C. Monckton: Complaints and Critiques

Sat, 2008-07-19 20:36Richard Littlemore
Richard Littlemore's picture

C. Monckton: Complaints and Critiques

Tim Lambert at Deltoid offers a cursory scientific critique of Chris Walter (the Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley)'s recent newsletter submission to the American Physical Society. Lambert apologizes that he has only first-year physics, but notes, rightfully, that Monckton can make no such claim.

Even more entertaining is the shirty letter that Monckton himself penned to the APS after they added a note to his article making it clear that it was NOT peer reviewed and that it does NOT reflect the opinion of Editors or, really, of any good physicists of note.

Monckton, who apparently can't tell the difference between being edited and submitting a scientific paper for peer review, is spitting mad. It's wonderful.

(Thanks to John Mashey for turning this stuff up.)

But here's a question. Why would ANY publication of the American Physical Society solicit an article from someone who is not physicist, not a scientist, who has not even got an undergraduate degree in any scientific field, who regularly shills for a host of oily think tanks spending Exxon's money on climate change denial and who, seriously, can't be trusted to report accurately on his own resume? Really, why? Was there not a single practicing scientist in the world who might have submitted a paper suggesting that a legitimate climate science debate still reigns?

For a more in-depth look, check out DeSmog's comprehensive research database on the climate denial industry. 


Previous Comments

Steve Bloom over at Deltoid:

BTW, while Monckton claims there was a `peer review’ by one editor, it couldn’t have been much of one since editor (Al Saperstein) has never done any work remotely connected to climate science. Even Monckton’s description of the `review’ makes it sound more like an effort to make sure that the contents were clearly stated.”

http://frankbi.wordpress.com/ International Journal of Inactivism
“Al `Fat Al’ Gore [is fat]” – Harold Pierce

Why is it whenever I think of Monckton…I come up with Mr Bean?
BTW DeSmog, I love your site and do whatever you feel is required to keep it relevant :)

Trying to raise the standard, even if that means sacrificing some chaff.

Monckton says in his letter to Dr. Bienenstock: “an eminent Professor of Physics had then scientifically reviewed it in meticulous detail”.

I wonder if he is referring to Larry Gould, a physics professor at the University of Hartford.

Here are some examples of the nonsense that Larry Gould is spouting on about on AGW. He seems to be an editor of another APS forum Newsletter.



He seems to be s right nutter and dishonest to boot. A merry band of dishonest slimeballs Monckton associates himself with.

Ian Forrester


Once again, Knuckledragger displays his towering intellect.

Ian: the reviewer wasn’t Gould, it was FPS Editor Saperstein himself, whose comments can be found on the second page of:


Saperstein says he doesn’t understand difference between feedback and forcing…. Uh-oh, I guess no copy of the IPCC AR4 was at hand, or even basic climate science knowledge.

I.e., so far, it appears that the reviewers were the two FPS editors…

It is *clear* that the APS leadership is now well aware of the problems with FPS

Ian: thanks for pointer to Larry Gould

1) He’s co-editor of the newsletter for the new England Section of the APS.

2) He’s a big Monckton fan. he likes “Taken by Storm” well enough to feature it on his homepage.

3) You may delight in perusal of his web-page:

See especially the 371-page (really, 371-page) PDF of Monckton’s talk at U Hartford.

I have no data one way or another, but I have to wonder if Gould was the route by which Monckton got hooked up with FPS.

This guy is so far beyond the pale he must be something out of a Monty Python sketch – either the “Upper Class Twit of the Year Competition”, or “Spot the Loony”. I think the word I am looking for is probably delusional.

Despite his howling lack of introspection, Monckton actually serves a purpose as a good example of the type of denier that was called to mind earlier today when I read a response to Wilbert Robichaud on another thread. The response concluded “You can do better than this”. Well … maybe not. We can’t assume that everyone who posts here has got a mental capacity sufficient to grasp the concepts. Some people simply will not be able to comprehend the science, although, as Monckton so gloriously proves, they will continue to mash about in the numbers and create mayhem along the way.

Here we have a man who figures that retired scientists are the only ones free of influence, able to say what they really think. The fact that these folks have been out of the lab for 10 or 15 years and aren’t on the leading edge of anything anymore just whips past over his head.

Fern Mackenzie


In December 2014, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency released long-awaited coal ash safety standards designed to increase the reliability of coal ash disposal sites. These standards had been years in the making, but stopped short of classifying coal ash as a hazardous waste material, which many advocates had been hoping for....

read more