Lord Monckton has again garnered some attention, this time due to a debate with Richard Denniss, an economist. A debate that was organised by the National Press Club and was held on the 19th of July.

This debate is already doing it’s rounds on websites like Watts Up With That and has been heralded as a victory by these so called climate sceptics. I’ve watched this one hour long debate in full and I can say it wasn’t a victory for them. It was Monckton yet again repeating his well known, and faulty, talking points.

For example when Jennifer Bennett from Campus Review asked the question why he hasn’t published any peer reviewed articles if he’s so sure about his position. And he got all huffy after this question was posed and he slapped her down with saying he is peer reviewed and that she should do her homework.

Now the article he’s referring to with the claim that he is peer reviewed is “Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered” and was published in the Newsletter of the American Physical Society. And it states, below every single article, the following:

The Forum on Physics and Society is a place for discussion and disagreement on scientific and policy matters. Our newsletter publishes a combination of non- peer- reviewed technical articles, policy analyses, and opinion. All articles and editorials published in the newsletter solely represent the views of their authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Forum Executive Committee.

This, and the following statement at the beginning of the article, were added due to Monckton constantly claiming it was peer reviewed:

The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review, since that is not normal procedure for American Physical Society newsletters.

This  has always been the case for these newsletters, and was always stated on their website. What they do provide is an optional editorial review of any submission for the APS Newsletters, which is something entirely different than a peer review. So they weren’t, as Monckton claims, perfectly happy to say it was peer-reviewed at the time and then subsequently changed their position to saying it wasn’t peer reviewed.

Mind you this has been pointed out to Monckton time and time again. Because of that I instantly knew what he was on about and where he was going wrong. Things like this is the very reason I dismiss everything he says out of hand. As every time I checked his points he turned out to be wrong. And not only that, he keeps repeating these very same points, even after it has been pointed out to him. Which is again shown by people who have analysed the claims Monckton made during this debate in more depth.

Because of this Monckton is nothing more, and nothing less, than a liar. And as I’m someone who normally gives people the benefit of the doubt, that is saying a lot.