Talk:Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

Comment

Christopher Monckton's entry says that he ran unsuccessfully for a seat in the House of Lords. I find this incredible since membership in the Lords comes about in two ways: (1) some hereditary peers still have automatic seats in the Lords (but most no longer do) and (2) a person can be named a Life Peer by the Queen upon the recommendation of the government. The Lords is not presently, and has not been, an elected body.

Peter.zimmerman (talk) 16:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The election in question was a by-election to replace one of the remaining hereditaries who died in 2003. See this news story for background. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

In light of this, I have removed "politician" from occupation. RobinGrant (talk) 03:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Did Christopher Monckton sell his house? Yes.

re: the house, the 'Eternity puzzle' page currently contradicts this page... "The puzzle's inventor said that the prize payout had forced him to sell his home; however, in 2006 this was revealed to be a publicity story."

Or in plain English: a lie.78.147.159.6 (talk) 14:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

so one or the other needs updating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.232.212.249 (talk) 21:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The material related to Monckton's nov daily telegraph article is totally inappropriate. I will remove the following statement.

"It is worth pointing out that this trait of underestimating likelihoods and mathematics persists despite similar failures with the Eternity Puzzle."

No it is not worth pointing this out. This is some snarky attack that has no place in the article. How is Monckton's article a failure? It is 2 days old. --Josh Quinnell 03:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It is obvious, if one reads the article, that it is incompetent. Do need someone to tell you that? 71.132.131.162 05:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It's also interesting to note that the article refers to two articles in the "Telegraph", though the second is not scheduled for publication for another 5 days. It doesn't seem worth changing this, though. Groogle 08:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a clear example of unmitigated bias that should have no place in a supposedly impartial encyclopaedia: "The first criteria, that a consensus implies all practitioners are in complete agreement, is ignorant of the meaning of consensus. Furthermore, Monckton offers only rough probability estimates of the likelihood of other criteria." It cannot possibly be argued that to say that the first criteria is "ignorant" or that Monkton offers only "rough probability estimates" conforms to the "neutral point of view" policy; they are clear, tendentious expressions of opinion. I have therefore deleted them.

Anon comment moved here:

Errors by Wikipedia in Lord Monckton’s biography

Please note that a well-funded campaign paid for by a convicted fraudster who owns a solar-energy corporation and thus has a vested interest in advancing the "global warming" scare is linked to various people who, full time, detrimentally edit the Wikipedia pages of scientists and others who question the alarmist viewpoint. They use automatic bots to monitor the pages, and automatically reverse within minutes any changes intended to restore the truth and remove inaccuracies. The Monckton biography is one of those pages that has been subjected to this corrupt form of editing. Users should note that the following are among the offending passages that have appeared, and may still appear, and which Wikipedia refuses to remove.

Offending passage 1: “.. and has attracted controversy for his public opposition to the mainstream scientific consensus on climate change”. Reason for correction: “Mainstream scientific consensus” is a matter of opinion, not of biographical fact. Furthermore, tendentious commentary of this kind has no place in what is presented as though it were supposed to be a factual biography. Proposed correction: Replace by “and opposes the theory that anthropogenic climate change may prove catastrophic”.

Offending passage 2: “Although he has in the past stated that he is ‘a member of the Upper House of the United Kingdom legislature,’[3] Monckton has never been a member of either the House of Lords or the House of Commons.” Reason for correction: Lord Monckton has never said he is a sitting member of the House of Lords: he is, however, a member of the Upper House by succession (hence his title), is registered as such on the list of Peers entitled to be elected by his fellow hereditary peers, and, as a member of the House in good standing, is entitled to use its facilities, though not to speak or vote in the Chamber, for it is in this sense alone that the House of Lords Act 1999 removes the right of membership from hereditary Peers. Proposed correction: Preferably, delete this damaging libel altogether. Otherwise, replace by “He is a hereditary peer, but his father’s automatic right to sit and vote, like that of most hereditary Peers, was terminated by the Peerage Act 1999”.

Offending passage 3: “… he later admitted he fabricated the story as a publicity stunt.” Reason: Lord Monckton fabricated no such story and has never said that he did so. We note that this passage is not referenced. Whatever the reference that may (or may not) underlie this libel, it is false. Proposed correction: Preferably, delete altogether. Otherwise, replace by “… he sold his house one month before he was required to pay the £1 million prize to the winners.”

Offending passage 4: “Monckton has been described as "a fervent, forthright and opinionated Roman Catholic Tory" [7] who has been closely associated with the "New Right" faction of the Conservative Party.” Reason: This is a tendentious, inaccurate, and somewhat pejorative misrepresentation of Lord Monckton’s opinions and political and religious affiliations. In particular, Lord Monckton has not been “closely associated with the ‘New Right’”. In fact, he is known chiefly for his expert knowledge of reforming taxes and benefits to end working-class poverty, a matter on which he advised Margaret Thatcher during her term as Prime Minister, leading inter alia not only to the sale of 1 million council houses to their tenants but also to major reforms of the structure of both taxes and benefits, including ending the separate taxation of husband and wife, to the great benefit of families; significant increases in child benefits as a step towards eradicating primary poverty; a root-and-branch reform and simplification of housing benefit; and the ending of large-scale homelessness by compelling local authorities either to put tenants in empty publicly-owned houses or to sell them at advantageous prices to poor people who could not otherwise afford to house themselves. None of these hallmark policies could by any stretch of the imagination be described as “New Right”, or right wing at all. Proposed correction: Delete the offending passage.

Offending passage 5: “In more recent years, he has been associated with the Referendum Party, advising its founder Sir James Goldsmith, and in 2003 he helped a Scottish Tory breakaway group, the People's Alliance”. Reason: This passage is misleading. In fact, it was Lord Monckton’s consultancy company that acted, in a professional capacity, for Sir James Goldsmith, and also for the Scottish People’s Alliance. The words “Scottish Tory breakaway group” are a matter of opinion and have no place in a supposedly unprejudiced biographical entry. Proposed correction: Preferably, delete altogether. Otherwise, replace by “Lord Monckton’s consultancy company has acted for several political parties, among others Sir James Goldsmith’s Referendum Party, providing it with the names of many hundreds of candidates, and the People’s Alliance (later the New Party), whose first manifesto he helped to draft.”

Offending passage 6: “Monckton's views on how the AIDS epidemic should be tackled have been the subject of some controversy.” Reason: This formulation goes beyond a mere biographical entry. Proposed correction: Either delete the entire passage about AIDS altogether or replace by “Lord Monckton’s recommendations in 1985/6, following advice from specialist medical researchers into HIV, that AIDS should be treated like any other fatal infection were not acted upon. Since that time, according to UN statistics, some 25 million people have died of AIDS, and 40 million more are infected. Lord Monckton regards this as a cruel and continuing tragedy, and is currently working with academic medical specialists to find a cure, which is to be tested shortly.”

Offending passage 7: “… there is only one way to stop AIDS. That is to screen the entire population regularly and to quarantine all carriers of the disease for life. Every member of the population should be blood-tested every month ... all those found to be infected with the virus, even if only as carriers, should be isolated compulsorily, immediately, and permanently." Reason: this quotation has been wrenched out of context, and is incomplete and, consequently, unfair to Lord Monckton. Proposed correction: Either delete the entire passage about AIDS altogether or add: “Lord Monckton made plain, however, that isolation of the infected – the standard method for containing fatal communicable diseases to spare the uninfected – should be humanely done, and need not be as drastic as that which had helped to eradicate previous fatal infections.”

Offending passage 8: “Monckton has since modified his views on AIDS, stating that ‘the article was written at the very outset of the AIDS epidemic, and with 33 million people around the world now infected, the possibility of [quarantine] is laughable. It couldn't work.’ Reason: Lord Monckton has not “modified his views on AIDS”: he considers that, at the time when it could have been prevented from killing tens of millions, the usual public-health measures ought to have been taken. Unfortunately, now that there are 40 million infected, it is no longer possible to contain the disease as he had recommended 20 years ago. Proposed correction: Delete this passage altogether.

Offending passage 9: “His petition for judicial review was dismissed by the court for want of relevancy”. Reason: this passage unfairly omits to state that the judge expressed considerable sympathy for Lord Monckton’s position throughout the case, and is unfairly pejorative in the circumstances. Proposed correction: Replace by “The court expressed considerable sympathy for Lord Monckton’s position, and only found against him when a line item was discovered in that year’s European Union budget authorizing the expenditure by the UK on the social chapter of the Maastricht Treaty which Parliament had previously and expressly refused to sanction. The Government of the day took Lord Monckton’s challenge seriously enough to put up the Lord Advocate in person against him; and the outcome was such that the Lord Advocate was unable to recover his expenses in the cause.”

Offending passage 10: “His views have attracted controversy and strong criticism from scientists and environmental activists, including Al Gore and George Monbiot.” Reason: Neither Al Gore nor George Monbiot has any qualifications in any climate-related science; and it seems unfair that what is supposed to be a straightforward, biographical article should not only contain tendentious material of this kind but should also fail to mention the numerous scientists who have cited Lord Monckton’s work with approval, and have even cited him in peer-reviewed papers as having assisted them. Proposed correction: Delete the offending passage.

Offending passage 11: “Gavin Schmidt has criticised Monckton's analysis of climate sensitivity as "sleight-of-hand to fool the unwary" [1]. Dr. Stephan Harrison criticises Moncktons' articles as "full of errors, misuse of data and cherry-picked examples" [2]. The British writer and environmentalist George Monbiot has criticized Monckton's arguments as "cherry-picking, downright misrepresentation and pseudo-scientific gibberish."[18] Reason: Once again, Wikipedia has cherry-picked statements made by scientists at the invitation of Monbiot, whose newspaper was compelled to print a strongly-worded correction by Lord Monckton the day after Monbiot had published a scientifically-erroneous article attempting to criticize Lord Monckton inappropriately for having misunderstood the fundamental equation of radiative transfer, of which Monbiot had no knowledge, and which Monbiot had himself grievously misunderstood. Proposed correction: Delete this passage.

Offending passage 12: “Monckton's critics charge that "[his] science is self-taught and his paper qualifications nonexistent"[15] and that "he is trying to take on the global scientific establishment on the strength of a classics degree from Cambridge."[23] For his part, Monckton takes the view that it is "a very modern notion that you need paper qualifications to pronounce on anything and it comes from the socialist idea that people need to be trained in the official, accepted, dogmatic truths."[15] Reason: Yet again, only pejorative opinions of Lord Monckton’s research are cited. Proposed correction: Delete this passage.

Offending passage 13: “… part of Frontiers of Freedom, a conservative organization funded by ExxonMobil that has campaigned against the screening of An Inconvenient Truth in U.S. schools.[27]” Reason: This passage is not only tendentious but is at all points factually incorrect. The Science and Public Policy Institute is not and was not ever a part of “Frontiers of Freedom”; nor has it ever campaigned against the screening of Al Gore’s sci-fi comedy horror movie in schools, though it has recommended that, by way of balance, schools should also show Lord Monckton’s movie Apocalypse? NO! Proposed correction: delete the offending passage.

Offending passage 14: “He is also funding the distribution to schools of the controversial documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle as a riposte to Gore's film.”[23] Reason: This passage is both tendentious and inaccurate: tendentious because it describes one film as “controversial” without describing the other as controversial (a High Court Judge, after all, has described Al Gore’s “Armageddon scenario” as “not based on any scientific view”); inaccurate because Lord Monckton is not funding any distribution to schools, nor has he ever said he is doing so or will do so. It appears that, yet again, Wikipedia has readily accepted and repeated errors detrimental to Lord Monckton and published in an unverified source, without having checked it with Lord Monckton. Indeed, on no occasion has anyone from Wikipedia ever checked Lord Monckton’s entry with him before publishing it on the Web. Proposed correction: Delete this error entirely.

Offending passage 15: “He is a supporter of The New Party, which lent its political support to the litigation over Gore's film, and wrote part of its manifesto.” Reason: This passage is inaccurate. Lord Monckton’s consultancy provided professional help to his then clients the New Party (then the Scottish People’s Alliance) by assisting in the preparation of its first manifesto. He is not and has never been a member or supporter of the New Party – indeed, contrary to the false impressions scattered throughout the libelous Wikipedia entry now complained of, he does not in fact belong to any political party, and has not done so for many years, though he was simultaneously a member of the Conservative and Labour Associations at university so that he could familiarize himself with both sides of the political debate. He was not even a member of the Conservative party during his four years as a special adviser to Margaret Thatcher at 10 Downing Street. Proposed correction: Delete the offending passage.

Offending passage 16: “… described as "showing Monckton presenting a slide show in a vitriolic attack on climate change science."[23] Reason: Yet again, only a pejorative comment has been selected for inclusion, when a properly-constructed biographical entry would merely have reported the fact that Lord Monckton had made a movie questioning Gore’s [proven scientifically-inaccurate] representations of climate science; and a balanced entry, even if it had decided to include comments, would have included some of the numerous favourable comments that Lord Monckton’s movie has received, by way of balance to the above-quoted pejorative comments. Proposed correction: Delete the offending passage.

--recommend update-- In the Global Warming section, it should be noted that Viscount Monckton did criticize current calculation methods, however, in August of 2007 both GISS NASA and Dr. James Hanson made a clarification/correction to the raw data calculation global mean regression analysis year previously 1981 and this has improved the science and publications for the world of people analyzing the years of data and information from the scientific and the journalist communities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.171.191.60 (talk) 14:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Woah, take off that tin foil hat weirdo. Are you going to provide anything to back up your statements or are we to believe a random conspiracy nut?118.208.47.214 (talk)

Error: Physics and Society is peer-reviewd

Under Monckton's views on global warming, there is a new entry regarding his article in the current (July, 2008) issue of Physics and Society. The entry incorrectly states that the journal ("newsletter") is not peer-reviewed.

Source is the publication website - here "Physics and Society is the quarterly of the Forum on Physics and Society, a division of the American Physical Society. It presents letters, commentary, book reviews, and reviewed articles on the relations of physics and the physics community to government and society." It is not at all unusual for a peer-reviewed scientific journal to carry both peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed material such as letters, etc. Physics and Society is like many other scientific journals by many other scientific organizations, for example PS: Political Science and Politics by the American Political Science Association; which similarly carries peer-reviewed articles, letters to the editor, comments on the teaching profession, and other things current issue

In addition, Monchkton himself has described the peer-review that the article received in a recent letter to APS. letter. A well researched article on the current confusion here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.251.254.172 (talk) 19:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I traced the reference to the comments describing Physics and Society as not peer-reviewed and found it to be some little blog in nowhere land. The statement at the journal website itself, as well as the process described by Monckton convinces me that the paper was peer-reviewed. This however is clouded by the statement made by APS administrators in their contraversial disclaimer. The description of the journal on the journal website is definitive however on the question of whether this is or is not a peer reviewed journal. It is, and we may need more evidence to prove how relevant that is to the article. So at present, I'm just deleted the false statement that it's not a peer-reviewed journal. And please do not use bizarre little blog comments as authoritative references. ~~

I'm sorry, that's just dead wrong. The APS itself says that it's not peer-reviewed - and it should know. See the disclaimer that's now at the top of Monckton's piece: "The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review. Its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article's conclusions." -- ChrisO (talk) 20:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey Chris. The journal website says that the journal is peer-reviewed. The quote has been provided above as well as the webpage from the journal website. No authoritative source is given for the APS claiming that it's not, and who would you be talking about anyway? The journal webpage saying that the journal IS PEER-REVIEWED - that's within the APS. You're just not making any sense here. Once again - no authoritative source has been given for an APS claim that the journal is not peer-reviewed. Don't start playing undo wars unless you at least have a source to backup your claim. ~~

Chris - I note that you've undone the change again. Is there anything that will convince you to act responsibly in this manner? There is an absolutely definitive source that contradicts that statement. The journal website itself explains that it is a peer-reviewed journal. There is no authoritative source at all saying it's not. Your claim that the APS says it's not, is not supported by any authoritative source. The citation given is just an odd blog comment somebody made - and it's unsourced as well. ~~

IMO, the question of whether or not the journal (which, by the way, is referred to in our article as a newsletter) is "peer-reviewed" is secondary, if not irrelevant here.

The assertion of a number of media commentators "that the publication of his paper was a sign that the American Physical Society had abandoned its earlier support for the scientific consensus on climate change" is addressed directly by the later sentence "In response, the APS issued a statement reaffirming its unchanged position on climate change...."

There is no source given for the "In response..." statement. However, if it is properly sourced, it refutes the statement "the APS has abandoned..." This would be true, I believe, regardless of whether the journal/newsletter is peer-reviewed.

Since there seems to be uncertainty as to whether the thing is peer-reviewed and since it does not seem much to matter, I think it should not be included in the article. Wanderer57 (talk) 20:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The only uncertainty is on Monckton's side - he apparently doesn't have a clue what peer-review means. (Hint: it's more than just some random person reading your article before publication.) The APS is the publisher of Monckton's piece, therefore it is really the definitive source on whether or not it was peer-reviewed. Note also that the publication in which it was published is not a journal - it's explicitly a newsletter. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I said above that the question about whether the journal is peer-reviewed is not relevant - agreeing with reviewers above. That is why I merely deleted the statement that the journal is not peer-reviewed rather than changing it to agree with what the journal on its website actually claims to be. There is no reason (Chris) to make false statements about the journal just for the sake of attacking Monckton's position. There is no credible source anywhere saying that the journal is not peer-reviewed. Whether or not Monckton's paper was reviewed is another question - but please stop putting the statement that the journal is not peer-reviewed into the article. There is no support whatsoever for that assertion. BTW: The reviewer of Monckton's article was Professor Alvin Saperstein, Professor of Physics, Wayne State University. I suggest being more careful about any text dealing with the issue of whether or not the article was peer-reviewed. Something very odd happened there with the disclaimer, and it's looking more and more like whoever ordered it may not have been totally honest. The best thing at this point is probably to leave out any discussion of it. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not supposed to be some half-witted, rumor oriented daily blog rooting for your favorite horse. It can wait until the dust settles. ~~

Comment: the previous paragraph would work better if the second last sentence in it was removed. It implies some, presumably-unintended, slur on another honourable editor. Wanderer57 (talk) 21:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's get these issues straight:

• The publication is not a journal: "The header of this newsletter carries the statement that “Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum.” This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed." Source: [1]

• The publication is not peer-reviewed: "This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed." Source: [2]

• The specific article was not peer-reviewed: "The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review, since that is not normal procedure for American Physical Society newsletters." Source: [3]

The APS is the publisher of the newsletter and the article in question, so it's ridiculous to claim that it doesn't know what its own publication is or what its own procedures are. It's as if someone was denying that the New York Times was a newspaper and refusing to accept the word of the New York Times Publishing Company that it is in fact a newspaper. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

OK Chris. I see where you're coming from. The original cite for the information was a blog out of nowhere. Now you have one comment on the daily blog at the APS website, with no sign whatsoever who posted the comment, whether the comment itself represents the position of APS administrators, or discussion of the conflict between the statement and the one at the journal's website. But being on the APS website at least gives the appearance of being more authoritative. If it had been there in the first place, I can see how someone might have honestly taken it as fact. However, it doesn't change the fact that Physics and Society, on their own website, describes the publication as including reviewed articles. It is also clear that the article went through review by Professor Saperstein. From the details, it is clear that Saperstein did not merely perform the work of an editor. His efforts were those of a scientific reviewer. The part that is missing, in this invited paper, is the "review" by randomly selected reviewers prior to acceptance - with ratings regarding whether it should be accepted for publication. Clearly, that did not happen. It was rather an invited paper. It did not undergo that particular review process. That however is not the only type of review that can be performed. I must still conclude that both the evidence supports neither the claim about the journal, nor the claim that Monckton's paper was not reviewed. My position as a Wikipedia editor is still the same. Leave it out. It doesn't belong here anyway. It's the kind of issue that advocacy blogs love to deal with. ~~

