google-site-verification: googlefe22bfd737719451.html Skip to main content
my account
site map
Friday, March 30 2012

When is a 'Conspiracy Theory' a CONSPIRACY?

You will recall that the Lord Monckton Foundation Charter and Vision asks the following questions:

"...Has the nation had its day? Is the globalization of governance really a public good? Can democracy survive it? Should not the use of the ballot-box be extended? Should not every supranational and global institution of governance be elected? The Foundation exists to illuminate questions such as these, and to inspire devotion to the cause of Western civilization, true reason, sound science, universal liberty and worldwide democracy in the hearts of all men of goodwill. Let freedom ring!"

Implicit in these questions is the impact of the evidence that the more remote any elite anointed 'regulating class' is from the people, the less interest they have in the people and their issues. Can anyone seriously suggest that a UN  global government and bureaucracy based in Brussels or Beijing or New York; an elite group loyal only to global 'groupthink' and concerned primarily and predominantly with maintaining power, as big government inevitably is, will care for the good citizens of towns in the mid-west of the US; villages of the Palar River Region of Tamil Nadu in India; the challenges of water rights in Victoria, Australia and so on?

The elite anointed 'regulating class' look forward to this UN inspired Brave New World (here)

Don't forget that the UN at Copenhagen attempted a global coup on the pretext of saving the planet - see Lord Monckton's Minnesota Peroration (here). Where this has been discussed at all in the media, it has been presented as a 'conspiracy theory' by Lord Monckton and others, with the implication that it is somehow a whacky baseless notion dreamed up by some paranoid climate sceptics.

This particular post has been prompted by some interesting presentations by the Green Senator for Tasmania and leader of the Greens Party in the Australian Federal Parliament, Dr Bob Brown (Note: Bob Brown has resigned as leader since this blog was posted). The background to this is that the Greens have been seen to be acting in favour of the interests of international organisations such as the UN IPCC and against the economic and sovereign interests of Australia and Australians.

Senator Brown made an interesting speech at the Greens National conference (here). Unfortunately, many in the Greens seem to say one thing and mean another. For example Clive Hamilton, the Greens Party candidate for the high profile seat of Higgins, despite maintaining that he never suggested suspending democracy to 'save the planet', definitely seems to do so in an article he wrote himself to promote his book (here).

Senator Brown has gone on to say that we need a world government (here) and expresses an interest in democracy despite repeated efforts to stifle debate on Climate science and economics and any criticism of the Greens by those whom he describes as 'the hate media'. His efforts in media management have led to the proposal from a government enquiry he demanded and got, to establish a government funded media regulator (here).

We are not convinced that big government is either worthy and/or susceptible to democratic control, and unfortunately the Greens want BIG Government and on a GRAND GLOBAL SCALE.

If you point out that there are groups and organisations and indeed bureaucracies (e.g. UN IPCC) around the world seriously attempting to bring on a Global Government (and actually achieving this by stealth in some fora), then you will be labelled a 'conspiracy theorist'.

Posted by: Chris Dawson AT 06:14 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, March 26 2012

Last year over 5,000 Australian's responded to a Parliamentary Joint Select Committee on Australia’s Clean Energy Future Legislation's call for submissions in September, 2011. Within the very short timeframe of one week, these people and organisations managed to draft, write and submit to the committee on this complex topic.

Unfortunately, the Labor-and-Greens-Alliance-dominated committee decided that there were too many submissions against the legislation and so they decided to 're-categorize' these 'negative' submissions as 'correspondence'.

Similarly, Dr Jensen, about the only member in the parliament qualified to comment on the science, found he was not allowed to table reputably published, peer reviewed science on the specific topic of climate change, in the Parliament during the debate on (see here) the Clean Energy Future Legislation.

In addition, Australia's Chief Scientist, Professor Chubb was allowed to give testimony before this Joint Select Committee on Australia’s Clean Energy Future Legislation, on the 26th September, 2011 (unlike over 5,000 other Australians who had their submissions 'reclassified') without offering any empirical science in support of his case as demonstrated by Dr John Happs' demolition of Professor Chubb's efforts (here). If Dr Happs had been able to present alongside Professor Chubb, it would have been interesting to hear the Committee's response.

One has to ask oneself, "What could the Labor Green government be affraid of? Free speech in the Parliament; the science; or the truth perhaps?"

So we have the Australian Parliament and the government funded ABC (here) both deciding that the people's right to hear opposing views or even to question the 'consensus view' is somehow 'inappropriate' and therefore, decide it is not going to happen.

Posted by: Chris Dawson AT 03:16 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, March 26 2012

In Australia, right now, we have the Federal Government considering the Finkelstein Report and we have efforts to enforce a form of 'political correctness' through various tribunals and court actions and we can get a glimpse of how this same zeitgeist is happening around the western world through Mark Steyn's observations here.

Following Lord Monckton's observation, we observe what the tax payer funded public broadcaster, 'THE ABC' does with the taxes extracted from the Australian people to broadcast in news reports and comment; propaganda/acceptable information/post modern science/the views of the anointed regulating classes (?) on the pretext of balance, science and journalistic ethics for investigative skepticism. 

Lord Monckton has observed the following:

"At the end of the day, the central question is this. Which side in this scientific debate is most likely to be right and true?

Much turns upon the answer to this central question. If there is in fact no “climate crisis”, then the world is about to spend not billions but trillions on a Sisyphean attempt to find non-solutions to a non-problem. Every cent spent on the non-problem of “global warming” is a cent not spent on the world’s real environmental problems, not the least of which is the abject and needless poverty in which far too many are condemned to struggle.

Also, the repeated and often furtive attempts by powerfully-placed true-believers to stifle, suppress, and silence debate – attempts which were repeatedly made in the present case – raise serious questions about the degree to which the freedom of speech on which the West once prided itself still survives.

Without freedom of speech, and without the academic freedom of thought that is its handmaid, there is a clear and present danger that the West will drift silently and miserably from the Age of Reason and Enlightenment into a new Dark Age."

Lord Monckton September 28, 2009

ABC policy: don’t question the warming theory

Andrew Bolt , Monday, March, 26, 2012, (11:14am)

Global warming - propaganda

It is now official ABC policy not to question the global warming theory, even though the world hasn’t warmed in a decade and scientists are in dispute. The ABC’s Audience and Consumer Affairs branch writes in response to a complaint:

Given the overwhelming majority of the world’s scientists agree that AGW is real and needs to be addressed and the overwhelming majority of the world’s government’s and the UN acknowledge the reality of AGW and the need to address it, the ABC pursues a balance that follows the weight of evidence on this issue.  The ABC’s coverage of this issue has well and truly moved on from the debate as to whether or not AGW is real.

What was it that former ABC Media Watch host David Marr once said? Oh, yes:

The natural culture of journalism is a kind of vaguely soft left inquiry, sceptical of authority. I mean, that’s just the world out of which journalists come.  If they don’t come out of this world, they really can’t be reporters.  I mean, if you are not sceptical of authority – find another job.  You know, just find another job.

Everying Marr wrote there is true. Except for just two words: “soft left”. By Marr’s own defnition, the ABC’s email proves the stoft-left ABC has betrayed journalism.

It is now evangelising for a neo-religious movement.

(Thanks to reader Tony.)



A true democracy needs entities like, "The Lord Monckton Foundation (which) 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."


Posted by: Chris Dawson AT 02:01 am   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Thursday, March 22 2012

Anthony Watts has posted on Testimony of The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley to the California State Assembly on 21st March 2012.

See post (here)

Posted by: Chris Dawson AT 04:38 pm   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, March 21 2012

Clive Palmer's only mistake was to specify a particular source of conspiracy against the interests of Australia and Australians.

It is naive in the extreme to believe that there are no individuals, groups, philosophies and even countries plotting to do Australia damage. Operating perhaps, on their own disturbed meme, ideology, belief system or religion, it is certain that some are keen to act against our economic and security interests to the detriment of the Commonwealth of Australia and Australians in favour of their own or foreign interests.

In other words, if there are enemies within or external threats, conspiring to harm our interests, freedoms and way of life, then our government should act to reduce that threat. If there are forces at work funded by external parties or agencies 'conspiring' to damage a major export industry upon which our government depends for economic stability, then Clive Palmer (or anyone else) who, based on some evidence he has come across, suspects such a conspiracy, and brings it to our attention, should be applauded as a patriot, rather than pilloried as a buffoon by Ministers of the Crown.

Who has a clearer loyalty to our constitution and country and greater insight into the evil intent of some global players? Clive Palmer, who understands how a foreign government or global corporation or hedge fund manager may attack our national interest (as has been done in the past by the USSR, China, George Soros and others); or a naive government acting on nothing but a complete lack of business experience, governed only by the 'best of intentions' to destroy our 'carbon' economy, export our manufacturing jobs and divert future minerals investment to new more hospitable mining boom locations (like Africa).   

The media reports of Clive Palmer's thoughts on this matter have been sketchy at best and malevolent at worst, and so I can't say what has prompted Mr Palmer to form this particular 'conspiracy' view. However, as this is the government that was perfectly prepared to hand numerous sovereign Australian powers to an unelected foreign UN 'government' at Copenhagen (and indeed has quietly and surreptitiously ceded much at Cancun since); if this government is suggesting Mr Palmer is a foolish 'conspiracy theorist' acting on a baseless view, that there is evil in the world, then a government claiming disinterest in entertaining any 'conspiracy theories' whilst quietly conspiring against the interests of the Australian people though the unconstitutional use of foreign affairs powers, is clearly unfit to protect the interests of the Commonwealth and its people.

Posted by: Chris Dawson AT 06:42 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, March 21 2012

....and another man with a different view (a heretic). You might not agree with everything he says, but he has every right to say it, and people need to refute his evidence (as he highlights everyone's flaws and 'confirmation bias) rather than shoot the messenger. In his speech (link below) he concludes,

".........I’ve spent a lot of time on climate, but it could have been dietary fat, or nature and nurture. My argument is that like religion, science as an institution is and always has been plagued by the temptations of confirmation bias. With alarming ease it morphs into pseudoscience even – perhaps especially – in the hands of elite experts and especially when predicting the future and when there’s lavish funding at stake. It needs heretics."

Matt Ridley's presentation (here)

Posted by: Chris Dawson AT 03:01 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, March 21 2012

A few months ago, Mrs Gina Rinehart decided to write an article for Australian Resources and Investment. She laid out the climate science as she understood it. Apparently the journal decided to edit out the climate science, without indication of its absence to readers and without explanation to Mrs Rinehart.

I will let Jo Nova in her excellent coverage of this story take it from (here)

Posted by: Chris Dawson AT 02:07 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, March 20 2012


The Debate is yet to be. Lord Monckton almost found one in 2009.

Despite much resistance, Lord Monckton has persisted in his efforts to initiate an open and free debate on the causes and extent of Climate Change (the relative impact of natural or human causes; the nature and extent of so called unprecedented, dangerous and runnaway global warming; the scientific value of models uncalibrated with observations and evidence from the natural world).

An earlier attempt to discuss things freely in debate is still instructive and illustrates the difficulties some have with a view well founded evidence which conflicts with their scientifically unsupported 'world view'.

See (here) for the debate generated by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley and Paul Maynard with Dr. Andrew Dlugolecki, a contributor to the UN’s climate reports.




Posted by: Chris Dawson AT 06:58 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Monday, March 19 2012

The nature of debate, especially drawing on the power of the authority of political office is still used to damage genuine scientists and ordinary people simply asking for evidence. This has never reached anything like 'openly and freely to debate'.

The following letter from Lord Monckton to Prime Minister Rudd simply highlights many of the techniques and slurs that continue to this day.

See Lord Monckton's letter to Prime Minster Rudd (here)

Posted by: Chris Dawson AT 04:02 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, March 17 2012

Monckton of Brenchley says:

I’m most grateful to Justin Pulliam for having been so thoughtful and helpful a guide during the East Coast leg of my current speaking tour of the US and Canada. For once the environmentalist faction stumbled into a real debate, and I am most grateful to Anthony Watts for putting this revealing account of it on the record in his influential blog, which now carries more weight than most “mainstream” news media, and a great deal more information.

Some commenters have had difficulty in getting access to the video of my lecture at Union College. Professor Larry Gould of Hartford University, with his characteristic thoroughness, has posted up the fuller version of the lecture that I had the honor to give at his university in the presence of its president, Walter Harrison. Larry has helpfully included all the slides in the right places. The link is:

One commenter has asked why, since I oppose the notion of doing science by consensus, I said in my talk that it was “generally accepted” that 1.2 Kelvin of global warming will be likely to occur in response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration, where there are no feedbacks or the feedbacks are net-zero.

The relevant slide shows how the IPCC calculates this 1.2 K. One multiplies the IPCC’s radiative forcing from a doubling of CO2 (5.35 ln 2 = 3.71 W/m2: Myhre et al., 1998) by the Planck climate-sensitivity parameter (0.31 K/W/m2: IPCC, 2007, p. 631 fn.), and increases the result by approximately one-sixth to allow for latitudinal variations in temperature at the characteristic-emission altitude. It is worth noting that neither of the two relevant quantities can be measured directly. Both are guesses, and both may be exaggerations.

Professor Chris Essex of the University of Western Ontario performed some of the earliest spectral-line-by-spectral-line calculations to determine the form of the CO2 radiative forcing. Though he is willing to confirm that the the equation is indeed logarithmic, so that each additional molecule of CO2 has less forcing effect than its predecessors, he is less sure about the coefficient, which the IPCC has already reduced by 15% (it was 6.3 in the 1990 and 1995 reports). The coefficient, and hence the CO2 radiative forcing, may still be too high, and perhaps substantially so.

There is also doubt about the value of the Planck climate-sensitivity parameter, which also cannot be measured but is crucial because not only the original warming caused by CO2 before feedbacks but also, separately, the feedbacks themselves are dependent upon it. The Moon, which has no atmosphere, is a helpful benchmark, because the mean surface temperature is also the emission temperature. Theory (see NASA’s lunar fact-sheet, for instance) gives 271 K as the mean lunar surface temperature. However, the Diviner mission has established that at the lunar equator, the warmest part of the surface, the mean temperature is just 206 K. This implies that the mean temperature of the entire lunar surface is 193-194 K, a long way below the 271 K given by the use of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation (assuming albedo 0.11 and emissivity 1). If the Earth’s true emission temperature (which occurs somewhere at altitude in the troposphere) is less than the 255 K predicted by theory (assuming an albedo 0.306), then the Planck parameter may well be considerably less than the IPCC’s value, in which event on this ground alone climate sensitivity may be well below its central estimate of 3.26 K per CO2 doubling.

For the sake of brevity, I took the “official” values of the CO2 radiative forcing and of the Planck parameter as correct, and pointed out to the audience that the major debate between the skeptics and the believers centers on the overall feedback gain factor, which – in the IPCC’s implicit central estimate – is 2.81, almost tripling the warming that a CO2 doubling causes before feedbacks are taken into account. It is not possible to measure any individual temperature feedback directly, so the feedback multiplier is based on a (probably exaggerated) guess as to the value of the Planck parameter and (near-certainly very much exaggerated) guesses as to the values of the various temperature feedbacks.

My best estimates (guesses, but perhaps better guesses than those of the IPCC because I have no vested interest in the answers) are that the IPCC exaggerates the CO2 radiative forcing (which cannot be measured) by around 20%; that it exaggerates the Planck parameter (which cannot be measured) by 20%; and that it exaggerates the sum of all unamplified feedbacks (which cannot be measured) threefold, because, as Lindzen and Choi (2009,, 2011) and Spencer and Braswell (2010, 2011) have demonstrated, feedbacks are somewhat net-negative.

If my best guesses are indeed better than those of the IPCC, then climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 concentration is 0.8 K before feedbacks are taken into account and 0.7 K after feedbacks, very much in line with the results of Lindzen & Choi and Spencer & Braswell.

Even if the IPCC is right, it is still cheaper and more cost-effective to spend not a single red cent on global warming for at least 50 years (Nordhaus, 2012) than to take any action today to try to make global warming go away. Given that none of the three parameters whose product is climate sensitivity can be measured, it ought to be self-evident that the value of their product cannot be definitively determined, from which it follows that “the science” cannot possibly be “settled”.

Another commenter has asked why I insist on the use of reason in science and then admit that I believe in a Creator. Many leading scientists, including Professor Antonino Zichichi (president of the World Federation of Scientists) and Lord Kelvin (for whom the scale of absolute temperature is named) have been believers in Christianity. Thanks to Max Planck, it is now demonstrated that the laws of physics did not come into being until a fraction of a nanosecond after the Big Bang, from which it follows that no amount of ingenuity on our part can reveal to us what (or Who) said “Let there be light” and blazed the Universe into glorious existence.

In short, it is scientifically and rigorously proven that the assertion of Christianity that there is a Creator cannot be disproved (and, by the same token, that it cannot be proved either). Therefore, it is permissible for me to say I believe in the truths of the Christian faith, though it would be impermissible for me to say I could prove them to be true. On the other hand, many of the beliefs of the climate extremists can be demonstrated to be false. Their belief system, therefore, is appropriately classified not as a religion (which can neither be proved nor disproved) but as a superstition (which can be and has been disproved).

Finally, one or two commenters have expressed annoyance that I am willing to concede that there is such a thing as the greenhouse effect at all. The reason why I have always conceded this fact is that it is indeed a fact, established by an elegant, readily-replicable and oft-replicated experiment first conducted by an ancestor of one of the commenters here.

The true scientific debate does not center on whether there is a greenhouse effect (there is: get used to it), but on how much warming our enhancement of that effect may cause. My best guess is, “not a lot”. If we expect the climate extremists to be truthful, we ought to do our best to be truthful ourselves, and not to push the scientific argument beyond what measurement and experiment and the application of established theory to the results has plainly and sufficiently demonstrated.

Posted by: Chris Dawson AT 08:24 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, March 16 2012

Drafted and not read.

On the pretext of saving the planet from man-made Global Warming (AGW), the sovereign nations of the earth, came very close to ceding enormous power to some remote UN bureaucrats. The fact that these same governments (on our behalf) had already delegated the 'due diligence' for this signatory coup, to the coup leaders,which seems to have escaped the MSM and our own governments, says something for the lack of évidence based public policy making, world wide.

I was present at the first Climate Commission public hearing in Geelong in Victoria Australia last year. I managed to ask Prof Wil Steffon, "..which particular reputably published, peer reviewed paper, convinced him that human carbon dioxide emissions, was the major cause of any unprecedented, dangerous runnaway global warming?"

He did not answer the question other than offer oblique references to some work done over 100 years ago on the 'greenhouse effect' of CO2.

Last night I watched, with some incredulity, Prof Michael (Hockey Stick) Mann answer some 'tough' (and it seemed to me, agreed and scripted questions from Emma Alderuchi on Lateline ABC Australia); questions in support of the latest Climate Update from the Australian CSIRO/BoM 'maintaining the rage' of Climate Catastraphism.

Distilling this report down to its essentials, it seems we've had significant increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations over thee last 15 years or so. without any detectable increase in average global temperatures....yet somehow they manage to invoke panic in the 'vibe' of this treatise.

So this brings us to our selected discussion for today being a letter from Andrew Roberts of the Galileo Movement to Greg Hunt, the shadow minister with National Australian responsibility for Climate Change Policy. I too, had much correspondence with Greg on this topic and ended with similar observations.""I always look at the evidence. Just this morning I looked at evidence from NASA which showed 150 years of change, just progressive, progressive increases."

See (here) for the extensive and detailed, scientific and politically detailed letter from Malcolm to Greg, which highlights the Australian Labor Government's expensive and soveriegnty destroying (and possibly unconstitutional) folly along with some in the Opposition's complicity in ignoring the science in this AGW scam. This total lack of 'due diligence' by those memerized or corrupted by this misanthropic 'faith' gives us pause....and leads us to wonder how history will view this unscientific 'scam'.

Malcolm to Greg:Your words seem to reveal what I conclude is your deep ignorance, weakness or possible dishonesty. You are highly educated. You are a lawyer. Do you really believe your words would stand in court as evidence that human production of carbon dioxide, CO2 caused Earth’s latest modest global ATMOSPHERIC warming that ended around 1998?"


Posted by: Chris Dawson AT 07:13 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, March 16 2012

With the recent release of the Brisbane Floods Inquiry, it is perhaps timely to reflect on some comments made at the time by those who tend towards alarming the public about Global Warming being blamed for and causing everything bad, that Tony Abbott is not.

Lord Monckton wrote this paper discussing Senator Bob Brown's comments at the time.

Posted by: Chris Dawson AT 06:42 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Tuesday, March 13 2012

When Lord Monckton published his understanding of what the Copenhagen Treaty really meant in his Minnisota Peroration (see here) insofar as governments around the world agreeing to cede powers to the Climate Change Regulating Class in the form of a world government (or as we have defined the Regulating Class here as the Anointed) he managed to achieve the impossible and foil or at least postpone, a coup as described below. Lord Monckton was highlighting the absence of the word democracy in the Copenhagen Treaty in contravension of the Lord Monckton Foundation's aim to, ".... 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."

Who Are You Going To Believe—The Government Climate Scientists or Your Own Lying Eyes? and they strongly support the theory. Many people simply cannot get past the fact that nearly all the authority figures believe the theory. To these people the data is simply irrelevant. (see here for full essay)   

The climate models are incompatible with the data. You cannot believe both the theory of dangerous manmade global warming and the data, because they cannot both be right.

In science, data trumps theory. If data and theory disagree, as they do here, people of a more scientific bent go with the data and scrap the theory.

But in politics we usually go with authority figures, who in this case are the government climate scientists and the western governments

Posted by: Chris Dawson AT 05:43 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, March 07 2012


We will discuss the findings of the Finklestein review shortly. The review has recommendations which many see as creating too big a role for government in 'managing' freedom of speech in Australia (See report here).

The Lord Monckton Foundation sees 'freedom of speech' and sees government as being answerable to the people (and not the other way round) as fundamental as can be seen from this excerpt from our vision/charter, "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." (see full charter here)

In the meantime, you might like to:

a) Review Lord Monckton in action at the National Press Club Luncheon in Canberra in July 2011.

b) Read one of Mark Steyn's illuminating and funny (if it wasn't so serious) articles from the Australian newpaper.

See article 'Using rights to gag free speech' (here


Anointed Vision obscures reality and incites government to ‘manage’ Free Speech
Gushing Australian Media seeded current threat to Free Speech
Posted by: Chris Dawson AT 08:00 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Wednesday, March 07 2012

You will find below over 200 quotes from senior scientists indicating that there is far from a consensus when it comes to climate science and that there is no such thing as 'consensus science'. The great Michael Crighton once said,

"...regard 'consensus science' as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had......Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What are relevant are reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period."

These quotes were kindly put together by the No Carbon Tax Climate Sceptics Party and form an interesting sample of the counter consensus of scientists attempting to practice science.

See quotes here.

Posted by: Chris Dawson AT 12:32 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Friday, March 02 2012


Thursday 1 March                Dinner address to students at University of Connecticut
Friday 2 March                     Lecture The Climate of Freedom, University of Hartford
Monday 5 March                  Lecture The Climate of Freedom, Union College, Schenectady
Tuesday 6 March                  Lecture The Climate of Freedom, University of Syracuse
Thursday, 8 March               Lunch address to senior faculty at Princeton University
                                                Lecture The Climate of Freedom, University of Minnesota
Friday, 9 March                    Dinner address to Minnesota business community
Second week of March        Address to the International Free Press Society, Canada
Monday 19 March                Lecture The Courtier’s Conundrum, University of Western Ontario
Ø The annual Nerenberg Lecture on Mathematics is the premier
                                                      mathematics lecture in Canada
Wednesday 21 March         Appearance before the California State Legislature Afternnon                                              debate on the climate, Sacramento, California
Thursday 22 March              Address to the business community, Bakersfield, California
Friday 23 March                   Debate on the climate, Bakersfield, California
Saturday 24 March               Dinner address on California Cap and Trade, Los Angeles
Tuesday 10 April                   Dinner address to the business community, Denver, Colorado
Wednesday 11 April             Address to the Colorado State Assembly
Saturday 21 April (TBC)      Debate on the UN’s Agenda 21, Sacramento, California

Watch this space for more details!

Lord Monckton is now in the US for a six-week speaking tour of North America, including lectures to the faculty at Princeton and also the major annual mathematics lecture in Canada.
Posted by: Chris Dawson AT 01:17 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  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, 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


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


Site Powered By
    Turnkey Website Solutions
    Online web site design