Monthly Archives: June 2011

Lord Monckton 2011 Tour and Rally Dates



The Australian 2011 Monckton Tour

“A Carbon Tax will Bankrupt Australia
The Science Does Not Justify It”

Viscount Christopher Monckton will explain why.

Dr David Evans and Jo Nova will accompany him in Sydney and Newcastle

2011 Lord Monckton Tour Dates

Date Time Location Speakers Tickets Available From:
4-Jul-2011 5:45pm Wilsmore Lecture Theatre, Chemistry Department, G.108, University of WA, Perth  WA Lord Monckton 0435 423 636
6-Jul-2011 7:00pm Starlight Room, Wests Leagues Club, 88 Hobart Rd, New Lambton NSW Lord Monckton, Joanne Nova and Dr David Evans Ticketek
7-Jul-2011 6:30pm Wesley Theatre, 220 Pitt St, Sydney NSW Lord Monckton, Joanne Nova and Dr David Evans Ticketek
8-Jul-2011 7:00pm North Sydney Leagues Club, 12 Abbott St, Cammeray NSW Lord Monckton, Joanne Nova and Dr David Evans Ticketek
13-Jul-2011 7:00pm NEW VENUE TO BE CONFIRMED 1 JULY 2011 Lord Monckton Ticketek
16-Jul-2011 3:00pm The J, 60 Noosa Drive, Noosa Junction, QLD Lord Monckton and Professor Bob Carter 07 5455 4455
16-Jul-2011 7:00pm The J, 60 Noosa Drive, Noosa Junction, QLD Lord Monckton and Professor Bob Carter 07 5455 4455
18-Jul-2011 7:00pm St Patricks Pavillion, 1431 Sturt Street Ballarat, VIC Lord Monckton 0435 423 636
19-Jul-2011 12 noon 401 Collins St, Melbourne VIC *** Lord Monckton – Lunch/Function (bookings essential – see below for more information) See information below
20-Jul-2011 1:00pm German Club, 291 Dandenong Rd, Windsor, VIC Lord Monckton Ticketek
20-Jul-2011 7:00pm German Club, 291 Dandenong Rd, Windsor VIC Lord Monckton Ticketek
21-Jul-2011 7:00pm Traralgon Town Hall, Cnr Breed & Grey Streets, Traralgon VIC Lord Monckton 03 5176 3559
22-Jul-2011 7:00pm Port Adelaide Football Club, 9 Queen St, Alberton SA Lord Monckton 0435 423 636

Ticketek   Phone 132 849 or Ticketek

***  19th July     Additional Lord Monckton Melbourne Event:

Lunch and Presentation from 12.00 noon to 2.00 pm at 401 Collins Street, Melbourne VIC 3000.  The presentation starts at 12.30pm,  followed by lunch and question time.  Tickets at the door  $60 (includes lunch). Booking via email at or by phone at 9629 6888.
Saturday, 9th July at 12 noon – Hyde Park Rally – “The Science Doesn’t Justify a Carbon Tax”


Malcolm Roberts, MC, with special guest speakers:  Lord Monckton, Jo Nova, David Evans plus more.


Should Australia have a plebiscite on Carbon Tax ?

Message from TH worth passing on:

Two on-line polls about Tony Abbott’s bid for a plebiscite on Carbon Tax:

1. ABC News Radio: Should there be a plebiscite on carbon tax? (right side  of screen) …


2. Nine MSM Poll: Should Australia vote on a Carbon Tax?

3. Daily Telegraph Poll: Should there be a national plebiscite on whether to impose a carbon tax?

(Vote results as of 4:07 – 7pm pm 20 June 2011)
Note even ABC listeners seem to want a plebiscite (notwithstanding limitations of on-line polls.
3. Please ALSO take a minute to e-mail Senators Xenophon and Fielding and ask them to support the passing of the bill for a plebiscite on the carbon tax. Let them know we want a say. and

I fully support Mr Abbott on the need for a plebiscite on Carbon Tax.

The government can not argue that Climate is the biggest most important and moral issue of our times worthy of great sacrifice, while simultaneously saying it is not important enough to require consent and voluntary cooperation from the people.

There is no escape from this simple logic. To defy it, means you are imposing a major policy you know the population does not believe in and does not want – and that is totalitarianism regardless whether you believe it is for our own good or not.

Failure to get people’s consent on this massive policy may lead to people not cooperating and even to mass civil disobedience by industry and the population.

Gillard’s NBN scorched earth policy

Saddam Hussein rushed to set Kuwait’s oil wells on fire in 1991 as a part of scorched earth policy as he retreated. The wells burned for 10 months and cost $1.5 Billion to extinguish.

Ms Gillard has rushed to lock in up to $30 billion of construction contracts on the NBN, widely believed to be a white elephant, with termination penalties that ‘could cost public $3 billion’ if we want to change our mind on the NBN in the next 10 years.

Our PM, Julia Gillard is setting fire to our children’s tax revenues before she is removed. This must be the most irresponsible and bloody-minded act by a government in the history of Australia.

Who will rid us of this abomination of a government?

The Australian 17th June 2011: Contracts Lock in NBN risk of Payout.

The Australian 24th June 2011: Scotched National Broadband Network deal ‘could cost public $3bn’.

IPCC report chapter written by Greenpeace activist

A must read at WUWT about Greenpeace capture of UN-IPCC which is now in plain view.

Their recent claim in a new report:

Close to 80 percent of the world‘s energy supply could be met by renewables by mid-century if backed by the right enabling public policies a new report shows.

Not only has nothing independent to back it up. Worse, it isn’t the opinion of the IPCC per se, but rather that of Greenpeace. And it gets worse….

Our Carbon tax is predicated entirely on the alarmist message from the IPCC.  This, yet another scandal which would be termed conflict of interest or corruption in any other business, should force our government pause its push to the Carbon Tax and re-examine the IPCC science to separate wishful green thinking from scientific fact.


This is developing into a significant scandal, revealing the curruption of process at IPCC. From:

Climategate Part 2? — IPCC Scandal Deepens

The United Nation’s climate change body was at the centre of a new row today after it admitted using a Greenpeace campaigner to help write an ‘impartial’ report on green energy. –David Derbyshire, Daily Mail, 17 June 2011

Yesterday I wrote a story in the paper about how the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the UN’s authority on climate change) had used a Greenpeace campaigner to help write a key part of its report on renewable energy. Now it appears that there are more apparent conflicts of interest in the IPCC’s energy report. –-Oliver Wright, The Independent, 17 June 2011

So why is the IPCC contravening international standard practice to promote hydropower? Well this may be total coincidence but in addition to several independent scientists, the IPCC selected a number of authors to write the section of hydropower who have a vested interest in growing the sector. Of the nine lead authors there are representatives of two of the world’s largest hydropower developers, a hydropower consultancy, and three agencies promoting hydropower at the national level. –-Oliver Wright, The Independent, 17 June 2011

Who could have imagined that the IPCC would have emerged from these setbacks so cocksure that it would return to its old ways of conflating environmentalist propaganda with scientific investigation? But it has. –Lorene Gunter, National Post, 17 June 2011

If the ‘deniers’ are the only ones standing up for the integrity of the scientific process, and the independence of the IPCC, then I too am a ‘denier’. Indeed, McIntyre and I have formed an unlikely double-act, posing a series of questions – together with the New York Times’s Andy Revkin – to the IPCC report’s lead author Professor Ottmar Edenhofer, to which he has yet to respond. –Mark Lynas, 17 June 2011

Climate of fear: scientists face death threats

(Click ‘RallyInfo’ above for: Bendigo and Dubbo rallies for June, Sydney for July)

Story here.

Whether these threatening emails are the result of one deranged individual or multitude, whether this is the work of those opposed to Carbon Tax, some fringe Sceptics or even enterprising climate Alarmists (Appendix 1), trying to smear the sceptics or whether it does or does not reach the seriousness of a police investigation, the implications are the same:

1. There is no place for personal intimidation in our society for any reason whatsoever. No ‘buts’ or ‘howevers’. It has no place in Australian society.

2. Threats to family members and especially children are the absolutely lowest form of criminal behaviour. Even the likes of Mafia are reputed to prohibit it. If anyone doing this thinks it’s harmless because it’s just words, think again, long and hard. Anyone convicted of threatening families especially, should be jailed for a long time as an example to others.

3. We agree with Professor Ian Chubb’s statement that these emails are ”an outrageous attack on open and public debate …. They are the antithesis of democratic debate”. Hear, hear.

While on the topic of supporting open debate, we would invite the professor to extend this criticism to another disturbing ‘outrageous attack on democratic debate’, not by some criminal anonymous emailers, but by our Prime Minister, Ms Julia Gillard . She has unilaterally dismissed and villified all opposing arguments in the democratic debate with the majority of Australians who remain unconvinced of the need for this carbon tax. She has done this by her declaration: “we don’t have time to waste’ on carbon tax debate that lacks facts and reason.” If dozens of qualified sceptic scientists, many Australian business associations and industries and the majority of population ‘lack reason’, then Ms Gillard must be forgetting whose will it is she represents.

Many Australians further believe that Ms Gillard represents Prof Chubb’s “antithesis of democratic debate”. Her widely perceived lie that “’There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead,” sidestepped an a critical democratic debate, as has Ms Gillard’s convening of a Climate Committee restricted to only ‘believers’ in climate catastrophe and pricing carbon.

4. Climate sceptics stand for the exact opposite of what these emailers are said to be achieving and Ms Gillard is trying to achieve – we stand for open democratic debate of the science and policies until we are confident that a real problem exists, not just in computer models and effective and least costly solutions are defined and tested. Our frustration with this government is that they claim falsely that the debate is over, the science settled, carbon tax a done deal. Alarmist climate scientists are brave enough to publish reports and speak to lay radio announcers, but they seem to avoid debating their peer sceptic scientists. Perhaps this is because they invariably seem to fail to carry the argument against such expert sceptic colleagues (Appendix 2 – Debates).

In the spirit of public debate, an alliance of climate sceptics have invited Lord Monckton to Sydney this July to speak at several functions. If Prof Chubb wants to protect democratic debate, he may encourage Profs Will Steffen, Andy Pitman and David Karoly to publicly explain and discuss their climate model science and the tax with the likes of Profs Ian Plimer, Bob Carter and Garth Paltridge, A/Prof Stewart Franks, Bill Kininmonth, David Evans or Lord Monckton. We would gladly try to arrange such a forum, which would be sure to answer the many questions on the public’s minds. We look forward to any response.

Appendix 1:

What some extreme Climate Arlarmist would like to do with Sceptics (in jest, of course):

(i) Own goal: 10-10 No Pressure video a disaster. Story.

(ii) How To Strangle A Climate Skeptic (VIDEO) Jan 2010 Story1. and


(iii) Richard Glover, ABC Radio Announcer, SMH 6 June 2011. Link.

Surely it’s time for climate-change deniers to have their opinions forcibly tattooed on their bodies.
Not necessarily on the forehead; I’m a reasonable man. Just something along their arm or across their chest so their grandchildren could say, ”Really? You were one of the ones who tried to stop the world doing something? And why exactly was that, granddad?”
On second thoughts, maybe the tattooing along the arm is a bit Nazi-creepy.

Appendix 2: Recent Debates

All the climate debates between Alarmists and Sceptics I could find with Google; all were said to have resolved in favour of sceptics, admitedly some by partisan commentators:

  • Queensland Division of the Property Council of Australia, breakfast meeting June 3rd: “Australia needs a carbon tax”. Link.
  • Skeptics And Alarmists Clash At Climate Conference – German Scientists Call PIK Scientific Position “Weak”. 18. May 2011.Link.
  • Royal Geographical Society: 11 April 2011 Link1 and Link2.
  • Climate Alarmists Lose Global Warming Debate on Public Radio International, November 13, 2010 (Part of The American Geophysical Union Climate scientists’ planed campaign against global warming skeptics) Link.
  • Lord Monckton wins global warming debate at Oxford Union May 24, 2010 Link.
  • Lord Christopher Monckton, imperious and articulate, won yesterday’s climate change debate in straight sets. January 30, 2010. Link.
  • Rare global warming debate: Skeptic climatologist Dr. Tim Ball vs. alarmist science journalist David Appell 4.9.09 Link.

Note: Winning public debates, of course, does not prove or disprove a sceintific thesis. However, when that thesis demands the greatest lifestyle change for our population since WWII, the populace expects public debates and has a right to expect the thesis to withstand robust scrutiny and challenge by laymen and experts alike.