Posted by: Barry Bickmore | September 15, 2014

The Monckton Files: Hypocrisplosion, Islamophobe Style

That Beacon of Freedom, His Supreme Sagacity, the Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, is now telling the “Patriots” who read World Net Daily that portions of the Koran (the ones that talk about killing infidels) should be outlawed in the USA.

Craven public authorities have failed to act against the circulation of the Quran in its present form because they fear a violent backlash.

How, then, is this manifestly illegal text to be dealt with? It is not our custom to ban books, for freedom of speech is guaranteed by the Constitution.

However, it is our custom to prosecute for incitement to murder. And the fact that incitement is on every page of what is said to be a holy book does not diminish, still less extinguish, the offense.

A bill should be brought before Congress identifying all passages in the Quran which, whether in isolation or taken together, constitute incitement to murder.

The bill should specify that anyone who reads any of these passages out loud is to be charged with that crime and, if convicted, subjected to the usual penalty for it – a long prison term.

The bill should state that, after a grace period of a year, every copy of the Quran must clearly identify by emboldened and different-colored text the passages that constitute criminal incitement to murder, together with a clearly printed warning on the first page that reading any of these passages out loud anywhere within the jurisdiction of the United States may result in prosecution.

But as David Ferguson points out at RawStory, what’s sauce for the Koran is sauce for the Bible.

Monckton cited several passages of the Koran that he says call for the murder of nonbelievers, but failed to include the portions of the Christian Bible that call for the execution of homosexual men (Leviticus 20:13), the stoning death of adulterous women (Luke 16:18) and the killing of “sorceresses” (Exodus 22:17), blasphemers (Leviticus 24:10), and whole cities if they follow other religions (Deuteronomy 13:13-19).

If you are at all surprised by this stunning display of hypocrisy, hark back to the following excerpt from Lord Monckton’s Rap Sheet.

When a philosophy professor at the Rochester Institute of Technology, Lawrence Torcello, wrote an article saying it ought to be against the law to knowingly spread disinformation about climate change for profit, Monckton led the charge to send letters to the university administration asking for Torcello to be disciplined/fired because Torcello was allegedly attacking free speech and academic freedom.  The funny part about this one is Monckton’s flagrant hypocrisy.  Not too long ago, he  threatened to have IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri jailed for fraud (see #9 below) and whipped up an Australian crowd, chanting about having all the corrupt climate scientists jailed.

As always, I’m waiting to see how long it takes for Moncktonites like Anthony Watts and Dick Lindzen to start trying to distance themselves from His Supreme Sagacity.  In the meantime, I offer you the (soon to be updated) “Being An All-Purpose Extremist” section of Lord Monckton’s Rap Sheet.

1. It’s a good thing Monckton has developed a cure for AIDS!  In 1987 he suggested rounding up all AIDS-sufferers and isolating them for life.  Since nobody took his sage advice, he later acknowledged that the problem had gotten too big for his suggestion to be feasible.

2. Monckton suggested it might be a good idea to require scientists to have some kind of religious certification before being allowed to practice in a field like climatology.  You know, because scientists are a pack of atheists who think lying is ok.

3. Monckton claimed that, as a member of Margaret Thatcher’s policy unit, he suggested spiking the Argentines’ water supplies with a “mild bacillus” so the British troops could more easily win the Falklands War.  He said he believed Thatcher had followed his advice, even though this would clearly have been a violation of the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention.




  1. Of course, there’s also the Bible and an undeniably self-referential parable by Jesus himself (if one believes he actually said it): “But as for these enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them–bring them here and slaughter them in my presence.” (Lu 19:27)

    • “…undeniably self-referential parable…”

      Oh well, I am a denier, after all. Clearly the nobleman stands for God in the parable, so that if this is ‘verba ipisisima’ of Jesus about Jesus, it is about Jesus as God reigning over his kingdom after the destruction of the wicked. Not Jesus killing Romans or Herodians or Sadducees in any earthly kingdom he rules over. “…undeniably self-referential parable…” involves a hell of a lot of theological supposition. And naivete. –AGF

      • Hi AG,

        I’m curious about what you think of Monckton’s proposal. I think it’s quite clear that, at least recently, the Muslim world has had a bigger problem with violent militancy, but the fact is that it would be quite easy to take some passages in the Bible as license for violence, and this has been done quite often in the past. Monckton wants to ban such passages in the Koran, but not any other books. Do you think this is a good idea? Does it fit with your ideal of religious freedom?

        • I find it hard to believe Monckton could have proposed such an impossibility. Could we have quote and context please?

          • BTW, just last week one of the Kennedy tribe repeated the suggestion that climate “deniers” be jailed. We hear this stuff all the time, and turning the tables is all in jest. Except for career fraudsters like M Mann. If you think it’s the dissenters who are opposed to free speech, you haven’t been paying much attention. This is a picture of much of the mindset:
            Destroy capitalism (= economic freedom = personal liberty) to save the world. Any hint that we dissenters condone infringement on freedom of speech is akin to Putin blaming Ukraine’s troubles on the U.S. –AGF

            • 1. I know there are people who want to use climate change to destroy capitalism. Think Naomi Klein. It’s just that I think AGW is a legitimate problem, so if the capitalists want to make the case that their system is viable in today’s world, they need to start solving the problem in a capitalist for of way.

              2. I’ve heard people say that “deniers” should be jailed. I don’t take them seriously, unless they have some hard proof that someone isn’t just being stupid.

              3. Anyone who thinks Mike Mann is a “career fraudster” is not the sharpest tool in the shed. I mean you.

            • Anyone who thinks Mann is not a pathological liar is a moron. He and his lawyers can’t even file a court brief that isn’t full of prevarication. Truth means nothing to Mann and never has. And now the circled wagons are breaking rank–nobody will even file an amicus brief–even the ACLU has sided against Mann’s attack on free speech (your hero, see, and you have the chutzpa to call me on free speech?).

              In 1956 a few Soviets proposed damming the Bering Strait to provoke a little global warming, back when that was considered a good thing. And it is. The MWP was a gift to the world brought to a close by the LIA. So first the guppies have to be convinced that warming is bad, then that it’s warming, then that we’re causing it, then that we should prevent it, and finally that we can prevent it. This is all 19th century millennial fervor dressed up in 20th century pseudo-scientific garb. Meanwhile there has been no surface T rise in the 21st century, and no SLR acceleration for at least 80 years. Nobody with a shred of intelligence has ever taken this BS seriously. –AGF

            • You always say that “no competent scientists” take it seriously, too. Well, I don’t think you know what you’re talking about.

              And for heaven’s sake, is it some kind of surprise that newspapers and such want libel laws to be interpreted as generously for the defendants as possible? Please.

            • Don’t like “incompetent”? Try “militant gullibility.” –AGF

            • But I DO like it, AG. The thought of some anonymous commenter making pronouncements like that amuses me. For heaven’s sake, even I wouldn’t say there are “no competent scientists”, or even “no competent climate scientists” who go against the consensus. Life isn’t so black-and-white.

            • Meanwhile, all my substantive claims go unchallenged while you knock feathers off his lordship’s top hat and somehow manage to congratulate yourself at having accomplished something. How do YOU define incompetent?

              And anonymous? Any fool can find me, but for the less than competent, agfosterjr = Arthur Glenn Foster, Jr.

            • Really? I would say that SOME of your comments go unanswered. Why? Because 1) when some of the denizens of the blog try to answer you, it doesn’t penetrate, and 2) some of your comments are so nuts on their face that nobody feels motivated to try answering them.

            • As I noted above: ” Meanwhile there has been no surface T rise in the 21st century, and no SLR acceleration for at least 80 years.” Do you accept that or don’t you? Is all the SLR BS we are constantly bombarded with, is it propaganda or isn’t it? Getting an honest, intelligent response out of you is like pulling teeth. You live in a fairy tale world. –AGF

            • The answers are:

              1. You’re wrong:

              2. It depends on how you do the statistics. Either way, sea level continues to rise.

            • If I understand you correctly:
              1) You are admitting that as previously measured, surface temperature has remained level over recent years. But you assert that a theoretical rise in an unobserved region (the Arctic) has not been taken into account, hence global surface T has in fact risen.
              2) You admit no certain acceleration of SLR.

              And yet I’m wrong (back to #1), along with every other T record except possibly UAH, because of some ex post facto ad hoc study which suggests that all those records are by definition not truly global. And (#2) somehow a rising constant SLR is relevant in spite of the fact that it’s been steady for 80 years, and in spite of the fact that most of our man-made GHG’s have been emitted since then, so that there can in fact be no case made of GHG SLR correlation, at least going from past experience.

              So as always, we must resort to speculation, models, worst case scenarios, ignoring the real evidence, to sustain a doomsday ideology of supposed settled science, where about 97% of the models fail to predict much of anything correctly, and 98% of the press has been convinced that skeptics should not be given equal time in any setting because the science is settled fact, and on top of that we are not supposed to assign any attribution of competence to this supposed overwhelming majority of scientists who buy into such an ideology.

              Sorry bud, but there’s not a competent scientist on the planet who takes global warming seriously. –AGF

            • No, I am admitting that the warming trend over the past several years is not “statistically distinguishable from zero at the 95% confidence level” unless you correct the way the different temperature products do their spatial averaging. In which case it is significant over a shorter period.

              As for sea level rise, I am admitting that there are some ways of viewing the data that could justify saying what you did, but there are other ways in which you could show an acceleration. And yet, neither of us disputes that it is still rising.

            • See this:


          • AG, I gave a link in the article above.

            • The trend over the last few years is also not distinguishable from the IPCC claimed expected trend either.

              So any claim from that dataset may be valid, but is in no way, shape, or form a refutation of the IPCC claims.

              PS Barry, there’s some pathological script on your blog that puts the page into old-timey “10 characters per second” teletype mode and ensures that any visit here becomes pointless unless all you’re looking to do is watch photons shoot around.

      • @ agfosterjr on September 25, 2014 at 3:57 pm

        The helluva lot of supposition and naivete – and theological agenda – is actually in attributing to Luke a post-Lukan high-Christology (“Jesus as God”) which is nowhere present or hinted at anywhere in Luke-Acts.

        Even if the author accepted Paul’s earlier embrace of the Christ hymn that Paul repeated in Philippians, it would still have nothing to do with “Jesus as God.” Not least or only because authentic Paul NEVER confused or conflated his Κύριος or his Χριστος with his Θεός.

        In any case, vis’a’vis Monckton’s Islamaphobic nonsense, yours is a non sequitur and changes nothing… one merely need consider the centuries of murderous Christian antisemitism in Europe (which enabled the Holocaust) and which had roots in NT texts. Including Matt, Luke and John… because the Christians reading them “knew” the kingdom was both earthly and now.

        The biggest difference between triumphalist Christianity and triumphalist Islam is that Christianity has been constrained by centuries of secular enlightenment.

        • Like a typical warmist, Shelama never makes sense. The parabolic function is lost on her. The question becomes, did NT promote violence, asked from a perspective of higher criticism where the original intent is what matters. And the simple answer is that prior to Constantine the Church was in no position assert itself politically or militarily and so it did not. Blaming post-Constantine Christian violence on Jesus or Paul or their contemporaries is the sort of thinking that only comes out of a head full of liberal mush.

          The early Christian situation contrasted with that of the Koran, much of which grew out of a period when the Prophet and his followers had gained considerable military capability. –AGF

          • But, of course, nobody blamed – or even implied blame – on either the historical Jesus or on Paul.

            There is absolutely no question, however, that NT texts did, indeed, inspire Christian centuries of predatory and murderous violence. That’s neither mush nor liberal, it’s simply a historical fact.

            And it’s not at all limited to what the original intent was… it’s how Christians, in fact, used the text in history: individual, cultural, social, political, institutional.

            Denial is to be expected.

            • To repeat (Shelama): “Of course, there’s also the Bible and an undeniably self-referential parable by Jesus himself (if one believes he actually said it): ‘But as for these enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them–bring them here and slaughter them in my presence.’ (Lu 19:27)”

              And: “But, of course, nobody blamed – or even implied blame – on either the historical Jesus or on Paul.”

              The clueless Shelama begins by accusing Jesus of promoting violence (or of being represented thus), and then professes to have done no such thing. Then she accuses any who disagree with her of some sort of “denial.” How can anyone carry on a rational and intelligent discussion with such insane dishonesty? But this is what we routinely deal with when dealing with climate quacks. –AGF

            • No, nasty fart, the only one claiming that is you, then projecting that on others so you can feel like you’re persecuted, rather than privileged.

              YOU are promoting violence.

              Mind you, in the claims about the fictitious character Jesus, he DOES claim you should do violence to others if you wish to be a true follower of him.

              Not to mention all the killing that god demands you do on unbelievers.

  2. Monckton admits to believing in dowsing! Even if he doesn’t think he has the ability…

    “Niklas Mörner, the sea-level expert, has had his page got at on the ground that he sometimes dowses for water or other underground treasure. My late father once did that for the Maltese Government, and found three lost Punic tombs and a fine marble head of Seneca from the first century AD. My drawing of it (in the day before digital cameras) is probably still to be found somewhere in the Museum of Classical Archaeology at Cambridge. But I never had the knack for dowsing myself.”

  3. I have to believe that even the extreme right wing folks in the US are not going to go along with such a blatant negation of First Amendment rights. Since Monckton apparently knows nothing about the US Constitution, he should stay in Britain.

    • It took about a year for far too many americans to prove you wrong there, Bill.

      Worse, those genuinely nice people who happen to be christians are being punished for not demonising the muslim faith and acknowledging the facts about their religious equivalence.

      By other christians.

  4. Barry: Over in the Deseret News, whose Registration Page seemingly doesn’t work with Google Chrome, you wrote:

    “Do you really want to help drive people like me out of the Republican Party? Is that really a healthy situation for the country? Or would you rather have people like me stick around and try to drive the extremists back into the attic? ”

    That makes absolutely no sense. A sane person with nuanced thinking skills is going to have precisely as much influence on the extremists from within the Republican Party as from without. A smaller, more extreme Republican Party is less dangerous than a larger, extreme Republican Party, so, yes, I’d be happy to see you out of the Republican Party. But if you want to self-identify with Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Bachmann, and Monckton, be my guest.

    ‘Course, you’ll have a harder time talking to people like me. If you associate with wackos and then try to claim that your a reasonable person, it makes it that much harder before people may decide that you actually are reasonable.

    The real question, of course, is: With global warming, who inherits the slogan “Weather Best By Government Test”.

    • Hi Cesium,

      For me, the choices are Republican or Independent. In the first case, I can have an influence in primaries and conventions. In the second, I only get to vote in the general election. In either case, I can always choose to vote for a Democrat in the general election, if I think the Republican is a nut.

      • Don’t know if this gets to you, but have you checked out Bernie Sanders? Check his proposals and see whether they, irrespective of his party affiliation, is a better fit for what you want to see happen in the USA and ignore the flag flown above with the big D on it.

        Would Bernie be worthy of your vote, Barry?

  5. Bill: Ya know, ever since it was made illegal to burn the american flag, nothing would surprise me about how little free speech is valued in the United States. If you can’t symbolically deface a symbol, what’s the point in having free speech?

  6. AGF: “So as always, we must resort to … models, ” I challenge you to do any serious climate science without making use of any models. Hell. I’ll challenge you to do any serious thinking without making use of any models.

    Oh, wait, that explains it. You should try using models some time.

    • You don’t catch on very fast. “We” resort to models because the empirical evidence is against “us.” “We” can make the models say anything we want them to. That’s why they’re always wrong in the hands of “us.” In the case of climate science the science has only been retarded by models, at least the ones that make it into IPCC reports.

      With models we can make the MWP and LIA disappear. But receding glaciers make the forests from the MWP reappear. So the models we speak of are absolutely anti-science. That’s why the fanatics love them. –AGF

      • No, agrofasty, you resort to “models are crud” because reality is against you.

        The evidence is entirely in line with the results of the model means in the last (and even earlier) IPCC reports, yet you fluff around and try any old toss to proclaim that the only “reputable” scientist is one that does not believe in AGW, nd thereby “prove” that there are no “repuitable scientists” who believe in AGW.

        Circular logic that deniers have no problem living with since it’s the only safe option.

        PS I rote all that apart from the first line with absolutely no response or update to the text entry widget.

        • “Wow,” you could not so much as make a case for the malevolence of warming. The simple truth is, warm is good; cold is bad. The MWP was good; the LIA was bad. Here’s what Callendar had to say about it in 1937:

          “In conclusion it may be said that the combustion of fossil fuel, whether it be peat from the surface or oil from 10,000 feet below, is likely to prove beneficial to mankind in several ways, besides the provision of heat and power. For instance the above mentioned small increases of mean temperature would be important at the northern margin of cultivation, and the growth of favourably situated plants is directly proportional to the carbon dioxide pressure (Brown and Escombe, 1905): In any case the return of the deadly glaciers should be delayed indefinitely.”

          20 years later the Soviets tried to figure out how to promote global warming; they even considered damming the Bering Strait. During the Roman Warm Period Leptis Magna was a great city, able to supply wheat and olives for the Roman dole (it supplied an emperor as well). The population of North Africa, led by Carthage, defied the Romans for centuries. With cooling the Sahara expanded and engulfed the city’s ruins. The LIA helped turn Timbuctu into a ghost town. See, even the Sahara desert is helped by global warming.

          Quiz time, match the values:

          1. Rate of lunar recession.
          2. Rate of separation of Atlantic coasts.
          3. Fastest ground subsidence in Jakarta.
          4. SAT measured sea level rise.

          a. 10 inches per year.
          b. 1.5 inches per year.
          c. 1 inch per year.
          d. 1/8 inch per year.

          Averaged SLR has not increased in 80 years. Ten thousand years ago the rate was 5 times as high: 1.5m/century (all natural,

          of course). In spite of the ancient SLR the deltas of the world had no problem keeping above water. When due to human

          interference deltas quit growing (like the Mississippi Delta), global SLR remains a trivial factor in relative SLR compared to

          ground subsidence of whatever cause (natural, ground water depletion, skyscraper construction, etc.) and as for land availability

          SLR is a trivial factor compared to population growth.

          There is no evidence that current SLR is anything but natural. Anyone who tells you CO2 has affected SLR is an ignoramus.

          Likewise anyone who tells you SLR constitutes a threat to humanity. (If all the ice melted it would have less effect on population

          density than the currently projected population peak.) Anyone who combines the two and tells you fossil fuel caused SLR

          threatens global catastrophe is a gullible dupe.


          • agronasty, SLR continues apace, the last several years are in accord with the IPCC predictiosn of the past 20+ years, climate change is real, accepted by any who are not bigoted against reality when it conflicts with their personal ideology.
            the only scientists against this reality are those whose religion, wealth or political ideology reject the necessary steps to change the future.

            Those who believe it fake are morons.

            Question, nasty, what will be the effect of the ice sheets melting?

            • You live in a fairy tale world. SLR has not accelerated in 80 years. Period. All claims to the contrary are pure BS–the fabrications of life time liars. The same holds true for all the fabulous claims of the climastrologists–hurricanes, tornadoes, desertification, species migration you name it, all the inventions of liars and morons, at least 99% of the time.

              If there were any connection between CO2 and T (which there isn’t), and if the theoretical connection were linear rather than asymptotic (which it is not), we could conceivably have increased SLR over the next few millennia, which as I noted above, would remain a trivial human nuisance compared to population growth and ground subsidence, and political upheaval, and starvation caused by grain shortages caused by ethanol production caused caused by climate doom quacks. Like I said, cold is to be feared, not heat. What do YOU think would happen if the northern ice sheets returned? Huh? Never thought about that? That’s a far more rational concern, and clearly the one Callendar was more concerned with. There just isn’t a competent scientist on the planet who takes this climate doom hysteria seriously. It’s a religion of dimwits. –AGF

            • Angryfart, AGAIN, SLR continues apace. Proclaiming some unstated rate of acceleration doesn’t change that FACT.

              “If there were any connection between CO2 and T (which there isn’t),”

              There is you pathetic moron.

              “and if the theoretical connection were linear rather than asymptotic ”

              The theoretical connection was logarithmic, not linear, and logarithmic, despite what moron deniers claimed 100 plus years ago and even more moronic deniers continue to parrot today, logarithmic is NOT asymptotic.

              What’s the asymptote of Log(N)?

              “we could conceivably have increased SLR over the next few millennia”

              Which we will get. And we’ve been getting over the last few decates.

              “and starvation caused by grain shortages caused by ethanol production caused caused by climate doom quacks”

              You mean ethanol production caused by big businesses trying to get government handouts.

              Said ethanol production in the rest of the word, which isn’t as pigshit crazy as the USA being done on non-food produce, and therefore not at all risking starvation and food shortages.

              Just because YOUR country is crazy doesn’t mean that everyone else is.

              “and ground subsidence”

              Since we’ve not had accelerating ground subsidence, this doesn’t exist or matter. Right?

              “Like I said, cold is to be feared, not heat”

              And like you said, you’re fucking wrong.

              “What do YOU think would happen if the northern ice sheets returned? Huh?”

              Irrelevant as to whether AGW is going to be a catastrophe if we do nothing about it.


              As relevant as “Have you thought of whether the sun explodes and swallows the inner planets?!?!?!?” on whether you need to carry a gun to protect yourself from armed robbers.

              But irrelevant is all you have.

  7. “SLR has not accelerated in 80 years. ”

    Uh, you can’t claim it hasn’t because the data doesn’t support the conclusion.

    It does support the conclusion it has accelerated.

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: