Jump to content

Talk:Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 121.208.114.70 (talk) at 16:28, 23 October 2010 (→John Abraham). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconBiography: Peerage and Baronetage Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage (assessed as Low-importance).

John Abraham

Now in the press [1] so presumably can be re-added William M. Connolley (talk) 20:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This affair has certainly gone far past the point at which it can be dismissed as an "unpublished" or "self-published" work, or as a "hack job."
According to a list compiled by the physicist Joseph Romm, the scientists who have contributed to this document are:
I think we most definitely have to cover this now. These chaps cannot be written off as nonentities from a bible college. --TS 11:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just remember, this is an autobiography about Monckton -- not an open forum for discussing climate change politics. Anything added has to be relevant to his life as a whole, and not covered in undue depth. Fell Gleamingtalk 13:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. This document is a response by 20 senior climate scientists to Congressional testimony given by Monckton, where he was called to give evidence on behalf of the Republican Party. The testimony was perhaps the highlight of Monckton's career as an advocate for his beliefs and claims related to climate science. I don't know why all mention of that testimony has been omitted from the article. Would it be normal to omit such an extraordinary event from a biographical article? --TS 13:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that I would call this the highlight of his career. His appearance itself is notable, but going into depth on all the multitudinous responses to his appearance smacks of a soapboxing attempt to discuss climate change in his bio. Say he testified, and what he testified about. What else do we need to say? Fell Gleamingtalk 13:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We definitely do need to mention the Congressional testimony, and also the tours of Australia and the United States (he may also have toured other countries). Also missing (in a brief skimming) seems to be Monckton's dispute with the House of Lords over his claim to be an honorary member of the House, which most recently drew an intervention from Buckingham Palace over his alleged unauthorized use of an insignia.

Why is the recent response significant to Monckton, you ask? Because it is almost unknown for so many experts in any field to go out of their way to refute the claims of a layman in any field of science. This is a big deal, and it pertains directly and solely to statements by Monckton and no other party. It belongs in this biography because it pertains to Monckton's principal occupation in recent years. I can't think of anywhere else it might be relevant. It really is just Monckton versus the House of Lords, the Palace, and the entire field of climatology. Tasty monster (=TS ) 15:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. In climate science alone, its a near-daily occurrence that some scientist, somewhere, refutes what they believe to be a 'popular' or laymen's misinterpretation of their field or work. Fell Gleamingtalk 15:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)a[reply]
I agree with Tasty. Definitely notable. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you grasped what I'm saying, FellGleaming. The work in question isn't a generic debunking of misinformation about climate change, it is a specific document constructed to address a particular highly prominent set of misinformation delivered to Congress by the subject of this article. Had Monckton not given his testimony to Congress, this document would not exist and those scientists would not have taken time out of their important work to address him. The document addresses Monckton's arguments and Monckton's alone. This isn't about shoehorning something about climate change into the article, but about describing a particular set of activities by Monckton (public speaking, political advocacy, testimony to Congress) and the response of experts in the field to that testimony. --TS 17:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I understand that perfectly. Why don't you post your suggestion for text here, and we can discuss specifics, rather than generics? Fell Gleamingtalk 17:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • I think that's a good idea to post a proposal for discussion. Is this covered in any other RS? I don't think it's a problem to mention it in the article probably, but I'm afraid it's going to turn into a discussion of the science and an attack on Monckton as it usually does. Also, John Abraham is a relative "nobody" other than he's bold enough to put his name behind an attack on Monckton. He is an associate professor in engineering and not in the same league with many of those scientists, like Mann etc. Minor4th 19:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about Abraham. Monckton gave testimony to Congress on the science of global warming. We have unimpeachable sources for that. A score of highly qualified scientists have taken it upon themselves to publish a purported refutation of his testimony. We have unimpeachable sources for that, too. This concerns material that was read into the Congressional record, it's not just some daft nonsense somebody said on a late night radio talk show.

On the question of "attacks", it seems to me that some people equate robust criticism of scientific claims with personal attacks. That isn't how it works. Everything Monckton says could be wrong and it wouldn't make him a lesser man (I think we'd all rather live in the rosy world painted by Monckton than that predicted by the IPCC!). These 20 climate experts aren't attacking the viscount's person, they're attacking his arguments, his assumptions, his interpretation of sources and his conclusions. And in case you didn't know, that's how science is done. Tasty monster (=TS ) 20:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the document itself has been published by a reputable publisher. . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave souza (talk • contribs) 21:56, 22 September 2010
Sure, but that's beside the point. Even the Guardian has published dodgy stuff. The point is that these people are verifiably and superlatively the best bloody specialists on the subject presently living on this planet. That's what verifiability means. Not this latterday milquetoast "somebody said it in a book so it's reliable" nonsense. --TS 23:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"' And in case you didn't know, that's how science is done. : In case you didn't know, this isn't a science article. It's not a forum to debate science, sources, and conclusions. It's a biography of Monckton's life, not a catalog of what other people think of his opinions. What's you don't understand is that, had this group of people actually been talking about Monckton himself, rather than his "interpretation of sources", it would actually be more relevant to his bio. Again: this is what is significant in Monckton's life, not how to "best do science". Fell Gleamingtalk 23:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've misread what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that Monckton has verifiably made representations on scientific matters before Congress, and a score of scientists have verifiably responded, by deposition to Congress, to his representation. The statement by Monckton was a scientific claim. The response was also scientific. If we're to correctly represent Monckton's life, we must record what he has done, and what he has said. Monckton has undeniably made scientific claims. Monckton's scientific claims have undeniably been challenged by experts in the field. All of these matters are very public aspects of Monckton's life, and not at all incidental. I only said this is how we do science because some people have misrepresented the scientific response to the scientific statements as a personal attack. Obviously this isn't the place to discuss the truthfulness of his claims, but it certainly is the place to discuss the events of Monckton's life. He made scientific statements very publicly and those statements were just as publicly repudiated by professional scientists. --TS 23:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We can debate this all day, but until we see some proposed text, I don't think we're going to make progress. Can these events be added in such a manner that is neutral, relevant, and conforms to BLP standards? Quite possibly, but in the past, editors have used similar openings to interject vast amounts of coatracking and soapboxing. User:FellGleaming 23:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that we need to cover the response by the 20 climate scientists, but we certainly need to cover Monckton's testimony before Congress. Simply "He has given testimony before Congress". And cite a suitable source. It was in May of this year, I believe. The response, I'm very relaxed about. I'd like to revisit the question some time in 2012 when any heat that may be associated with this issue will probably have died down. This is a man's life work we're talking about. Meanwhile I don't want to thwart anyone else's proposals, so please take this as a statement of personal disposition. I would certainly respect and support any decent and neutral statement that complies with all of Wikipedia's policies. --TS 23:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it should be included. There should also be some mention of some of his other crazier ideas such as "NWO", a world government taking over the entire planet and killing off millions of people. He has 0 credibility yet people seem to think this layman is a voice of reason on A(assisted)GW. 121.208.114.70 (talk) 16:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Section for drafts of coverage of Monckton's Congressional testimony on global warming

I invite editors to propose draft wording to cover Monckton's Congressional testimony and directly related matters Tasty monster (=TS ) 20:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Principles for a re-write

I'm not going to be editing this article, but as a disinterested person who saw fit to stub the Climate Change section, perhaps I can offer a view on how this should be re-written. Principally:

  1. Proportionality. This is biography on Monkton, who (among other things) is a critic of CC. So any discussion on his involvement with climate change debate needs to be of a length that is proportionate to Monkton's involvement with the issue vs his other reasons for being encyclopedic. It must not take over the article.
  2. Biographical. This is an article about Monkton AND not about CC. Thus it must NOT be continuing an argument about the merits or dis-merits of Climate Change. If Monkton holds a barmy view, we describe it in outline, how he's promoted it, and give some indication of the reaction to it. We don't use that as a cover to demolish it or to rehearse the arguments he uses for it - other articles will outline the arguments for and against CC not biographies.
  3. Any negative quotations need either to be notable in their own individual right (and quotations rarely are) or illustrative (that means typical not "the most salacious we can find"). We out to describe Monkton's involvement with CC, not record knock-down soundbites.

With that in mind, I'd suggest the following outline.

  1. Describe factually the degree of Monktone's involvement with CC debate. How long has he been involved? In what capacity? Is it a passing hobby or an life obsession? Is he a front-man or an technical expert? What's he published?
  2. Situate Monkton's views within the range of CC scepticism. There is no need to rehearse his arguments here (arguments of CC sceptics are recorded elsewhere), just make clear what he's questioning and any recurring themes. What differentiates his views from other sceptics? The section should be plain description of his position without any assessment.
  3. Record something of the reaction to Monkton's public interventions. This is NOT a rehearsal of "why people think he's wrong". Sure, the scientific consensus is against CC sceptics, but that's a fact about CC that gets recorded on a CC article not a biography. What this section should give the reader some awareness of is how notable have his interjections been and what the reaction has been. This section doesn't need to be long, we know that most scientists are scornful of the sceptics - we don't need to spell that out. What's been significant, beyond that, about their reaction to Monkton. Has it been unusually vitriolic? Have very notable people taken the time to comment particularly on his comments?

The point is to inform the reader always about Monkton, and not about CC or its arguments.

