Viscount Monckton: House of Lords publicly knocks down one of his many false claims after Spencer interview in Australia & journalists do the rest

One could be forgiven for thinking that florid climate change denialist Christopher Monckton’s recent Australian speaking tour did not return value for money to his backers or give comfort to the anti-science views of Leader of the Opposition Tony Abbott.

First Monckton was forced to publicly apologise for the fascist/Nazi slur thrown at one Australian economist before the start of his journey and now this………………

An open letter to Viscount Monckton of Brenchley from the Clerk of the Parliaments published at www.parliament.uk after Monckton’s ABC Sydney Breakfast with Adam Spencer radio interview on 7 July 2011:

Dear Lord Monckton

My predecessor, Sir Michael Pownall, wrote to you on 21 July 2010, and again on 30 July 2010, asking that you cease claiming to be a Member of the House of Lords, either directly or by implication. It has been drawn to my attention that you continue to make such claims.

In particular, I have listened to your recent interview with Mr Adam Spencer on Australian radio. In response to the direct question, whether or not you were a Member of the House of Lords, you said "Yes, but without the right to sit or vote". You later repeated, "I am a Member of the House".

I must repeat my predecessor's statement that you are not and have never been a Member of the House of Lords. Your assertion that you are a Member, but without the right to sit or vote, is a contradiction in terms. No-one denies that you are, by virtue of your letters Patent, a Peer. That is an entirely separate issue to membership of the House. This is borne out by the recent judgment in Baron Mereworth v Ministry of Justice (Crown Office) where Mr Justice Lewison stated:

"In my judgment, the reference [in the House of Lords Act 1999] to 'a member of the House of Lords' is simply a reference to the right to sit and vote in that House ... In a nutshell, membership of the House of Lords means the right to sit and vote in that House. It does not mean entitlement to the dignity of a peerage."

I must therefore again ask that you desist from claiming to be a Member of the House of Lords, either directly or by implication, and also that you desist from claiming to be a Member "without the right to sit or vote".

I am publishing this letter on the parliamentary website so that anybody who wishes to check whether you are a Member of the House of Lords can view this official confirmation that you are not.

David Beamish
Clerk of the Parliaments

15 July 2011

Monckton publicly and somewhat pathetically hit back during the televised National Press Club Address on 19 July, when a journalist raised the issue of the open letter, with a classic piece of misdirection along the lines of 'my passport says I'm a peer and because I'm a peer I must be a member of the House of Lords' or words to that effect.

In answer to a question from another journalist concerning his so-called expert status, Monckton also stated that he had a peer reviewed scientific paper in the APS Physics Journal titled Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley.

Predictably, the American Physical Society has a very different perspective:

Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered

The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review, since that is not normal procedure for American Physical Society newsletters. The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007: "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate." [my emphasis]

And you thought some of those climate change contrarians may have had a modicum of intelligence?

 

A quick look at a climate change denier from the transcript of ABC Background Briefing “The Lord Monckton Roadshow” on 17th July 2011. No comment is actually needed on this gem of absurdity from Archibald and it’s hard to get my jaw up off the floor anyway in order to form the requisite sentence:

Wendy Carlisle: A few years back, David Archibald gave a speech at a Lavoisier Group conference and it made for interesting reading.

David Archibald: I'm a member of the Lavoisier Group.

Wendy Carlisle: You gave a speech at, I think, a conference a couple of years ago now and -- can I quote? -- 'My reward for this work, as it is for every member of the Lavoisier society, will be in heaven. For the forces of darkness control the science journals, government departments, public institutes and universities.' Did you say that?

David Archibald: Yes, I did, and I'm quite proud of it, thank you. And thank you for bringing it up for your listeners.

Wendy Carlisle: His motive, he says, is truth.

David Archibald: For people on our side, there is no financial reward; we're all doing it out of love for country and love of humanity and all that sort of thing.

Wendy Carlisle: Do you believe that the 'forces of darkness' are running universities?

David Archibald: Yes, I do.

Wendy Carlisle: The 'forces of darkness' are running science journals?

David Archibald: Yes, I do.

Wendy Carlisle: Government departments?

David Archibald: Yes, I do.

Wendy Carlisle: Public institutes?

David Archibald: Yes, I do.

Wendy Carlisle: Who are the forces of darkness?

David Archibald: Those who wish a carbon-constrained economy on Australia.

Will NSW Premier O'Farrell protect local government investment in NSW North Coast sustainable urban water infrastructure?

 

From A Clarence Valley Protest on 18 July 2011:

There are ninety kilometres (90 km) of underground pipelines linking the Nymboida River with the Shannon Creek Dam in the Clarence Valley, the Rushforth Road Reservoir at South Grafton and the Karangi Dam near Coffs Harbour.  The combined value of this infrastructure to Clarence Valley and Coffs Harbour local government has been estimated at $200 million.

On 18 July 2011 The Coffs Coast Advocate reported Coffs Harbour City Cr. Mark Graham as stating:

…he had inspected a site on Wild Cattle Creek where Anchor Resources was exploring for antimony and there were already large plumes of antimony which could leach into Wild Cattle Creek and into the Nymboida River.

“There is a massive plume washing from the exploration site into the headwaters of our drinking water catchment,… There is a great need to protect the catchment of the regional water supply and our collective investment of about $200 million"

If these plumes are as reported, then the China Shandong Jinshunda Group Co Ltd through its Australian mining exploration arm, Anchor Resources Ltd, is placing local government investment, an urban water supply (which supports an estimated 3 million residents and visitors/tourists each quarter across Clarence Valley-Coffs Harbour regions) and, a high-value natural environment, at risk even before antimony mining and processing has begun.

According to a report commissioned by Clarence Valley Council in 2008; On average, domestic overnight visitors spent $118 per night, International overnight visitors spent $76 per night and domestic day trippers spent $80 per trip.

Will NSW Premier Barry O’Farrell and Minister for Resources and Energy Chris Hartcher ignore potential risks to the interests of Northern Rivers and Mid-North Coast communities in order to facilitate the interests of this international mining corporation?

Assange Appeal to U.K. High Court: skeleton argument [warning - explicit language]

Julian Assange (of Wikileaks fame) has concluded his appeal to Britain's High Court concerning an unfavourable lower court judgment in relation to extradition proceedings initiated on behalf of the Swedish Prosecution Authority and, the Justices retired to consider their verdict at the end of the day on 13 July 2011.

For perhaps the first time since the mainstream media began reporting on the issue, a relatively clear-eyed view of the complainants' evidence is publicly available concerning the circumstances of the alleged rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion.

The blog Sweden vs. Assange has posted the skeleton argument put before the Court by Assange's legal team.

The Assange defence team asserted on the basis of the two complainants statements:

Julian Assange engaged in ’rough and impatient’ consensual foreplay with complainant AA, and he complied with her wish that he used a condom once she expressed her desire for him to use one.

Julian Assange used a condom upon claimant AA’s request. The condom split.

Julian Assange pressed his naked erect penis against AA whilst they were voluntarily sharing a small bed. They had shared the bed for several days and engaged in consensual sexual activity previously.

In the context of repeated acts of consensual sexual intercourse, Julian Assange penetrated SW whilst she was ’half-asleep’. The penetration was met by consent on the part of SW, in full knowledge that Julian Assange was not wearing protection.

It is noted that the Swedish Prosecution Authority rejects the claim that all sexual activity was consensual. Details can be found in the translated European Arrest Warrant.

It is also noted that to date Assange appears not been formally charged with any sexual offense under Swedish law, as by the Swedish Prosecution Authority's own admission the investigation is still only currently at the stage of "preliminary investigation".

Publicly available documents presented to earlier U.K. lower courts hearings can be found here.