Viscount Monkton:
supposes that the fact that a scientist profits from his/her activity is relevant to a discussion of his/her reasoning;
presupposes that the correct penalty for crimes against humanity is execution, and attributes that view without evidence, to James Hanson and anyone else so foolish as to echo Hanson’s views;
declares falsely, and contrary to the evidence, that no one supporting the existence of human caused climate change bats an eyelid when people on their side of the debate make stuff ups or exaggerate beyond all reason;
refers without any specifics to a group of scientists whose research “amply demonstrates that the chief conclusions of the United Nation’s climate panel are nonsense”;
exaggerates the effect on food prices of the production of biofuels (I accept that there is a problem about biofuels);
supposes, without evidence, that the promotion of biofuels is endorsed by (some? a few? most?) climate change scientists;
gets the Australian Constitution wrong;
gets the law under which Peter Spencer’s land was restricted wrong;
gets the purposes of that restriction wrong;
asserts without evidence or specifics that unspecified numbers of persons supporting the existence of human caused climate change are calling for Western economies to be shut down;
blames the entire set of views supporting the existence of human caused climate change on a conspiracy of a few malevolent, radicalised scientists; and
asserts falsely that there is no scientific basis [at all] for concern about climate change, when the greenhouse effect is well established science, as he effectively accepts in his fourth and third last paragraphs.

Only in those two and the next paragraph does he start on the real scientific debate.
Really, chaps—and Graham Young too. You could all find better arguments denying the seriousness of human caused climate change than this.

I notice that no one has addressed the banner issue with this article by Monckton namely that the IPCC is overstating the climate sensitivity factor by large amounts.

I notice also that the very first post by was by someone purporting to be a scientist (at ANU no less) who provided no evidence to support his criticisms of Monckton, on this or any other matter.Just trust me I am a scientist of long standing

I notice also that some days before this, Glikson a self declared professor of climate whatevers, also from the ANU, published an article here in, that was savage in his criticism of unnamed people in industry who were conniving to pull down the AGW edifice to the detriment of the atmosphere. He also produced no evidence to support his belly aching..despite being asked to by several responders.

If what is being posted in response to an article is to be monitored then surely the same applies to the Article writers as well.

Self professed academics more than anyone else should not be allowed to get away with sweeping and unsubstantiated assertions.

Bigmal,

There is of course a limit on how much substance (and time) goes into a comment. My opening comment was not a fully referenced scientific paper. If you want to see my views with sources, then go to my blog site http://betternature.wordpress.com/.

I particularly commend to you my post on what I think the real issues are in the AGW debate:
http://betternature.wordpress.com/2009/10/31/for-global-warming-sceptics/

You'll find a lot more sources there than Mr. Monckton provided, and in my several articles on OLO. You'll also see comment on the role and credibility of IPCC.

I don't know how much more 'purported' my scientific credentials could be - forty years practising, over 100 papers, two international honours ... No I'm not trying to strut, you raised the question. And yes, I do think I have more experience evaluating scientific issues than Mr. Monckton.

Regarding Andrew Glikson's statements about the well-known efforts to discredit climate science, try Googling "exxonmobil climate sceptics". The first entry I got was "ExxonMobil 'funding climate sceptics' - ABC News": http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/03/2615551.htm
They employ former tobacco marketers whose slogan was "Our product is doubt". Not truth, doubt and confusion.

You people don't have to slag the ANU just because you don't like what a couple of us are saying. It's a credit to your country (and mine). Grow up.

Col Rouge,

You chastise me for my opening comment (and did you even see the post right before yours at 2:42 pm today) and then proceed to refer to "AGW zealots", "useful idiots" etc etc on the way to your grand lefty conspiracy.

Alman and others, you’ve obviously got so used to the “viciously emotive language, irrelevant hyperbole and hysteria” that climate alarmists trot out as a matter of course that you take that as your standard. So you interpret mild skeptical questioning as being outrageous, and Monkton’s robust but basically valid arguments as being such “viciously emotive irrelevant hyperbole and hysteria” that they should be censored.

But just because you hear stuff all the time, that doesn’t make it so. The climate alarmist crusade has no scientific, economic, political or moral justification. The imposition of climate treaties, carbon “pollution” reduction legislation and the like will drastically reduce our chances of prosperity and in poorer countries their chances of survival. So the onus is on anyone proposing such impositions to justify them, the onus is not on us skeptics, because we aren’t the ones demanding the right to regulate or manipulate how everyone else lives their lives.

In other forums where he has more space Monkton has backed his arguments with facts, figures and logic. If the alarmists are so sure he doesn't know what he's talking about, why won't they debate him? Al Gore sure as hell won't, he knows Monkton would chew him up and spit out his Rolex

There is not one critic here of Christopher Monckton who has acknowledged that without his efforts ,we would not have known of the agenda for a secret World Govt without repesentation,that K Rudd would have signed on our behalf.Copenhagen Treaty Annex 1 par 36-38 mentions world Govt several times.This is totally outrageous.Name one totalitarian Govt on the planet that serves the people? They all become self serving.

Maurice Strong the ex-secretary of the UN has been open about his belief that the world pop needs to be drastically reduced.Strong is a protege of the Rockefellers and Rothschilds.They finance and have a big say in the Green Movement.Strong is also heavily invested in the Carbon Credit business.We now have very powerful people in the Global Banking and corporate world with very extreme views and they can justify these with the noble notion of saving the planet.

Once Obama signs that treaty,they then have access to the most powerful military machine on the planet.What country with the exception of China,Russia or India could stand up to this power if they felt wronged?

C Monckton has rightly raised the need for a new political party based on the principles of freedom.We in the West now have Govts of oligarchy,whereby both the major parties are controlled by corporate donations and influence.Any new parties must have in their constitutions,provisions for no corporate donations whatsoever.

Tree clearance on the scale seen in the Amazon basin, is one tragedy
of course. But strip clearance leaving some land cleared and then adequate spaces of original forests or wild life corridors, etc, can be less harmful. However, cleared forest's soil needs to be renourished, as forest soils can leach very quickly when there isn't enough ground cover present. Soil degradation is generally caused by deep ploughing, erosion, salinity levels can rise, as well as poor managerment of water sources. And now Australian farmers are increasing their soil fertility and pasture land using
organic fertilizers and compost. This increases the soil's carbon sequestration, increase animal health, reduce the use of worming
products, pesticides and herbicides, all that are hazardous to the
environment if not applied prudently if at all.

So I agree with Viscount Monkton... The Copenhagen farce just proved a point... developed countries were being blamed for some countries political mismanagement and perceived future destruction demanding we pay for their mistakes. (Thanks Al Gore?) Natural disasters are one thing, poor management and political corruption is another. The climate alarmists are causing a crisis when their isn't one, however, that doesn't mean all countries should not improve their environment by reducing pollution, concentrating on water conservation, and investing in alternative fuel and renewable energy resources. And following sustainable agricultural methodology.

You only have to see the SBS TV ads. They change of course but the
message is always the same. Latest - Even if CO2 emissions ceased
tomorrow, the methane produced by cattle and sheep would still result
in global warming.... Eat Veg not meat and Save the planet..

So give up your steak and lamb chop and save the planet, because if
this goes on ... you won't have any meat to eat! Wake up to the biggest scam ever produced by people who have everything to gain and nothing to lose.