Posted by: Barry Bickmore | August 19, 2014

The Monckton Files: Threatwatch 1

One of the truly amusing facets of being a Monckton-o-phile like myself is watching His Lordship veritably explode in a barrage of bombastic threats when he is cornered… or even when he’s passing random people on the street. For your amusement, and to keep the “Threatening Those Who Disagree With Him” section of Lord Monckton’s Rap Sheet current, I give you the following recent examples.

A few weeks ago, I noted that Lord Monckton had even started threatening fellow climate contrarians, including solar physicist Leif Svaalgard and Willis Eschenbach. He claimed he was writing to Svaalgard’s university administration to get him in trouble for saying a certain part of Dr. David Evans’s wacky curve-fitted climate model was “almost fraudulent”.

For my part, I am referring Mr Svalgaard’s long list of malicious comments about Dr Evans (but not about me: I give as good as I get) to his university, which will know best how to handle the matter, for there is a rather delicate aspect that I am not at liberty to discuss here. The university will most certainly realize that the do-nothing option is not an option. The libel is too grave and too persistent. My lawyers are looking at it tomorrow to see whether malice is present, in which case the damages would triple, to say nothing of the costs. Their corresponding lawyers in the U.S. will be giving advice on whether Dr Evans would count in U.S. law as a “public figure”, Probably not, from what I know of the “public-figure” test, in which event, in order to enforce the judgement of the Australian courts in the U.S., it would not be necessary to prove malice (for, though malice seems evident, the test in Australian law is high).

Well, guess what? I asked Leif Svalgaard about it the other day, and he hasn’t heard a thing about it from his administration. Could it be that Monckton didn’t actually carry out his threat?

Ah, the memories. When I first encountered Monckton, he said he was instigating an academic misconduct investigation against me at my university, but a Salt Lake Tribune reporter followed up and found out that there was no such investigation. Much later, he did actually send a couple e-mails to my university threatening a libel suit and saying I was mentally imbalanced, but the administration essentially ignored them.

During the unpleasantness between Monckton and Svalgaard, His Lordship objected strongly when Svalgaard linked Lord Monckton’s Rap Sheet. His Veracity grated,

I note that another commenter here has accused me of fraud, and has cited a particular website much of whose contents I had not previously seen. My lawyers will be visiting me early next week to deal with some of the allegations on that website.

I thought maybe I would be getting another call from my department chair to inform me that Monckton had threatened me again, but what do you know? Weeks have passed, and I haven’t heard a thing! Perhaps his crack team of lawyers told him that I can’t be sued for simply chronicling his public exploits and expressing my amusement.

Meanwhile, trouble was brewing in the U.K., where Stoat blogger William Connolley was guessing that the source of a very misleading graph was an article in the Daily Telegraph written by His Lordship. One problem with the graph was that it compared two temperature history graphs from different IPCC reports, but the one from 2001 was for the entire globe Northern Hemisphere, while the one supposedly from 1995 was for Central England, only. The first graph was actually based on one from the 1990 report, whereas in the text of the article Monckton said it was from 1995. The graphs were attributed to the IPCC, but did not have important features like error bars included in the Telegraph version.

Then Monckton showed up and started posturing.

Mr Connolley falsely accuses me of having fabricated a graph in whose selection, drafting and publication I played no part whatsoever. I should be grateful if he would remove all references to my having “faked” or fabricated this graph, and if he would kindly notify me when he has done so.

When Connolley pointed out that the graph had showed up in an article under his name, and asked who WAS responsible for it, Monckton resolutely refused to answer and dropped the “L” word (libel).

Mr Connolley now concedes he does not know whether I faked the figure. He made a serious, libellous allegation of dishonesty on my part without knowing whether the allegation was true.

I now invite him to retract his grave allegation of dishonesty on my part and to apologize for it.

After a bit of back-and-forth, Monckton made the implied threat more explicit.

If Mr Connolley will kindly give me his address for service, my lawyers will write to him. If he will not give me his name and address, they will serve an order on the ISP requiring it to provide the necessary details.

William told me a while ago that he hadn’t heard from Monckton’s lawyers, and I’m betting that’s still the case. William?  [UPDATE:  William says he’s heard nothing.  See comments below.]

The funny thing about all this is that Monckton admitted his date of the 1990 figure was wrong, and that these were essentially the graphs he was referring to in the article. And as Kevin O’Neill pointed out, Monckton had given permission for another publication to reprint the article–graph and all–so he can hardly claim he didn’t approve of the graph. So why would he get bent out of shape at all if someone assumed he made the graphic for his own article?

The story of the Graph of Mystery doesn’t end there, however. On the same comment thread, Kevin O’Neill had pointed out that the Visionlearning website (which provides high quality science education resources) had used the same graph as an example in an article section entitled “Misuse of Scientific Images”, and pegged Monckton’s article as the source. Shortly thereafter, the commenters noticed that all reference to Monckton as the graph’s creator disappeared from the Visionlearning article, although they kept the graph as their example. (See the original on the Wayback Machine, and the present version here.) Some wondered whether Monckton had threatened the Visionlearning folks, too.  I confirmed through some backchannels that this was the case.

Last, but not least, a Scottish TV reporter interviewed His Veracity about some aspects of Scottish politics (he is was the leader of the UKIP fringe party in Scotland), and found his grasp of Scottish political history to be a bit wanting. (That is, he made something up out of thin air regarding a rival politician.) But that’s not even the funny part. This is.

Viscount Monckton, who is president of UKIP in Scotland, said: “We have all had people from the SNP on the streets, saying ‘You sound English’ — in fact, I’m more Scottish than most Scots — but ‘You sound English, so go back to England’. Now, that is racism, it’s actually against the law. We’ve told one or two of the people who have said that to us, ‘Don’t do it again, or we’ll have you for it’.”

So some random Scots yell “Go back to England,” and Monckton threatens to have them jailed for racism! It’s just too fantastic for words.

UPDATE:  Within minutes of initially posting this, I found out that Monckton has threatened me once again on another comment board!  A commenter named Warren told Monckton:

You continue to make these misleading arguments in spite of your close following of Climate Science; it seems a piece with your repeated claims, publicly refuted by the House of Lords, that you are a member; or your earlier claims to have found a cure for AIDS and the common cold.

Monckton replied:

Finally “Warren” resorts to ad-hominem irrelevancies that are also inaccurate. He inaccurately accuses me of claiming I can cure AIDS and other diseases. I make no such claim, though I am engaged in research in this field. Likewise, “Warren” is no more expert on peerage law, for instance, than the ignorant and politicized Clerk of the Parliaments, one Beamish, who says I am not a member of the House. In the narrow sense imagined by the 1999 Act that took away most hereditary peers’ right to sit and vote, I am self-evidently not a member of the House, and I had made the fact of my ineligibility to sit or vote explicit in the answer to a radio interviewer that Beamish whined about without having bothered to take the elementary precaution, required in the interest of natural justice, of hearing my side of the case first. However, a legal Opinion that I obtained after that cringing, custard-faced Clerkling’s unlawful remarks makes it plain that “The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley is a member of the House of Lords, and he is fully entitled to say so.”

To which Warren replied:

You accused me of ‘ad hominem attack’. I posted your false claim about being a member of the House of Lords to let the readers know they shouldn’t trust your claims about AGW either — but that’s only the tip of the iceberg – readers should go here to see your full, incredible, rap sheet: Monckton:…  How do you sleep at night?

Can you guess what came next?  Of course you can.  Monckton threatened me.  And then he COMMANDED Warren to “raise his game or be silent”.

Likewise, “Warren” refers readers to a more than averagely libelous instance of ad-hominem hate-speech that seems to have been posted up on the Web by a disgruntled person. Now that Warren has drawn my attention to that web page, I shall pass the matter on to my lawyers so that they can issue proceedings against the perpetrator.

Finally, “Warren” himself is guilty of libel by suggesting that I had made a “false” claim to be a member of the House of Lords. My legal advice was that what I had said in answer to a question from a journalist was at all points accurate, reasonable, and proportionate. “Warren” has no more knowledge of peerage law than he does of climate science, economics, or the methods of conducting a scientific discourse. In short, he is out of his depth and out of his league. He must raise his game or be silent.




  1. Taking into account the likelihood of psychological projection, his accusations of mental imbalance in others might be quite significant.

  2. I’ve heard nothing. I haven’t even had an email, from him, though there were some comments on my blog ( Bizarrely, I *did* get an email from Watts, asking for my permission to pass my email on to M (why M didn’t email me directly I don’t know, my email isn’t hard to find; why he wanted email when he was commenting on my blog; ditto). Just to wind him up, I answered in his comments rather than by mail; I copied the exchange to It went nowhere though.

    However, *formally*, all this is in a bit of a limbo. Someone *calling* himself M-of-B has written these things and made these threats – but how do we know its the real M?

    • An army of sock puppets pretending to be Monckton is a scary thought.

    • “how do we know its the real M?”

      There is no “we”. I have no way of knowing whether you are the real “C”. In fact, I’m not entirely sure I am the real “M2”. 🙂

  3. Monckton appears incapable for whatever reason of admitting that he isn’t a member of the House Of Lords when the truth is so plain. The idea of membership was tested in the courts as the Clerk states in his letter ( ) and the verdict is clear. Monckton is not a member of the Lords. If Monckton were to sue for libel on that one, the case would be very short, notwithstanding his tame solicitor’s opinion for all that is worth.

    • Yes, see my take on the opinion by Monckton’s lawyer here:

      And if he actually had a case, why would he bother suing ME over it, when he could press the issue with the Clerk in the British Courts? He paid his lawyer to draft an opinion on it, after all.

    • What you have to understand about Monckton’s act is that it is a living. To quote Rick Perlstein on the Long Con

      The strategic alliance of snake-oil vendors and conservative true believers points up evidence of another successful long march, of tactics designed to corral fleeceable multitudes all in one place—and the formation of a cast of mind that makes it hard for either them or us to discern where the ideological con ended and the money con began. .

      The problem being of course, to keep the mob riled up fresh meat has to be delivered daily.

      • The quote sounds like it’s talking about windmill marketeers.

  4. I wish I still had imaginary friends, and that they were lawyers too. It would make life a lot easier when I screwed up.
    Has ANYONE received any communication from someone verified as “One” of Moncton’s lawyers

    • Indeed – one the one occasion when Monckton did actually go to law – he tried to prevent the BBC from broadcasting a film about him – he turned up at court on his own, argued his own case, and lost. As any real lawyer with an ounce of ethics would have told he him he would, as he was, simply, wrong in law.

      • What’s weird about that (I know, I know) is that the programme was actually very generous towards Lord Munchkin. He came over as a sincere, caring person.

  5. Barry, as always it’s fun to read about the exploits of the Monck.

    Two corrections, though, lest you be accused of deliberately posting false information:
    a) The 2001 graph was NH, not global (still, much better than Central England or perhaps a sketch of NW Europe as Lamb prepared)

    b) Monckton no longer leads the UKIP Scotland. He was sacked, and by e-mail no less:

    You know, he could sue you for falsely claiming he leads the UKIP… 😉

    • Fixed, thanks.

      • You’re welcome. Of course I should have written he could *threaten to* sue you… 🙂


  7. You people are as wrong, as Monckton is – only I’m correct – some day, you will be subpoenaed, to appear in court, including Monckton; think about then, you sods:

    • cooling? When we’re still breaking records? When years after “It’s going to be cooling now” has been “predicted” by deniers for 20 years and STILL has gone the other way?

  8. A “metacomment” inspired by “The Monckton Files: Threatwatch 1”

    I’ve noticed that leftists are fascinated by other people while skeptics/libertarians are fascinated by events and things.

    Fox News talks about events in Egypt, then MSNBC comes on and talks about Fox News.

    Monckton talks about things, and you talk about Monckton. Obviously there’s a market for that sort of thing.

    Libertarians: If one doesn’t care what other people think, there’s hardly a reason to read or write about it; but I will admit to some fascination as to why others DO spend precious hours of their lives talking about other people. I may be missing something important but it’s invisible to me.

    • By spending hours of your time talking about other people talking about other people.

      Recursive idiocy.

      There’s probably a psych paper material here…

      • Wow says “There’s probably a psych paper material here.”

        Indeed. I find it fascinating.

        I would abstract such a paper something like this:

        We explore the advent of instantaneous electronic communications in supporting the existence of an alter-ego, an avatar or personality whose existence was constructed to insulate one’s ego from the world. With the advent of blogging, Twitter, and Facebook this avatar or alter-ego can quickly dominate the ego it was designed to hide making it impossible without external intervention to reverse the process.

        We theorize that the nature of the hidden ego can still be determined by locating the dog that doesn’t bark, a metaphor for the topic never discussed which will also be the key to the Ego.

        We further hypothesize that a cloud of deception will encompass the Ego but the Ego itself will be invisible, much like the black hole at the center of a galaxy that cannot be seen but whose gravity anchors the entire galaxy.

        Since all sensory input is filtered by this Avatar, it becomes possible to maintain the Ego in a permanent state of anxiety where it relinquishes control to the alter-ego or Avatar. Truth (a knowledge of things as they were, and as they are, and as they are going to be) never reaches the Ego.

        • Ah, no, what happens is you make some ridiculous comment, I point out how ridiculous is it and when you can no longer support the idiocy, you run off with a “I have had my fun, I go”.

          Lets just pretend that this has happened yet again and you can make up both sides of the conversation. Make sure I use some decent arguments and win again, like always.

          Try again in a few weeks. I may at that point feel like putting the effort into debunking your inanity.

          • Wow commented on The Monckton Files: Threatwatch 1.

            in response to Michael 2. Wow writes: “you run off with a ‘I have had my fun, I go’. “

            I believe you invited me to do exactly that, with a failed promise to be finished with me:

            By: Wow on July 26, 2015 at 1:51 am “Run away now, I’ve finished with you.”

            Oh well. I am glad you aren’t finished with me.

            “Make sure I use some decent arguments…”

            I look forward to you doing so.

            “and win again, like always.”

            Like always. What exactly was your prize for winning?

            • When I’m ready to humiliate you again, I’ll read what you’ve posted.

              Until then, waste your time if you like, no skin of my nose.

  9. […]  We’ll see.  UPDATE:  Svalgaard hasn’t heard back from Monckton.  In fact, Monckton keeps claiming (to others) on the Internet that he is going to sic his lawyers on me for Lord Monckton’s Rap Sheet, but miraculously, I […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: