Lord Monckton complains to VUW

These documents posted two days ago on the NZ Climate Science Coalition’s web site record Christopher Monckton’s complaint against Victoria University of Wellington for refusing him access to its campus, for dishonesty and for slandering him.

Document 1. Lord Monckton’s complaint, repeated below.
Document 2. Is CO2 mitigation cost-effective? A paper to be published soon.
Document 3. Professor Boston’s fraudulent graph. Referring to the professor’s use in 2008 of a faulty IPCC graph from the AR4, 2007.

Here is the full text of his complaint, addressed to the Vice-Chancellor, Professor Pat Walsh.

11 April 2013

Professor Pat Walsh, Vice-Chancellor,

Victoria University of Wellington.

[email protected]


Dishonesty and other serious misconduct by three staff

I should be grateful if you would investigate dishonesty and other serious breaches of your university’s code of conduct on the part of three staff.

Professor Jonathan Boston

Professor Boston refused to permit the organizer of my current speaking tour of New Zealand to book a lecture theatre at your university, on the ground that he does not permit academic freedom on the question of climate change, raising fundamental questions about not only his but also the university’s commitment to academic freedom of discussion on important scientific and economic questions. I had hoped, inter alia, to present results of the paper at flag 1, which is to be published later this year in the 45th Annual Proceedings of the World Federation of Scientists. Dr. Pachauri of the IPCC, pointing out in Melbourne recently that global warming has paused for 17 years, said that “no issues should be off limits for public discussion”. Perhaps the message did not reach Professor Boston.

On investigation, I discover that Professor Boston has dishonestly used and still circulates a fraudulent graph, which he displays on your university’s website. He either knows it is fraudulent or is reckless whether it is fraudulent. Details are at flag 2. Professor Boston also unleashed a spectacular series of untruthful and defamatory remarks about me to the tour organizer who spoke to him. In this, too, he was dishonest and acted in bad faith.

His misconduct breaches the staff conduct policy as follows: 4.7.9.n (dishonesty); 4.1 (requirement to act with integrity and in a professional manner); 4.7.1.f (academic practices likely to bring the university into disrepute); 4.7.7 (exercise of academic freedom must be consistent with the obligation to act in good faith); and 4.7.9.j (behaving unreasonably so as to bring the university into disrepute).

Professor James Renwick

Professor James Renwick recently gave an interview to an agency reporter for the New Zealand Herald, which widely published an article containing libellous comments by him on its website on 2 April, 2013. The offending passage is below:

“Dr James Renwick, associate professor of physical geography at Victoria University, dismissed Lord Monckton’s views as ‘rubbish’.

‘He’s a great showman and speaker, and climate change is a vehicle to self-publicise. But he has no training and has studiously avoided learning anything about science, I would say.’”

I have not met Professor Renwick. I do not think he has attended any of my lectures or read any of my published papers on climate change. In saying I have “no training” he has lied. I have a Cambridge degree in Classical Architecture. The course included instruction in mathematics. I was last year’s Nerenberg Lecturer in Mathematics at the University of Western Ontario.

In saying I have “studiously avoided learning anything about science”, Professor Renwick has lied again. From the paper at flag 1 your investigators will be able to form some opinion of the extent to which I have learned anything about science.

In saying that “climate change is a vehicle to self-publicize” and that my views are “rubbish”, Professor Renwick is delivering gratuitous, baseless and childish insults, delivered in his capacity as a Professor at your university. Professors, qua Professors, have no business bringing the university into disrepute by thus viciously trying to do harm to the reputation of a blameless third party.

Professor Renwick’s serious misconduct breaches the staff conduct policy as follows: 4.7.9.n (dishonesty); 4.1 (requirement to act with integrity and in a professional manner); 4.7.1.f (academic practices likely to bring the university into disrepute); and 4.7.9.j (behaving unreasonably so as to bring the university into disrepute).

Professor David Frame

Professor David Frame also gave an interview to the agency journalist, and was reported as follows:

“Professor Dave Frame, director of the Climate Change Research Institute at Victoria University, described him as a ‘vaudeville act’ to be ignored.

“‘Someone who goes around saying things we know are not true can actually be quite harmful.’”

Professor Frame’s widely-circulated allegation that I “go around saying things we know are not true”, delivered and widely circulated in his capacity as a Professor at your university, is a grave libel. It imputes dishonesty to me without providing any evidence of my supposed dishonesty so that I can answer it. In making such an allegation Professor Frame is himself dishonest.

His insults to the effect that I am nothing more than a “vaudeville act” and that I am to be ignored, delivered in his capacity as a Professor at your university and widely circulated, were calculated to do me unjustifiable harm and to bring the university into disrepute.

In a separate published statement, Professor Frame issued further insults and said he refused to debate with me because he did not want to give my arguments “credibility”. In effect, he was admitting he would lose the debate, for if my arguments had won the debate they would not have lost credibility.

Professor Frame’s serious misconduct breaches the staff conduct policy as follows: 4.7.9.n (dishonesty); 4.1 (requirement to act with integrity and in a professional manner); 4.7.1.f (academic practices likely to bring the university into disrepute); and 4.7.9.j (behaving unreasonably so as to bring the university into disrepute).


I shall be content if, upon investigation, the following remedial steps were taken:

Professor Boston’s fraudulent graph should be removed forthwith from the university’s website. Otherwise, a complaint of scientific fraud may be made to the police. Severe damage has been done to the finances of working New Zealanders by the connected series of international serious scientific frauds that have exaggerated both the likely rate of global warming and the supposed consequences.

Professor Boston should write to the organizer of my tour to apologize for having spat upon academic freedom by refusing her – on improper grounds – the opportunity to book a lecture theatre.

Professors Renwick and Frame should each be invited to write to me to apologize for their libels circulated on the New Zealand Herald’s website, and to undertake not to repeat them in future.

Yours faithfully,

Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

Attached: Flag 1 Climate paper Is CO2 mitigation cost-effective?

Flag 2 Professor Boston’s fraudulent graph.

127 Thoughts on “Lord Monckton complains to VUW

  1. Hi Pete,

    Different Richard. Richard C doesn’t run the blog and didn’t write that post.

    Interesting comments, though, thanks.


  2. Hi Richard (Treadgold),

    Sorry about that – I once again thought that it was you commenting when it was Richard Cumming (http://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2012/12/im-a-tree-why-not-feed-me/#comment-167862).

    Best regards, Pete Ridley

  3. Hi Richard C (NZ),

    Maybe blogging group PSI’s latest “recruit” Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov, Head of Space Research of the Sun Sector at the Pulkovo Observatory, St. Petersburg, Russia has concluded that PSI is just too much of a big joke for his liking.

    After being proudly announced as a new member by PSI’s “Recruitment Officer” on 28th April (http://principia-scientific.org/supportnews/latest-news/179-dr-habibullo-abdussamatov-joins-principia-scientific-international.html) Dr. Abdussamatov advised on 21st May that he had “walked away from the PSI”.

    Terry Jackson has now added to the end of that article “” .. Regrettably Dr. Abdussamatov has now resigned from PSI .. “. No doubt regrettable for PSI but it appears not for Dr. Abdussamatov.

    Despite having “walked away from the PSI” Dr. Abdussamatov’s name remains among PSI’s “member biographies” (http://principia-scientific.org/about/why-psi-is-a-private-assoc.html). It is the same with the members of Dr. Myron Evans’s Alpha Institute of Advanced Studies (AIAS). Dr. Evans made it absolutely clear in Nov. 2012 that AIAS had not joined PSI yet about 20 AIAS members names still appear in that list of “member biographies”. It seems that once a name gets into that list it is very hard to get it removed. Perhaps that is the basis on which PSI claims to have 200+ members.

    What a joke!

    My latest update to “SpotlightON -PSI and PSI ACumen Ltd” discusses this (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/spotlighton-principia-scientific.html).

    Best regards, Pete Ridley

  4. Skeptics Skeptic on August 4, 2013 at 7:41 pm said:

    Christopher Monkton has no qualifications specifically relating to climate science. He has been debunked by scientists and science journalists alike, why should we take his opinion on anything to do with climate change or our reaction to it?

  5. and you are?

  6. Rajenda Pachauri, head of the IPCC, ‘has no qualifications specifically relating to climate science’. He has been debunked by the empirical evidence from numerous sources, as have his scientists that predicted such doom from AGW. Monckton has far more credibility because he deals with empirical evidence, instead of unfounded speculation based on failed computer models:


    Monckton deals with the blue squares and the green circles at the bottom (you know, reality), whilst the IPCC and your buddy Pachauri deals with all the squiggly lines above that are wrong, wrong, wrong (you know, fantasy).

  7. He has been debunked by scientists and science journalists alike

    Much as I don’t like responding to drive-by trolling, the idea of “science journalists” debunking someone with no science qualifications seems somewhat ironic to me.

    How many of these “science journalists” have any science qualifications?

    Furthermore, why does a lack of science qualifications preclude someone from asking a rational and reasoned critique of another field?

    If I go to the doctor and he prescribes a treatment, then I am quite likely to research that treatment myself, rather than take everything at face value

Comment navigation


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation