Christopher Monckton – the British hereditary peer formerly known as ‘Lord’* – has revealed plans of a possible Government plot to silence him.

'Delivering a speech called 'The Science Does Not Justify a Carbon Tax'. Photo: AFP

The renowned climate change sceptic has had a turbulent visit to our shores, with a string of appearances cancelled, an on-air dust up with Adam Spencer, and a reported order from Fairfax to remove the title ‘Lord’ when referring to his Monckness.

This morning, Monckton told the taxpayer-funded public broadcaster (please do note the irony here) that he had wind of a plot to shut him up. He told Adelaide breakfast radio duo Matthew Abraham and David Bevan:

What is happening is that several months ago we got wind of a concerted attempt by, effectively, agents of the government - I’m not going to say that they’re paid or employed by the government but they’re people who will do the government’s bidding because they support the government and therefore support the carbon tax - ringing around and trying to disrupt our venues by saying look there is no possible case against a carbon tax, the climate is a terribly serious problem, we’re all doomed unless a carbon tax is brought in therefore you mustn’t allow anyone like Lord Monckton to come and give the opposite points of view.

An equally plausible ‘plot’ is that Monckton is himself the witting or unwitting agent of the government. He is out there kicking own goals for the climate change sceptic movement. In the same way euthanasia advocates were concerned that the sometimes-overly-enthusiastic Philip Nitschke was damaging their campaign, those who don’t think climate change is real and those who are opposed to a carbon tax should be concerned at who is getting airplay for their issues.

He comes across as a belligerent, glass-jawed, plummy voiced conservative who is genetically inclined to distrust all science.

I won’t go as far as Anson Cameron, who described him in almost loving terms as:

“The type of peer who used to be widespread but is now all too rare.”

“Since antibiotics got on top of syphilis the poms seem to be running short of truly potty peers,” said Cameron on The Drum, lamenting that banning Monckton removes the fun of debunking him.

Monckton is, really, turning the arguments against climate change and climate science into a joke – and Prime Minister Julia Gillard needs all the help she can get as the final shape of the carbon tax emerges, and could turn out to be the shape of a final nail in her political coffin.

He’s become this buffoon of a character, whispering of underhand plots, and repeatedly linking advocates of action on climate change to Nazism. He’s not doing his cause any favours at all.

He said of these murky unnamed characters who can apparently cancel events with a single anonymous phone call that they might be “what Lenin calls ‘useful idiots’”.

Meanwhile he is drawing attention away from valid arguments about the carbon tax to focus on his own self-important, self-created crises.

Useful idiots, indeed.

* According to The Australian, Monckton says while he no longer has the right to sit in the House of Lords (a law change in 1999 stripped hereditary peers of that right) he still has the right to use the title because they “have not yet repealed the Letters Patent creating the peerage”, so he is still a member of the house.

353 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • non-warmist says:

      12:44pm | 08/07/11

      Well, of course they’re trying to shut him up.

      The Big Lie:  There will be no carbon tax…....J. Gillard

    • Craig says:

      12:54pm | 08/07/11

      Monckton is the best friend that those who actually pay attention to climate science have.  Most sceptics are at least clever enough to not appear as crazy as a bucket of horse testicles, but not ol’ Monckton!

    • MarK says:

      01:04pm | 08/07/11

      Expand on your theme Craig.

      Would love you hear what he has wrong.

    • Craig says:

      01:27pm | 08/07/11

      @MarK: Wouldn’t matter even if he was right, he comes off as so batty that his level of credibility is about the same as a footpath doomsday preacher.

      However, since I’m such a generous fellow, I’ll also point you towards this excellent presentation:

      http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/

      Which pretty much pulls apart all of Monckton’s arguments and shows why they are misleading or just flat out wrong.  It should be required viewing for everyone who thinks that Monckton has a shred of credibility.

    • jeffb says:

      01:44pm | 08/07/11

      MarK it would be easier for you to tell us which of his claims have been right.

      His claims have been trashed repeatedly, some choose to ignore this as they just don’t want to hear it but it is beyond a joke now, it really feels like people are just beating up on some poor disabled kid.

      Maybe you can start hear http://theconversation.edu.au/monckton-watch-interrogating-the-lords-science-1984 , google can help you find alot more if you’re really interested.

    • Michael says:

      01:52pm | 08/07/11

      Craig if you had half a brain and didn’t senselessly believe everything you see you’d know what Lord Monckton has a valid answer for all points raised in your slideshow. But that’s the whole point of this.Tory, you are a fool. The language you used destroys all your credibility. Politics has infiltrated the scientific community, and we all know that we can’t trust politicians.

    • jeffb says:

      01:59pm | 08/07/11

      Yes, I’m sure Micheal, Monckton has an answer for everything, including a cure for AIDS. He even has the Nobel prize to prove it.

    • macca-D says:

      04:42pm | 08/07/11

      “Poilitics has infiltrated the scientific community”....that sounds like another conspiracy.  Let me guess….communist spies.

    • Lord Funkton says:

      04:47pm | 08/07/11

      Michael. While it is rather humorous to see you going to bat for batty “Lord” Monckton, it is also rather tragic to watch you confirm Tory’s assertions. Your defensive response suggests that you are a climate change sceptic (or denier or whatever hurts your feeling less). This bloke is clearly a stubby short and by defending his points of view, you do your case no good whatsoever. Keep it up though. It’s good value. On ya tiger.

    • Tory Shepherd

      Tory Shepherd says:

      04:48pm | 08/07/11

      The thing with Monckton is he monopolises the anti-climate change debate in such a way that you can’t even start a sensible conversation. At least Plimer uses proper arguments to back up his claims, not conspiracy theories!

    • MarK says:

      04:54pm | 08/07/11

      “The thing with Monckton is he monopolises the anti-climate change debate in such a way that you can’t even start a sensible conversation”

      What a positively ridiculous statement.

      You heard the Spencer “interview”. How is one supposed to react?

      What a joke Shepherd.

      More trash talk. No proof. Just bile.

      Give it a rest.

    • Tom says:

      05:36pm | 08/07/11

      Tory and Craig, You just don’t get it do you? Your lot wants to bring the tax in. The burden of proof is on your shoulders not ours.

      Attacking Lord Monckton for how he presents his argument is not an argument. Juvenile tittering and dancing around making fun of the man is banal.

      The more I read your propaganda, the more I believe that all you have is ad hominems, appeals to authority (Al Gore?), less than truthful claims of consensus, a barefaced lie from a prime minister and a majority in the Senate. That is all you have. Reason is not on your side.

      You are painful like moaning dogs defending the indefensible. Why don’t you just drop the pretence of reason and democracy and bludgeon it through the Senate? That is really what you are all about.

    • Ben says:

      05:39pm | 08/07/11

      Jeffb, I went to your web link to see the evidence against Monckton and all I found was a lot of denial by warmists and the occasional percentage statistic. Interestingly, Denmark was used as the poster child for wind power. However, I notice Denmark is a tiny country with a quarter of our population. Their energy needs are less and the distance transferring electricity from generator to homes is far less than ours. Comparing two totally different countries in this way seems inequitable.

      Instead of quoting left wing journalists could you please actually do some research of the scientific data presented (excluding IPCC models which are not actually empirical). It will take far more time than just regurgitating media propaganda, but you may very well be wiser for it in the long run.

      Disappointing (but not surprising) to see no credible counter argument from the warmists again.

    • MarK says:

      06:27pm | 08/07/11

      Awesome jeff you just linked the new progressive website of the week. The conversation is a joke. It makes crikey appear unbiased and tolerant.

      For the sake of argument let us start there then genius.

      First of 8 - a whole 8 - quotes they are “debunking” (LAWL) none of which are about science of course from Monckton we have Judith McNeill say “How much of an immediate economic impact will introducing a price on carbon have? Economic modelling suggests it will be manageable.”

      The economic modelling she refers to are the governments own treasury figures.

      Yeh she really blew Monckton away there. Monckton actually said this “In Europe we have already got a carbon trading scheme, which in the last two days has now collapsed for the third time in its history with prices heading right down to rock bottom so it makes no difference to anyone as to how much carbon dioxide they emit.”

      And this is the best an economist can do? What happened in Europe will not happen here because our modelling is better.

      Shithouse start jeff.

      2. We then have Patrick Hearps try and “debunk” Monckton who said “One of the things I’ve costed is windmills. They are just about the least cost-effective ways of spending taxpayers’ money, except solar panels. They don’t actually solve anything. Solar will have a future as the panels become more efficient. The problem now is they degenerate very quickly in the sunlight.”“

      Lets have a look at Patrick eh? what is he oh….“the technical director at Beyond Zero Emissions”

      All they want to do is have Australia adopt 100% renewables. No conflict of interest there. Good little eco warriors.

      At least Patrick is honest and says “Wind power is the cheapest form of large-scale renewable energy, and as coal and gas prices increase, can be directly competitive with fossil power in Australia”

      Note the as cost increases part. So as long as we artificially raise the coal powered price via a carbon tax then renewables can compete. Raising prices for inputs is also known as reducing your competitive advantage.

      Awesome. So Monckton was correct.

      3. To save space our next entrant in stuipid of the week is Stephan Lewandsowsky. Here are some words and terms he uses to deride Monckton in his reply topsy-turvy zone, In the place called reality, vaudeville act, circus. He also says that Bush censored scientists and that “In Australia, similar events likely occurred under John Howard but have so far largely escaped the public’s attention.”

      Likely occurred? We get no proof though from the good intellectual.

      Weak as piss.

      Oh by the way an idea of how easily led Steve is. He fell for the Alene Composta laugh a minute that embarrassed so many small minds on the left. Hilarious.

      http://verdanthopes.blogspot.com/2011/03/tomorrow-belongs-to-us.html

      Too funny for words.

      Ahh hell I could go on but really this all the progressives have.

      Waht a farce. I love Steve Sherwood telling us summer is hotter than winter though.

      reall cutting edge.

      People shpuld really go read the link jeff gave us.

      It merely shows how desperate the left is to slime it comes with vacuous and baseless arguements that are self defeating.

      Appreciate the link again jeff. I lol’ed.

      Must sign up at the conversation and have some fun with some people that have a degree.

      Still waiting on anything concrete from Craig. jeff feel free if you have anything else to toss it my way. And thanks for proving my point.

    • Vicki PS says:

      08:11pm | 08/07/11

      Well, since MarK, Tom and Michael have set the tone for this debate, I feel empowered to respond in kind, viz. you three couldn’t find your arses in the dark with both hands.  Shut up and go away.

      Ooh, that feels better.

    • Tom says:

      09:19pm | 08/07/11

      @Vicki PS, as I said, “The more I read your propaganda, the more I believe that all you have is ad hominems, appeals to authority (Al Gore?), less than truthful claims of consensus, a barefaced lie from a prime minister and a majority in the Senate. That is all you have.

      I was wrong. For some of you all you have is drivel.

    • Brian says:

      10:04pm | 08/07/11

      Iif Labor had won a majority vote Gillard would not have introduced a carbon tax. But it had to form a minority government and that involves a lot more nuance and compromise. Sensible business people know a price on carbon is required for the global marketplace; it’s not a matter of if, but when (even if Abbott was to become PM it would happen-that guy changes his mind more often than he does his skivvies).

    • acotrel says:

      10:26pm | 08/07/11

      Is Monckton a relative of the late Kerry Packer?

    • Vicki PS says:

      12:07am | 09/07/11

      @Tom:  “It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks”.—Acts 9:5.

    • jeffb says:

      01:20am | 09/07/11

      Interesting, MarK gets up and attacks the people not their arguments after complaining about people attacking Monckton… Thank you for proving my point. Feel free to actually put up some scientific debate at any point, point out any claim Monckton has made that remains unchallenged, anything but throw about random opinions in a scientific debate. I’m not going to wait but it’s just not going to happen.

      The science has been talked about for decades, it is boring to try and continually explain a complex subject to people with no honest intention of understanding it. At this point if you don’t get it you never will, just be glad that Australia will move on and be successful in spite of you.

      The Conversation has a large range of articles on every aspect of climate change from actual experts in the field, you may find the reading a bit heavy or too technical but it is what it is. I’m sorry you find their fact based so boring MarK but perhaps that is why you spend all of your time trolling the comments section of an opinion website.

      It’s kind of amusing that some people can’t tell the difference between academic and opinion articles, it says a lot about the modern media perhaps it says more about you though Ben.

    • Unionist says:

      08:14am | 09/07/11

      Craig says:01:27pm; That’s not very nice Craig saying such things about the conservatives new Messiah who after many failed predictions has come back to Earth. I can imagine ATM, Mark and their merry loony friends hang on every word their new lord spurts out no matter how ridiculous it is. But hey if you believe in imaginary firends and see everything written in news limited papers as fact, you’ll belive in anything.

    • ZSRenn says:

      08:45am | 09/07/11

      When you concider that speaking at a Melbourne summit on the green economy, Professor Will Steffen of the government Climate change Commision criticised the media for treating climate change science as a political issue in which two sides should be given a voice.

      He may have a point.

    • MarK says:

      10:13am | 09/07/11

      Are you really that devoid of reading comprehension jeff?

      An economist said our modelling is better and we won’t go the same way as Europe. No facts, no science just a statement

      A guy that wants 100% renewables says windmills are much more expensive than coal power so we need to make coal power more expensive to make them competitive. He loves the carbon tax. No science just artificially inflate a price to achieve his aim.

      Another guy that can’t pick a parody from touching difference because he so blinded by his left bias verbals Monckton in his rage and makes statements and not point about the science. Oh and of course accuses Howard of “something” with not an even made up example. laughable.

      You sir are an idiot.

      Shepherd has not presented a scientific point. The link you gave presented none. And you have none.

      Thanks again for proving my point. Enjoy the conversation. I will be there too from time to time to poke the intellectuals.They are so predictable. Just like you jeff.

      All I ask jeff is you try and get this reading comprehension bit down. You are terrible at it.

    • Ben says:

      07:13pm | 09/07/11

      Okay Jeffb…

      Monckton has put forward the most recent data showing that the hockey stick warming model touted as gospel by climate cultists didn’t end up coming true. Instead of exponential warming post 2001 we have actually seen a plateauing and now a decline in global temperatures. Care to dispute that? I mean, you’d have to deny the scientific data.

      Secondly, temperature rises over the past 25 years coincide with the removal of more than 4,000 land thermometers worldwide. The 1,600 left in place have been found largely (89% of ones in the USA) to be located in inappropriate locations (like airports, next to air conditioner vents and in high heat areas like busy arterials or concrete carparks in the open sun). There has been some temperature rise, but it is not as pronounced as what the land thermometers say (if we are to believe more reliable satellite readings). Do you even know about the two types of temperature monitoring systems?

      And finally, Monckton produced graphs showing that hurricane/wild weather activities like floods have not actually increased exponentially as is claimed by the alarmists. In fact, the worst hurricane records come from the end of the 19th century. Australia experienced worse flooding in the 19th century (overall and peak wise) during the 19th century. Interestingly, the IPCC initially only showed the graphs from 1970 onwards. Yet we have records on floods and wild storms going back much further.

      So Jeffb, it looks like you have a lot of extra reading to do tonight. Good luck.

    • jeffb says:

      09:57pm | 09/07/11

      Oh please, I’m not your mum, I’m not going to keep repeating the same old stuff till you finally understand it.

      There is an entire weeks worth of climate change articles on the conversation if you are interested MarK. If you actually want to educate yourself abit instead of just throwing insults on an opinion website perhaps you should start reading, I also look forward to reading your intelligent posts more widely. I’d suggest you move on from the name calling though, it kind just shows you have no real understanding of the issue at hand to fall back on, just some angry words.

      Ben some of those point you raise were actually addressed in an SBS program not too long ago, maybe the TV format is more your style. Try this link http://www.sbs.com.au/insight/episode/index/id/401#watchonline

    • Ben says:

      12:04am | 10/07/11

      Thanks for posting a link to something I have seen. It was a fantastic representation of how the warmist/alarmist cause is rubbish. How unfortunate the warmist was unable to answer direct questions posed by many in the audience.

      But now I’d like you to answer my questions instead of deflecting attention as usual. I have been so good as to provide a reasonable degree of information. I’m interested to see your proof “debunking” what I have written.

      And please, some stats, figures, credible sources (not IPCC predictions, but actual data) would do nicely. No more links to the Guardian.

      The warmists often say they are the rational ones in this debate. So if you cannot rationally debate each point and sink me, it only proves your inability to do so. Go on…

    • graham says:

      07:24am | 10/07/11

      Monkton just go away with your spooky lies and by the way take the parrot Jones and the Mad Monk with you these two men/woman are very tied worn out liberals who scream there views until you turn off.

    • jeffb says:

      01:46pm | 10/07/11

      Ben, you’re just wrong. The answer to all three of your questions re contained within that SBS show, if you don’t agree with them that is another matter. I don’t see any point in the show where he evades questions either, it makes no sense at all that he would even try, he stepped up to the debate and tries to engage every question in a way the audience understands. Perhaps he is just no giving the answers you want to hear?

      There is nothing I can say that will change your mind as it is already set on some bizarre conspiracy theory. The information is out there in the public for you to read if you’re interested, I have no interest in trying to educate an internet troll with regards to climate science, its an exercise in futility. If you have a genuine interest go read, ignore the random blogs, actually read some technical information.

    • Ben says:

      04:09pm | 10/07/11

      Jeffb, it’s disappointing that you were unable to present any evidence debunking what I wrote.

      Oh well.

    • Cal says:

      05:05pm | 29/09/11

      No, the Big Lie is denial of global warming.

    • JT says:

      12:47pm | 08/07/11

      ‘‘Meanwhile he is drawing attention away from valid arguments about the carbon tax to focus on his own self-important, self-created crises.’‘

      You mean just like what you are doing here by attacking the man, not his argument?

      Useful idiot indeed.

    • Erick says:

      01:17pm | 08/07/11

      In the wake of Climategate and all the failed predictions, personal attacks are all the warmies have left.

      Sometimes I just wish they would debate the science honestly. But it seems they are incapable of doing so.

    • Rhino says:

      01:50pm | 08/07/11

      Erick, are you suggestings that science does not report honestly?

    • jeffb says:

      01:51pm | 08/07/11

      “In the wake of Climategate”? All the investigations into it showed no wrong doing of anyone involved, showed that their science was sound. That people keep desperately keep bringing it up shows desperation to find something with traction rather than actually tackling the science.

      JT, Monckton keeps giving the same speeches over and over, the same speeches that have been trashed for years because they just aren’t true. There are links further up in the thread detailing this, try reading them, these are actual experts on this field not just someone’s opinion.

      At this point if Monckton is not going to present any credible science he is giving no one anything to debate other than his opinions, ie himself.

      He truly is a useful idiot for pushing the government’s agenda by making the opposition seem so ridiculous for associating with him.

    • Anubis says:

      02:06pm | 08/07/11

      Those involved in “Climategate” were cleared by those involved in Climategate. One Pal clearing another is not valid science. Similar in the way to how Pal; Review has surplanted peer review in Climate Sciences.

    • Erick says:

      02:09pm | 08/07/11

      @Rhino - Some scientists do not report honestly. Especially climate scientists. Climategate proved that, and there have been more scandals since.

      @jeffb - Just keep on pretending nothing happened. Members of the general public can investigate the facts for themselves. That’s why your denial isn’t working.

    • Nafe says:

      02:42pm | 08/07/11

      Isn’t Mockton a believer in Climate Change but thinks Carbon Tax etc is an expensive waste of money because it won’t achieve anything?

      Isn;t this the same as Mark Dreyfus, Ross Garnaut and Tim Flannery said when they have all indicated that there won’t be a measurable difference for at least 1000 years. (well in Mark Dreyfus said you wont see any change in 25, 50 or 75 years)

      You have to take a realistic approach and even if you give man made climate change the benefit of the doubt, The miniscule amount we aim tro drop emmissions (5% of 1.7%) and everyone agrees will have zero net impact so why waste so much time and money on a token effort.

      A token effort is worse than doing nothing, If ou are serious you need to go all the way and have a carbon price in excess of $100 and increase it every year, or not bother at all.

    • jeffb says:

      02:46pm | 08/07/11

      Erick, go ahead and spell out what damning evidence you found through your own investigations. The mysterious trick that was conveniently linked in the exact same email? The casual conservations between people behaving like people do? The ?????

      I’m really interested to see what your imagination has come up with here. Maybe try addressing the result of the investigations if you’re having trouble coming up with anything.

      Anubis, who are science supposed to get to review their work? The only people qualified to understand their theories are people that also study in the same field, thus we have peer review. Experts on a field reviewing work done by other expert on that field, is it really that hard to understand?

      With regard to the investigations, these were done properly in the same way any malpractice investigation is done throughout our society. No one has called them into question except the people who wanted one specific result. Can you point to any evidence that these investigation were compromised, actual evidence not the opinion of some random blog.

    • jeffb says:

      03:05pm | 08/07/11

      Nafe, the claim that inaction, adaptation, is cheaper than action has been repeatedly debunked. Try the links closer to the top of the thread.

    • Erick says:

      03:22pm | 08/07/11

      @jeffb - Google it.

      You are not arguing in good faith; you are simply engaging in denial. There is no point in wasting time on your distractions.

      Meanwhile, the truth percolates.

    • jeffb says:

      03:51pm | 08/07/11

      Predictable Erick. If you’re going to make claims you need to back them up, that is how the real world works. Some random person’s opinion on the internet in the form of a blog is not a reputable source of information, it is just their opinion.

      Seriously, point out one flaw in the investigations. It can’t be that hard if they are as serious as you claim. You can’t because all you have is opinions from random blogs not actual facts.

      Of course I’m not arguing in good faith, you can’t when the argument is completely one sided. You’re the one who has made the claims, yet you cannot back them up with anything, you set the rules you now fail to meet.

      This could go on forever, you continually making claims with no basis in reality, me pointing out just that. Perhaps we’ll just leave it here and I’ll stop picking on your active imagination.

    • Denny Crane says:

      03:57pm | 08/07/11

      jeffb - you seem to be a fountain of knowledge. perhaps you could explain why there has been no warming in the last 10 years dispite CO2 levels increasing. Why? If the theory was correct then it should be hotter or is that why you idiots stopped calling it global warming and moved to climate change?

    • smiley says:

      04:58pm | 08/07/11

      That is hilarious. I have been reading the punch for a while now and am always amused at how Erick is always the first to comment on anything to do with climate change but I have never seen him shut down so comprehensively that he can think of no better reply than “you are not arguing in good faith”. Keep up the good work jeffB

    • Lennie Guilbeaux says:

      05:06pm | 08/07/11

      Tory, the scariest thing about Monckton is not that some people actually believe his anti-scientific theories are that he dtracts from valid argument and debate.  It is that there are so many Australians willing to listen to and believe conspiracy theories.  But then again when a person who should be fostering informed political debate and providing alternative policies, keeps screaming mindless slogans what can we expect.

    • Tom says:

      05:42pm | 08/07/11

      Lennie Guilbeaux, you and Tory are the ones screaming mindless slogans.
      BTW: are you a scientist? Are you a climate scientist.
      Is Al Gore a climate scientist?
      Is Tory a climate scientist?
      Nope? How could you possibly know more than Lord Monckton?

    • AAAdam says:

      07:44pm | 08/07/11

      “the claim that inaction, adaption is cheaper than action has been repeatedly debunked”

      Only IF the action taken wholly suceeds. And that is a huge IF in the given circumstances with climate change. If it doesn’t work (much more likely in given circumstances) such action is ludicrously more expensive.  Let us not forget, prevention is only cheaper than cure when you actually prevent something otherwise you incur the cost of both prevention and cure.

    • Derek says:

      09:41pm | 08/07/11

      Temperatures started rapidly increasing in the 1980’s, and most climate change proponents rely on this data as proof of climate change, when in fact it is a flaw in the measurement and adjustment methods.

      A very good discussion of this is covered in this document.  Amazing how figures can be fudged.

      http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_Part2_GlobalTempMeasure.htm

      If you don’t support climate change at this time it is harder to get your worked published or more accurately “funded”.  Just as it is harder to get decent funding for research into Cancer, Aids and a whole variety of REAL problems. If you don’t tow the line you loose your money.

      Science is too politicised, the science in relation to climate change is too young, and at this stage we do not possess processing power to even be .0000001% accurate, the variables are too great and the relationships of the variables are exponentially greater.  We have no idea and it is likely we will have no idea for next 100 years or more.  It is just religious bullshit when people claim the science is settled.

      There is nothing wrong with wanting to protect the environment, we should, but knee jerk reactions and rallying people behind the idea that “Carbon” is the big bad meany is ludicrous and absurd, it is overly simplistic and insults the intelligence of many Australians.

      Yes promote development of sustainable energy alternatives, however we must be realistic that there will not and cannot be a major shift away from carbon fuels in the short term.  All we can do is look at ways to minimise the impact of these fuels, and in fact that is naturally happening, cars are cleaner, more efficient , power stations are more efficient.  And we MUST consider Nuclear power if we are at all serious about moving from carbon based fuels. The market will also adjust based on natural pricing influences and will always be looking for cheaper and more efficient alternatives.  You cannot beat australians over the head with a Carbon Tax if there ARE NO FEASIBLE alternatives, it will not make it happen any quicker or better, in fact more likely we will be suckered into some 2nd rate technologies that will vastly decrease our standard of living.

    • acotrel says:

      10:34pm | 08/07/11

      @Rhino

      ‘Erick, are you suggestings that science does not report honestly?’

      Doctors are scientists - can THEY be trusted? Anyway the climate scientists at the Met Bureau can’t even get the weather report right!  So what would they know about climate change?

    • Steve Putnam says:

      12:22pm | 09/07/11

      @Eric Can you name a peak science body (eg Royal Society, CSIRO etc) from any country outside oil producers like Saudi Arabia et al that accepts the denialist position re AGW? Just one?.... No, I thought not.
      In that case could you desist from pedalling the lie that there is much divided opinion on the issue within the scientific community.

    • B says:

      01:32pm | 09/07/11

      @jeffb
      Really???  Like you have backed up your claims that Climate Change exists???  Wow.  What a hypocrite you are.

    • The righteous one says:

      12:49pm | 08/07/11

      at best ,with eyes like that he has got to have an overactive thyroid, which would explain everything. the rest of us just cant keep up with him.  either that or he is just an eccentric pom with a mouth for hire

    • Lordy M says:

      12:50pm | 08/07/11

      gulp
      You talking about me?

    • MarK says:

      01:03pm | 08/07/11

      Badger the continual insulting of a mans eyes that has Graves disease is not that funny.

      When you do it behind a screen name that you don’t normally use it really just proves you are a pointless coward.

    • cutelyconservative says:

      01:12pm | 08/07/11

      Is Lordy M really Old Mother Badger?
      Old roly poly American badger is masquerading as a lord?

    • Lordy M says:

      01:31pm | 08/07/11

      If Monckton can masquerade as a Lord or a source of knowledge, everything is fair game.
      gulp
      How’s that NO thing going for you piggies?

    • Knemon says:

      01:37pm | 08/07/11

      Nice one Lordy M - LOL, It is hard to take a guy that looks like this seriously!

    • non-warmist says:

      02:11pm | 08/07/11

      @Knemon, You were wanting to take Monckton seriously?

      People ever take you seriously? -  regardless of your looks.

      Infantile

    • Erick says:

      02:12pm | 08/07/11

      @Knemon - Monckton looks like he does because he is suffering from a thyroidal disease.

      You said what you said because you are suffering from a moral disease.

    • Knemon says:

      02:37pm | 08/07/11

      @ non-warmist - “People ever take you seriously?” - Not that I can ever recall.

      @ Erick - “a moral disease” - You should worry about yourself Dr Erick, not me.

    • Matt says:

      02:53pm | 08/07/11

      ”  Knemon says:

        01:37pm | 08/07/11

        Nice one Lordy M - LOL, It is hard to take a guy that looks like this seriously!”

      Does anyone in your circle of family or friends have an incurable or disfiguring disease? I would like to LOL at them, if you don’t mind posting a pic. Thanks in advance!

    • MarK says:

      04:27pm | 08/07/11

      This site moderation has got out of control. It is just pure filth that appears these days posted by cowards.

      My contempt for Badger and Shepherd just grow.

      Utterly pointless bile.

    • PTom says:

      05:22pm | 08/07/11

      MarK,
      Funny how it seem ok for you Leaky Conversatives to bag the PM for her looks but one of your golden childern cops some abuse you try to take the moral high ground.  Just weak.

    • Tom says:

      09:31pm | 08/07/11

      @PTom, OK bag him for his looks if it makes you feel better. But ...

      Most of the Gillard comments about her looks have come from people playing the victim card from your side of the fence. The rest of us believe that the banal comments about Gillard’s looks are embarrassing distract from the real issues regarding her immorality as leader of the country so we don’t welcome such distractions.

      I would have thought an intelligent person would have agreed that comments about Lord Monckton’s physical appearance detract from any real arguments in support of your tax. But, hey ... I don’t really think you would be comfortable with it.

    • Unionist says:

      08:21am | 09/07/11

      MarK says:01:03pm; “Badger the continual insulting of a mans eyes that has Graves disease is not that funny.”

      Is that what it is?? I thought is was to do with all the crap in that man’s brain pushing his eyeballs out.

    • jf says:

      12:09pm | 09/07/11

      PTom says:05:22pm | 08/07/11

      “Funny how it seem ok for you Leaky Conversatives to bag the PM for her looks but one of your golden childern cops some abuse you try to take the moral high ground.  Just weak. “

      I don’t recall MarK ever saying that Gillard was an incompetent disaster because she’s plain.

      Others may have but MarK has always claimed that Gillard was an
      incompetent disaster because she’s an incompetent disaster and backed it up by credible facts and opinion.

      Apart from that, the “you did it so so can we” argument is not only childish, it’s as weak as piss.

      All that said, and at the risk of Badger flirting with me again, I thought the original post was quite funny. 

      Lord Monckton is a kooky cat but he’s bloody well informed and worth listening to.

      His view on AGW is only supported by the fact that the best his opponents can do by way of rebuttal is to point out that he’s a bit eccentric and has funny eyes. After all, the same could be said about Adam Spencer.

      Oh and Tory, maybe look up the definition of irony. Monckton wasn’t trying to silence the journalist in question, he was merely trying to get a word in sideways.

      I thought journos had training in words and stuff.

    • Craig says:

      12:56pm | 08/07/11

      Funny story with Monckton.  Although I’m no fan of his, I always assumed that press outlets were being a bit unfair by running unflattering photographs of him looking like a bug-eyed alien.  Surely they could find a nice neutral photograph* to illustrate their stories?

      Then, I saw him giving a speech on TV, and realised that the bug-eyed monster photos were the only ones they’d ever get of him.

      * Which does lead me to ask why pictures of “experts” are actually required to illustrate such articles, since they don’t actually add all that much of import to the discussion.

    • non-warmist says:

      01:36pm | 08/07/11

      @Craig,  Why do journalists have their photos up beside their stuff?  Does what they look like have a bearing on what they write?  Is it supposed to influence the readers?  Perhaps it’s compulsory.

      You could say Monckton is sort of brave.  He could wear glasses to cover his disease/disability/whatever

    • Joan says:

      07:14pm | 08/07/11

      Craig would have it that only the bold, or beautiful or liars should be given space/viewed on TV

    • Craig says:

      09:19am | 11/07/11

      @non-warmist: I guess journalists put the photos up in the hope of getting some brand recognition going.  ie: You see Andrew Bolt or Barry Jones or Tory Shepherd’s grinning mug and sort of know what you’re going to be getting.  I’m sure that egotism plays a part in it too.

      But getting back to the main topic, look at this article.  There’s a picture of Monckton looking suitably crazy at the top there.  We already knew that the article is about him; it’s right there in the headline What’s the point of having the picture there except to make comments about how peculiar he looks?  There are plenty of reasons to laugh at Monckton, but his appearance shouldn’t be one of them.

    • Cal says:

      05:03pm | 29/09/11

      That’s what Monckton really looks like. Most photos and videos I’ve seen of him in fact make his bug-eyes look MORE pronounced.

    • Ben81 says:

      12:57pm | 08/07/11

      Just another sideshow.
      What we do know with absolute 100% certainty is the the carbon (dioxide) tax will not do anything at all about climate change, nothing, and therefore such an extreme measure is completely unjustified before you even get into the shoddy and undemocratic way it’s come about.
      Encouraging reduction of emissions is one thing, a tax that drives up the cost of doing business in Australia and the cost of Australian products that most probably won’t even reduce emissions anyway is on a whole new level of reckless stupidity that we haven’t seen in this country for a long time.

    • Fred says:

      01:16pm | 08/07/11

      Well yes, it won’t change the temperature, but neither will what the Libs are proposing.  So what the hell do we do now?

    • Steve says:

      01:24pm | 08/07/11

      Fred. What we do now is divert our scientists to findings ways to adapt and prosper from climate change rather than a futile attempt to stop it.

      Sorry to those offended by the words prosper and climate changes being used in the same sentence.

