Subscribe: DeSmogBlog - Christopher Monckton
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade B rated
Language: English
change  climate change  climate  denier  global warming  global  koch  monckton  schulte  science  scientific  warming   
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: DeSmogBlog - Christopher Monckton

Christopher Monckton


Fred Singer Recalls Silly Attack On Consensus And Naomi Oreskes By Klaus-Martin Schulte, Lord Monckton's Endocrinologist Front Man

Mon, 30 Mar 2015 11:58:00 +0000

By the 1950s, smoking's cause of disease had risen to strong scientific consensus, but Big Tobacco needed an illusion of scientific controversy to keep the public in doubt. As seen in the new film Merchants of Doubt,  they developed superb marketing tactics copied by others, including the fossil fuel industry and allies. The scientific consensus on human causation of climate change is just as strong as that on smoking, so the same tactics are used against it, plus Internet-amplified harassment of scientists. Fred Singer recently tried to revive a nearly-forgotten 2007 attack on climate consensus, one of the silliest and least competent, entangled with plagiarism and falsification. A revisit of this episode may be instructive, as consensus (not unanimity) is important enough that people keep challenging it. UC San Diego geoscientist and science historian Naomi Oreskes' 2004 Science essay had examined 928 abstracts of peer-reviewed science papers and happened to find none that clearly rejected the consensus. She stated the well-known fact that real rejections would say so, whereas people rarely bother to reaffirm mainstream science in the limited text of abstracts. The result had been ineptly attacked in 2005 by Benny Peiser. His claims of 34 contradictions were demolished by Tim Lambert and others in Peiser’s 34 abstracts, Peiser watch, Peiser admits to making a mistake and Peiser admits he was 97% wrong. Peiser used a slightly different database query, changed criteria and then misclassified many climate abstracts as rejects. It is easy for non-experts to misinterpret abstracts and assessing climate abstracts is a skill for which social (sports) anthropologists are rarely known. By March 2006 he entirely withdrew his complaint. Peiser's attack was demonstrated inept at best, but not a barrier to his later job prospects at the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF).  He never apologized, but his “work” resurfaced in 2007, the main topic here. A recent email chain again displayed the reality-disconnect of proven faker Fred Singer and his mostly male1 contacts, upset by the oncoming Merchants of Doubt. They had failed repeatedly since 2004 to discredit Oreskes, so they sought new ways to harass her and associates, including James Enstrom's ludicrous suggestion of complaining to her PhD(1990) school, Stanford. Singer then resurrected the failed 2007 attack, like “Climategate” a non-event amplified by well-oiled machinery into an Internet/PR storm. The Heartland Institute even ran ads for it in major newspapers. It had been strongly refuted, but perhaps like Frederick Seitz, it lived on in Singer's mind: “A few yrs ago, distinguished British surgeon SCHULTE filed a complaint with UCSD about N, Oreskes 'consensus' work. A He faced a mostly feminist mafia; NO was promoted to be Provost of a new college in UCSD.” Mr. Klaus-Martin Schulte was Monckton's endocrine surgeon, long affiliated with King's College, London, but now at the Australian National Unversity.  He became Monckton's front man in a conspiracy to attack Oreskes and the consensus. Although well-published in his own field, he exhibited serious incompetence in climate science and also was revealed as a plagiarist and falsifier, strong allegations, but clear. In 2007, via the newly-created Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI)2  Lord Christopher Monckton, Robert Ferguson and Schulte ran a well-coordinated PR campaign to harass Oreskes.  Unsurprisingly, Schulte was no more competent at assessing climate abstracts than Peiser.  A 40-page Report attached to a 2008 DeSmogBlog post included detailed timelines and examples of plagiarism in the Letter below. It elicited an instructive comment by Monckton. The story has changed little, but an updated Report7.0A fixes broken URLs and adds a few annotations. On 07/19/07, at SPPI, Monckton repeated Peiser's attack,3 included Peiser's 5 favored counter-examples, copying the text without attribution, i.e., plagiarized. Monckton simply ignored Peiser's year-earlier withdrawal.  In climate de[...]

Fashion for the Discerning Climate Science Denier

Thu, 06 Dec 2012 19:05:50 +0000

Whether you're skydiving onto the beaches of Durban, galavanting across the U.S. on the Tea Party's invitation to spread Birther lies about President Obama's birth certificate, pitching 'Fox News Australia' to a wealthy mining magnate, or referring to young climate activists as “Hitler Youth” without apology, the discerning climate science (and reality) denier must make a fashion statement. So believes the “Lord” Christopher Walter Monckton, the star of this must-see fashion show: To be clear, none of these garments are actually for sale here, although those Koch goggles would make a great stocking stuffer for your favorite parachutist, wouldn't they?  But we do have some words straight from the model* himself about the lovely attributes of his latest fashion statement at COP18 in Doha, Qatar:  I put on Qatari national dress (a white djellabah and black-corded kheffiyeh), which a prominent Doha businessman had unexpectedly presented to me at dinner the night before. The outfit is astonishingly comfortable in the Doha climate – cool in the heat of the day and yet warm enough to sit out and drink sweet green tea in the suq as the crescent moon of Islam climbed above the Sultan’s turret. The security inspectors, wearing Arab costume identical to mine, were startled to see a paleface staring out at them from under the seemly-pinched wimple of the kheffiyeh. One of them helped me to arrange it in the distinctive and stylish Qatari fashion. *Monckton is not really a fashion model* Which is your favorite fashion statement from the show? Leave a comment below.  UPDATE 2: Cindy Baxter reports that the UN has confirmed that Lord Monckton has been permanently barred from the UNFCCC process.UPDATE: While the preceeding fashion show was a joke at the expense of the world's most bizarre climate denier, Lord Monckton has made a true ass of himself at the COP18 climate summit in Qatar. During a very real stocktaking plenary session earlier today, Monckton impersonated a delegate from Myanmar and wasted the time of the real delegates by grabbing a microphone to sputter disinformation. Watch this clip put together by TckTckTck about Monckton's stunt which earned him boos from the audience, got him debadged, escorted out of the conference and he will likely be asked to leave Qatar:  Photo Credit: “Monckton of Arabia” | CFACT - and yes, the URL for this image really is Tags: lord christopher moncktonDohaQatarmonckton skydivingmonckton fashionclimate denier fashion[...]

Fake science, fakexperts, funny finances, free of tax

Tue, 14 Feb 2012 23:08:47 +0000

Modern anti-science was created by the tobacco industry in the 1950s and then used against climate science, often by the same well-experienced think tanks and individuals.  Tobacco anti-science is strangely entangled with climate anti-science, as the attached report shows in detail involving Fred Singer's SEPP, Joseph Bast's Heartland, and more. (Fakery 2  10/25/12 updates this post with more data.) S. Fred Singer is President of the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), but has done almost all the work himself for 20 years., including help for tobacco in the early 1990s. Research for Weird Science sent me on a  trek through his and other IRS Form 990s, which unearthed many curiosities of strange governance, fakery and funny finances, all tax-free. Singer claimed Frederick Seitz as Chairman for two years after his demise and 20 years after a Philip Morris staffer had written in 1989: “Dr. Seitz is quite elderly and not sufficiently rational to offer advice.” SEPP’s finances were curious.  SEPP paid no salaries, even for Singer’s 60-hour workweeks.  Money flowed oddly.  Asset trades often exceeded normal income and they accumulated to $1.5M, tax-free.   Then one money trail led to Heartland. Heartland Institute’s Joseph Bast staunchly defended “Joe Camel,” the infamous campaign to addict younger children.  Heartland got tobacco funding for many years, along with a Philip Morris Board member. Whitney Ball’s DONORS TRUST funded a major expansion of Heartland climate anti-science.  Singer collected old associates to help write “NonGovernmental International Panel on Climate Change“ (NIPCC) reports, filled with unsupported claims and long-refuted anti-science. He was helped by Craig Idso, of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (CDCDGC), whose money flows also seem unusual.  Robert Ferguson’s Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) was a website and a  PO Box in a UPS store and he was actually a CSCDGC employee. Under Jay Lehr and James Taylor, anti-science permeated Heartland’s Environment and Climate News (E&CN) sent mostly to elected officials.  Heartland incessantly touted its access and influence with such officials, but its tax forms claimed no lobbying.  It ran “fake science” conferences, paying for government staff attendance.  It sent money to foreign non-charity advocacy groups, sent anti-science handbooks to school boards and urged parents to complain.  It has been criticized in Nature and Science. Free speech allows people to express opinions, even lie about facts, but tax-free operation is a revocable privilege.  Spreading factual untruths and confusion about smoking or climate science is neither research nor education in the public interest. Read the report, at least the first 21 pages, backed by nearly 200 of detailed backup. This report was scheduled to be published in a few days,  and by astonishing coincidence, just today we see Heartland Institute Exposed.  The report was done entirely from public sources, but today's new information is quite consistent and fills some holes.  However, the unnamed large Anonymous donor is now seen to be someone hiding behind DONORS TRUST, and some of the smaller ones dedicating funds appear in pp.57-59, with red itemizations. We also see some of the actual payments I had to infer. 03/11/12 CORRECTION:  p.58 omitted a DONORS CAPITAL item for 2008: “For media materials $100,000”, which should be added to various subtotals, making them consistent with the $4,610,000 reported on p.57, Fig. H.1.4.  H/T to Michael Fisher. 10/25/12 UPDATE: A major revision has been posted, with much more information on Barre Seid, DONORS TRUST and other funding issues. AttachmentSize fake.pdf4.99 MB Tags: SEPPSPPIheartlandidsothink tanksfakeryfakexpertsSingerBastCSCDGCFerguson[...]

Don't Be Fooled: Fossil Fools Fund Latest Climate Skeptic Petition

Sun, 17 Apr 2011 22:41:11 +0000

The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) recently published a flashy headline that reads, ’900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism Of “Man-Made” Global Warming (AGW) Alarm’. The article links to a blog post on listing more than 900 papers which, according to the GWPF, refute “concern relating to a negative environmental or socio-economic effect of AGW, usually exaggerated as catastrophic.” The “900+ papers” list is supposed to somehow prove that a score of scientists reject the scientific consensus on climate change. One might be persuaded by the big numbers. We’re not. Oh, where to begin? First, a note of caution about the Global Warming Policy Foundation. It’s a UK group opposing climate change action. Sourcewatch’s digging reveals links to right-wing libertarian climate change deniers. According to the UK Charity Commission, GWPF’s mandate is to “advance the public understanding of global warming and of its possible consequences, and also of the measures taken or proposed to be taken in response to it”. Actually, they’re a heck of a lot more interested in sowing seeds of doubt than in disseminating knowledge. The GWPF’s director is the Heartland Institute’s* Benny Peiser, climate change denier extraordinaire. Other notable members include Canada’s Ross McKitrick of the Fraser Institute.    Curiously, the GWPF was launched just as the Climategate emails were released. An op-ed by Chairman Nigel Lawson announced the GWPF, predicted the (hopeful) failure of the Copenhagen climate talks, and called for an inquiry into the content of the stolen emails. Using a screen-scraping process to analyze the data on the “900+” list, the folks over at Carbon Brief dug up some pretty incriminating information. Turns out nine of the ten most cited authors on the list (representing 186 of the 938 papers) have links to ExonMobil-funded organizations. The tenth has co-authored several papers with Exxon-funded contributors. Anyone familiar with these kinds of lists (“More than 500 scientists dispute global warming” or “more Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims”) knows that if you’ve seen one, you’ve seen them all.  Many familiar climate skeptic names appear over and over again. Dr. Sherwood B Idso is the most cited author on the list, having authored or co-authored 67 of the papers. Idso is president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, a think tank funded by ExxonMobil and the Sarah Scaife Foundation.  The second most cited is Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, a well-known climate sceptic who admits that around 40% of his funding comes from the oil industry. When you really crunch the numbers, all you really find is a small echochamber of the same individuals who pop up on every denier list and petition around. James W. Prall at the University of Toronto has put together a fantastic analysis of the names that appear on these lists, and shows how most of them share funding ties to the oil industry.  Now a note on the most cited journals on this list. Articles from trade journal Energy and Environment are cited 137 times on the list. Energy and Environment is edited by Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen and Benny Peiser. Numerous known climate skeptics sit on the editorial staff including Sallie Baliunas, Patrick Michaels, Ross McKitrick, and Richard Lindzen.  The journal has become a go-to resource for policymakers and politicians who are skeptical of the scientific consensus of climate change.  Michael Ashley of the University of New South Wales has described it as “the climate sceptic’s journal of choice”. The Thomson Reuters Web of Knowledge is considered a key resource for establishing the credentials and influence of key academic journals. It does not list Energy and Environment.   A further 24 papers come from the journal Climate Research which is perha[...]

Christopher Monckton: Lies, damn lies or staggering incompetence

Tue, 25 May 2010 23:42:18 +0000


John Abraham’s Critique Devastates the Florid Lord’s Denier Diatribe

Christopher Monckton, the self-celebrating Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, toured Canada and the U.S. last year calling the world’s best climate scientists and activists “liars” for setting out their concerns about the dangers of climate change. In his presentations and his PowerPoints, Monckton was graceless and taunting in tone, making fun of Al Gore’s accent along with his science. The record now shows that Monckton was also wrong - and frankly, wrong is such a way that he himself must be found to be either a flagrant and shameless liar or the most incompetent compiler of information since church scholars gathered to argue for the flatness of the earth.

The new critique was assembled by John P. Abraham, an engineering professor at St. Thomas University in St. Paul Minnesota. A diligent - even painstaking - researcher, Abraham is also unreservedly respectful in his own presentation, giving Monckton the benefit of every doubt.

The facts, however, are less accommodating. As Prof. Abraham demonstrates time and again, Monckton has consistently misinterpreted, misrepresented or flat-out lied about his “evidence” arguing against the theory of human-induced global warming. He has mangled references, misrepresented findings, cobbled together unattributed graphs and staked his case to critically compromised scholars.

Monckton has already revealed himself as someone whose capacity to be antisocial goes well beyond mere rudeness. This new presentation should be required viewing for anyone who regards him as even vaguely credible on climate science. Take the time: you will find he is anything but.

Denial-a-palooza Round 4: 'International Conference on Climate Change' Groups Funded by Exxon, Koch Industries

Thu, 13 May 2010 19:15:56 +0000

In what has become an annual non-event, the Heartland Institute will gather the who’s-who of the global warming denial network together in Chicago this weekend for the fourth International Conference on Climate Change.  As in years past, the event is expected to receive very little mainstream media coverage.  The deniers like to think the reason is some liberal media conspiracy.  In reality, the lack of interest stems chiefly from the fact that this denial-a-palooza fest is dripping with oil money and represents a blatant industry effort to greenwash oil and coal while simultaneously attacking the credibility of climate scientists. Despite the lack of press interest, the show must go on.  After all, the Chicago meet-up will provide deniers and industry front groups a chance to coordinate their ongoing efforts to smear the reputation of the IPCC, and they can reminisce about the Climategate non-scandal like boys in the schoolyard kicking around a rusty old can. For insight into the underlying aim of the Chicago denier conference, let us take a look at the funding sources for the sponsoring organizations. Funding: 19 of the 65 sponsors (including Heartland itself) have received a total of over $40 million in funding since 1985 from ExxonMobil (funded 13 orgs), and/or Koch Industries family foundations (funded 10 orgs) and/or the Scaife family foundations (funded 10 orgs).  See below for a full funding break-down. ExxonMobil (1998-2008): $6,588,250 ($389,250 more than reported in 2009) Koch Foundations (1985-2008): $17,572,210 ($13,133,290 more than reported in 2009) Scaife Family Foundations (1985-2008): $16,352,000 ($20,516,640 less than reported in 2009*) Total Funding 1985-2008: $40,512,460 *The Heritage Foundation sponsored the 2009 conference and is notably absent from sponsoring the 2010 ICCC. Heritage has received $23,096,640 from Scaife, $2,417,000 from Koch and $565,000 from Exxon between 1998-2006. ExxonMobil has backed off funding many of the groups who have sponsored global warming denial, thanks in large measure to the relentless work of, a project of Greenpeace USA.  However, the funding gap has been filled by the private oil fortunes of the Koch and Scaife families, who continue to pump funds into the network of climate denial and “free market” groups. “These same anti-regulatory ‘free market’ organizations are hell-bent on keeping us addicted to dirty oil and coal.  They’ve pushed for more offshore drilling, fought improvements to fuel economy standards and stalled action on global warming through denial and deception,” says Kert Davies, Research Director of Greenpeace USA. According to the Media Transparency project, the Scaife Family of Foundations is “financed by the Mellon industrial, oil and banking fortune. At one time its largest single holding was stock in the Gulf Oil Corporation. [Scaife] became active in funding conservative causes in 1973, when Richard Mellon Scaife became chairman of the foundation.” The Koch foundations’ money comes from the profits generated by oil conglomerate Koch Industries, the “nation’s largest privately held energy company, with annual revenues of more than $25 billion. … Koch Industries is now the second largest family-owned business in the U.S., with annual sales of over $20 billion.” The Koch brothers, David and Charles, control the three family foundations that have “lavished tens of millions of dollars in the past decade on ‘free market’ advocacy institutions in and around Washington.” The Koch connections are the most interesting because of the lengths they go to attempt to deny their involvement.  DeSmogBlog asked a Koch spokesperson if they were involved in sponsoring the ICCC and received this reply: “In response to your question as to whether Koch is supporting the ICCC - no, Koch Industries and the Koch foundations are not[...]

Atlas Shrugs as Exxon Launches New Blitz of False Prophets

Sun, 07 Feb 2010 16:37:18 +0000

An orchestrated campaign is being waged against climate change science to undermine public acceptance of man-made global warming, environment experts. Free-market, anti-climate change think-tanks such as the Atlas Economic Research Foundation in the US and the International Policy Network in the UK have received grants totalling hundreds of thousands of pounds from the multinational energy company ExxonMobil. Both organisations have funded international seminars pulling together climate change deniers from across the globe.

Why Won't Monckton Join the Scientific "Debate"?

Tue, 26 Jan 2010 01:01:15 +0000

Lord Christopher Monckton, Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley is again sharing his pearls of wisdom on climate change. His latest offering is an “original paper” produced for the non-peer reviewed, and mysteriously funded front group called the “Science and Public Policy Institute”. A real scientist named Dr. Andrew Glikson at the Australian National University took the time to rebut Monckton’s arguments, which is available here. I would point out that “Lord” Monckton is not and never has been a member of the British House of Lords, having received zero votes in his latest bid to be included in that body. Nor is he a scientist, instead receiving an undergraduate degree in classics and a diploma in journalism studies. However, he does have quite a bit to say on the subject of climate science, referring variously to researchers in the field as “liars”, “frauds” and “bed-wetters”. It is strange that someone that spends so much time hectoring scientists never seems to attend scientific conferences, or have his material published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. It is like someone bragging that they are a better golfer than Tiger Woods without ever entering a tournament. If Mr. Monckton has such important things to say to the climate researchers of the world, why doesn’t he step off the cloistered speaking circuit and stride into the scientific lion’s den? After all, science is considerably closer to a blood sport than a cocktail party. People are expected to defend their hypothesis, data and conclusions before the harsh scrutiny of their peers. I took the liberty of assembling a short list of scientific conferences that Monckton might consider attending this year to demonstrate his superior command of a variety of fields related to climate science: The Fourth Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) Open Science Conference (OSC) in Buenos Ares is currently calling for session proposals. Monckton has disparaged the “British Antarctic Survey’s implausible finding as to the imagined – and probably imaginary – loss of ice from the West Antarctic ice sheet.” It’s time these know-nothings were given a stern dressing down in front of their peers. Mr. Monckton, you can register for this conference here. Or how about Norway? The International Polar Year Science Conference is being held in Oslo June 8 – 12, 2010. Monckton has regularly berated the world’s scientists for their shoddy work regarding ice extent and decline. This gathering of ill informed and dishonest researchers seems an excellent opportunity for Monckton to set the record straight. Abstracts can be can be submitted here. Applications to attend can be made here. How about submitting his most recent paper for publication in a peer-reviewed publication? While even the most prestigious scientific journals are no doubt populated by comparative dullards, a man of Monckton’s obvious abilities seems to have a moral obligation to demonstrate his superior command of the disparate fields of atmospheric physics, glaciology and dendrochronology. His latest paper can be submitted to Nature here, and to Science here. Lord Monckton, the scientific community is waiting. Tags: christopher moncktonscience and public policy instituteThird Viscount Monckton of BrenchleyDr. Andrew Glikson[...]

Climate Contrarian Monckton calls young climate activists “Hitler Youth” and "Nazis"

Wed, 09 Dec 2009 22:57:20 +0000

Fifty young U.S. clean energy activists stormed the stage today in Copenhagen during a live webcast organized by Americans for Prosperity and featuring climate denier Lord Christopher Monckton.  When the youth group interrupted the webcast to deliver the message that real Americans want clean energy and a fair climate treaty, Monckton went ballistic, calling the students “crazed Hitler youth” and “Nazis.” The incident was not likely the intended result Americans for Prosperity hoped for as it launched the COP15 version of its “Hot Air Tour” (a.k.a. denial-a-palooza). AFP sent its team to Copenhagen “to make sure that our side of the story is told.” But their live event today – complete with the student protest - was webcast to over forty climate denier rallies taking place in cities across the United States.SustainUS reports that “a paltry audience of five conference attendees” attended the event to hear Monckton’s (planned) speech, with the balance of the audience comprised of AFPers and the youth activists (who entered surreptitiously in small groups before taking the stage with their clean energy message). The young activists, representing a number of youth action groups including SustainUS, the Sierra Student Coalition, the Cascade Climate Network, and other American youth NGOs, kicked off the protest by holding banners in front of the cameras reading “Climate Disaster Ahead” and “Clean Energy Now.” When AFP staffers ripped the banners out of their hands, the students began a five-minute chant of “Real Americans for Prosperity are Americans for Clean Energy,” leaving AFP organizers scratching their heads about what to do.Americans for Prosperity President Tim Phillips and his camera crew tried unsuccessfully to focus the lens more tightly on Monckton as he continued speaking, hoping to take back control of the event despite the protest in the background.  With several of the youth activists clustered around the podium, AFP kept the cameras rolling, continuing to stream the footage to the broader audience back in the U.S. That’s when Monckton let loose, saying live on camera: “You are listening now to the shouts in the background of the Hitler youth.”Monckton’s tirade aside, the American youths had a clear message to deliver, highlighting the fact that “clean energy creates jobs.” Rachel Barge, a 24-year-old entrepreneur from San Francisco, CA who was the first young person to raise her voice at the event, said afterwards that “These climate action delayers and science deniers are stealing bold, new economic opportunities from the American public.” That sentiment was echoed by Laura Comer, a 21-year-old from Strongsville, Ohio who also participated in the action. Comer said, “We’re representing the majority of Americans on this, particularly young Americans. The real America wants clean energy - not more fossil fuel-funded lies about the science.”Update: For some reason, Americans for Prosperity enjoyed the stunt so much, they posted their own video of the protest. Watch AFP’s own footage of the “radical protesters” (a.k.a. students with a non-violent, coherent message) as they “attack” AFP, (or so AFP says). Note that Monckton’s tirade is not included in AFP’s version. UPDATE: I interviewed Monckton briefly outside the Bella Center about his “Hitler youth” comment. Here’s what he had to say (along with some fascinating delusions about coal and oil, which Monckton claims are as clean as wind and solar power): Tags: global warmingclimate changelord christopher moncktonclimate deniersamericans for prosperity (AFP)youth climate activistsCopenhagenCOP15[...]

Denier Conference Readies for Round Three

Mon, 01 Jun 2009 21:36:54 +0000

Among the many conservative think tanks faithfully pushing the skeptic message in Washington, D.C., few are as prominent—or, should I say, infamous—as the Heartland Institute. The “independent” research and non-profit group has the dubious distinction of having organized the first major denier-palooza, the “International Conference on Climate Change,” last year. Despite a less than stellar showing, and an even more lukewarm follow-up in March, it’s hoping that the third time will be the charm. The likes of Senator James Inhofe, Lord Christopher Monckton and Anthony Watts will be descending on the Washington Court Hotel this week to discuss the “widespread dissent to the asserted “consensus” on the causes, consequences, and proper responses to climate change.” Its ostensible purpose will be to “expose Congressional staff and journalists to leading scientists and economists in the nation’s capital” and demonstrate that “global warming is not a crisis and that immediate action to reduce emissions is not necessary”—which it calls the emerging consensus view of (the handful of) scientists outside the IPCC. Another focus of this meeting will undoubtedly be the Waxman-Markey climate bill, which has already attracted its fair share of bile and venom from the right-wing noise machine. Although it was voted out of committee along party lines (33 – 25) last week, the bill still faces some considerable opposition and could yet get bogged down on its way to a full vote in the House. What follows is a who’s who of the speakers who will be gracing the attendees with their presence, courtesy of the DeSmogBlog research database (and Wikipedia/Sourcewatch): Joseph BastThe longstanding president and CEO of the Heartland Institute, Bast studied economics as an undergraduate at the University of Chicago before co-founding the organization in 1984 with David M. Padder. He has been among the most outspoken of skeptics, repeatedly asserting that there is no consensus on the science of climate change by citing a widely debunked 17,000-name petition created by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. In a recent press release, he announced that the Heartland Institute would be publishing an 880-page book, entitled Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), challenging the IPCC’s findings; conveniently, the book is set to release on June 2, just in time to coincide with the conference. When he’s not singing the praises of carbon dioxide, Bast has been an unabashed defender of Big Tobacco and has tried to downplay the health risks of smoking, arguing in a 2006 self-published book that a moderate amount of smoke is no more than a mere “annoyance.” Robert M. CarterCarter, a research professor at James Cook University in Queensland, Australia, has published over 50 peer-reviewed articles, primarily in the field of stratigraphy, the study of rock layers and layering. He serves on the research committee of the Institute for Public Affairs, an Australian organization that has received funding from ExxonMobil. When asked about his involvement with the group in a 2007 interview, he said: “I don’t think it is the point whether you are paid by the coal or petroleum industry.” Despite his lack of expertise in the area, Carter has claimed that the IPCC has not provided conclusive evidence to show that anthropogenic activities have contributed to climate change—to which a former CSIRO climate scientist responded: “if he [Carter] has any evidence that [global warming over the past 100 years] is a natural variability he should publish through the peer review process.” (Most of his critiques have been published in economics journals, though he has published in the related field of pala[...]

Lord Monckton and Rep. John Shimkus Declare Global Warming Emissions "Plant Food"

Mon, 30 Mar 2009 02:43:08 +0000


Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) shared a moment of sheer absurdity with Britain’s stuffiest global warming denier Lord Christopher Monckton in last week’s Energy & Commerce hearing on climate change adaptation.

Shimkus encouraged Lord Monckton - who has absolutely no background in climate science whatsoever - to talk about how Earth is a “carbon starved” planet, making it seem as though we desperately need to seek out new sources of CO2 emissions if we have any hope for survival as a species.  After all, the pair agreed, “carbon dioxide is plant food,” so why on Earth would we want to cut carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants and other sources?

As a journalist, one might hope Lord Monckton would know better, but you wouldn’t get that impression from listening to his zany answers to Shimkus’s questions.

For example, Monckton cites the Cambrian period as evidence that plants love carbon dioxide. 

As the National Wildlife Federation points out, the irony abounds. 

“A time when there were no land plants? That’s your shining example? Come on. Lord Monckton may be the darling of the denier crowd, but he wouldn’t stand a chance on “Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?”

Leading the horse to water, Shimkus asks, “If we decrease the use of carbon dioxide are we not taking away plant food from the atmosphere?”

“Yes indeed you are,” Monckton replied.

See. You’re killing Bugs Bunny’s carrots, you dirty hippies!  We need more CO2, not less!

Can’t you hear the RNC convention chants already?  “More pollution now! Burn, baby, burn!”

Republicans don’t want to hear from real scientists like the climatologists at NASA and the National Academy of Sciences.  They prefer to hear only from people who parrot the right wing’s forgone conclusions – what’s good for Big Business and polluting industries is best for America.

Fossil fuel pollution equals life, and anyone who says otherwise hates salad.

You can’t find reality TV this good.

Watch Monckton’s plant food remarks at NWF’s Wildlife Promise blog.

George Monbiot's Top Ten

Tue, 10 Mar 2009 20:29:59 +0000


George Monbiot’s ‘Top Ten Climate Change Deniers’ reads like a keynote speaker wishlist from the Heartland Institute. Enjoy! 

C'mon, Sue Us: Please Sue Us

Thu, 07 Aug 2008 22:56:35 +0000


Frank Bi has a wonderful petition over at the International Journal of Inactivism, calling for hacks like Christoper Walter (the lurid Viscount Monckton of Brenchley) to find the courage of their alleged convictions and sue Al Gore and NASA's James Hansen for fomenting the global scientific “conspiracy” about climate change.

Really, if these guys had a shred of evidence - or dignity - they'd bring their vacuous argument before a judge and let the case be tested. I, personally, would love to see a jury trial - a serious opportunity to put the evidence before a dozen people who would test Hansen's science against Monckton's palaver.

Anyway, it's August and you're cruising the 'net instead of working: cruise on over to IJI and sign up. I'm confident these clowns won't sue, but baiting them is worth the effort.

Monckton Goes Postal Over RealScience Riposte

Wed, 30 Jul 2008 17:51:42 +0000

Journalist and failed politician Christopher Walter (the self-celebrating Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley) has launched a blustering counter-attack on Dr. Gavin Schmidt at RealClimate, attempting to avenge Schmidt's impertinence for picking apart Monckton's amateur science submission to a newsletter of the American Physical Society.I won't wade into the science: Drs. Schmidt and (Tim) Lambert (at Deltoid ) have done an admirable job of that already. But Monckton's tactics are evident even in the way he sets up his piece.Monckton writes that Schmidt “has launched a malevolent, scientifically-illiterate, and unscientifically-ad-hominem attack on a publication by me,” and the high-road Viscount says that, in rebuttal, he will “replace all comments by him (Schmidt) that are purely ad hominem with “+++”.So, I checked out the first “+++” in Monckton's hyperventilating counterpoint and found that he had replaced the words: “As Deltoid quickly noticed …” Now, there's a ferociously and clearly malevolent personal attack, no?Monckton, he who is above ad-hominem attack, refers to RealClimate throughout his piece as “FalseClimate” and concludes with a “chapter” that asks, “Who funds FalseClimate and the blogs connected to it?” (Google John Lefebvre for an answer as it applies to the DeSmogBlog.) Monckton then goes off on a tangent trying to tie a bunch of respected scientists to an imagined leftist-conspiracy to - well, I can never really figure out what the supposed leftists are actually conspiring to do, other than bring a serious scientific issue to the attention of the public.But since he brought iup the who-is-paying-for-this-opinion? question, Monckton's own counterpoint appears on the site of the Science and Public Policy Institute, an Exxon-funded climate change denial organization. Just for the record. For more on the who's who of the climate denial industry, check out our comprehensive climate deniers research database.Tags: gavin schmidtdeltoidrealclimate.orgchristopher moncktonSPPI[...]

Skeptics' Journal Publishes Plagiarist's Paper

Mon, 24 Mar 2008 22:53:46 +0000

Despite dismissing the work as “a bit patchy and nothing new,” Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, editor of the skeptic's journal Energy and Environment journal, has published the work of the plagiarist Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte.Dr. Schulte's “research” was first published last year on an industry-funded website called the Science and Public Policy Institute. Actually, it was excerpted in a long essay by the disingenuous Viscount Christopher Monckton (inset), who pronounced Schulte's paper serious, peer-reviewed science even while failing to admit his own part in its creation.Following up on criticisms of Schulte's methodology and accusations that he had plagiarized earlier work by the oft-humiliated anthropologist Benny Peiser, the DeSmogBlog contacted Ms. Boehmer-Christiansen in September and asked how she could justify publishing Schulte's article.In her response, dated Sept. 6, 2006, Boehmer-Christiansen said: For your information, I have informed Dr.Schulte that I am happy to publish his own research findings on the effect on patients of climate alamism/'Angst'. His survey of papers critical of the consensus was a bit patchy and nothing new, as you point out. it was not what was of interest to me; nothing has been published.SincerelySonja B-C And as of September last year, nothing had been published. But the March issue of E&E proudly includes Schulte's work, pretty much unedited from the much-criticized version circulating last summer. We still await any actual research from Schulte on the effect of “alarmism” or “angst” on the health of his patients - or anything beyond his anecdotal reports that some among his patients find the threat of climate change (quite justifiably) anxiety inducing.  For the definitive review of both Schulte's unimpressive scholarship and the longer-running campaign to claim a legitimate ongoing scientific debate about global warming, see the attached paper by John R. Mashey. It is exhaustive and devastating - and pretty much every potential point of contention is backed up with links and direct references, creating a degree of transparency the likes of which appear to be entirely unfamiliar to Monckton-Schulte. AttachmentSize monckton schulte oreskes 7 0 (2).pdf379.02 KB Tags: Klaus-Martin Schulte[...]