Moaning minnie Monckton attacks academic freedom: Support The VUW Three!

Christopher, Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, has converted his recent threats against NZ academics and universities into a gloriously idiotic letter of complaint (pdf), sent to the vice chancellor of Victoria University of Wellington, professor Pat Walsh, last Friday. In the letter, Monckton accuses the head of the Institute of Policy Studies, professor Jonathan Boston, of academic fraud, professor Dave Frame, director of the Climate Change Research Institute of committing “a grave libel”, and professor Jim Renwick of “delivering gratuitous, baseless and childish insults”. He accuses all three of dishonesty and breaching the university’s code of conduct for academic staff, and demands letters of apology. The reaction from Wellington? Great amusement, as Stuff reported:

The formal complaint was met with hilarity by the accused academics yesterday, none of whom appeared concerned about disciplinary action.

In support of his complaint, Monckton offers two documents: an unpublished paper (pdf) that purports to demonstrate that mitigation of carbon emissions is not cost-effective, and a critique (pdf) of a graph that featured in the IPCC’s fourth report. Boston’s use of the graph in a 2008 presentation is what Monckton claims is “fraudulent”. He demands:

Professor Boston’s fraudulent graph should be removed forthwith from the university’s website. Otherwise, a complaint of scientific fraud may be made to the police.

Scientific fraud? I wonder who is really guilty of that charge — the head of the Institute of Policy Studies using a graph from a major international report, or a visiting fringe politician who has published nothing on climate in any peer-reviewed journal, who is happy to misrepresent the facts about climate change at every opportunity, and who believes the UN is hell bent on confining Americans to concentration camps?

Monckton’s attack on Boston, Renwick and Frame is just the latest display of a long-established pattern of attention seeking behaviour and threats to sue scientists. Over the last five years, virtually every academic who has had the temerity to criticise Monckton has been on the receiving end of threats and time-wasting complaints.

The most recent example is the whinge he sent to the University of Tasmania about remarks made by Dr Tony Press, the CEO of the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre, calling for his dismissal. Many more are listed by Barry Bickmore at Lord Monckton’s Rap Sheet. The principal objective seems to be gain a little publicity for himself and his propaganda tours, while causing a great deal of time to be wasted as academic institutions go through the motions of investigating his trumped up complaints.

For an insight into the way Monckton’s mind works, take a minute or two to review this clip from a much longer interview he gave to NZ’s Uncensored magazine1, in which he discusses how debate is stifled by “the left”:

In the light of his own behaviour the hypocrisy on show is frankly unbelievable. “That’s how they worked in Nazi Germany … they bully and threaten and jeer at those who do not follow the party line…”, he says. And yet that is exactly how he behaves, calling for police investigations, academics to be fired and making accusations — themselves libellous — about academic fraud. Monckton’s words describe his own actions so well, that we can only assume he acts on his own advice.

  1. He earns their wrath by refusing to accept that chem trails are real and evidence of a global conspiracy to geoengineer the planet. [↩]

55 thoughts on “Moaning minnie Monckton attacks academic freedom: Support The VUW Three!”

  1. ‘Projection’, they call it.

    It’s a great pity indeed if any genuinely competent person going about their allotted tasks in good-faith has to waste any of their time responding to any of this arrant nonsense.

    Other than that ‘snort and ignore’ – which is what seems to have been done – is the best reaction.

    Will he react similarly to O’Sullivan? 😉

  3. Lord Bonckers threatens–and has yet EVER to follow through with his empty threats–because Lord Bonckers has *nothing* else: no expertise in the area he critiques, no published work in the field of climatology, and nothing but a desire to continue to prance and dance to the tune of his masters, among them the Koch Brothers.bring it, Bonckers….sue someone. I’d love to see you disassembled in the dock.

  4. …and see him go the way the NZ Climate Science Denier Trust was served what was due to them by the courts, cost and all. Now that would be a show indeed!

    1. Ah,yes the “Dr” Mashey exchanges! I liked how Monckton came across as so obviously unhinged other posters were unsure whether it was the real man and not a parody!

    1. Totally agree Carol. I’ve said so before – I think the saddest factor in this whole sorry affair is the fact that he is obviously being used by unscrupulous people to further their own perverted sense of “truth”

  10. The Dominion Post has given pride of place in its Letters section today, to a local – well known for his knowledge-free rants – who is clearly a Monckton admirer. Another example of “balance” in the “debate”?

  11. Perhaps Monckton thinks ‘peer review’ refers to himself 😉
    His letter to VUW really is a piece of work. What a vile and pompous bully.
    Gareth, how do you suggest supporting the VUW three?

      1. Oh and then this nugget:

        Then there is the highly questionable issue of timing and the assumption that the world is more than 1000 years old. Nowhere in the Old or New Testament will you find references to the terms “BC” or “AD”…..

        Arghhh, what do you say to that? What is more astounding is the fact that the Southland Times publishes such mind numbing nonsense without citing the authors name….

        Then again, perhaps it is all a clever satire… at the fringes of the human mind things blur…

        1. It sure looks tongue in cheek, to me, Thomas. Having a nice fat file of letters (on climate change) to the editor of the Southland Times over the last six years or so, I can see he’s practically quoting from some of the lesser-abled (to be polite) of his correspondants. I thought the item was very funny.

        2. The latest outrageous deception is the attempt to ascribe some sort of significance to the “fact” that Antarctic Peninsula is melting in summers at a level not seen for 1000 years. This requires us to take on blind faith the assumption that this so-called continent exists outside the minds of alarmists.

          To point to Antarctica’s presence on maps is a fatuous nonsense. When was the last time a scientist came out and acknowledged that Antarctica didn’t feature in the early maps used by some of the world’s most intrepid and admired explorers? Has anyone even asked who first added it, and for what reasons? Certainly not the uncritical mainstream news media. What proof do we have, beyond anecdotal reports from those who claim to have been there – a perfect way for any ne’er-do-well who needs to cover his tracks to disappear from scrutiny for long stretches at a time?

          Poe for sure! Carol’s probably bang-on the money…

          And that old maps / famous explorers thing is genius; an excellent parody of all those ridiculous ‘Marco Polo sailed right across the North Pole in a raft made of papyrus’ style claims that Deniers are so fond of when it comes to the other end of the world.

    2. Fantastic timing!

      “We are also told that our newspapers are irreverent, coarse, vulgar, and ribald. I hope that this irreverence will last for ever; that we shall always show irreverence for royalties and titled creatures born into privilege, and all that class which take their title from anything but merit.” – Mark Twain

  14. We’ve got it all wrong! Hot Topic and maybe Skeptical Science should be quietly funding the Monc! He makes denial look like the circus that it is! Reasonable people must be thinking, if this is the best they can come up with, I’d hate to see their worst! He might even be leading some of his less sycophantic followers to ask some awkward questions. Farmers are not stupid; they are confused, frightened and misinformed; I doubt many of them were reassured by the clearly mad Monc.

  15. It’s good to see that journalistic talent survives in the hinterlands of NZ; the Whangarei and Southland papers openly mocked Monckton and his ilk, the Gisborne paper was critical but undecided, whereas the Waikato and Taranaki papers simply regurgitated his nonsense.

    IMHO, the Southland editorial is world-class political satire, perfectly executed.

    ROFLMAO!

      1. The real question is, Nick, why wasn’t Lord Monckton invited to Margaret Thatcher’s funeral, given that he was her senior adviser and won the Falklands campaign for her?

        If it is just his prior speaking engagements, surely the Brits could have sent a supersonic military aircraft, or rented one from the Yanks for such a special occasion?

        1. Brilliant question. Why would Monckton prefer speaking to a few dozen grey haired farmers in Whaikickamoookau when he could rub shoulders with the rest of the Lords over in London? Perhaps the few friendly locals here are generally more receptive towards the crankster than his old peers one could imagine…..

            1. Brilliant! This is it. A selfless act of restraint. How nice of him. Otherwise the images on the papers front pages of jubilant masses saluting the prime-defender of the people’s right to dismiss inconvenient facts and fabricate as they wish as he steps down the gangway and onto the tarmac, parading past his castle guards, sabers at attention, and returning from conquering the rebellious minds in the antipodal colonies, would have been a bit untimely considering the sad occasion of the passing of the iron lady…

            2. Oh I must take that back. Just now I have to maintain composure and try hard to keep the dinner down as I listen to the very Lord himself being interviewed on National Radio… so that’s why he stayed. He got a radio interview! A chance to speak to the whole nation. Now for any old egomaniac that is an opportunity never to walk away from….. !
              I would recommend those who missed it to check out the National Radio sound archives.
              I paraphrase below a few interesting statements he is just making:

              CO2 stays around in the atmosphere for about 7 years. Methane is much more long lived than that.

              I was appointed to be an expert reviewer by the IPCC.

              Feedbacks are not known by science, not even their sign…

              We had huge changes of the distance of the earth to the sun over the last hundred of thousands of years and the earth climate only changed by 3 degrees.

              At the moment natural cooling is offsetting the warming that I would expect to see from what we added in CO2 in the past 17 years.

              I came in a bit late to the interview so missed most of it…. Oh dear, what nonsense this man is dishing up to the nation!!

            4. Hilarious! Poor old Monckton semed to be confusing CO2 with methane. Bryan Crump was clearly becoming increasingly frustrated because he knew Monckton was talking rubbish.

            5. Good Grief! How much longer can we expect the likes of Monckton to be given this kind of platform?

              Love the ‘7 years’, though!

            7. As far as Monckton’s 7 Years of CO2 lifetime in the Atmosphere is concerned, just in case any of those who believe in the Lord’s words are lurking, this is a prime example where he once gain demonstrates that this whole Global Warming thing is well over his head.

              The short CO2 lifetime myth is a fundamental flaw in thinking about the cycle of CO2 and has been pointed out to many who have touted the same fallacy many times before.

              The truth is: while individual CO2 molecules have an average atmospheric residence time of about 5 years (not 7), by which they will have on average swapped places with another CO2 molecule from the rest of the biosphere, it will take hundreds of years to work off the sizable excess CO2 amount in the atmosphere that we are putting there at the moment.

              All this is well explained here and very accessible for lay people like Monckton: http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-residence-time.htm

              Once again, Monckton screws up completely. Luckily he has had his nonsense recorded for posterity in this case and can’t say: I did not say that…

              One must wonder why anybody would take the man serious or invite him onto a radio show or allow him to speak for a fee, anywhere! The man’s message is a fraud and he should not be

  18. Brian Crump tried to nail him, but Crump is too soft and Monckton too slippery for there to have been real sparks. So, C02 only lasts for seven years! I wonder how we managed to stay warm before we began putting 30 billion megatons of the stuff into the atmosphere every year? Then he tried to say that methane might last up to 150 years! When Crump, who knew the figures, corrected him, Monckton then tried to pretend that it was the IPCC who had it around the wrong way. Crump just didn’t have the killer instinct he needed, I’m afraid.
    I take back what I said above (April 16) in what was a sad effort to make a joke. Behind my joke lay an even sadder hope that Monckton makes denial look crazy by being crazy. Nobody should be funding this man. Let’s hope rumours of his retirement turn out to be true.
    Not pleasant listening.

    1. You need to read:

      1: the comment policy

      2: the original post

      … And then try to make a sensible comment. Any more tolling and you’ll be on moderation.

  20. Why do you constantly threaten me with moderation just because I do not nessessarily agree with what you write?
    Hiding behind threats to anyone who disagrees with you in not particularly democratic!

    1. Because your comments have amounted to little more than sticking your tongue out and saying “nah nah” – if you can do that at the same time. If you want to talk to people here, you have to have a conversation. If you don’t want to do that, then I won’t waste everybody’s time by allowing your posts to appear. Clear?

  21. Copie, if you are still there. I’ve found if you use this blog to ask a serious question you will get an answer. I used this space to ask a question that boiled down to my lack of skill in reading colour-coded graphs. I felt like a bit of an idiot, but I didn’t care because I came away with a much better understanding of how high pressure systems are changing weather patterns within the arctic circle. My query was treated respectfully and answered with care. For me that was a useful conversation. I’m sure you would find the same. And, questioning the credentials of someone who claims to be an expert on something is not the same as attacking the man, it’s just common sense.
    As for trolling, Gareth is not kidding. Websites dedicated to global warming get swamped by trolls and sock-puppets. Let us know that I’m not wasting fifteen minutes of my time writing this for you, and join the coversation…

  22. Kiwi poet, what you say may have been relevant if you ignored bill, Nick, Rob Taylor, Thomas, Mike Palin, Carol Stewart, RW, etc, who are only interested in slagging off Lord Moncton, not a question from any of them!

    1. Wow, that’s quite an impressive grasp of the point you’re demonstrating there. (/sarc)

      Kiwipoet was suggesting you might even like to ask some questions – you know, ones not containing invective such as the above – and generally display some good-faith behaviour, but since that would be you acting like you really wanted to do something about your level of ignorance, we both know that’s not going to happen…

      HINT: it’s self-evident that if you turn up spouting about ‘fraud’ and ‘global warming religion fanatics’ [sic] you’re going to get nowhere. So don’t go feeling all vindicated because of how unkindly the nasty Warmists treated you, will you? 😉

  23. Hi Copie,
    Perhaps what you see with many of the bloggers here, and elsewhere, is a frustration at the fact (not accusation) that the Viscount Monckton continues to repeat things he’s already been called-out on many times.

    Take his claim to have been Margaret Thatcher’s advisor on climate change, for example, a claim often thoughtlessly repeated by our media. He’s not mentioned anywhere in Thatcher’s detailed autobiography and there is no record of him holding any official position – so it sounds dodgy, right?

    But there is a further twist to this one. Here is a Youtube link to a speech Margaret Thatcher made to UN on climate change, and she’s sounding far more visionary than any politician today:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77VejUbuFsk&feature=player_embedded

    Well worth watching!
    Given her clear perception of the dangers of climate change, I think it would be fitting to ask Moncton what kind of advice he was giving her, or if she was listening…
    Cowie, there’s more to this than a poor misunderstood, much abused Monckton…check out the video and do some thinking…

  24. Pingback: VUW 3 vindicated, Monckton complaint rejected

Leave a Reply