I hope this helps. At any rate, I'd suggest agreeing some outline before re-writing. That way you don't get bogged down on the details of whether this or that particular quote or comment can be justified, whilst ignoring the "overall balance", and I suspect the concern is more with the balance than with any one item.--Scott Mac 14:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That looks good, if not actually blindingly obvious. Thanks. Tasty monster (=TS ) 15:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know I'm saying the obvious. But sometimes the way forward is to go back to basics and ask "what's the overall purpose here?"--Scott Mac 16:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)This is definitely a promising start. That challenge, as I see it, really lies in point #2 of your outline - "Situate Monkton's views within the range of CC scepticism". I really wonder who has written about the range of views. Point #3, the "why people think he's wrong" bit needs a caveat - we also can't give the impression that his views are consistent with the mainstream. Fringe views need to be identified as such, even if they aren't actually rebutted. Probably not as much of a challenge here as in some other articles though. Regarding the "especially vitriolic" thing - I think trying to judge vitriol is something we should avoid. Guettarda (talk) 15:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, is he for instance denying change is happening, or that its man-made, or that it matters, or is he allowing that it is partially man-made? I don't know much about the issue, but non-mainstream views can, as far as I see, range from those who'd question aspects of the orthodoxy, or take slightly variant positions, to those who deny the whole thing. Then there are those who'd question the science, and those who'd question the motives of the mainstream. As for "Fringe views need to be identified as such". I think the over-concentration on this has been the problem. Fair enough, but the article isn't on views but a person. If anything needs said, it should be sufficient to say "these views are at variance from the mainstream consensus of scientists" and perhaps give a comment by one mainstream scientist (or representative institution). It shouldn't need much verification since I don't think anyone is disputing his views are not mainstream. Readers wanting to know how such CC views relate to the scientific mainstream should be directed to the appropriate articles. ?"--Scott Mac 16:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite a challenge to describe Monckton's opinions without sounding like a satirist. On climate change, although there is a veneer of pseudo-science or at best fringe science, the general thrust of his message appears to be that global warming is a massive United Nations conspiracy to bring about world government. It would be difficult to say that of anybody in his biography without making him sound unhinged. It's a perennial problem for Wikipedia: how to write about somebody whose ideas have achieved some notoriety. Getting the balance right is not easy.

In an earlier discussion I made the point that I think it's more important that we record his giving evidence before a Congressional committee than it is either to characterize that evidence or even to note that a score of climate scientists, many of them eminent in the field, subsequently produced a rebuttal. Indeed if anything I think in a bio the latter would tend to magnify his political influence. Write about that, more than his ideas. Tasty monster (=TS ) 18:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This reliable source summarises the views Monckton presented at a congressional hearing on Thursday, May 6, 2010. "His testimony included claims that increasing ocean acidification is not due to rising CO2 levels, that recent decades of warming were due to global brightening as opposed to rising CO2 levels, and that there is nothing unusual about recent rises in global temperatures. He concluded his testimony by stating that anthropogenic climate change is a 'non-problem' and that the correct policy response was 'to do nothing'." Five leading experts in the field prepared a detailed analysis and rebuttal of his claims which they have filed to Congress, and they state that "In all cases, Monckton's assertions are shown to be without merit – they are based on a thorough misunderstanding of the science of climate change." He's made similar presentations elsewhere. Tony makes a good point, this isn't the place for a detailed presentation of the individual's claims and their rebuttal, presumably we can link to articles on the areas of science he disputes and note that expert examination found his claims to be without merit. . . dave souza, talk 19:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, but in this instance I would say that we'd only want to mention the subject on which he testified and probably the fact that it drew a rebuttal from many experts. In scientific circles Monckton's ideas have no impact but he is quite influential in the political sphere, and has a strong ally in the Senate in Jim Inhofe. I would tend to avoid an exposition of his ideas for reasons I've already outlined. They don't matter any more than a detailed description of Rep. Markey's views on the effects of the carbon economy on the global surface temperature, though in both cases they are factors in the actions and influence of the two respective politicians. Tasty monster (=TS ) 19:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the cited source, which also includes extensive replies from Monckton himself: 'Monckton has been among the most persistent and vociferous of critics, labelling climate science as the "largest fraud of all time" and arguing that it is being used to establish a "new world government."'

Now if we wrote something like that, we would be painting Monckton with the brush he has carefully fashioned for himself, but we would be over-emphasizing the opinions, both in their extreme nature and in their relevance to the dialog. To draw a close parallel, the fact that so many candidates in the approaching mid-term elections espouse a cross section of extreme social conservative and libertarian views does not mean that we should devote significant effort to describing those ideas and various rebuttals in the biographies of the candidates. Tasty monster (=TS ) 21:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drafting a section on climate science activism

I suppose I'll give it a go. This is about what I think we should say:

Climate science

Lord Monckton has strong views on climate science and believes scientific claims of man-made global warming are part of a fraudulent attempt to impose world government. He has testified on the subject of global warming before an American Congressional committee. The scientific arguments he presented were later the subject of a rebuttal filed with the House of Representatives by 20 prominent climate scientists.

