactic to manufacture attacks, propggate them and expect that a tiny fraction of the viewers will get angry enough to harass people, although rarely as far as nooses or eviscerated rats. Email is easier.

By John Mashey (not verified) on 25 Jul 2011 #permalink

My brother-in-law works for a transport company.

Recently, this company informed its employees that due to the carbon tax, 80 of them would be losing their jobs, and that the carbon tax would destroy the economy and their livelihoods.

This disinformation campaign seems to be quite clearly encouraging people on the edge to lose their grip and "go postal".

The government should be taking extremely clear and firm steps to lay it on the line for liars who are following Abbott down the path of talking down the economy and encouraging violent nuttery.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 25 Jul 2011 #permalink

Well, Monckton is wrong because he's wrong, regardless of what some deranged person writes. Still, the AAAS Board recently wrote about Personal attacks on climate scientist, and people may recall Rush Limbaugh's urging to draw and quarter them. Glenn Beck's comment there were not enough hari-kari knives in the world, although Marc Morano was lenient, only suggesting public flogging. Over at Stoat, Nicholas Nierenberg demands proof of death threats, since eviscerated rat left on your doorstep is not a death-threat.

But people might want to recall that Monckton is a prominent member of UKIP.

See swastika speech at this conference. Monckton gave keynote and was involved in 4 panels in one day. Do read the agenda, it is illuminating.

See about AFA. or this.

It is almost certainly a deliberate tactic to manufacture attacks, propggate them and expect that a tiny fraction of the viewers will get angry enough to harass people, although rarely as far as nooses or eviscerated rats. Email is easier.

By John Mashey (not verified) on 25 Jul 2011 #permalink

> Yes it was Lotharson with the info about using the tactic of a written debate with Monckton,.

Actually it was someone else who linked to Barry Bickmore. I slyly suggested someone remind Monckton that there is a slow-motion debate in the scientific literature which he's welcome to join - if he can cut the mustard, which based on his efforts to date he can not.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 25 Jul 2011 #permalink

[Rick Bradford](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/07/did_monckton_have_breakfast_wi…).

>And not a word of criticism to be seen anywhere.

Luminous Beauty [has explained to you](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/07/did_monckton_have_breakfast_wi…) why Lord Sidcup's remonstrations to the likes of Monckton, who are prone to dog-whistle incitings, is a valid path to pursue.

However, your claim that there was not a "word of criticism" is incorrect. I did in fact [point out that it is easy to stray into poisoning-the-well territory](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/07/did_monckton_have_breakfast_wi…), but having said that there is a good case to be made (exactly as Lord Sidcup did) that conservative deniers of physics and of climatological science hold a particular appeal to folk who demonstrate pathological psychology.

It is obvious that this irks you beyond your capacity to just keep quiet and not make a spectacle of yourself. Fine, let it out. But, [as LB also said](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/07/did_monckton_have_breakfast_wi…), don't go all DARVO in an attempt to deflect responsibility to those who are innocent of bastardising science and how it's presented to the lay public.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 25 Jul 2011 #permalink

I could add to Bernard J's comment that I also distanced myself from the blog posting I linked to in #56. At that point I hadn't seen that climate chnage denial was a minor part of the overall manifesto. Nevertheless I stand by the point that Monckton's lies fuel extremism by helping create an alternate unreality that extremists inhabit.

By lord_sidcup (not verified) on 25 Jul 2011 #permalink

I think the point about ABB referencing Monckton is that a person with a set of delusional beliefs finds that Monckton's views on climate science fit in quite nicely with the rest of those delusions, ie. they are all political positions.

@78 Luminous Beauty

What 'conspiracy theories' are you accusing me of giving 'offensive promotion' to? Chapter and verse, please.

Or is this a clear-cut example of Projection and Denial on your part?

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

This one, Dick:

> Well, of course, that applies equally well to Michael Mann as it does to Christopher Monckton....

Just an example...

>Or is this a clear-cut example of Projection and Denial on your part?

So, Bradford, your best shot is but another baseless tu quoque? That's just too rich.

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

@88 Wow

Not an example. That's an personal opinion. Where's the 'conspiracy'? Do you even know the difference?

You seem to have no idea what is being discussed here. I can only conclude that you are in fact an amateurishly programmed spambot running on a Sinclair ZX (the low-memory version).

Next patient, please.

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

Bugger off Bradford. Breivik's conspiracy, including his citation of Monckton (together with Howard & Costello) is online for all to see. Monckton openly conspires with denialist idiots, (like you), as well as the rabid political right (UKIP anyone?). Have you seen the UKIP platform? I have patients: you have delusions

Monckton doesn't merely conspire with the UKIP, he's their deputy leader.

> Not an example. That's an personal opinion.

Yes, a personal opinion of a conspiracy theory you are giving offensive promotion to.

You know, answering the question which you asked.

I know denialists don't ever want their questions answered, but I've done so anyway.

What sort of Murdoch hate website this is! It feels reliving communism 25 years ago, where if you did not agree with communist views or dared to listen to foreign shock jocks you could get five years in jail.

By Peter Schmidt (not verified) on 01 Aug 2011 #permalink

What a hate post that was, Peter. It feels like reliving McCarthy 50 years ago, where if you didn't agree to the Capitalist views or dared listen to foreign news you could get 10 years in jail.

[Peter Schmidt](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/07/did_monckton_have_breakfast_wi…).

This whole subject is approaching 70 conspicuous instances of the Australian misrepresenting science, and especially climate science. If you can demonstrate that the Australian has been egregiously misrepresented in any of these dozens and dozens of examples, please do so.

Otherwise, grow up and understand that Murdoch's rag is deliberately bastardising the idea of accurate reporting simply for its own ideological ends. Noting the fact of this isn't a matter of "hate" - it's just correcting the record.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 02 Aug 2011 #permalink

Blissfully, the Murdoch rags have instructed their loyal fans to accuse any critics of hating freedom and they respond accordingly. Why think for yourself when their opinion makers can do the thinking for you.