Lord Monckton deals a lesson to “decent journalists, trained and skilled”

Following yesterdays post on Lord Christopher Monckton I thought it unfair to lay all the blame entirely with the scientists, taxpayer funded climate change alarmists. Also to blame was the Herald,  showing another example of how “decent  journalists, trained and skilled” conduct investigative journalism (or lack thereof) and publish skewed misinformation in an effort to push a biased agenda. Last Tuesday The Horrid ran this story  on Lord Christopher Monckton, only they forgot to interview him for his response about it. Instead, they approached three New Zealand scientists…who are all troughers that suck on the taxpayer teat one way or another to be alarmed about global warming…and published their cheap one lined personal attacks without a right of reply where they would have been better served addressing his agenda and trying to prove why in their eyes he is wrong. The story the Horrid published was titled Kiwi scientists rally against climate change sceptic.

As any intelligent man would, Lord Monckton took exception to this atrocious excuse for journalism. Here is his response he submitted to the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition followed by his letter to the Herald Editor.

Dear all, – The letter below, which by this email I am inviting the New Zealand Herald to publish, would help to set the factual record straight. If it is not printed, or if any of the factual inaccuracies that it corrects are edited out before publication, in ten days’ time a complaint will go in the first instance to the Press Council for adjudication of the question whether the offending article was accurate, fair and balanced and whether APNZ and the Herald behaved correctly in printing it without their “journalist” having put to me the numerous scandalously inaccurate statements the “journalist” seems to have invited them to make. 

I shall invite the Press Council to determine the question whether the Herald has given balanced coverage to both sides of the debate on the climate, having regard not only to the present article but to its previous record of publication on the climate “science” issue.

I shall also be complaining to the universities of some of the “scientists” cited in the article, on grounds of serious breach of ethical standards. I shall be inviting the authorities in the United Kingdom to remove the name of one of the universities concerned from the list of academic institutions whose degrees are recognized in Britain.

The reason why none of the “scientists” who were so willing to be cavalier with the truth in the article will debate with me is that they are well aware that if they are as malevolently inaccurate about climate “science” as they were about me their inaccuracies will be exposed. 
 
It is articles such as this that demonstrate how low the standards both of “scientists” and of “journalists” have sunk, and how far the profession has travelled from the days when both sides of an argument could be fairly and accurately put. 
 

I have attached some recent material, for interest. The paper on climate economics has been accepted for publication in the Annual Proceedings of the World Federation of Scientists, now in its 45th year of publication. My expert-review comments on the forthcoming Fifth Assessment Report will, I hope, demonstrate that I have taken a constructive approach.

For the sake of correcting the factual record, I am inviting the Climate Science Coalition to post up and circulate widely a copy of my letter to the editor correcting the slew of malicious inaccuracies in the Herald’s article as soon as the Herald has published it, so as to minimize the intended damage to my reputation.

When I used to be a journalist, I was taught that one should check the facts before trashing someone’s reputation. It is significant that the “journalist” responsible for the Herald’s inaccurate article failed to make contact either with me or with any of those organizing my tour (whose contact details we can prove he had) before publishing his serial, serous inaccuracies. He should be thoroughly ashamed of his grossly unprofessional misconduct.

In my day, when journalists still followed ethical standards of accuracy, an article this contrived, this slovenly and this inaccurate would have led to the instant dismissal of the “journalist” who had perpetrated it. – M of B

 

Letter to the Editor, New Zealand Herald: for publication, please

Sir, – Kiwi scientists rally against climate change sceptic (April 2) twice describes me as a climate change “denier”. That hate speech is inaccurate. I do not deny we can change the climate: I question how much we do.

The statement that “New Zealand’s top climate change scientists have rallied together to slam” me is inaccurate. A news agency reporter incited several scientists to comment. He did not let me reply.

The statement that I say “New Zealanders … shouldn’t be worried about rising temperatures or sea levels” inaccurately implies they are rising worryingly. Yet the IPCC’s climate-science head says warming has paused for 17 years. Sea level has risen for eight years at just 3.2 cm/century.

The statement that I oppose emissions trading because it is “too expensive” is inaccurate. I oppose it because it is cost-ineffective.

The statements that I have “no training” and “no scientific training” and have “studiously avoided learning anything about science” are inaccurate. I studied mathematics during my Cambridge degree course, have published several scientific and economic papers on climate change in learned journals, have lectured on climate at faculty level, and was last year’s Nerenberg Lecturer in Mathematics at the University of Western Ontario.

The unevidenced statements that I say things scientists “know are not true” and “pick data and statistics to suit [my] argument” are inaccurate.

The statement that I once argued for the quarantine of AIDS patients “in internment camp-like facilities” is inaccurate. I argued that, though quarantine (with no mention of internment camps) is the standard public-health response to a new, incurable and fatal infection, Western sensibilities would make it impossible. Tens of millions would die. Sadly, they did.

The statement that “the world’s leading scientists” predict the world will “heat up by 3% this century” is inaccurate. They predict 3 Cº warming, up 1%. Their predictions in all four IPCC Assessment Reports have proven exaggerated.

The implication that I deny any increase in greenhouse gases is inaccurate. I do not deny it: I question whether it matters.

The statement that I “promote [my]self as an ‘expert reviewer’ for the IPCC’s forthcoming Fifth Assessment Report”, implying I am not one, is inaccurate. I satisfied the IPCC that my publication record justified my appointment.

Yours faithfully,

Monckton of Brenchley, Tangowahine

Unsurprisingly, after this letter to the Herald they retrospectively added “Read the latest: Climate change sceptic rejects criticism as ‘hate speech’ ”

Isn’t that nice. Better late than never. Just a pity it had to be forced by someone far more intelligent.

stop_this_shit


Do you want:

  • Ad-free access?
  • Access to our very popular daily crossword?
  • Access to daily sudoku?
  • Access to Incite Politics magazine articles?
  • Access to podcasts?
  • Access to political polls?

Our subscribers’ financial support is the reason why we have been able to offer our latest service; Audio blogs. 

Click Here  to support us and watch the number of services grow.

53%