The La Plata Mountains as seen from above the
              author’s home.

Durango Bill’s
Debunking the Deniers of Global Warming

Global Warming Denial

Christopher Monckton

A vociferous Global Warming Denier

This is
        a "scientific source" quoted by the Global Warming
        Deniers   Christopher Monckton has been one of the more vociferous noisemakers among the “Global Warming Deniers”. He is willfully ignorant of climate science, he is wrong in his conclusions, he is a documented liar about observational reality, and he has fraudulently misrepresented his credentials.

   This web page relies heavily on research work that was given in John Abraham’s presentation: “A Scientist Replies to Christopher Monckton”

   Professor Abraham’s presentation provides much more evidence about Christopher Monckton’s perpetual lying than what is given here. Thus this web page is just a brief introduction to Monckton’s endless misrepresentations of reality. (Both the original and updated versions of Professor Abraham’s presentation are available at: )

   Christopher Monckton is (at this point - perhaps - WAS) one of the “leading lights” (dimwits) of the Global Warming Denier movement. As is typical of Global Warming Deniers, Christopher Monckton is an expert at making noise, but is scientifically impaired when it comes to portraying reality. (Great qualifications if you want to be a politician or circus side show barker.)
The picture above was originally displayed at:
Story and photo (by Eleanor Bentall) subsequently displayed at:

Monckton's Driveway

   The gray diveway in a land of green is a “Google Street View” of a driveway at approximately 56.68555 N 4.25829 W.  The residence belongs to a grandson of Walter Monckton (,_1st_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley ). Walter’s only son was Gilbert Monckton who thus inherited Walter’s estate as well as his hereditary title. Christopher Monckton is one of Gilbert’s children – which is where Christopher Monckton’s honorary title comes from – and oh yes, the monetary estate.

   The UK Electoral Search confirms that this is the official residence of Christopher Monckton.
(Click on “more info” under “Christopher W Monckton”)

   The following pictures illustrate how Christopher Monckton misrepresents reality.

Monckton's version of what is happening to the
          Arctic ice pack

(Also see slide 56 at )

   The picture above is from John Abraham’s presentation: “A Scientist Replies to Christopher Monckton” The picture is a copy of a slide used in one of Monckton’s presentations where Monckton states that the “Arctic sea-ice extent is just fine: steady for a decade”. The picture shows the typical SEASONAL (winter to summer) changes in ice coverage. The seasonal pattern is relatively large as compared to the slower changes due to Global Warming/Climate Change, and thus the longer term decrease in the ice pack is not readily apparent.
(As for Monckton’s inclusion of the “crown” icon on his chart, try
and see what happens.)

For more on Monckton’s “crown” icon, please see the
“Who We Are” People vs. “What The Evidence Shows” People
Pathological Liars and Narcissism
sections near the end of the page.

The actual record of what is happening to the
          Arctic ice pack.

   The picture above is from the University of Washington’s Applied Physics Laboratory, and shows yearly Arctic Ice Pack volume anomalies. The volume of Arctic sea ice is actually declining rapidly with the trend accelerating. Monckton’s description of this decline is:
“Arctic sea-ice extent is just fine: steady for a decade”

   In the world of Global Warming Deniers, it appears that blatant lying and bullyism are considered to be virtues when you are trying to force your political agenda down everyone else’s throat.
Guess what might happen if Christopher Monckton
          tells too many whoppers?
Illustration: Glen Le Lievre

Monckton's temperature charts are not consistent.   The picture to the right is again from Professor Abraham’s presentation. The purpose of Professor Abraham’s picture is to illustrate the discrepancies in Monckton’s “reporting” of global temperature anomalies.

   Note that the two graphs do not agree. There are differences between the temperatures shown on the two graphs as pointed out in Professor Abraham’s presentation. What is the source for Monckton’s “data” such that the two graphs do not agree? Did Monckton simply fabricate the data for the two graphs? If the temperature data were from a legitimate source, then this source should be given. Graphs based on a legitimate data source would not show the discrepancies that appear in Monckton’s charts.

   Monckton attributes the data in the lower chart to the National Climate Data Center, but again, what Monckton presents on his graph and the actual data at the NCDC are different data sets. If you look at the last 9 months in Monckton’s second graph (April - Dec. 2008), the temperature anomalies are mostly below the 0.4 C mark shown on the left axis. If you check the actual NCDC anomalies at  for the April - Dec. 2008 period, temperature anomalies for all 9 of these months were above 0.4 C; and have stayed above 0.4 C every month since then. (Up thru at least May 2010.)

   As for the IPCC lines in the graphs, Monckton has a bad habit of fabrication fictitious data that he then attributes to other sources. For example, please see “Monckton makes it up”.

The picture itself is a composite of slides 37 and 38 from Monckton’s standard show. See
For additional debunking of Monckton’s “Manipulations” to fabricate the “cooling” in the above graphs please see

   As opposed to Monckton’s “variable” claims that the world is cooling, if we look at what is actually happening, we see that Global Warming/Climate Change is continuing.

The NOAA temperature record

Temperature data is from

   The graph above shows global temperature anomalies starting with 1970. The data is from NOAA's National Climate Data Center.

And what is Christopher Monckton’s “analysis” regarding the above graph?
“There hasn’t been any global warming for 15 years”
(1 minute 25 seconds into the video)

A Typical Example of Deceit by Christopher Monckton

Deceit – “the act or practice of deceiving; concealment or distortion of the truth for the purpose of misleading; duplicity; fraud; cheating:”

   When real scientists investigate a subject/topic, they look at all the data. Anything that is obviously erroneous gets tossed out, but otherwise all the data must be taken into consideration.

Cherry picking (fallacy) - “Choosing to make selective choices among competing evidence, so as to emphasize those results that support a given position, while ignoring or dismissing any findings that do not support it, is a practice known as "cherry picking" and is a hallmark of poor science or pseudo-science.”

   Christopher Monckton tries to promote a fraudulent claim that Global Warming/Climate Change doesn’t exist. Alternately, he claims that it might have existed in the past, but it isn’t happening now.

Monckton's "Cherry Picked" UAL
          temperature data.

   The chart above is from Christopher Monckton’s web page at: links to

   Mr. Monckton claims that the chart is showing global temperature data as measured by satellites run by the University of Alabama – Huntsville. (The satellites actually measure thermal microwave radiation which is then interpreted as a “brightness temperature”.) The caption that Monckton has under the link is: “Global Warming this millennium is currently, barely significant!”

The UAH Satellite temperature record

The chart above shows ALL the temperature data from the UAH database.
Data source: (“Globe” column)
Alternate Data Source: “UAH: Lower troposphere”

  Notice how Mr. Monckton omits the cooler temperatures that occurred before 2001. There was a brief spike in the satellite record in 1998 due to the unusual El Nino that year, but otherwise temperatures prior to 2001 were much cooler than what has occurred recently.

   Global Warming/Climate Change is a progression from cooler to warmer temperatures along with all the consequences that warming brings. Mr. Monckton “Cherry Picked” data so that the cooler temperatures of several decades ago would not appear.

We ask the question:
“If someone deliberately hides meaningful data, what does that tell you about the honesty of the person involved?”

   As of  Feb. 12, 2016, Christopher Monckton is still deluded. “Yet the two satellite datasets show no global warming of the lower air for almost 19 of the 21 years of annual UN global-warming conferences."
(Note: The RSS interpretation of the satellite data is also setting new record highs.)

Sea Level

   The first two pictures below are still another part of Monckton’s standard “circus show” and are copied from Professor Abraham’s debunking of Christopher Monckton’s claims.

Monckton's claim that the oceans are cooling.

   In this first picture Monckton is claiming that the oceans are cooling. The time period in Monckton’s graph is much too short to be representative - nevermind that he doesn’t give any information of the location involved. (For example, it could be a local La Niña / El Niño fluctuation.)

   In this second of Monckton’s pictures, he claims that sea levels are no longer rising - which is “proof” that the earth is not warming. Global Warming Deniers frequently “cherry pick” data (“Quote mine”, “out of context”, short term variations that are not representative of the larger picture. For example, see Rule 3 below.)

MMonckton's claim
          that sea levels are no longer rising.

If we take a look at the larger picture, we see once again that Monckton is willfully misrepresenting reality.

The real graph shows that sea levels are
          continuing to rise.

The chart above is from the University of Colorado’s, Sea Level Change studies.

1) Go to
2) Click on “Time Series”
3) Click on “jpg” under “Inverted barometer not applied”, “Seasonal signal removed”
You will get a large version of the above graph

   The graph shows that mean sea level is in fact still rising. The least squares regression line gives a rising rate of 3.2 mm per year. This rate is an increase from what was observed prior to 1990. Sea levels are not only continuing to rise, but the rising rate is slowly accelerating. As the oceans warm, their volume expands - and just like the alcohol/mercury in a thermometer, when it gets warmer, the only direction that is available for expansion is UP.

Sea level records as measured at Boston, MA.

The graph above is from NOAA’s sea level records for Boston, MA and is typical of most of the U. S. coastline. Boston, MA
It shows sea level as measured at Boston, MA. Note the acceleration in the rate of rise in sea level over the last 10 years.

And what do you think Christopher Monckton’s reaction is to evidence that sea level is rising?

The following pictures are from

The front page of a "report" edited by
          Christopher Monckton

And on page 29 of this “report” we find . . .

Monckton's claim that sea level is rising.

Note how Monckton (the editor for the “report”) uses fabricated information from another Global Warming Denier, and thus can claim that he (Monckton) never said that "Sea level is not rising".

Also, please see:

Sept. 13, 2015 Update
Another Monckton Lie about Sea Level

   On Sept. 13, 2015 Monckton was still lying about sea level. The following print screen image is from an article that was written by Monckton and published in “Wing Nut Daily”.

Another Monckton lie about sea level

Monckton’s statement “Nope, sea level off Bangladesh has actually fallen throughout the recent record.” is highlighted.

And what has sea level been actually doing in the northern Indian Ocean?

"Actual sea level changes in the northern
          Indian Ocean

   The print screen image above is from NOAAs Tides and Currents webpage. As the caption illustrates:
“The map above illustrates regional trends in sea level, with arrows representing the direction and magnitude of change.”

Ocean Temperatures

   The first picture below is a Print Screen image of slide 74 from Monckton’s standard presentation. Christopher Monckton is stating: “No ocean heat buildup for 50 years”

Monckton's assertion of “No ocean heat buildup for
          50 years”

   For starters, Christopher Monckton is demonstrating his scientific ignorance. Monckton is asserting the graph illustrates a temperature/heat measurement while the units in the graph are “Watts per square meter”.

   “Watts per square meter” is an energy flux (E. G. see ) - not a measurement of temperature or heat content. “Watts per square meter” might be used to measure the intensity of light that is shinning on a book page that you might be reading, but it doesn’t measure the temperature of the book.

        actual increase in oceanic heat buildupThis second picture is from NOAA’s 2009 “State of the Climate” report. Downloadable from:

   The chart shows the “Heat Content Change” of the top 700 meters of the world’s oceans as measured by several researchers. The unit of measure is “Joules” which is the standard metric measure for energy. (Note: XBT stands for expendable bathythermagraph data)

   The 1022 unit-of-measure is of note. 1000 Joules is enough heat energy to heat 0.95 pounds of water by one degree F. (~0.95 BTU) Thus 10 x 1022 Joules is enough heat energy to warm 1020 pounds of water by 0.95 degrees F. Alternately, this would warm 1018 pounds of water by 95 degrees F. (Think of starting with very cold water at 40 degrees F and heating it to hot water at 135 degrees F.)

   1018 pounds of water equals 500,000,000,000,000 tons of water. (Equals 73,529+ tons of water for each of the 6.8 billion people on planet Earth.) Thus the oceans have warmed by the equivalent heat energy of heating 500,000,000,000,000 tons of cold water by 95 degrees F to get hot water. (Imagine a hot water heater that could provide 73,529+ tons of hot water for each of the 6.8 billion people on planet Earth.)

Monckton’s statement for all of the above is:
“No ocean heat buildup for 50 years”


   Christopher Monckton’s willful ignorance/lying extends to glaciers. The picture below is a copy of a recent article in The Salt Lake Tribune which quotes Monckton as saying: “No glaciers are melting”

Monckton: "No glaciers are melting"

It appears that Christopher Monckton and the U. S. Geological Survey have a different definition as to the meaning of the word “melting”.

USGS scientist Bruce Molnia: “more than 99 percent of America’s thousands of large glaciers have long documented records of an overall shrinkage as climate warms”

Here are “then and now” pictures of one of Alaska’s major glaciers.

Alaska's McCarty Glacier seems to have melted a

Please see additional “then and now” glacier photos on the page.

Glaciers Melting in the Himalayas

The photographs below are from “Tracking the Himalaya’s Melting Glaciers” “David Breashears is a mountaineer, photographer, and filmmaker who has reached the summit of Mount Everest five times and has produced more than 40 film projects, including “Storm Over Everest.”. He has done a great job of documenting glacial melting in the Himalayas.

Panoramic views of Mt. Everest and the West
          Rongbuk Glacier

RIVERS OF ICE: Panoramic view of West Rongbuk Glacier and Mount Everest, taken in 1921 (top) by Major E.O. Wheeler and in 2009 (bottom) by David Breashears. (Photo courtesy of the Royal Geographical Society) View a photo gallery.

   If you compare the two views, the middle portions of the two photographs show some 400 to 500 feet of glacial thinning (melting) from 1921 to 2009. (Height difference measured via Google Earth.)

The lower portion of the Kyetrak Glacier has
          completely melted.

   The Kyetrak Glacier, located on the northern slope of 26,906-foot Cho Oyu in Tibet, as photographed in 1921 (top) by Major E.O. Wheeler and in 2009 (bottom) by David Breashears. In the past 90 years, the glacier has retreated and melted so extensively that a lake has formed where once there was ice and snow. (Wheeler photo courtesy of Royal Geographical Society.)

   If you check elevations via Google Earth, the height difference between the lake surface and the top of the lateral moraine to the left of the lake is over 600 feet. That means that over 600 feet of ice has melted during the 88 year time interval. If you want to check the view via Google Earth, the lake is at 28.20 N, 86.58 E – some 25 miles WNW of Mt. Everest.

Also please see:
“Multi-decadal mass loss of glaciers in the Everest area (Nepal Himalaya) derived from stereo imagery”
“We reveal that the glaciers have been significantly losing mass since at least 1970, despite thick debris cover. The specific mass loss for 1970–2007 is 0.32±0.08mw.e. a−1”
(mw.e. a-1 = meters of water equivalent per annum(year))

And please see:
“Scientists find extensive glacial retreat in Mount Everest region”
“Glaciers in the Mount Everest region have shrunk by 13 percent in the last 50 years and the snowline has shifted upward by 180 meters (590 feet), according to Sudeep Thakuri, who is leading the research as part of his PhD graduate studies at the University of Milan in Italy.”

According to Monckton, the Himalayan Glaciers are doing
        "just fine".And how does Christopher Monckton describe this thinning/melting?

“Himalayan glaciers are doing just fine.”

   The PrintScreen image to the right is from the “Science and Public Policy Institute” website (SPPI). “Science and Public Policy Institute” sounds like it might be a true research facility, but in practice it turns out to be another “think tank front” for the Global Warming Deniers.


   “The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) was founded by a long-time Republican staffer named Robert Ferguson. According to the SPPI website, Ferguson "has 26 years of Capitol Hill experience, having worked in both the House and Senate. He served in the House Republican Study Committee, the Senate Republican Policy Committee; as Chief of Staff to Congressman Jack Fields (R-TX) from 1981-1997, Chief of Staff to
Congressman John E. Peterson (R-PA) from 1997-2002 and Chief of Staff to Congressman Rick Renzi (R-AZ) in 2002.

