Lord Monckton debates at the National Press Club 19 July 2011

With thanks to sangstar1 for the YouTube upload, here’s Lord Christopher Mockton debating Dr Richard Denniss at the National Press Club today.

Australia Network decided not to play the debate so I’ve had to wait for the (at this time, unwatched) YouTube upload. I did however follow the comments on twitter. Those opposed to Monckton as you can see (and to no surprise) almost always resorted to cheap personal attacks.

More thoughts after watching the vid. Of course, feel free to add you own thoughts of the debate in comments.


Denniss went on and on about conspiracy theories and consensus. Monckton actually cited papers, journals and gave further specific examples. Both cited scientific bodies. Only Monckton could come up with some actual figures. Denniss likened an essential trace gas to deadly skin cancer. By the end, Monckton barely needed to rebut as Denniss started umming and ahhing. Quintessentially, Monckton bided his time and nailed Denniss at the end.

As his passport states, Lord Monckton is indeed entitled to hold such an honorific.

Student/journalist/activist Bennett was easily dealt with as were every activist journalist.

A wake up call to the media indeed to do their job.

Deniss did well, and admirably, both the debate and the audience were civil. The GetUp! crowd there were awfully quiet towards the end.

There was still so much missing from the debate, but overall, a very good watch.


Wakeup2thelies has uploaded a direct feed version of the debate.

    • angry
    • July 19th, 2011

    but he i9s not a lord and showed himself to be very ignorant when claiming Australia economy will be at “souveriegn risk”He is truly a silly nman when he shows an ignorance about carbon dioxide levels and plants growth – definitely a poor science student. And to consistently push climate change supporters are like Hitler- appalling.

    • So angry you can’t type?

      Extra CO2 makes plants grow bigger. This has been demonstrated in real world experiments.

      As an Hereditary Peer, Lord Monckton is still entitled to use the honorific, “Lord”. He has made it very clear that, no, he is not a sitting member.

      Hitler was an environmentalist and a vegetarian. Look it up.

      • Hitler was also a socialist. You can look that up at the following link.


        • The EU was “Hitler’s Dream Fulfilled”, you can look that up too,
          and you can also see a video by Brian Gerrish & Anthony J. Hilder,
          where they discuss these things. In fact I am going to post a link here.

          You can see loads more videos like that at the “Fraudulent Climate” website,
          who are also supporters of Lord Monckton, and his fight for the truth & justice.

          (Pages may take a long time to load fully at that website – but it’s worth the wait)

        • The European Union was “Hitler’s Dream Come True”

          see the video by Brian Gerrish & Anthony J. Hilder.

          More videos of the same vein at the Fraudulent Climate Website.
          See the link at the bottom of the page at the UKIP Scotland Blog,

          (this comment replaces one which may have been caught by “Akismet”)


          • Anyone’s first comment automatically goes into moderation. After that, it’s smooth sailing. Pesky job thingy meant it was there for a bit.

            • OK BingBing understood. Good Job !

    • Viscount Monckton is indeed a lord whether or not he may call himself a member of the House of Lords. (He argues that the Act which deprived his father, the 2nd Viscount of his right to sit in the House of Lords was not properly enabled.)
      Do you deny that Alfred Lord Tennyson (1st Baron Tennyson) was a lord?
      Do you deny that Bertrand Lord Russell (3rd Earl Russell) was a lord?
      Do you deny that Lord Louis Mountbatten, (1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma) or his father Lord Louis Mountbatten (1st Marquess of Milford Haven) were lords?
      Did you bother listening to the debate?
      The foolish “journalists”, credulously accepting the lies of their colleagues that they are smarter than most of the swinish multitude and far cleverer than Lord Monckton, and gullibly believing the government’s lies, thought that they could just turn up and ask juvenile questions and show Monckton to be a loon. Instead, he exposed them and Dr. Denniss as ignorant and inept.

      • Real debate.
      • July 19th, 2011

      Typical emotional response and character assassination.

    • Sean of Deer Park
    • July 19th, 2011

    An excellent debate. Lord Monckton certainly knows what he his talking about. He backs up all his statements and commands respect. The other bloke was embarrassingly useless, waffled on about matters not relevant and harmed his own credibility.

    Interesting the ABC still has yet to post the video, yet this evenings episode of “Time Team” is already available to watch. Hmmm, wonder why? Could it be Lord Monckton wiped the floor with both his opponent, and the journalists asking the questions?

    My favourite parts were when Lord Monckton, wiped his feet on Jenifer Bennett (Campus Review) and the little turd of a man named Alex Hart (Seven Network). Brilliant, just Brilliant!

    Make sure you watch, if you haven’t already.

    • Seven’s 4:30 News had a report suggesting that Hart (whom you succinctly describe) had got the better of Monckton, with a “get used to it” grab; Southern Cross News showed just the “get used to it” grab.

      • Here we go again… 🙄 ad absurdum ad nauseum.

        You mean Channel 7 who employs Mark Riley who asked the government how to report their spin in a better light?

      • Carpe Jugulum
      • July 19th, 2011

      I had today off and watched the press club debate. Lord Monkton was brilliant, humourous, on topic and made concise points.

      The questions from the “press gallery” were fairly amateur.

    • elsie
    • July 19th, 2011

    I thought he was excellent, but Sky News tweets:

    Monckton says climate risk like asteroid – Christopher Monckton says cutting carbon emissions is as necessary as buy… http://ow.ly/1dS7Dn
    1 hour ago

    They are so biased (and probably want the media regulated citing the Daily Telegraph)

      • elsie
      • July 19th, 2011

      Sorry, here is the whole link, complete with photo to make Monckton look silly.


    • Can’t take a joke. Bet they reported it as dead serious.

        • elsie
        • July 19th, 2011

        They did> They also say he copied Julia’s accent by saying “Carbon Tex” (instead of “tax”). How did they know it was Julia’s accent unless they recognised it?

        Actually I did not like it when he did that. I thought it was childish.

        • It was funny and a little dig at the UK/Aus rivalry, as also demonstrated with his Ashes jibe. Very civil. Just get a pommy bastard mate, and you’ll understand.

        • Are the TV channels resorting to raaaaacist? LOL 😆

            • elsie
            • July 20th, 2011

            Murdoch, Murdoch, Murdoch and errr Murdoch

            • A little like this?

            • Rupert Murdoch, James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks questioned by British MPs


              Full Video & Transcript – might need a UK Proxy, or maybe not, you tell me ?

              off topic I know, but well it’s interesting though?

              • It is interesting but overblown, too. I don’t think the link needs a proxy, although the video just came up with those coloured lines. How about that idiot Johnny Marbles. Attack an 80 year old man. Way to go!


  1. Hi,
    Just finished watching the video, thanks for putting this up, I thought I would miss out on seeing what went on, I searched the ABC, but no video as yet.

    I thought Lord Monckton was brilliant, he had the names, the figures, and obviously knew what he was talking about. But I have to admit, I really liked it when he brought up about the journalists writing about tattooing skeptics, and also gassing them, and then he knew that the paper from WA had put in a picture and said lets ban the Lord. That young guys face turned completely red. Yes I really liked that bit. 10 out of 10 for Lord Monckton from me.

    • I thought I would miss out on seeing what went on, I searched the ABC, but no video as yet.

      Nor on Bolt, Blair, where?

      Glad to help.

    • Adam
    • July 19th, 2011

    Excellent debate. Everyone gets upset about Lord Monckton’s lack of scientific credentials. Unfortunately for the warmists Al Gore, Ross Garnaut and Tim Flannery or also not climate scientists and are paid very big money to sell the government’s carbon tax.

    • As in Flannery’s case; geez, I wish I could get 180K a year for a part time job. People complain about funding sources yet it’s OK Big Government (tax) wanting Big Taxes (TAX) to fund Big Science (Grants).

      What a crock.

      And they complain about Big Oil… something that actually necessarily contributes to our way of life in a positive way.

  2. You know you have won when you make the opposition so angry they make stupid mistakes (like angry and Dennis did). The rest of us can sit back and snicker, while you and Lord Monckton serenely dismantle the frothing dolts that have lost all capacity for logical thought.

    • ‘Tis fun. 🙂

  3. Thanks for that BINGBING 🙂

    Thanks for the heads-up about the Higher Quality video release also. sangstar1 deserves credit though for the early upload, and I would urge that they continue to do so in the future. For some an early release is often important, even if it is superceeded later by one of a better quality.

    For those who are interested, please see the UKIP Scotland Blog, where there are many videos, and stories about Lord Monckton’s work with Climate Change, and UKIP’s perspective on “Climate Change”. Click the UKIP Scotland name above to go there now. See the reference websites about the “science” of “climate change” at the bottom of each page.

    • Thanks for stopping by. Yes, that was very good of sangstar1. Actually, I went searching first at WU2TL but it wasn’t there at the time and I was very keen to see the debate ASAP. The original vid is of good enough quality but who can resist the high qual?

    • Monckton Skeptic
    • July 21st, 2011

    YoYou must have been watching a different “debate” to what I saw. Monckton’s brilliance was a “con” at best , and highly deceptive at worst. His humour was seldom humour but barbed and snide at the expense of whoever he set his sights on. As for “on topic” what was the topic? other than self-importance.
    The man has “Con man” written all over him, and I’m not surprised when the young journalist, backed up by Stephen Kenny , challenged his credibility on the basis of shonky credentials. If you take the trouble to check his background instead of taking him at face value, you’d find: —
    1. He has no academic qualifications in Mathematics as he suggested in reference to his “Eternity” puzzle, which was supposed to be insolvable but was cracked, . Whether Monckton developed it himself is open to question — using his own insistence on skepticism, as nothing in his career prior to this indicated any Maths profile. He has an M.A in Classics from Cambridge and a Diploma in Journalistic Studies from University College, Cardiff, but definitely no Maths or Science. So as monckton insisted in the debate —- “Do your homework!!!”, but I suggest he would add under his breath “But don’t check up on me!!!”
    2. He is essentially a journalist who became a Conservative Party hack, and there are noticeable similarities between his career and Tony Abbott’s. (who is responsible for inflicting him on Australia this time round).
    3. His constant denigration of the development of Scientific Knowledge through consensus frormation demonstrates his abysmal knowledge of what actually happens as scientific knowledge develops. He desperately needs to read “The Structure of Scintific Revolutions” by Thomas Kuhn which has been around for 30 years (even when he was at University. He stopped short at citing the development of Science with the work of Carl Popper (Conjectures and Refutations) which completely shifted scientific enquiry away from the empiricism which Monckton seems to believe is the only basis for real science, clearly ignoring the massive shift in scientific enquiry since the introduction of the Uncertainty Principle which underlies Quantum Physics, and the development of so much of the technology which we now take for granted. Sadly Monckton’s grasp of Scientific enquiry and development harks back to the foundation of the Royal Society (another of the many names he delights to drop) in the mid 17th Century. Even thn if he had looked at what heppened to Galileo and Copernicus, and even Newton, what they postulated took many years before acceptance and then only by a process of developing consensus. He simply bullshits his way through this. ,
    4. As for his “peerage” he is definitely a “johnny come lately” as the title of Viscount of Brenchley was only created as an hereditary Peerage in 1957 as a reward to his grandfather in 1957 for services to the conservative party. This passed to Monckton’s father in 1965, and then to Monckton himself on his father’s death in 2006. Despite the fact that the law regrding hereditry peerages was passed in 1999, well before Monckton became Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, he has frefused to accept or acknowledge that law, which has led to the “Cease and Desist” letter referred to by Bennet, the young journalist.
    see: —http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Walter_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley

    5. Referring to his passport as proof of who he is really proves nothing, as on a British Passport you only have to give your title as Mr./ Mrs and if you choose to call yourself anything else the passport office is not onliged to verify this, anly your date of birth/place of birth and gender. He would be more credible on this score if he had on his passport “Christopher Monckton, Viscount Brenchley” whicjh is accurate , whereas “Lord Monckton can mean anything amongst the five levels of Eglish peerage, with Viscounts being #4 rung on the ladder of five. Suggests to me a man who is so desperate to impress through his title, rather than from the strength of his argument.
    6. I am amazed hat he would try to pull such a “I’m very important because I’m a Lord” stunt in Australia, especially to the Press Club. It might work in America on the speaking circuit to cultivate his appearances there, but in Australia????
    7.. If you paid any attention to his body language during the debate you would have seen a man “steepling” the whole time, indicating his assumption of his superior knowledge and position. This was then reinforced by his constant patronising air, and outright bullying of the young journalist , which is one of his characteristics I have observed in other televised episodes of his. This was also reinforced with his need to bring England’s regaining of the Ashes into the situation —- essentially a disarming tactic aime at softening up the audience under the guise of humour. Then he had the gall to lead the audience in applause for his opponent, another false ploy using apparent “I’m a good fellow ” ploy to actually mock his opponent — an upper class English characteristic centuries old.

    As for your critique of Dr. Dennis, you clearly missed the many times that Denniss “took the piss” out of Monckton without rancour or disrespect — a very Australian reaction, but done with considerable restraint when Monckton kept mounting his battlesteed to go charging off in all directions.

    All I heard from Monckton was “Do nothing … it isn’t going to happen”

    My guess is that if you take Monckton’s advice and “Do your Homework” an every one of those references and statistics which so glibly rolled off his tongue you will find many many disparities.

    My gut feeling is that you heard him telling you what you wanted to hear — and conmen are very good at that.

    Monckton skeptic.

    • The eternity puzzle was meant to be solved; hence the reward offered – 1 million pounds that was paid out 18 months later to two Cambridge mathematicians (Eternity puzzle 2 has not been solved however, at least in the 4-year time frame each puzzle received).

      To claim the man doesn’t know a bit of math is absurd.

      Um, how you infer Tony Abbott had anything to do with Monckton’s visit or that somehow they are in cahoots is tin-foil hat stuff, mate.

      As for your third point, we’re not talking specifically of quantum physics or string theory or anything like that. We’re talking the complex (the aforementioned are complex, too, of course) field of climate science and the need for empirical data, NOT simplistic computer models funded by Big Government. Hence, Monckton’s stance on the scientific method holds up. Newton’s theory of gravity, first explored perhaps by Galileo, only became law after much empirical testing. This is not the same as “consensus”. To date there are no laws pertaining to climate science, merely hypotheses.

      The “cease and desist” letter you refer to itself still addresses Monckton as “Lord”. He has never claimed to be a sitting member of the House of Lords but rather an Hereditary Peer (the 3rd Viscount, a title granted after his father’s death), and no laws have been enacted to make illegal his use of the title “Lord” as is plainly obvious by 1) reading the first words of said letter and 2) by reading his passport.

      Really, you should get over that one. No one except his detractors really care. It’s what he has to say that matters. It attacks the man and not his argument, and when one resorts to attacking the man, it implies that attacking the argument is too brain-hurty. Get it? It’s a ploy that smacks of desperation and is thus counter-intuitive and counter-productive.

      It’s like “deniers” saying Al Gore is wrong because he’s fat. No. Al Gore is wrong because the “science” he quotes is wrong or at best, ill-conceived (think: simplistic computer models). It is also fair to note that he and other “alarmists” do not practice what they preach. This is also known as hypocrisy and should ring alarm bells for any concerned citizen.

      As for point number 6: some of us CAN take a joke.

      As for your seventh point, I too concur that the man is well-versed in the art of debate. If only Richard Denniss could have picked up on what you have; then we could have had a real contest!

      As for Denniss (that’s d-e-n-n-i-s-s) “taking the piss”… well, yes, he did try.

      Glad you heard Monckton’s essential message of “do nothing”. Must be a hard call for an ideological activist, a journalist wanting a story that generates a buzz, or indeed a politician that would be out of work essentially if “nothing” were done. Imagine: politicians working to limit the size of government thus further enabling free enterprise.

      These are particularly strange concepts for those of the Left.

      As for your final points, have you ever heard of projection? One barely needs some old English bloke to tell one any climate change over the last 300 hundred years has been quite normal and well within natural variabilities, and if anything, has been beneficial to the planet.

      Yes, of course there is more CO2 in the atmosphere – significantly more – due to Human activity. This has been empirically measured. What hasn’t been empirically measured are the theorised (we’re talking computer models here) negative effects of this.

      Some positive effects, empirically demonstrated (you know, actual real-world data), have been observed however.

      PS Thanks for stopping by. 🙂

        • Monckton Skeptic
        • July 25th, 2011

        Hello BingBing,
        It looks as though the debate goes on. I guess it was naive of me to think I could dispute with true believers, or in this case dis-believers, but I do like to try.

        Your answers to my critique of Tuesday’s Press Club event are she shifting and ground changing, which is more or less what I expected, but you did come back in detail which is significantly different from the Rah! Rah! one-liners on the rest of the blog.
        So let me consider some of your points of rebuttal: —
        1. “The eternity puzzle was meant to be solved ……… To claim the man doesn’t know a bit of math is absurd”. I’d be interested to know your source for the first assertion, if it actually exists. As for the second quote above, you have quite clearly twisted and distorted what I said previously —- go back to the video and watch how Monckton introduces the Eternity Puzzle as a proof that he is a mathematician, not just knows a bit of math, typical of the asides he uses to slip in false assertions.

        2. “Um, how you infer Tony Abbott had anything to do with Monckton’s visit or that somehow they are in cahoots is tin-foil hat stuff, mate.” …. I suggest you do a bit of Googling using “Tony Abbott” and “Lord Monckton” as search terms and you might think otherwise. You’ll also see that despite Monckton’s Nazi” gibe earlier in the year , Abbott (after appearing to castigate Monckton’s gaffe) was still happy to appear on the same platform at the at the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies (AMEC) conference in Perth in June (funded in large part by Gina Rhinehart, who is one of the backers of Monckton’s visit this year). Same thing happened last year when Monckton visited — Abbott made a show of no connection Monckton, then immediately did the opposite and met him. The personal abuse with the tin-foil at comment is pretty much what I’d expect from a Monckton devotee; and NO I am not your “mate”, however glibly that rolls off your tongue.

        3. Your defence of Monckton’s insistence on empiric evidence is both confused and weak. Empiricism is a method of demonstrating the falsifiability of a proposition (go back and look at Carl Popper), but not proof in itself. It can only be as good as the theory underlying the proposition it sets out to test, and also is limited by: — a. The parameters it defines to limit the investigation b. Its willingness to work with complexity and interaction For more than six centuries empiricism has used Occam’s Razor as a limiting device to keep enquiry as simple as possible, but we both know (as you have admitted) that what we are dealing with in considering climate change is far from simple, highly complex, and very interactive. This is where computer modelling, which you so glibly disparage, comes into the picture, in order to cope with that high degree of complexity, variability, and interaction, which the classic empiricism of Monckton’s pre-Popper world can barely conceive let alone analyse, because of its self imposed shackles. Certainly computer modelling has been used in the Climate debate to consider the economic variables and possibilities as a second order problem, but in order to begin that enquiry they have to rely on the computer modelling of the interacting branches of science involved in world climate understanding. It is on that basis of information accumulation that Climate Theory will emerge for further verification using falsifiability as the test. Monckton’s use of “empiric evidence” represents a word view which is black and white … a binary mindset … when the further scientific enquiry proceeds the more it emerges that Black and white answers are insufficient and the answers are arrayed across the colours of the rainbow
        4. .” It attacks the man and not his argument, and when one resorts to attacking the man, it implies that attacking the argument is too brain-hurty. Get it? It’s a ploy that smacks of desperation and is thus counter-intuitive and counter-productive” . It’s easy to use this apparent Ad Hominem rebuttal as proof of dirty pool, and if life was just a debate run by debating rules, then I would have to agree with you. History suggests otherwise with many examples of where listening to the argument, ergo the message, and not looking at the man giving the message is a serious mistake. The easiest, and strangely appropriate, example is Adolf Schicklegruber. His message seduced a nation and resulted in great pain to humanity and the planet — those who looked at the man and doubted the message were ultimately vindicated. So I can only reiterate my caveat at the end of my previous post — Beware of believing those who tell you what you want to hear. As for “that attacking the argument is too brain-hurty. Get it?” … just shows how inconsistent you are — that is an Ad Hominem!!!

        5. “Must be a hard call for an ideological activist, a journalist wanting a story that generates a buzz, or indeed a politician that would be out of work essentially if “nothing” were done”. Not sure if by this you are inferring that I fit into any of those categories, so I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, but for the record I’m none of those —- just one seeking the truth , and very suspicious of charlatans motivated by self interest.

        6. “As for your final points, have you ever heard of projection? One barely needs some old English bloke to tell one any climate change over the last 300 hundred years has been quite normal and well within natural variabilities, and if anything, has been beneficial to the planet. …….. Yes, of course there is more CO2 in the atmosphere – significantly more – due to Human activity. This has been empirically measured. What hasn’t been empirically measured are the theorised (we’re talking computer models here) negative effects of this.” Very hard to follow your logic in this mish mash. Yes I’ve heard of projection —- but in what context? Psychological? Forecasting? As for “any climate change over the last 300 hundred years has been quite normal and well within natural variabilities, and if anything, has been beneficial to the planet.” …. hardly a scientific statement, and more a statement of belief; and the “natural variabilities” you speak of are asserted rather than defined — and even if they were defined, they would be a theoretical construct at best open to verification by further evidence and testing, rather than black and white facts. Seems rather odd to use a baseline of 300 years to define “natural variabilities” for a planet approximately 4.5 billion years old! …… And when you go on —- Yes, of course there is more CO2 in the atmosphere – significantly more – due to Human activity. This has been empirically measured. What hasn’t been empirically measured are the theorised (we’re talking computer models here) negative effects of this. …. I suspect you are being loose with your reference to computer models, implying that its the Climate change models used by economists that are the only models, when we both know that they are second order models based on scientifically conceived models of Climate Operation which are forming the Climate Science which Monckton would like you to believe either doesn’t exist or is wrong because he says so (and uses a consensus of his own “experts “ to back him up)
        7. When you referred me to the beneficial effects of the extra CO2 in the atmosphere, you omitted to mention that the decimation of the world’s forests, particularly the equatorial forests (especially the Amazon) by human activity is likely, if no already, outstripping the extra vegetative life benefitting form that extra CO2

        There are times in this process where it almost seems like Lewis Carroll has taken over the debate, and Lord Monckton has taken on the role of Humpty Dumpty In “Alice through the Looking Glass”.

        Stay well and prosper BinBin

        • Your failure to not primarily see this as a political issue is disturbing.

          • Indeed, there is no rational economic or scientific case.
            The entire ready-up, by those rorters, is just a polly ploy.

            A real old snow job that’s down the gurgler, as far I see.
            Nothing but a furphy, a tall yarn, or even plain old pig’s @r5e !

            Monckton Skeptic can take his raw prawn and stick it on the barbie !

            G’day 😉

          • Carpe Jugulum
          • July 26th, 2011

          Must suck to be you dude. Mon frere Monkton Sceptic

          Although i’m betting you’re a real hoot at parties, the ladies must be in breathless anticipation of of your next missive. What do you do for an encore, the existentionalist freudian undercurrent from a misandrist perspective when interpreting Dali’s art?

          That or you’re trying to get in the pants of that hot socialist chick from the wimmens studies class.

  4. Professor Richard Lindzen of M.I.T. (IPCC Lead Author) critcises the carbon tax.

    Just one of many knowledgeable speeches and interviews by the man who
    “probably knows more about the Earth’s atmosphere than any other man alive today”

    A longer lecture which dissects the Alarmists’ case as naught but buncombe …….

    • Great stuff. Thank you.

    • Sean of Deer Park
    • July 26th, 2011

    Summary slides as posted at the evil one’s (Bolt’s) blog today.
    Carbon Sense – a-cool-look-at-global-warming:

Surely you're thinking something...

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: