google-site-verification: googlefe22bfd737719451.html Skip to main content
#
 
my account
site map
contact
cart
Saturday, December 29 2012

Is the ABC a taxpayer funded national broadcaster or a tax payer funded ALP propaganda machine?

 

You be the JUDGE.

 

Below you will find correspondence to and fro between the Lord Monckton Foundation and ABC Corporate_Affairs3. This correspondence initially listed specific information and evidence withheld from viewers by the ABC across numerous NEWS, Current Affairs and Documentary programs and asked questions of journalistic standards and integrity and a concern over a perceived lack of 'balance' in terms of party political and in terms of presenting empirical science versus models.

 

The most recent reply by the Lord Monckton Foundation responds to Anna Uszko of Audience and Consumer Affairs, presumably a division of the ABC Corporate_Affairs3, giving her a specific case as requested.

 

By way of background see below a link to Jo Nova's blog recording the full story of how they were interviewed for the ABC, 'I can change your mind' documentary on Global Warming. Jo and David, after years of experiencing hostile rants and of being misquoted or having their words manipulated beyond recognition, had their own cameraman film the ABC film crew at work including all the discussions on and off camera. This full transcript of this back-up un-cut copy and of the ABC edited copy can be compared for the record. The full Video UNEDITED and UN-CUT of the entire time the ABC crew was there also gives a full and comprehensive understanding of what the ABC received by way of evidence from Jo and David and what the ABC delivered in the program.

 

No fair-minded person could possibly believe the ABC presented the empirical evidence as provided by Jo and David; in fact quite the reverse. It is clearly demonstrated that by omission and distortion, the ABC destroyed the arguments and the evidence presented, to such an extent that a viewer would be drawn to the conclusion that Jo & David (and by implication all sceptics) have a baseless argument and are a slightly paranoid fringe group dependent upon donations from vested carbon energy interests to maintain their world destroying views.

 

You can be the judge. See Jo Nova'a Blog here.

 

It will be interesting to see how Anna Uszko of the ABC responds. In the court of public opinion, the withholding of evidence is at the very least, unprofessional conduct.

Will she obfiscate or respond directly and properly to the specific allegations?


From: Chris Dawson [mailto:chrisdawson@lordmoncktonfoundation.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 26 December 2012 5:22 PM
To: 'ABC Corporate_Affairs3'
Subject: RE: Email to the ABC of 11 December 2012 (ABC reference C51117-12)


 

Dear Anna Uszko,

 

Thank you for your reply.

 

You have asked for a specific case. There are too many to include all of them here!

 

However, for simplicity and as an example of a case in point I hereby lodge the following specific instance of poor journalistic standards and robust biased presentation and support for one side of a case in a program specifically billed as one where ‘you can weigh the evidence and make up your own mind’.

 

I refer here of course to the one-hour documentary, “I Can Change Your Mind”, which was I believe, broadcast on the ABC 21 on 26 April 2012.

 

The program was presented as providing an opportunity for both sides of the Climate Change debate to be heard and for the viewer to be able to weigh arguments and evidence through the proxies of Anna Rose and Nick Minchin, each attempting to change the other’s (and the viewers’) mind.

 

Although there are many examples of bias and more importantly, of omission via editing out of key and fundamental evidence presented by the ABC “I Can Change Your Mind” documentary team, for simplicity, I will confine myself here to one specific and key example.

 

This purposeful omission would have been understood by the ABC “I Can Change Your Mind” documentary team to be fundamental, if viewers were to be given the opportunity to understand the ‘skeptic’ side of the argument. Similarly, it would not escape the attention of any intelligent and fair minded ABC “I Can Change Your Mind” documentary team member, the absence of this evidence they would have understood, would leave the skeptic evidence presented, appearing less than satisfactory and seeming to lack substance.

 

The specific and key example is from the segment of the Program where Joanne Nova and Dr David Evans are interviewed in their kitchen where they discussed in detail four key pieces of evidence each one of which on its own, potentially falsifies the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming ‘model only based’ hypothesis. It is a central tenet for most sceptics that the scientific method, where the collection of empirical evidence is a process of discovery relying upon observations and experiment, is science. Jo and David clearly presented four pieces of empirical evidence in the form of four independent sets of data demonstrating:

 

1.      The UN IPCC models overestimated air temperatures from 1990,

2.      The UN IPCC models overestimated ocean warming since when we started measuring it through Argo program properly in 2003,

3.      The UN IPCC models predict a pattern of atmospheric warming — responsible for most of the warming in the models — that is entirely missing from copious weather balloon measurements, and

4.      The UN IPCC models predict outgoing radiation increases with surface rising surface temperature when satellite measurements show the opposite.

 

The fact that these four specific pieces of evidence that are central for an understanding of the ‘sceptical’, we would say scientific, view, and the fact that the average global temperature has ceased to rise these past sixteen years now (contrary to the projections of these same UN IPCC models) were actively concealed or edited beyond recognition by the ABC “I Can Change Your Mind” documentary team, played out biased in favour of the clearly debunked Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming ‘model only based’ hypothesis.

 

This distortion of specific important evidence is wilful blindness at best and biased propaganda at worst by the ABC “I Can Change Your Mind” documentary team, and does no credit to the profession of journalism and the committal of which warrants sanction, apology and a balance achieved through proper presentation of the evidence and the case the ‘sceptics’ have against the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming ‘model only based’ hypothesis at some immediate juncture.

 

I trust this is specific enough for your processes and urge you to properly consider this complaint as your response may be tested either in a court of law or public opinion.

 

A Publically Funded broadcaster ($1.3 billion) has a duty to the tax payer to supply unbiased, balanced and fair reporting, and in the case of science reporting, the presentation of the empirical science, not models, as evidence.

 

Regards

 

Chris

 

From: ABC Corporate_Affairs3 [mailto:Corporate_Affairs3.ABC@abc.net.au]
Sent: Wednesday, 19 December 2012 2:42 PM
To: 'chrisdawson@lordmoncktonfoundation.com'
Subject: RE: Email to the ABC of 11 December 2012 (ABC reference C51117-12)

 

Thank you for your email of 11 December 2012.

 

We understand that you are concerned that ABC journalistic standards, research and questions, are not representing the views and interests of the Australian people in a balanced way on the issue of climate change.

 

In accordance with the ABC's complaint handling procedures, your correspondence has been referred to Audience & Consumer Affairs, a unit which is separate to and independent of program making areas within the ABC. The role of Audience & Consumer Affairs is to investigate complaints alleging that ABC content has breached the ABC's editorial standards.

For your reference a link to the ABC Editorial Policies follows:

http://abc.net.au/corp/pubs/documents/20110408/EditorialPOL2011.pdf

 

There is no separate section of the ABC Editorial Policies which deals specifically with balance, as balance is considered to be a component of impartiality as set out in section 4 of the ABC’s Editorial Policies, the link for which is provided above. Importantly impartiality does not require that every perspective receives equal time, nor that every facet of every argument is presented but that diversity is achieved over time. Where balance is referred to, it is in respect to ‘a balance that follows the weight of evidence.’ With this principle in mind, the weight of ABC coverage on climate change rests with the broad scientific consensus on this issue. Coverage of other views, such as those of climate scientists who question this core thinking, is aired when it is relevant and appropriate to do so.

 

As it is the remit of Audience and Consumer Affairs to consider complaints concerning ABC content which has breached the ABC's editorial standards, we are unable to provide a substantive response to complaints of a general nature. If you would like to proceed with a formal complaint we require specific examples of ABC content which illustrate your concerns, including: network/service, time/date of broadcast/publication, program/article name, along with reference to the particular standards you believe were breached. We would be happy to consider your concerns, and please feel free to respond by return email.

 

For your information the ABC Code of Practice is also available here: http://www.abc.net.au/corp/pubs/documents/codeofpractice2011.pdf

 

In any event, please be assured that the ABC values your comments, which have been noted and conveyed to ABC management for their information

.

Thank you again for taking the time to write to the ABC. 

Yours sincerely,

Anna Uszko

Audience and Consumer Affairs

----

From:

Chris Dawson

Sent:

11 December 2012

Response requested:

True


 

Contact type:

Complaint

Subject:

General quality

Service:

 

Heard or viewed on:

Unspecified / Other

Program:

 

Date/time:

 

Webpage:

 

Comments:


Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

The information contained in this email and any attachment is confidential and may contain legally privileged or copyright material. It is intended only for the use of the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you are not permitted to disseminate, distribute or copy this email or any attachments. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this email from your system. The ABC does not represent or warrant that this transmission is secure or virus free. Before opening any attachment you should check for viruses. The ABC's liability is limited to resupplying any email and attachments.


These are the three points I make as background to my complaint. These complaints and this evidence has been presented to various flagship programs to no avail. The three most powerful points we have as examples are: 1) there has been no global warming for 16 years (HadCrut datasets 3 & 4 [UN IPCC Bible); 2) it would be 50 times more cost-effective to spend not a single red cent today and to adapt to the imagined adverse consequences of imagined global warming the day after tomorrow; 3) the small clique of scientists behind the scare are known to be dodgy, thanks to Climategate, and we now need an independent scientific enquiry, this time including sceptics, to look at everything from the beginning.

With all the empirical scientific evidence suggesting a rapid increase in CO2 emissions and atmospheric concentrations and with the scientific evidence suggesting no warming at all for 16 years, 'Houston, don't we have a problem?'. Australia's paper to the Doha conference is dopey! Why no questions from Australian ABC journalists reflecting concerns of Australia's national interest? It is dopey in the extreme for the ABC to not question this government over 50 billion per annum in today's Australian dollars committed to foreign grants to the UN and to petty third world dictators approved by the UN (Funds to be transferred by this government as per Treasury models. We at the Lord Monkton Foundation will just plug away rationally, and record temperatures failing to rise as predicted, until the usual suspects slowly deprioritize, as Canada, Japan, Russia, China and India have already done. This complaint is specifically formulated thus: The ABC, as the provider of quality tax payer funded broadcasting is failing to: a) fairly and openly represent the interests and views of the Australian people in a balanced way. b) provide a quality journalistic approach in accordance with standard journalistic practice in terms of research (prior to an interview) and questions (during an interview). Please respond to these charges. Chris Dawson CEO Lord Monckton Foundation 0409 805 425

 

 

 

 

 


 
Posted by: Chris Dawson AT 06:58 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, December 29 2012

 

Sceptics weather the storm to put their case on climate

Your Blogger has lived in Melbourne, the home of the Age newspaper, a MSM outlet with serious journalistic tradition and until more recent CAGW times, authority; to see many things, and now I ask myself, "have I seen the tipping point on Global Warming and free speech?"

I grew up with The Age when it questioned the establishment, not acted as its mouthpiece.

John Spooner writes as well as he cartoons (exceedingly well) and it is perhaps, unfortunately instructive, that his article is published when the senior journalists are on holidays. It is instructive, because no similar article has been published in recent times and certainly it seems no self respecting Age journalist would be seen dead exploring the murky waters of 'empirical evidence' on global warming (as opposed to endless exaggerated and now clearly inaccurate and thus flawed climate model outputs).

So has the cartoonist been allowed to 'fly a Kite'? You can only cry WOLF so often, without a wolf appearing, to lose credibility, eventually. Perhaps allowing the cartoonist to mention in passing, during the holidays, that the wolf was last seen 16 years ago and is now no doubt grey and riddled with arthritis, will eventually be seen as The Age showing belated balance.

I trust this impression is incorrect because John Spooner's article is spot on and exceedingly well written.

I trust The Age, like the Climate, will soon return to its traditional journalistic standards and so continue to increase the climate of scepticism and good journalism based on questioning those in power and seeking the truth, rather than simply accepting on faith what those in authority say. Paul (aka Phil) Jones at UEA would be proud. 

Spooner starts,

"WELL, so much for the 2012 apocalypse. If the ancient Mayans ever knew anything about the future, they made a serious miscalculation. The same fate has befallen the international climate change emergency brigade. About $1 billion and 18 "Kyoto" meetings later, the world has agreed to do nothing much more than meet again.

How did this frightening climate threat dissolve into scientific uncertainty and political confusion? What of the many billions of dollars of wasted public resources? Some might blame the "sceptics", the "merchants of doubt" or the "deniers". Others point to the global financial crisis.

We can say for certain that many hesitant individuals overcame the pressures of group-think, intimidation and tribal disapproval to have a closer look at the relationship between real science, politics and business."

Read John Spooner's full article in The Age HERE


 

Posted by: Chris Dawson AT 01:40 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, December 28 2012

From Jo Nova's Blog here, the story of Professor Parncutt's University website stated views that prominant Climate Sceptics should be executed. And now,

Monckton gets the threat withdrawn and a full apology

Subject: Death penalty for legitimate scientific dissent

.oOo.

 Monckton of Brenchley to Parncutt

Dear Professor Parncutt, – The unhappy history of Austria under the Anschluss should surely lead one to consider the unwisdom of demanding death for those scientists and researchers who today legitimately dissent from the apocalypticist notion that our altering 1/3000 of the atmosphere by 2100 will lead to the deaths of hundreds of millions of people.

May I ask you publicly to withdraw your dangerous and offensive demand? Otherwise, the law of Austria – designed precisely to avoid a repeat of the murderous, anti-scientific approach adopted by the National Socialist Workers’ Party of Germany, an approach that you now unspeakably revive – will have to be brought to bear, and you will be prosecuted for your hate-crime.

Since an image of your offending statement was cached before your University realized that you had committed a crime and ordered you to remove your poisonous demand from its website, the evidence against you is clear.

A complaint will go to the Austrian prosecuting authorities unless you are able to notify me within 14 days that you have extinguished your crime by withdrawing your call for the death penalty for the likes of me.

– Monckton of Brenchley

 .oOo.

Parncutt to Monckton

Dear Sir, – Thank you for your message. In response to this and other emails i have completely rewritten my posting. I hope that you prefer the new version.

Yours sincerely,

– Richard Parncutt

.oOo.

 Monckton to Parncutt

Dear Professor Parncutt, – I regret that your new posting does not withdraw but instead repeats your unspeakable suggestion of the death penalty for those with whom (on no discernible ground that would be recognized as scientific) you disagree on the question of the climate.

However, I gave you 14 days publicly to withdraw that suggestion, of which 10 days remain. After that, a report will go via Interpol and separately via the British Embassy in Wien to the Austrian prosecuting authorities, with a copy to the Rektorin of your University, to whose office I am copying this correspondence by way of early notice.

I am also having the question whether your murderous, anti-scientific hate-crime constitutes an offence under the law of Australia, your state of origin, and whether your hate-crime – as an incitement to terrorism – is an offence grave enough to merit trial by the International Criminal Court, to whose founding treaty both Austria and Australia are States Parties.

I have also asked for a review of the question whether your university and your Rektorin, in continuing – astonishingly – to host this criminal matter on the official website even after several people have drawn your hate-crime explicitly to the Rektorin’s attention in writing, may be acting as conspirators with you in this hate-crime. It will surely be in your interest, and in the interest of your university, to reconsider this matter.

– Monckton of Brenchley

.oOo.

Parncutt to Monckton

Dear Sir,

In response to your email I have now posted an unconditional apology at the address of the original text: http://www.uni-graz.at/~parncutt/climatechange.html

I hereby withdraw, in their entirety, both texts that were previously posted at the above address (dated 25 October 2012 and 25 December 2012 respectively). I apologize for, and deeply regret, any offence that my texts may have caused to you or anyone else.

Yours sincerely,

Richard Parncutt

 .oOo.

Monckton to Parncutt

Dear Professor Parncutt, –  Thank you very much for your unconditional apology and for your entire withdrawal of both versions of your posting. The matter is now closed.

  – Monckton of Brenchley

 ==============================

The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley 

c/o Brooks’s, St. James’s Street, London SW1A 1LN
Posted by: Chris Dawson AT 09:43 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, December 26 2012

Originally posted on WUWT on Christmas day, this article by Lord Monckton explores the notion, and ways, of providing alarmists with a face saving way to bow out of the CAGW scam so as to minimise the time involved in the transition to a post CAGW scare world. Lord Christopher Monckton begins,

 "In the closing minutes of the final plenary of the U.N.’s Doha climate summit, when no one else had anything further to add, I spent a few seconds telling the delegates something that the bad scientists and the malicious media have done their level best to conceal. There has been no global warming for 16 years.

In the real world, this surely welcome news would have been greeted with cheers of relief and delight. Since the beginning of 1997, despite the wailing and gnashing of dentures among the classe politique, despite the regulations, the taxations, the carbon trades, the windmills, the interminable, earnestly flatulent U.N. conferences, the CO2 concentration that they had declared to be Public Enemy No. 1 has not stabilized. It has grown by one-twelfth.

Yet this startling growth has not produced so much as a twentieth of a Celsius degree of global warming. Any warming below the measurement uncertainty of 0.05 Cº in the global-temperature datasets is statistically indistinguishable from zero.

The much-vaunted "consensus" of the much-touted "ensembles" of the much-heralded "models" has been proven wrong. The much-feted "modelers" had written in 2008 that their much-cited "simulations" ruled out, to 95% confidence, intervals of 15 years or more without global warming. To them, 16 years without warming were as near impossible as makes no difference.

Yet those impossible years happened. However, you would never have known that surely not uninteresting piece of good news from reading the newspapers or watching ABC, BBC, CBC, NBC, et hoc genus omne. The media are not in the business of giving the facts or telling the truth any more.

 

Precisely because journalists no longer bother to provide the inconvenient truth to their audiences, and because they are no longer willing even to provide the people with the straightforward facts without which democracy itself cannot function, the depressingly ill-informed and scientifically-illiterate delegates in Doha can be forgiven for not having known that global warming stopped a long while back.

That is why they should have been excited and delighted when they heard the news – nearly all of them for the very first time......"

See the the rest of the article, 'Bethlehem and the rat-hole problem' here

Posted by: Chris Dawson AT 06:21 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Thursday, December 20 2012
 

16 years since the SAR where the ‘consensus’ of the ‘anointed one' was created. The same 16 years during which there has been no global warming.

In the context of the leaking of the draft Assessment Report Five (AR5) report and Lord Monckton’s Expert Reviewer comments, it is timely to note how the ‘consensus science report’ process was originally distorted during the final stages of the Second Assessment Report (SAR) in 1995. Have things changed? Will the Lead Authors follow Lord Monckton’s and others’ suggestions. As the World Climate Report noted just after the release of the 1995 SAR:

Never has a “consensus” opinion caused such consternation. Last issue, we documented substantive changes to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Chapter 8 on human-induced climate change that were made after the alleged final version was approved (WCR, Vol. 1, No. 19, “Bait and Switch?”). The outrage continues.

A recent Wall Street Journal editorial, headlined “A Major Deception on ‘Global Warming’” is a no-holds-barred attack on the credibility of the IPCC. The piece was written by Professor Frederick Seitz, president emeritus of Rockefeller University and chairman of the George C. Marshall Institute, whose comments are excerpted below.

In my more than 60 years as a member of the American scientific community, including service as president of both the National Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society, I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.

IPCC reports are often called the “consensus” view. If they lead to carbon taxes and restraints on economic growth, they will have a major and almost certainly destructive impact on the economies of the world. Whatever the intent was of those who made these significant changes, their effect is to deceive policy makers and the public into believing that the scientific evidence shows human activities are causing global warming.

If the IPCC is incapable of following its most basic procedures, it would be best to abandon the entire IPCC process, or at least that part that is concerned with the scientific evidence on climate change, and look for more reliable sources of advice to governments on this important question.

According to the New York Times, Sir John T. Houghton, co-editor of the 1995 report, said the criticisms were “just rubbish” and Chapter 8 lead author B.D. Santer said that “none of the changes were politically motivated.”

This issue is not likely to slink away quietly down some dank WMO corridor. Along with other IPCC improprieties, such as the forced consensus produced by the lack of proper scientific peer review (WCR, Vol. 1, No. 3, “Climate Policy Of The ‘Anointed’: The Avoidance Of Peer Review”), the 1995 IPCC report will be attacked if and when it is used as the basis for any new regulations or policies.

Sadly, this was not the case. See Professor Frederick Seitz’s article here. This article was sourced for education purposes from this site:

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/WSJ_June12.pdf

Not only did the ‘Anointed’ as coined by Thomas Sowell, use the 1995 IPCC SAR report to became the springboard for the false notion that thousands of scientists had formed a consensus, they removed the agreed text which said the opposite. Ben Santer not only rewrote the ‘scientists’ consensus conclusions, he also made up conclusions which actually reversed the agreed 'consensus' of the scientists.  

The key words inserted after the agreed consensus, the words that that were to resound down through the last 16 years were, `the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate'. These words were quoted forevermore as being the ‘consensus’ opinion of the thousands of scientists contributing to the UN IPCC report, when they were no such thing.

But the story behind these words and how the ‘Anointed one man' Ben Santer 'consensus' caused them to be included in the Summary for Policy Makers and the subsequent alteration of the 'agreed by consensus' Science Report, is what caused many at the time to protest.

Christopher Booker in his excellent book The Real Global Warming Disaster: Is the Obsession with 'climate Change' Turning Out to be the Most Costly Scientific Blunder in History? (Kindle Locations 799-801). Kindle Edition goes on to describe what happened:

The source of this sentence was given as Chapter 8 of the scientific working group's report, the `lead author' of which was Ben Santer, a scientist working for the US government's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. This included much the same wording: that `the body of statistical evidence' now `points to a discernible human influence on the global climate'. When the report containing these sentences was published, however, some of the scientific contributors who had signed off the working group's chapters the previous year were seriously dismayed. These words had not appeared in the draft they had formally approved. It seemed they had been added subsequently, by the `lead author' himself. Santer had also, it emerged, deleted a number of key statements from the agreed text, all of which reflected serious scientific doubt over the human contribution to global warming. They [the deleted passages] included these passages:

• None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.

• No study to date has positively attributed all or part (of the climate change observed) to (man-made) causes.

• Any claims of positive detection and attribution of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced.

• When will an anthropogenic effect on climate be identified? It is not surprising that the best answer to this question is "We do not know".

All these sentences had mysteriously vanished from the original agreed version.

This Orwellian and indeed Goebbels like propaganda activity carried out by what Sowell describes in his book in 1995 as activities of the ‘Anointed’ and has been used as a pretext by these same authoritarian minded policy makers and wealth diverters of this world to garner for themselves, power, wealth and kudos in many contexts. Remember this is back in 1995/96

World Climate Report at the time went on to say:

Climate Policy of the “Anointed:” The Avoidance of Peer Review

Beginning Sunday, Sept. 10, and over the following 16 days, the New York Times published five articles (two front-page) on an “unreleased” draft report from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“Not for citation or reproduction”). The IPCC claims to represent the consensus of scientists on the global warming and climate change issue.

Thomas Sowell, in his recent book The Vision of the Anointed, outlines the process by which small cliques of self-appointed experts (the “Anointed”) set national policy without the inconvenience of having their ideas independently analyzed and critiqued. Sowell identifies of this process:

STAGE 1.    The “Crisis.” Some situation exists that bothers some people. (Global Warming will destroy our planet.)

STAGE 2.    The “Solution.” The Anointed promulgate policies to end the “Crisis.” (A carbon tax.)

STAGE 3.    The Results. These policies produce some unanticipated detrimental results. (Unemployment, economic decline, and the like.)

STAGE 4.    The Response. Those who criticize the “Solution” are dismissed by the Anointed for their oversimplification of the issue. The Anointed claim things would be even worse if not for the policies instituted in STAGE 2. The Anointed have no responsibility to justify their positions based upon empirical data.

Of course, nothing like this could happen in science, where detailed reviews by independent scholars determine the validity of hypotheses. Or could it? Unfortunately, the applicability of Sowell’s arguments to the global warming issue is striking. This is especially troubling since, in an ideal world, policies related to scientific issues should be driven entirely by good science.

The new U.N. report on climate change* is supposed to represent the “state of the science” on greenhouse gas–induced climate change—a compendium produced by the top climate scientists in the world summarizing their current understanding of the issues. It follows that the report is a hot political document, since it will be used by world governments for economic planning. It will serve as the “Climate Bible” for years to come (or at least until the next IPCC report is issued).

Here’s how the IPCC review process works. A handful of experts is assigned to write each chapter. These chapter editors solicit short summary reports (two pages) from “contributors” on their unique areas of expertise. The reports are compiled (i.e., included, revised, or ignored) by the editors into the 13 chapters of the report. Once written, the entire draft report is submitted to the contributors and to others for peer review.

Independent peer review is sacred in science: it is the process by which new ideas are advanced, altered, or discounted. Without proper peer review, scientific hypotheses can be proposed willy-nilly with no burden of proof. Thus, in the most respected technical journals, publication criteria are strict—full documentation of sources must be included. The sources cited must be from other peer-reviewed publications that have withstood the test of scientific scrutiny. Little or no value is given to publications in the “gray literature”—abstracts and proceedings papers from conferences or workshops, in-house technical reports, transcriptions of lectures, unpublished theses and dissertations, articles in newsletters (with the obvious exception of this one), and “personal communications.” In many journals, these citations cannot be used unless they represent the origination of an idea.

World Climate Report editors were among the hundreds of contributors and peer-reviewers of the IPCC report. During our reviews, we found numerous scientific statements in the text that hadn’t been published in the refereed literature. In fact, to our astonishment, some apparently hadn’t yet been written! So, in the interest of good science, we did the following investigation.

Every citation in the References section of each chapter was checked for suitability and tallied. Overall, a shocking 648 of the 1,969 references (or 33%) are improper—based on the standards used by top-ranking scientific journals.

 

Papers listed as “in press” were unavailable to the reviewers, so their validity or impact could not be scrutinized. Publications in the gray literature are not only difficult to find but have not been subjected to peer review. Each chapter included submitted papers and manuscripts “to be submitted” or “in preparation.”

 

We also included citations of previous IPCC reports in our counts since, based on this document, the track record is not the greatest. Some citations contained only the author’s name followed by a question mark. And some more humorous examples included “almost accepted,” “submitted?” (sic), and our personal favorite—“unpublished.”

Critics will argue that most of these citations are appropriate since climate research is progressing so rapidly—owing to the urgency of the issue—that important new findings are uncovered every day. This is classic STAGE 4 thinking—the results of climate’s Anointed don’t require peer review (Translation: “I know I’m right, so you’ll have to trust me”).

But there’s a name for ideas whose acceptance is based on trusting the messenger: religion. So, is the most important climate report of the century really based on science, or does it represent the beliefs of the Anointed experts with the imprimatur of the world’s leading climate researchers?

To be fair, only one-third of the report couldn’t properly be reviewed. Should we therefore question one-third of the conclusions, or are all of the conclusions off by a factor of one-third? On the other hand, it’s possible that the text would be unchanged with the exclusion of these improper references. If so, then why were they included?

Over the next year or two, the scientific literature will no doubt be replete with papers finally answering many of the key unresolved questions on climate change (since they are all in press, submitted for publication, or have recently been presented at conferences or workshops). Only a cynic would think that all of these results are not worthy of publication in the peer-reviewed literature.

To some this may seem like much ado about nothing. But when peer-reviewing a document as potentially influential as this, it is a responsibility not to be taken lightly. Upon the report’s official release, the global press will wax poetic that a consensus of scientists from all across our threatened, dying planet has united in a statement about the dangers of current and future climate trends (STAGE 1). So what are we going to do about it (STAGE 2)? The IPCC proposes “The Solution.”

Report readers now know the rest of the story. Reviewers of the report (active climate researchers) were asked to complete their work without access to a sizeable portion of the information on which the report itself is based. Thus, climate’s Anointed have avoided proper peer review while giving the impression of thorough review and the production of a consensus document.

In the conclusion of his book, Thomas Sowell writes:

In order that this relatively small group of people can believe themselves wiser and nobler than the common herd, we have adopted policies which impose heavy costs on millions of other human beings, not only in taxes but also in lost jobs, social disintegration, and a loss of personal safety. Seldom have so few cost so much to so many.

Reference:

Sowell, Thomas (1995). The Vision of the Anointed: Self Congratulations as a Basis for Social Policy. Basic Books, New York, 305 pp.

This all occurred around 16 years ago and it is timely because these 16 years is the period in which it can now be said we’ve had no discernable global warming. Lord Monckton, in his Expert Reviewer comments, essentially presents the UN IPCC with a suggested process and specific observations whereby AR5 can be improved to the point where the mistakes in the SAR can be avoided and where the UN IPCC can perhaps regain some credibility, if followed.

Will they?

 

Posted by: Chris Dawson AT 06:45 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, December 17 2012

As the UN IPCC AR5 Report has, through a leak, now been made public, we at the Lord Monckton Foundation, were faced with a dilemma. Should we publish the leaked documents, or should we hold off?

Following discussions with Lord Monckton, we accepted that the rule in the UK, is that once a document is in the public domain anyone can reproduce or circulate it (except in rare circs. such as where the document might compromise the safety of [UK] forces, etc.) and so we agreed, there was no reason not to host the entire draft UN IPCC AR5 text which can be found below.

Similarly, we should also include Lord Monckton's review comments.

The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley has now sent his once 'confidential' UN IPCC 'Expert Review' to us for inclusion on this blog, following the publication of the draft AR5, and following the many comments and reviews released across the hardly warming globe of late, in response to this 'pre-release' leak (into the public domain).

Here is Lord Monckton's Expert Reviewer Comments for the UN IPCC.


Below are the Draft Chapters of the AR5 Report

Summary for Policymakers

Chapter 1: Introduction

Chapter 2: Observations: Atmosphere and Surface

Chapter 3: Observations: Ocean

Chapter 4: Observations: Cryosphere

Chapter 5: Information from Paleoclimate Archives

Chapter 6: Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles

Chapter 7: Clouds and Aerosols

Chapter 8: Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing

Chapter 8 Supplement

Chapter 9: Evaluation of Climate Models

Chapter 10: Detection and Attribution of Climate Change: from Global to Regional

Chapter 11: Near-term Climate Change: Projections and Predictability

Chapter 12: Long-term Climate Change: Projections, Commitments and Irreversibility

Chapter 13: Sea Level Change

Chapter 14: Climate Phenomena and their Relevance for Future Regional Climate Change

Chapter 14 Supplement

Technical Summary 

Posted by: Chris Dawson AT 02:31 am   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Thursday, December 13 2012

At the moment we have the media stating everything about accelerating climate change; accelerating CO2 emissions; massive man made storms and rising sea levels; but not reporting the simple fact that average global temperature (AGT), as measured by the HadCRUT datasets 3 & 4 (the UN IPCC's measure of choice), shows no measurable change in AGT for the last 16 years. So, massive rises in emissions and no rise in temperatures; without rising temperatures it is difficult to see how 'global warming' can be causing the imagined disasters nominated. Without 'global warming' something else must be causing imaginary sea rises; imaginary superstorms; imaginary droughts and so on. If the global temperatures aren't rising as 'projected' in the early UN IPCC reports and if the most recent papers published with such fanfare around Doha are completely misleading, which they are, one wonders how long this habit of spin, lies and deceit has been going on.

It is instructive to recall one of the major turning points in the history of this major science fraud. It happened in 1995 during the compilation of the Second Assessment Report (SAR). Essentially, all the scientists agreed on a form of words which basically said, 'we see no evidence that humans are causing global warming'. This was the fabled (though in reality, unscientific) 'consensus science'.

The following excerpt from the comprehensive and informative book by Christopher Booker [The Real Global Warming Disaster: Is the Obsession with 'climate Change' Turning Out to be the Most Costly Scientific Blunder in History? (Kindle Locations 855-862). Kindle Edition.] exposes the 1995 story, 

".....The IPCC's `second assessment report' (SAR) went considerably further than the first in endorsing an anthropogenic explanation for global warming. The biggest media headlines were reserved for its claim that `the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate'. These words were to be quoted far more often than any others in the report. But the story behind how they came to be included in the Summary for Policy Makers was curious.18

The source of this sentence was given as Chapter 8 of the scientific working group's report, the `lead author' of which was Ben Santer, a scientist working for the US government's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. This included much the same wording: that `the body of statistical evidence' now `points to a discernible human influence on the global climate'.

When the report containing these sentences was published, however, some of the scientific contributors who had signed off the working group's chapters the previous year were seriously dismayed. These words had not appeared in the draft they had formally approved. It seemed they had been added subsequently, by the `lead author' himself. Santer had also, it emerged, deleted a number of key statements from the agreed text, all of which reflected serious scientific doubt over the human contribution to global warming. They included these passages:

• None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.

• No study to date has positively attributed all or part (of the climate change observed) to (man-made) causes. • Any claims of positive detection and attribution of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced.

• When will an anthropogenic effect on climate be identified? It is not surprising that the best answer to this question is "We do not know".'

All these sentences had mysteriously vanished from the original agreed version. What was particularly odd about the new additions to the text was that the only source cited in support of them appeared to be two papers co-authored by Santer himself, which had not yet been published. That much-cited claim about `discernible human influence on climate change' was based on what were known as `fingerprinting studies'. These compared the patterns of climate change predicted by computer models with changes actually observed in the real world. Where these coincided (or displayed the same `fingerprint'), this was taken as evidence that the computer model was correct.19

However, when Santer and several colleagues published their first, all-important paper, two other scientists, Dr Patrick Michaels and a colleague, examined their evidence. They were surprised to discover that its conclusions in favour of global warming had been based only on part of the data. The supposed `fingerprinting' parallel between the computer models and observed data applied only to the years between 1943 and 1970, during the `Little Cooling'. When the full set of data was used, showing earlier years going back to 1905 and years after 1970, the warming trend claimed by Sauter and his colleagues disappeared.20

This was surprising enough, in view of the significance attached to Sauter's revised wording of Chapter 8 by the Summary for Policymakers and all the publicity which followed. But the realisation that a single contributor could have been allowed to make such a crucial change after the scientific text had been formally approved, soon gave rise to a considerable uproar.

Even Nature, which published the Santer paper, was not happy about the rewriting of Chapter 8 to `ensure that it conformed' with the Summary. A week after the report was published, the Wall Street Journal not only expressed outrage in an editorial ('Cover-up in the Greenhouse').21 The following day it published an excoriatory article by Frederick Seitz, a much-respected former president of the US National Academy of Sciences.22

The story continues here for the excerpt from Christopher Booker's, The Real Global Warming Disaster: Is the Obsession with 'climate Change' Turning Out to be the Most Costly Scientific Blunder in History? (Kindle Locations 801-812). Kindle Edition.

Posted by: Chris Dawson AT 03:09 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, December 12 2012

It is stunning how the mere mention of 16 Years without warming, brings out the Worst and the Best.

Those who would Alarm the Public for FINANCIAL GAIN are becoming desperate it seems. They may even be making things up or at the very least exhibiting a certain 'wilfull blindness' to the Emperor's decided lack of suitable attire, as Jo Nova at her best illustrates below:

The IPCC was wrong. (Matthew England and the ABC mislead Australians)

By Jo Nova

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/12/the-ipcc-was-wrong-england-and-the-abc-mislead-australians/#more-25928

This is a rare unequivocal case of overreach.

Prof Matthew England proves he is either willing to stretch things beyond reason “for the cause”, or he doesn’t know what he is talking about, or both. Sarah Clark at the ABC didn’t do five minutes research on the story to check the facts or ask informed questions. This is not science, and it isn’t journalism either.

The Facts:

1.The IPCC used the word “prediction” in 1990 and predicted a best estimate of 0.3°C with a  range of 0.2°C – 0.5°C per decade

2.       Even with the most generous overestimate of current trends, the temperature trend has fallen below their lowest estimate, while CO2 emissions were higher than expected. The 1990 predictions can not be called “true”, “consistent” or to have “occurred” by any definition in any English dictionary.

The IPCC Prediction was Wrong

The quote from the first page of the Executive Summary of the Summary for Policy Makers, FAR 1990:1

“Based on current model results, we predict:

Under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A) emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of about 0.3C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2°C – 0.5°C)[IPCC FAR summary]

For full article see here.

For Link to Jo Nova's Blog see here.

 

Posted by: Chris Dawson AT 09:00 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, December 07 2012

FROM CLIMATE DEPOT:

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/18726/Fmr-Thatcher-advisor-Lord-Monckton-evicted-from-UN-climate-summit-after-challenging-global-warming--Escorted-from-the-hall-and-security-officers-stripped-him-of-his-UN-credentials

Fmr. Thatcher advisor Lord Monckton evicted from UN climate summit after challenging global warming -- 'Escorted from the hall and security officers stripped him of his UN credentials'  

Monckton to UN: 'In the 16 years we have been coming to these conferences, there has been no global warming'

Calls to 'deport Monckton' from UN conference in Qatar

Thursday, December 06, 2012By Marc Morano  –  Climate Depot

[Also see: New Report from Climate Depot: 'Extreme Weather Report 2012': 'Latest peer-reviewed studies, data & analyses undermine claims that current weather is 'unprecedented' or a 'new normal']


By Jean Chemnick, E&E reporter

Published: Thursday, December 6, 2012

[Reprint from E&E Greenwire - December 6, 2012 - subscription required]

Excerpt: UK's Lord Christopher Monckton, a climate skeptic, gets evicted

After the news conference, and as diplomats gathered for the climate conference president's assessment of how close countries are to agreement, Monckton quietly slipped into the seat reserved for the delegation of Myanmar and clicked the button to speak.

"In the 16 years we have been coming to these conferences, there has been no global warming," Monckton said as confused murmurs filled the hall and then turned into a chorus of boos.

The stunt infuriated negotiators and activists here who gather every year to address what they believe is one of the world's top threats, the steady rise of man-made global warming.

As Monckton was escorted from the hall and security officers stripped him of his U.N. credentials, several people noted that just a few hours earlier a group of young activists had been thrown out of the convention center and deported. Their crime: unfurling an unauthorized banner calling for the Qatari hosts to lead the negotiations to a strong conclusion.

By late today, several activists attending the conference had posted calls to "deport Monckton" on their Twitter feeds.

#

End Greenwire excerpt.

#

Climate Depot Note: Monckton was referring to the latest temerature data showing a 16 year stall in global warming.

Related links on 16 year global warming pause:

UK Daily Mail: 'Global warming stopped 16 years ago' according to UK Met Office 'quietly released' report -- 'Pause' in warming lasted about same time as when temps rose, 1980 to 1996' -- 'The new data, compiled from more than 3,000 measuring points on land & sea, was issued quietly on internet, without any media fanfare, & , until today, it has not been reported. This stands in sharp contrast to release of previous figures 6 months ago, which went only to end of 2010 – a very warm year...From beginning of 1997 until August 2012 there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temps.'

UK Daily Mail: 'Claim that there has been any statistically significant warming for past 16 years is therefore unsustainable' -- Reaffirms 'a 16-year 'pause' in rising temps' -- 'Two new separate peer-reviewed studies, published in prestigious academic journals last week [challenged 'Hockey Stick'] -- 'The level of warmth during the peak of the MWP in the second half of the 10th Century, equaled or slightly exceeded the mid-20th Century warming.' There was also a pronounced warming period in Roman times'

Flashback 2011: A PNAS peer-reviewed admission that 'global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008'

Prof. Judith Curry on 16 year global temps: ' Nothing in Met Office's statement...effectively refutes [UK Daily Mail] Rose's argument that there has been no increase in global avg. surface temps for past 16 years' -- Curry defends UK Daily Mail article: 'How does this refute Rose's argument? No statistically significant positive trend, and it makes it look like [warmist Skeptical Science] hasn't done their homework with the latest data'

Prof. Curry: 'I think Rose's 2nd article is well done. He lays out arguments the other 'side' is making, & provides his response. It is a reasonable portrayal of debate surrounding this issue' -- Judith Curry: 'The trend since 1997 is very small, much smaller than the decadal trend of 0.2C that we have been led to expect by the IPCC for the early part of the 21st century...'

Prof. Judith Curry on 16 year global temps: ' Nothing in Met Office's statement...effectively refutes Rose's argument that there has been no increase in global avg. surface temps for past 16 years' -- Curry defends UK Daily Mail article: 'How does this refute Rose's argument? No statistically significant positive trend, and it makes it look like [warmist Skeptical Science] hasn't done their homework with the latest data'

Lüning/Vahrenholt On HadCRUT's 16 Years Of No Warming: 'Tough Times Ahead For Climate Science' -- 'It turns out that everything that had been suspected was confirmed'

Analysis on 16 year 'pause' in global wamring: 'Regarding the significance of the period from 1997, recall that Dr. Ben Santer claimed 17 years was the period needed' -- 'They find that tropospheric temperature records must be at least 17 years long to discriminate between internal climate noise and the signal of human-caused changes in the chemical composition of the atmosphere.' -- MIT Professor Richard Lindzen said something similar in a WUWT guest post: 'There has been no warming since 1997 and no statistically significant warming since 1995.'

Lüning/Vahrenholt On HadCRUT's 16 Years Of No Warming: 'Tough Times Ahead For Climate Science' -- 'It turns out that everything that had been suspected was confirmed' -- 'This is a completely unexpected development when one considers how all the boldly confident forecasts from the IPCC predicted more warming. The release of new HadCRUT figures occurred almost in absolute silence, without any media buzz whatsoever...One really has got to wonder that Jones has suddenly extended his personal threshold of pain to 20 years, and now claims that phases of no warming 15-16 years long had always been expected.'

Prof. Judith Curry: 'The data confirms existence of a 'pause' in warming': 'The natural variability has been shown over past 2 decades to have a magnitude that dominates greenhouse warming signal' -- Curry: 'It is becoming increasingly apparent that our attribution of warming since 1980 and future projections of climate change needs to consider natural internal variability as a factor of fundamental importance. I sincerely hope that the AR5 provides an assessment of what we know and what we don't know and areas of disagreement, rather than trying to manufacture a consensus.'

New Phil Jones quote: 'We don't know what natural variability is doing' -- 'We don't fully understand how to input things like changes in the oceans' -- '...and because we don't fully understand it you could say that natural variability is now working to suppress the warming. We don't know what natural variability is doing..'

Climategate's Phil Jones 'insisted that 15 or 16 years is not a significant period: pauses of such length had always been expected, he said' in 2012 -- 'Yet in 2009, when the [temperature] plateau was already becoming apparent and being discussed by scientists, Jones told a colleague in one of the Climategate emails: 'Bottom line: the 'no upward trend' has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.' -- 'In other words, though 5 years ago he seemed to be saying that 15 years without warming would make him 'worried', that period has now become 20 years'

Flashback 2009: Prof. Pielke Jr.: 'Kudos to NOAA for being among the first to explicitly state what sort of observation would be inconsistent with model predictions -- 15 years of no warming'

'The UK Met Office says world has warmed by 0.03 deg C per decade since 1997...But what the Met Office doesn't say is that this is statistically insignificant' -- 'There is no case to be made for a statistically significant increase in global temperatures as given in the Hadcrut4 dataset between 1997 and August 2012. The Met Office says the 15-year standstill is not unusual. This is true but again the Met Office is being economical with the truth'

NOAA's '15 year statement' from 2008 puts a kibosh on the current Met Office 'insignificance' claims that global warming flatlined for 16 years -- 'Yet, today, we see evidence of the goalposts being moved again as the Met Office tries to paint this lack of warming 'plateau' as being insignificant...So we are at 16 years, soon to be 17 years. What happens when we hit 20 years? Either the models are worth something or they aren't. In this case it seems they aren't'

UK Met Office: CO2 causes warming; other factors cause cooling -- 'We have known for some time that [multi-decadal oceanic cycles] may act to slow down or accelerate observed warming trend' -- 'We also know that changes in the surface temperature occur not just due to internal variability, but are also influenced by 'external forcings', such as changes in solar activity, volcanic eruptions or aerosol emissions. Combined, several of these factors could account for some or all of the reduced warming trend seen over the last decade – but this is an area of ongoing research'

Analysis: Global Warming Standstill Confirmed: 'There is now no consistent increase in temperature seen in this data. The data, displayed this way, reveals that far from showing a steady underlying rate of warming the global temperature has had two standstills, with curiously, the 1998 super El Nino delineating them.'

UK Daily Mail: 'Claim that there has been any statistically significant warming for past 16 years is therefore unsustainable' -- Reaffirms 'a 16-year 'pause' in rising temps' -- 'Two new separate peer-reviewed studies, published in prestigious academic journals last week [challenged 'Hockey Stick'] -- 'The level of warmth during the peak of the MWP in the second half of the 10th Century, equalled or slightly exceeded the mid-20th Century warming.' There was also a pronounced warming period in Roman times'

Prof. Curry: 'I think Rose's 2nd article is well done. He lays out arguments the other 'side' is making, & provides his response. It is a reasonable portrayal of debate surrounding this issue' -- Judith Curry: 'The trend since 1997 is very small, much smaller than the decadal trend of 0.2C that we have been led to expect by the IPCC for the early part of the 21st century...'

Flashback 2010: Oh My! 2010 tied for 'hottest' year?! Relax, it is 'purely a political statement' -- Even NASA's Hansen admits it is 'not particularly important' -- Prof. mocks 'hottest decade' claim as 'a joke' -- 'Claims based on year-to-year temperature data that differs by only a few HUNDREDTHS of a degree'

Watch Now: CNN Climate Debate! Climate Depot's Morano Debates Bill Nye the Science Guy on Piers Morgan -- Updated Transcript Includes Citations

Posted by: Chris Dawson AT 06:46 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, December 07 2012

 

Bad boy smashes U.N. wall of silence

From Christopher Monckton of Arabia in Doha, Qatar

I have been a bad boy. At the U.N. climate conference in Doha, I addressed a plenary session of national negotiating delegates though only accredited as an observer.

Tsk, tsk. See me after class. Five demerits. Get down and give me 20!

One just couldn’t resist. There they all were, earnestly outbidding each other to demand that the West should keep them in pampered luxury for the rest of their indolent lives, and all on the pretext of preventing global warming that has now become embarrassingly notorious for its long absence.

No one was allowed to give the alternative – and scientifically correct – viewpoint. The U.N.’s wall of silence was rigidly in place.

The microphone was just in front of me. All I had to do was press the button. I pressed it. The Chair recognized Myanmar (Burmese for Burma). I was on.

On behalf of the Asian Coastal Co-operation Initiative, an outfit I had thought up on the spur of the moment (it sounded just like one of the many dubious taxpayer-funded propaganda groups at the conference), I spoke for less than a minute.

Quietly, politely, authoritatively, I told the delegates three inconvenient truths they would not hear from anyone else:

Ø  There has been no global warming for 16 of the 18 years of these wearisome, self-congratulatory yadayadathons.

Ø  It is at least ten times more cost-effective to see how much global warming happens and then adapt in a focused way to what little harm it may cause than to spend a single red cent futilely attempting to mitigate it today.

Ø  An independent scientific enquiry should establish whether the U.N.’s climate conferences are still heading in the right direction.

See here for the rest of the Report

Posted by: Chris Dawson AT 03:49 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Facebook
Twitter
Google+
LinkedIn
Email
Add to favorites
 Blog, News and Latest Activities 
 

Disclaimer for the Lord Monckton Foundation website:

Material on this site:

Photos and material on this site are used for educational and research purposes and are sourced from media outlets and the internet. If you are the copyright owner of any material used on this site and you object to its use, and such use falls outside the fair use provisions in ss. 40 - 42 of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), please email chrisdawson@lordmoncktonfoundation.com, and it will be removed. It is understood that in most countries, copyright automatically resides with the taker of the photograph or art work, unless rights are formally assigned to another.

Site Mailing List 
"The Lord Monckton Foundation shall conduct research, publish papers, educate students and the public and take every measure that may be necessary to restore the primacy and use of reason in science and public policy worldwide, especially insofar as they may bear upon the rights of the people fairly and fully to be informed, openly and freely to debate, and secretly by ballot to decide who shall govern them, what laws they shall live by and what imposts they shall endure."

The Lord Monckton Foundation

ABN 51 154 843 213 Registered Address: PO Box 371 Balwyn North VIC, Australia 3104

Ph: 03 9878 3333 - Int’l: (+61) 3 9878 3333 - Mobile: 0409 805 425

Postal Address: PO Box 14, Nunawading LPO, Nunawading VIC Australia 3131

Email: info@lordmoncktonfoundation.com


See our Privacy, Confidential Information and Data Security Policy (here)

 

Site Powered By
    Turnkey Website Solutions
    Online web site design