   Until recently, Ferguson worked for an oil-industry funded think tank called Frontiers of Freedom. The Frontiers of Freedom are one of the most active groups in the attack on climate science and have received over $1 million in grants from oil giant ExxonMobil.”

Monckton: "The glaciers are showing no
          particular change in 200 years."

   The Print Screen image above can be seen at 10 minutes into the “Monckton Bunkum Part 3 - Correlations and Himalayan glaciers” video at . The video shows Monckton actually saying “The glaciers are showing no particular change in 200 years” a few seconds later. The Himalayan glacial photographs given above do not include the Gangotri Glacier, but if you are interested in its retreat, please see:

Climate Scientists Respond

“Response to the Written Testimony of Christopher Monckton”

Cover for "Response to the Written Testimony
          of Christopher Monckton"

Cover for "Response to the Written Testimony
          of Christopher Monckton"


Despite ever-increasing scientific evidence that human activities are having a profound and harmful effect on the Earth’s climate, there are ongoing claims to the contrary, often by those with no expertise in climate science or any scientific training whatsoever. A recent example of this is the testimony by Mr. Christopher Monckton before Congressman Edward Markey’s Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming held May 6, 2010.

Briefly, Mr. Monckton makes a number of scientific assertions about
(1) the efficacy of warming from CO2,
(2) the benefits of elevated CO2,
(3) the relationship between CO2 and ocean acidification,
(4) recent global temperature trends,
(5) and the sensitivity of the climate to CO2.
He has also claimed that (6) there is no need to take quick action to address the changing climate.

In all cases, Mr. Monckton’s assertions are shown to be without merit – they are based on a thorough misunderstanding of the science of climate change.

The report specifically examines 9 of Monckton’s primary assertions to show that he is wrong and/or willfully ignorant.

Regarding Monckton’s ASSERTION 1: “Monckton is mixing the two different intervals in time, using a theory that relies on CO2 as a greenhouse gas to argue that it proves the opposite.”

Regarding Monckton’s ASSERTION 2: “So both of Monckton’s arguments are flawed.” “Mr. Monckton’s assertions . . . are not based on any scientific data or views that have ever been published.”

Regarding Monckton’s ASSERTION 3: “Monckton’s discussion of the impacts of a continued rise in the level of CO2. . . is extremely superficial.” “The best evidence from state-of-the-art free-air carbon dioxide enrichment experiments is inconsistent with the notion of major sustained increases in crop yield in a world of doubled atmospheric CO2.”

Regarding Monckton’s ASSERTION 4: “This [Monckton’s] reasoning and calculation is incorrect.” “Monckton’s statement is incorrect” “The remainder of the statement is simply chemical nonsense.” “The submission from Monckton . . . is profoundly wrong.”

Regarding Monckton’s ASSERTION 5: “Monckton’s premise . . . is simply false.” “Monckton’s use of single locations as if they showed the global temperature is fallacious.”

Regarding Monckton’s ASSERTION 6: [Monckton’s assertion] “is not supported by our data.” “Simply connecting these two points in time was done by Lord Monckton to misleadingly argue global warming has ceased”

Regarding Monckton’s ASSERTION 7: “We conclude that Lord Monckton’s conclusions cannot be supported by climate physics” “he is totally misinterpreting the physics.” “There is no basis for Monckton’s . . . claims at all.”

Regarding Monckton’s ASSERTION 8: “There are no credible scientific arguments to support Monckton’s claim” “Quite simply, there is nothing but Monckton’s unsupported assertion”.

Regarding Monckton’s ASSERTION 9: “First, the [Monckton’s] citation of IPCC is incorrect.” “Monckton’s penultimate paragraph makes a number of illogical leaps.” “In fact, his argument is not only seriously in error, it is profoundly misleading and irresponsible.” “Monckton’s statement . . . is not only wrong, it is totally irresponsible.”

   Christopher Monckton seems to be impressed by phrases and expressions from Latin. The above “Response to the Written Testimony of Christopher Monckton” demonstrates that Monckton’s
Modus Operandi” ( ) is typically an
argumentum ad ignorantiam” ( ).
QED ( ) “quod erat demonstrandum, which translates as
"which was to be demonstrated"”.

