Posted 3 April 2013
Viscount Christopher Monckton, who has just begun a speaking tour of New Zealand, has responded to an article in the on-line edition of the New Zealand Herad, attacking his qualifications and motives: Read article here.
Lord Monckton comments: "I have attached some recent material, for interest. The paper on climate economics has been accepted for publication in the Annual Proceedings of the World Federation of Scientists, now in its 45th year of publication. My expert-review comments on the forthcoming Fifth Assessment Report will, I hope, demonstrate that I have taken a constructive approach.
EMAILED RESPONSE BY LORD MONCKTON TO HERALD ON-LINE ARTICLE
Dear all, - The letter below, which by this email I am inviting the New Zealand Herald to publish, would help to set the factual record straight. If it is not printed, or if any of the factual inaccuracies that it corrects are edited out before publication, in ten days' time a complaint will go in the first instance to the Press Council for adjudication of the question whether the offending article was accurate, fair and balanced and whether APNZ and the Herald behaved correctly in printing it without their "journalist" having put to me the numerous scandalously inaccurate statements the "journalist" seems to have invited them to make. I shall invite the Press Council to determine the question whether the Herald has given balanced coverage to both sides of the debate on the climate, having regard not only to the present article but to its previous record of publication on the climate "science" issue. I shall also be complaining to the universities of some of the "scientists" cited in the article, on grounds of serious breach of ethical standards. I shall be inviting the authorities in the United Kingdom to remove the name of one of the universities concerned from the list of academic institutions whose degrees are recognized in Britain. The reason why none of the "scientists" who were so willing to be cavalier with the truth in the article will debate with me is that they are well aware that if they are as malevolently inaccurate about climate "science" as they were about me their inaccuracies will be exposed. It is articles such as this that demonstrate how low the standards both of "scientists" and of "journalists" have sunk, and how far the profession has travelled from the days when both sides of an argument could be fairly and accurately put. I have attached some recent material, for interest. The paper on climate economics has been accepted for publication in the Annual Proceedings of the World Federation of Scientists, now in its 45th year of publication. My expert-review comments on the forthcoming Fifth Assessment Report will, I hope, demonstrate that I have taken a constructive approach. For the sake of correcting the factual record, I am inviting the Climate Science Coalition to post up and circulate widely a copy of my letter to the editor correcting the slew of malicious inaccuracies in the Herald's article as soon as the Herald has published it, so as to minimize the intended damage to my reputation. When I used to be a journalist, I was taught that one should check the facts before trashing someone's reputation. It is significant that the "journalist" responsible for the Herald's inaccurate article failed to make contact either with me or with any of those organizing my tour (whose contact details we can prove he had) before publishing his serial, serous inaccuracies. He should be thoroughly ashamed of his grossly unprofessional misconduct. In my day, when journalists still followed ethical standards of accuracy, an article this contrived, this slovenly and this inaccurate would have led to the instant dismissal of the "journalist" who had perpetrated it. - M of B =================================
Letter to the Editor, New Zealand Herald: for publication, please
Sir, - Kiwi scientists rally against climate change sceptic (April 2) twice describes me as a climate change “denier”. That hate speech is inaccurate. I do not deny we can change the climate: I question how much we do.
The statement that “New Zealand’s top climate change scientists have rallied together to slam” me is inaccurate. A news agency reporter incited several scientists to comment. He did not let me reply.
The statement that I say “New Zealanders … shouldn’t be worried about rising temperatures or sea levels” inaccurately implies they are rising worryingly. Yet the IPCC’s climate-science head says warming has paused for 17 years. Sea level has risen for eight years at just 3.2 cm/century.
The statement that I oppose emissions trading because it is “too expensive” is inaccurate. I oppose it because it is cost-ineffective.
The statements that I have “no training” and “no scientific training” and have “studiously avoided learning anything about science” are inaccurate. I studied mathematics during my Cambridge degree course, have published several scientific and economic papers on climate change in learned journals, have lectured on climate at faculty level, and was last year’s Nerenberg Lecturer in Mathematics at the University of Western Ontario.
The unevidenced statements that I say things scientists “know are not true” and “pick data and statistics to suit [my] argument” are inaccurate.
The statement that I once argued for the quarantine of AIDS patients “in internment camp-like facilities” is inaccurate. I argued that, though quarantine (with no mention of internment camps) is the standard public-health response to a new, incurable and fatal infection, Western sensibilities would make it impossible. Tens of millions would die. Sadly, they did.
The statement that “the world’s leading scientists” predict the world will “heat up by 3% this century” is inaccurate. They predict 3 Cº warming, up 1%. Their predictions in all four IPCC Assessment Reports have proven exaggerated.
The implication that I deny any increase in greenhouse gases is inaccurate. I do not deny it: I question whether it matters.
The statement that I “promote [my]self as an ‘expert reviewer’ for the IPCC’s forthcoming Fifth Assessment Report”, implying I am not one, is inaccurate. I satisfied the IPCC that my publication record justified my appointment.
Monckton of Brenchley, Tangowahine
The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
c/o Brooks's, St. James's Street, London SW1A 1LN
Cell +44 7814 556423: **email@example.com
COMMENT BY COALITION SECRETARY **
From: Terry Dunleavy
Sent: 04/02/13 02:40 PM
To: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, RNZ rural, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
Subject: DODGING THE OBVIOUS QUESTION- WHY WON'T THEY DEBATE HIM?Kia ora all, There was a time in the good old days of fearless, fact-seeking journalism when writers of stories such as this: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10874950 would have dug just a little deeper and asked the obvious question: If these so-called scientists, all sucking on the taxpayer teat one way or another, are so confident that they know more about "climate science" than Lord Monckton, why are they all resolutely refusing to accept challenges to debate the topic with him in public forums? Terry Dunleavy New Zealand Climate Science Coalition