I think that's about all we need to write. Possibly we could get away with less. Possibly repeating his most unorthodox view, that it's all a big lie, isn't appropriate, but I'm still thinking about it. There is an important nuance, really: he accepts that temperatures have risen, but he claims that temperatures aren't rising within projections and that evidence for the influence of anthropogenic carbon dioxide is faked or exaggerated (mostly the former). And he can be quite scathing about the idea that carbon dioxide has anything to do with ocean acidification. --TS 01:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some witification would be appropriate, suggest
Lord Monckton strongly opposes the mainstream scientific consensus on man-made global warming, and says it is part of a fraudulent attempt to impose world government. He has testified on the subject before an American Congressional committee. The arguments he presented were later the subject of a rebuttal filed with the House of Representatives by 20 prominent climate scientists.
That way, we show the relationship to mainstream views as well as showing how scientists have received M's views. . . dave souza, talk 21:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I also intend that we should give appropriate citations for the facts (mainly the Grauniad article which provides an excellent summary). What do you think on content? --TS 22:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "opposes the mainstream scientific consensus" is awkward, methinks. I suggest something along the lines of
Lord Monckton disagrees with the scientific consensus on man-made global warming...
ScienceApologist (talk) 23:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe
Lord Monckton believes that the scientific consensus on man-made global warming is part of a fraudulent ...
RDBrown (talk) 04:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To Tony, the length and content seems about right, rather than going into more specific detail on his claims. He disputes all the science as well as claiming it's a fraud to bring in the black helicopters, so suggest:
Lord Monckton strongly disputes the mainstream scientific consensus on man-made global warming, and says..."
Leave "strongly" out if preferred, but he's certainly not tentative. . . dave souza, talk 08:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"mainstream" seems redundant because I'm pretty sure there is no such thing as "non-mainstream scientific consensus". ScienceApologist (talk) 15:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First add what he believes, this article is about monkton, not how what he believes differs from others opinions. A comment at the end saying his views are only supported by a minority of scientists will easily cover that. Off2riorob (talk) 16:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How do you propose doing that? What does he believe? And who are these "minority of scientists" who support his his views? What source gives a coherent statement of Monckton's views? Guettarda (talk) 20:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Here an alternative proposal:
  • Lord Monckton strongly opposes the scientific consensus on man-made global warming. He argues that climate scientists' evidence is "fabricated, distorted and based on faulty computer modelling", and warns that it is used as a means to establish a global bureaucracy and "world government" that would be democratically accountable to no one. He has spoken on the subject before an American Congressional committee. The arguments he presented were later the subject of a rebuttal filed with the House of Representatives by 20 prominent climate scientists.
  • Sources: [2][3][4] --JN466 16:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Warns", I think, lends more credence to his extreme views on conspiracy than are merited. I'll have to look at the articles on Glenn Beck, Orly Taitz and the like to see how we handle people's extreme fringe views. My instincts are that we'd omit detail if we can't get it right (see my comments above). Tasty monster (=TS ) 18:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this looks like a coatrack for presenting M's views with only an outline mention that a rebuttal has been issued. Best to omit detail rather than introduce problems of undue weight to fringe positions. . dave souza, talk 19:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fringe positions exist and we should report them, by the simple fact that they are in real life a minority then there will be a minority of artcles about the minority position. I am looking to learn from monktons BLP what monkton believes in, not what the majority of scientists believe and that a majority of them disagree with monkton. 19:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I am looking to learn from monktons BLP what monkton believes in - Aren't we all? Guettarda (talk) 20:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can only speak for myself and for the general issues regarding WP:BLP articles. IMO, this article needs to report monktons position and not give undue weight to the people that disagree with him, they can do that as much as they like on their own article. Off2riorob (talk) 21:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And how do you propose to do this? What is "monktons position"? And I don't understand what you mean by the general issues regarding WP:BLP articles. If you're aware of some source that presents Monckton's claims in a coherent way that they can stand alone, then please share it - it would make writing this article much easier. But if you don't, then I don't know what you're asking for...it almost seems like you are demanding something which does not exist. Guettarda (talk) 21:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not proposing anything, let alone as you accuse ..demanding. Please feel free to join in, this is a discussion request at the BLP noticeboard to agree on a content addition, as yet there is little to assess. I was hoping a new non battlefield environment would be available. Off2riorob (talk) 21:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You said: First add what he believes. And I asked how you propose we do that. And your response was to say IMO, this article needs to report monktons position. Which is not a response to my question, simply a restatement of your prior position. Now you say I am not proposing anything. Which clearly contradicts your prior claim. Finally you say: I was hoping a new non battlefield environment would be available. I'm sorry, but there's no one taking a "battlefield" view of anything but you. I was being very civil with you despite the fact that you were calling for something which, as far as I can tell, does not exist. If I am mistaken, please correct me. But don't start throwing out insults.
All I am asking is that you explain what you're saying. What "beliefs" or "positions" of Monckton's are you talking about? That's not an unreasonable request. If you won't explain what you're talking about, how are we supposed to get anywhere? Guettarda (talk) 22:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal I posted adequately describes them, as given in the sources. --JN466 22:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We can drop the "warns", i.e.: "He argues that climate scientists' evidence is "fabricated, distorted and based on faulty computer modelling", and that it is used as a means ..." --JN466 22:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revised proposal

  • Lord Monckton strongly opposes the scientific consensus on man-made global warming. He argues that climate scientists' evidence is "fabricated, distorted and based on faulty computer modelling", and that it is used as a means to establish a global bureaucracy and "world government" that would be democratically accountable to no one. He has spoken on the subject before an American Congressional committee. The arguments he presented were later the subject of a rebuttal filed with the US Congress by 21 prominent climate scientists.
  • Sources: [5][6][7] --JN466 22:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where the rebuttal was filed and how many climate scientists seems not very relevant to the biography of Monckton. I would prefer, "...rebuttal by prominent climate scientists." ScienceApologist (talk) 22:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm easy either way on that; it was in Tony's original draft and is sourceable to the Guardian. However, I note that it was 21 scientists, and was filed with the US Congress, not the House of Representatives. Updated accordingly above, for the time being. --JN466 22:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be careful of the quote, which appears to be a paraphrase by an AAP journalist in your first source above. Also unless I'm mistaken the phrase "that would be democratically accountable to no one" doesn't seem to be attributable directly to Monckton. I'd prefer to see attributable quotes if that's possible. --TS 02:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am indeed quoting the journalist -- that ambiguity involved in using quotation marks that way is always a little undesirable, and I'd rather avoid it too. I'll have a look how to circumvent this. The lack of democratic accountability is a point that comes up in the first and third sources given above, and it is arguably a more valid point, or at least a distinct one from the climate science argument per se. He makes similar arguments about EU bureaucracy; he is after all involved in the UK Independence party, so this appears to be a recurring theme in his thinking. (Scepticism towards the role of unelected EU bureaucrats is a very wide-spread viewpoint in Britain.) --JN466 02:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand your reasoning on the words used, and I agree that his Euro-scepticism is part of a common theme in the UK. When he was one of Thatcher's aides, Euro-scepticism was very common within her wing of the Conservative Party, although that party has long-since repudiated Thatcher's little-England stance and they're Heathites in all but name.
I'd just like to see if we can try to summarise his opinions, as far as possible, in his own attributable words. I may come back to this if I see some suitable quotes. --TS 02:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I think the wording at present is close to being acceptable although we should clear up ambiguity over the quote of the AAP journalist. The idea of going for attributable quotes from Monckton himself is a nice-to-have rather than a must-have. --TS 03:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure about this summary. To begin with, what evidence is there that the third source, EducationNews.org is a BLP-appropriate source? The "About us" link is broken, and I can't find any reliable sources attesting to its reliability. A website that calls itself an "authoritative" news source, but doesn't even list an editorial board or a physical address almost certainly isn't. But more to the point, using two newspaper articles to provide a complete summary of Monckton's views, when the articles themselves don't purport to do so, is problematic. Anything, looking the two apparently reliable sources

The Australian (?)[8]

  • "is known around the world for his argument that humans are not damaging the climate"
  • "Temperatures have not risen in recent years and the Arctic iceshelf was not melting, he said."
  • "If temperatures were rising, it could be because of increased solar activity."
  • "Evidence used by climate scientists to say climate change was real was fabricated, distorted and based on faulty computer modelling, Lord Monckton said."
  • "The climate was a complex system that could not be predicted years, or decades, ahead."
  • "He warned of the dangers if good science was ignored, saying the 25 million deaths from HIV/AIDS could have been avoided if those afflicted had been locked away from the start."

The Guardian [9]

  • "His testimony included claims that increasing ocean acidification is not due to rising CO2 levels,"
  • "recent decades of warming were due to global brightening as opposed to rising CO2 levels"
  • "there is nothing unusual about recent rises in global temperatures"
  • "anthropogenic climate change is a 'non-problem' and that the correct policy response was 'to do nothing'"
  • "among the most persistent and vociferous of critics, labelling climate science as the 'largest fraud of all time'"
  • "arguing that it is being used to establish a 'new world government'"

Comparing that with the proposed text:

To begin with, we don't use titles to refer to people. So it wouldn't be "Lord". More to the point, "strongly opposes" just doesn't convey his all-out rejection of the entire field of study.

  • He argues that climate scientists' evidence is "fabricated, distorted and based on faulty computer modelling"

In the first article he (a) rejects human influence of climate, (b) says warming isn't happening, (c) says if there is warming, it's due to increased solar activity, (d) rejects the evidence, and (e) rejects the premise that anyone could predict future climate. In the second article he (appears to) accept warming, blaming it on "global brightening" and saying there's "nothing unusual" about recent warming. So we have two contradictory positions being seamlessly merged.

  • and that it is used as a means to establish a global bureaucracy and "world government" that would be democratically accountable to no one.

Can't find the "democratically accountable to no one" bit

  • He has spoken on the subject before an American Congressional committee. The arguments he presented were later the subject of a rebuttal filed with the US Congress by 21 prominent climate scientists.

