Climate Change: Looney Tunes from Lord Monckton

Written By: - Date published: 1:15 pm, November 6th, 2009 - 118 comments
Categories: climate change - Tags:

Rob Salmond

In attempting to cover for DPF’s embarrassing disaster of a post on climate change, in his comments section some prominent right wingers (most notably John Ansell) pointed to a recent presentation by Lord Monckton. The presentation got a lot of publicity this month, including thinly veiled advertising from Fox News’ Glenn Beck, for arguing that Al Gore, the IPCC, Barack Obama, and pretty much everyone else are conspiratorial and ‘communistic’ liars and frauds on climate change. Bold claims. Ansell wanted to know if anyone on the left had any actual, specific criticism of Lord Monckton’s presentation. Absence of such criticism, Ansell seems to believe, shows up all those convinced by the IPCC on global warming as a bunch of cowards, scared of The Truth as dictated by Monckton.

Over the break, lest anyone comes to actually be fooled by Lord Monckton, is a quick summary of the distortions, lies and other inanities that I found in his video and slide presentation. It is a long post, but I wanted to be as thorough as I could.

(Note: I am not a climate scientist, so I left most of the techie climate science alone – natural science folk: please chime in via the comments. But I do work in the social sciences, which I believe gives me some ability to talk about many other aspects of Monckton’s talk)

1. Monckton’s Big Finish on International Relations in Utterly Laughable.

Here is Monckton’s big, dramatic conclusion about the negotiations around the Treaty of Copenhagen:

“I have read that [draft Copenhagen] treaty. And what it says is this: that a world government is going to be created. The word “government” actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to third-world countries, in satisfaction of what is called, coyly, “a climate debt” ­ because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t ­ and we’ve been screwing up the climate. We haven’t been screwing up the climate, but that’s the line. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement.

How many of you think that the word “election” or “democracy” or “vote” or “ballot” occurs anywhere in the 200-pages of that treaty? Quite right, it doesn’t appear once. So, at last, the communists who piled out of the Berlin Wall and into the environmental movement, and took over Greenpeace so that my friends who funded it left within a year, because they captured it ­ now the apotheosis as at hand. They are about to impose a communist world government on the world. You have a president who has very strong sympathies with that point of view. He’s going to sign. He’ll sign anything. He’s a Nobel Peace Prize laureate; of course he’ll sign it.

And the trouble is this; if that treaty is signed, your Constitution says that it takes precedence over your Constitution, and you can’t resile from that treaty unless you get agreement from all the other state’s parties ­ and because you’ll be the biggest paying country, they’re not going to let you out.”

There are so many obvious errors here it is hard to fathom how even Monckton believes it. Specifically:

  1. There is no draft Treaty of Copenhagen;
  2. The closest you can get to a draft treaty (the “Reordering and consolidation of text in the revised negotiating text“) is so riddled with multiple options, bracketed portions, and so on, that nobody can discern from it what the member states may eventually agree to, if anything;
  3. Section 38 of this document that Monckton references does indeed mention ‘government,’ but only in relation to the agreed aims of this treaty. There is no proposal for ‘world government’ in the normal use of the term, only for any body charged with implementing parts of the Treaty on behalf of the member States. Certainly there are no references to any principles associated with communism;
  4. Suggesting that President Obama has any sympathy with Communism is plainly silly (unless Monckton is also willing to declare his former boss Mrs Thatcher a communist for having a progressive income tax);
  5. The US Constitution does not, anywhere, say that Treaties supersede the Constitution. In fact, US practice has been the precise opposite,
  6. The US can unilaterally pull out of any treaty it likes, whenever it likes.

These and other errors are why politifact.com invented a new category of lie, ‘britches on fire’, to describe just how profoundly silly this warning is. The fact that some right wingers, including the influential Mr Ansell, take this warning at all seriously betrays a complete lack of critical thinking on their part.

2. Worst. Economist. Ever.

The 81st (!) slide in Monckton’s presentation was sold in the discussion as ‘the end of the debate on the economics [of] climate change.’ Another bold claim. It purports to show that addressing climate change is uneconomic because it would cost $250 trillion (2009 dollars) to address a 3.4 degree increase in mean global temperature by 2100.

This analysis is garbage because:

  1. To decide whether a course of action is economically wise, you also need to consider the costs of **not** engaging in it, in this case the costs of not addressing a 3.4 degree temperature rise. Monckton does not even attempt that. This is the biggest economic flaw here he does a cost-benefit analysis on action to address climate change without even finding out the benefits! He is like the person who says: ‘this medicine is very expensive, and therefore you should not take it.’ Fool.
  2. The $250 trillion figure is the cost over the next 1,360 years. 1,360! All of a sudden the annual cost does not look so mountainous (by the by, Monckton gets upset with people who try to predict something as complex as global temperature over the next 91 years, but seems happy enough to predict something as complex as human response to the global temperature over a timeframe 15 times as long);
  3. The $250 trillion figure assumes that the Waxman Markey Climate Bill in the US is the only way the world will address climate change for the next 1,360 years, or alternatively that all efforts to address climate change cost the same around the world, and that there will be no relevant technological progress or economies of scale over the next 1,360 years. All of those assumptions are, of course, entirely silly.

3. Scientific Method: FAIL

Late in the presentation, Monckton says that by arguing that there are data inconsistent with the IPCC predictions, he has shown ‘there is no climate problem.’ Now I will admit that some of the evidence he raises in opposition to the IPCC’s specific predictions is interesting and, on the generous assumption that he presented it accurately, is worthy of further study.

Even if we were to believe all of his evidence wholesale, however, his conclusion is still a massive scientific overstatement because:

  1. Nobody in science can ever claim to conclusively prove anything, let alone the absence of something;
  2. If you find simple evidence inconsistent with position A, it does not automatically follow that the position [not A] is true. By that logic, the claim that ‘lower taxes cause higher growth’ would have been entirely overturned by the New Zealand experience early this decade, when tax rates went up and so did growth. We could then, by Monckton’s logic, have claimed to have conclusively proved that there is no relationship between tax rates and growth. That would be a massive overstatement, just like Monckton’s claims.

4. Distortions of Climate Science

Even as a non-expert in climate science, some of Monckton’s distortions of the evidence and of the IPCC reports are obvious:

  1. The biggest hit Monckton claims is that the world has been cooling since 2002. This true in as far as it goes. But Monckton commits the same logical fallacy he criticizes others for, namely picking the most advantageous starting date for his analysis. More importantly, however, he utterly misrepresents the IPCC predictions of global temperatures over the 2002-2009 period. He presents the IPCC prediction as a linear increase when it is not. And he massively understates the IPCC’s uncertainty over their predictions. According to Monckton, the IPCC claimed to predict the 2003 global average temperature with a margin for error of only plus or minus 0.02 degrees Celsius. Of course the IPCC claimed no such thing. Here are two graphs showing first Monckton’s claim of the IPCC predictions, then the predictions themselves. The graphs are from the good people at realclimate.org, who also show Monckton getting the IPCC’s projections of CO2 levels also shockingly wrong.First Monckton

    Then the truth
    comp_monck1

  2. Monckton makes a big deal of the fact that not one of the 500 or so papers on climate change provided any evidence of the catastrophic scenarios touted by people such as Al Gore. This lack of evidence might be because said catastrophes are predicted to happen in the future, and evidence of the future is impossible to collect, to scientific standards of ‘evidence,’ in the present. So that ‘scientific’ point was nothing more than linguistic sophistry.
  3. Monckton also makes a big deal of the fact that the predicted anthropogenic change in CO2 levels accounts for only 1/2000th of the atmosphere, and in his discussion mocks as prima facie ridiculous the claim that 1/2000th of the atmosphere can be responsible for 1/6th of the total greenhouse effect of the atmosphere. The problem with Monckton’s argument here is that not all 2000ths of the atmosphere are created equal, just as not all fractions of, say, the human body are created equal. To illustrate: the median lethal dose of bee venom is about 3mg per kg of bodyweight. That is, by weight, one part in 300,000. Going from no bee venom in the body to 1/300,000th bee venom will likely kill you. One tiny 300,000th of the body changes the body from being 100% alive to 100% dead. Other similar examples abound.
  4. His discussion of the Medieval Warm Period suggests that the IPCC simply ignore it in the hope it will disappear, when in fact they discuss it openly and address it with evidence in Chapter 6 of their latest (2007) report. Oops.

5. A Delusional, Pompous Fool.

Quite apart from this (undoubtedly incomplete) list of substantive errors, Lord Monckton further undermines his own credibility as a serious commentator by:

  1. Claiming to be a climate scientist when he is not (nine of his publications on the topic come from his own think tank, while the tenth is from the letters section of a journal. He does not have a peer-reviewed publication in any scientific journal on any topic, let alone on climate science);
  2. Claiming to be a scientist when he is not (see above. Monckton’s only qualifications are in classics hence all the pretentious Latin in his presentation and journalism);
  3. Claiming to be a Nobel Laureate when he is not (Crazy, eh! Monckton says he ‘deserves’ a Nobel Prize because he wrote a letter pointing out a decimal point typo in one table of one IPCC report, making him a ‘contributor to the IPCC’, which won a Nobel Prize in 2007. The IPCC, however, does not list him as a contributor, and his ‘Nobel Prize Pin’ was made for him by a friend in New York rather than by anybody in Scandinavia. Hmmm )
  4. Claiming to be a member of the House of Lords, on multiple occasions, when he is not. (He has **run** for the House of Lords twice, but he lost both times. Perhaps he did not notice those losses?!)
  5. Making ridiculous claims on other topics, such as that a ban of DDT was singlehandedly responsible for all malaria deaths in the last few decades, or that the best way to have solved the AIDS crisis was to imprison all AIDS sufferers until they died.

I hope this list of shortcomings, both substantive and personal, causes at least some on the right (I’m looking at you, John Ansell) to re-evaluate their rush to buy whatever Lord Monckton is selling.

I will give Monckton this, though. His knack for theatre and deception have given him far more attention than the intellectual weight of his argument warrants. For that I congratulate you, Lord Monckton.

118 comments on “Climate Change: Looney Tunes from Lord Monckton”

  1. lprent 1

    Great post. I didn’t realize that this charlatan was still around and commenting on things that he really doesn’t understand.

    BTW: I cleaned up some of the HTML formatting and layout to make it easier to get the points.

  2. Andrei 3

    Looney tunes from the standard more like.

    The climate is changing always has always will and if you think the UN via the IPCC can do anything about it you are seriously misguided

    And even if they could entrusting third world thugocracies with the keys to the planets future climate is foolishness beyond belief.

    It is a source of comfort to me that fortunately the likes of Robert Mugabe cannot influence the climate but sadly people like them and their proxies have convinced the gullible that they can by transferring wealth from the productive and industrious to parasites such as themselves.

    You true believers are just a bunch of patsies being suckered by the same old bunch of thieves who have preyed on mankind for the past ten thousand years with charlatanism

    I

    • Bright Red 3.1

      Andrei got about 100 words into the post before getting a headache. Fortunately, he already knew what the politically correct rightwing view was without having to get informed on the issue.

    • Clarke 3.2

      Thanks for that insightful and illuminating response, it’s really added a lot to the climate debate. Did you intend to actually address or rebut any of Rob’s points about Monckton, or was this simply an opportunity for a mindlessly dyslexic denier rant?

    • lprent 3.3

      Ah andrei…

      ….still around and commenting on things that he really doesn’t understand.

      Seems to be a common problem in the CCD faithful.

    • pointer 3.4

      Robert Mugabe can’t influence the climate? That saddens me more than I care to admit.

  3. The US Constitution does not, anywhere, say that Treaties supersede the Constitution. In fact, US practice has been the precise opposite,

    ‘cept for this bit, of course:

    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

    Of course, it means state constitutions, but the words are all there 🙂

    • felix 4.1

      Are you having a laugh?

      • Yes. While acknowledging I can see how one would make this mistake. Treaties are supreme law in the United States.

        • felix 4.1.1.1

          Doesn’t it say that the constitution, the laws of the united states and all treaties made shall be the supreme law?

          How does this indicate that treaties supersede the constitution?

          (or am I reading it wrong?)

          • Rich 4.1.1.1.1

            So in the US, a treaty, once ratified, acts as law. (Unlike NZ and Britain, where treaties don’t need ratification, but do need legislation for them to be binding on citizens).

            The US can and does withdraw from treaties by presidential edict: http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/12/13/rec.bush.abm/

            Do treaties actually override constitutional provisions, though? Could the US enter into a treaty with Western Foalua that reintroduced slavery in both countries, for instance.

            • Rob Salmond 4.1.1.1.1.1

              For clarification: What the Constitutional passage Graeme finds shows is that international treaties do take precedence over **State** Constitutions (that is the “notwithstanding” bit at the end), but it does not say treaties take precedence over the **US** Constitution. Instead, it says that the US Constitution, US laws, and international treaties jointly make up the supreme law of the US – but it does not say what happens when any two of those three sources of supreme law are in contradiction. In practice, Treaties have lost out certainly to the US Constitution and sometimes also to US Law.

              It is a nice get by Graeme, but alas it cannot save his Lordship…

              …I guess you could take Monckton’s vague wording to mean that **Minnesota** cannot unilaterally get out of the treaty once signed, because it is part of the US. Only the US could get Minnesota out of its obligations. That is trivially true. But then Monckton ruins that silly-but-at-least-trivially-true interpretation of his comments by talking about “the biggest paying country,” which makes clear he is talking about the US and the US Constitution and not Minnesota (not a country, and not even the biggest paying State) and Minnesota’s Constitution. Which makes his comments, of course, dead wrong.

            • felix 4.1.1.1.1.2

              Thanks Rob, that’s how I read it.

              Graeme do people actually pay you to be a lawyer?

            • Pascal's bookie 4.1.1.1.1.3

              felix, I suspect it’s a lawyery joke. If you just read the bolded words it says what the good Lord claims it says. Otherwise not. Which was (I suspect) Graeme’s point.

              For a profession that charges by the fricken word, he sure nuff don’t give them away in making his points clear sometimes.

            • Graeme Edgeler 4.1.1.1.1.5

              For clarification: What the Constitutional passage Graeme finds shows is that international treaties do take precedence over **State** Constitutions

              Thus, my statement “Of course, it means state constitutions…”

              Graeme do people actually pay you to be a lawyer?

              Yes. You will note that I made the point Rob made in my the initial comment.

              he sure nuff don’t give them away in making his points clear sometimes.

              So, just to remove the remotest trace of wit from my comment, I should make it, and then explain it in excruciating detail for anyone who doesn’t appreciate irony?

              How does this indicate that treaties supersede the constitution?

              It doesn’t. Thus, my answer “yes” to your question “are you having a laugh?”. And my initial statement, in the initial comment that “it means state constitutions”.

              My point was that I understood how Monckton came to his mistaken belief about the effect of treaties under US law. It was based on words in the US Constitution – which slightly negates Rob’s point that it had no basis in them – but obviously was based on a misreading of those words. The only way one could come to that conclusion would be to read the words in bold only – obviously stupid (not unlike Monckton).

              I thought it was reasonably clearly an attempt at humour. A little abstruse, certainly, so I don’t blame anyone for not initially seeing it, but the fact people still couldn’t see that it was humour after I was asked whether it was humour and answered “yes” is a little odd. But thank you for removing all the fun from it. And thank you for getting personal, that always increases the utility of blog comments. Do I get attacked every time I post here, now?

            • felix 4.1.1.1.1.6

              Graeme. Ffs.

              When you write the following:

              “Yes. While acknowledging I can see how one would make this mistake. Treaties are supreme law in the United States.

              You are stating that although a mistake was made, treaties are indeed supreme law. The implication here is that treaties supersede the constitution and laws of the U.S. as that was the subject of the initial question you were responding to.

              If you had put a colon after the word “mistake” you would be saying that you understand how someone could make such a mistake but treaties do not, in fact, supersede the constitution and laws of the U.S.

              Get it yet?

              Do I get attacked every time I post here, now?

              What’s the matter Gwaeme? Mr pedantic himself can’t take a wittle bit of cowection when necessawy?

              Poor thing.

            • Graeme Edgeler 4.1.1.1.1.7

              Treaties are supreme law in the United States.

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_clause

              The US Constitution itself states that treaties – along with federal laws and the US Constitution – are “supreme law”. You can state that it doesn’t say that, but it does say that. This is not really something that we can debate.

              I’m not really sure what else I can add to this – perhaps any – debate with you; however, I do apologise that my forthright style has aggravated your speech impediment. I know these things are no laughing matter.

            • zelda 4.1.1.1.1.8

              This is a good example of a Supreme Court decision that allowed regulations based on a Treaty to become law.

              The case of Missouri v Holland (1920) presented the Court with an opportunity to define the reach of the treaty power. Missouri challenged the federal government’s regulation of the hunting of migratory birds, including its setting of seasons, hunting methods, and limits. The regulations were adopted under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, implementing a treating signed by the United States and Great Britain (for Canada). The Court upheld the regulations, even though they were not supported by specific Article I powers of Congress, as a reasonable implication of the President’s Article II power to “make treaties.” The Court cautioned, however, that the treaty-implementing power could not be used as an excuse for regulating activities that were not “a proper subject of regulation.”

            • felix 4.1.1.1.1.9

              Of course they’re supreme law. But they don’t supersede the rest of the supreme law you silly boy.

              I honestly can’t believe people would pay you to read and interpret anything.

          • Graeme Edgeler 4.1.1.1.2

            Update – I note that Lord Monckton comments below, and bases his view that the treaty would over-ride US domestic law, not on the US Constitution, but on the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. For some reason, I can’t edit my comment, but if this is the basis, then my attack on his reasoning in this regard as “stupid” obviously cannot be maintained.

            Under international law – specifically the Vienna Convention – international law over-rides domestic law. It is no excuse at international law that a domestic law (including a constitution) is inconsistent and prevents certain action, the international law obligation is still binding.

    • Scott Boswell 4.2

      Thanks for your research Greaeme… it’s a pity the writer/publisher of this article is not practicing investigative journalism – they could have saved them selves embarrassment and potentially held some sort of credibility… but no.. this is not the only error the writer/publisher has made… I’m still looking for an intelligent response to Muncktons presentation – does not matter if he is a scientist or not… Al Gore is not… Al has political agendas & motivations that are to be questioned… anyone up for that investigation? I can assure it won’t take much… just google ‘al gore global warming + hoax, lies, hypocrite – may not be what you want to hear – but to be truly educated – surely you need to look at both sides of the story…

      • Rob Salmond 4.2.1

        Um, Scott, I think you’ll find that Graeme was **agreeing** with my critique of Monckton’s legal skills. See his first comment.

        • Scott Boswell 4.2.1.1

          Rob, I do think that ratification will be an issue for Obama – But Moncktons observations are a healthy warning to the people and the senate of the underlying intention that is going on here.

          When Obama chaired UN security council he was the first American president to do so… why is that? I understand it is to do with an oath or law that American Presidents take not to take office of international position while in presidency – if this is true, he is in high treason. I am still investigating this law (perhaps someone knows about this??) – If this is true, it would follow that the character of someone who brazenly goes against his own laws is not playing by the same rules as the rest of us – if he has a role in United Nations now, would it not stand to reason that he is looking to take a solid position for a future Global Government? A government that can really only come about via the UN who is the closest thing to a global government we have…

          If Obama can assist the UN to create funding by way of a ‘carbon tax’ and assist in giving it a ‘government’ status (global government) – then he is achieving what no world leader before his has ever achieved… He is moving at such a great pace toward this agenda that it does make me wonder if he would attempt to hoodwink the American people with this treaty. If Obama were to argue that the treaty takes precedence over the US constitution, he may just well win – he has a lot of powerful people behind him now. If there is room for debate over the treaty taking precedence over state law, what chance is there that the debate could extend to US law?

          I am watching with an open yet cautious mind as to what is going to come of this – but i do believe that Monckton has raised some fair comments on Obama’s intent… and it is the intent and direction that is now beginning to concern me.

          • Rob Salmond 4.2.1.1.1

            Scott – The UNSC was not chaired by “Barack Obama” personally, it was chaired by “The United States of America” as it has been for one out of every fifteen months since the creation of the UN. It just so happens that the representative of the US who happened actually do the gaveling in that particular meeting was the President, whereas usually it is the Ambassador to the UN or the Secretary of State. The President has the right to represent the US at official meetings wherever he or she likes. There’s no constitutional outrage there.

            • Scott Boswell 4.2.1.1.1.1

              Rob, what are your thoughts on the forming of a global government? Do you think it could/would happen in the next 5-10 years? – I see that you seem against Monckton, but is there anything wrong with questioning the intent of authority?

              Monckton raises cause for good and healthy public debate that has thus far been thwarted by the government and the media. I’m thankful that the internet gives us the ability to view these opinions – and believe that we are being conditioned to think the way we do by means of a controlled media which brings about a false public consensus on a wide range of matters. Obama was a fresh thought 1 year ago… but his agenda does not seem any different from Bush or Clinton… in-fact it seems to accelerate the same agenda’s and no one seems to be denying that.

            • Rob Salmond 4.2.1.1.1.2

              Scott – To answer your entirely fair question, no I do not believe there will be anything like a world government over the timeframe you specify. I do not agree that world government is part of President Obama’s agenda. Also, I do not agree that there is any kind of media conspiracy to deprive people of the truth about what is happening to them. The media environment is intensely competitive, and media firms would stand to make billions by busting up any attempt at such a conspiracy. Therefore the lack of news about it tells me that the conspiracy does not exist.

  4. greenfly 5

    I’m genuinely concerned for John Ansell state of mind. He’s sounding shrill and brittle. Please hide your steak knives, in case he drops by unexpectedly.

  5. Chris 6

    Now I have taken to not wasting my breath to global warming deniers, because quite simply the debate is over, we need to start debating the best courses of action for mitigation, any other debate is a waste of time and quite frankly dangerous.

    Andrei however leaves me to point out a few quick things. He informs us that “the climate is always changing” … This is adressed by the IPCC 4th report (2007) numberous times. A large portion by working group 1 which covers the scientific basis of climate change adresses this very point. However if I may summarise this, current climate change trends our outside the parameters of any natural cyclical trend known.

    He also states: “if you think the UN via the IPCC can do anything about it you are seriously misguided
    This too, Andrei, is addressed by essentially a third of the entire IPCC report (one working group of 3) of the aforementioned 4th report by working group 3 of the IPCC entitled: ‘Mitigation of Climate Change’

    WG3 looks at numerous ways we can mitigate climate change (this is climate change outside normal fluctuations which were discussed by working group 1) from the individual to the governmental and intergovernmental level, with methods spanning top down and bottom up. Infact, economic instruments they talk about in that report are already running internationally via the Kyoto Protocol as we are in the first trading period for international CO2 emissions (2008-2012)

    There is no reason to be cynical that we cannot do anything to mitigate dangerous climate change, infact we can be very optimistic about it and this is why such a large portion of the IPCC report is based on simply that.

    Useful links.
    IPCC website
    Working group 1 Scientific basis, often clicking on the summary for policymakers is an easier read because it is more to the point and less geek speaky.
    Working group 3 Mitigation

  6. Rich 7

    Isn’t it ironic that “Lord” Monckton talks about “election’ or “democracy’ or “vote’ or “ballot’ when he himself has had zero succesful participation in any of these.

  7. Chris,

    Here are a few scientists who didn’t get the memo about the debate being over.
    http://www.hootervillegazette.com/GlobalWarming.html

    Anyone who thinks the debate is over is a complete fool
    or someone benefitting from the large amounts of government
    money being poured into it.
    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_money.pdf

    You quote the UN IPCC like that means something. Surely you know that only 50 or so of there 2,500 scientists sign-off on the final document. Hopefully you also know that the head of UN IPCC (Parchuri) is a former railroad engineer. Now that has to give you confidence in their work.

  8. Rob,

    It should be noted that former French President Jacques Chirac called the Kyoto agreement “the first component of an authentic global governance”.
    He wasn’t complaining about it, he saw it as one of the benefits.

    http://sovereignty.net/center/chirac.html

    Gore himself has used the term global governance in his speeches:


    1:14 mark

    When a couple of greenies like Chirac and Gore are throwing the term “global governance” around, it’s hard to be upset with Monckton for his interpretation of the Copenhagen agreement.

    • Daveo 9.1

      Mark E Mark, please tell me you know the difference between global government and global governance. Please.

      • Scott Boswell 9.1.1

        Simple explanation Daveo… Global governance is a convenient term for Gore and Chirac to throw about… its a softer term than Global Government and is therefore less threatening when presented that way. However the key point here is that for Global governance to be effected properly would need to be maintained, governed (and one day policed) by a global body that takes authority over any individual national government… a ‘Global Government’.

        Obama’s last push for a new bill contained some very concerning laws toward environmental policing – laws that would allow environmental police to ‘without warrant’ inspect a home and deem it environmentally unfit, resulting in daily fines until resolved, and making it ILLEGAL to occupy the premises until the issues are resolved (an easy subject to research for yourself).

        This is the concern I have with the governments using the environment as a focus to gain power. Is this what we really want, or do we just want to live in on a planet that is sustainable? They have taken our passion for sustainability and have manipulated it to gain power… and we are taking the bait – hook, line and sinker. I am very much for taking care of the environment – but essentially what we are being presented with – a carbon tax is the ultimate tax to fund the UN – a tax on breathing!! Why are we not focused on the tonnes of chemicals that are STILL being emptied into our oceans? Why have we introduced ‘Green’ lightbulbs that contain mercury? Why are our foods being increasingly polluted with poisonous additives and being genetically modified? Why is Cancer the highest receiver of donations – yet no progress has been made? The governments of this age are not giving us the full picture… so I see it fit to ask questions… why not?

        • Daveo 9.1.1.1

          for Global governance to be effected properly would need to be maintained, governed (and one day policed) by a global body that takes authority over any individual national government a ‘Global Government’.

          Rubbish.

          As a simple Wikipedia search will explain to you, global governance simply means the political interaction between states that’s required to solve problems that affect more than one state or region when there is no power to enforce compliance.

          It’s basically global regulations based on treaties and international cooperation – you know, the kind of thing needed to combat a global problem like climate change.

          There’s no reason to think Copenhagen is going to sprout an army and a president and start imposing world government.

          Unless, of course, your object is scare people into doing nothing about climate change.

          • Scott Boswell 9.1.1.1.1

            Dave, I respect your right to take that stance.

            Whether you or I like it, a global government is being formed now. The UN is it’s basis and Obama is already bustling for position. I am for a sustainable environment, but after doing an open minded research on ‘global warming’ I am convinced that carbon is not the issue, never has been. Infact in the 70’s – some of the same guys touting global warming today were pushing global cooling… what is with that? What i do believe is that the UN desperately needs funding to achieve it’s global government… and copenhagen will give that funding by way of ‘a carbon tax’.

            The term Global Governance is a ‘soft sell’ on the concept of a Global Government. The wikipedia article that you are talking of should be alarming to you, but is written in such a way that disarms any threat of the reality of global government. It states that global governance would not be required if a global government is in place. I dis-agree. The UK is already subordinate to the UN on a number of obscure ‘national level’ policies – like meat trade policy with the US (go figure). The UN is a body ‘government like’ body that places itself above national politics – who voted for these guys to even exist? If you’re view of global governance is right, and individual nations agreed on matters together – why is there even a need for the UN? Why do they carry so much weight now? You may think I am wrong (and I really hope that I could be) but when Global Government comes, we will all need to know how it is going to work… is it going to be democratic, communistic, socialistic? Who is going to control it, and what will their agenda be? Don’t we all complain enough that federal government is so far removed from the ‘average’ person – causing laws and taxes to be passed that cripple the little guy? how much worse will it be with a global government?

            As I said – I respect your right to take a stance, but it doesn’t hurt to look carefully at both sides of such an intellectual argument.

  9. gomango 10

    Can someone interpret/explain the second graph and the acronyms? Genuine question.

    • Draco T Bastard 10.1

      One’s a source ground temperatures and the other’s satellite IIRC. Can’t remember which is which.

  10. Rob,

    Regarding your comments under the heading “delusional pompous fool”,
    you make several statements that are completely false and offer absolutley no
    evidence to support your position.

    A. Lord Monckton has never ever claimed to be a climate scientist. I’ve attended two of his programs live and watched many more on video. He goes out of his way to point out that he is not a climate scientist. Please post your evidence that he has made this claim or remove it immediately.

    B. Again, he has never ever claimed to be a scientist only a former policy advisor to Margaret Thatcher. Either produce evidence that he has claimed to be a scientist or remove this claim immediately.

    C. He did not say he was a nobel laureate. After he made a correction to an IPCC report a friend sent him a fake nobel prize as a joke. Monckton has made this clear each time I’ve seen him speak.

    The following links are a collection of Monckton videos. If you watch the April 09 Texas A&M Presentations you will see that he states the Nobel Prize sent to him was a joke. He also makes it very clear he is not a scientist.

    http://www.hootervillegazette.com/moncktonav.html
    http://www.hootervillegazette.com/moncktontheater.html
    http://www.hootervillegazette.com/climatetheater.html

    He has never claimed to be a voting member of the house of lords. His title Lord Monckton, The Third Viscount of Brenchly is legit. You might want to try and investigate things a little more before you make such statements.

    Again, I’ve studied Monckton’s works extensively. He states that the rate of malaria deaths before the ban was around 50,000 per year. That hardly is claiming malaria deaths would have been zero without the ban.

    As for his suggestion on preventing the spread of aids, it would have worked and millions would have been saved. The world on many occassions has dealt with pandemics this way. In fact, colleges at this very moment have quarantined entire floors of dorm buldings to isolate H1N1. Monkon actually points out that this was not done in the case of AIDS for politically correct reasons which I should think I do not have to spell out for you.

    Your attempt to disprove his science reads like a science fair project put together hastily the night before it was due. You might want to familiarize yourself with his work before posting similar claims.

    http://www.hootervillegazette.com/LordMonckton.html
    http://www.hootervillegazette.com/monckton2.html
    http://www.hootervillegazette.com/moncktonav.html
    http://www.hootervillegazette.com/moncktontheater.html
    http://www.hootervillegazette.com/climatetheater.html

    • Pascal's bookie 11.1

      “Monkon actually points out that this was not done in the case of AIDS for politically correct reasons which I should think I do not have to spell out for you.”

      Go on spell them out. I’m guessing you don’t want to because it’s kind of hard to identify HIV carriers in order to isolate them. Testing everyone would be too expensive, and stupid anyway, so I’m going to go out on a limb and guess there would be some sort of profiling involved. So at this point the plan seems to be , “put the homo’s in camps”.

    • Pascal's bookie 11.2

      “his science”

      heh.

    • Scott Boswell 11.3

      Rob, I have to agree with Mark… I would still love to hear a logical, content driven opposition to Monckton, and I can’t find it in the above article. Monckton has raised a number of very valid points and ‘poo poo’ him without proper research is plainly amateur. I have still got a lot of research ahead of me, and do not claim to understand everything that is going on here – but I have seen some very concerning issues raised, and I intend to investigate them properly. I will say that the more I look at the ‘climate deniyers’ argument, the more I see holes in Al Gore’s “Inconvenient truth”.

      I would love for Monckton to be wrong. It would mean the world we live in is as we all expect it should be. However, until I see a strong, logical, sensible explanations in rebuttal for Muncktons claims – I remain in doubt. (and poorly researched ‘poo pooing’ does not help my understanding). Go back and do this properly – you will be a hero if you do! Take the key points that Monckton makes, research them, look at all the angles (if you like it or not) and be objective in your debunk of his work if it is possible. This would hold a lot more weight than the article above

      • Tony 11.3.1

        Scott Boswell, you won’t ever get a strong, logical, sensible rebuttle of Monckton’s claims because he has exposed the AGW hoax for what it is. Game over.

  11. Scott 12

    Good post and a thorough demolition job on the loony’s work.

  12. Rob Salmond, who is not a climate scientist, rants ad hominem at some length about a recent address by me to 1000 citizens of St. Paul, Minneapolis (Google “Monckton video’ to find it). I shall ignore the personal insults with which his posting is larded.

    The Treaty of Copenhagen

    Salmond says there is no draft Treaty of Copenhagen. There is. It is almost 200 pages long. You can read the text at http://www.scienceandpublicpolicy.org.

    Salmond says the draft is not finalized, so that no one can say what form it will eventually take. Well, yes, it is a draft. That is why I drew attention to the proposals in it that would create an unelected world “government’ with powers to control all global markets, to inflict huge levies on wealthier countries, and to intervene directly in the economic and environmental affairs of all nations, over the heads of elected governments and all in the name of addressing the non-problem that is “global warming’.

    Salmond says the draft contains no “principles associated with communism’. Yet the proposed world “government’, long an aim of international communism, will not be elected, just as communist regimes are not elected; and it will have absolute power over all financial and other markets i.e. control of the means of production, distribution, and exchange, just as communist regimes do.

    Salmond says Obama has no sympathy with Communism. He has, however, nationalized his nation’s financial institutions; debased its currency by rampant inflation; proposed to nationalize health care; diverted, via the stimulus package, vast sums to Communist organizations; appointed numerous Communists to senior posts in his Administration; and proposed to inflict upon his people the largest tax increase ever imposed on any nation.

    Salmond says treaties do not supersede the US Constitution. However, by the Vienna Convention on International Treaties, to which the US is a signatory, the terms of a treaty prevail over any domestic law.

    Salmond says the US can unilaterally pull out of any treaty. However, no nation can thus act, except in bad faith, unless the treaty makes provision for signatories to resile. The Copenhagen Treaty makes no such provision.

    The economics of “global warming’

    Salmond says my costing of the Waxman/Markey Climate Bill is inappropriate because I did not consider the climate benefits. There are no climate benefits, because, as my presentation made clear, there is no climate problem or, if there is, humankind has practically nothing to do with it.

    Salmond takes me to task for mentioning that canceling the next century’s imagined warming would take 1360 years and cost $250 trillion if the Waxman/Markey Climate Bill were adopted. However, the US Environmental Protection Agency has said that the bill, even if implemented in full, would have practically no effect on the climate, and the White House has admitted that the annual cost of the Bill will be at least $180 billion, while the US Treasury says $300-400 billion. Do the math.

    Salmond says I take no account of what other nations might do to mitigate imagined “global warming’. Yes, I do. Here’s the math. Every six months we push up the atmospheric concentration of CO2 by 2 ppmv through emitting 15 billion tons of CO2. Multiply this by the 468 ppmv increase in CO2 concentration this century that the UN predicts on scenario A2 and the UN is implicitly predicting we’ll emit 7 trillion tons of CO2 this century, during which it explicitly predicts temperature will rise by 7 F. So we’d have to forego 1 trillion tons of CO2 emission just to forestall 1 F of future warming. But 1 trillion tons is 33 years’-worth of global carbon emissions. So we’d have to shut down almost the entire global economy for a third of a century and fling ourselves back to the Stone Age, but without even the ability to light fires in our caves, just to forestall 1 F of “global warming’. The cost is manifestly disproportionate to the benefit, particularly since there is no “global warming’ problem anyway.

    The science of “global warming’

    Salmond says science cannot conclusively prove anything. Actually, it can. The Theorem of Pythagoras, for instance, is definitively proven. So is the relationship between radiative flux and temperature at the emitting surface of a planetary body. We now know by direct measurement that the relationship between changes in surface temperature and changes in outgoing radiation at the top of the atmosphere is entirely different from what the expensive models of the UN had been programmed to guess. From that measurement, which confirms a string of previous measurements published in the last couple of years, it is simple to demonstrate that most outgoing radiation is escaping to outer space just as it always did, and cannot therefore cause warming down here. So the manmade warming this century, even if we do nothing, will be just 1 F, not the 7 F predicted by the UN. End of scare. Get used to it. The science has moved on, and the UN’s reports are now out of date.

    Salmond says if you find evidence inconsistent with a hypothesis, it does not automatically follow that the hypothesis is false. In fact, however, the scientific method operates in such a way that if a hypothesis is disproven it fails. The “global warming’ hypothesis has now been disproven.

    Salmond says that my choice of 2002 as the start-date for evaluating the least-squares linear-regression trend on global mean surface temperature is mere cherry-picking. However, during my presentation I demonstrated the rates of temperature change over the past 550 billion years; over the past 450,000 years; over the past 11,400 years; over the past 1000 years; over the past 150 years; over the past 15 years; and over the past 9 years i.e. since the turn of the millennium on 1 January 2001 (not 2002, as Salmond incorrectly assumes, having lifted from another Left-leaning blog a graph in which I had on another occasion demonstrated the dramatic effect of the phase-transition in the global temperature record that had occurred late in 2001). I correctly stated during my Minnesota presentation that the rate of warming between 1975 and 1995 had been identical with the rate of warming between 1860 and 1880, and between 1910 and 1940, so that there is no evidence of any anthropogenic effect at all in the global-temperature record. I also correctly stated that since 1995 i.e. for 15 years there has been no statistically-significant “global warming’, and that since the turn of the millennium there has been rapid and statistically-significant global cooling.

    Salmond, quoting the same Leftist blog, says I incorrectly characterized the IPCC’s temperature predictions as linear. However, the IPCC finds the relationship between change in CO2 concentration and change in global temperature to be logarithmic, and predicts, again on the A2 scenario, that CO2 concentration will rise exponentially over the whole of the coming century. It follows that the change in temperature that it predicts is in reality linear. However, since global temperature has not been rising as expected (or, for 15 years, at all), the IPCC without altering its fundamental, logarithmic CO2-vs-temperature formula or its fundamental prediction of an exponential increase in CO2 concentration this century has detuned its own graph in defiance of these fundamental points, so as to make it look as though its predictions are in line with observed reality when, on the math, they are not.

    Salmond says I say the IPCC “claimed to predict the 2003 global average temperature with a margin for error of only ±0.02 C’. In fact, my graph commencing in 2002 took five of the IPCC’s own CO2-to-temperature formulae and its own prediction of CO2 concentration increase, and simply calculated what the rise in temperature would be in each instance. Take the central estimate. The UN imagines that warming of 4.7 times the logarithm of the proportionate increase in CO2 concentration will occur. Thus, since CO2 concentration in 2002 was around 375 ppmv, and is rising at 2 ppmv/year, the temperature increase over the year will be 4.7 ln(377/375). Do the math. The entire increase in temperature predicted for 2002-2003 works out as about 0.025 C.

    Salmond says, without explanation, that I got the UN’s predictions of CO2 increase “shockingly wrong’. However, the UN does indeed predict an exponential increase in CO2 concentration from 368 ppmv in 2000 to 836[730,1020] ppmv in 2100, exactly as my CO2 graph shows. Once again, the UN has detuned its exponential projection for the next few years to try to bring its prediction more closely into line with observed reality, which is that CO2 concentration for an entire decade has been rising not exponentially but in a straight line towards just 575 ppmv in 2100. This trend, if continued, would require the halving of all of the UN’s “global-warming’ forecasts for the present century.

    Salmond says I should not have cited the study that showed that not one of 539 papers on “global climate change’ in recent years provides any evidence for any catastrophic effect from any anthropogenic influence on any part of the climate. My point during the talk, however, was that the UN’s climate panel claims that it faithfully represents the “consensus’ in the peer-reviewed literature. In this respect, as in many others, it is blindingly obvious that the UN does not represent the scientific “consensus’, which, on the evidence of the study I cited, is unanimously to the effect that no catastrophe will occur as a result of our puny influence on the climate. The presence of the entire climatosphere, as opposed to its absence, causes just 18 C of warming. Even on the UN’s exaggerated estimate of CO2 concentration growth, we shall convert less than 1/2000 of the atmosphere by combustion from oxygen to CO2, and the UN imagines that this will cause 4 C of warming. That predicted warming is equivalent to more than one-fifth of the warming exercised by the entire existing atmosphere. How sensible is that? Quite right it isn’t. We now have a stream of peer-reviewed papers showing that the warming will be more like 0.5 C, and, in the light of very recent papers such as that by Kimoto (2009), even this could turn out to be a very large exaggeration.

    Mr. Salmond says I say the UN “ignores’ the mediaeval warm period. In fact, I said the UN falsely tried to abolish it by a lamentable and continuing series of statistical tricks, the latest of which was to lift a graph from Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that any knave can edit and any halfwit can credit, and to use it as though it were from a peer-reviewed source. I also stated, correctly and can provide evidence if required that, once again, the scientific consensus is not as the UN presents it. Some 740 scientists from more than 400 institutions in more than 40 countries over the past 20 years have contributed to papers in the peer-reviewed literature providing evidence that the mediaeval warm period was real, was global, and was warmer than the present. Live with it we could grow grapes in Scotland in the Middle Ages and we certainly can’t do that now. The Viking burial ground at Hvalsey in south-western Greenland is still under permafrost to this day, but it certainly was not under permafrost in the Middle Ages, when the bodies were buried.

    Further errors by the hapless Salmond

    Salmond says I had claimed to be a climate scientist when I was not. I made no such claim.

    Salmond says I have published nine papers on climate science at my own think tank. In fact, the think tank in question, http://www.scienceandpublicpolicy.org, has published some 75 papers by me on climate science and economics.

    Salmond says I do not have a peer-reviewed publication in any scientific journal on any topic. Readers may like to visit the website of Physics and Society, which published a peer-reviewed paper by me entitled Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered in July 2008. In that paper, I concluded that the warming to be expected from a doubling of CO2 concentration would be less than 1 C, and would therefore be harmless and beneficial. A stream of recent papers in the peer-reviewed literature has confirmed that this conclusion is correct.

    Salmond says I claim to be a Nobel laureate. I made no such claim. However, I told the story of how, after I had given a physics-faculty seminar on climate sensitivity a couple of years ago, the Professor of Physics had presented me with a Nobel prize pin, saying that my exposure of the UN’s bureaucrats’ attempt to insert into the 2007 climate assessment report of an incorrectly-summed table of figures that had not been in the final draft signed off by the scientists was worthier of a share in the prize than Al Gore’s serially-inaccurate slide presentation.

    Salmond says I claim to be a member of the House of Lords. Having proved my succession to my late beloved father to the entire satisfaction of the Committee of Privileges of the House, I am indeed entitled to call myself Lord Monckton. However, I do not have, and do not pretend to have, the right to sit or vote in the House: that right was removed from my father and nearly all hereditary peers in 1999. Salmond is no more an expert on the peerage of the United Kingdom than he is on the science or economics of “global warming’.

    Salmond says I claim that the ban on DDT four decades ago was alone responsible for all malaria deaths since. I have never made any such claim: the deaths were caused by the falciparum parasite. However, I correctly pointed out that before the DDT ban annual worldwide deaths from malaria had fallen to just 50,000 and that after the ban the deaths jumped to 1 million a year, and remained so for 40 years. I also cited Dr. Arata Kochi of the World Health Organization, who, on 15 September 2006, announced the lifting of the worldwide malaria ban, saying: “In this field, politics usually comes first and science second. We will now take a stand on the science and the data.’

    Salmond says I had recommended imprisoning all AIDS sufferers until they died. I had never recommended any such thing. The correct public health response when confronted with a new, fatal, incurable infection is to identify and isolate all carriers as quickly as possible, so as to prevent transmission of the infection. Twenty years ago, at the request of the leading HIV researcher at the US Army Medical Institute for Infectious Diseases, whom I had consulted about the spread of HIV, I wrote articles in two newspapers suggesting that this customary public-health measure should be implemented urgently, or tens of millions would die worldwide, mostly in poorer countries. Pressure-groups prevented this necessary public-health response, and 25 million people died. 40 million more are infected. Most of these could have been spared if the right decision had been taken. The HIV episode is an excellent example of the importance of getting the science right and then implementing the correct policy. Otherwise, the result is millions of needless deaths. The “global warming’ scare not “global warming’ itself, for there has not been any for a decade and a half is already killing millions by starvation arising from the doubling of food prices caused by the biofuel scam, which has taken one-third of the food-growing land area of the US and other countries out of food production in just three years. Once again, a more thoughtful approach, bearing in mind the consequences of our policy-making for poor people in faraway countries of which we know too little, would have been appropriate but was not taken.

    Finally, let me summarize the current state of climate science as far as it relates to the “global warming’ question. The UN imagines that the direct effect of a doubling of CO2 concentration will be a warming of around 1 C, but that various temperature feedbacks operate to raise the warming to around 3.3 C. However, recent papers have established that the water-vapor feedback is nothing like as strong as the UN had believed, and that the cloud-albedo feedback actually causes cooling rather than amplifying the original warming. As a result, we now know not only that a doubling of CO2 concentration will cause less than 1 C of warming; we also now know why. The science is in, the truth is out, the models were off, and the scare is over.

    – Monckton of Brenchley

    • BLiP 13.1

      You ain’t no sissy cos you’re still working for Exxon out of 53rd & 3rd.

    • Pascal's bookie 13.2

      heh, I knew the toffs were renting out their stately homes and showing the plebs around on the weekends, but i didn’t know they were so short on dosh they rented out their heids and shilled for wh’ever wanted a titled nonce to add some credibilty.

      Lordy mate, don’t you think you should squeeze some precious bodily fluid lingo into your ranting. I know it’s a cliche and all, but it’s just not the same without it. And those damned leftists are coming after your cum whether you’re too afraid to say so or not. The truth is out there.

    • Scott Boswell 13.3

      Thank you Lord Monckton of Brenchley! I applaud your focused and detailed response! It reveals the poor research of the author as I have stated in other replies to this post.

      Rob – you have certainly gained attention here! This would be a great opportunity for you to reply (as Lord Monckton has) to each point with detailed, intelligent, researched responses. As I have stated previously – I would love it if Lord Monckton was wrong… but every time I research the points he makes, I am left with no realistic opposition.

      If you can help – great! My fear is that not only is Lord Monckton right, but the underlying intentions are going to be more devastating to our global way of life! What is more – I doubt you could handle this task… Al Gore won’t even take up the task in public debate with Lord Monckton & Al knows politics, and Al is well backed by scientists of his choice.

      I say bring on the real debate! LORD MONCKTON V’s AL GORE!!!

      Al’s had a few years to have his say… Monckton says it’s a lie and is willing to prove it – Al needs to defend his honour on this issue! Lord Monckton is plainly calling Al Gore’s ‘inconvenient truth’ a hoax and a lie. He is also backed by the environmental scientific community. If Al Gore has as much passion for his cause as he displays – then he needs to defend his point intelligently as Monckton is doing. If Al does not take up Moncktons challenge, then as a free thinking person, I can only conclude that Monckton is right, and Al Gore and the climate change issue is a hoax… More than ever before, this is a cause for public debate as it involves the lives of generations to come environmentally, politically and financially and on a global scale… to blindly go down Gore’s path with results of a global tax and a new ‘government’ handling global matters would be irresponsible for any government or people to allow without proper scrutiny.

      What worries me more is the intent here… Monckton rightly points out the beginnings of communism and I fear that the American people have very little position of power left… If unemployment rises any further, and the bottom falls out of the US economy the people will be left with no choice at all. Meanwhile a Global government could be forming without public involvement communistic rule in the USA is a potential reality.

      • Scott Boswell 13.3.1

        just another observation when going back and watching inconvenient truth… in the first few minutes Al Gore makes a firm statement… Kilimanjaro will have no snow in 10 years… with all of his scientific backing, you think he would only make those sorts of statements if it were clean cut… the real truth is that many photo’s today of Kilimanjaro give evidence of MORE snow than when Als video was released in 2006… so does it get colder before it gets hotter? How much of what Al is saying is remotely correct?

  13. You have now received responses from me and Lord Monckton himself, yet you haven’t published either one. I hope Lord Monckton takes legal action against you and I wil encourage him to do so. Meanwhile, I’ll publish a response to your error filled piece of writing on my own and other websites.

    [lprent: Don’t be a total dork..
    The site has policy about the number of links in comments to stop moronic spambots from dropping multi-link comments into the system. It looked at your comment and whatshisname’s comment, decided that they were probably spam because of the links, and put them aside for a human to look at them. That happens when one of the moderators gets around to it, which is usually pretty slow on the weekends.
    If you want to initiate a Streisand effect, then be my guest. The first problem is exactly where you’re going to start it. ]

  14. From Londo 15

    It is easy to establish that Monckton is not a member of the House of Lord. Just go to the House of Lord’s website for a list of members.

    He is an hereditary peer, ie he got the title when his dad died, but these days very few hereditary peers have a seat in the Lords, and in fact Irish Peers never did have a seat in London (theirs was in Dublin and got abolished in 1800)

    That he should claim to be a member of the H of L does damage his credibility.

    Because it is simply not true.

    • He still is entitled to the title Lord Monckton.
      I would challenge you to post one link to a
      writing or an interview where he claims to be
      a member of the house of lords. It’s never
      happened. Not once. Rob is going after
      Monckton for things Monckton never said.
      Those of us familiar with his speeches
      and written works know that he has never claimed
      to be a scientist, climate scientist or voting member
      of the house. He also have never claimed to have
      received a Nobel Prize. The video links I posted
      demonstrate that he made it clear that it was a joke
      gift from a friend. These groundless attackes instead
      of addressing the science is typical for the left. One
      can only wonder why such vetting is not applied to
      Al Gore?

  15. prism 16

    Mark G. I am so shallow that I can’t take seriously anything that the Hooterville Gazette says. Found a fact tho. londo says that Mockton isn’t the House of Lords. I’ll go back to reading PG Wodehouse, he was so great at writing about the predilections of the nobility. I’ll leave the climate change argument which adds to the greenhouse effect by creating more heat than light.

  16. Thank you for the email Blip. Nice of you to bring it to my attention.

    Lord member does not claim to be a voting member of the house. A search of my comments regarding Monckton on the net will prove that I too have never claimed he is a voting member. In my haste, I left the word “voting” out of the most immediate post above. One only has to visit a little higher up on this page to see that I stated he has never claimed to be a “voting” member of the house of lords. I stand by my comment that he is entitled to use the title Lord Christopher Monckton, The Third Viscount of Brenchley.

    Blip based on the fact that I use the term “voting” member in a previous post on this page, you knew the second post was a simple omission error. Why would I state it two different ways on the same page? Given your inability to defend the author of this ridiculus piece on the false scientist, climate scientist, and Nobel Lauriate claims, you went after a minor typing error. Oh well, I guess you take what you can get. As I stated in my reply remail to you, I do appreciate you bringing the error to my attention. Now perhaps you can bring the three erros I’ve just mentioned to Rob Salmond’s attention. Unless you have links proving Monckton has ever made any of these claims?

    This a quote from a post Monckton left on the Deltoid blog.
    Hopefully it will clear up his postion on this issue of his title.

    “Enquiries of the Lord Speaker will establish that I am indeed on the list of hereditary peers whose title has been proven to the satisfaction of the House, though I do not have, and do not pretend to have, a seat or a vote there. I do, however, have acccess to all other facilities of the House.”

    Blipsta, In your next post to me, I’d like you to provide links proving that I’m wrong and Rob Salmond is right about the following statements in his post.

    Salmond claims Monckton has claimed to be a scientist – I Say de Hasn’t

    Salmond claims Monckton claims to be a climate scientist – I say he Hasn’t

    Salmond claims Moncton claims to be a Novel Lauriate – I say he hasn’t.

    Again, here are some links that might help you in your quest for the truth:

    http://www.hootervillegazette.com/LordMonckton.html
    http://www.hootervillegazette.com/monckton2.html
    http://www.hootervillegazette.com/moncktonav.html
    http://www.hootervillegazette.com/moncktontheater.html
    http://www.hootervillegazette.com/climatetheater.html

    Just out of curiosity, will you be writing Mr. Salmond when you figure out that he is wrong on these three issues? It’s the least you can do since you were kind enough to write me.

    – Mark E. Gillar

    • Daveosaurus 17.1

      Squirm, little denialist, squirm.

    • BLiP 17.2

      Here’s what Lord Monkeytune says, as per above:

      Salmond says I claim to be a member of the House of Lords. Having proved my succession to my late beloved father to the entire satisfaction of the Committee of Privileges of the House, I am indeed entitled to call myself Lord Monckton. However, I do not have, and do not pretend to have, the right to sit or vote in the House: that right was removed from my father and nearly all hereditary peers in 1999.

      Here’s what you say:

      Lord member does not claim to be a voting member of the house. A search of my comments regarding Monckton on the net will prove that I too have never claimed he is a voting member. In my haste, I left the word “voting’ out of the most immediate post above. One only has to visit a little higher up on this page to see that I stated he has never claimed to be a “voting’ member of the house of lords. I stand by my comment that he is entitled to use the title Lord Christopher Monckton, The Third Viscount of Brenchley.

      Here’s what Lord Monkeytune said in an open letter to US Senators:

      Finally, you may wonder why it is that a member of the Upper House of the United Kingdom legislature, wholly unconnected with and unpaid by the corporation that is the victim of your lamentable letter, should take the unusual step of calling upon you as members of the Upper House of the United States legislature either to withdraw what you have written or resign your sinecures.

      Here’s what I say:

      You’re both full of shit

      • Pascal's bookie 17.2.1

        OK so there’s a point of clarification needed.

        Lordy paints himself as a “member of the Upper House of the United Kingdom legislature“, when writing to members of the US senate, whom he righty describes as “members of the Upper House of the United States legislature“.

        He is obviously entitled to use his, err, title, as lord of whatever-on-sea, with whatsoever that confers in terms of British getting-your-face-in-the-society-pages and having Americans go all weak at the knees in revolution remorse, (or whatever it is that makes them go all giggly and differential at the merest whiff of the ermine).

        He lost his voting status in the UK upper house in the nineties, (and not before time). He introduced himself to the US Senate, in 2006, using exactly the same language to describe himself as he used to describe those US Senators, voting members all.

        Now I neither know, nor care, if hereditary toffs retained the right to describe themselves as members of the house of Lords after they lost all reason to be there.

        It cannot be denied however, that in his note to the US senate he is claiming equivalence with those senators through the use of the exact same phrasing to describe their respective roles.

        It may well be the case that the Brits allowed these clowns to continue to describe their aristocratic arses as being of some relevance. The British public do enjoy a good laugh at these guys expense.

        Likewise, it would be completely unsurprising if said arses were unaware of same and thought that they were in fact still members worthy of the description member of the upper house of the UK legislature and equivalent to US senators.

        That US citizens think aristocrats, with no power, voting rights in the upper house, or relevance, can equate themselves to US Senators however, is a surprise.

      • Hugh Miller 17.2.2

        See my other post on this thread which points out why the quote about Lord Monckton apparently claiming to be a member of the House of Lords is inaccurate.

        The quote is actually about Lord Lawson of Blaby (referenced at the top of page four of this PDF: http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20061212_monckton.pdf which also is the source of the quote).

  17. No RedLogix, you can actually be a non-voting member.

    • RedLogix 18.1

      After a quick google on the topic (and reform of the House of Lords is a long and fascinating one)… it’s apparent:

      1. Non-voting members have no political power or relevance and are essentially a rump hang-over from various stages of reform.

      2. People referencing their membership of the House as non-voting members are usually scrupulous to be clear about their exact status. eg here.

  18. Daveo 19

    Why would anyone but a pompous toff call themselves a Lord anyway? What’s wrong with good old “Chris Monckton”?

    • Pascal's bookie 19.1

      It’s enough to make me take up knitting Daveo. Clickety click, clickety click.

  19. coge 20

    “The debate on climate change is over. Let the name calling begin”

  20. r0b 21

    Mark E Gillar wrote:

    A. Lord Monckton has never ever claimed to be a climate scientist. …
    B. Again, he has never ever claimed to be a scientist…
    C. He did not say he was a nobel laureate. …

    Mark E Gillar is wrong wrong wrong. Monckton writes of himself:

    [blah blah blah] His contribution to the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 – the correction of a table inserted by IPCC bureaucrats that had overstated tenfold the observed contribution of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets to sea-level rise – earned him the status of Nobel Peace Laureate. His Nobel prize pin, made of gold recovered from a physics experiment, was presented to him by the Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Rochester, New York, USA. He has lectured at university physics departments on the quantification of climate sensitivity, on which he is widely recognized as an expert, and his limpid analysis of the climate-feedback factor was published… [blah blah blah]

    Monckton’s “science” is as bogus as his credentials. Shame on you both for spreading this dangerous nonsense.

  21. SInce an emeritus professor of physics doesn’t have the authority to arbitrarily give out Nobel Peace prizes, it’s obviously a joke.

    Unlike you, I’ve met Monckton, corresponded with him ,interviewed him, attend two of his live presentations and watched many more on tape. He has always made it clear that the Nobel Prize pin given to him by a friend was a joke. Are you so lazy that I’m going to have to isolate the video, post it, and then post the link here of Moncton saying it’s a joke? If you’re that lazy, I’ll do it. Just let me know.

    I”m still waiting for a video or written works of Monckton that demonstrate him claiming he’s actually won a Nobel Prize, is a scientist, or is a climate scientist. Blip is working overtime right now trying to find that. Having to admit Monckton is innocent and fellow alarmist Rob Salmond was less that accurate on this one would be too much for him. I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting on Blip to produce the evidence. It doesn’t exist. Moncton has never said those things.

    Rob, if you’d like to step up and actually back up your claims, it would be appreciated. You’ve been rather silent since putting out this piece. Then again, knowing that Monckton is keeping and eye on you and that litigation could be possible if you’re not careful would understandably make most people a little reticent.

    Do any of you people (beside Rob) have the cojones to use your own name? It doesn’t exactly suggest a strong belief in your positions when you hide behind a nic.

    By the way, if you Al Gore Kool-Aid drinking alarmists want to investigate a lie, Gore has suggested strongly that the sea level could rise 20 feet. I can,t find that prediction
    in any of the UN IPCC reports. Does that mean Gore is telling a lie? You decide.

    One final thought. This won’t be debated forever. Ultimately, history will make alarmists out to be fools and or opportunists that many of us already know they are.

    Mark E. Gillar
    Proud AGW Skeptic

    • RedLogix 22.1

      By the way, if you Al Gore Kool-Aid drinking alarmists want to investigate a lie, Gore has suggested strongly that the sea level could rise 20 feet. I can,t find that prediction in any of the UN IPCC reports. Does that mean Gore is telling a lie? You decide.

      A few months ago I attended a lecture given by Prof Tim Naish. An account of it is here.

      Tim Naish is regarded as one of the world’s foremost authorities in the history of sea level changes. My daughter, who is a recent earth science post-graduate from a closely associated institution, confirms for me his pre-eminent stature.

      I do suggest you have a read of the post, but just to emphasise, here is the concluding message:

      The current IPCC’s mainstream predictions of 0.5m sea level rise by 2100, and exclude melting of the Greenland and WAIS because at the time of publishing they considered the science around them too uncertain. The ANDRILL work has greatly reduced one aspect of that uncertainty. Alone the linearly projected melting of the WAIS will add another 0.5m of sea level rise to the IPCC figure. A total of 1m rise by 2100 is now considered a mainstream prediction in the community.

      Worse still Naish and his colleagues are now faced with clear evidence that the WAIS does not necessarily melt in a linear fashion, rather it is prone to highly unstable events that could lead to massive breakups, potentially adding up to 3.2m of average sea level rise in quite short periods of time. And due to the way the earth’s gravitational field works, that average rise would not be distributed evenly over the earth’s surface; in some places like North America the rise could be up to 4.0m within our, or our children’s, lifetimes.

      In the longer run, CO2 over 400ppm commits the climate to a complete loss of the WAIS, Greenland and EAIS, totalling a sea level rise of about 100m.

      The problem you face Mr Gillar, is that when you claim to discredit established climate science, you are telling us that tens of thousands of individual researchers, often with secure tenure, from hundreds of different institutions world-wide, and many of whom have spent years in the field, like Tim Naish, gathering the critical data and information on which this whole science is based… you are telling us that they are all either incompetent fools or lying conspirators. Such a charge is utterly divorced from reality… it is simply not possible.

      Many of these scientists are working very independently from each other; their lines of research approach the AGW issue from exceedingly diverse directions, working with completely independent data sources and hypothesises. Yet inexorably the result of all this cross-checking is pointing to the same conclusion and as the science has matured over the last decade the result has become more certain not less.

      On the other hand I can visit any number of respected sources on the net which conclusively demonstrate that Monckton is a fraudulent liar who simply makes up fake data. Frankly Mr Gillar I have nothing but contempt for both you and Monckton.

      As for your insane legal threats; they are the final, irrefutable evidence that your argument is utterly bankrupt… and you know it.

    • Rob Salmond 22.2

      Mark

      I have replied to you by email with further evidence of Lord Monckton’s phony Nobel claims, pending a follow up post I have already submitted to The Standard for their consideration.

      Regards,
      Rob

  22. Rob,

    Thank you for the email. I have posted a response video on YouTube which
    should explain my postion. I was in attendance when this video was recorded.
    If you’re short on time, you may begin at the 1:20 mark, but I’d suggest watching the
    entire clip to get a feel for the context within which the comment was made.

    In this very short clip, Monckton calls the Nobel Prize Pin given to him by a friend a “joke” and describes himself as ” a layman with no qualifications in science”.

    This presentation was made some 5.5 months or so before the MN presentation to which you sent me a link. Rob, you must know that it would be crazy for anyone to claim that they had received a Nobel Prize when they had not? It is so easily checked. Monckton may have a very dry sense of humor, but as my link proves, he freely admits that the whole thing about the Nobel Pin is a joke.

    I hope The Standard publishes your follow up. I further hope that you address the comments former French President Chirac and Al Gore made about global governance.
    I also hope you produce evidence that Monckton has claimed to be a scientists and climate scientists as I have already produced videographic evidence that he claims to be a layman with no qualifications in science.

    Note to Staff:
    This comment does does contain a link, so I’ll check back in four or five days and see if it’s been posted. Please take your time. I wouldn’t want to rush anyone.

    [Note to Mark:
    This is a blog, it doesn’t have staff. Your previous comments have all been published on the day you submitted them (NZ time). Implying otherwise does you no credit]

    [lprent: If he wasn’t either technically illiterate or just plain lazy (or just read the FAQ), then Mark could have not used raw links. Then it’d have gotten through the spam checker without problems. But no, like any true paranoid, it is always someone else’s fault…. Reminds me of Whale.. ]

    • r0b 23.1

      Mark E. Gillar

      Note to Staff:

      A blog doesn’t have “staff”, just authors (I am one). As you can see, it got posted.

      Monckton calls the Nobel Prize Pin given to him by a friend a “joke’

      The fact that Monckton admits at some times that the Nobel is a joke does not in any way mean that he hasn’t at other times tried to pass it off as real (probably started on the “joke” line after he got caught out).

      See here for example. r0b at 9:50pm says “I am a Pulitzer prize winning journalist!”. Someone at 9:51pm “Oh no you’re not!”. r0b at 9:52pm “My Pulitzer prize isn’t real hah hah only joking”. Doesn’t make the initial claim any less of a lie, does it?

      Here in this thread you claimed that Monckton never said he was a member of the House of Lords. This was shown to be a lie and your weasel worded excuse was you meant he never said he was a “voting member” (like anyone knows or cares about the distinction). You also claimed Monckton never said he was a Nobel prize winner. When this too was shown to be a lie your weasel worded excuse was that he was only joking (when the context in his very non humorous bio shows that this was not the case).

      In short, you’re a serial liar, trying to cover for a serial liar. Monckton lies about climate science and about his credentials. You lie about Monckton. You both should be ashamed of yourselves.

      — r0b (not Rob Salmond)

      • Rob Salmond 23.1.1

        Mark

        Thank you for your reply and response. Certainly I agree with your statement:

        “Rob, you must know that it would be crazy for anyone to claim that they had received a Nobel Prize when they had not? It is so easily checked.”

        Look at the link I sent you (copied below) to Lord Monckton’s Jakarta Post article in December 2007. You will see that is exactly what he claimed. A Nobel Prize. With no hint of humor at all.

        http://mclean.ch/climate/Monckton_Jakarta_Post.pdf

        If, as you say, it is crazy for any person to falsely claim a Nobel Prize, and you have been provided with strong evidence that Lord Monckton falsely claimed a Nobel Prize, what does that logically tell you about Lord Monckton?

        Regards,
        Rob

  23. Rob,

    Did you bother to watch the video to which I sent you a link?

    You did hear Monckton say that it was joke didn’t you?

    BTW, since Gore shared his Nobel Prize with the UN IPCC, Moncton has in the past joked that since he contributed to the 2007 Report by way of a correction, he should have shared in the prize also. This too is just a joke.

    “With no hint of humor at all”, hence the term “dry” humor Rob.

    Did you notice he also said that he was not a scientist let alone a climate scientist.
    Do you have video of him saying something different? Do you have a written work
    of him saying something different? If not, you should at least correct that part of
    your original work.

    You still haven’t as far as I know commented on the fact that Gore and Chirac made
    the “global governance” connection to climate change legislation long before Monckton.
    Are Gore and Chirac allowed to say it, but not Monkton? If so, why?

    In summary, You have not owned up to the fact that you have no evidence of him claiming to be a scientist. You have not commented on the Gore or Chirac quotes or the fact that our clips are somewhat at odds with each other for my clip makes it clear that the whole Nobel Pin joke is just that, a joke. Why would Monckton make it clear that he was joking in April when speaking in TX and then try and pretend he has received a Nobel Prize when speaking in MN? If one were going to try and make such a false claim, one would at the very least have to be consistent.

    One question, that I’d like answered: Gore has made numerous outrageous claims about melting ice caps and twenty foot increases in sea level. Are you interested in the truth only when climate skeptics are speaking or do you think Gore should have to tell the truth too? Since I haven’t been able to locate any articles where you’ve applied your keen nose for the truth to Gore, I was just wondering. As I’ve suggested before, you only seem interested in reviewing comments by skeptics. Alarmists like Gore obviously get a free pass from you. There’s a word for people who apply a double standard. Starts with an H, can’t remember what it is.

    Your zeal to discredit a skeptic has impaired your good judgement. Unless you produce strong evidence of your claims soon, I’d suggest you write a correction to your original article.

    Mark

  24. Rob Salmond 25

    Mark

    Yes, I watched the video you sent me, and I happily acknowledge that Lord Monckton made the joke clear **on that occasion**.

    Did you read Monckton’s Jakarta Post article that I pointed you to? Can you point me to the part **in that article** where he made the joke clear, even just a little bit? How about in the YouTube video I pointed you to? If you cannot find the joke in those publications, then my claim about Monckton falsely claiming a Nobel Prize stands and Monckton is thus shown up as a charlatan.

    By the way, your questions of “why would Lord Monckton make the joke plain some times but not others’ are good ones. But given the very obvious evidence I have shown you, I suggest they are questions you should ask Lord Monckton rather than me.

    I am glad to see you have basically given up defending Lord Monckton’s falsehoods about his status in the House of Lords.

    In relation to claims that he is a scientist and a climate scientist to boot, here are a selection of quotes from Lord Monckton’s recent video presentation (times in parentheses):

    “In the technical language that we climatologists like to use ‘ (28:15)

    “Being a dull, boring scientific person, I checked the satellite records ‘ (29:45)

    “So I checked. I’m boring that way, I keep checking things. That is what scientists do. That is what Al-Haitham said we should do. I check ‘em.’ (50:30)

    (Parenthetically, I will concede that this lie by Monckton is not quite as blatant as the others. In that same spirit of compromise and goodwill, I suggest you explicitly concede that I’ve demonstrated Monckton’s very obvious lies about Nobel Prizes and the House of Lords.)

    Regarding your various claims about Al Gore, I do not remember ever saying that he had everything right, so I do not understand why you think it is my job to defend his every utterance. But since you asked, no I do not believe everything in “An Inconvenient Truth.’ I think you’ll agree that there is a large predictive gulf between “An Inconvenient Truth’ and “Apocalypse, No!’. My view lies in that intermediate range, as do the views of the IPCC and the views of the large majority of relevant scientists.

    Regarding talk of “global governance,’ I suggest you read up about the term. You will find that it does not mean the same thing as “world government,’ which is what Lord Monckton was scaring people about.

    Finally Mark, in relation to your accusation: “There’s a word for people who apply a double standard. Starts with an H, can’t remember what it is,’ I suggest you look in a mirror and read from right to left. The word will be on your forehead.

    Regards,
    Rob

  25. Chris Monckton : ” There are no climate benefits, because, as my presentation made clear, there is no climate problem or, if there is, humankind has practically nothing to do with it.”

    You cannot simultaneously prove both of those. From making that statement alone it shows you clearly have no credibility.

  26. zelda 27

    And you have never submitted a corrigendum to one of your papers that have been submitted for publication ?

  27. zelda 28

    Interesting article by Climate Scientist Richard Lindzen, were he points out non scientists ( Like Salmond ) seem to have taken up Scientific Advocacy.

    [deleted]

    http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.3762.pdf

    [lprent: see other comment. Here is an HTML link to the same thing from Google. Any more of these and I’ll just start zapping. The only reason I haven’t is because at least the twerp put in links. ]

    • Zorr 28.1

      It has been interesting finding out who Richard Lindzen is and he does propose some significantly interesting ideas. However, there is a big BUT in the wings here. He has chosen to use his history of scientific research to carve himself a niche as somewhat of a doom naysayer. Fair enough. He is making a name for himself and using some at least relatively sound science for his arguments.

      However, this is where it all falls down. The real point that most should be concerned with is not “Is climate change real and, if so, what do we do about it?” but “If climate change is a reality what should we be doing now so that we aren’t left wishing we had done it sooner?” There is no use losing our heads, and a sane voice for the Nay of the argument is always appreciated.

      Yet while the discussions and the science continues, do we want to actually risk hitting the potentially devestating point of a positive feedback cycle from which there is no return? There is a lot of business to be made from green technology and research and as a whole we, the people of the world, need to work together better than we have been in pulling each other up to the same levels. The excessive prosperity that 3rd world nations keep shooting for is all a mirage generated mostly in financial institutions that like to play low risk high gain gambles with other peoples money.

    • Zorr 28.2

      Brain ran out of steam there… couldn’t come up with any concluding remarks. However from what I have seen of your posting zelda, it would be nice to see some active critical thinking happening rather than just block copy-pasting from various sites.

      Congratulations on learning Ctrl+C followed by Ctrl+V. Next comes the difficult part.

  28. curvedwater 29

    mr salmond,

    until now, you´ve still not answered in depth on the reply of Lord Monckton.
    BTW: i´ll stay at home today to read your answer because when i go out on the streets today, i might just have an accident.
    The precautionary principle, you know . I´m glad that doesn´t cost me hundreds of billions of dollars

  29. ben 30

    Rob, frankly you embarrass yourself by allowing yourself to be distracted by the question of Monckton’s title. It could not be less relevant. There is no reason whatsoever to focus on anything except the merit of his argument. Anything other than that is ad hominem or irrelevant and beneath the intelligent debate you are obviously capable of.

    • RedLogix 30.1

      I’ve some sympathy with that point of view ben, but it given that it is Monckton making the absurd claim that the entire climate reasearch community is engaged in some monstrous hoax, then it’s fair game to address Monckton’s own credibility.

      • ben 30.1.1

        Red, I have no idea if Monckton’s claim is absurd or not – but it is quite wrong to think that a bad argument by your opponent means personal abuse is enough to rebut him. How about, I don’t know, say why the argument is wrong? Instead Rob launches attacks on, of all things, the details of his opponent’s claims to hereditary title. Relevance?

        I am surprised at Salmond’s willingness to resort to these personal attacks – Monckton’s argument can be rebutted on a number of points but Mr Salmond would rather talk about his critic’s personal values. A very poor show, regardless of topic.

  30. ha ha ha (I'm stupid) 31

    Once again the Standard gang are circle jerking.

    Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more

  31. Rob Salmond has made at least three incorrect Statements in his post:

    He suggested based on one and only one of Monckton’s presentations (Minnesota) that Monckton tries to pass himself off as both a scientist and a climate scientist.

    The Truth is that Monckton has always made it very clear to his audiences that he is not a scientist, climate or otherwise. From Apocalypse? No! which I presume Salmond has viewed, since he suggested the truth regarding anthropogenic global warming is somewhere between Apocalypse? No! and An Inconvenient Truth, I provide you with the following statement.

    I guess Salmond conveniently forgot that line from the film when writing this piece.

    Here are two comments from Monckton while speaking at the Heartland Conference:


    Clearly not the words of a man who travels the globe pretending to be a scientist or climate scientist. Had Salmond done a little research, he could have easily uncovered these clips. My guess is he wasn’t actively looking for anything that might contradict his predetermined conclusion.

    And perhaps most damning to this nonsensical accusation by Salmond is a quote from the very Minnesota presentation Salmond quotes in a failed attempt to prove that Moncton is a charlatan.

    One must ask why Salmond chose to believe the first quote in which in which Monckton was obviously joking and ignored the latter? I’ll let the readers decide which quote in the Minnesota presentation seems legitimate and which was a non-serious statement made in order to get a laugh. First Monckton states “as we climate scientist like to say, Sh*t happens”. In the quote above (please click on the YouTube link.) he makes it clear that he is not a scientist. Is there really a need for debate here? Either Salmond didn’t catch the second quote or he was so anxious to write a hatchet job type piece on Monckton that he deliberately ignored the second quote. Either way, any reasonably intelligent person (that would exclude Blip) should conclude that Monckton made it clear to his Minnesota audience that he is not a scientist or climate scientist.

    Also in the Minnesota presentation, Monckton jokingly suggests that Arnold Schwarzenegger is a climatologist.

    Given the authors inability to distinguish between a factual statement and a joke, I’m surprised Salmond didn’t claim that Monckton lied about the Governor of California’s academic background.

    Salmond also makes the ridiculous accusation that Monckton is actually trying to pass himself off as a true Nobel Laureate. While I admit that Monckton did not do as good a job in Minnesota as he has done elsewhere to make the joke apparent, the truth is that one would have to be dumber than a box of rocks to listen to this quote and think that Monckton was seriously trying to dupe his audience. This is particularly true when one notes that Monckton said the UN IPCC made the change furtively without even acknowledging his contribution. Is this the type of thing for which the left-leaning Nobel Prize committee would actually give an award? If I have one criticism of Monckton, it’s that he sometimes assumes too much intelligence on the part of his audience. That was obviously the case when a certain writer reviewed the presentation on YouTube.

    In a presentation made 5.5 months before the Minnesota presentation, Monckton made this comments on April 28, 2009 while speaking to an audience at Texas A&M of which I was a member.

    In addition to repeating again that he is a layperson and not a scientist, he also states that the Nobel Prize pin given to him by his friend David Douglas was a joke. The following link is to a letter Monckton sent to John McCain.

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/Letter_to_McCain.pdf

    Note that Monckton usually tells the story of the pin when telling the story of his correction to the UN IPCC report. Only his enemies at sites like DeSmogBlog and Tim Lambert’s Deltoid Blog seem incapable or perhaps I should say unwilling to recognize this as a very obvious joke.

    As for the author’s claims that Monckton wanted to imprison AIDS victims or that he overstated the deaths caused by the ban on DDT, I think he’s already been taken to the woodshed over those misstatements by Monckton himself. I therefore will not address Salmond on these two issues at this time.

    With regard to Salmond’s suggestion that I look up the difference between world government and global governance, I have a better idea. I think he should look them up. I’ve done enough of his work for him already. Perhaps better stated, I’ve looked up many things that a good writer would have looked up for himself before writing this laughable piece if he were indeed interested in getting at the truth. If there is a scarlet “H” to be worn by either of us, it is clearly Salmond.

    As far as I’m concerned, the only thing that could save the original post would be to change the title to “Looney Tunes from Rob Salmond”.

    • Armchair Critic 32.1

      Your comment seems to boil down to saying that we should take Chris Monckton seriously, even when he isn’t being serious. That in itself creates a credibility issue.
      Looks to me like he tells jokes because he is one – it surprises me that anyone (except jesus and guns freaks) takes him seriously.

      • Armchair Critic,

        You’ve somehow managed to get it completely backwards.
        I’m saying we shouldn’t take him seriously when he isn’t being serious.
        He is not a joke. Jokes aren’t asked to testify before the house and senate.
        Well except for Al Gore of course.

        Jesus and gun freaks? It’s funny that you say that because many have suggested that belief in anthropogenic global warming is part of the secular progressive belief system where the holy trinity is made up of belief in global warming, evolution, and the right to an abortion. What is it about a 90 minute scientific argument against AGW that would appeal strictly to Jesus and gun freaks? Note to AC, the question is rhetorical. You don’t have to answer.

        As for your surprise that anyone would take him seriously, I’ve always had the same feelings about Al Gore. Your name suggests that you are already sitting, so please consider sitting this one out. The debate is over your head and you don’t deserve to be a participant.

        I will add that those who truly have something to say use their real name like Rob Salmond, Lord Monckton, Scott Bosswell and myself. It’s people like you and “Blip” that contribute nothing important to the discussion that hide behind an internet nickname. I can’t say that I blame you. I wouldn’t want my real name attached to an asinine comment either.

        • r0b 32.1.1.1

          I will add that those who truly have something to say use their real name

          What, you mean like Lewis Carroll, Joseph Conrad, C. S. Forester, Clive Hamilton, O. Henry, George Orwell, Ayn Rand, Mark Twain, Voltaire and so on?

          Wake up and smell the internets. Here we are the quality of our arguments and our evidence. No one cares about your race, class, “breeding” or ego. “I’m using my real name” is the last refuge of the incompetent.

          • Armchair Critic 32.1.1.1.1

            Have a look here r0b.
            http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/monckton_caught_making_things.php
            It is about Chris Monckton and his views on climate change. There are a number of comments by a “Dash Riprock III”, and associated links to the Hooterville Gazette.
            After being outed by another commenter and a few comments the commenter adds “Mark G.” to the end of his comments, kind of like a signature. So, the question of whether “Dash Riprock III” and “Mark G.” on the scienceblogs site are the same person as the “Mark E Gillar” found lurking at The Standard.
            Dunno about you, r0b, but I’m picking that Mr Gillar has been caught out as a dirty stinking hypocrite on this one.
            How’s Bryan, TX, Mark? Got it in you to fisk my reply below, or are you off to hide under your bridge?

        • Armchair Critic 32.1.1.2

          Mark

          “You’ve somehow managed to get it completely backwards.”
          It is a pretty basic principle – if you want to be taken seriously, be serious. Looks like it is you that got this one backwards. Doing stuff like claiming to be things that you are not, even for a short while, is a pretty effective way of crapping on your credibility. If Chris Monckton is not a joke, why are people laughing at the two of you? And are you sure that there has only been one “joke” testify before the senate and house? I reckon a quick google search could blow a pretty big hole in that line of yours.

          “What is it about a 90 minute scientific argument against AGW that would appeal strictly to Jesus and gun freaks?”
          Not being a jesus and guns freak, I would be misrepresenting my position if I gave an answer. Since many of the comments have been about misrepresentation (in case you missed it, that’s a big word for “telling lies”), it would be hypocritical of me to even try to answer it. I see that you haven’t tried, either. Should I conclude that you are not a jesus and guns freak, or that you are incapable of answering your own question?

          “Your name suggests that you are already sitting”
          Don’t read too much into my name. I got it from a song I like, that’s all. I chose it deliberately to avoid revealing my gender, relationship status, age, employment status, place of residence, sexuality, interests, educational background, family history, ethnicity and the like. The intention was that my comments would then be judged on their merits (or lack of merit) only, with little to cloud the substance (or lack of substance) in the comment.

          “so please consider sitting this one out.”
          Considered. And I won’t sit it out. I have an opinion on the subject, an interest in the outcome and the ability to express it. My opinions and interests are no more or less valuable than yours, BLiP’s, Chris Monckton’s, Rob Salmond’s or anyone else’s.

          “The debate is over your head and you don’t deserve to be a participant.”
          How about we let the moderators on this site decide whether or not I deserve to be a participant. You sound like an authoritarian arse making statements like this – do you really believe you live in the land of the free when you think it’s okay to suggest anyone is stripped of even their voice? Does this sound familiar?
          “The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law”
          First Amendment – Yet your own words show you don’t believe in it. And you have the gall to suggest that it is you who needs to be worried about being subjugated by world government. Hypocrite.

          “I will add that those who truly have something to say use their real name…”
          Bollocks. I can not be sure if there is a real Mark E Gillar out there. If there is, I still can not be sure if you are one and the same. But I don’t care either way. I’m much more interested in the substance (or, in your case, lack thereof) in your comments. Does your authoritarian streak stretch to believing that the right to privacy should be removed?
          Also, you seem to be assuming I do not contribute to the debate using my real name elsewhere. Sure, I am the Armchair Critic here and on a couple of other blog sites. For reasons that are my own. In other situtions, like letters to the editor, submissions to local and central government, at work, at what you would call town-hall public debates and the like I say the same things and use my real name, address etc. I would not be surprised to find that many of the other contributors here do too. Which puts your theory out to pasture. Don’t bother asking what my real name is – it is none of your business.

        • BLiP 32.1.1.3

          Lord Monkeytune is a liar – Here’s more proof.

  32. Blip you’re well-named. In the grand scheme of things, that’s about all you are.

    Yes, I did once use the name Dash RIPROCK III, but quickly dropped it when I realized that people don’t take anonymous posters serioulsy. I’ve taken it to the next level, I doubt you ever will..

    • Pascal's bookie 33.1

      Leaving asaide the obvious ad hom line of your argument, have you now found that people take you more seriously? Honestly?

      I don’t take you seriously for example. I wouldn’t take you any less seriously under a pseudonym either.

      Have you read the Palin book yet?

    • BLiP 33.2

      So, in the face of irrefutable evidence that your Lord Monekytune is a liar, that you are a liar AND a hypocrite, you resort to an attempt at humour in relation to by nick.

      Game over, Dash. You lose.

    • lprent 33.3

      Bullshit. I’ve been around the net and its precursors since the early 80’s. During that time I’ve always used lprent. On my first degree, I was limited to a 6 character login name at university, which I’ve used ever since. It is a pseudonym. Getting taken seriously has never been an issue. I seldom get involved in discussions unless I know the subject pretty throughly and with a reasonable or better level of understanding, and that becomes readily apparent to anyone else who knows the topic.

      Perhaps you should rephrase your statement to :-

      … when I realized that people don’t take anonymous posters seriously when they are trying to bullshit without sufficent understanding of the topic.

      Sure seems far more appropriate to me.

      Coincidently that degree was a BSc in Earth Sciences, which is why I know that both you and the lord of flatulence lack the basic understanding of climate, let alone the detail of climate change.

      BTW: I also fixed your typo while restating your statement.

    • Armchair Critic 33.4

      “I did once use the name Dash RIPROCK III, but quickly dropped it…”
      You used it for a good six months.
      Is this the best excuse you can come up with?
      I’ll add to LP’s point about your fundamental lack of understanding of the science – you seem to have no comprehension of the basics of statistical techniques, and this shows through in many of your comments.
      You are the sorriest, most poorly informed, authoritarian, unprincipled hypocrite I have come across for years. The only thing you have said that I readily agree with is that the debate is over. And you lost. Big time.

  33. chaser 34

    Lord Monckton hits the correct nail on the head. Most of the world do not know what the big picture of the controlling powers are to paint a picture to get what they want, a one world government. Its very serious it they sign. Anything we do will not change a thing. Don’t you know there are religions that want a one world power and they will use anything to get it. The number of scientists against climate change way out way the ones for it. I’m glad I know where I’m going and where I’ll end up.

    • lprent 34.1

      Bullshit. Read this post Examining the scientific consensus on climate change that I wrote a few months back.

      If you said something more like

      The number of scientists cranks and nutters against climate change way out way outweigh the ones for it.

      Then it would probably be a factual statement.

      Incidentally you probably didn’t help your argument by being unable to correctly spell. It does make your opinion a little hard to even consider as being by someone who knew what they were talking about.

    • Pascal's bookie 34.2

      “Don’t you know there are religions that want a one world power and they will use anything to get it.”

      Their elders detail their plans in ‘the protocols’, right?

Links to post

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Hard News: Dealer’s Choice, an oral history from Planet 1994
    In 1994, I was the editor for an issue of Planet magazine focused on cannabis, its culture and the prospects for the end of its prohibition. Part of that issue was an interview with 'Ringo', an experienced cannabis dealer.I recently posted my essay from that issue, and I figured it ...
    23 hours ago
  • The invasion of women’s sports by men: some facts
    Dr Helen Waite, sports sociologist and former elite athlete, on the invasion of women’s sport by men and the anti-scientific and misogynist ideology used to rationalise it.   ...
    RedlineBy Admin
    1 day ago
  • Remainers starting to sound like fascists
    As Brexit comes to a grisly conclusion (perhaps) people on all sides are saying intemperate and uwise things.  Some, like the Daly Mail, have been doing it for years.People as normally level headed as Jon Lansman are calling for automatic deselection of MPs who vote against a (likely) Labour three ...
    1 day ago
  • Labour MPs supporting Johnson’s turd-sandwich deal?
    I find this unbelievable:
    I've got one source saying more Labour MPs than expected are mulling whether to vote for the deal - including names who were not on the letter to Juncker and Tusk— Emilio Casalicchio (@e_casalicchio) 17 October 2019 I've compiled a list of possible reasons why Labour ...
    2 days ago
  • Why do we need control orders again?
    On Wednesday, the government was loudly telling us that it needed to legislate to allow it to impose "control orders" - effectively a parole regime, but imposed without charge, prosecution, conviction or real evidence - on suspected terrorists because they couldn't be prosecuted for their supposed crimes. Today, it turns ...
    No Right TurnBy Idiot/Savant
    2 days ago
  • Bullshitting the Minister
    On Monday, the Hit and Run inquiry heard from NZDF's former director of special operations, who claimed that the defence Minister knew everything about the Operation Burnham raid. Today, the inquiry heard from that (former) Minister - and it turns out that he didn't know nearly as much as NZDF ...
    No Right TurnBy Idiot/Savant
    2 days ago
  • Speaker: Extinction Rebellion is not a cult (but ecstasy for the people)
    Yoga gurus and cult leaders – I’ve seen a few. Two weeks ago, I unknowingly joined an alleged new-age cult at the Kāpiti coast, together with a giant kraken and some neatly dressed pensioners who would make any book club proud.They were among the two hundred people of all ages ...
    2 days ago
  • We need to bring the police under control
    The last decade has seen a trend of increasing weapons availability to police. Assault rifles. Tasers on every hip. Guns in cars. And following the march 15 massacre, pistols on every hip, all over the country. At the same time, its also seen an increase in the abuse of force: ...
    No Right TurnBy Idiot/Savant
    2 days ago
  • If you can’t measure it, does it exist?
    In the last couple of weeks, I’ve been busy preparing for our summer paper on Science Communication. Looking for something amusing about ‘risk’ in science, I came across this neat xkcd.com cartoon about why so many people come knocking on my door (or phoning me, or emailing me) desperately wanting ...
    SciBlogsBy Marcus Wilson
    2 days ago
  • Swinson’s swithering
    Jo Swinson is doing even worse at this Being Sensible lark that I'd thought.  I've just become aware of the following utterance
    .@KayBurley presses Lib Dem leader @joswinson on whether she would agree to a #Brexit deal 'no matter how bad a deal it is' as long as it had ...
    3 days ago
  • Women’s rights, trans ideology and Gramsci’s morbid symptoms
    by John Edmundson The International Socialist Organisation (ISO) have recently reposted a February article, by Romany Tasker-Poland, explaining ISO’s position in the “trans rights” debate.  It is available on their website and on their Facebook Page.  The article sets out to explain why “socialists support trans rights”.  It reads more ...
    RedlineBy Admin
    3 days ago
  • We need to take guns off police
    Today's IPCA report of police criminality: a police officer unalwfully tasered a fleeing suspect who posed no threat to anyone:The police watchdog has found an officer unlawfully tasered an Auckland man who broke his ankle jumping off a balcony to escape arrest. [...] To avoid arrest, the man jumped over ...
    No Right TurnBy Idiot/Savant
    3 days ago
  • “Bringing kindness back”
    "Auckland City Mission: 10% of Kiwis experiencing food insecurity", RNZ, 16 October 2019:About half a million people are experiencing food insecurity, according to new research from the Auckland City Mission. Food insecurity, or food poverty, is defined as not having enough appropriate food. The City Mission said over the last ...
    No Right TurnBy Idiot/Savant
    3 days ago
  • Press Release: “Fake News” from Auckland City Council CCOs Board Chairs re pay and performance b...
    Media Statement for Immediate Release 16th October 2019 “Fake News” from Auckland City Council CCOs Board Chairs re pay and performance bonuses for top managers Despite comments from Auckland City Council CCOs Board Chairs re pay and performance bonuses for top managers—Herald Newspaper Tuesday Oct 15th–there is very little evidence ...
    Closing the GapBy Tracey Sharp
    3 days ago
  • Ever-So-Slightly Bonkers: Simon Bridges Plays To His Base.
    Would You Buy A Used Propaganda Video From This Man? Bridges and the National Party’s strategists have discovered that the ideas and attitudes considered acceptable by today’s editors and journalists are no longer enforceable. The rise and rise of the Internet and the social media platforms it spawned means that ...
    3 days ago
  • Asking for food
    There is plenty of evidence of the way the business mentality has permeated every level of society since the recrudescence of market liberalism 35 years ago. You only need to think of how citizens in need of help from their government, their state, their country, are now routinely described as ...
    Opposable ThumbBy Unknown
    3 days ago
  • Forty years of change in the jobs Kiwi do and the places they call home
    John MacCormick Over the last 40 years, New Zealanders – and people in other countries – have experienced big changes in the jobs they do and where they live and work. These changes include: a decline in manufacturing jobs an increase in jobs in ‘information-intensive’ industries (which are better paid ...
    SciBlogsBy Guest Author
    3 days ago
  • Protecting Fresh Waterways in Aotearoa/NZ: The Strong Public Health Case
    Nick Wilson, Leah Grout, Mereana Wilson, Anja Mizdrak, Phil Shoemack, Michael Baker Protecting waterways has the benefits of: (1) protecting water from hazardous microbes; (2) minimising cancer risk and other problems from nitrates in water; (3) avoiding algal blooms that are hazardous to health; (4) protecting mahinga kai uses (cultural ...
    SciBlogsBy Public Health Expert
    3 days ago
  • Massey University triggered to rebrand
    by The Council of Disobedient Women In a press release today Massey University announced it has decided to rebrand and reorientate after struggling to be a University for grown-ups. For some time the University has wanted to be a safe play space for wee-woke-misogynists who have been really badly triggered ...
    RedlineBy Daphna
    4 days ago
  • Swinson backing calls for a second referendum (again)
    After a brief dalliance with 'hard Revoke' it looks like the Lib Dems are changing ground on on Brexit, with leader Jo Swinson reverting to calling for a second referendum on Johnson's deal.The party has tabled an amendment to the Queen’s speech requesting that any deal brought back from Brussels ...
    4 days ago
  • An odious bill
    The government has decided that someone has done Something Bad. But despite their belief, there seems to be no evidence that they have actually broken the law. So the government's solution is to pass a retrospective law allowing them to be punished anyway, on a lower standard of proof. If ...
    No Right TurnBy Idiot/Savant
    4 days ago
  • National is now the party of climate arson
    So, Judith Collins has done a Facebook rant about climate change, peddling the same shit National has been shovelling for the past twenty years: the impacts are overstated, there's no need to do anything about it, and its too hard anyway (oh, and its so unfair that people who peddle ...
    No Right TurnBy Idiot/Savant
    4 days ago
  • The environmental footprint of electric versus fossil car
    Climate Explained is a collaboration between The Conversation, Stuff and the New Zealand Science Media Centre to answer your questions about climate change. If you have a question you’d like an expert to answer, please send it to climate.change@stuff.co.nz There is a lot of discussion on the benefits of ...
    SciBlogsBy Guest Author
    4 days ago
  • “Manifest” by Andrew Bird – A Song For The Times.
    I came across this song quite by accident. If it isn't one of Greta Thunberg's favourites - it should be.Video courtesy of YouTube.This post is exclusive to Bowalley Road. ...
    4 days ago
  • Passing the buck
    Last month, NZDF's shoddy coverup of what it knew about civilian casualties in Operation Burnham began to fall apart, with the revelation that a report on the matter, which NZDF claimed not to have, had been sitting in an NZDF safe for the past nine years. Yesterday, the man responsible ...
    No Right TurnBy Idiot/Savant
    4 days ago
  • India a major player in Earth observation satellites
    While many imagine that countries like the USA and Europe dominate space activities, in fact India is now a major player on this stage. It launches satellites for its own purposes and also commercially, and has constellations orbiting our planet and returning data of vital importance to that nation in ...
    SciBlogsBy Duncan Steel
    5 days ago
  • The rot at the top (2).
    Thanks to a report from the Acting Inspector General of Intelligence and Security following a complaint by Nicky Hager, we have come to find out that the SIS illegally spied on Mr. Hager on behalf of the NZDF after publication of Hager’s 2011 book, Other People’s Wars. The NZDF justified ...
    KiwipoliticoBy Pablo
    5 days ago
  • Common misconceptions about “Global Warming”
    COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate. FACT: The HadCRUT3 surface temperature index, produced by the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office and the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, shows warming to 1878, cooling to 1911, ...
    An average kiwiBy admin@averagekiwi.com
    5 days ago
  • A climate of tyranny
    For the past week, Extinction Rebellion has been peacefully protesting in London to demand action on climate change. The British government's response? Ban their protests:Police have banned Extinction Rebellion protests from continuing anywhere in London, as they moved in almost without warning to clear protesters who remained at the movement’s ...
    No Right TurnBy Idiot/Savant
    5 days ago
  • Collins crushes climate
    An essay by Judith Collins MP reported on Carbon News yesterday seems to show an alarming shift in attitude within the National Party. Collins argues against the Zero Carbon Bill, the Paris Agreement, and downplays the magnitude of climate impacts. The Paris Agreement was adopted in December 2015 and ratified ...
    SciBlogsBy Robert McLachlan
    5 days ago
  • More disappointment
    When they were running for election, Labour promised to overhaul the Employment Relations Act and introduce fair pay agreements to set basic pay and conditions on an industry level, preventing bad employers from undercutting good ones. They followed this up by establishing a working group, which reported back in January ...
    No Right TurnBy Idiot/Savant
    5 days ago
  • What do these mother-child studies really say about fluoridation?
    A list of indicators of bad science – many of these are found in articles promoted by anti-fluoride activists. Anti-fluoride activists have been pouring money into a scaremongering campaign warning pregnant women not to drink fluoridated water. They claim fluoride will lower the IQ of their future child. Fluoride ...
    5 days ago
  • Losing Labour’s Mills-Tone.
    Nothing Left To Say: Labour's pollster, Stephen Mills, remains swaddled-up in the comforting myths of the 1980s. As if the experience of Roger Douglas’s genuinely radical post-Muldoon policy agenda was literally a once-in-a-lifetime thing – as much as the party could possibly absorb for at least the next 50 years.MEMO ...
    5 days ago
  • Speaker: Disability and the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Historical Abuse
    The Royal Commission on abuse in care is very significant for the disability community. For many decades last century, thousands of disabled children, and adults who managed to survive, were locked away from families and communities. This was not for anything they had done, but for the perceived threat their ...
    5 days ago
  • Spain is not a democracy
    No Right TurnBy Idiot/Savant
    6 days ago
  • UK Conservatives hate democracy
    With an unfair voting system, uneven electorates and an un-elected upper house, the UK's "democracy" is barely worthy of the name. But now the government wants to make it worse:The government has been accused of suppressing voters’ rights with the potential disenfranchisement of tens of thousands of people after plans ...
    No Right TurnBy Idiot/Savant
    6 days ago
  • What is wrong with our building industry?
    Back in the 90's and early 2000's, the building industry was building leaky homes which should never have been granted consent. Now it turns out they've been building dodgy office blocks as well:New imaging technology has revealed hundreds of major buildings nationwide have defective or missing concrete or reinforcing steel. ...
    No Right TurnBy Idiot/Savant
    6 days ago
  • Local bodies
    Local body election results were released over the weekend, to joy or despair depending on where you live. In Auckland, Phil Goff trounced John Tamihere, who is muttering darkly about running for Parliament again (but which party would want him?) Wellington is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of Weta Workshop, except ...
    No Right TurnBy Idiot/Savant
    6 days ago
  • A future of government
      How could government evolve over the next decades? Reports of democracy’s imminent demise are greatly exaggerated.  However, satisfaction with political systems in many countries is low, so there is much to do for governments of all political stripes to improve relevance and trust. Digital technologies are seen as one ...
    SciBlogsBy Robert Hickson
    1 week ago
  • Speaker: Catalonia, interrupted
    Two years have now gone by since the Friday afternoon when my university-student son and I headed out of our Barcelona flat to a nearby primary school, designated as a polling station for the vote that was to be held the following Sunday: the referendum on Catalonia’s independence from Spain ...
    1 week ago
  • Sage Decisions Unwisely Over-Ruled.
    Overruled: The joint decision of Finance Minister, Grant Robertson (Labour) and his Associate Minister, David Parker (Labour) arguably the two most powerful ministers in Jacinda Ardern’s government, to grant OceanaGold the consents which Land Information Minister, Eugenie Sage (Greens) had earlier denied them, offers bitter proof of how hard fighting ...
    1 week ago
  • Government may ban voting in effort to get more people to do it
    More than double the number of people who will vote in this year’s local body elections have tried marijuana or urinated somewhere they shouldn’t have. As local elections look set for the lowest turnout in decades, with many regions falling well short of 40%, the Government is exploring a number ...
    The CivilianBy admin
    1 week ago
  • Woman: Deleted.
    A Statement on Abortion Law Reform by the Council of Disobedient Women   On the eve of bringing an end to antiquated, anti-women abortion laws Green MP Jan Logie intends to write women out of the Bill. With a stroke of the pen, the woke are aiming for total erasure ...
    RedlineBy Daphna
    1 week ago
  • The Hollowest of Men Ride Again… SURPRISE!
    Musings continue apace about “the experienced businessman!” soon to be taking up a National Party MP position. Or to be more accurate, being parachuted into a seat to shut down their former MP Jamie-Lee Ross, who despite his own shortcomings shed at least some more light on the inner workings ...
    exhALANtBy exhalantblog
    1 week ago
  • Barbaric
    The Ugandan government wants to murder gay people:Uganda has announced plans to impose the death penalty on homosexuals. The bill, colloquially known as “Kill the Gays” in Uganda, was nullified five years ago on a technicality, but the government said on Thursday it plans to resurrect it within weeks. The ...
    No Right TurnBy Idiot/Savant
    1 week ago
  • Fighting Monsters.
    Freedom Of Speech? The Säuberung (cleansing by fire) was the work of the German Student Union which, on 10 May 1933, under the watchful eye of the Nazi Reichminister for Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, consigned 25,000 books to the flames in a ritual exorcism of “un-German thought”. According to the logic of the ...
    1 week ago
  • The next wave of kaupapa Māori politics: its constitutional, it must be.
      “There can be no such thing as kaupapa Māori political parties or politics in Aotearoa” (Willie Jackson, Labour Party (2017). Māori TV, General/List Election Special) I begin with that claim because at the time, I was confounded at first that it fell out of Willie Jackson’s mouth, and then ...
    EllipsisterBy Ellipsister
    1 week ago
  • Night lights of NZ from orbit
    New Zealand has prided itself for decades with regard to its lack of pollution, and all will be aware that the ‘100% Pure New Zealand‘ meme is under threat through land, water and air pollution of various causes. There is another type of contamination that the country also faces: light ...
    SciBlogsBy Duncan Steel
    1 week ago
  • Reporters deliver uplifting news to fleeing Japanese residents: they won’t miss any rugby
    New Zealand’s media is doing its part in Japan, reassuring those in the path of the storm that they won’t miss any rugby while away from their flooded homes. New Zealand sports reporters stationed in Japan for the Rugby World Cup have had the rare and heartwarming opportunity to inform ...
    The CivilianBy admin
    1 week ago
  • Government in contentious discussions about whether to put surplus on red or black
    Regional Development Minister Shane Jones is the only Cabinet member in favour of putting it all on green. As Finance Minister Grant Robertson finds himself with an enormous $7.5 billion surplus, the Government has begun intense, at times contentious conversations about whether to put the money on red or black at ...
    The CivilianBy admin
    1 week ago
  • Jordanian teachers’ successful strike has lessons for here
    by Susanne Kemp At the start of September close to 100,000 school teachers went on strike in Jordan.  They demanded a 50% pay rise.  A pay rise actually agreed to by the regime back in 2014. In early October, however, in the face of government repression and threats, the teachers’ ...
    RedlineBy Admin
    1 week ago
  • Why some people still think climate change isn’t real
    Climate Explained is a collaboration between The Conversation, Stuff and the New Zealand Science Media Centre to answer your questions about climate change. If you have a question you’d like an expert to answer, please send it to climate.change@stuff.co.nz Why do people still think climate change isn’t real? David ...
    SciBlogsBy Guest Author
    1 week ago
  • The SIS unlawfully spied on Nicky Hager
    Back in 2011, journalist Nicky Hager published Other People's Wars, an expose on NZDF's activities over the previous decade of the "war on terror". NZDF didn't like this, and especially didn't like the fact that it was base don leaks from their own. So, they had the SIS investigate him ...
    No Right TurnBy Idiot/Savant
    1 week ago
  • October 2019 – Newsletter
    https://mailchi.mp/7d9133add053/closing-the-gap-october-2019-newsletter ...
    Closing the GapBy Tracey Sharp
    1 week ago
  • And they wonder why we think they’re environmental vandals…
    The Zero Carbon Bill is due back from select committee in two weeks, and will likely pass its final stages in November. So naturally, farmers are planning a hate-march against it. But they're not just demanding lower methane targets so they can keep on destroying the planet; they're also demanding ...
    No Right TurnBy Idiot/Savant
    1 week ago
  • Climate Change: Paying the price in California
    Last year, California burned. This year, to stop it happening again (or rather, to stop themselves from being found liable if it happens again), Pacific Gas and Electric is cutting power to half the state for a week:Schools are closed. Traffic lights down. Tunnels dark. Businesses unopened. Hospitals running on ...
    No Right TurnBy Idiot/Savant
    1 week ago
  • Let’s Hear It For Up-Close-And-Personal, Hard-Copy Democracy!
    The Best Way: Missing from the on-line voting debate is any reference to the voting system that produces turn-out figures ranging from 77 to 93 percent of registered voters. The voting system used to collect and count the votes cast in our parliamentary elections. The system that involves citizens making ...
    1 week ago
  • 10/10: World Day Against the Death Penalty
    Today, October 10, is the world day against the death penalty. Out of 195 UN member states, 84 still permit capital punishment. Today is the day we work to change that. This year's theme is children. Having a parent sentenced to death or executed causes long-term trauma and stigmatization which ...
    No Right TurnBy Idiot/Savant
    1 week ago
  • Talking Freer Lives: a Marxist gender-critical perspective from Australia
    Among the great new bunch of political friends we have been making recently is the excellent Australian-based Marxist gender-critical site, Freer Lives.  So we asked the comrade who set up that blog to write something for Redline on the blog, himself, his analysis of the rise of gender politics and ...
    RedlineBy Admin
    1 week ago
  • Government spin accepted by union leadership
    by Don Franks  The Auckland City Mission is struggling with a 40 percent increase in demand for food parcels this year. A total of 23,020 were needed by June. Last month Missioner Chris Farrelly told the Herald the “cupboards are bare” and without an emergency food drive, he can’t see ...
    RedlineBy Daphna
    1 week ago
  • Forbidden Thoughts
    by The Council of Disobedient Women   Massey Wellington Student Association had a sit-in today. Imagine a sit-in. On a campus. Against a women’s rights meeting. Did the ’60s really happen or did we fucking dream it? They gathered in the student square, an echo chamber. Sitting on soft pillows ...
    RedlineBy Daphna
    2 weeks ago
  • Much love to my loyal Ukrainian readership
    For some reasons, my post about the mystery message from inside the Downing Street bunker seemed to catch people's attention.  Quite a lot of hits from NZ (unsurprisingly) and the USA (a bit more puzzlingly, but hi there, USAians!!) and 76 views from the Ukraine.I've celebrated my Ukrainian readers in ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Another day of bonkers GNUmours (again, sorry)
    First, almost a score of Labour MPs seem to have sent a letter to the EU basically begging them to accept a deal - any deal - just so Britain can get the Heck on with Brexiting instead of being trapped in limbo:
    To avoid no deal, deliver on the ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Labour vs working class immigrants – again!
    by Phil Duncan In 2016 the National-led government suspended the Parent Visa Category, through which migrants were able to bring their parents into New Zealand.  Since then over 5,700 people have been in immigration limbo, stuck on the visa wait list. Labour is now bringing back the scheme.  Well, sort ...
    RedlineBy Admin
    2 weeks ago
  • Speak Up for Women press statement: on Massey University and Feminism 2020
    The following was released yesterday (Tues, October 8) by the women’s liberation organisation Speak Up for Women. On 23 September Speak Up For Women announced that we would be holding an event at the Massey University Theaterette in Wellington. The event is called Feminism 2020. The intention of the event ...
    RedlineBy Admin
    2 weeks ago
  • Farmers support dirty rivers
    The government is currently consulting on plans to improve freshwater quality. So naturally, farmers oppose it:South Taranaki farmers are preparing to fight proposed national freshwater changes that some fear will bankrupt them. The Government's proposed National Environment Standard on Freshwater Management, released in September, rated the Waingongoro River as one ...
    No Right TurnBy Idiot/Savant
    2 weeks ago
  • No-one cares about local government
    Yesterday was the last day for (reliably) posting your vote away in local body elections. Turnouts are mostly much lower than the equivalent time last year (Palmerston North is down 2.3%), and so naturally people are pushing their online-voting snake oil again. Because the online census worked so well, lets ...
    No Right TurnBy Idiot/Savant
    2 weeks ago
  • The political ghosts of eugenics may matter more than the genetic
    This essay, on the political legacy of the eugenics movement, by Kenan Malik was originally published in the Observer on 6 October 2019, under the headline ‘The spirit of eugenics is still with us, as immigrants know to their cost’. Birth control. Intelligence tests. Town planning. Immigration controls. It’s striking how ...
    RedlineBy Daphna
    2 weeks ago
  • “Surplus” again
    Another year, and the government has announced another enormous government "surplus". And just like last year, its nothing of the sort. When we have people homeless and sick and hungry, when we have schools and hospitals still falling down, when we have underpaid public servants and infrastucture unmaintained or unbuilt, ...
    No Right TurnBy Idiot/Savant
    2 weeks ago
  • Inside the Downing Street bunker
    James Forsyth at The Spectator (I know, I know) has tapped one of his contacts inside Number Ten for an insight into the Johnson administration's thinking and strategy.It is fascinating, unsettling and quite, quite mad.  Some key points:Negotiations have stalled and the Johnson administration are keen to blame the EU: ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Taking Control Of The Nation’s Story.
    Fatal Contact: With the arrival of captain James Cook in October 1769, the islands of what would become New Zealand ceased to be the preserve of Polynesian navigators and settlers and became a part of both the world’s map and the world’s history.THE MAORI NATIONALIST assault upon the historical meaning ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Are GNUs extinct?
    Another round of tactical talks about forming a Government of National Unity have come to nothing with the Liberal Democrats still refusing countenance putting Jeremy Corbyn into Downing Street:Opposition talks on Monday made little headway over when to try and vote down Boris Johnson's government and who might succeed him as ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Labour chickens out again
    When the government was elected, it promised to lead the way on electric vehicles, and specifically to make the government vehicle fleet emissions-free where-practicable by 2025.They lied:There are 15,473 vehicles in the government fleet and only 78 are electric. When the coalition Government came into power in late 2017, the ...
    No Right TurnBy Idiot/Savant
    2 weeks ago
  • Transgender extremism, violence at work against feminist meeting at British Labour Party conference
    by Nick Rogers The debate around the meaning of sex and gender made an appearance at this year’s British Labour Party conference in Brighton. Women’s Place UK – an organisation that questions the demand that biological males who self-identify as woman should have access to women’s spaces, to all-women shortlists, ...
    RedlineBy Admin
    2 weeks ago
  • Rebelling in Wellington
    Yesterday I went down to Wellington to participate in the Extinction Rebellion protest. Its part of the latest global wave of XR actions, with actions happening all over the world. Some of those protests are massively disruptive: in Canada, XR is blocking major bridges, stopping people from getting to work. ...
    No Right TurnBy Idiot/Savant
    2 weeks ago

  • Methane reducing cattle feed one step closer
    The Government today announced its support for a project that could substantially reduce agricultural greenhouse gas emissions from cattle. The announcement was made as part of Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s and Agriculture Minister Damien O’Connor’s visit to Nelson’s Cawthron Aquaculture Park. The Cawthron Institute will receive $100,000 from the Government’s ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • Bill to refresh superannuation system passes first reading
    Social Development Minister Carmel Sepuloni has welcomed the first reading of the New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Legislation Amendment Bill. “Every New Zealander has a stake in New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension,” says Carmel Sepuloni. “They are our most common form of social assistance – nearly 800,000 New ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • Government announces next steps in fight against measles
    Babies in Auckland aged six months and over can receive a free vaccination and children will all have access to vaccines, Associate Minister of Health Julie Anne Genter announced today at Papatoetoe High School.   The move comes as part of Government efforts to step up the fight against measles. ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • Speech to the New Zealand Institute of International Affairs, Pacific Futures: Connections, Identity...
    ***Check against delivery*** Good morning. It is a pleasure to be here, and to have the honour of opening this important conference on behalf of the New Zealand Institute of International Affairs. Let us take the opportunity to acknowledge all the people who have helped make today possible, including our special ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • Police trial new response to high risk events
    Police Minister Stuart Nash says the safety of frontline officers and members of the public will be the focus of a new trial of specialist Police response teams in three of our largest urban centres. Police have this morning released details of an initiative to be trialled in Counties Manukau, ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • New awards celebrate fisheries sustainability
    The Minister of Fisheries is calling for entries for a new public award to celebrate innovation in our seafood sector. “I have established the Seafood Sustainability Awards to recognise and celebrate those throughout industry, tangata whenua and communities who demonstrate outstanding dedication and innovation towards the sustainability of New Zealand’s ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • More progress for women and we can do more
    Minister for Women Julie Anne Genter welcomes leaders in the private sector taking action on closing their gender pay gaps to ensure a fairer workplace for all New Zealanders. Ms Genter today launched a new report, Addressing the gender pay gap and driving women’s representation in senior leadership, from the Champions for ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • Proposals to curb environmental damage help our coasts and the oceans
    Government Ministers today welcomed the release of a marine environment report highlighting the four key issues affecting our oceans, estuaries and coastlines.  The release underlines the importance of government proposals to combat climate pollution, ensure clean freshwater, protect biodiversity, make land use more sustainable, and reduce waste and plastic.    Environment ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • New mental health facility for Waikato
    The Government has approved funding for a new acute mental health facility for Waikato which will provide better care and support to people with mental health and addiction issues. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Health Minister Dr David Clark announced the $100 million project to replace the aging Henry Rongomau ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • 500 new te reo Māori champions in our classrooms
    The Government is making progress on its goal to integrate te reo Māori into education by 2025, with over 500 teachers and support staff already graduating from Te Ahu o te Reo Māori,  Associate Education Minister Kelvin Davis announced today. Kelvin Davis made the announcement at an awards ceremony in Waikanae today, for ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • Minister James Shaw welcomes 2018 Census first release
    Statistics Minister James Shaw has welcomed the first release of 2018 Census data. The first release of data today, 23 September, includes key data on population, regional growth, the number of homes and the size of different ethnic groups in New Zealand. Data from the 2018 Census will support the ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • Driving transparency, ethics and accountability in government use of algorithms
    Minister for Statistics James Shaw today announced a public consultation on a proposed algorithm charter for government agencies. The charter has been developed by the Government Chief Data Steward in response to growing calls for more transparency in government use of data. Computer algorithms – procedures or formulas for solving ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • New Zealand and the Netherlands working together on climate change
    Agriculture Minister Damien O’Connor, Climate Change Minister James Shaw and visiting Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte co-hosted a business roundtable in Auckland this morning focused on working together to address climate change.  “The Netherlands is an important partner for New Zealand. We share a strong agricultural history. Sustainable agribusiness and ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • Protecting fairness for workers and businesses
    The Government is taking action to build an inclusive economy where more of us receive our fair share at work and businesses can compete on great products and services, not undercutting wages and conditions, Immigration and Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Iain Lees-Galloway says. Two consultations launched today seek feedback ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • Indigenous Freshwater Fish Bill Passes
    The future for New Zealand’s threatened indigenous freshwater fish looks brighter with the passing of the Conservation (Indigenous Freshwater Fish) Amendment Bill in Parliament today said Minister of Conservation, Eugenie Sage. “Until now, our freshwater fish legislation has been 20 years out of date. We have lacked effective tools to ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • Kiwis to take part in world’s biggest earthquake drill
    At 1.30pm tomorrow, hundreds of thousands of Kiwis will join about 65 million people around the globe in ShakeOut, the world’s biggest earthquake drill. The annual drill is to remind people of the right action to take during an earthquake which is to Drop, Cover, Hold, and to practise their ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • Rising wages and low inflation supporting Kiwis
    Kiwis are benefiting from higher wage growth and low inflation under the Coalition Government. Stats NZ data out today shows the rise in the cost of living remains low, as annual Consumers Price Index (CPI) inflation fell to 1.5% in September from 1.7% in June. “The low inflation comes as ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • NZ economy strong amid global headwinds
    New Zealand’s economic strength and resilience has been recognised in a major update on the state of the global economy. The IMF’s latest World Economic Outlook released overnight shows a reduced global growth forecast over the next two years as issues like the US-China trade war and Brexit take hold. ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • Keeping New Zealanders safer with better counter-terrorism laws
    Justice Minister Andrew Little has today introduced a new Bill to prevent terrorism and support the de-radicalisation of New Zealanders returning from overseas. The Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) Bill gives the New Zealand Police the ability to apply to the High Court to impose control orders on New Zealanders who ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • Improved succession and dispute resolution core of Ture Whenua changes
    A Bill that proposes targeted changes to simplify the processes for Māori land owners when engaging with the Māori Land Court has had its First Reading today. “The approach taken by the Government is to ensure that the protection of Māori land remains a priority as we seek to improve ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • Speech to CTU Biennial Conference
    Let me first thank all the new unionists and members in the room. There is nothing more important to improving people’s working lives than people making the decision to care, to get on board and help, to take up the reins and get involved. Congratulations to you. You bring the ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • Minister ensures continued Whenuapai flight operations
    Minister of Defence Ron Mark has signed a certificate exempting the activity of engine testing at Whenuapai Airbase from the Resource Management Act 1991. The Act gives the Minister of Defence the power to exempt activities for the purposes of national security.  The certificate will mean the recent Environment Court ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • NZ joins Coalition of Finance Ministers for Climate Action
    Finance Minister Grant Robertson has announced New Zealand will join the Coalition of Finance Ministers for Climate Action while attending APEC meetings in Chile. The objective of the 39 member Coalition is to share information and promote action to tackle climate change. It was formed in April this year, in ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • Feedback Sought – Section 71 – Lyttelton Parking
    Feedback sought– Lyttelton commercial zone parking  The Associate Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration, Poto Williams, is seeking feedback on a proposal to remove on-site car parking requirements for new developments in the Lyttelton commercial zone.  The proposal, by Christchurch City Council, asks that powers under section 71 of the Greater ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    5 days ago
  • Feedback Sought – Section 71 – Hagley Oval
    Hon Minister Poto Williams Associate Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration   MEDIA STATEMENT       Tuesday 15 October 2019 Feedback sought – Hagley Oval The Associate Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration, Poto Williams, is seeking feedback on a proposal about Hagley Oval. The proposal was developed by Regenerate Christchurch ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    5 days ago
  • CTU speech – DPM
    Ladies and gentlemen, NZCTU President Richard Wagstaff, members of respective unions – thank you for the invitation to speak to you today. This might be preaching to the choir, but the importance of trade unions in New Zealand’s historical arch is difficult to understate. And it is my belief that ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    5 days ago
  • Police Association Annual Conference
    "Let’s start by acknowledging that it has been a huge year. " Police Association Annual Conference James Cook Grand Chancellor Hotel Wellington Nau mai, haere mai. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, ka nui te mihi, ki a koutou katoa. President of the Police Association, Chris Cahill; Members of the Association and ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    5 days ago
  • New Zealand announces a further P-3 deployment in support of UN sanctions
    Minister of Foreign Affairs Winston Peters and Minister of Defence Ron Mark have announced the New Zealand Government’s decision to again deploy a Royal New Zealand Air Force P-3K2 (P-3) maritime patrol aircraft to support the implementation of United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolutions imposing sanctions against North Korea. New ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    5 days ago
  • New Zealand deeply concerned at developments in north-east Syria
    Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters says New Zealand continues to have serious concerns for peace and stability in north-east Syria. “Recent reports that hundreds of ISIS-affiliated families have fled from a camp are deeply concerning from a humanitarian and security perspective”, Mr Peters says. “While we acknowledge Turkey’s domestic security ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    5 days ago
  • Government on high alert for stink bugs
    Biosecurity Minister Damien O’Connor is warning travelling Kiwis to be vigilant as the high-season for the crop-eating brown marmorated stink bug (BMSB) is under way. “We’re on high alert to stop BMSB arriving in NZ. The high season runs until April 30 and we’ve strengthened our measures to stop stink ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    5 days ago
  • Better protections for students in halls of residence
    The Government is moving swiftly to change the law to improve the welfare and pastoral care of students living in university halls of residence and other tertiary hostels. Cabinet has agreed to several changes, including creating a new mandatory Code of Practice that sets out the duty of pastoral care ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • New trapping guide for community and expert trappers alike
    The Minister for Conservation Eugenie Sage has launched a new comprehensive trapping guide for community trappers to help them protect our native birds, plants and other wildlife, at Zealandia in Wellington today. ‘A practical guide to trapping’, has been developed by the Department of Conservation (DOC), and was launched during ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • Widening Access to Contraceptives Welcomed
    Associate Health Minister Julie Anne Genter welcomes PHARMAC’s move to improve access to long-acting reversible contraception (LARCs). PHARMAC has today announced it will fund the full cost of Mirena and Jaydess for anyone seeking long term contraception, lifting previous restrictions on access to Mirena. “I welcome women having greater choices ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • Major upgrade for Taranaki Base Hospital
    The Government has approved the next stage of a major redevelopment of Taranaki Base Hospital, which will deliver new and improved facilities for patients. Health Minister Dr David Clark has announced details of a $300 million dollar project to build a new East Wing at the New Plymouth hospital. It ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Extra support for rural families
    Extra funding will allow Rural Support Trusts to help farming families, says Minister for Rural Communities and Agriculture Damien O’Connor. “I know that rural families are worried about some of the challenges facing them, including the ongoing uncertainty created by the Mycoplasma bovis outbreak. “Those concerns sit alongside ongoing worries ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Howard Leaque Beekeeper programme graduation
    Thank you for the opportunity to be here to present certificates to the 16 graduates who have completed a beekeeping course delivered by the Howard League.  Let us start by acknowledging Auckland Prison’s Deputy Prison Director Tom Sherlock, and Acting Assistant Regional Commissioner of Corrections Northern Region Scott Walker - ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Finance Minister to attend APEC meetings
    Finance Minister Grant Robertson leaves this weekend to attend the APEC Finance Ministers meeting in Santiago, Chile. Discussions between APEC Finance Ministers at the meeting will include the effects of the current global economic uncertainty, risks for APEC economies and sustainable development of the region. While at APEC Grant Robertson ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Pacific languages are a source of strength, they ground us and build confidence
    The Minister for Pacific Peoples Aupito William Sio says for Pacific people, language can be a source of strength. It can help ground us and give us confidence. When we speak them, our languages provide us with an immediate and intimate access to our identity and our story - and ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Major boost to support disabled people in sport and recreation
    The Coalition Government has announced an action plan to improve the wellbeing of disabled New Zealanders by addressing inequalities in play, active recreation and sport. The initiative includes training to develop a workforce that understands the needs of children and young people with a range of impairments, advocacy for fit ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • More prefab homes to be built as red tape cut
    The construction sector is being freed up to allow more homes to be built more quickly as the Government cuts through some of the red tape of the Building Act.  “Every New Zealander deserves a warm, dry, safe home and old inefficiencies in the Building Act make building slow and ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago