My take on Lord Monckton's talk in Sydney

Last Wednesday I had the dubious pleasure of hearing Lord Monckton speak on his views of climate-change.  Although I am no climate scientist, I am a educator and scientist passionate about environmental issues and I teach at university hoping to motivate students to become aware of the issues involved in the sustainability debate, of which climate-change is part.

Lord Monckton opened his talk by challenging the concept of an Emission Trading Scheme.  Then, rather than commence and build an argument to support his position, he used what I consider cheap and tawdry theatre with a lengthy quote in Latin, which was lost on most of the audience, followed by a long theatrical discourse about spade (digging type) technology.  This he uttered so fast it was hard to separate one word from another.  He lost any credibility as a professional from that moment, convincing me he was on an ego trip.

For someone claiming to challenge some of the world’s most serious and significant science, I expected a solid, honest argument refuting the science of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.  This did not happen.  Lord Monckton used similar techniques to fuel his own agenda, to those he challenges climate scientists of using.

He went on to claim “the arctic temperature is 2oC cooler now than in 1940”, and on ozone, “Mt. Erebus emits CFCs which are the cause of the variations in the size of the ozone hole.”  Both these ‘facts’ are incorrect. Worse still, his solution to the energy problem in Africa is to use fossil fuel to generate electricity – this in a continent with access to unlimited solar power, in a world running short of oil.

Monckton comes to Australia with an interesting history, an example of which is when HIV/AIDS first appeared.  He proposed “to screen the entire population regularly and to quarantine all carriers of the disease for life”.  Perhaps one has only to read ‘The Diary’ in the SMH of the 29th January for another credibility check.

Lord Monckton’s presentation could be taken lightly were it not on such a serious topic.  He fuels the climate‑change debate for all those who do not wish their consumptive lifestyles to change, and has become one of their ‘knights in shining armour’.

Irrespective of anything I have written, I am fortunate to live in a time and place where people have the freedom to speak openly.  It is left to each individual to make up their mind about the veracity of the ‘facts’ as presented, and the person delivering them.

I am though, still glad I went.