The main problem here is why mention this particular testimony. What - other than recentism - makes this bit especially important? It's not clear to me. Is this the only time he has spoken to legislators? Guettarda (talk) 05:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • He seems to travel and speak quite widely. This page has an embedded video of one of his speeches, as well as a transcript (this is just for background info and discussion). --JN466 16:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Education News site was just a useful interview I found when researching what Monckton's views are. The lack of democratic accountability is mentioned in the news.com.au piece: "a 'world government ... that would have shut down democracy worldwide'. This new government would have policing powers, impose taxes, and 'take control over all formerly free markets', he said." They are covered elsewhere as well; for example here by Canada Free Press. All of this was really in the run-up to the Copenhagen Accord, which in the end did not become a legally binding treaty, but only an accord (Monckton seems to have been happy about that). --JN466 17:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shorter version - if we say he "opposes the scientific consensus", we miss the point. He doesn't just oppose the dominant position, he also opposes the position of most skeptics. And, if the news reports are to be taken at face value, he also opposes himself some of the time. Guettarda (talk) 15:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We just need a simple informative summary, I like what Jayen wrote and it seems to explain his position clearly. Off2riorob (talk) 15:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, perhaps, but not accurately. And surely accuracy is more important that brevity? Guettarda (talk) 15:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like to post your summary for discussion and comparison. Off2riorob (talk) 16:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is notable, Monckton sued to stop Gore's film "An Inconvenient Truth" from being shown in British schools due to its inaccuracies. The judge found in favor of Monckton, ordering 9 serious errors in the film to be corrected. from the citation Jayen presented. Off2riorob (talk) 16:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which citation? The court did spot inaccuracies but the film is still cleared for showing in schools. It was a mixed result. The classification of the errors as "serious" needs some qualification: they did not detract from the message of the film. --TS 16:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The cite jayen presented just above, it is a simple statement, and seems clear enough to me. the cite doesn't say the removal altered the general message of the video and that is also not the notable point of the comment. As I see it, it is easy, we find and cite the general position of monkton , this is not a scientific debate, and neither will what we add here affect the weather. Off2riorob (talk) 16:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mainstream source (Times) covering the Al Gore case. There is a video of the house select committee hearing mentioned in the Guardian, which Monckton participated in in May, here (haven't watched it yet, but might be interesting). --JN466 17:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, what Monckton does say, is that there were periods of rapid warming: "1860-1880, 1910-1940, and 1975-2001. Warming rates in all three periods were identical at ~0.16 K (0.3 F°) per decade.... From 1950-1975, and again from 2001-2010, global temperatures fell slightly (HadCRUTv3, cited in IPCC, 2007)." So the fact that a journalist quotes him as saying that warming both happened and didn't happen, and that when it happened it might have happened for different reasons than those generally believed, does not involve an obvious logical contradiction in his argument. (Monckon's US testimony is here, the climate scientists' point-by-point rebuttal is here (and also quotes Monckton's paper in full). --JN466 03:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The current draft is still recognisably based on my first draft, which was based on the Guardian article about the recently published rebuttal. On checking other sources I saw that Monckton was making the "world government" claim in this context in his own writings as long ago as 2006 and that it now forms the core of his message which is informed by deep suspicion of government regulation. In that respect he appears to be a political first cousin of the John Birch Society.


The Congressional testimony, and the extraordinary step of an unsolicited rebuttal, speak to the success of Monckton's advocacy. He is well connected and influential within the Congressional Republicans.

There are certainly other ways of summarizing Monckton's climate advocacy, and some of them might be superior to this. Perhaps somebody would like to produce a separate clean-sheet draft. Tasty monster (=TS ) 18:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am hoping the old school way of editing this subject have gone, it does not sit easy attempting to discuss a living person with users that hold absolute opposite positions to the subject, years of the regretful type POV discussions and adding of as much negative content as possible are hopefully history. I prefer labour and as such don't edit or add much to conservative articles , although I revert vandalism on those articles, I would suggest, users that are totally opposed to this living person would enjoy more editing the articles of climate change activists and let users that are not so strongly opposed to this living subject add some NPOV detail. Off2riorob (talk) 18:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Off2riorob, I'm a bit flummoxed by that last comment. Was it addressed to any person in particular? At this point in drafting I hope to solicit drafts for comment and wouldn't want to deter anybody from giving it a go. It's not as if we'd end up all agreeing to put unacceptable material into the article, is it?Tasty monster (=TS ) 18:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was a general comment, if you feel it applies to you then perhaps you could consider it. Off2riorob (talk) 19:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't, and for reasons I gave above I hope you won't repeat it. Let us not deter contributions of drafts at this stage. --TS 21:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is a simple representation of the last couple of years that this BLP has suffered. I hope for a new beginning . Lets see. Off2riorob (talk) 21:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. To recap, I and Jayen466 have made a proposal, basically the same one with a decent revision (which I support with reservations). Guettarda points to serious structural problems, and I explain the reason for the chosen structure and solicit further proposals. --TS 21:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SA proposal

This is my proposal after being involved in the discussion. I think most of the reliable sources indicated above can be slapped on at the end as references:

Monckton has made statements that contradict much of the scientific consensus on man-made global warming. He believes that the ecological, scientific, and political concern over global warming is part of a conspiracy to defraud the global community in an attempt to impose a world government.

