Monckton on TV in New Zealand

Monckton sure didn't like it when the reporter brought John Abraham's dissection. Monckton yet again claimed that he is about to sue Abraham.

More like this

I am fairly certain that his comment near the beginning referring to the economics literature as preferring to "do nothing" is a flat out lie. Prominent counterexamples to this claim include the Stern Review in the UK, the Garnaut reports in Australia, and work by William Nordhaus in the US.

I think a more accurate description would be that 'the economic literature supports the use of a mix of both adaptation and mitigation, with the exact proportions being the subject of an ongoing debate.'

"I am fairly certain that his comment near the beginning referring to the economics literature as preferring to "do nothing" is a flat out lie."

I agree, though I might not include the Stern Review or the Garnaut reports as "the economic literature" (there is a difference between government reports and peer-reviewed academic studies). I think of the work by Hope, Tol, and Nordhaus as the central work in this sub-field: while I have many critiques of their methodologies, and think that they in the main underestimate the optimal mitigation effort, every single of one of them does find that the best estimate of the optimal near-term carbon price should be positive (even if, in some cases, rather small).

(one could also cite Weitzmann, Stavins, Yohe, Reilly, Edmonds, Fankhauser, and on and on for economists who have found that the optimal economic choice is in fact to control GHG emissions to some extent, though they would disagree over what exactly that extent should be - in fact, I can't think of a single economist in the field who thinks that "do nothing" is the right answer... it would be interesting to make Monckton name names here...)

I rarely see Monckton in video clips. It's so much more entertaining to see him maintain such a straight face while telling his whoppers!

Monckton has some circus freak type of eyes. And is playing the same game that Andrew Wakefield played when he was criticized by science about his role in the Anti-vaxx/autism debate.

Scott, it's not really fair to laugh at his eyes: they're damaged by some disease he had (some sort of endocrine problem, maybe thyroid? I don't recall). Anything else is fair game!

Has he said anything about the House of Lords situation since that open letter?

By stripey_cat (not verified) on 09 Aug 2011 #permalink

Odd that he emphasized the peer-reviewed nature of the economic consensus, only to say moments later that peer review is useless and consensus is impossible for climate science.

I'm also not really sure how Abraham was supposed to misrepresent Monckton by showing Monckton's actual slides.

He has Graves Disease (results in hyperthyroidism). So yeah it's possibly a bit below the belt to talk about his eye problems.

But it's not below the belt to talk about what a complete cretin he is, how he knowingly misrepresents scientific research, his own qualifications, and numerous other things. Also how he whines about having his ideas and theories suppressed, but is more than happy to threaten to sue anyone who openly and vocally disagrees with him and shows his ramblings to be complete nonsense. All of that is well above board!

Most amusing at 2:15. When backed into a corner, just freeze. Reminds me of a cat caught in the headlights of a car speeding towards it.

And regarding those wild staring eyes, I'm sure it's okay to make fun of them because he doesn't have Graves disease. Didn't he cure himself? Isn't that the marvellous scientific discovery he's patented and which will cure all known diseases?

Mikem said:

He has Graves Disease (results in hyperthyroidism). So yeah it's possibly a bit below the belt to talk about his eye problems.

Mikem, I would agree with you except for one troubling detail. The Discount Monk has openly claimed to have found a cure for Grave's Disease and many others. All of the diseases he has claimed to cure have very different aetiologies which makes his lies even more desperate.

How many people suffering from these diseases are excited to hear that their disease can now be cured only to have their hopes dashed when they discover that the supposed cure is all lies and nonsense?

Monckton has done very many atrocious things in the past but I think this is the most despicable of all. Why has he not been taken to task for this obscenity?

By Ian Forrester (not verified) on 09 Aug 2011 #permalink

Scott, 'cat, Mikem, EoR & Ian: Grave's is an autoimmune disease, in which antibodies against thyroid, periorbital tissue and, occasionally, subdermal tissue are produced (mainly in the in the thymus) and cause local swelling and dysfunction in the affected tissue. It is not 'curable', but can be modulated by some medication. While mental function can be affected by thyroid dysfunction (so-called "thyroid storm"), it cannot be blamed for Monckton's delusional narcissism, which is far more likely to be part of a bipolar affective disorder. His claimed 'cures' for GD, influenza and HIV are likely to be immunomodulatory (probably interferon based, from what I can gather), but are no more trustworthy than the rest of his bullshit. Fundamentally, the man is a performance artist, but lacks the insight and decency of his fellow Grave's sufferer Marty Feldman

Hi Mike, read your piece on lunatics and the full moon,

asked a trickcycalist some years ago.

reply, Lunatics are also afraid of the dark


By john byatt (not verified) on 09 Aug 2011 #permalink

I am desperate for Monckton to follow through with his threats to bring suit against those who have spoken up against his charlatanism. I've even hoped that he might target me, as I have on more than one occasions expressed my opinion that he is a liar and a fraud.

I suspect though that he won't actually try to sue his challengers, because he knows that he'd be mercilessly crucified in a court of law, and it would actually be a wonderful opportunity to put his anti-science claims to the legal test. The result of such a suit would be Monckton [BFZ](, science 1.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 09 Aug 2011 #permalink

Monckton,what a horrid fellow he is when cornered! Flecks of spittle,gnashing teeth,wailing,lies and insults...brrrr. As mad as they come.

His Lordship,

'...given him (Abraham) eighty pages of refutation including example after example after example after example (his Lordship never one to over-egg) of him lying to third party scientists (whatever that means) about what I said....'

There it is, clear as day, another libellous accusation against Abraham, Charles Dodgson must have had Monckton in mind when he wrote about Alice and I guess Monckton will in future claim that he never said the above either.

'Just a moment, have you not understood a word of what I have just said to you. For God's sake concentrate man and just listen', bombasts his Lordship.

Does the man have no shame at all?

I apologise for my country foisting such an insufferable person on you all. He is clearly a product of that which Feigenbaum & McCorduck alluded to in their 'Artificial Intelligence and Japan's Computer Challenge to the World where in Part 5 under the Section 2 heading 'Well then: Why isn't everybody doing this? Or, England's tragedy' (pp198,199 of my copy of the 84 Pan edition) we find this:

'Two punts were being poled languidly down the river Cherwell, filled with high spirited young men....Parlett, who would later become a professor of computer science at the University of California at Berkeley, was an Englishman with an affinity for American friends, and it happened that his punt carried the college's American contingent of Rhodes Scholars, men who were studying economics and mathematics. Among them was Alain Enthoven, later to be assistant secretary of defense for systems analysis and, still later, a professor of economics at Stanford University. Enthoven stared meditatively at the punt ahead of them which contained, by everybody's estimate, the brainiest young men in the college, They were all âreading Greatsââstudying the Greek and Latin classics. âThere,â said Enthoven, fixed on the punt ahead of them, âthere is England's tragedy.â

One final thought. It would appear the the good Lord's cure for Graves does not work for him. This is truly sad but that he continues to promote its supposed efficacy is another measure of the strength of his denial. He is truly Lord of the 'Denial' Dance.

I'm sure that eighty page critique of Abraham makes perfect sense in the dactylic hexameters in which it runs through the viscount's mind.

Were the Attic of the pre-Socratics longer on post- Aristotelian technical terms , his mighty hexameters might lose less on translation into English . Or binary for that matter. Then again , he may just be giving a fair imitation of any good front bencher at Question Time- its Greek to me.

had Graves disease two years ago, auto immune response to a viral infection. have been on Neo-Mercazole, It is not a cure but just maintains normal thyroid function until graves burns out,eighteen months to two years, My thyroid function is almost back to normal now. No,I do not have the eye problem due to early diagnoses and treatment.

By john byatt (not verified) on 10 Aug 2011 #permalink

19 John,

If a sufferer develops bulging eyes as a result of the disease, will any effective treatment reverse the bulging?

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 10 Aug 2011 #permalink

TrueSceptic, I recall reading that the eye changes cannot currently be reversed.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 10 Aug 2011 #permalink

"I recall reading that the eye changes cannot currently be reversed".

Isn't that rather cavalierly assuming that the disease hasn't been exacerbated by Pinocchio Syndrome? Although largely anecdotal, there is nevertheless a body of evidence suggesting that [cessation of blatant lying]( may make some of the physical manifestations less noticeable.

True sceptic, to a point, the eye problem in some is reduced,
I would think that Monckton had it many years ago prior to modern treatment

By john byatt (not verified) on 10 Aug 2011 #permalink

Monckton's claim of a cure for Graves is absurd because in most people it burns itself out after two years,that is whether or not you take Neo-Merc, He is preying on people's lack of understanding on the course of the disease, Monckton obviously had it untreated for a long period.

My GP was telling me that it is now considered more virus than auto immune response.
Latest understanding.

By john byatt (not verified) on 10 Aug 2011 #permalink

21 Lotharsson,

So even if Lord Munchkin really has found a cure, we shouldn't expect his own obvious visible symptom to be reduced?

23 John,

Thanks, and I'm glad to hear that your treatment was successful.

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 10 Aug 2011 #permalink

Monckton,what a horrid fellow he is when cornered! Flecks of spittle,gnashing teeth,wailing,lies and insults...brrrr. As mad as they come.

And if the situation had been reversed, and the interviewer kept interrupting and telling Moonbat to "stop right there!" over and over, what do you think the response would have been from the Wattists and the Novaers? Perhaps we could ask Adam Sandler just how insistent the Lord is on proper etiquette and civility in interviews. When it applies to him at least. And probably only when it applies to him.

I agree with it all but wonder what the point is of it being said here. Why not go to the denialist blogs and state it there - particularly the point that Abraham did nothing more than inquire about the statements on Monckton's own slides. The shamelessnes with which he now denies that he said what he said should be exposed over and over, and in places where that needs to be done. All you risk there is being called a 'moronic communist traitor' - as happened to me.

By Arie Brand (not verified) on 10 Aug 2011 #permalink

Monckton's swivel-eyes can't possibly be the result of Graves' disease, because he has claimed repeatedly that he invented the cure for incurable diseases while possessing not a shred of relevant knowledge. Clearly Monckton's panacea for all ills was stolen from Aunt Lydia, so there!

So we can all make as much fun of old pop-eyes as much as we like.

Holy [bleep] the stupid is strong in the comments section of that article, Scribe. I expected better of my brethren.

> So even if Lord Munchkin really has found a cure, we shouldn't expect his own obvious visible symptom to be reduced?

That's my understanding, at least.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 10 Aug 2011 #permalink

Why oh why is the media of our cousins across the pond more savvy and probing about deniers like Monckton than our own in Australia?

Or what is it about Australia that we allow propaganda to reign supreme and at the same time smugly congratulate ourselves on our Australian 'exceptionalism' and how much smarter we are than the rest of the world especially the Americans?

NZ Herald is APN owned , was a family run regional newspaper with many dailies in Australia, eg Sunshine coast daily, the Gympie times,

now owned by a Japanese gentleman I believe, they have no agenda,

The Gympie times does not print denier drivel, but allows denier letters to the editor and allows replies.

Over the last 15 months i have replied to over 160 letters in both of those papers, all printed,it has been useful in using their letters to present facts without insults, just referencing all information that I include.

they hurl insult and abuse back, I ignore it.

let the reader judge

By john byatt (not verified) on 10 Aug 2011 #permalink

26 EoR,

"Moonbat" is not a good choice IMO. It is commonly used to refer to George Monbiot so it could get confusing. ;)

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 11 Aug 2011 #permalink

I've been watching Monckton for a while now and (this is pure speculation) I think his medical condition may be deteriorating. He has stated on numerous occasions that he has his own medical therapy for Graves disease (that also cures AIDS and other things). So, in essence, he may be leaving his disease untreated. Wiki has a decent page on Graves disease and the prognosis when the condition goes untreated is not too good.

By Rob Honeycutt (not verified) on 11 Aug 2011 #permalink

The wiki article is a bit like reading the side effects of Asprin, Monckton would most likely be extremely underweight by now if was untreated, Diagnosis can take a while but usually within a few months, average in Oz.

By john byatt (not verified) on 11 Aug 2011 #permalink

John @24: Your GP is wrong. Graves is not a virus, though (rarely) episodes can be triggered by an infective process (usually bacterial, not viral). Like most chronic autoimmune diseases (such as multiple sclerosis or lupus), GD can have variable course, both temporally and in it's manifestations. The most common pattern is to have a single episode, followed by a slow resolution, but it can both recur and persist. The fibrosing components of GD (the eye signs and the pretibial myxoedema) tend to persist, and treatment has little effect, but the thyroid disease usually responds well to suppression with carbimazole. I'm afraid Monckton's Toad of Toad Hall eyes are now permanent. I suppose he may as well do what Marty Feldman did and make his living as a clown.

Ha ! Good interview. It would have been better if I could understand what the TV interviewer was saying too. Was the TV interviewer speaking english ?

By Billy Bob Hall (not verified) on 14 Aug 2011 #permalink

Only idiots and corrupt scumbags believe in man made global warming. There's ZERO evidence for it and a mountain of evidence against it. Let me educate the morons and the corrupt scumbags.

OK, This journalist lies. Monckton HAS produced peer reviewed material.

Read my post...slowly.......

The Earth has been warming steadily for 300 years, well before humans could've had any impact, and cooled for the past 8 years. As the climate has been steadily warming naturally, independent of human influence, then of course the hottest days are going to be at the end of the record!!! So claiming the hottest days/years being evidence of AGW is a fallacy.
The fact is there has been no warming for 15 years!!!!!!

The medieval Warm period was warmer than today. provides comprehensive collation of studies around the globe and has found it was hotter. Temperatures have been steadily increasing since a period called the Maunder Minimum, a mini-ice age straight after the MWP. The steady upward trend since shows no human signal as man had no heavy industry then. The incline from the 70s to '98 is repeated many times in the past, even before the turn of the centurey and thus is not significant or unique in any way.

Global ice levels are normal and sea levels have not risen significantly for 60 years.Sea temperatures according to the ARGO buoys deployed years ago show no increase! there goes the 'hidden warmth' theory of the Alarmists.

CO2 rise lags behind climate change by 800 years! This shows that climate drives temperature NOT the other way round.

Also climate models and IPCC predictions vastly exaggerate warming, they overstate CO2 levels, and exaggerate climate sensitivity forcing equations for CO2. They propose a fictional runaway feedback effect as the CO2 heats up the oceans which then release more CO2 into the atmosphere in a vicious circle. While this feedback does happen to a certain extent, not only is CO2 a lesser greenhouse gas in terms of contribution, the greenhouse effect is counterbalanced by other factors.

The IPCC admits that GHG warming alone without feedbacks will account for no more than 1 degree over the next century. Empirical data shows feedbacks to be zero to negative otherwise we would have seen much more warming due to the CO2 than we have. There are negative feedback variables that the IPCC has vastly understated or ignored. For instance, the climate models vastly exaggerate upper tropospheric water vapour leading to understated Outgoing Longwave Radiation, and thus vastly exaggerating warming.

In reality, Increased cumulonimbic convection and humidity creates more return flow subsidence and radiative mass sinking, leading to less upper tropospheric water vapour. This leads to more OLR escaping and thus less warming.

The models also ignore or understate low level clouds resulting from increased humidity that reflects radiation back to space and cools the planet. The albedo effect resulting from cloud cover corresponds to cooler periods in the climate record.

The mid tropospheric hotspot that should be there according to the IPCCs greenhouse gas warming contribution projections is NOT there, proving the IPCC's models incorrect.

Lindzen (you might have heard of him, the top climate scientist in the world) has studied the climate for 40 years and has plotted the satellite data that shows that Outgoing radiation goes UP with surface warming, NOT down as the IPCC suggests.

Sea acidification is also complete rubbish as even if all the CO2 in the atmosphere was dissolved in water it would not even come close to approaching a neutral PH, let alone acid.

Corals, crustaceans and other life forms flourish with more CO2.

Add to that all the data tampering and manipulation, for example the Darwin tampering, the elimination of weather stations from higher altitudes, the attempted removal of the mediaeval warming period, and the bullying of scientists who didn't support the AGW scam, in other words the bullying of scientists with a least a shred of conscience and morality and you have a 100% certainty that AGW is a scam.

This journalist a lying scumbag whore and should be held in breach of his ethical duty.

I love winning debates :)

By Sabretruthtiger (not verified) on 18 Jul 2012 #permalink

BillyBob, it's hard to understand the reviewer because he was rudely attempting to spew fallacious erroneous nonsens over Lord Monckton's rational reasoned points.

By Sabretruthtiger (not verified) on 18 Jul 2012 #permalink

Chris, is that you? ;-)

You started out badly with your cut-and-paste of denialist talking points, including a flat-out denial mountains of evidence, and then immediately got worse:

Monckton HAS produced peer reviewed material.

No, he hasn't.

(Hint: Monckton asserting that his work was peer-reviewed doesn't mean it was actually peer-reviewed. The same logic applies to pretty much anything Monckton claims about climate science - caveat emptor, and all that.)

And you went downhill from there, complete with a lovely little dip at the end.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 19 Jul 2012 #permalink

Strewth! Wading through that diatribe from Stt is like trudging through Sinai sand hills in wellies.

CO2Science - wow! Such a fount of truth, on a par with WUWT and SPPI. The Beno produced more useful pulp.

The Earth has been warming steadily for 300 years, well before humans could’ve had any impact..

Oh dear. The dross produced by the ill educated. How long have humans been an agrarian based society with key strongholds for protection of?

What are the roots of the word civilisation?

How long before that was humankind engaged in a hunter gatherer lifestyle that changed the ecology by exacerbating the extinction of huge herds of large herbivores?

Two words to assist you, Jared Diamond.

As for all of that diatribe take a look see here where most of your nonsense has been debunked, time and time again.

Are you a newbie to this discussion, just a simpleton or being mendacious?