Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Monckton is a fraud from the word go.
Christopher Monckton - SourceWatch
Monckton on Climate Change
Christopher Monckton has written many articles critical of current climate change science. In one article written for the Science and Public Policy Institute, Monckton criticized Al Gore's film, "An Inconvenient Truth", alleging that the film used very few facts, most of which were "substantially inaccurate".[4] Monckton's critique came on the heels of a British lawsuit in which a school official sued the British government for distributing the film in public schools.[5] A subsequent response from British scientists hit out at the judge for "misleading the public by ruling that Gore had made "errors"" when they considered the movie "presented an exceptionally high standard of scientific accuracy".[6]
Monckton admitted in an interview with conservative radio host Glenn Beck, that he played a role in the court hearings by prompting a friend to fund the court case in order to "fight back against this tide of unscientific freedom-destroying nonsense, which is what global warming is really all about".[7] Prior to this it had been revealed that a Scottish quarry magnate had bankrolled the legal action against An Inconvenient Truth via a fringe UK right-wing political party, the New Party.[8]
Lord Monckton is also funding the distribution in British schools of the film, "The Great Global Warming Swindle," as part of a "counter-campaign to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change." [9] The broadcasting watchdog Ofcom has found that The Great Global Warming Swindle broke its guidelines on impartiality [10] Monckton also wrote a controversial article for the American Physical Society refuting the IPCC's conclusion that climate change is a largely human produced phenomenon. The APS, however, headlined the article with the disclaimer that "its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article's conclusions."[11]
Controversies
House Of Lords membership claim
Despite the passing of the 1999 House Of Lords Act (which stripped hereditary peers of instant admission to the House Of Lords) Christopher Monckton has claimed that he is "a member of the Upper House of the United Kingdom legislature"[12]. More recently he has claimed that he is a member "without the right to sit or vote"[13]. The House Of Lords themselves state that "Christopher Monckton is not and has never been a Member of the House of Lords. There is no such thing as a 'non-voting' or 'honorary' member."[14]
Nobel Laureate claim
Christopher Monckton claims on the website of the Science and Public Policy Institute that:
His contribution to the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 - the correction of a table inserted by IPCC bureaucrats that had overstated tenfold the observed contribution of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets to sea-level rise - earned him the status of Nobel Peace Laureate. His Nobel prize pin, made of gold recovered from a physics experiment, was presented to him by the Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Rochester, New York, USA -SPPInstitute website[15]
When Christopher Monckton visited Australia in early 2010 he conceeded that it was "it was a joke, a joke" and "never meant to be taken seriously". The Sydney Morning Herald noted that despite this, he had made the same claim with a "straight face" on the Alan Jones show one day prior, and the claim remained on the SPPInstitute website[16] where it can still be found six months later.
Hide the decline....
Hide the decline....
Context?
Monckton is a fraud from the word go.
Christopher Monckton - SourceWatch
Monckton on Climate Change
Christopher Monckton has written many articles critical of current climate change science. In one article written for the Science and Public Policy Institute, Monckton criticized Al Gore's film, "An Inconvenient Truth", alleging that the film used very few facts, most of which were "substantially inaccurate".[4] Monckton's critique came on the heels of a British lawsuit in which a school official sued the British government for distributing the film in public schools.[5] A subsequent response from British scientists hit out at the judge for "misleading the public by ruling that Gore had made "errors"" when they considered the movie "presented an exceptionally high standard of scientific accuracy".[6]
Monckton admitted in an interview with conservative radio host Glenn Beck, that he played a role in the court hearings by prompting a friend to fund the court case in order to "fight back against this tide of unscientific freedom-destroying nonsense, which is what global warming is really all about".[7] Prior to this it had been revealed that a Scottish quarry magnate had bankrolled the legal action against An Inconvenient Truth via a fringe UK right-wing political party, the New Party.[8]
Lord Monckton is also funding the distribution in British schools of the film, "The Great Global Warming Swindle," as part of a "counter-campaign to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change." [9] The broadcasting watchdog Ofcom has found that The Great Global Warming Swindle broke its guidelines on impartiality [10] Monckton also wrote a controversial article for the American Physical Society refuting the IPCC's conclusion that climate change is a largely human produced phenomenon. The APS, however, headlined the article with the disclaimer that "its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article's conclusions."[11]
Controversies
House Of Lords membership claim
Despite the passing of the 1999 House Of Lords Act (which stripped hereditary peers of instant admission to the House Of Lords) Christopher Monckton has claimed that he is "a member of the Upper House of the United Kingdom legislature"[12]. More recently he has claimed that he is a member "without the right to sit or vote"[13]. The House Of Lords themselves state that "Christopher Monckton is not and has never been a Member of the House of Lords. There is no such thing as a 'non-voting' or 'honorary' member."[14]
Nobel Laureate claim
Christopher Monckton claims on the website of the Science and Public Policy Institute that:
His contribution to the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 - the correction of a table inserted by IPCC bureaucrats that had overstated tenfold the observed contribution of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets to sea-level rise - earned him the status of Nobel Peace Laureate. His Nobel prize pin, made of gold recovered from a physics experiment, was presented to him by the Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Rochester, New York, USA -SPPInstitute website[15]
When Christopher Monckton visited Australia in early 2010 he conceeded that it was "it was a joke, a joke" and "never meant to be taken seriously". The Sydney Morning Herald noted that despite this, he had made the same claim with a "straight face" on the Alan Jones show one day prior, and the claim remained on the SPPInstitute website[16] where it can still be found six months later.
Sir or madam,
The respectability of your source seems somewhat in question.
None the less, if you have two sealed fish tanks and put a higherr concentration of greenhouse gasses in one vs a typical earth atmosphere in the other is there any debate whi h will end up warmer?
Being conservative and loving my child i conservatively choose to error on the side of caution. If I were the fella totip the scales I would feel guilty.
Thank you.
The earth doesn't lie.
HOT
WARM
COLD
WARM
HOT.
Deal with it.
The earth doesn't lie.
HOT
WARM
COLD
WARM
HOT.
Deal with it.
The earth is the only true honest thing.
Can you explain why the data showed the earth was far more warmer during the 1300's than it is now?
Sir or madam,
The respectability of your source seems somewhat in question.
None the less, if you have two sealed fish tanks and put a higherr concentration of greenhouse gasses in one vs a typical earth atmosphere in the other is there any debate whi h will end up warmer?
Being conservative and loving my child i conservatively choose to error on the side of caution. If I were the fella totip the scales I would feel guilty.
Thank you.
Can you explain why the data showed the earth was far more warmer during the 1300's than it is now?
Sir or madam,
The respectability of your source seems somewhat in question.
None the less, if you have two sealed fish tanks and put a higherr concentration of greenhouse gasses in one vs a typical earth atmosphere in the other is there any debate whi h will end up warmer?
Being conservative and loving my child i conservatively choose to error on the side of caution. If I were the fella totip the scales I would feel guilty.
Thank you.
And it's never man's fault.The earth doesn't lie.
HOT
WARM
COLD
WARM
HOT.
Deal with it.
The earth is the only true honest thing.
It gets hot. It gets cold. The earth does not care that the humans need the warm periods to survive.
Can you explain why the data showed the earth was far more warmer during the 1300's than it is now?Sir or madam,
The respectability of your source seems somewhat in question.
None the less, if you have two sealed fish tanks and put a higherr concentration of greenhouse gasses in one vs a typical earth atmosphere in the other is there any debate whi h will end up warmer?
Being conservative and loving my child i conservatively choose to error on the side of caution. If I were the fella totip the scales I would feel guilty.
Thank you.
Can I explain the climate in the 1300's? Nah, not while browsing on my cell anyways. Who knows what volcano erupted or how solar activity was.
Hey, think it would have been warmer if more greenhouse gasses were in the atmosphere?
Where is the tipping point?
Still back to me being conservative. I have no idea where the Venus tipping point is so I choose not support liberally polluting the atmosphere hoping we don't find that point.
Can you explain why the data showed the earth was far more warmer during the 1300's than it is now?
Can I explain the climate in the 1300's? Nah, not while browsing on my cell anyways. Who knows what volcano erupted or how solar activity was.
Hey, think it would have been warmer if more greenhouse gasses were in the atmosphere?
Where is the tipping point?
Still back to me being conservative. I have no idea where the Venus tipping point is so I choose not support liberally polluting the atmosphere hoping we don't find that point.
I explai it for you. The earth warms and cools in cycles man has nothig to do with it. Do you understand now?
Can I explain the climate in the 1300's? Nah, not while browsing on my cell anyways. Who knows what volcano erupted or how solar activity was.
Hey, think it would have been warmer if more greenhouse gasses were in the atmosphere?
Where is the tipping point?
Still back to me being conservative. I have no idea where the Venus tipping point is so I choose not support liberally polluting the atmosphere hoping we don't find that point.
I explai it for you. The earth warms and cools in cycles man has nothig to do with it. Do you understand now?
Sir, with much respect I will remind you I understand there are climate cycles. Have been for millions of years. Natural ones, meteorite collision caused ones, sun activty cycles, pick your reason.
We are not in disagreement there.
My humble concern is more of an ad on.
What if through pollution we change that cycle. Say our greenhouse emissions are enough to push the next warm cycle over the tipping point.
Just me being a conservative stick in the mud I suppose. To me there is no debate on the general heat retention effects of greenhouse gasses. Do you disagree with this?
Assuming not our debate would be on how far to take regulations. Certainly I do not want to ban cars or anything extreme.
In the video your argument was kicked to the curb. Warmers have been trying for years to delete the data from the Medieval Warm Period, you're doing the samething parroting what your handlers told you to do.I understand that you are a willfully ignorant redneck.
No, the MWP was not warmer than it is at present.
Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years
Description:
In response to a request from Congress, Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years assesses the state of scientific efforts to reconstruct surface temperature records for Earth during approximately the last 2,000 years and the implications of these efforts ...