ScienceApologist (talk) 22:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this captures his reasoning very well. --JN466 02:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What's his reasoning? This version, to me, reads very similar to yours except that it singles out what aspects of the discussion he dislikes the most. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think he thinks that the objective of the governments is to raise money and or create jobs in this vast new industry. But it is interesting that all his arguments are kicked into touch by the scientists. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First look is that the link has been redirected from scientific opinion to scientific consensus and that starts me asking questions, such as , why? [[ Scientific opinion on climate change|scientific consensus on man-made global warming]] Off2riorob (talk) 22:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's where scientific consensus on global warming resolves to. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its a users created redirect, WMC added it with three reverts Off2riorob (talk) 17:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, but do you think it's an improper redirect? ScienceApologist (talk) 17:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well it was disputed and I didn't like it when I saw it added. Opinion and consensus are two different things, aren't they? And there are some scientists of differing opinions, so its not a correct replacement or redirect. IMO Off2riorob (talk) 17:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who disputed it? Opinion and consensus are two different things, but the article does indicate a very broad consensus about anthropogentic global warming among scientists. IMO. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From what I gathered, one of the things he was most upset about was the lack of democratic accountability which -- to his mind -- the government and bureaucracy envisaged in the Copenhagen accord would have had. --JN466 23:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Others above pointed out that this concern is not indicated in the sources provided. I have a similar concern. Can you point to where this was described? ScienceApologist (talk) 17:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Imagine, now, decisions being made about your life, your choices, by unelected bureaucrats in some far-off place, completely protected from public opinion. A YouTube video of Lord Christopher Monckton, former science advisor to British PM Margaret Thatcher, addressing a recent event at Bethel University in St. Paul, MN, has gone “viral” as people share it with friends, family, and colleagues. In his speech, he says of the Copenhagen climate change treaty that “a world government is going to be created. The word ‘government’ actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to third world countries, in satisfaction of what is called, coyly, ‘climate debt’ because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t. How many of you think that the word ‘election’ or ‘democracy’ or ‘vote’ or ‘ballot’ occurs anywhere in the 200 pages of that treaty? Quite right, it doesn’t appear once. And the trouble is this; if that treaty is signed, your Constitution says that it takes precedence over your Constitution and you can’t resign from that treaty unless you get agreement from all the other state parties—and because you’ll be the biggest paying country, they’re not going to let you out of it.” [10]
  • Lord Monckton told a Canberra audience that proponents of climate change wanted to establish a "world government ... that would have shut down democracy worldwide. This new government would have policing powers, impose taxes, and take control over all formerly free markets, he said to applause from more than 200 people at the National Press Club. [11]
  • At Copenhagen this December, the states parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change will meet to finalize a treaty intended to prevent global warming caused by mankind's emissions of CO2. The Treaty of Copenhagen, which is already in draft, would create a new world government (the word "government" actually appears in the draft), with powers of direct intervention in the economic and environmental affairs of individual nations. The world government will have the power to redistribute up to 2% of gross domestic product from wealthy to poor countries, and will have the power to enforce its decisions by various methods, including unlimited fines on states who do not obey. The world government will also be given the right to control all markets worldwide. In my long experience, I have never seen any international treaty give so much power to a transnational bureaucracy before. Yet the words "election", "democracy", "ballot", and "vote" do not appear anywhere in the 200 pages of the treaty draft. [12] --JN466 23:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These sources seem to be talking about his views regarding the climate treaties mostly. I'd say that's a different issue. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Copenhagen treaty was the specific context in which he spoke of attempts to establish a "world government". He lobbied for people not to sign it, using that as a meme. (In the end it was signed as an "accord" without legally binding force.) --JN466 11:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The first use of the term "world government" that I can find by Monckton is in 2006, when he invokes it in the context of the Stern report and attributes the term to former French President Jacques Chirac. He was not referring to the Copenhagen talks at that time. --TS 11:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Monckton may have been referring to the phrase "global governance" in this speech in 2000, where Chirac hails the institution of the UNFCCC, which to be fair is the organization that organizes the COP (Conferences of Parties) talks of which Copenhagen was one. --TS 11:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Would you have the 2006 source? --JN466 11:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)--JN466 11:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, here it is in the Sunday Telegraph of November 5, 2006. --TS 12:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The French original of Chirac's speech is here; FWIW, in the French original, Chirac speaks both of "un véritable instrument de gouvernement global" ("an actual instrument of world government") and "une authentique gouvernance mondiale" ("authentic global governance"). So, he wasn't making the "world government" bit up; combine that with his views on Europe, and it's not hard to see what ticked him off. --JN466 13:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, his views on climate change only start appearing in news articles from 2006 onwards. That's after the 2005 G8 summit, where Blair made climate change a priority, and around the time people started talking about a post-Kyoto treaty. His interest in climate science may actually be secondary to his interest in national sovereignty. He denies climate change because, in his view, any binding treaty on climate change would remove an element a national sovereignty from the UK (as well as other countries), which is anathema to him. That a Frenchman first used the word "world government" probably wouldn't have helped. As far as the article is concerned, we should note that he started commenting on climate science from 2006, and later on lobbied extensively against the proposed Copenhagen treaty, calling it undemocratic. There is an interesting article in the Australian here, title Heated moments mar Monckton, both praising and criticising Monckton: "Warning people about the genuine threat to national sovereignty from a centralised global-warming bureaucracy is one thing. Talking about a new front of communists marching your way is another." --JN466 14:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Politically it is a very extreme conspiracy theory of governance, which is why I described it above as politically similar to the ideas of the John Birch people. This aligns quite well with the right wing populism of the Tea Party (in speeches Monckton has even pandered to the Obama conspiracy theorists known as the "Birthers" by jokingly refering to the supposed non-existence of the President's birth certificate).
The Guardian piece, quite correctly I think, joins the dots in a way that reflects Monckton's own expressed views. In his view climate science is not only wrong, it's a political tool being used to impose global tyranny of the sort his mainly American audiences are preoccupied with. Monckton's signal failure to make headway in Britain, where we have no history of such conspiracy theories, is explained by this. It's also why he's now deputy leader of a fringe party rather than hanging around in the ruling Conservative Party in the hope of making converts there. His views are too unfashionable in Britain. Tasty monster (=TS ) 08:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to our article on it, the UK Independence Party polled 3.1% at the 2010 UK General Election, which makes it fringey at the national level, but 16.5% at the 2009 European elections, which suggests that its stance on Europe enjoys a significant level of support in the UK (they actually beat the then-ruling Labour Party and the now-co-ruling Liberal Democrats in that election, coming second place after the Conservatives). --JN466 13:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not right. European elections attract a much smaller and skewed electorate. They cannot be used to draw conclusions about the general public support. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It shows support in that election, that is a simple fact, they came second in the election. 33 percent of possible electorate voted and 16 percent of them voted for the Independence party and its policies. The voter turnout in the 2010 general election was twice as many 66 percent. Off2riorob (talk) 14:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The statistics of small turn-out elections are well-understood to favor niche political causes as that portion of the electorate is far more likely to vote when the rest of the electorate does not. This is basic political science fact. It is irresponsible to claim that the European elections show evidence of greater support in the populace for this group than the general elections, and there are no reliable secondary sources I've seen presented which indicate that. The conjecture of JN that this somehow represents a greater popular trust in UKIP for European politics is bald original research and flatly contradicted by a simple understanding of how such low-turnout elections work. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The smaller parties generally do better at the European elections; that also goes for the Green Party. It is well known that at national elections, people vote strategically -- if they think their actual party of preference does not have a chance of beating Labour or the Conservatives, they will vote for whichever party is closest to their own point of view. Britain's "first-past-the-post" electoral system (as opposed to the proportional representation common in many other democracies) is also a big factor in this. At the European elections, these constraints don't apply, so people vote for the parties they actually support. There is no way round it: they got 2.5 million votes, 16.5% of voters at that election. If everyone of those 2.5 million voters had voted for them at the national election, they would have polled 8.5% there. --JN466 14:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is all extremely peripheral to the topic at hand, but, to be clear, there is no reliable source which indicates that the European elections somehow indicate that UKIP is less of a fringe political party than is indicated by their performance in the general elections. Further arguments on this topic should be referred to in sources. I choose this source. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jayen466 that Monckton's views and fringe claims about global warming can be viewed as coming from his Euro-skepticism which in turn is a kind of Little Englander tendency quite common on the political right in the UK.

Monckton has taken this further than others, while in recent years the Conservative Party has moved towards the center and its leadership has embraced a general view formerly more common on the left of the Labour Party and the old Liberal Party, especially on the environment. Tasty monster (=TS ) 16:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a side point, but one needs to take care about how we use terms like "fringe". It's relative. The fringe of what - and how "far out" is any particular fringe. For instance, in an article on Climate Change, Monkton's views are pretty fringe and merit a passing mention (if at all). However, in an article on Monkton, his views are in fact extremely pertinent (if his involvement with Climate Change is a significant part of his C.V.). Indeed, in such an article, I'd see the response to his views by mainstream scientists to be "fringe" at best to the article. As for UKIP, the notion that they are "fringe" to UK politics is nonsense. Even ignoring the EU election as untypical, any party polling 3% nationally is not fringe - elections are often won and lost on less that 3% of the vote, and UKIP's presence certainly had the potential to severely damage the Conservative party. Once could not have an article on any recent UK general election (particularly 1997 and 2001) and ignore UKIP - 920,000 people voted for them. The media regularly interview their spokespeople, and their anti-European platform has (I suspect) an even larger support among the populace. Having said that, UKIP's views on climate change (I've no idea what they are) are probably "fringe" to any understanding of why people support them - they are pretty much seen as a single issue anti-EU party.--Scott Mac 16:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what is ambiguous about the word "fringe" here. He's got political views that aren't reflected by any of the three mainstream UK-wide political parties and he's got views of the science that are flatly contradicted by almost every scientific paper he cites in his support (and the authors are not slow in telling him so).
But that's beside the point, which I think is what you mean. Ideas that are on the political or scientific fringe should necessarily form the core of this article where they are important to Monckton. So I think we're on the same page. --TS 19:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley&oldid=392428542"