    • Ben81 says:

      01:36pm | 08/07/11

      Right now we do just enough to be seen to be doing something Fred, and nothing more.  Plant some trees and piss some money up the wall that saves us from wasting a whole lot more money.  A token effort designed solely to appease just enough of the noisy rabble who want to see us “do something” even though we can’t possibly have any effect at all on climate change so we can get on with running the country responsibly.

    • Anubis says:

      02:04pm | 08/07/11

      Eminent scientists from the Australian Academy of Sciences stated on Monday 4 July 2011 that “During the years 1998 and 2008 there had been no increase in global surface temperatures, ther had in fact been a 0.2c decrease.”

      Another Warmists prediction gone wrong, but this time it has been acknowledged by key scientists.

    • Nathan says:

      02:47pm | 08/07/11

      iansand, But was that previous warming natural or man made?

      The limate changes and has changed for millions of years, How do yu know whats natural and whats man made.

    • Steven says:

      02:58pm | 08/07/11

      The problem is the argument is based on predictions, allowing for any half plausible theory to have to be considered because conclusions are ultimately only speculative. The argument should be based on the actual pollution currently being created and how corporations and governments can do better now, regardless of what will happen in the future environmentally.
      The reliance of neo-liberal policies of letting the market sort it out has created a system based on profit where jobs are given to the cheapest bidder, not those who will do the best job. Applying this to environmental issues, such as waste management and enrgy infrastructure, has created a situation where pollution is managed in regard to its financialcost rather than its envornmental impact, getting rid of whatever it is cheaply and efficiently without regard for long term costs. Consequently, any call for major infrastructure change or real dedicated investment into alternatives are met with resistance based on financial risk, blinding the opportunity to create a cleaner, smarter way to do things for the sake of a few dollars gained or maintained today.

    • iansand says:

      03:06pm | 08/07/11

      Nathan - People far smarter than I am seem quite confident.  What I find risible is that people like Anubis make pronouncements that give no sources and, when a curious person such as myself tracks those sources down, it is plain that at best the pronouncements are selective quotation and at worst are dihonest fabrication.  I realise that Anubis is a dupe, and is simply regurgitatiing stuff he reads on a blog, but at some stage an intelligent person must start doubting the crap he is fed.

      However, as to the likely cause of warming:
      1 There is no doubt that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
      2 There is no doubt that we had an industrial revolution a couple of centuries ago, which has continued.
      3 There is no doubt that, in the course of that revolution and to date, we have burned a shitload of fossil fuels.
      4 There is no doubt that burning fossil fuels produces CO2.
      5 There is no doubt that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by ~30% over the last 150 years.
      6 There is no doubt that, over a timescale of decades, the atmosphere has warmed.

      It would interest me where you have room into which to shoehorn doubt.

    • Erick says:

      03:25pm | 08/07/11

      @Steven - Thank you for a sensible comment. It’s getting all too rare these days.

    • MM says:

      03:42pm | 08/07/11

      @annubis

      Please feel free to supply a link to this article by The Australian Academy of Science.

      So far I haven’t found any climate science related information released on 4 July, 2011.

      And it seems you suffer from the same problems as Lord Monckton.  Stating snippets of facts which ignore the whole picture.  Add to this that the topic is climate change (not warming now) as too many people were using the fact that temperatures in some parts of the world would decrease to debunk the science.

      But hey if you can find a single line in a report, which you can take completely out of context and use to support your argument, all the more to you.  I wish I could be so close minded.

    • Denny Crane says:

      04:32pm | 08/07/11

      iansand - There is no doubt that more CO2 has been pumped into the air over the last decade than over any other decade in history. There is also no doubt that there has been no warming in that time. Why?

    • iansand says:

      05:33pm | 08/07/11

      Denny Crane - Read the link that Anubis didn’t give you, but I did.  I assume that you and he get your information from the same blog of half- truths.

      The aerosols in the air from burning shit has slowed warming, according to that paper (although I have seen other data that suggests that warming has continued).  So we are polluting ourselves into limited protection.  There is no guarantee that the effect, if it exists, will continue and I am not sure that polluting ourselves into protection is a good long term strategy.

    • MarK says:

      07:27pm | 08/07/11

      At least one of the warmists zealots read the paper I have been linking repeatedly hoping someone would.

      sanderson nearly gets it but as per usual he fails to apply lateral thinking.

      What the paper says is that the temperature of the globe has not statisically risen for a decade even though there was a large rise, as we are boringly and repeatedly told, a linear rise in CO2 over the same period.

      What sanderson misses of course is that these scientists refuse to believe their models are wrong that tell them that more CO2 means linear (look at all the graphical scare campaign projections) temperature rises.

      They then say ohhh it must be other bits of the “pollution” that is limiting the rise. It can’t be the models are wrong.

      What a farce.

      Well done sanderson at least you read the paper or skimmed it. Shame you cannot see the absolutely ludicrous knots these imbeciles tie themselves in to keep the religious faith in the models which time and time again are shown to be false. Still you have a small amount of potential. unlike others.

      Open question to the religious zealots on this blog including Shepherd. How many more years must pass with no warming before you might query the models yourself?

    • The Badger says:

      07:50pm | 08/07/11

      EXTRA EXTRA
      Read all about it!!!!

      Last decade warmest ever
      NASA says:January 2000 to December 2009 was the warmest decade on record.

      http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2010/jan/HQ_10-017_Warmest_temps.html

      In other news expert googler commenting on The Punch links to site of retired weatherman who used to do the weather for an AM radio station.

      Who you gonna trust? The weatherman or NASA?
      Deniers of moon landings; AGW or September 11th need not reply.

    • iansand says:

      07:56pm | 08/07/11

      Dunno, MarK.  How long will it take you to accept that a decade’s warming is fuck nothing in the face of a century’s warming?

    • jf says:

      12:15pm | 09/07/11

      iansand says:07:56pm | 08/07/11

      “Dunno, MarK.  How long will it take you to accept that a decade’s warming is fuck nothing in the face of a century’s warming? “

      Dunno iansand. How long will it take you to accept that a century’s warming is fuck nothing in the face of a couple of century’s cooling? And then warming? And then cooling again? And cooling a bit more? And then bloody frigid? And then getting quite balmy? And then cooling again? And then warming again?

      And more importantly, iansand, assuming we actually believe that the globe’s climate has only changed this once in the last hundred years, would you care to tell us how this tax is going to stop that if it excludes carbon and rebates carbon emitters and carbon users?

    • B says:

      05:00pm | 09/07/11

      @iansand

      There is no doubt that correlation DOES NOT MEAN EFFECT!!!

      Also where is all the EMPIRICAL evidence to show your claims?  Your links show to NO EMPIRICAL evidence.  You know, the evidence REAL SCIENTISTS debate on.

      Learn some facts about science.  Maybe they you can participate in a debate intelligently.

    • iansand says:

      08:12am | 10/07/11

      B - This is one that I prepared earlier:

      1 There is no doubt that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
      2 There is no doubt that we had an industrial revolution a couple of centuries ago, which has continued.
      3 There is no doubt that, in the course of that revolution and to date, we have burned a shitload of fossil fuels.
      4 There is no doubt that burning fossil fuels produces CO2.
      5 There is no doubt that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by ~30% over the last 150 years.
      6 There is no doubt that, over a timescale of decades, the atmosphere has warmed.

      What do you call empirical evidence?

    • Gregg says:

      12:57pm | 08/07/11

      I suppose the guys appearance and mannerisms will put a lot of people off even before he opens his mouth and he might well be in the Al Gore category, it being extremely unfortunate that we do have extremes in all sort of areas of life.

      I’d not waste too much time on reporting even what we have missed with him Tory and find a better topic like the vagaries of the whatever we will call the Carbon Tax, for now we have no CT on petrol for some, something Juliar snuck in there to stick it to Tony and apparently only 500 comp-anies now to be hit whilst the Greens are saying that petrol will not be excluded forever.

      Along with nthat we have the lets get the cattle moving again and a few Labor backbenchers not too happy with that, so you do have to wonder just when someone may dies and we can have a by-election.
      What are the ages/health of a few of the Labor fatties anyway?

      And is it true Jules has got them all on three monthly medical checks at taxpayers expense and a strict diet and exercise regime?

    • James1 says:

      01:07pm | 08/07/11

      Despite my inherent scepticism and opposition to the carbon tax, I can not bring myself to respect anyone who insists on using a title like lord.  The whole thing (titles, mannerisms, style of argument) is very unfortunate for us lay-sceptics.

    • MarK says:

      01:01pm | 08/07/11

      Yes slime the man Tory.

      Do you have any arguments against his points?

      Anything?

      Just one?

      Did you mention any of the criticisms he has of the science? Do you address anything at all to do with what the carbon will do to the temperature of the planet (nothing) and at what cost (huge and ever increasing).

      Pathetic hatchet job is pathetic.

      Disgusting and disgraceful attack. The “plot” is proven by you being a warming apologist and writing this crap. Are you going to give Lord Monckton a right of reply to your character assassination attempt?

      Have you discussed in the piece the GetUp! plan to get it’s members to ring the Bronco’s and other venues claiming to be club members and get them to cancel his pre booked rooms? Nahhh. That would involve reporting both sides of an issue.

      Still calling yourself a journalist? I call bullshit if you do.

      What about the “plot” by GetUp! to get certain outlets banned because they hold certain views? Is that a “plot”? Or not? There are some interesting historical contexts such a plan could be framed as. In fact there was an interesting demonstration in Melbourne recently that highlighted this.

      You are an agenda driven woman that has lost all credibility with me forever. As I said earlier you have all the reputable (in your view such as it is) scientists on your side and you resort to regurgitated insults about venereal diseases from The Drum. You cannot attack his ideas can you?

      gg Tory

      gg

    • shady says:

      01:20pm | 08/07/11

      Second your call of bullshit.

    • Joel B1 says:

      01:25pm | 08/07/11

      Too true, Tory is unfortunately just a bit too glib to be taken seriously as a journalist.


      And she’s real quick with the “censor” button too.

    • RyaN says:

      01:32pm | 08/07/11

      Hear hear MarK, this is absolutely abhorrent partisan crap!
      This is the sort of hate propaganda one would expect in Nazi Germany, just translate Monkton to Jew and see just what type of person Tory actually is.
      Is it any wonder he linked you “the end is nigh” alarmists to the Nazis, you just proved his point.
      Abhorrent and DISGUSTING!

    • Kurisu Sonsaku says:

      01:32pm | 08/07/11

      I have to agree with these guys Tory, what you wrote was a steaming pile.

    • The Badger says:

      01:48pm | 08/07/11

      The science is settled
      The sooner this charlatan gulp is put to rest, them better for all of us.

      You guys should just saunter over to the Bolt blog and find some comfort in the little nest of deniers and conspiracy fanatics and
      leave the rest of us to get on with real action.

    • Charlie says:

      01:55pm | 08/07/11

      Hell Tory, it looks like you’ve copped a real spray there. And quite deserved I’d say. Tell us this. Getup say they are entitled to launch a campaign aimed at damaging businesses which pay for ads opposing a carbon tax that PM Gillard promised us would not occur under her Govt. Yet even though recent polls have shown a majority of Australians oppose a carbon tax, Gillard’s Govt is going to spend $12 million of taxpayers’ money on an ad campaign promoting a tax that a majority of us don’t want. Surely any principled, respected journalist would have made this the major issue, rather than taking cheap pot shots at Monckton without stating how much the temperature will fall as a result of the carbon tax. Pity you aren’t employed on the News of the World, Tory.

    • jeffb says:

      01:56pm | 08/07/11

      Where is the proof of any of your claims MarK, I’ve only seen them mentioned on some very questionable blogs.

      The arguments against Monckton’s opinions have been made repeatedly, perhaps you should try addressing those arguments instead of pretending they don’t exist?

    • Kevin says:

      02:02pm | 08/07/11

      What a bunch of hypocrites.
      None of you seem to mind when Tim Flannery’s name and reputation get dragged through the mud.

    • Vaunted says:

      02:09pm | 08/07/11

      Third it. Monckton asks serious questions, to which we don’t get proper answers. There’s never been a meaningful debate, the left and other vested interests have made sure that sceptical scientists are shut out and excluded from grant money, and as this article demonstrates, anyone who presumes to question the so-called ‘climate’ science (remember all those scary predictions?) is offensively denigrated, mocked, slagged off and labelled.

    • Vaunted says:

      02:16pm | 08/07/11

      Tim Flannery drags his own name and reputation through the mud. He needs to declare his pecuniary interests in promoting alternative energy, and to either stop calling himself a scientist, or stop making stupid, politicised, over-the-top climate predictions that don’t materialise.

    • AAAdam says:

      02:17pm | 08/07/11

      Well said MarK. I’d also like to hear Tory explain what is wrong with some of his suggestions? The one about governments being expected to live witihn their means and use their money to mitigate the effects of climate change as they occur sounds like common sense to me. Much more logical than somehow thinking a carbon tax on a few random market sectors in Australia will stop the world warming, noting their is not even any empirical evidence manmade CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels even causes climate change so no-one can definitively say if reducing our manmade CO2 emissions will even do anything to mitigate climate change, other than cost us money, reduce our future standards of living and hurt the Australian economy.

    • Nafe says:

      03:00pm | 08/07/11

      You all need to get a copy of The Spectator Australia this week. There is going to be a debate in Sydney on the science.

      Apparently it was very hard to get any pro climate change warmist on. Gillard, Combet, Dreyfus, Flannery, Garnaut all said no.

      The debate will involve on the Warmist side, John Hewson, Benjamin McNeil and Mark Latham

      for the Skeptics Lord Nigel Lawson, Ian Pilmer and Gary Johns

    • non-warmist says:

      03:19pm | 08/07/11

      @Nafe.  One name fairly jumps out.  FLANNERY said no.

    • jeffb says:

      03:36pm | 08/07/11

      Are people still seriously trying to debate the science?.. It’s been what 30 years now?.. How long do we have to wait to act just because a small minority don’t understand the theory?

      And please… Plimer? The man is nothing but an expert on digging up rocks and making alot of money. He has such an obvious conflict of interest considering the company boards he sits that the motives of any debate including him are deeply questionable. He is a geologist with little knowledge of climatology.

    • melle says:

      03:53pm | 08/07/11

      @jeffb.  So an Ian Plimer is the equivalent of a Tim Flannery?

    • iansand says:

      04:00pm | 08/07/11

      Plimer can say that, over geological scales climate has varied, and he is correct.  He can also say, without fear of dispute, that levels of CO2 have varied over time.

      What he cannot say is what sea levels were ar various times, nor can he say what the frequency of extreme weather events may have been.  It may be that his deep time prognostications show that what is predicted about the consequences of global warming have happened before.  That does not reduce the effect of this round of warming.

    • Mikeymike says:

      04:39pm | 08/07/11

      “Monckton is, really, turning the arguments against climate change and climate science into a joke”  Have to agree with MarK on this one; which arguments, specifically?  You should be able to shoot them all down, Tory.

      He’s not the first person to fall foul of Godwin’s.  And let’s not pretend that he’s the only one in this debate.  At least he has the spine to admit wrongdoing and apologise.  Still waiting on that from the other side.  Which kind of makes him look better.  A point that you failed to mention, Tory.  Must be an oversight on your part.  Maybe you weren’t aware.

      “He said of these murky unnamed characters who can apparently cancel events with a single anonymous phone call that they might be “what Lenin calls ‘useful idiots’”.”

      You mean like this? 
      http://www.news.com.au/business/get-up-threatens-mass-boycott-of-grocery-companies-over-carbon-tax/story-e6frfm1i-1226090264041

      Since you’ve enclosed it in quotes, I assume that you’re not aware.  Lenin’s “useful idiots” is an historical term that refers to soviet sympathisers in western democracies.  Though Lenin is not known to have uttered the term (and it would have been out of character to do so), it is mistakenly attributed to him.

    • Tory Shepherd

      Tory Shepherd says:

      04:53pm | 08/07/11

      Partisan? On an opinion site? Say it isn’t so!

      And yes, it’s clearly being censored, JoelB1, look how no one gets to hear what you have to say!

      Ah, and Godwin’s Law there, RyaN?

      He he.

    • Jay Santos says:

      05:28pm | 08/07/11

      “...What he cannot say is what sea levels were ar various times…”

      So the cliffs at Bronte at Tamarama tell me nothing about the height of the sea in geological history?

      The presence of Permian (glacial) tillite at Werribee is an unexplainable anomaly?

      The heavy mineral sands that proliferate the Eucla Basin in South Australia tell me bupkis about ancient sea levels?

      “...what the frequency of extreme weather events may have been…”

      That’s exactly what the geological record tells us.

      Where do you think all the oil came from?

      Why are there no more dinosaurs?

      What about the various Ice Ages?

      The continent of Australia was once connected to India and South America.

      Are these extreme enough events.

    • iansand says:

      06:10pm | 08/07/11

      Jay Santos - I hate to be completely dismissive, but the sea level stuff tells us two things.  One is that sea level has varied quite a lot, and has been higher in the past.  Or that plate tectonics happens.  Choose your time scale.

      Current theories about dinosaurs suggest a big kablowie from space, so no weather there.  What the rest of your stuff has to do with extremes of weather is something at which you will have to have another go. Can you tell me anything about the frequency of tropical storms in bygone eras, for example?

      You do understand that sea level rises and an increased frequency of storms are a couple of things predicted by climate change?

    • Matt says:

      06:18pm | 08/07/11

      “He’s become this buffoon of a character, whispering of underhand plots, and repeatedly linking advocates of action on climate change to Nazism. He’s not doing his cause any favours at all. “

      Godwin’s Law there Tory?

      He he indeed.

    • RB says:

      06:56pm | 08/07/11

      Agree 100%.But then Tory is the poster child for crusading greenies.It doesnt matter the subject, be it climate change, multiculturism or problems with muslim immigration, Tory is the girl to screech rubbish & wave your placard in defence of the latest lefty agenda.People like her are a big part of the reason Australia is going down the toilet.Then again i agree reading her latest crap to see if this ‘jounalist’ has set her standard any lower.She never fails to deliver, haha..  smile

    • Jay Santos says:

      09:38pm | 08/07/11

      “...You do understand that sea level rises and an increased frequency of storms are a couple of things predicted by climate change?...”

      Bullshit.

      You have no tangible evidence of any such “predictions” of future events beyond pure fantasy and speculation.

      And the historically observed record versus the “predictions” of the time would make you a liar.

      Al Gore tried this line of garbage after Katrina and was pwned; much like you are in desperately tying weather observations to to climate.

      And this from someone so fixated on time scales.

      The gaping flaw in your argument is that in recognising and accepting that sea levels have risen AND fallen why are you fixated only on the “predicted” rise?

      What makes YOUR time on earth so special and worth preserving under glass?

    • LeftRightOut says:

      07:30am | 09/07/11

      Agree with this being critical of Tory. Her politics are clearly of the left, and so, she uses the same tools as her counterparts, smear, ridicule and character assassination. She is was well aware at the time of writing this utter tish, that GetUp! Were responsible for the broncos cancellation. She was well aware of GetUp!‘s letter to FGA members threatening them with boycott.
      Tory is quite weak as an opinionista, she constantly fails to land any blows on her marks, and consistently humiliates herself - she has done so again here.

      Tory, how about writing something about AstroTurf organizations such as GetUp! Or, considering your leftist politics, try finding a conservative AstroTurf org… Good luck with that…amateur.

    • iansand says:

      09:42am | 09/07/11

      Jay Santos - Predictions of past events aren’t predictions.

    • jf says:

      12:19pm | 09/07/11

      jeffb says:03:36pm | 08/07/11

      “It’s been what 30 years now?.. “

      No it hasn’t jeffb. Thirty years ago the theory was that the climate was cooling.

    • Anthony L says:

      01:01pm | 08/07/11

      “He’s become this buffoon of a character, whispering of underhand plots, and repeatedly linking advocates of action on climate change to Nazism.”

      You mean like alarmists continually linking Anthropogenic Climate Change sceptics to Holocaust deniers? That never comes under any scrutiny from the Left but it’s used on a daily basis.  Then there is also the usual truck load of insults and sliming the left haul at sceptics.

      Hypocrites.

    • Craig says:

      01:12pm | 08/07/11

      I guess you’ve never heard of the “high moral ground”.

    • RyaN says:

      01:21pm | 08/07/11

      @Anthony L: not to mention their fascist request to have “denier” tattooed on the forehead of anyone who doesn’t buy into their fact-less religion.

    • mid says:

      01:21pm | 08/07/11

      I think you’ll find that when we ‘alarmists’ call you a ‘denier’, it has nothing to do with the Holocaust, and everything to do with the fact that any piece of information that goes against your world view is automatically ‘denied’.

      Your repeated regurgitation of the whole “don’t link me to the holocaust” line is getting a little tired. Not to mention the fact that your use of the term “sceptic” is more than a little liberal, you may want to check the dictionary definition of that one when you so easily throw it around.

    • John says:

      01:29pm | 08/07/11

      al-qaeda deniers, the 9/11 deniers, the weapons of mass destruction deniers, osama bin laden killing deniers, the moon deniers, the global warming deniers, the banker deniers, the globalist deniers, the marxist deniers the gaddafi is evil deniers . Is it me? or is it that history and the present is manufactured fiction??? The entire western society is living a lie.

    • Hammond says:

      01:35pm | 08/07/11

      >make statement of historical fact that is not 100% completely sympathetic to jews

      >get called a holocaust denier

      >criticise an Israeli policy

      >get called an anti-semite, and soon enough accused of Holocaust denial

      oy, vey!

    • James1 says:

      01:49pm | 08/07/11

      Its you, John.

    • non-warmist says:

      01:56pm | 08/07/11

      @Anthony L ........ Agree completely -  Hypocrites

    • Anubis says:

      02:14pm | 08/07/11

      OK @ Mid - You explain the findings of the Australian Academy of Sciences, released just last Monday, that there has been no increase in Global Temperatures between 1998 and 2008 and there was, in fact, a decreas of 0.2c. If you can explain that then please inform the scientists because they stated that they were at a loss as to why that was. This was from the leading Global Warming scientists in Australia -actually admitting that there was no warming.

    • Anthony L says:

      02:52pm | 08/07/11

      @Mid - I’ll challenge you to a debate any day on the science. The fact is the alarmists can’t support their theories with evidence.

    • Ted says:

      03:09pm | 08/07/11

      We also had the turd Brown (quit apt really) call Abbott a Facist within a few days of this Nazism statment,. But where was the media in holding Brown to account.

    • John says:

      03:22pm | 08/07/11

      James1, i think the people who believe in conspiracys have a more accurate view how the world functions then the lemmings that get their information from the papers, television and commercial internet sites.

      Here is a video clip on 9/11, where a mainstream media source stated that WTC towers could not have collapsed using thermite.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpPNRrylH00&feature=player_embedded

      This crazy, insane, radical conspiracy theorist proves them wrong.
      It’s an honor being part of these lunatic conspiracy theorists! enjoy lemmings!

    • Mythica says:

      03:59pm | 08/07/11

      @Anthony L, Cant wait for the debate…
                          wink

    • James1 says:

      04:04pm | 08/07/11

      If I have to choose between stuff up and conspiracy, I go stuff up every time John.  Governments are not competent enough to acheive the things you accuse them of.  They are not competent enough to administer a program of installing insulation in people’s houses, let alone mastermind a massive conspiracy to bring down two buildings, blow up a large chunk of another, run interference on a global terrorist organisation that doesn’t really exist, and keep it all quiet at the same time.  You have far too much faith in the competence of governments, my friend.

    • james says:

      04:26pm | 08/07/11

      John, I think that people that believe in conspiracies are easily-led, paranoid fruit cakes. That said I do look forward to reading your posts about secret marxist/CIA/international banker/lizard people conspiracies. If I did not think that you so wholeheartedly believe in the zany theories that you continue to write about I would say that you are one of the finest satirists of our age.

    • John says:

      04:27pm | 08/07/11

      James

      It’s cohesion with in the media networks, intelligence agency’s and governments. They create the fictional reality tidal wave, and if anyone wants to go against it, they going to be criticized by this cohesive entity. This tidal wave is what we call power and influence. Western media and politicians work cohesively. If anyone country, political party goes out of line, they will be ridiculed by the western mainstream media. The west is being run powerful immoral influence.

    • Psychokanga says:

      01:07pm | 08/07/11

      Tory while agree that Monkton does come out with some interesting assertions to support his case the same could be said for the numerous over the top claims by evangelical warmenistas.  The problem I have with it all is that the claims/predictions made by scientists that prove to be wrong are ignored.  For once I would like to see some questioning of the scientists that way people wouldn’t go looking for others to fill the void when obvious deficiencies are found or predictions turn out to be incorrect.

    • Tory Shepherd

      Tory Shepherd says:

      03:50pm | 08/07/11

      Psychokanga, I agree - there’s been far too many rabid claims on both sides. The problem I think is that it’s hard to distinguish between the scientists making those rabid claims and the media reporting of them - where as with Monckton, it’s all him.

    • iansand says:

      04:04pm | 08/07/11

      Psychokanga - The disputes among scientists happened over a couple of decades.  They ended about a decade or so ago.  The scientific community did not go into popular media until there was a pretty strong consensus.  They were cautious that way.

    • MarK says:

      04:33pm | 08/07/11

      I call bullshit Shepherd.

      Disgraceful cowardly remark.

      Again.

    • Ripa says:

      05:26pm | 08/07/11

      @Psychokanga
      Itll never happen, soon as they start questioning the science the AGW side collapses.

      @Tory
      Crock of shit, when it comes to carbon tax, man made CO2 planetary destruction, the punch is all about the pro CO2 tax bullshit, when was the last time you or your comrades posted anything anti CO2 tax. Its clear a lot of comments by climate change preachers dont bother to attack Moncktons analysis they focus on his appearance, when that happens you know he is onto something.

    • Psychokanga says:

      06:22pm | 08/07/11

      @iansand using the term consensus immediately draws my scientifically trained mind to yell bullshit!  There are significant enough issues still unexplained to warrant continued questioning and testing of the hypotyhesis of CO2 induced warming to the extent that some would argue.  To put it bluntly it only takes one fact to destroy a hypothesis and the continued behaviour by some climate scientists of refusing to release raw data so that their statistical methods and subsequent findings can be tested heightens my doubts

    • iansand says:

      07:59pm | 08/07/11

      Absolutely, Psychokanga.  Produce your fact.

    • Andrew says:

      08:18pm | 08/07/11

      I call Wanker MarK.

      We all know you are his love child. His reputation preceeds him. How is his Noble Prize? Was that for curing AIDS or Cancer?

      The man is a toss pot.

      Have a nice day

    • MarK says:

      10:02am | 09/07/11

      Interesting point Andrew. Another intellectual giant enters the fray I see.

    • b says:

      07:17pm | 09/07/11

      @iansand

      Produce your facts that the world is warming.

      Cant can you???

    • iansand says:

      08:18am | 10/07/11

      b - The current orthodoxy from the nutter side is that the world is warming but we don’t have anything to do with it, and anyway it is cheaper to adapt than prevent.  Do try to keep up.

      But here is one http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/  But, no doubt, NASA is in on the conspiracy.

    • Jon says:

      01:10pm | 08/07/11

      Funny that a bloke who looks like Sid from Ice Age would be arguing there’s nothing wrong with the climate. When he teams up with a sabre-toothed tiger and sarcastic mastodon, it’s time to panic people.

    • Kassandra says:

      01:11pm | 08/07/11

      “the climate change sceptic movement”

      Don’t you read or listen to anything the people you keep on criticising are actually saying? Obviously not. Just like our PM and her taxpayer-funded spruikers. Nobody is sceptical that climate changes and you know it.

      The “climate change sceptic” label and its even nastier sibling “climate change denier” is a deliberately disingenuous ploy that simply demonstrates the sneering bias of the person using it.

      Ridiculing an east target such as an eccentric Pommy peer and by association trying to thereby ridicule the “movement” he is associated with is a cheap shot.

    • Blind Freddy says:

      02:37pm | 08/07/11

      Perhaps it is because the “credible sceptics” don’t disown the nutters.

      It seems to me that its the principle of “your enemies are my enemies” that both unifies and undermines the “sceptics” case.

      Those attending Monckton’s “lectures”, then buy and on-sell what he is selling, deserve the same derision as Monckton himself.

    • ShamWow says:

      01:17pm | 08/07/11

      Denying climate change is not the right way to go about opposing an economically irresponsible climate change tax.

    • Kevin says:

      01:21pm | 08/07/11

      Apparently, Lord Monckton and Adam Spencer didn’t see eye to eye.

    • mick says:

      01:24pm | 08/07/11

      tory your an educated idiot

    • Warren says:

      01:48pm | 08/07/11

      “tory your an educated idiot”

      The irony.

    • Dew Point says:

      02:09pm | 08/07/11

      Sorry to burst your comfortable, I’m a smarty pants bubble Warren, but it’s not particularly ironic that mick spelt “you’re” incorrectly.
      He was accusing Tory of being educated, not making himself out to be.

    • Warren says:

      03:33pm | 08/07/11

      “educated idiot”.

      Surely this is an oxymoron @Dew Point? Hence the irony.

    • jf says:

      12:24pm | 09/07/11

      Warren says:03:33pm | 08/07/11

      “educated idiot”.

      “Surely this is an oxymoron @Dew Point? Hence the irony.”

      There are plenty of educated idiots out there Warren. And plenty of pretty smart people that didn’t go to uni.

      Not ironic at all.

    • Warren says:

      10:01am | 10/07/11

      Allow me to paste a definition of idiot:

      ” A person of profound mental retardation having a mental age below three years and generally being unable to learn connected speech or guard against common dangers”

      I guess if you think drooling is educated behaviour then I would be wrong.

    • jf says:

      08:01am | 12/07/11

      Warren says: 10:01am | 10/07/11

      Allow me to paste an alternative one

      “an utterly foolish or senseless person”.

      I assumed that everyone but an idiot would assume that we were using the definition most commonly used and understood.

      As this came from the same dictionary that you used, you are either a liar or an idiot: guess which definition I’m using.

    • RyaN says:

      01:27pm | 08/07/11

      Wow, and you call yourself a “journalist” hell this is more of a propaganda piece specifically designed to denigrate without substance.

      Absolutely pathetic, not even one issue taken to task, what a pathetic joke you are.

    • AdamC says:

      01:36pm | 08/07/11

      Tory, why are lefties so obsessed with this guy?

    • fml says:

      04:57pm | 08/07/11

      We dont like the way he looks at us.

    • Tory Shepherd

      Tory Shepherd says:

      04:58pm | 08/07/11

      I’m not sure, AdamC. I suspect it may have something to do with the fact that the climate change sceptics are so desperate for support they’ve resorted to enlisting this buffoon, which makes them giggle!

    • The Badger says:

      06:30pm | 08/07/11

      I’m lovin this side of you Tory.
      especially the giggle bit.

    • MarK says:

      10:13pm | 08/07/11

      Interesting seeing Shepherd finally make the admission.

      Makes the rest of her reporting suspect on any issue though. Obviously she is wedded to the left on this and needs them to retain power to fulfil her climate needs.

      She is compromised in reporting and opinion and should be removed. Nothing she says can be trusted and must be viewed through the prism of her bias.

      If she truly believes the warmist mantra then she believes she has to save the world. A crusader trying to save the world will obviously do anything to ensure their agenda happens.

      I trust nothing she says any more regarding politics. A compromised journalist is a dangerous thing.

    • Jack Cook says:

      01:42pm | 08/07/11

      One of the most pathetic piece “Me Too” apparent journalism I have ever read. maybe the so called journalist should go get a job with the Picture or the Post rag, this has the same credibility.

    • shane says:

      01:47pm | 08/07/11

      Haven’t been back to the punch in a while. Much as it was when I left. A bunch of right-wing self proclaimed experts hurling insults at writers and commenters who don’t agree with them.

      I’ll be off now. maybe I’ll check back in another few months. No doubt to see the same tired old handles flinging the same tired old tripe.

      Great community you got going here guys.

    • Cassandra says:

      02:12pm | 08/07/11

      @shane

      I know. it’s depressing. And it’s just about the same for every article.

      It’d be great to read a piece where the readers expressed their differences of opinion in a reasonable way without the personal attacks or the predictable lines. You know - a debate, not a series of rants.

      Great community - yeah one of the best.

      Good luck folks

    • RyaN says:

      03:04pm | 08/07/11

      @shane: “hurling insults at writers and commenters who don’t agree with them. ” 
      Oh the irony!
      Did you read the article mate?

    • Nafe says:

      03:09pm | 08/07/11

      The comments mirror the story quite well, You say disgraceful comments but where is your enlightened contribution? Where is the argument from the article writer (refuse to call her a journalist) in regards to the issues and not just shoot the messenger.

      It’s the same old garbage every day from Tory and its never analytical, its never thought through and it never holds any kind of fact or argument. If you wish to increase the level of comments, I would insist in an increase of the level of journalism.

    • AKoiLus says:

      01:48pm | 08/07/11

      Funny how through all these discussions on climate change I am yet to read anything by someone who believes a Carbon Tax or an EST is the way to go. So WTF is the government doing by creating one? Democracy my a##!
      So what if this guy is as ugly as a hat full of a##holes. He seems to be the only voice in the wilderness, and I thank him for it, but just drop the the Lordly crap mate. Your in egalitarian Australia now. Drop the pomp and more of us will listen, and lets face it you need to be heard.

    • fml says:

      04:58pm | 08/07/11

      I have posted a couple, are you skipping over them?

    • Blind Freddy says:

      06:04pm | 08/07/11

      You obviously need to broaden you reading - and your mind may follow . . . . nah? Didn’t think so.

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      10:45pm | 08/07/11

      Actually I’m in favor of a carbon tax, just not one badly implemented. You know my mantra by now- no compensation, carbon tariffs, proceeds towards building nuclear power plants, No ETS, population stabilization etc

    • David C says:

      01:50pm | 08/07/11

      Wasnt itGetUp that got the Broncos Club to cancel Moncktons talk?
      If he is such an idiot why not let him keep on talking and making a fool of himself?

    • Anubis says:

      01:50pm | 08/07/11

      Useful Idiots indeed Tory - Like the useful idiots of GetUp who are threatening and blackmailing businesses who don’t agree with their view of Global Cooling (not that now is it) Global Warming (no longer that either is it) Global Warming. These useful idiots have been threatening consumer backlash and concerted campaigns against any venue that hosts Monkton.

      He has a point of view that he wishes to get across and the Warmist zealots are actively working to censor him by refusing venues for his talks. That has been one of the main problems with the Global Warming oops sorry, Climate Change (gotta get the right terminology) movement - their refusal to hold open and honest debate with opposing viewpoints, that along with deliberately hiding research protocols, base figures, doctoring data, Pal Review (they have totally destroyed the credibility of the peer review system).  They have made themselves a law unto themselves. Secretive and destructive religious cults operate in this very same way.

    • Kevin Rennie says:

      01:52pm | 08/07/11

      I’m planning a citizen journalism project at the FOUR DEGREES OR MORE? Australia in a Hot World conference at Melbourne Uni next week. My aim is to write/produce multi-media for both online and traditional media and provide some balance to the media coverage that Monckton is and will be getting. Would appreciate any support. Details: http://t.co/cxxioTu Let’s swap fear for facts!

    • kate says:

      01:57pm | 08/07/11

      he looks like a frog. #justsayin

    • The Badger says:

      02:24pm | 08/07/11

      Put his head on Matt Preston’s body and you have
      Mr. Toad, Esq of Toad Hall
      A true peer if ever there was one.

      gulp

    • The Badger says:

      03:09pm | 08/07/11

      I reckon fairsfair may have hit upon the reason for his bug eye’d look and it has something to do with a potato.
      I think this is some obscure use for potatoes those in the deep south have perfected after mastering a similar use for bananas.

      For further information please consult with fairsfair over on the open thread.

    • Brizben says:

      03:15pm | 08/07/11

      Monckton also claims to have found a cure for Graves Disease. You only have to look at his face to see the truth in that claim.

    • jag says:

      03:21pm | 09/07/11

      Such a nice bloke you must be badger. Do you laugh at cripples as well?

    • S.L says:

      02:00pm | 08/07/11

      This year has been the coldest winter for 20 years (I think since 1991 as was reported today. The Atacama desert in Chile, the Worlds driest area is under snow, Hobart today has snow down to it’s lowest elevation in years. Where’s the proof of global warming? Oh I’m sorry it’s now just good old climate change isn’t it. Lord Monckton can carry on a bit but where’s the evidence to go against his claims?

    • Rick says:

      02:57pm | 08/07/11

      S.L. yep thats why they call it climate change.

    • Tory Shepherd

      Tory Shepherd says:

      05:00pm | 08/07/11

      Everyone should learn the difference between weather and climate.

    • Joan says:

      07:30pm | 08/07/11

      Without weather there is no climate, no statistics. Climate is totally dependent on the existence of weather,so weather today has more bearing on climate than any cooked up book/computer of figures.  How will Gillard carbon tax change the weather today, tomorrow,  next week or any day.?

    • non-warmist says:

      02:15pm | 08/07/11

      @Warren, You appear to be an expert on lunatics.

      And you’ve been reading the Bolta again!
      Pull yourself together!

    • Anubis says:

      02:25pm | 08/07/11

      @ Warren - read the article again will you ?  Bolt’s point is “We live in witch-hunting times, and your freedom to speak and dissent is under serious threat.”

      Typical of you to just rely on a quick skim of the article, which is just a series of quotes from a) a British politician b) Monkton’s apology to Garnaut for his ill-conceived comments c) a quote from a newspaper.

      Certainly not, as you said “Andrew Bolt has abandoned Lord Monkton on the ground he is a swivel eyed loony. ”

    • Warren says:

      03:11pm | 08/07/11

      “swivel eyed loony” is my favourite description of him (stolen from The Spectator magazine)., I’ll carry on using it. Add me to the list of shame @Dew.

      Bolt said/wrote:

      “Lord Monckton has embarrassed himself and damaged his cause by this offensive attack: ”

      “it will be unwise for other sceptics to associate themselves with him on his Australian tour.”

      What part of that don’t you understand @Anubis? Do you honestly think Bolt is supporting Monkton here?

      The line about “your freedom to speak and dissent is under serious threat” is the typical right wing garbage from people who hate having their viewpoint criticised. Get used to it, there will be lots more. Revealing Monkton as a liar and a crackpot has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

    • Michael says:

      03:57pm | 08/07/11

      Looks like you’re using some of the same tactics that your commie mates like to use, namely misrepresenting information. If Andrew really thought so little of Lord Monckon why did he interview him on The Bolt Report a few days later?

    • Warren says:

      04:30pm | 08/07/11

      “why did he interview him on The Bolt Report “

      I don’t know @Michael. For the rating perhaps. Why don’t you read Bolt’s blog & tell me, after all he was the one warning sceptics from associating with Monkton.

      I think its great Monkton’s is a anti AGW. Nothing could do his cause more damage. We are talking abut someone who claims to have written scientific peer reviewoed papers (a lie). Found a cure for Aids (a lie). Thinks the world is run a “New World Order” (clearly a nut job). You want him or your side of the argument? Go for your life.

    • Dew point says:

      02:05pm | 08/07/11

      The trouble is Tory, there are plenty of believers in AGW who are really worried about him, hence the non-stop attempts to stop him from talking at all and the personal attacks.
      The hysteria about the man kinda shows he’s hitting the mark.

    • Tory Shepherd

      Tory Shepherd says:

      03:53pm | 08/07/11

      Who’s stopping him? He’s getting more coverage than most sensible anti-carbon taxers…

    • michael says:

      04:01pm | 08/07/11

      Who is stopping him? How about your mates in Getup!? Or the fifty so-called “academics”? This comment Tory is icing on your left wing, communist diatribe cake of an artice you’ve baked.

    • RyaN says:

      04:06pm | 08/07/11

      @Tory Shepherd: aside from being unable to actually address the substance of Mongtons arguments, instead resorting to baseless personal attacks, you are supposed to be a “journalist” and know the fact that he has been cancelled from speaking at the Brisbane Broncos Leagues Club, the Port Adelaide Football Club and many more. THAT is who is stopping him Tory.
      Wow!

    • MarK says:

      04:30pm | 08/07/11

      “He’s getting more coverage than most sensible anti-carbon taxers… “

      And you are yet to prove in way shape or form what he says is not sensible.

      All you do is smear the man.

    • Matt says:

      04:49pm | 08/07/11

      I always find it amusing people complaining about Getup.  A webiste anyone - ANYONE - can join with the click of a button, yet on this site they’re all ‘left wing communists’?

      Perhaps he was cancelled because he referred to a another MP recently as a Nazi and was made to apologise? I doubt football clubs would want that kind of attention.. They create enough of their own.

    • Tory Shepherd

      Tory Shepherd says:

      05:02pm | 08/07/11

      My ‘mates’ at GetUp? I don’t think so. RyaN I don’t know who Mongton is, but if that’s an attempt to insult him, it’s pretty juvenile.

    • MarK says:

      05:55pm | 08/07/11

      Keeping your mouth closed Matt will help people keep the illusion that you know something a topic. Keep up.

    • RyaN says:

      06:05pm | 08/07/11

      @Tory Shepherd: yep I surely monged that one! Long day.

    • Brizben says:

      06:46pm | 08/07/11

      @RyaN - You will know Monckton was also moved on from Gambaro’s function centre. Given the venue is owned by the well respected local family of Therese Gambaro the Liberal Party federal member for the seat of Brisbane - Tell me Ryan who was conspiring to oppress Monckton’s freedom of speech in that instance? If Monckton’s freedom of speech was not being oppressed by Gambaro’s how can you say the Broncos (or anyone else) are oppressing freedom of speech?

    • No 1 Rosie says:

      01:30am | 09/07/11

      Matt

      I am not defending Monckton but am defending his right to free speech.

      Look up fascism and you will probably think that it would apply easily to the way Garnaut was trying to indoctrinate us with his beliefs in global warning. It was unfortunately interpreted as ‘Nazi’

      How about we all go and listen to Monckton, judge for ourselves before debating the pros and cons of what he has to say. If we are not prepared to do this we should all STFU.

      We wouldn’t be debating people like Garnaut, Monckton and others if Julia Gillard hadn’t lost all credibility as our PM after she lied to us; “there will be no carbon tax under the Govt I lead.”

    • AnthonyG says:

      02:07pm | 08/07/11

      Lord Mockton is a legend. At least someone is traveling the world spreading the word about this world wide conspiracy. If he wasn’t on to something, why is he being blocked from appearing at venues

    • fml says:

      05:03pm | 08/07/11

      Looks like Al Gore isnt the only one getting rich from climate change.

    • Higgins says:

      02:09pm | 08/07/11

      Monckton was stupid to smear Garnaut with the Nazi slur; but you’re missing the point now Tory.  The fervour with which government sympathisers and press gallery sycophants have tried to silence and discredit Monckton has created an impression that there may just be a grain of truth in his arguments. Get-Up’s crude attempt to bully food companies further reinforces this view. If the carbon tax is such a good idea, proponents should welcome and not stifle debate.

    • Warren says:

      02:35pm | 08/07/11

      Attacking someone’s argument is not an attack on free speech. Neither is demonstrating that a particular viewpoint deserve to be dismissed on the grounds that it is nonsense. Monckton is being discredited because his arguments are absurd.

    • Richard says:

      06:18pm | 08/07/11

      Warren, you don’t really know what’s going on, do you? GetUp have been caught red-handed trying to silence Monckton.

      They’re not trying to attack his argument, they’re trying to prevent it from even being heard in the first place.

      Monckton’s view has not been discredited, and his arguments are not absurd. If they were, GetUp wouldn’t be trying to prevent them from even being heard in the first place. They would just let him speak and laugh about it.

      But that’s not what they’re doing. They are co-ordinating a concerted campaign to prevent Monckton from having an opportunity to speak. It is an attack on free speech to bully venues into cancelling people’s speeches, it is! How can you say it isn’t?

    • BG says:

      02:10pm | 08/07/11

      It’s not a conspirisy. He is correct. They are called GetUp. The ALP’s bully boys. They have admitted doing these things to disrupt Lord Monckton’s tour. I wonder what they are so afraid of that they have to disrupt his right to free speech.

    • Dean says:

      09:54pm | 08/07/11

      @BG
      as opposed to LNP bully boys of Bolt, Akerman, Jones & anyone working for The Australian, who create noise with half truths, lies and opinion. Watch an episode of Q and A and look at the behaviour of most people from the hard right they like to pontificate with out interruption but when someone has a contrary point of view they talk over them. It happens so often on all shows that it must be part of their media training.

    • Rick says:

      02:11pm | 08/07/11

      They may well be trying to shut him up….......the sceptic’s that is.

    • n_dude says:

      02:16pm | 08/07/11

      Is it just me, but do his eyes look spookily like those on the warning pictures on cigarette packet?

    • Dew Point says:

      02:21pm | 08/07/11

      I hope you are ok Warren. The hate inside of you will swallow you up one day.

    • Sherlock says:

      02:22pm | 08/07/11

      I love Monckton. I don’t care what garbage he talks about or how wrong he may be.

      It’s just that people see the reaction of the warmenists and realise that their panic must be hiding something else.

      The climate change believers have dome more in the past week to drive even more people to join the sceptics than anything Monckton himself could possibly ever say or do.

      That’s why the sceptics have won the battle and your precious climate tax will never be implemented regardless of what Gillard says or does this week end.

      P.S. Thanks must go out to Get-Up. Their little stunt today will only make more people become sceptics.When people see the depths that the warmenists need to stoop to they wake up to the fact that they themselves don;t believe the science.

      So please Get UP can we have more.

    • Dan is made of carbon says:

      02:24pm | 08/07/11

      Does GetUp own ThePunch ?
      Are we being fed daily BS from the agenda setters.

      WHO or WHAT is GETUP / they do not represent my views

      How come all of the “expert” climate change scientists run and hide when the Lord arrives in town. Is that because he had a huge effect on peoples minds last time he visited. The instant smear campaign shows there is still not a valid argument to the Lords claims.

    • doc deen says:

      02:27pm | 08/07/11

      ^ LAWL ^
      O_o

    • Outraged says:

      02:37pm | 08/07/11

      LOL this coming from Tory…whose last article was advocating that women should be allowed to make as many false rape accusations as they want and men are being “meanies” for even questioning their innocence…

    • Mythica says:

      03:44pm | 08/07/11

      No @Outraged, you’re the one making false accusations:)
      P.S.  I like Lord Monckton :>

    • Dew Point says:

      02:37pm | 08/07/11

      Just a quick one for all you commenters making fun of the man’s eyes and the way he looks, he has Graves Disease.
      Read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graves’_disease
      The list of Shame:
      Lordy M
      Knemon
      The Badger
      Jon
      Kevin
      kate
      n_dude

    • Add another one says:

      03:02pm | 08/07/11

      Do you have point or just a list?
      gulp

    • RyaN says:

      03:08pm | 08/07/11

      @Dew Point: I think you will find that the lefties mocking the mans eyes are also lefties and hence have zero shame, class nor compassion.

      Your post will not affect those abhorrent scumbags in the slightest.

    • Dew Point says:

      04:00pm | 08/07/11

      @Add another one, I do have a point which really doesn’t need to be spelt out. However, since you’ve asked here it is.
      I think that annonymously mocking someone because of their appearance is a low down, morally wrong thing to do. Mocking someone for a physical characteristic caused by a medical condition is even worse.
      I’m glad you have added your name to the list and thrown your name in with the others on the list.
      You should also note that whilst I think it odious that you are mocking him from your comfortable anonimity, I think it best that you get this mocking out there. It means that next time one of you asks for any sort of compassion on an issue like, say, refugees, we can refer back to your own personal standards of compassion and morality.
      By the way @Add another one, who are you really? Or are you afraid to add your usual alias to the billious ones in my list?

    • bella starkey says:

      05:00pm | 08/07/11

      according to the internets, he cured himself of graves disease…

    • Knemon says:

      05:32pm | 08/07/11

      Doesn’t change my opinion, the guy is still scary looking.

    • n_dude says:

      05:37pm | 08/07/11

      Apologies. I thought he smoked too many cigarettes. Looks like he smoked something else quite completely.

    • Kevin says:

      07:44pm | 08/07/11

      @Dew Point
      I would applaud your new found political correctness if I didn’t suspect it is being applied selectively.
      You might establish some credibility if you maintained your “list of Shame” for other articles posted on Punch. 
      Compared to some of the vicious, insulting and offensive comments from the usual suspects directed at the minority of posters from “the left”, a few jokes about the obvious physical characteristics of someone who has come here seeking publicity isn’t such a big deal.

    • Lordy M says:

      07:56pm | 08/07/11

      bella starkey
      I heard he had cured himself by gritting his teeth

      grrr grrr grrr ohh ohh OH SHIT ohh big surprise big surprise gulp gulp

    • Dew Point says:

      02:37pm | 08/07/11

      Just a quick one for all you commenters making fun of the man’s eyes and the way he looks, he has Graves Disease.
      Read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graves’_disease
      The list of Shame:
      Lordy M
      Knemon
      The Badger
      Jon
      Kevin
      kate
      n_dude

    • non-warmist says:

      03:59pm | 08/07/11

      @Dew Point..Thanks for taking the time to do the List of Shame. Thanks to Punch for posting the List of Shame, twice.

    • Knemon says:

      05:37pm | 08/07/11

      @ Dew Point - It doesn’t matter how many times you keep posting this…my opinion of him will not change…nor will his appearance!

    • David of Adelagado says:

      02:38pm | 08/07/11

      I heard the interview with Abraham and Bevan. Monckton was aggressive and barely rational from the start. I wouldn’t descibe Matt and Dave as typical ABC lefties. If anything they usually take a fairly skeptical stance. Monckton probably blew any goodwill or credibility he had left as far as I could tell.

    • Michael says:

      04:04pm | 08/07/11

      You mean like the interview that Lord Monckton had with that twat from the ABC? If I had to deal with idiots like that everyday I wouldn’t be very nice to them as well.

    • Martin says:

      02:40pm | 08/07/11

      What a classic piece of left wing propaganda. I have listened to several of Monckton offerings, and he asks some very inconveient questions, that is if you are Warmist tragic . Instead of attacking the guy like this, why don’t you tell us what the flaws in his arguments are? As for Get Up! They absolutely would be attempting to disrupt this fellow because his arguments have got bite, and they don’t want any views opposing theirs expoused. Look at this crap that Get Up! is up to today, attempting to bully businesses to toe the left wing line. I sincerely hope many large business write back to them telling Get Up! to Get Stuffed!

    • iansand says:

      04:35pm | 08/07/11

      What are the questions?

    • fml says:

      05:08pm | 08/07/11

      So we are to reject climate change based on questions? as opposed to say scientific evidence?

    • RickyB says:

      07:17pm | 08/07/11

      What scientific evidence fml?For every piece you offer i can offer one that debunks it.Will the carbon tax lower the temperature fml?If so when?By how much fml?If Monckton is full of it why do warmists like yourself & GetUp run & hide & screech to high heaven.Me thinks he could be on to something judging by you warmists actions.He He…...

    • iansand says:

      08:01pm | 08/07/11

      RickyB - What are the questions?

    • The Badger says:

      12:19pm | 09/07/11

      Really Martin?
      Do we care what a retired weatherman thinks about AGW?
      They can’t even get the forecast right for tomorrow.
      You are the weakest link.
      Perhaps you missed this, it applies to you as well.

      EXTRA EXTRA
      Read all about it!!!!

      Last decade warmest ever

      NASA says:January 2000 to December 2009 was the warmest decade on record.

      http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2010/jan/HQ_10-017_Warmest_temps.html

      In other news expert googler commenting on The Punch links to site of retired weatherman who used to do the weather for an AM radio station.

      Who you gonna trust? The weatherman or NASA?
      Deniers of moon landings; AGW or September 11th need not reply.

    • iansand says:

      01:29pm | 09/07/11

      Martin - Have you read the “Climategate” emails in context?  If not, why not?  What your bloggers have done is take a small number of partial emails out of context.  In context they are innocuous.

    • Martin says:

      02:32pm | 09/07/11

      The Badger, heres some more inconvenient truth for you. Please note the information re NASA as you say READ ALL ABOUT IT. This information relates to Australia BTW. http://www.warwickhughes.com/climate/gissbom.htm
      The author finishes in saying quote “This review highlights a fascinating situation where two research groups produce radically different results from the same raw data.” Hmmm makes you wonder doesn’t it. 
      @iansand. You asked for the questions, you got them. Because you didn’t like my response, we now have this flimsy “in context” nonsense. Why don’t you read the emails and try and be fair dinkum with yourself. It’s clear that there was an intention to manipulate. If you cannot see that then you are blind.
      Lastly, Badger, that NASA piece that you refer to is an artcile written by 2 NASA scientists about their interpretation of some data.  2010 hot, 2008 cold etc. and thats it. Can you please show me where they state anything about Co2 causing anything? Its’s not there is it. So what is the point of posting that link when it has nothing to do with CO2 and climate. Typical Labor sichophant behaviour. You’ll have to do better than this Labor tragics.

    • iansand says:

      03:32pm | 09/07/11

      Martin - I have read the emails.  I don’t trust bloggers.  Have you read the emails?

    • The Badger says:

      07:58pm | 09/07/11

      Martin
      I see you’ve gone with the weatherman.
      Sorry, wrong answer
      The correct answer was NASA.
      Thanks for playing though and have a nice day.

    • Martin says:

      02:00pm | 10/07/11

      @iansand yes I have.
      @The Badger. I see you’ve gone with the childish answer as per usual as opposed to responding to my question. In future I wont waste my time responding to what is obviuosly the comments of a 15 year old. Have a nice life.

    • The Badger says:

      02:42pm | 08/07/11

      “The Government now has Mr Wilkie’s vote, which is enough for the package to pass Parliament.”
      This is the will of the people as expressed through their local representatives and democratic government.
      How’s that NO thing working out for you conservatives of the NOposition party?

      And now we have a defeated Abbott in the spirit of and continuance of the longest dummy spit in history demanding an immediate carbon tax reply.
      Poor Tony, looking for relevance through a campaign of NO, lies and fear.
      It ain’t happening mate.

      Enjoy what little time left you have leading the NOposition party and thanks for taking the conservatives further into the fringe.

    • cutelyconservative says:

      03:16pm | 08/07/11

      @The Badger…You’re up with the news!  But you said you didn’t care.  Didn’t you?

      Stop pretending

    • Labor Ruined this Country says:

      03:46pm | 08/07/11

      Badger, you are a nutter mate. Did you see the results from the NSW state election. Well, that will be your beloved federal ALP after the next federal election. Less than 20 seats in parliament. It is the ALP and their kooky coalition partners the Greens who will be struggling for relevance. By the way, instead of poking fun at a bloke because of how his eyes look, why don’t you try opening yours?

    • Sodapoppy says:

      05:39pm | 08/07/11

      The will of the people? Bugger me, a nation held to ransom by a handfull of loonies who control a stupid woman who thinks she is entitled to lie and cheat with impunity. These cranks represent a handful of voters, and any other time would be as irrevelant as the rats under the house. Will of the people? Bah, humbug!

    • No 1 Rosie says:

      01:00am | 09/07/11

      The Badger The Harass

      I feel like I am stalking you but just can’t allow myself to let you go by with your ridiculous thoughtless posts.

      You and Wilkie are of the ‘useful idiots’ brigade that is an added bonus to Tony Abbott and the Coalition and the downfall of this NOnothing Govt. Idiots like yourself and the media are the only ones that have waited anxiously to find out how Wilkie was going to vote. Like everything this NOnothing Govt does it all for show hoping to win over our votes, the votes that really matter.

      It was common knowledge that Wilkie would give his vote to Gillard. He is bound to her and she to him. The same goes for Oakeshott and Windsor.

      Now that Gillard has been assured she has the numbers to get her rotten carbon tax through both houses WTF is she still trying to sell it to the people.

      Maybe she has stopped trying to govern and is on the campaign trail for the next 2 years trying desperately to win the people away from Tony Abbott over to her. You guys can’t do it by being negative and putting all the blame on Tony Abbott. Show us some positive governing, sell your rotten carbon tax and leave Tony Abbott out of it!

      In your case just keep Wishing & Hoping and give away the Harassing!

    • Nath says:

      03:00pm | 08/07/11

      Re-Election with carbon trading tax on tax on tax tax tax scheme hahaha.. as the front runner. thanks. That way we don’t need to debate this anymore. The people of Australia can chose.

    • macca D says:

      04:52pm | 08/07/11

      Nath, fair enough.  But keep in mind, it should be just like the GST only much, much smaller.

    • Matt says:

      03:01pm | 08/07/11

      Would you really believe a man that has developed a cure for the cold, flu and HIV yet keeps it a secret?

      The only explanation that makes sense is that he’s the Hypnotoad in disguise…

    • RyaN says:

      03:10pm | 08/07/11

      @Matt: are you talking about Flannery now? I mean he did say we would never see proper rainfall again and that Australia’s dams will never be seen full in the future.

    • non-warmist says:

      03:06pm | 08/07/11

      Wilkie’s given way.  As if…. as if any of these “independents” would risk their miserable hides.

    • Nick says:

      03:33pm | 08/07/11

      Well, i know the Punch has been going downhill for a while, but it’s really hitting rock-bottom now.

      Tory… try journalism.  Regurgitating ad-hominems and speculation is just a bit sad, really. Well done joining my “don’t waste time reading list”. You and Ged can keep each other company.

    • fairsfair says:

      03:37pm | 08/07/11

      I think his pure existance and the response by people like Tory and even Badger, just go to show that he is some sort of percieved threat. I think it reflects poorly on people who have a genuine belief in climate change. Just like Albo today - Tony’s a lightweight that we should all ignore eh? Well why the eff are you writing about him champ?

      Seriously, if Monckton is a farce, why not just ignore him? He is clearly bunching your crotch for a reason.

    • Ray Rivers says:

      03:41pm | 08/07/11

      I have read so much about this Carbon Tax And Climate change, but through all the comments and arguments not one person has bothered to ask how much is the United Nations going to get of the Australian Taxpayers money. It is not about climate at all,its about the reditribution of wealth. Mark my words the United Nations are driving this and nothing is being said.

    • fml says:

      05:12pm | 08/07/11

      No one has said anything because there is no connection, much like no one during the climate change debate have mentioned, cats, carrots, sugar, mr burns and lollipops.

    • Observer says:

      03:50pm | 08/07/11

      Monckton and Tim Flannery are working on a new documentary for the ABC. It will be based on the degradation of the Murray River. The working title is ‘Two Men in a Submarine’. Champagne Comedy.

    • Ray says:

      03:56pm | 08/07/11

      Unlike the author who has been conned into believing in anthropogenic global warming (AGW), Lord Monckton is a realist who knows that AGW is an assertive con that has been championed by the IPCC. There is no compelling scientific evidence that proves that dangerous AGW is real.

    • MM says:

      04:44pm | 08/07/11

      Ray,

      I take it you have personally reviewed all of the scientific evidence to form this opinion of yours?

      Or is it because you choose to believe that man hasn’t accelerated Climate Change, and note I said climate change, because global warming misleads people to believe that if the world isn’t hotter, then everything is normal.

      One fears for Australia’s future when someone like Monckton can gain more support from Australian’s that an entire field of scientists.

    • fml says:

      05:14pm | 08/07/11

      MM,

      And thats the answer to question that a few people here are asking.
      They ask, if he is wrong why are people trying to stop him?,
      Him being wrong in it self is not dangerous, but having the mob believe him is frightening.

    • jf says:

      12:36pm | 09/07/11

      And the alarmists believe that if the weather/climate (whatever’s term is convenient at the time) changes in the short term everything is abnormal. Despite the indisputed fact that the global climate has changed over millenium and far more dramatically than it has since the industrial revolution (and potentially over a shorter timeframe).

    • Shirley says:

      04:05pm | 08/07/11

      No it’s not.

    • Ben says:

      04:09pm | 08/07/11

      It is so disappointing Left wingers cannot bring themselves to read/listen beyond the ABC and government on this important issue. Have any of these so-called journalists actually heard/read what Monckton has presented? Judging by the nasty name calling and jabs at his heritage it would seem not. I attended the lecture last night in Sydney and he (along with two other speakers - Dr David Evans being one) made some very prevalent points regarding inaccurate temperature readings by poorly placed thermometers since the 80s (looked it up today and the US government admits this and is trying to fix the problem) and actually presented the most recent empirical data alongside the computer generated models used by the IPCC and UN to guess future temperature. Interestingly, the last 10 years of data (more reliable satellite readings) show temperature in decline. But this will not be published. Orwell’s 1984 is alive and well under the Brown-Gillard government. It’s a sham and I am ashamed to think there are some people out there still being taken in by the propaganda because they are too lazy to actually go beyond the media. By all means, call me a denier or a heretic or whatever you please, but I will take scientific data over computer models and force fed rubbish from Canberra any day!

    • MM says:

      04:50pm | 08/07/11

      Are these the same thermometer’s that they then go use to discredit the data being presented?

      Interesting thing about scientific data, it can only be analysed after the fact…  Will be interesting to see how effective that analysis is after the next ice age is brought on ahead of schedule thanks to man.

      Also interesting that you tout the last 10 years as scientific fact.  warming has slowed/declined over the last ten years, therefore nothing is happening.  Care to record that against a trending graph over the last 150 years, and show me what the decline is percentage wide.

      I know I am not going to convince you otherwise Ben, because you attended this lecture looking for justification of your stance, but when the vast majority of scientists are in agreement, then I know which side I will believe

    • Ben says:

      05:27pm | 08/07/11

      MM, “the vast majority of scienists”? Funny you mention that. I note that the climate survey of 2007 which is used to say what you have claimed was taken by 75 members of the IPCC committee. Now, I don’t know about you but 75 people doesn’t sound like a lot out of the millions of scientists worldwide.

      I have yet to hear from a scientist who adamantly supports man made global warming who isn’t on the government or UN gravy train. Not a single one. And I have looked and listened far and wide.

      150 years of data is not good enough in my view MM. It still distorts the overall picture. How about we look at data collected (through various means, including ice cores) over a few hundred thousand years and even millions of years? Oh wow, it looks like the globe warms and cools cyclically! It isn’t a perfect cycle, but it is a cycle.

      As for the thermometers being used to discredit data, I put this to you - if I was to place a thermometer next to a heater or a jet turbine or surround it with concrete do you think it would give me a truly accurate reading? Most thermometers today that are used to record temperature are located in hotspot areas in urban centres. This is not accurate recording and the US government admits this (hence it is moving to fix 89% of their recording stations over the next few years).

      To further this case, it is interesting to note that until the 1980s there were more than 6,000 temperature monitors worldwide being used to record. Today there is about 1,500. 90% of these are located in urban areas, with the thousands of others once outside city areas no longer operating. If you want accurate recordings, review the satellite data collected over the past few decades (of course the IPCC ignored this data in favour of the dodgy land recorders).

      Conspiracy? No. Cheap and lazy governments? More likely. But the data over the last couple of decades is doubted as a result. That said, the fact that even with dodgy recording devices, the last decade showed no growth in temperatures. It’s interesting.

      MM you will believe what you want to believe as well. But if I may suggest, you really should do some research on this matter. Put aside Green Left Weekly and turn off the ABC for one night and do some actual hard trawling through the data (available online). I say data and not the computer models presented as data by the IPCC.

      Try it. You will be shocked by how wrong you have been all these years.

    • darragh scully says:

      04:15pm | 08/07/11

      This weird looking creature is a genetic throw back of some description relative to some kind of reptile judging by his eyes that is and probably just wants the planet a little warmer to suit his genetic makeup…

    • TM says:

      05:01pm | 08/07/11

      Dick

    • darragh scully says:

      04:15pm | 08/07/11

      This weird looking creature is a genetic throw back of some description relative to some kind of reptile judging by his eyes that is and probably just wants the planet a little warmer to suit his genetic makeup…

    • melle says:

      04:38pm | 08/07/11

      @darragh scully…you came in late -  It’s a disease.  A human being has a disease which affects the eyes.  Perhaps the picture is up there for ridicule.  Who knows

      Now go away

    • dr deen says:

      04:39pm | 08/07/11

      roflcopter

    • TM says:

      05:01pm | 08/07/11

      head!

    • darragh scully says:

      05:06pm | 08/07/11

      you can call it a disease if you want. I recon hes an alien who wants the planet warmer. LIke in that tv show V.

    • Barry in Caloundra says:

      04:24pm | 08/07/11

      And Australians are supposed to be more impressed by the nauseating unproven oft repeated doomsday invective of Gillard and Garnaut. Come on..

    • Damon says:

      04:35pm | 08/07/11

      The reason people dismiss Monckton is because he’s an out and out looney with no credibility or real credentials. Would you take some wino bum of the street seriously regarding your brain surgery? No? Then don’t waste time listening to Monckton because he’s about as credible.

      That he’s given valuable air time to talk disingenuous bullshit is a disgrace, and deserving of far more inquiry than any absurd claims of scientific fraud.

      If there was ever a picture deserving of the caption “derp”, it’s that one above. The man is a absolute nutcase, and he looks like one too.

    • Ben says:

      05:00pm | 08/07/11

      Damon, why then do people on the Left accept Al Gore still? He is not a scientist and his Inconvenient Truth movie (It cannot be considered documentary as that implies a degree of truth) was slammed by UK judges who ruled schools must explain up to at least 11 misconceptions purported by Gore.

      Sure, Monckton looks “funny” to many people. Hardly his fault, any more than Gillard’s nauseating voice and propensity to wave her hands madly about as she drones on. But appearances can be deceiving and this man has done his research (I have actually heard both sides in detail and conducted my own readings of the data). It doesn’t take a science degree to sift through facts and figures. Though a stiff drink helps when wading through political press releases.

      You say he is a nutcase, but fail to explain why (other than the way he looks). Have you attended any of his lectures or read any of his work? I doubt it. Have you read any of the work produced by Dr David Evans who also spoke alongside Monckton? I doubt it, although you should - he used to work for the government (aka Ministry of Truth).

      You easily dismiss the alternate view on this without giving any credible reasons why. Is it because you are afraid of hurting your pride, afraid of the truth or are you just another mindless paid hack of GetUp! the ALP or the Greens?

      Or (and I am leaning here) is it just too difficult to physically research beyond the government’s propaganda when you have a latte in one hand and Das Kapital in the other?

    • Damon says:

      08:39am | 09/07/11

      Gore may have got some technical details wrong but in the main his documentary was correct. This has been supported by scientific opinion. But regardless, the thrust of your fallacious argument is that if someone else makes a mistake then we have to accept everyones mistakes, or in Monckton’s case deliberate falsehoods.

      Why don’t you explain to us why you give such unwarranted credence to a man that has been widely debunked? Google “monckton debunked” if you need more information. Why give such little credence to the nearly unanimous scientific consensus? Do you visit the Doctor or a faith healer? Do you listen to the engineers that actually designed and built your comfortable and convenient car, or the whacko selling you the “energy polariser”? At least Peter Brock had the guts to admit he was conned.

      I haven’t attended Monckton’s lectures, neither have I attended Jasmine Faiths seminar on crystal healing or read a lot on pyramid power.  The freedom of having a critical view of the world founded in logic, is you don’t have to waste a lot of time on bullshit.  You should try it.

    • Ben says:

      01:45pm | 09/07/11

      Damon, Al Gore got more than 11 “facts” wrong according to the UK judicial system. That’s a lot of mistakes.

      The problem I have with your argument is your unwillingness to actually go and hear what people like Monckton and Dr David Evans have to say about climate change.

      You openly admit you have never attended one of his lectures. But you are willing to criticise the man based on what the media presents of him. The media is not always to be trusted. I am sure you remember children overboard? I bet you were outraged when you found out it never happened, but the media reported it as fact.

      It’s just sloppy to criticise the man without having been to hear him in person.

      As I have said previously, I have reviewed the scientific data and it is incongruent with the modelling presented by the IPCC in the 90s and early century. Yes, we have experienced some warming, but we are now experiencing some cooling (just as the world has gone through for millions and millions of years).

      What I was really appalled to see (but always suspected) was the complete hurricane records for the USA and not just the last 25 years that warmists like to show. Did you know that the period of 1850-1910 shows nearly double the number of hurricanes in the US than what we have seen in recent years? Yet alarmists like to say it is worse now than ever before. It simply isn’t true.

      Warmists and the media only present a limited view of the data and rely on heavy modelling to make their arguments. But the raw data does not support them.

      Even the IPCC is beginning to acknowledge their modelling was wrong. Why then would their claims of sea level rises go from 3m to 1m to 0.5m to 16cm? This is all since 1995. Modelling is not data, so notice how their story keeps changing! Even the term “global warming” had to be changed to “climate change” because the data (when they finally got around to reviewing the figures coming in each year) wasn’t supporting the warmist theory.

      Selecting snippets of graphs is not only bad science but it is outright deception.

      Instead of googling “Monckton debunked” why don’t you go and get your hands on the raw data for global temperatures, CO2, flood occurances and hurricanes. Not just for the last 20-150 years, but the very long term graphs that exist (although these are mainly for temp and CO2).

      Once you have the raw data, go and study it. Then come back and try and argue the warmist/alarmist case. You won’t be able to.

      Science is about empirical data, not modelling and theory. So stop propagating Damon and hit the books!

    • macca-D says:

      04:56pm | 08/07/11

      Anybody remember Martin Durkin.  He kicked a few own goals too.  His documentary “The Great Global Warming Swindle” was his followup to a documentary about the benefits of boob-jobs.

    • fml says:

      05:16pm | 08/07/11

      If Monckton starts on boobs, there will be hell to pay.

    • MarK says:

      05:07pm | 08/07/11

      Tell yah whay Shepherd list all of the predictions made by scientists that have come true vis climate change.

      Then I will list a small portion of the ones that have not.

      Should be fun. Come on. All that science on your side. Surely they have been correct about something.

    • Gran Depine says:

      05:28pm | 08/07/11

      “It’s freedom of speech, as long as you don’t say too much
      But sooner or later, we gonna realize
      We gonna meet up with the truth, face to face” ..Lyrics from “You can’t stop running water Sons and Daughters song” sang by the Neville Brothers

      PM Gillard et al, the Greens, the Independents, the Socilaist sleepers even the transparent Get Up can never stop our freedom to debate, communicate, educate, reveal the deception of the snake oil salesmen behind the Carbon Dioxide Scam propaganda. Monckton has every right to be in Australia. He was invited, he applied for a VISA, made his intentions clear and has never been convicted or broken any law. So why is the Federal Government so insecure? If they have the courage and intelligence to debate logically, by all means do so. No direct or indirect threat, intimidation or insult will ever stop the CO2 debate. Even if the bill passes the House of Representatives and the Senate, the Greens,  the ALP, the independents will be politically disintegrated in the next election and the Tax will be overturned 100% Guaranteed. If by miracle there is a re-election, again the Government will have no choice but to remove the Tax just like Bob Hawke and Paul Keating did with the abolition of negative gearing. Hahaha the Socilaist geniuses it only lasted 18months. In the end, MONEY TALKS and there will be a CAPITAL REVOLT and the Government will drop their pants quick smart.

      Do you hear that sound?...it is the deafening silence of the former NSW ALP Premier Christina Keneally. I can’t wait for the next big silence after the next Federal Election.

    • Warren says:

      06:33pm | 08/07/11

      What about Tony Abbott and the Liberal Party @Gran Depine? They are proposing a ‘direct-action’ climate policy involving a 5% reduction in carbon emissions. The same target as the Labor Party. Does that make them communists too?

      What about John Howard, Joe Hockey and Malcolm Turnbull’s support for an Emissions Trading Scheme? More socialist propaganda?

    • Gran Depine says:

      08:07pm | 08/07/11

      @ Warren Where is the debate? Where is my vote? Where is the information about the costings and economic ramifications of the Carbon tax?Do we pay extra GST on the tax? Is it 500, 1000 , 800 companies paying? Will it increase? Will this affect the CPI and Reserve Bank rate? How many jobs will be created? How many jobs will be lost? Just dumb silence from our El Presedente Gillard and Agenda 21 Comrade sleepers.

      No other country, dollar for dollar, pound for pound is doing the same BS our Federal Gov is about to attempt . The ALP/Greens/Independents WILL fail miserably. Let me vote, you gutless bastards. Do not tell me what’s good for my great grand children, let me decide and vote Democratically. Just like my Superannuation, it is for my future and for my children’s future. As an individual I can self manage it better than any funds manger or Government and I am given a choice, but the cowards, bloody cowards think we are children and require a Nanny. We are not given a choice. Just leave us bloody alone. Does the word ADAPTATION mean anything to the ALP and Greens. I worked in Kota Kinabalu in Sabah Borneo for years and millions of people live in constant humidity and 34 degrees. I lived in KL and Singapore with similar temperatures and these cities are thriving. People adapt, people survive. If the temperature is going to increase in 100 years, well stiff shit you can not predict how it will affect us financially. I guess evolution and adaption can not be used to pay for all the $200Billion debt Labor placed on the people of Australia. Are they scared that they will lose the next election. Bet your sweet arse they do! Just plant another tree and inoculate another part of the ocean with more plankton and leave us the F alone.

    • Super D says:

      06:01pm | 08/07/11

      GetUp! has been trying to stop Monkton’s presentations going ahead.  So is the argument that Monkton was wrong to describe GetUp! as an agent of the government?

    • Nathan says:

      06:01pm | 08/07/11

      About the “lord” thing. Why the hell should Australians recognise a hereditary title anyway? It’s not earned, it’s a relic of the past and recognising it is honouring a frankly stupid class system that we have left behind.

    • Richard says:

      09:01pm | 08/07/11

      He’s a Viscount!
      If Horatio Nelson was alive you wouldn’t dare refuse to call him “Lord”!
      Don’t be an insolent whelp you mannerless bogan!

    • stephen says:

      09:03am | 09/07/11

      Lord Nelson never described his opponent as a nazi, either, though he would have, I’ll bet, tried to seduce his wife.
      Mr. Monkton fails, then.

    • David Evans says:

      06:19pm | 08/07/11

      David Evans 23 Mach 2011 wrote:
      The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the /main /cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess which was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s. But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, and their tame climate scientists, now cheat and lie outrageously to maintain the fiction about carbon dioxide being a dangerous pollutant.

      At this point official “climate science” stopped being a science. You see, in science empirical evidence always trumps theory, no matter how much you are in love with the theory. If theory and evidence disagree, real scientists scrap the theory. But official climate science ignored the crucial weather balloon evidence, and other subsequent evidence that backs it up, and instead clung to their carbon dioxide theory — this just happens to keep them in high-paying jobs with lavish research grants, and gives great political power to their government masters.

      There are now several independent pieces of evidence showing that the earth responds to the warming due to extra carbon dioxide by /dampening /the warming. Every long-lived natural system behaves this way, counteracting any disturbances, otherwise the system would be unstable.
      The climate system is no exception, and now we can prove it.

      But the alarmists say the exact opposite, that the climate system amplifies any warming due to extra carbon dioxide, and is potentially unstable. Surprise - surprise, their predictions of planetary temperature made in 1988 to the US Congress, and again in 1990, 1995, and 2001, have all proved much higher than reality.

      They keep lowering the temperature increases they expect, from 0.30C per decade in 1990, to 0.20C per decade in 2001, and now 0.15C per decade – yet they have the gall to tell us “it’s worse than expected”. These people are not scientists. They over-estimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide, selectively deny evidence, and now they cheat and lie to conceal the truth.

    • The Badger says:

      06:45pm | 08/07/11

      It’s really quite amazing the number of people who didn’t get the memo telling them the science has been settled for quite some time.

      We certainly must get a faster postal system, or upgrade these dolts to the NBN so they can be more up to date on issues of great importance.

      Luckily, good government is here to take care of those intellectually challenged and protect and prepare the nation as it moves forward.

    • Joan says:

      07:40pm | 08/07/11

      Yep Gaia man Flannery at Gillard Carbon tax wheel, moving the nation forward. Flannery the guy who predicted that Ozie rivers and dams all be bone dry today.  Science at work and settled?  A laugh a minute, as rivers run, dams full, snow falling. Dorothea McKellar smarter any doomsayer gaia man.

    • jf says:

      12:41pm | 09/07/11

      The Badger says:06:45pm | 08/07/11

      “or upgrade these dolts to the NBN so they can be more up to date on issues of great importance”

      Wouldn’t help Badger old cock as all the evidence is that most individuals are going to continue to use wireless for their day to day internet browsing.

      But that particular story of massive waste and middle class welfare is a debate for another day.

    • The Badger says:

      02:20pm | 09/07/11

      As jf goes, so goes the nation
      What a deluded old cock.

    • jf says:

      02:51pm | 09/07/11

      The Badger says:02:20pm | 09/07/11

      “As jf goes, so goes the nation”

      I take it from that that you are quietly furious that I’m not accepting at face value your conventional wisom.

    • Paul says:

      06:52pm | 08/07/11

      If you do believe in anthropogenic climate change then maybe you can join the dots for me? Because you wouldn’t blindly pick a side without doing the maths yourself right? What’s the volume of the Earth’s atmosphere? Enumerate every source of carbon emissions as well as the millions of other factors off the top of your head since the birth of our solar system and give me a mathematical and/or logical proof.

      Scientific proof I want, not a gut feeling or a so-called consensus. They can’t even reach a scientific bloody consensus. Which shows that NO ONE has been able to prove a damn thing. There’s too many considerations. I think we’re mostly just know-it-alls who’d rather formulate opinions than admit that we don’t know shit.

      I don’t pretend to know if we are a significant factor or not. I’m open to either possibility. My gut says we should seek cleaner energy sources but I have to call bullshit when the government says a tax will stop the sea level rising to a specific level by a specific date. All this tax will achieve is tie our own hands behind our back economically.

    • iansand says:

      09:51am | 09/07/11

      The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by ~30% in the last 150 years.  Empirical measurement.

    • Bris Jack says:

      06:55pm | 08/07/11

      It called democracy.
      Nobody has to listen to him if they don’t want to. 
      People pay to attend Monkton’s lectures, they are interested in what he has to say.
      I am not forced to attend and listen to the dead s…. that speak at the Sydney Writers festival, so whats the difference.

    • John says:

      06:59pm | 08/07/11

      Can everyone who wants the carbon tax pack up and move to Tasmania so we can cut Tasmania out of the federation and only have 5 states. Let Bob Brown run his own state they way he is trying to run the rest of the country and it will become bankrupt within a decade. This tax is about revenue and will do nothing to change the environment.

    • TheRaptured says:

      07:35pm | 08/07/11

      The only thing with Tory Shepherd is she has no ability to think critically about the Globalist plans with the New World Order and how they are going to micro control our lives. She is so dumbed down like all Gen-Y from too much flouride water drinking, that she has no conception of the real intentions of the evil Globalist parasites plans for a one world communist government. She is just a typical mainstream non journalist reporter, which is a shame, that only does journalism from cutting and pasting globalist controlled information. How Narrow! You will never see her do a career scoop, she is just a typical organ of the Globalist owned media. One that is stupid and passes on stupid information, not knowledge!

    • Warren says:

      09:07pm | 08/07/11

      Come on @TheRaptured. Wipe your chin and straighten your helmet.

    • John says:

      08:29am | 09/07/11

      I think it’s best to refer globalists as global marxists. The left are their foot soldiers, brainwashed lemmings. If this red marxist devilish global kingdom comes to be, Christians, whites will be most likely prosecuted by these red demons.

      Interesting read about the EU and it’s Communist plans. They suspect gulags and the secret police still need to implemented.

      http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/865

      “I am referrring to structures, to certain ideologies being instilled, to the plans, the direction, the inevitable expansion, the obliteration of nations, which was the purpose of the Soviet Union. Most people do not understand this. They do not know it, but we do because we were raised in the Soviet Union where we had to study the Soviet ideology in school and at university. The ultimate purpose of the Soviet Union was to create a new historic entity, the Soviet people, all around the globe. The same is true in the EU today. They are trying to create a new people. They call this people “Europeans”, whatever that means.”

    • bananabender says:

      07:46pm | 08/07/11

      Rajendra Pachauri the Head of the IPCC is still a Director of GloriOil an oil exploration company he founded. Talk about hypocrisy!

    • Freeman says:

      07:56pm | 08/07/11

      Piss poor effort,

      why is every lefty attacking monkton’s character while running scared of the truths he raises? desperate stuff. come back when you can discredit his argument.

    • Chrissy says:

      09:33pm | 08/07/11

      How dumb do you have to be to believe that a tax will stabilize the climate?

    • bingbing says:

      10:16pm | 08/07/11

      Nice try. Hang ups. Photos implicitly mocking sufferers of Graves Disease. Mocking his very name. Attempts to brush aside the GetUp! campaign to shut him up as somehow Lord Monckton’s insane musings.

      Keep talking.

      Reviews such as this are doing wonders for the cause.

      Why the Punch paid for such rubbish to be printed is a mystery but thanks regardless!

    • Rushhour says:

      11:12pm | 08/07/11

      Tory, the first female Prime Minister novelty has worn thin. The first female thingy can’t even save her now. Abbott defeated Rudd and would have crushed Mr Gillard but came up against a Ms Gillard instead. The novelty got her across the line…and I don’t care how many sheds Tim builds. In fact come out of the shed Tim and bring Tom Cruise with you. The carbon dioxide tax will be dead in three months. Ms Gillard and that waste of space Swan could not sell the CONcept and you think they can be trusted to sell the details.. They are the King and Queen of the stuff ups! Tory I’m quessing your a little Ms Gillard groupie… dancing around her skirt like a little girl. ... and yes I’ve had a few glasses of red wine .. I’m sorry about the little dancing around the skirt remark.

    • Enrico says:

      04:08pm | 09/07/11

      The novelty AND the lies, Rushhour.

    • John says:

      09:12am | 09/07/11

      The only think debunked is your claim to offer proof that Monckton has been debunked.

    • Ben says:

      01:55pm | 09/07/11

      Wow Seano, the journalist from the Guardian offered not a single piece of scientific data to debunk anything Monckton has said. He sure debunked him!

      Amazing! When you and your alarmist mob come up with scientific proof of exponential global warming (bit difficult when the IPCC models have been proved drastically wrong) then you can be taken seriously.

      Until then, I shake my head knowing that there are still Australians out there who believe what they are spoon fed by media hacks.

    • Seano says:

      04:00pm | 09/07/11

      Actually Ben he did, perhaps you need to go back and re-read it.

      I haven’t had a chance to look at the link debunking skeptical science’s debunking of Monckton yet but will let you know my thoughts when I get the chance.

      I am kind of amused that you talk about being spoon fed by “media hacks” when you consider your spokesman on a major piece of science is a classics major.

    • Ben says:

      07:01pm | 09/07/11

      Seano, your journalist basically claims the Medieval warm period never happened. Why then does the 2007 IPCC report admit it was wrong about its initital scepticism of the warm period and readjusted its graphs (after Canadian scientists kicked up a stink about the misrepresentation/exclusion of data by the UN)?

      I doubt you have even read the IPCC reports (let alone anything produced by the other side) - are you even aware that there has been multiple revisions of the report?

      We started with catastrophic 6m sea level rises which went to 3m then 1m then 0.5m and now we are told the UN has revised this to 16cm over the next 100 years.

      The only ones being debunked are the alarmists like Al Gore, claiming whole cities and Pacific Islands will be wiped away. This is simply not happening and it won’t happen (well, perhaps in a few hundred thousand years).

      As for my spokesman, that would be the scientific data on temperature and CO2 - available to one and all. I am sorry that the empirical evidence supports my argument. Truly sorry.

      I actually like to get the full picture. I have read the IPCC reports, listened to Al Gore and the alarmists, and now I have researched, read and heard the side which Monckton and Dr David Evans belong. It’s called keeping an open mind until all the information available is on the table. It is called deductive reasoning.

      On that note, are you then saying Dr David Evans (once a government scientist and advisor in Canberra for many years) is a fruitcake? The man - unlike Gore, Flannery, Garnaut and Monckton - actually has an education grounded in science. He also spoke just before Monckton in Sydney. It’s interesting the media don’t report this. Heaven forbid someone credible in the field of science opposes the political consensus of highly paid public servant “scientists”. No, we must ignore such men as Dr Evans, right Seano? Do you even know who he is or have you ever read any of his work? I doubt it.

      Go and do some research of the data available. Go on, I dare you to look at the full graphs and not just the snippets provided in the initital IPCC reports.

      Or are you too afraid and lazy to bother? If so, you deserve the derision that will fall upon alarmists and warmists as the next two decades show no warming. We’re about to hit a mini ice age in the cyclical temperature range of the Earth.

      With any luck, it will wipe out the climate cultists once and for all. Temperatures may even fall further as a result.

    • Seano says:

      12:35am | 10/07/11

      “On that note, are you then saying Dr David Evans (once a government scientist and advisor in Canberra for many years) is a fruitcake?”

      Wow ...nice rant dude. Seriously if you’re just going to make up my arguments and then shoot them down why bother talking to me?

      Seems like strange behaviour for someone with an “open mind”.

      If I get time to read this stuff I’ll post a reply.

    • Canberite says:

      09:52pm | 17/07/11

      Evans has no credibility.  Sure has a bunch of degrees, but is a long time conspiracy theorist.  All those espousing his scientific expertise, please provide a list of his published papers (there’s 1, an engineering paper from 20 years ago, unrelated to anything he currently plods on about).  BTW he’s never been a government scientist or adviser.

    • Matt says:

      11:49pm | 08/07/11

      Complete drivel. Stuck in reverse gear and can’t even work out how to use the clutch.

    • matt says:

      11:57pm | 08/07/11

      I predict that by 2020 there will be a tax for having a penis.

    • Seano says:

      10:32am | 09/07/11

      I’m sure you’ll still come in under the tax free threshold matt.

    • More morons in mackay says:

      08:00pm | 09/07/11

      Awesome Seano, lmao

    • matt says:

      12:01am | 09/07/11

      Tory, next time try writing something about something rather than nothing about nothing.

    • Dr B S Goh says:

      12:02am | 09/07/11

      The worst thing in this debate on carbon tax is that it focuses on the WRONG subject.

      99% of the debate in the Media has been about whether or not global warming is real and Monckton as Tory said has harmed the ant-carbon tax by acting like a clown for the pro-carbon tax supporters to ridicule.

      The public debate in Australia should focus on i) whether the proposed carbon tax has any measurable impact on global warming and ii) whether or not the carbon tax harms the Australian Economy.

      I say the proposed carbon will have negligible impact on global warming. We can achieve a greater impact on global warming by lifting the ban on uranium sale to India. India gets 2.5% of its electricity from Nuclear Energy and wants to increase this by TENFOLD. It gets 70% of its electricity from coal and India has little coal. France gets 80% of its electricity from Nuclear Energy.

    • Elizabeth says:

      09:41am | 10/07/11

      Oh I dont know about nuclear. Sounds great when everything is going well, but when its not ...the events in Japan stand out in my mind. Just cant get past the advice from the United States Nuclear Energy Regulator. They started with a statement like ” there is no reason for alarm… the reactor will soon be stabilised and ended up with the sage advice of “stay away from it”. And “staying away from it “involved ever increasing distances from 20 miles to leave the country.

    • Dr B S Goh, Australian in Asia says:

      11:02am | 10/07/11

      @ Elizabeth.  Thanks for your comments. I think India, France, China, USA, UK, Japan have many good experts on Nuclear Energy. They will know how to look after their own countries. Let them decide if Nuclear Energy is the option they want to use to replace coal in generating electrcity.

      Our FM Rudd was in the Middle East in April this year trying to help sell uranium to a country in that unstable region. So we cannot be concerned about the safety of Nuclear Reactors per se in not selling uranium to India. There are issues to sell uranium to any country and it is for Australia to clear the issues and sign off.

      Thorium Reactors offer the next generation of safe Nuclear Energy. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium. The main reason for safety is because the difference between melting point and boiling of Thorium is greatest among all elements. It is 2946C. So when a Thorium Reactor melts in an accident it can be collected and not spewed into the atmosphere.

    • Elizabeth says:

      07:31pm | 10/07/11

      Dr BS Gosh I dont know much about nuclear energy.  I had a look at
      your link but it hasnt given me any more confidence in this industry. I did a quick search on thorium and still not convinced this is a safe responsible industry.
        http://www.power-technology.com/features/feature1141/
      My main concern is that recent events demonstrated that reactors can be very unpredicatable.  If I had my way it both uranium and thorium would stay in the ground until we understood it a lot better.

    • John the Zombie says:

      12:10am | 09/07/11

      The way Tory and others who attack ppl who have a different view on climate change is the same way that Al-Gore and others attacked certain republicans when Al-Gore moved to show his film on climate change in schools and ppl thought that the students should get both sides of the argument to help them make up their minds but no Al-Gore and all his supporter opposed this and even took to the high court were the judge ruled that the students should not be only given one view but both views and they should which side they believe.

      So you see if you don’t agree with them you are classed as a sceptic, bogan, uneducated, hardliner and other names. I have even heard of ppl been called fanatical Christians. Srsly WTF is with that.

      It looks like free speech is only allowed if you agree with them, if you don’t you have not right to have an opinion.

      Looking fwd to your article on the blackmail by Get Up Tory.

    • mick griffiths says:

      07:01am | 09/07/11

      Of course there’s climate change, the qworld is warming, otherwise we’d still be in the Ice Age. It’s not, “today is hotter than yesterday” it’s much more extended than that!
      Carbon tax has already started to take a toll, Kandos Cement works in Kandos/Rylston is closing, 90 or so jobs lost, such a loss sees small towns like those two waste away with no major employer.
      Monckton - go back to pommy land the only decent thing to ever come out of there was the convicts.

    • D Bonson says:

      08:28am | 09/07/11

      Speaking of crazies in climate issues, how are the likes of Al Gore, James Cameron, Joe Romm, Chris Mooney, Tim Flannery, et. al. going with their global warming crusade?

    • J Williams says:

      12:06pm | 09/07/11

      Lord? Monkton, you poor old bugger, take your meds, lay down and it will all go away

    • lesley laurel says:

      05:03pm | 09/07/11

      climatic skeptics are just bull dust kindergarten big business ideologues who belong only in the economic stone age when big business and economics only ruled the world with an iron fist.

    • Lesley Laurel says:

      05:08pm | 09/07/11

      THE Liberals always bring out rich famous prominent dead wood royal pommies out to Australia if they think it will bring them votes

    • lesley laurel says:

      05:13pm | 09/07/11

      Lord Mockingbird is the British version of Lord Andrew Bolt.
      Climatic skeptics should have Bolted to the Antarctica, centuries ago..
      Only Antarctic voters would listen to them

    • Joe Veragio says:

      09:37pm | 09/07/11

      Isn’t it a fact, whether scientific or otherwise, that you can’t trust politicians ?

      Well you have to give someone power, but only some of them and only for so long ?

      The consensus on Man Made Catastrophic Global Warming is no more enduring.

    • Denial is a Disease says:

      11:38pm | 09/07/11

      Heh, anytime you are thinking about taking something Erick or MarK says seriously remember they sang Monckton’s praises. As far as I can tell they were doing so with a straight bat.

      Great article, Tory.

    • TheRaptured says:

      08:27am | 10/07/11

      Yes Tory this climate change thing is a off a sudden and not a planned scam by government owned parasite Elitists.

      This is though good new to all us christian’s, as what is happening around the world with this new commerce system of global taxing and finance fits exactly to Revelations where there is a one world government, one world finance system, one world religion, one world currency(BanCor) and soon one world dictator.

      Christ is coming back very soon Tory and will be able to explain this whole scam in detail for you and the rest of the athiests who have mocked him and rejected him.

    • former surface dweller says:

      08:57am | 10/07/11

      soTory… didn’t ask him about life on mars?!
      live long and prosper

    • Darren says:

      10:47pm | 11/07/11

      Wow, a few deniers having their last fun in the last rays of the setting sun here. Most of the same old complete garbage that has been debunked again and again and again getting recycled here. Even the old “climategate” gets a run - youd have to be an alien from outer space not to know about the 8 formal inquiries (including congressional enquiries run by republicans and british parliamentary inquiries) that have ALL concluded there was no misrepresentation of the science.
      Bottom line - science requires academic rigour. Academic rigour is ensured by publishing peer reviewed science - not peer reviewed opionions; peer reviewed science - you know, evidence with reasonable conclusions. On that score the real scientists have published vast quantities. The deniers? zilch. Nada, nothing, no credible research in support of their claims, no credible conclusions based on the no credible scientific research. Now Monckton himself is not even qualified on this subject and has published no science. Nor has Plimer, whose arguments have been ripped to shreds on his “evidence” and his conclusions. Oh yes, and to the dope who said that climate science is based on weather since the 1980s, no it isnt, you dope. Climate scientists’ consistent gripe about deniers is that they cherry pick short term and dont look at the long terms trends and causes. Its the deniers who cherry pick, and they always have.
      If you guys want to be taken seriously get Moncton to publish and get it peer reviewed. Until then dont waste our time; you people have as much credibility as the guy who wrote Chariot of the Gods. I mean what next? Do you people do L Ron Hubbard’s theory of the creation of the universe as an encore after Monckton?

    • Daniel says:

      11:32pm | 11/07/11

      The problem with Lord Monkton is that he is asking questions to which there are already answers.  He is really only talking to people that are already so blinded by their own beliefs.  Now obviously, as has already been pointed out, you can’t show these people the folly of their ways and there are plenty of these people.  If you are one of the people who can’t work out how this tax and/or cap and trade system will reduce carbon pollution then sorry you are either stupid (and therefore shouldn’t be posting here) or not even trying (ie. you just don’t want to work it out).

    • James says:

      12:36pm | 13/07/11

      The problem with “Lord” Monkton is that he makes George the 3rd seem sane.  I would look very closely at some of the other claims he has made particularly the one about having cured graves disease.

    • Chris says:

      01:25pm | 20/07/11

      Lord Monckton was right, journalists here are too lazy to do their homework. I watched the debate with great excitement that Professor Dennis would be able to finally provide some answers and statistics. But it was Lord Monckton who provided ALL the statistics, data, dates, and references to where we can find ALL this information and check for ourselves. All we got from the other side of the debate was ridiculous analogies like “You would insure your car” or “maybe you should also question the moon landings”.

      One gave us facts, references, and scientific data. The other spoke to us like primary school children. And now the left-wing journalists can’t argue with the Lord on the basis of facts, and real statistics/references - they give us a load of ‘huff and puff’ and resort to personal attacks.

      So Troy, you say he gives us just conspiracy theories? You clearly with have a hearing problem, or didn’t listen to the debate at all. I got nothing but undisputed scientific data and facts from Monckton. Oh, and if you have access to the internet - he gave sources for all the data he quoted so you could check it for yourself.

      You left wing, alarmist lot really do lack any real knowledge, don’t you?

    • Untonehob says:

      10:31pm | 11/04/12

      There is different Gucci hag garage sale online at present. Welcome to smite our website for Gucci. All fashions on Gucci Shop including bags, Gucci billfold, and purse. Cumulate online is with approvingly deduct up to 47%. 
      ??? ?? 
      ??? ?? 
      ??? ???
      ??? ?? : http://www.shopguccihandbagjp.org/

    • wronoabemonna says:

      10:48pm | 11/04/12

      Here, we initiate the products in Crammer Shop. Many products such as teacher evening bag, teacher purse, are broad of supplemental information. The Mentor Bag Store is Japan’s largest selling in handling of dispatch order products with loose shipping.               
      ???                 
      ??? coach                 
      ??? ???
      ??? : http://www.coachpursesjp.com/

    • Poophammals says:

      11:01pm | 11/04/12

      Our look for fill very much fashionable Louis Vuitton handbags,Louis Vuitton Monogram Low-grade,Selling Vuitton Damier.Our machine shop has sold our products are all Cheap.Moreover,as each contemn a propose a hand goods are high-minded quality products,at affordable prices You Like It,Liberated Shipping!     
      ????     
      ?????????     
      ??? ????
      ???? : http://www.louisvuittonnewjp.com/

    • Ambilltolbork says:

      11:20pm | 11/04/12

      Mark down Chanel Bag,Purse On Exchange Online In search Women And Men,100% Dignity Effrontery Of All Chanel,Corrupt your favorite Chanel Bags Online,From Democratic Shipping And Inseparable Week Delivering To Your Door!     
      ??? ????     
      ?? ????     
      coco????
      ?? ???? : http://www.chaneltotejp.com/

    • Daminfida says:

      11:34pm | 11/04/12

      It is the Gucci that has the most trendy Gucci witch, Gucci award in 2012. Our shop offers all products at low-lying price. Tenor products on the (GUCCI)Gucci Store are release shipping!               
      ??? ???               
      ?? ???               
      ??? ??
      ??? ?? : http://www.shopguccijapan.net/

    • Tharriess says:

      11:37pm | 11/04/12

      Shop The Latest Louis Vuitton Items Online!We Retail Stock Distribute Curvaceous Collection Louis Vuitton Suitcase,Wallet As a service to Missus Plant Direct.Welcome to workshop Louis Vuitton Dosh Accelerated Release & Unhindered Shipping!               
      louis vuitton               
      ???????               
      ??????
      ?????? : http://www.louisvuittonsjp.com/

    • SorbburnSow says:

      08:24am | 13/04/12

      In order to congregate the many needs of you,that are listed in all kinds of different products,such as endorse new Gucci,Gucci Men’s and modern Gucci tote.Gucci handbags are the most stylish varieties,you do not absent oneself from the chance to obtaining their own bar-room for sonorous and miscellaneous in style.     
      ??? ???     
      ??? ???     
      ??? ???
      ??? ??? : http://www.shopguccioutletjp.com/

    • Accorcefe says:

      04:20pm | 17/04/12

      Chanel Bag And Chanel Lolly Are Most Stylish!Adept Grade Chanel Website Offers Cheap Prices.Variety Of Styles. Show Enunciation!Complimentary Shipping!     
      ???? ???     
      ???? ??     
      ??????

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Malcolm Farr

@AndrewCatsaras Agreed. Kills more people than AIDS. Yet tolerated. Meanwhile: Good Insiders piece again Andrew.

Daniel Piotrowski

RT @JamieTravers: I'm in Europe and don't care for Eurovision, why is my twitter feed filled with Aussies recounting the bloody thing!?

Anthony Sharwood

Dementor doing a good job for sweden #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

Ukraine song pinches chord progression from The Verve's Bittersweet Symphony. Fo real #sbseurovision

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

An email was sent to almost every politician in Australia this week saying that someone should cut off…

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

We admire them, but we’re not entirely sure why. We allow them to operate in the shadows; we rarely…

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

Like a fat full-stop, it lay in my hand. A small orange – not exactly fresh, but purchased anyway…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter