Debunking the Deniers of Global Warming
Global Warming Denial
A vociferous Global Warming Denier
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 conclusion
s, he is a documented liar about observational reality, and he has fraudulently misrepresented his
This web page relies heavily on
research work that was given in John Abraham’s presentation: “A
Scientist Replies to Christopher Monckton”
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: http://courseweb.stthomas.edu/jpabraham/
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:
The following pictures illustrate how Christopher Monckton misrepresents reality.
(Also see slide 56 at http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/monckton_2009.pdf
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 picture above is from the University of Washington’s Applied
Physics Laboratory, and shows yearly Arctic Ice Pack volume anomalies.
volume of Arctic sea ice is actually declining rapidly with the trend
accelerating. Monckton’s description of this decline is:
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.
Illustration: Glen Le Lievre
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
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
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 ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/monthly.land_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat
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”. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/08/monckton-makes-it-up/
The picture itself is a composite of slides 37 and 38 from
Monckton’s standard show. See http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/monckton_2009.pdf
For additional debunking of Monckton’s “Manipulations” to fabricate the “cooling” in the above graphs please see http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/05/moncktons-deliberate-manipulation/
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.
Temperature data is from http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
The graph above shows global temperature anomalies starting with 1975.
GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies) is a joint research project
run by NASA and Columbia University. The physical location of the
research labs is actually Columbia University's Armstrong Hall in New
York City. http://www.giss.nasa.gov/about/
However, according to the Global Warming Deniers, Columbia University
(a top rated school) is just another part of “The Conspiracy” - which
is “out to get us”.
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)
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.
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
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.)
If we take a look at the larger picture, we see once again that Monckton is willfully misrepresenting reality.
The chart above is from the University of Colorado’s, Sea Level Change studies.
1) Go to http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
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.
The graph above is from NOAA’s sea level records for Boston, MA and is typical of most of the U. S. coastline.
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8443970 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 http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/co2_jan_2011.pdf
And on page 29 of this “report” we find . . .
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".
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”
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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_flux
) - 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.
This 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)
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.)
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”
appears that Christopher Monckton and the U. S. Geological Survey have
a different definition as to the meaning of the word “melting”.
Here are “then and now” pictures of one of Alaska’s major glaciers.
Please see additional “then and now” glacier photos on the http://www.durangobill.com/Swindle_Swindle.html
Glaciers Melting in the Himalayas
The photographs below are from “Tracking the Himalaya’s Melting Glaciers” http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2295
“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
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. http://e360.yale.edu/content/images/0710-breashears-rongbuk-comp.html
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.)
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
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
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 how does Christopher Monckton describe this thinning/melting?
“Himalayan glaciers are doing just fine.”
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.
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
Congressman John E. Peterson (R-PA) from 1997-2002 and Chief of Staff to Congressman Rick Renzi (R-AZ) in 2002.
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.”
The Print Screen image above can be seen at 10 minutes
into the “Monckton Bunkum Part 3 - Correlations and Himalayan glaciers”
video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_QcLkjZUTo
. 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: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=4594
Climate Scientists Respond
“Response to the Written Testimony of Christopher Monckton”
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
The report specifically examines 9 of Monckton’s primary assertions to show that he is wrong and/or willfully ignorant.
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.”
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.”
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”
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.”
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”.
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
) is typically an
“argumentum ad ignorantiam
) “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: http://climateconferences.heartland.org/christopher-monckton-iccc7/
“Who We Are” People vs. “What The Evidence Shows” People
Christopher Monckton is an anachronism from a British caste system
dating from hundreds of years ago. Hundreds of years ago “who you were”
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
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
When “who” people want to dispute something, they are not capable of
disputing evidence because they don’t understand evidence. “Who” people
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
(Don McLeroy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzrUt9CHtpY
“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
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
Rules for How to be a Denialist
Christopher Monckton seems to have mastered (if not authored) the following list.
Allege that there's a conspiracy. Claim that scientific consensus has
arisen through collusion rather than the accumulation of evidence.
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.
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".
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. http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/107817
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.”
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
Monckton also claims that he is a member of the UK’s House of Lords 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. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1999/ukpga_19990034_en_1
“No-one shall be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage.”
For further information, please see: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/monckton_vs_the_house_of_lords.php?utm_source=sbhomepage&utm_medium=link&utm_content=channellink
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."”
Original source (From: House Of Lords Information Office) of the above quote is at:
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.
The above Print Screen image is from http://friendsofginandtonic.org/files/867576d3dfe135ff8dcd26715bd86ac5-187.html
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.
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.
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:
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?
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
“Narcissism, Pathological Lying, and Politics”
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”
From the book “Malignant Self Love – Narcissism Revisited”
by Dr. Sam Vaknin
- in the “Grandiosity Enhancing Paranoia”
1) “The paranoid delusions of the
narcissist are always grandiose, "cosmic", or "historical".”
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 http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/sep/21/climate-scientists-christopher-monckton
It would be interesting to see how Monckton would score on the “Hare Psychopathy Checklist”
Hare's Checklist and other mental disorders
Factor1: Personality “Aggressive narcissism”
Grandiose sense of self-worth
Lack of remorse or guilt
Callous/lack of empathy
Failure to accept responsibility for own actions
to Christopher 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”
picture above was originally from the Telegraph’s coverage of
Christopher Monckton’s presentation at a conference in Los Angeles.
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”
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
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”.
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 KompoZer