Monckton in New Zealand: His reputation for fabrication preceded him

John Abraham’s work ended up giving Christopher Monckton a bumpy ride into New Zealand, according to Country 99 News:

Monckton was lucky the news channel labeled him “Climate Skeptic” and not “Barking Mad.”


11 Responses to Monckton in New Zealand: His reputation for fabrication preceded him

  1. Pangolin says:

    If we’re talking about the same Anthony Watts he used to be the local television weatherman. His WUWT climate denier blog has been hugely fact checked and is more likely to get any particular claim outrageously wrong rather than right.

    The favorite part about WUWT among climate scientists is that the site promotes mutually contradictory brands of climate denial. They claim the globe is cooling AND the sun is warming up other planets as well as earth; both wrong.

    Quoting Anthony Watts is just pathetic.


  2. Ed Darrell says:

    Anthony Watts came over here with a cock-and-bull story about Carson’s book getting special treatment at the White House because she was a social friend of the Kennedys. False almost all the way. (Carson was invited to an Interior Department briefing at the White House, and she met with the President’s Science Advisory Council when they were checking the accuracy of her book — but no social ties, no significant links between Carson and the Kennedys in any way, especially not that affected policy for anything but the public and natural good — PSAC found her book accurate, by the way.)

    Why would I heed advice from a guy so bad at history, and so unwilling to make corrections? Check out the 1st point of the Scout Law for the Boy Scouts of America.

    Heck, take the entire Scout Law for the Scouts of New Zealand:

    The Scout Law:

    A Scout is loyal and trustworthy
    A Scout is considerate and tolerant
    A Scout is a friend to all
    A Scout accepts challenges with courage
    A Scout uses resources wisely
    A Scout respects the environment
    A Scout has self respect and is sincere

    Anthony Watts needs some time with the basics before I heed his advice. He’s not much of a practitioner of the spirit of the First Amendment, either. But, in his defense, he says he’s a radio weather guy, and not a scientist, not a journalist, and for all I know, not a Scout. Denialists need to have bigger and more noble dreams.

    Watts falsely accused me of using profanity when I simply posted the facts. I don’t need to deal with people who hallucinate false things, especially when they keep saying false things to great harm to our nation and world. (Warming is occurring, and it’s a great danger.) If you think Watts is a paragon of advice, you’re in error. Alas, as with Watts, it’s not the only thing on which you’re in error. I hope you won’t stubbornly cling to error as he has, but my hope often overruns reasonable expectations.


  3. rogerthesurf says:

    Don’t be such a blockhead! Read the links I gave you. Including the Wikipedia one and try and get your reasoning straight and then give a sensible reply.
    Also try heeding Anthony Watts’ advice.




  4. Ed Darrell says:

    Roger, no one, besides Monckton, claims Kennedy created EPA. You didn’t mention EPA, but you defended Monckton’s accuracy — his absurd lies about EPA should disabuse even Monckton’s wife that he is unreliable on history and science (does he have one? poor woman). Surely not even you think Monckton is right on that. You defend him, though, as if your not being a liar and not lying about EPA somehow makes Monckton honest. It doesn’t work like that.

    As time works (Monckton can’t read a calendar?), Kennedy died in 1963. EPA was created circa 1971.

    That Wikipedia article doesn’t support any of Monckton’s claims about DDT nor Rachel Carson. By the way, you should read that article:

    In response to the publication of Silent Spring and the uproar that ensued, U.S. President John F. Kennedy directed his Science Advisory Committee to investigate Carson’s claims. Their investigation vindicated Carson’s work, and led to an immediate strengthening of the regulation of chemical pesticides.

    Monckton left that part of the history out. He’s not much of a student of history. He’s a worse student of science.

    There is no criminal investigation of Mann (the Virginia AG hasn’t made any charges of any kind), and it is unlikely that anything uncovered could support criminal charges. The Virginia AG’s claim is that Mann is scientifically in error — which would not be a criminal problem under federal law nor Virginia law.

    To the extent that the Virginia AG has had to back off of his claims that Mann is in error in science, his jurisdiction to bring criminal complaints is dubious at best — Mann’s work was funded by federal sources (NSF if I recall correctly). Cuccinelli (sp?)has no jurisdiction.

    That article you cite is real hash on the law. Full of sound and fury, but signifying very little, if anything at all. There has never been in the U.S. any presumed common law right for officials to rake through the records of any teacher or professor. Your source rather forgets the 4th Amendment, and he pretends there is no jurisdiction question, and he pretends there are criminal charges pending.

    So much is assumed that is not true, that what is concluded could be accurate only accidentally. Just like almost all other global warming denials.


  5. Pangolin says:

    The first time somebody is caught in a flat lie in a public debate they should be the last. Nobody sane should ever, ever bother to share a podium with that person.

    Monckton is a known, serial, liar and this has been proven repeatedly. Anybody claiming him as a source tars themselves with the same brush.

    There is a REASON that scientific societies moved to published papers as the standard for all sources and written commentary and review as the gold standard. It clearly and quickly identifies the liars.


  6. rogerthesurf says:

    By the way, with reference to Kennedy starting the witch hunt for DDT, I didnt mention the EPA. However try reading and other wikipedia articles.

    As for Monckton mentioning AGW perpetrators facing courts of law, check out

    I see Anthony Watts gave you a hard time on one of your other posts. Well deserved I would say!




  7. Ed Darrell says:

    No mention of DDT — but Roger, did Monckton say anything truthful in that piece? Can you show us?

    He claimed — falsely — that the chief evidence for global warming is a scientific consensus. Great dodge of the data. He claimed — falsely — that IPCC authors are under criminal investigation, when actually that was never true; instead, investigations of the accuracy and ethics of the IPCC authors — five investigations — concluded they are correct, and they behaved ethically. While some climate studies have been withdrawn in the past year and questioned ethically, that’s all been on the climate change denial side.

    He tells lies at such a clip he can’t even hear the bell ring. I loved the camera pans of the audience, showing the wild-eyed, scruffy eccentrics who support Monckton. No wonder the sheep in Australia quake.


  8. Ed Darrell says:

    So, there are liars besides Monckton? The history of this stuff is pretty clear, Roger. Kennedy did not create the EPA — he was dead 8 years at the time — nor did he appoint “his old friend” to head EPA just to get at DDT — in addition to Kennedy’s being dead, Ruckelshaus was in the other party, and on the other coast, moving in different political and business circles, and younger.

    But those are just the lies Monckton told in Montreal. I’ll see if I can fast forward to the lies he told in Australia.

    Do you think “Monckton” is a mispelling of “Munchausen?”


  9. rogerthesurf says:

    Well if you can contain your laughter for more than a few minutes why don’t you watch this debate.

    I mean you want to appear even handed in your criticisms don’t you? and you cant do that if you are not prepared to watch Monckton in action!

    By the way, Kennedy is credited with starting the witch hunt over DDT by sources other than Monckton.




  10. Ed Darrell says:

    No serious person could keep from laughing long enough to offer the multiple rebuttals per second required to punch back at Monckton’s Gish Gallop-style comedy routine.

    Monckton is congenitally incapable of debate. He makes up false claims faster than anyone can debunk them.

    But, you know, JFK would have been happy to debate him. Monckton just refused to allow it. So, don’t tell us no one would debate him.

    Seriously, Monckton has an unusual relationship with the truth. He’s acting like they’re divorced and he’s still mad. Probably no one “tugging at his pajamas.”


  11. rogerthesurf says:

    Even so, no greenie or alarmist was prepared to have a public debate with him. If he was a liar and a looney one would think they could have scored a few easy points, don’t you think?




Please play nice in the Bathtub -- splash no soap in anyone's eyes. While your e-mail will not show with comments, note that it is our policy not to allow false e-mail addresses. Comments with non-working e-mail addresses may be deleted.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: