google-site-verification: googlefe22bfd737719451.html Skip to main content
my account
site map
Sunday, January 27 2013

With Lord Monckton's Australian and New Zealand Tour 2013

- Ye Olde Chestnut Returns -

Is he a member of the House of Lords?

The topic of Lord Monckton’s ‘membership’ of the House of Lords always stirs up a hornet’s nest of righteous indignation or jealous outrage.  

The most malicious accusation implies Lord Monckton is lying about his membership of the House of Lords and is therefore an untrustworthy ‘politician’ type and therefore his considered views and empirical evidence on many topics should be ignored. 

Now I am a sceptical person by nature and when I came across these ‘charges’ of deceit I was bemused. In my ignorance of the changes to the rules in the UK upper House I imagined the fuss was about the Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley calling himself a Lord. The dictionary made clear his right to do this. And as I believed the House of Lords was where the Lords who so chose, gathered to consider legislation in the upper house, I couldn’t understand what the fuss was about. Clearly, those in the UK Labour Party who were attempting to stamp out the tradition of Hereditary Peerages felt they had succeeded in 1999 with the Act as described later, below.

Even the US Congress, before which Lord Monckton has frequently testified, has raised the question. Lord Monckton's reply to the Democrat chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee was as follows:

"The House of Lords Act 1999 debarred all but 92 of the 650 Hereditary Peers, including my father, from sitting or voting, and purported to – but did not – remove membership of the Upper House. Letters Patent granting Peerages, and consequently membership, are the personal gift of the Monarch. Only a specific law can annul a grant. The 1992 Act was a general law. The then Government, realizing this defect, took three maladroit steps: it wrote asking expelled Peers to return their Letters Patent (though that does not annul them); in 2009 it withdrew the passes admitting expelled Peers to the House (and implying they were members); and it told the enquiry clerks to deny they were members: but a written Parliamentary Answer by the Lord President of the Council admits that general legislation cannot annul Letters Patent, so, as my passport shows, I am The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley."

However, the one thing you can’t say about Lord Christopher Monckton is that he ignores and gives up on the facts; of history; of science; of the law; and the truth as he has done his best to discern it to be.

The Summary of Hugh O’Donoghue’s opinion on this topic in which these issues are discussed, follows:




I am asked to consider whether The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley was correct when, in a recent radio interview in Australia, he answered the question "Are you a member of the House of Lords?" by saying, "Yes, but without the right to sit or vote." My conclusion is that Lord Monckton‟s answer was and is correct at all points. We have the authority of two Law Lords in the Privileges Committee that the meaning of the words "membership of the House" in the Act is confined to the right to sit and vote. The implication is that in all other respects excluded Hereditary Peers remain members of the House. Also, the Letters Patent that created Peerages such as that of Monckton of Brenchley have not been revoked, and we have the recent authority both of the Leader of the House and of the High Court for that. Though the House of Lords Act 1999 purported to remove "membership of the House of Lords" from excluded Hereditary Peers including Lord Monckton‟s late father, its constitutionality is questionable. Peerages entail membership of the House. Lord Monckton is correct to state that he does not at present have the right to sit or vote, though if the 1999 Act is unconstitutional the excluded Hereditary Peers are unlawfully excluded. Therefore, Lord Monckton remains a Member not only of the Peerage but also of the House of Lords, save only that he cannot for now sit or vote there, and he was and is fully entitled to say so.



The full opinion which includes a marvelous and enlightening meander through the history of the British Peerage and associated constitutional issues can be found here:

I trust this will be both controversial and defendable enough for readers to keep the ‘barbarians’ at bay. 


Posted by: Chris Dawson AT 08:02 am   |  Permalink   |  1 Comment  |  Email
Sunday, January 13 2013

It's been more than two years since 'splattergate' and it is now more than 16, 18 or 19 years with no statistically measurable rise in Average Global Temperatures (depending how you interpret the data). It is therefore timely perhaps to reflect on the mindset that enabled these high profile 'spattergate' people to donate their highly priced time to such a grotesque project as this.

Watch the three (3) minute 'splattergate' advertisement by 10:10 here and read what James Delingpole predicted correctly on October 1st 2010,

"....that No Pressure – Richard Curtis's spectacularly ill-judged eco-propaganda movie for the 10:10 campaign – would prove a disastrous own goal for the green movement.

But what I could never have imagined was how quickly public disgust – even among greenies – would reach such a pitch that the campaigners would be compelled to withdraw it from the internet.

That, at any rate, is what they keep trying to do – cancelling it whenever it appears on You Tube, pulling it from their campaign website and so on.

Unfortunately their efforts are being frustrated by people on the sceptical side of the climate debate, who keep peskily insisting on reposting the video where everyone can view it. And rightly so. With No Pressure, the environmental movement has revealed the snarling, wicked, homicidal misanthropy beneath its cloak of gentle, bunny-hugging righteousness."

Many people have forgotten this little 'turning point' in the debate on human induced catastrophic global warming. They have practised a wilful blindness involving substantial effort and a powerful blind faith powered by their 'knowledge' that they are right and that then end justifies the means.

Here's the excuse posted by the 10:10 organisers on the Guardian website:


Today we put up a mini-movie about 10:10 and climate change called 'No Pressure'.

With climate change becoming increasingly threatening, and decreasingly talked about in the media, we wanted to find a way to bring this critical issue back into the headlines whilst making people laugh. We were therefore delighted when Britain's leading comedy writer, Richard Curtis – writer of Blackadder, Four Weddings, Notting Hill and many others – agreed to write a short film for the 10:10 campaign. Many people found the resulting film extremely funny, but unfortunately some didn't and we sincerely apologise to anybody we have offended.

As a result of these concerns we've taken it off our website.

We'd like to thank the 50+ film professionals and 40+ actors and extras and who gave their time and equipment to the film for free. We greatly value your contributions and the tremendous enthusiasm and professionalism you brought to the project.

At 10:10 we're all about trying new and creative ways of getting people to take action on climate change. Unfortunately in this instance we missed the mark. Oh well, we live and learn.

Onwards and upwards,

Eugenie, Franny, Daniel, Lizzie and the whole 10:10 team

What were they thinking? Did they really believe most found this funny? Do they not have inquisitive children?

The fact that the 'science', in the form of empirical observational and experimental evidence is now pointing very strongly away from human carbon dioxide emissions as the major influence on global temperatures, has absolutely no impact on their religious certainty, and everything to do with their 'denial' of the science and the evidence.

Jo Nova more recently discussed the antics of the Greens Party here in Australia openly suggesting that deception and fraud done in the name of saving the planet is completely ok, apparently the end does justify the means,

"PR is more important than anything else to the Greens. When Johnathon Moylan fraudulently tricked investors, costing some of them thousands of dollars, Green leaders praise him for “drawing attention” to something. It’s as if stupid punters are so dumb and Green’s brains so Omniscient, that any crime is forgiven in the quest to tell the world a green “fact”. Did Christine Milne think Australians don’t know the Greens blame coal miners for hot days? Did she think that people would hear for the first time that Greens really really don’t like the coal industry and they would suddenly awaken from their stupor and be converts to the cause? Did she think if Green chicanery raised the cost of capital formation in the coal industry, causing that industry to suffer, that everyone else would overlook Green illegality and applaud?

A delusional anti-coal mining activist, Jonathan Moylan, impersonated a bank spokesman and issued a fake media release,  falsely declaring that the bank had withdrawn a $1.2 billion loan facility from Whitehaven Coal because of ”unacceptable damage to the environment.” He created a dummy email inbox to push the deceit further to cause real damage. The story was picked up by some news outlets, and shares fell by 9% before people realized it was fake. Those who want to downplay the seriousness are calling it a “hoax”. The real world knows it is fraud."

For me, part of the little 'turning point' involved assimilating the horror of the children in the classroom being 'spattered' with the biomass of their classmate 'deniers'.

The strange pathways ones' mind follows in a state of shock.

For me, upon seeing the 'spattergate' Youtube, ....I got it. I understood what Richard Curtis and his like minded Green Zealots were trying to  I am familiar with Goebbels style propaganda.

First, I understood that these people wanted to frighten, threaten and indeed terrorize people into subconsciously (with NO PRESSURE) accepting that by holding any doubts or actively questioning the 'consensus' as a minority, we are vulnerable to 'liquidation' by the majority.

Second, I observed the biomass of those splattered 'sceptic' children oozing off their classmates, and in my analytical mode, asked the simple question, "what is the biomass of humanity?" If everyone questioned the 'consensus' and was 'splattered', how big a volume would we all take up with our biomass?

Please remember, I was in shock with that image of the splattered children (who could've been my children) imprinted in my mind's eye, and so my mind drfited down this strange path....

If population growth levels off with prosperity (which seems the only guaranteed population management program incorporating Jeffersonian human rights) and if humanity reaches 10 billion souls by 2050, what volume will human biomass occupy? If we conservatively assume each human 'splattered by the 10:10 crowd' fills a 100 litre container, then I calculated that we could pour the biomass of 10 humans into one cubic metre. Thus, the sum total of humanity, 10 billion people would fill a volume bound by a vessel 1000 metres long, 1000 metres wide and 1000 metres high (or one cubic kilometer).

It struck me that humanity's volume in terms of the dimensions and resources of the earth is puny. It struck me that with freedom (genuine informed democracy), proper education (not Green propaganda), and a new 'Enlightenment 2.0'  we can readily feed and house and productively occupy all of humanity on earth. We just need to practise science and logic and the golden rule.

So when we manage to help people back into Enligthenment 2.0, we must be forever vigilent that the 'mindset' of the 'anointed' does not return unchallenged. The END does NOT justify the MEANS because, humans being humans, the END may be ill-conceived and the MEANS may be worse.

Humans are fallible and as such, each of us can find ourselves possessed by an unusual and downright dangerous END to thus justify a destructive and inhuman MEANS. Many have trodden this PATH.

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions and unfortunately, on this road any signposts to heaven are deliberately obscured.






Posted by: Chris Dawson AT 11:41 am   |  Permalink   |  0 Comments  |  Email
Saturday, January 12 2013

The attached artilcle by Lord Monckton, Be skeptical of Skeptic's skepticism of skeptics (see article here) was originally published on the SPPI blog (see link below).

Lord Monckton in this article (see link above) is responding to an article in Skeptic magazine’s on skepticism of climate skeptics. The Skeptic magazine issue in question has, as its cover story, a Climate Change Q&A, revealingly subtitled Climate Deniers’ Arguments & Climate Scientists’ Answers by Dr. Donald Prothero, a geology professor at Occidental College. Find Skeptic article here.

"Anyone who starts out by using the hate-speech term “Climate Deniers” – laden with political overtones of Holocaust denial – cannot expect to be taken seriously as an objective scientist.

Despite this promise of “Climate Scientists’ Answers”, only four peer-reviewed papers by climate scientists are cited among the 41 references at the end of the article.

And the implicit notion that “Climate Deniers” are non-scientists while true-believers are “Climate Scientists” is also unreasonable. Many eminent climate scientists are skeptical of the more extremist claims made by the UN’s climate panel, the IPCC. We shall cite some of their work in this response to the Professor’s unscientific article."

In his conclusion to his response to the article, Lord Monckton goes on to make some interesting points summarised below.

"When historians of science come to discuss the bizarre intellectual aberration that is the belief in catastrophic manmade “global warming” (CAGW), Professor Prothero (and numerous other 'useful idiots? CD) will not merit so much as a footnote.

Most of his own footnotes are references to tendentious, politicized websites such as “skeptical”-science, “real”-climate or Exxon-“secrets”. Only four of them are to peer-reviewed papers by climate scientists.

The only remarkable thing about the much-recycled arguments from the far-out Left that he so turgidly regurgitates is that any news medium would still be ignorant enough, uncritical enough, prejudiced enough and unashamed enough to print them.

Unless and until climate scientists learn to leave hard-Left politics at home and start to discuss the scientific arguments of skeptics scientifically, they will remain unheeded.

Perhaps the most interesting question that historians will address, when looking back on the “global warming” scare, is how it came about that a tiny handful of determined skeptics, with little or no funding and no official backing, defeated the lavishly-funded Governments, scientific academies, news media, environmental groups, universities, schoolteachers, corporations and “global-warming” profiteers such as Al Gore.

How did this tiny band succeed in convincing the population that – as repeated opinion polls now demonstrate – catastrophic manmade climate change is the very least of the environmental concerns they should worry about?

One answer to that interesting question is surely this. The climate-extremists have the money, the power and the glory, but the skeptics have the truth."

And hopefully some support from readers for the work of the Lord Monckton Foundation where we (as from our vision here) ".....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."

To redress this state of affairs where,

"..the only remarkable thing about the much-recycled arguments from the far-out Left that he so turgidly regurgitates is that any news medium would still be ignorant enough, uncritical enough, prejudiced enough and unashamed enough to print them...", please support us here.

See link to original SPPI article here.

Posted by: Chris Dawson AT 08:12 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