Entertaining, informative Lord Monckton — peerless

This event is over. It was a great success, with as many turned away as were admitted.

the northern club

The Climate Realists network, most ably and energetically led by our good friends Esther and Neil Henderson, have managed the coup of this deepening southern winter by prevailing upon Christopher Monckton to extend his tour Downunder and visit New Zealand when he’s finished stirring up our Aussie cousins. Well done, the Hendersons! Brave of you, m’Lord! Now come on, you lot, hurry up so you don’t miss out!

UPDATE 27 July: At last! First public climate debate in NZ!

Debate confirmed for evening of Thursday 4th August. Hosted by PRINZ. See Christopher Monckton go head-to-head with atmospheric physicist Professor Geoff Austin. Details below.

Lord Monckton’s engagements

Come one, come all

These events are not just for the “climate sceptics” among us. Lord Monckton talks to everyone and everyone will be entertained. And he thrives on hecklers.

Media representatives

For more information please contact Climate Realists; contact details are on their web site.

Thursday 4th August

Lunch: the Northern Club.

Evening: AUT Akoranga Campus, debate.

map showing the Northern Club

Northern Club luncheon

This will be a most entertaining lunch; we urge you to come along and bring a guest.

Club members: to purchase tickets, please contact the club.
Non-members: to purchase tickets, please email Climate Realists (NZ):

info AT climaterealists.org.nz.
Payment is required in advance.


Thursday 4th August
12:15 pm – 2:00 pm — Business lunch

venue: The Northern Club, 19 Princes St, Auckland.

time: 12:15 for 12:30 start

contact: non-members — email info@climaterealists.org.nz to book

cost: Members $38.50; non-members $48.00; (includes two-course lunch with wine)

Payment is required in advance. Numbers are limited, so book promptly.

map showing the AUT on the North Shore

PRINZ AUT North Shore debate

The first public climate debate in New Zealand.

To purchase tickets: visit the PRINZ event page “Is the Climate Change Debate over?”.


Thursday 4th August
5:00 pm – 7:45 pm — Public meeting and debate

This PRINZ event will take the form of a discussion of man-made global warming issues between climate change skeptic Viscount Christopher Monckton, a British hereditary peer, journalist and businessman, and University of Auckland atmospheric physicist Professor Geoff Austin.

venue: Lecture Theatre AF116, AUT Akoranga Campus, Akoranga Drive, Northcote, North Shore.

time: 5:00 pm – 7:45 pm

contact: visit PRINZ web site to book.

cost: $50.00 ($57.50 inc. GST)

campus map: download a map of the AUT Akoranga campus

Payment is required in advance. Numbers are limited, so book promptly.

An occasion with Lord Monckton not to be missed

Global climate change is seen by many as the world’s biggest threat. But is it real, or are we subject to some kind of monstrous “group think”? How has the science behind climate change been formulated and communicated? Is the science reliable? Do the policies now being enacted at (our) great expense stand any chance of stopping the warming? What does the future hold?

Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

Leading climate change skeptic Viscount Christopher Monckton — hereditary British peer, journalist, businessman and entertaining public speaker – says:

  • Global temperature change is well within natural variation
  • The so-called spate of extreme weather is a myth: there were more cyclones in the 1800s than there are today
  • Consensus (of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scientists) does not make climate change true
  • If you choose your time-frame carefully you can make any trend look as if it is increasing or decreasing
  • Al Gore’s movie An Inconvenient Truth is riddled with inconvenient errors

Lord Monckton will explain why carbon dioxide is beneficial to the Earth and mankind, that it is not a pollutant, that emissions of it, mainly natural, cannot and will not change natural rises and falls in global temperature which have occurred throughout history.

Any attempts by humans to “control” the temperature of the Earth cannot succeed, and the imposition of charges such as our ETS tax cause pain without any possible gain. After his address, Lord Monckton will welcome questions from the audience.

Lord Monckton is a most entertaining speaker — whichever side of the global warming debate you support.

Leave a Reply

8 Comment threads
13 Thread replies
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
8 Comment authors
Notify of

[…] Monckton*, a high-profile global warming skeptic, will be coming to New Zealand from the Climate Conversation Group, and am encouraged that this might see some debate in New Zealand over the issue of anthropogenic […]


I hope Ken can make it. I know he loves Monckton


O/T, but check out my beach cross-country skiing pictures from today!



O/T but Ken Perrot appears to be claiming that this is a right-wing hate site that is tacitly supporting the mass murder in Norway by not explicitly condemning it.

I guess it’s best to ignore comments like this,

Here and in the US and the UK the support he gets are from people who already think the same way. Don’t forget his manifesto is basically a cut and past of hate mongering easily found on the internet. It is the sort of stuff previously presented here by people like Treadgold and local conservative Chrsitians and that you yourself are advancing.

but you can add your tuppence if you want. I’ve got drawn into it but wish I hadn’t


Thanks, Andy. Once someone is finally talking to Perrott he never lets them go, they have to tear themselves away. He makes outrageous statements to get people to talk to him because he’s incapable of having an ordinary conversation or asking how you’re getting on. He’s a lightweight and I won’t waste my energy on him. There’s no rational connection between climate scepticism, religious fundamentalism, world government and mass murder, and it’s stupid to suggest one. Perrott is a cretin.

Anthropogenic Global Cooling

Ken’s only chance of expanding his readership beyond his 4 regular website visitors is to try to draw people to his site by spouting complete rubbish (in much the same way as I mentioned the NZ Herald does). My advice is not to fall into his trap, he’ll never admit he’s wrong anyway regardless of how obvious it is so it’s a waste of time. Perrott’s just an attention junkie who wants his readership to rise from 4 to 5. Ignore him, he’ll fade into obscurity where he belongs.


Word has it (via Ken Shock on Facebook) that the Greens have pulled out of the Auckland debate “There has been a change of plan for us in relation to Dr Graham’s debate with Lord Monckton. Earlier today the TV show Q&A approached us about our Co-leader Dr Russel Norman debating Lord Monckton on that show this Sunday morning. Dr Norman is unable to do the show as he is out of the country, but the invitation sparked a conversation within our leadership about would he have appeared anyway. We made the decision that he would not have, and for that reason Dr Graham has decided it is no longer appropriate for him to debate Lord Monckton if our leadership wouldn’t. I want to stress that Dr Graham accepted your offer to debate in good faith, and continued to be happy to debate right up until our party position on the matter changed. On reflection we do not think it is appropriate for our party leader to debate with Lord Monckton on the science of climate change as that sends a message that there is uncertainty regarding the existence and causes of climate… Read more »

Bob D

Not surprising really. They probably watched Dr Denniss getting destroyed, and realised they had no other arguments beyond Consensus either.

Bob D

Maybe this is Mike Palin’s big chance, he said he was ready at any time. He can’t do worse than Dr Denniss, after all.
Oops, I see Prof Austin has offered to fill the gap. Never mind.

Mike Palin

I’m more than willing to debate Chris Monckton. He can come down to Dunedin or pay my way to any other venue in NZ before August 10. I guarantee a better workout than like-minded Geoff Austin will provide.


Maybe you can tag-team with Geoff Austin at PRINZ on Thursday 4th?
I don’t suppose Monckton’s itinerary will extend to The Mainland, unfortunately.
I am in Auckland on that night so hope to get along and meet the rest of the “cranks”. How will we recognise each other?. Do we all have facial ticks or wear strange masonic lodge regalia?
Maybe a secret handshake, or a paper clip attached to the buttonhole (the emblem of the Norwegian resistance during WW2)?

Richard C (NZ)

Re the politically accepted “scientific consensus” in Andy’s Green Party v Monckton comment. I’ve just had a response from MftE CC in regard to my 18 page case that 7 key climate metrics are not performing as per AGW this century. The case was referenced to at least 20 peer-reviewed papers (many post 2007) and hot-linked to most of them. The case for each metric was accompanied by a challenge repeated from the initial contact e.g. “The challenge remains for MfE CC to compile an observed GAT dataset for this century overlaid with prerequisite levels to validate AGW/IPCC projections and to publish it on the CC website.” Here’s the response (complete with scanned doc conversion typos and the misspelling of my name – a recent development):- ————————————————————————————————————————— Dear Mr Cummings Thank you for your emails of 29 June and 4 July 2011 regarding climate metrics. The Ministry for the Environment does not publish data on the climate trends as this information is widely available from other sources and is updated on an appropriate timescale. Our primary source is the |PCC’s assessment reports, in which peer reviewed data and science is presented with due… Read more »

Bob D

So, apart from their obvious gaffe, how do they explain the fact that in spite of this inevitable, unstoppable inertia pressing forward regardless of future emissions cuts, the oceans are cooling? Whoops.

Richard C (NZ)

“how do they explain”? – natural variability seems to be the answer. I haven’t been pushing an “ocean is cooling” or “planet is cooling” meme with MftE CC, I went with “If the ocean is not warming, there’s no global warming – period.” On reflection, I’m encouraged by Dr Power’s response because it helps set the respective positions for ongoing debate and opens up new angles of attack (among other things) on their “long-term” only rationale. First, for example, Dr Power cites Easterling and Wehner (2009) “ls the climate warming or cooling?”, that gets prominence at blogs like SkepticalScience (no doubt Power is a loyal fan). Paper linked here:- http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/csi/images/GRL2009_ClimateWarming.pdf It looks at observed linear trends (simplistically) and modeled trends (why I don’t know – includes Meehl et al. 2007). Now I’m not denying that there’s been an underlying trend of global warming over the last 300 years as perhaps Power thinks I do, I’m just questioning the attribution of significant anthropogenic influence. So where in that 300 year series is there evidence (apparent or proven) of an anthropogenically forced acceleration? And if its there, why has natural variability overridden it as Easterling… Read more »

Mike Jowsey

Richard C – magnificent self-control, mate. Tell ya, when my thermal lag kicks in there is no stopping it. However, this bit really yanks one’s crank (among others) (- actually I didn’t read any further (yet. (please excuse the multi-nested parentheses))- very short lag on this one):

…in which peer reviewed data and science is presented with due consideration for its policy relevance

right there!
With Due Consideration To….POLICY

’nuff said. Welcome to 1984

Richard C (NZ)

Mike, thanks for highlighting that. I don’t think I would have seen the subtlety otherwise and its amazing to see it actually written down now that I do.

So if peer-reviewed science and data DOESN’T fit the policy – its excluded.

There’s plenty in that letter when you take it word-for-word and element-by-element but I haven’t got down to that detail yet, I’ll do that when I put the reply together.

BTW others, similar comments to Mike’s would help because in putting together the big picture it’s easy to miss the subtle detail I find in this exercise (I’m appealing for crowd-critique).

Richard C (NZ)

Supports my “a**** about face” rant. Power’s process:-

# On-going peer-reviewed science and data is considered with due consideration for already formed but moribund policy.

Whereas the process we would hope for from our govt:-

# Policy is formed and amended dynamically with due consideration for on-going peer-reviewed science and data.

The latter is the whole point of my “publish the metrics” thrust – how naive of me.


Uncanny timing with respect to 1984 .
This morning, I responded to Ken Shock’s post on the Green party Monckton announcement

“Ignorance is Knowledge – George Orwell 1984, Green Party 2011”

I think I hit a few buttons.


Came across this site via a UK Daily telegraph blog so I thought I’d leave a few thoughts. Because of major scientific errors, no climate model can predict climate. In 2004, NASA physicist Ferenc Miskolczi left because they refused him permission to publish his discovery that ‘back radiation’ in the 1922 paper by English Astronomer Sir Arthur Milne was a mathematical mistake; last year I realised the prediction by Carl Sagan of cooling by polluted clouds supposed to hide high feedback CO2-AGW assumes a single optical process when there are two. NASA knew this by 2004 and commissioned work to find out why. In 2004, NASA [ http://geo.arc.nasa.gov/sgg/singh/winners4.html ] substituted for Twomey’s correct physics, a ‘surface reflection’ idea which apparently reconciled the new observations with theory. There’s no such physics. It was a con. to deceive from authority the rest of oxymoronic ‘climate science’ and it worked. The only ‘evidence’ for high feedback in AR4, ‘cloud albedo effect’ cooling, Figure 2.4, doesn’t exist but climate science accepted it.. Yes, that’s right, AR4’s conclusions are fraudulent. Extend the logic and Miskolczi showed a water planet’s atmosphere self controls about constant greenhouse warming [well less… Read more »

Bob D

Hi Alistair, Interesting thoughts, but I confess I’m confused by one point. You point out the Twomey effect as: The basic premise was simple and a wonderful example of Professor Twomey’s incisive thought: if pollution contributes additional nuclei upon which water can condense, then the condensed mass of water will consist of a larger concentration of smaller drops. The reflectance of the cloud will increase because the total surface area of the condensed water in cloud is greater when spread over more droplets. Although pollution alone may directly affect climate by modifying the absorption and scattering properties of the cloud-free atmosphere, the effect of pollution on clouds is potentially even larger; cloud droplets interact with radiation much more strongly than the nuclei upon which they form because they are typically several orders of magnitude greater in size. So reflectance increases with increased aerosol pollution, and seems to make sense. But then you imply this is incorrect physics (or do you?), by saying: [NASA] substituted for Twomey’s correct physics, a ‘surface reflection’ idea which apparently reconciled the new observations with theory. There’s no such physics. It was a con. What then was the correct… Read more »


Geoff Austin (scheduled to debate Monckton on Aug 4th) has an article in today’s Herald

Clouded thinking hampers science


I guess the warmists will claim that this debate is a head-to-head of like-minded “deniers” blah blah

Post Navigation