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 credentials.
This web page relies heavily on research work that
was given in John Abraham’s presentation: “A Scientist Replies to
Christopher Monckton” http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/
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: 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” http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/
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. http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/IceVolume.php
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
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
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 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 http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/anomalies.php
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 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 https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/anomalies.php
The graph above shows global temperature anomalies
starting with 1975. The data is from NOAA's National Climate Data
And what is Christopher Monckton’s “analysis” regarding the above
“There hasn’t been any global warming for 15
(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;
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
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.
The chart above is from Christopher Monckton’s web
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 chart above shows ALL the temperature data from the UAH
Data source: http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt
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
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.)
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 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
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
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.
It shows sea level as measured at Boston, MA. Note the
acceleration in the rate of rise in sea level over the last 10
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".
Also, please see: https://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-not-rising.htm
Sept. 13, 2015
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”.
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
The print screen image above is from NOAAs Tides and
the caption illustrates:
“The map above illustrates regional trends in sea level, with
arrows representing the direction and magnitude of change.”
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
) - 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
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
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
It appears that Christopher Monckton and the U. S. Geological
Survey have a different definition as to the meaning of the word
Here are “then and now” pictures of one of Alaska’s major
Please see additional “then and now” glacier photos on the http://www.durangobill.com/Swindle_Swindle.html
in the Himalayas
The photographs below are from “Tracking the Himalaya’s Melting
“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.
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. 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
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
“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.”
And how does Christopher Monckton
describe this thinning/melting?
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
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
“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
(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
) 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
(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” 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 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 in?
Rules for How to
be a Denialist
Christopher Monckton seems to have mastered (if not authored) the
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
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
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
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
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. http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/107817
“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
Monckton also claims that he is a member of the UK’s
House of Lords (see page 7 http://web.archive.org/web/20081114194729/http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20061212_monckton.pdf
) 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
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
“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."”
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.
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
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
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:
Liars and Narcissism
. . . “Monckton, the craziest man in
, who claims that action on
climate change is a conspiracy to create a communist world
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.
“Narcissism, Pathological Lying,
“Pathological lying is one of the hallmark characteristics of a
narcissist, who does it out of a need to manipulate and maintain
“The Narcissist as Pathological
“Monckton is a classic
From the book “Malignant Self Love – Narcissism
by Dr. Sam Vaknin
- in the “Grandiosity Enhancing
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 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
Hare's Checklist and other mental
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
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”.
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".”
“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.
“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
“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
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. http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLA4F0994AFB057BB8&feature=plcp
Or just run a Google search using << Monckton
lies >> or << Monckton liar
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
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.