Monckton has even publicly admitted that he has “absolutely no scientific qualification” for his assertions.

Monckton:  “if, like me, you have absolutely no scientific qualification”

(7 min 24 seconds into the video at: )

“Who We Are” People vs. “What The Evidence Shows” People

Christopher Monckton is a safari joke   Christopher Monckton is an anachronism from a British caste system dating from hundreds of years ago. Hundreds of years ago “who you were” was far more important than what you could do or what knowledge you might have. Over the last two hundred years the “what” of science and technology has revolutionized our standard of living, but the “Who We Are” mindset is still present in many people as an evolutionary hangover from earlier years.

    “Who We Are” people fall back on ancestral concepts such as prefixing their names with “Viscount” and/or “Lord”, and may use “crown” icons to try to make themselves appear more important. In the minds of “who” people, “who we are” or “who is our political (or religious) leader” is what is important. (Young Earth Creationists attach diploma mill “Ph. D.” titles to their names in a similar process.) “Who” people are not interested in, or capable of, understanding “What The Evidence Shows”.

   When “who” people want to dispute something, they are not capable of disputing evidence because they don’t understand evidence. “Who” people can only understand “who” is an opponent. If “who” people want to dispute Global Warming / Climate Change, instead of presenting evidence, they rant against Al Gore. “Who” people don’t argue against the “Hockey Stick Graph” - they argue against “Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick Graph”. In a plea to support “our team” vs. “The Conspiracy”, their position is: “Someone has to stand up - to experts” (Don McLeroy )

   “Who” people can’t understand “What The Evidence Shows” so they resort to lists and petitions for support. These lists consist of other “who” people who also can’t understand “What The Evidence Shows”. This shows up in the form of political tribalism.

   The bottom line is that: “Who” people are not able to understand “What The Evidence Shows”.  Scientists are capable of understanding “What The Evidence Shows”. Guess which group Monckton is in?

Rules for How to be a Denialist

Christopher Monckton seems to have mastered (if not authored) the following list.

1) Allege that there's a conspiracy. Claim that scientific consensus has arisen through collusion rather than the accumulation of evidence.

2) Use fake experts to support your story. “Denial always starts with a cadre of pseudo-experts with some credentials that create a facade of credibility,” says Seth Kalichman of the University of Connecticut.

3) Cherry-pick the evidence: trumpet whatever appears to support your case and ignore or rubbish the rest.

4) Carry on trotting out manufactured “evidence” even after it has been discredited.

5) Create impossible standards for your opponents. Claim that the existing evidence is not good enough and demand more.

6) If your opponent comes up with evidence you have demanded, move the goalposts.

7) Use logical fallacies. Hitler opposed smoking, so anti-smoking measures are Nazi.

8) Deliberately misrepresent the scientific consensus and then knock down your straw man.

9) Manufacture doubt. Falsely portray scientists as so divided that basing policy on their advice would be premature.

10) Insist “both sides” must be heard and cry censorship when "dissenting" arguments or experts are rejected.

And above all, make lots of noise.
“If you tell a lie long enough, loud enough and often enough, the people will believe it.”
-------attributed to both Adolph Hitler and  Joseph Goebbels

Christopher Monckton’s claim - “Margaret Thatcher’s Science Advisor”

   Christopher Monckton frequently tries to inflate his importance by claiming that he was a “science advisor” to Margaret Thatcher. It appears that this role as a “science advisor” exists only in Monckton’s imagination. The following is a relevant quote from Bob Ward’s June 22, 2010 column at The Guardian, UK.

As we have come to expect, Viscount Monckton's recollection of events makes for interesting reading.

He begins with the claim that: "I gave her advice on science as well as other policy from 1982-1986, two years before the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] was founded", pointing out that the prime minister's policy unit at that time had just six members and that he was "the only one who knew any science". Monckton then goes on to suggest that "it was I who – on the prime minister's behalf – kept a weather eye on the official science advisers to the government, from the chief scientific adviser downward".

This revelation might be news to Lady Thatcher. On page 640 of her 1993 autobiography Margaret Thatcher: The Downing Street Years, the former prime minister describes how she grappled with the issue of climate change, referring only to "George Guise, who advised me on science in the policy unit". Indeed, given Monckton's purportedly crucial role, it seems to be heartless ingratitude from the Iron Lady that she does not find room to mention him anywhere in the 914-page volume on her years as prime minister.

   And Margaret Thatcher definitely took a stand opposite to Monckton’s assertions. As quoted from a Nov. 8, 1989 presentation by Margaret Thatcher to the United Nations.

“It is as menacing in its way as those more accustomed perils with which international diplomacy has concerned itself for centuries.

It is the prospect of irretrievable damage to the atmosphere, to the oceans, to earth itself.”

 “But the problem of global climate change is one that affects us all and action will only be effective if it is taken at the international level.”

   As reported in Wikipedia, Monckton's actual position under Margaret Thatcher was “a bag carrier in Mrs Thatcher's office. And the idea that he advised her on climate change is laughable.”,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley

   Monckton also claims that he is a member of the UK’s House of Lords (see page 7 ) and thus claims that he should be addressed as “Lord”. This is a deliberate misrepresentation as he is not a member of the House of Lords. Here is an exact quote from Section 1 of the House of Lords Act 1999.
“No-one shall be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage.”
For further information, please see:

   “the House of Lords has stated 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."”,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley
Original source (From: House Of Lords Information Office) of the above quote is at:

In a recent E-mail letter to Derek Schweinsgruber, the House of Lords has recently backed up the information that Christopher Monckton has never been a member of the House of Lords.

Christopher Monckton is not and has never been a
          Member of the House of Lords.

The above Print Screen image is from

Also: “House of Lords steps up efforts to make Christopher Monckton stop claiming he is a member of the upper house”

In Monckton’s testimony to the U. S. Congress he stated “I'm a member of the House of Lords”.
False claims of your credentials to try to influence other people are pure fraud.

Britain’s Parliament has posted an online, open letter to Christopher Monckton.

A letter to Viscount Monckton of Brenchley from the Clerk of the Parliaments

I must repeat my predecessor's statement that you are not and have never been a Member of the House of Lords.

I am publishing this letter on the parliamentary website so that anybody who wishes to check whether you are a Member of the House of Lords can view this official confirmation that you are not.

David Beamish
Clerk of the Parliaments

15 July 2011

   As a side note, as in “You are a conspiracy crackpot if. . .”, Monckton also appears to be a “birther”.
For more information, please see:  and

Guess what might happen if Christopher Monckton
          tells too many whoppers?

Pathological Liars and Narcissism

. . . Monckton, the craziest man in British politics, who claims that action on climate change is a conspiracy to create a communist world government.”

Finally, does the following definition of a “pathological liar” accurately describe Christopher Monckton?


Pathological liars often confuse truth and falsehoods and, during a structured interview, are inconsistent in their responses. Pathological liars may believe their lies are the truth. Pathological liars are intelligent, manipulative and may be self-centered. It is unknown if pathological lying is controllable by the individual. It is possible that a pathological liar may believe his lies to the point that he is delusional.

Also relevant:
“Narcissism, Pathological Lying, and Politics”
“Pathological lying is one of the hallmark characteristics of a narcissist, who does it out of a need to manipulate and maintain control.”
“The Narcissist as Pathological Liar”
“Monckton is a classic narcissist”

Christopher Monckton is a safari jokeFrom the book “Malignant Self Love – Narcissism Revisited” by Dr. Sam Vaknin - in the “Grandiosity Enhancing Paranoia” section

1) “The paranoid delusions of the narcissist are always grandiose, "cosmic", or "historical".”
2) “The narcissist feels that he is at the centre of intrigues and conspiracies of colossal magnitudes.”
3) “Put simply, he provokes people to pay attention to him by misbehaving or behaving oddly.”

(Note: Photograph taken by Murdo Macleod and displayed in the
“ 'Chemical nonsense': Leading scientists refute Lord Monckton's attack on climate science”
article at at )

It would be interesting to see how Monckton would score on the “Hare Psychopathy Checklist”.
(From: )

Hare's Checklist and other mental disorders

Factor1: Personality “Aggressive narcissism”

Glibness/superficial charm
Grandiose sense of self-worth
Pathological lying
Lack of remorse or guilt
Shallow affect
Callous/lack of empathy
Failure to accept responsibility for own actions

   The Dunning–Kruger effect would also appear to apply to Christopher Monckton.
“The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which relatively unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than it really is.”
The Wikipedia article also refers readers to “Narcissism”. “Amazing” coincidence.

3/8/2015 Addendum

On 3/8/2015 Monckton published an article in “Wing Nut Daily”
“I don't trust Google. Nor should you”

As outlined above:

From the book “Malignant Self Love – Narcissism Revisited” by Dr. Sam Vaknin - in the “Grandiosity Enhancing Paranoia” section

1) “The paranoid delusions of the narcissist are always grandiose, "cosmic", or "historical".”

Monckton's paranoid distrust of Google

“Symptoms of Paranoia:”
“Symptoms of paranoia and paranoid disorders include intense and irrational mistrust or suspicion, which can bring on sense of rage, hatred, and betrayal.”

(End of 3/8/2015 addition)

According to Christopher Monckton, if any person doesn’t advocate Monckton’s version of Global Warming Denial, then that person is an evil fascist.

According to Monckton, if any person doesn't
          advocate Monckton's version of Global Warming Denial, then
          that person is an evil fascist.

“Lord Monckton speaks from the lectern at the conference in Los Angeles”

The picture above was originally from the Telegraph’s coverage of Christopher Monckton’s presentation at a conference in Los Angeles.

“Lord Monckton, the outspoken British politician, has prompted outrage in Australia after labeling the government's chief climate change adviser a fascist, likening him to Hitler.”

For more info on Monckton’s lies, please see:

1) “Monckton lies again (and again, and again, and again, and again . . .)!”

2) “Christopher Monckton: Lies, damn lies or staggering incompetence”

3) “Monckton caught making things up. Yet again”

4) “Class Dissection: Lord Christopher Monckton lies exposed.”

5) “Debunking the myths behind the pontificating potty peer”

6) “Lord Monckton’s Rap Sheet”

7) “Monckton is a Fraud”
“On the evidence, it is clear that Monckton is a shameless humbug, a proven liar and a hypocrite, who intentionally misrepresents the facts of climate science in order to mislead his audience.”

8) The Youtube video
“Lord Monckton Bunkum Part 1 - Global cooling and melting ice”
Note, potholer54’s (Peter Hadfield) video series on Global Warming/Climate Change (including the Monckton Bunkum videos) is a good source for debunking the assorted false claims and fabrications by the Deniers.

Or just run a Google search using <<  Monckton lies  >> or <<  Monckton liar  >>.

What Christopher Monckton Can Do

   The evidence shows that Christopher Monckton is wrong. Top scientists have shown that Christopher Monckton is wrong. The UK’s House of Lords has explicitly told Christopher Monckton that he is not, and never has been a member of the House of Lords. However, Christopher Monckton can do the following:

1) Print out a paper copy of any of the illustrations that he has used in the past that show his “Crown Icon”.
2) Carefully cut out the “Crown Icon”.
3) Paste the “Crown Icon” on a mirror about 6 feet above the floor level. (Exact placement may require some trial and error.)
4) Stand in front of the mirror so that the “Crown Icon” appears to be resting on his head.
5) Repeat the following quote several times:  “Look how important I am. I am a king”.
6) Repeat step 5) as many times as his ego requires.

Also please see:
“The Great Global Warming Swindle” is itself a Fraud and a Swindle

Return to the main Global Warming Denial Liars main page

Web page generated via Sea Monkey's Composer HTML editor
within  a Linux Cinnamon Mint 18 operating system.
(Goodbye Microsoft)