Next week, Christopher Monkton will visit Australia "speaking about the flaws of the push for a global solution to global warming", as Janet Albrechtsen puts it. She says that:

When Monckton talks about the science he is powerful. Watch on YouTube his kerb-side interview of a well-meaning Greenpeace follower on the streets of Copenhagen last month. With detailed data behind him, he asks whether she is aware that there has been no statistically significant change in temperatures for 15 years. No, she is not. Whether she is aware that there has in fact been global cooling in the past nine years? No, she is not. Whether she is aware that there has been virtually no change to the amount of sea ice? No, she does not. Whether, given her lack of knowledge about these facts, she is driven by faith, not facts. Yes, she is driven by faith, she says.

Global cooling? Really? That is a fact?

She also points out that Monkton can come across badly:

Unfortunately, while Monckton has mastered the best arts of persuasion, he also succumbs to the worst of them when he engages in his made-for-the-stage histrionics. In Copenhagen, when a group of young activists interrupted a meeting, he berated them as Nazis and Hitler Youth. Elsewhere he has called on people to rise up and fight off a "bureaucratic communistic world government monster". This extremist language damages his credibility. More important, it damages the debate. You start to look like a crank when you describe your opponents as Nazis and communists. You can see how it happens.

Yes indeed. And also Monkton has a habit of stretching facts.

Quite apart from this (undoubtedly incomplete) list of substantive errors, Lord Monckton further undermines his own credibility as a serious commentator by:

1. Claiming to be a climate scientist when he is not (nine of his publications on the topic come from his own think tank, while the tenth is from the letters section of a journal. He does not have a peer-reviewed publication in any scientific journal on any topic, let alone on climate science);
2. Claiming to be a scientist when he is not (see above. Monckton’s only qualifications are in classics – hence all the pretentious Latin in his presentation – and journalism);
3. Claiming to be a Nobel Laureate when he is not (Crazy, eh! Monckton says he “deserves” a Nobel Prize because he wrote a letter pointing out a decimal point typo in one table of one IPCC report, making him a “contributor to the IPCC”, which won a Nobel Prize in 2007. The IPCC, however, does not list him as a contributor, and his “Nobel Prize Pin” was made for him by a friend in New York rather than by anybody in Scandinavia. Hmmm…)
4. Claiming to be a member of the House of Lords, on multiple occasions, when he is not. (He has **run** for the House of Lords twice, but he lost both times. Perhaps he did not notice those losses?!)
5. Making ridiculous claims on other topics, such as that a ban of DDT was singlehandedly responsible for all malaria deaths in the last few decades, or that the best way to have solved the AIDS crisis was to imprison all AIDS sufferers until they died.

Must admit - it is his Nobel Prize one that makes me laugh. He even presented himself with his own Nobel Prize pin to celebrate!