One more thing - one should not assume that there is no politics among the APS administrators. There is at least one on The Council, that issued the disclaimer to begin with - who has a large stake in the global warming game. He and perhaps another may be largely responsible for this contraversy, and may be responsible for adding (apparently false) statements about the journal (and the review of the article) on the APS website. The steps that have been taken, beginning with the disclaimer, are unprecedented in the history of published science. They appear to be aimed at discrediting the paper to reduce its public impact. There will be at least some continued scrutiny of all this by the press. Don't use Wikipedia like a daily blog while the controversy rages. At this point, I am certain that statements on the APS website cannot simply be taken at face value. Keep in mind that The Council is just a few guys, and they each have their own agenda. I have lots of experience with scientific journals. Do not underestimate the amount of politics invovled. There are good admins and editors, but sometimes it seems they become fewer and fewer with the years, as the politicization of science continues. ~~

Umm, no. This is a bit surreal. The APS doesn't have a "daily blog" - it has a space on its home page where it makes official announcements. By definition we have to assume that represents the official position of the APS. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Chris. I can imagine that it seems surreal to you. It does seem surreal in a way. I might use the same term if I wasn't such an old guy with so much life experience that I'm not surprised when I see such strange things going on - in places and by people in positions that were once imagined to be completely above it. Science - it should be. But alas, it's a thing that's done by people. And they are still after all people - just like the rest. But look closely. Official position of the APS? Why do you conclude that? Who wrote that Physics and Society is not peer-reviewed? I understand the comment is on the APS website, but who wrote it? What evidence is there that it is an official position? Then - regardless of who is responsible for the comment - does the APS organization actually have the authority? Publications are typically rather independent - not subject to dictatorship from the bureacrats that administer at the top of the organization. It wouldn't be a real science organization if they were. The website of the journal itself says that it carries peer-reviewed articles, re: physics and it is published periodically. So by definition, it is a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Doesn't that at least raise a question in your mind? Don't you think the people who actually run the journal and its website know whether they publish reviewed articles or not? Here's another article, one that I think is written by a guy with insight (probably an old guy like me maybe, and with a knowledge of scientific orgs) - note that he does have a quote from a scientist, giving his view about the matter. American physicists warned not to debate global warming Now - re: comments in Wikipedia: are you more qualified than the scientist he cites to decide the matter? I realize that you can find quotes on the other side of this contraversy. But that just makes it a contraversy with two sides, doesn't it? Why does Wikipedia need to weigh in on this argument right now? Wikipedia is neither a blog site nor a newspaper. I don't think this contraversy needs to be included at all, unless it blows up into a war or something, or maybe APS gets nailed and all the administrators fired, or something else that might be of historical consequence takes place. At the very least, it can wait until the dust settles. There is absolutely no need for Wikipedia to keep up with the daily knocks and to try to decide which side to be on. ~~

Let me ask you this, why are you so interested in having coverage of this current contraversy in an encyclopedia? It doesn't strike me as something that has a place here. It's in a section re: Monckton's positions on global warming. He's had a paper published. It can be cited as one of his published works. His positions can be discussed. If you want contraversy - his positions seem contraversial enough right now. Just say what they are - done. Leave the slug-fest to bloggers. If one day, the person or persons on The Council decide to come out in the open and debate the analysis in the paper, then okey dokey - perhaps you can explain that person or persons positions on their Wikipedia page or pages. ~~

This is incoherent. You're saying that the "contraversy" [sic] shouldn't be mentioned in Wikipedia at all, and at the same time the controversy should be mentioned only if it accords equal weightage to 'both sides' (regardless of merit). Anyway, the APS states that the Monckton paper was not peer-reviewed. How much more definitive do you need it to be? Bi (talk) 07:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Absurd Imbalance

This article currently has 1200 words in the section on Monckton's political views on Global Warming.

This is four hundred more words than are in the section "Light and General Relativity" in the article on Albert Einstein.

In my opinion this is placing inordinate emphasis on Monckton's political views.

Wanderer57 (talk) 15:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll go with that. Really, there is little to say other than that he is a rabid septic and people have noticed. But I don't suppose we can say that. I've hacked it down a bit William M. Connolley (talk) 22:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

If he's a "rabid septic", antiseptic should deal with that quite nicely. ;-) Seriously though, while I agree that there was probably too much detail on his global warming activism, his own efforts have ensured that this is the issue for which he's best known. We shouldn't lose sight of that. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thats why I stopped half way though. But probably the second half should be done William M. Connolley (talk) 23:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

If something's worth writing it's surely worth publishing. I suspect POV attacks on the text because of its unfashionable stance. Maybe the Einstein-article needs more material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 19:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

APS headers to Monckton's paper

Response for KDP - ive done a web search and found alot of blog references including a full reproduction of the letter from Monckton protesting the header, but nothing that directly attributes the change to Monckton's noise. I did a search of a major aus MSM domain (news.com.au) and got no hits on the subject. Maybe the british ones might have something. In any case at the moment the link I put in is not really supported by WP:RS so you can axe it if you want re wiki = verifiable, not truth (though I still think the paragraph flows better with the linking sentence). Jaimaster (talk) 00:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

So its neither truth, nor verifiable then, but merely conjecture. I've removed it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 05:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The letter sent by Monckton prior to the change of the header can be viewed here - http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/monkton_letter_pys.pdf

Doesnt look like a blog. Pretty biased site though, but then its hardly possible to publish a POV version of a letter. I think that will do for a citation to add a link stating Monckton critised the initial header and that the header was later changed, without stating that it was changed because of the letter. Ill do that now and you can critique it. Jaimaster (talk) 07:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Its very well that Monckton protested. But the former edit stated that the APS changed it because of this protest. Perhaps they did - but noone apparently knows. Thus it was pure conjecture (and still is). Your current edition implies this, which may be over the top. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

My current edition just relates the sequence of events (APS header, Monckton's letter, APS header changed) without stating causation. Any implications of causation inferred by the reader exist because the actual sequence of events implies a possible causal link, not because the author of the section wishes them to. Jaimaster (talk) 22:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Monckton again

In case anyone is wondering, the anonymous editor who posted a lengthy screed here earlier today, deleted earlier discussions and made numerous unsourced, highly POV edits to the article is likely to be Monckton himself. He is currently blocked from editing (as Mofb (talk · contribs)) for making legal threats. The same editing block extends to the IP addresses that he uses. Basically, if you see an anonymous IP editing the article from the Energis network, it's likely to be Monckton himself. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I like the edit attributing Monckton's lack of votes to the Freemasons. :) Bi (talk) 07:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know who the Anonymous editor is but I see that someone has changed the key phrase in the opening line back to "mainstream scientific consensus on global warming". I'm sorry, but this is simply a false statement simply reflecting the person's point of view. If you choose to believe that this makes me a "right-wing zealot" then so be it. I stand firm that there simply is NOT "mainstream scientific consensus" on this subject. It's a pity that some are more interested in pushing their political agenda that striving to keep Wikipedia as unbiased as possible. rwerner (talk) 5:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Then, sadly, you would be in error - see Scientific opinion on climate change#Scientific consensus. -- ChrisO (talk) 06:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps rwerner could direct us to the reliable sources that state that there is no mainstream scientific consensus on global warming. Because, frankly, one editor "stand[ing] firm" on a particular viewpoint regardless of the weight of evidence for or against it isn't worth the energy it took to express the sentiment. Perhaps he could begin by directing us to the peer-reviews papers that take issue with the fact of anthropogenic global warming that have been published in, oh, the last five years, before using their number vis a vis those that support the anthropogenic position to demonstrate that they constitute anything more than fringe theories.FrFintonStack (talk) 20:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Semi

I've semi'd the page for a week. Discuss William M. Connolley (talk) 21:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Sensible enough. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Title?

Uh, why is this article under the subject's full title? It's absurd. I'm going to move it. Graft | talk 21:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, I see why. Graft | talk 21:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I wondered that too, but it seems to be our standard style for people with titles. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Membership in the House of Lords

This already appears to be the subject of a scuffle up in "Anon comment removed here" (item 2), and I'm certainly opposed to using Lord Monckton's wikipedia entry as a hit-piece on his integrity. But it's a notable point worth addressing in the main article that Lord Monckton chooses to present himself as a member of the House of Lords (or often more specifically as a member of the Upper House of Parliament).

He refers to himself this way implicitly in this letter to two U.S. Senators:

http://www.ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20061212_monckton.pdf (search for "upper house" to find the reference)

And he refers to himself this way explicitly here, in fact specifically addressing the criticisms of his use of that description:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/commentaries/chuck_yet_again_schmidt.pdf (search for "footnote")

The House of Lords Act 1999 (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1999/ukpga_19990034_en_1), which came into effect 7 years before Lord Monckton inherited his title, unambiguously states as its central impact:

"No-one shall be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage."

Thus, while he is indeed a hereditary peer and a Viscount, he is not in any legal sense whatsoever a "member" of the House of Lords. His father's seat was not one of the handful maintained for transitional membership until reform is complete (as evidenced by his assertion of the same in the "footnote" link above and in that he stood for election in a by-election, which he would not need to do if he had a seat.

Along with other elements of the way Lord Monckton chooses to present himself and his qualifications, this is something about which many of his critics express concern regarding his integrity and honesty. So is there any reason not to include a note that he presents himself in this way, and note the disparity?

naltrexone (User talk:naltrexonetalk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC).

No, we cannot use this, no matter if its correct or not, unless you can come up with reliable sources that point this out. Your statement that "many of his critics" implies that you might be able to do so - if so - please present these, otherwise i'm afraid that it will be considered original research (which is something that WP cannot do per policy). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Certainly. While the preponderance of critics taking issue with Lord Monckton claiming that qualification seem to be doing so in science blogs, which may not qualify as Reliable Sources, there are certainly instances in RS print media. Would this be sufficient?

He refers to himself as a "peer of the House of Lords." Monckton inherited a title, Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, but he is not a member of the House of Lords, and he earned no votes in early 2007 when the Lords filled a vacancy created by the death of a member.

from:

"Global warming skeptic finds unfavorable climate in Bali"

Chicago Tribune - Chicago, Ill.

Author: David Greising; Laurie Goering

Date: Dec 16, 2007

Start Page: 20

Section: News

Text Word Count: 912

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/chicagotribune/access/1399339251.html?dids=1399339251:1399339251&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Dec+16%2C+2007&author=David+Greising%3B+Laurie+Goering&pub=Chicago+Tribune&desc=Global+warming+skeptic+finds+unfavorable+climate+in+Bali&pqatl=google

(It's behind a pay-barrier, so I had to pay for access to the full article, but it's there.)

Naltrexone (talk) 18:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Go for it - be bold (but also brief). I found a non-pay copy here [4], and its a regular journalistic piece it seems, and not an op-ed. If you can find more RS's for it, then tag them on as extra references. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Done! Thanks for all the help on that-- especially on tracking down the free version of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naltrexone (talk • contribs) 17:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Monckton in the news

To be aware: Monckton is currently receiving heavy coverage in predominately right-wing media and blogs, so there is likely to be (a further) influx of new editors who have some disagreements with the mainstream viewpoint on climate change. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Nobel laureate?

The intro says he's a nobel laureate. Maybe I missed it, but is there any detail/reference for this in the article? Odd that it should remain unexplained.Shtove (talk) 22:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I removed it - it's a hoax. He most definitely is not a Nobel laureate. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

This may explain it, although sourced from a biased site: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/12/monckton_watch.php As far as I can tell Monckton doesn't claim he's a laureate, but does point to a laureate's badge on his lapel, which he reckons is merited by some contribution equal to that of Al Gore. An echo chamber for bullshitters?--Shtove (talk) 02:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Heh, amusing. He has gall, if nothing else. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

UKIP

In December 2009, Viscount Monckton joined the UK Independence Party (UKIP).

'Hitler Youth'

Dear editors:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/dec/11/monckton-calls-activists-hitler-youth has a video and transcript of Viscount Monckton calling a young Jewish man a member of the Hitler Youth, and claims that the campaign SustainUS, which (I believe) encourages biofuel use, is responsible for starvation around the globe. This is notable and sourced; might it be added to the article?

Yours sincerely,

131.111.17.143 (talk) 18:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)