Aristotle’s climate – logical fallacies are still relevant today

 Aristotle’s fallacies are exemplified by the warming hysteria

 By Christopher Monckton

“But there’s a consensus!” shrieked the bossy environmentalist with the messy blonde hair. “That, Madame, is intellectual baby-talk,” I replied.

I was about to give a talk questioning “global warming” hysteria at Union College, Schenectady. College climate extremists, led by my interlocutor, had set up a table at the door of the lecture theatre to deter students from hearing the skeptical side of the case.

Aristotle’s logical fallacies are still relevant 2,300 years later.  – – – (Getty images)

The Greek philosopher Aristotle, 2,300 years ago, listed the dozen commonest logical fallacies in human discourse in his book Sophistical Refutations. Not the least of these invalid arguments is what the medieval schoolmen would later call the argumentum ad populum — the consensus or headcount fallacy.

A fallacy is a deceptive argument that appears to be logically valid but is in fact invalid. Its conclusion will be unreliable at best, downright false at worst. One should not make the mistake of thinking that Aristotle’s fallacies are irrelevant archaisms. They are as crucial today as when he first wrote them down. Arguments founded upon any of his fallacies are unsound and unreliable, and that is that.

Startlingly, nearly all of the usual arguments for alarm about the climate are instances of Aristotle’s dozen fallacies of relevance or of presumption, not the least of which is the consensus fallacy.

Just because we are told that many people say they believe a thing to be so, that is no evidence that many people say it, still less that they believe it, still less that it is so. The mere fact of a consensus — even if there were one — tells us nothing whatsoever about whether the proposition to which the consensus supposedly assents is true or false.

Two surveys have purported to show that 97% of climate scientists supported the “consensus.” However, one survey was based on the views of just 77 scientists, far too small a sample to be scientific, and the proposition to which 75 of the 77 assented was merely to the effect that there has been warming since 1950.

The other paper did not state explicitly what question the scientists were asked and did not explain how they had been selected to remove bias. Evidentially, it was valueless. Yet that has not prevented the usual suspects from saying — falsely — that the “consensus” of 97% of all climate scientists is that man-made global warming is potentially catastrophic.

Some climate extremists say there is a “consensus of evidence.” However, evidence cannot hold or express an opinion. There has been no global warming for a decade and a half; sea level has been rising for eight years at a rate equivalent to just three centimetres per century; hurricane activity is at its lowest in the 30-year satellite record; global sea-ice extent has hardly changed in that time; Himalayan glaciers have not lost ice overall; ocean heat content is rising four and a half times more slowly than predicted; and the 50 million “climate refugees” that the UN had said would be displaced by 2010 simply do not exist. To date, the “consensus of evidence” does not support catastrophism.

“Ah,” say the believers, “but there is a consensus of scientists and learned societies.” That is the argumentum ad verecundiam, the reputation or appeal-to-authority fallacy. Merely because a group has a reputation, it may not deserve it; even if it deserves it, it may not be acting in accordance with it; and, even if it is, it may be wrong.

 “But it’s only if we include a strong warming effect from man’s CO2 emissions that we can reproduce the observed warming of the past 60 years. We cannot think of any other reason for the warming.” That argument from the UN’s climate panel, the IPCC, is the argumentum ad ignorantiam, the fallacy of arguing from ignorance. We do not know why the warming has occurred. Arbitrarily to blame man is impermissible.

“The rate of global warming is accelerating. Therefore it is caused by us.” That is the fallacy of ignoratio elenchi, the red-herring fallacy. Even if global warming were accelerating, that would tell us nothing about whether we were to blame. The IPCC twice uses this fallacious argument in its 2007 Fourth Assessment Report. Even if its argument were not illogical, the warming rate is not increasing. The notion that it is accelerating was based on a statistical abuse that the IPCC has refused to correct.

Superficially, the red-herring fallacy may seem similar to the fallacy of argument from ignorance. However, it is subtly different. The argument from ignorance refers to fundamental ignorance of the matter of the argument (hence an arbitrary conclusion is reached): the red-herring fallacy refers to fundamental ignorance of the manner of conducting an argument (hence an irrelevant consideration is introduced).

“What about the cuddly polar bears?” That is the argumentum ad misericordiam, the fallacy of inappropriate pity. There are five times as many polar bears as there were in the 1940s — hardly the population profile of a species at imminent threat of extinction. There is no need to pity the bears (and they are not cuddly).

“For 60 years we have added CO2 to the atmosphere. That causes warming. Therefore the warming is our fault.” That is the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, the argument from false cause. Merely because one event precedes another it does not necessarily cause it.

“We tell the computer models that there will be strong warming if we add CO2 to the air. The models show there will be a strong warming. Therefore the warming is our fault.” This is the argumentum ad petitionem principii, the circular-argument fallacy, where a premise is also the conclusion.

“Global warming caused Hurricane Katrina.” This is the inappropriate argument from the general to the particular that is the fallacy a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid, the fallacy of accident. Even the IPCC admits individual extreme-weather events cannot be ascribed to global warming. Hurricane Katrina was only Category 3 at landfall. The true reason for the damage was failure to maintain the sea walls.

“Arctic sea ice is melting: Therefore man-made global warming is a problem.” This is the inappropriate argument from the particular to the general that is the fallacy a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter, the fallacy of converse accident. The Arctic ice may be melting, but the Antarctic has been cooling for 30 years and the sea ice there is growing, so the decline in Arctic sea ice does not indicate a global problem.

“Monckton says he’s a member of the House of Lords, but the Clerk of the Parliaments says he isn’t, so everything he says is nonsense.” That is the argumentum ad hominem, the attack on the man rather than on his argument.

“We don’t care what the truth is. We want more taxation and regulation. We will use global warming as an excuse. If you disagree, we will haul you before the International Climate Court.” That is the nastiest of all the logical fallacies: The argumentum ad baculum, the argument of force.

In any previous generation, the fatuous cascade of fallacious arguments deployed by climate extremists in government, academe and the media in support of the now-collapsed climate scare would have been laughed down.

When the future British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan arrived at Oxford to study the classics, his tutor said: “Four years’ study will qualify you for nothing at all — except to recognize rot when you hear it.” The climate storyline is rot. To prevent further costly scams rooted in artful nonsense, perhaps we should restore universal classical education. As it is, what little logic our bossy environmentalists learn appears to come solely from Mr. Spock in Star Trek.

– Reprinted from Financial Post, Canada, 20th April 2012


Argumentative Fallacies by Matt Vander Boegh

This video discusses some basic principles of argumentative thought, beginning with Aristotle’s “Three Cornerstones of Persuasion” and ending with a quick description of many of the argumentative fallacies described in Aristotle’s book Sophistical Refutations.

Matt Vander Boegh is a lecturer in the Department of Communication at Boise State University. Read what students think about Vander Boegh’s lectures Click Here.


Detailed Analysis of Aristotle’s Work at The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

“Aristotle’s logic, especially his theory of the syllogism, has had an unparalleled influence on the history of Western thought. It did not always hold this position: in the Hellenistic period, Stoic logic, and in particular the work of Chrysippus, took pride of place. However, in later antiquity, following the work of Aristotelian Commentators, Aristotle’s logic became dominant, and Aristotelian logic was what was transmitted to the Arabic and the Latin medieval traditions, while the works of Chrysippus have not survived.” – read the detailed analysis at the link below.

“Aristotle’s Logic”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2012 Edition)


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Rise of The EU Commissars: Lord Monckton on Alex Jones TV

Christopher Monckton

Lord Christopher Monckton is in the USA to attend as a guest of the libertarian Heartland Institute’s conference in Chicago. Video of that performance is now available, following on from Alex Jones TV appearances below.  See also the Skype TV appearance at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, in Canada, following on from that. Meanwhile Monckton appeared live on Alex Jones TV Show, from Austin Texas, on May 23rd. Monckton recounts a few personal anecdotes about how he was individually victimised by Britain’s “Secret Police” and other interesting events. Lord Monckton is the Man you want fighting in your corner, and not some wishy-washy sycophants like the SNP/Tory/Lab/LibDems, who are beholden to the collapsing European Union and their bogus, so called “green” agenda. Watch the interviews below and judge for yourself whether what Lord Monckton says is credible or not.


Monckton Warns about United Nations Agenda 21

Later that same day Lord Monckton joined Aaron Dykes on the Infowars Nightly News, to explain and warn about UN Agenda 21 plans which are set to attempt to install a supra-national World Dictatorship, under a bogus pretext at the forthcoming Rio de Janeiro, so called environment summit.  


At the U.N. Summit at Rio in 1992, the Conference Secretary-General, Maurice Strong, said “Isn’t the only hope for this planet that the industrialized civilization collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” Maurice Strong currently lives in Bejing, China, but still has “tentacles” which stretch across the entire Globe.


“The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. …. The real enemy then is humanity itself. – From the Club of Rome’s “The First Global Revolution” p. 75 published in 1993.


Monckton of Brenchley, is chief policy advisor to the Science and Public Policy Institute.
Previously he had held senior positions in the British Press and with Government.
This is his paradigm shifting speech from the Heartland 2012 ICCC7 Chicago Conference.


Now watch other recordings from Heartland ICCC7 2012, Chicago, Illinois, USA

Vaclav Klaus, Anthony Watts, Craig Idso, Roger Helmer, Joe Bastardi & many more.

Additional videos will be added to that site over the next few days and weeks.


John Donne wrote in his famous Meditation Number XVII, the following memorable lines:

No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend’s or of thine own were: any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee.

Read the rest of Meditation XVII at



See also the narrative and videos on the story page :-
“Monckton Warns of End of Democracy in United Kingdom”
at this website. Click the above link to read that story now.


See also the narrative and video on the Media page :-
” Jesse Ventura’s Conspiracy Theory – Global Warming”
at this website. Click the above link to read that story now.


Lord Monckton on Rio 2012, Agenda 21 and the Eurozone

Monckton appeared via Skype TV for a 50 minute interview, at the Austrian AV Club, of the Ludwig von Mises Institute of Canada, when he discussed the above agenda.


 more on the Rio de Janeiro Conference will appear on a new page soon.
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Peter Lilley MP – A Greener Shade of Blue?

“A Greener Shade of Blue? Communicating Climate Change on the Right”

This was the headline of the presentation made at The Policy Exchange, on Tuesday May 1st 2012. The Rt. Hon Peter Lilley MP, Former Secretary of State at The Department of Trade and Industry, appeared to battle from the dias against colleague, Tim Yeo MP who is current chair of the Energy & Climate Change All Party Select Committee. It’s hardly worth listening to the trite and disingenuous remarks made by the other participants, but if you must, then see the website of the Policy Exchange, for this event.

First see the irresistable arguments from Peter Lilley 

Peter Lilley Should Be Appointed as Secretary Of State At The DECC


Policy Exchange webpage for this report


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Pres. Obama Urged To Ignore Democracy – Monckton replies

Kari Norgaard

John Holdren

In an horrific echo of old WWII Nazi and Stalinist tactics, climate change alarmist “Professor” Kari Norgaard has claimed that global warming skeptics were akin to racists and should be “treated” for having a psychiatric disorder. She wrote to and praised President Obama for appointing population control freak, John P. Holdren, and urged the US President to ignore democracy and the public’s opinion, in favour of draconian climate change mandates.


Video interview with Lord Christopher Monckton & Alex Jones


Full Details and documentary evidence in this story from Infowars

by Paul Joseph Watson,, Thursday, April 5, 2012

The climate change professor at the center of the scandal over her assertion that global warming skeptics were akin to racists and should be “treated” for having a psychiatric disorder wrote a letter in which she praised Barack Obama for hiring eugenicist John P. Holdren as his chief science advisor, while also urging Obama to ignore public opinion and disregard democracy in favor of enforcing draconian climate change mandates.

Following University of Oregon Professor Kari Norgaard’s presentation of a discussion document at the recent Planet Under Pressure conference, in which she called for global warming skeptics to be viewed as racists who need to be “treated” for mental disorders, every academic establishment associated with her has attempted to memory hole information concerning Norgaard’s biography and her previous work.

As the Watts Up With That blog documents, the University of Oregon has attempted to re-write history Soviet-style by amending the controversial terms used in Norgaard’s paper without so much as an editor’s note.

However, a damning letter written by Norgaard which appears on the Whitman College Magazine website has not yet been erased. In the letter, Norgaard praises Barack Obama for making an “excellent choice” in hiring John P. Holdren, whom she inaccurately describes as a “Nobel Peace Prize winner”.

As we have exhaustively documented, Holdren is an avowed eugenicist who in his 1977 book Ecoscience called for a “planetary regime” to carry out forced abortions and mandatory sterilization procedures, as well as drugging the water supply, in an effort to cull the human surplus.

“Please listen to Holdren and Hansen,” writes Norgaard, referring to prominent NASA global warming alarmist and Al Gore ally Dr. James Hansen, the man who endorsed a book by fellow alarmist Keith Farnish which advocated acts of sabotage and environmental terrorism in blowing up dams and demolishing cities in order to return the planet to the agrarian age.

Norgaard then openly urges Obama to virtually suspend democracy, ignore public sentiment, and enforce climate change mandates by executive fiat.

“Policymakers should not wait for public opinion to take necessary action,” she writes, adding, “Public opinion does matter in a democracy, but this is a time when following it would be a serious mistake.”

Norgaard’s plea to Obama to act like a dictator in enforcing the climate agenda bears resemblance to ‘Gaia hypothesis’ creator James Lovelock’s 2010 assertion that “democracy must be put on hold” to combat global warming and that “a few people with authority” should be allowed to run the planet because people were too stupid to be allowed to steer their own destinies.

Norgaard concludes the letter by calling on Obama to completely eliminate the coal power industry with an “immediate phaseout of coal,” rhetoric which echoes Obama’s 2008 promise to “bankrupt” the coal industry.


The letter confirms Norgaard to be a dangerous environmental extremist with a total contempt for freedom, both advocating that Obama disregard the will of the people he is supposed to represent, while also endorsing the likes of Holdren and Hansen who have advocated the most obscenely tyrannical measures in the name of saving the planet.

The fact that there is a blatant effort on behalf of the academic establishment to distance itself from Norgaard, with information about her being deleted from University websites, illustrates how the climate change alarmist movement is none too keen on having Norgaard’s ideas receive too much public attention. Indeed, You Tube is now deleting videos that contain criticism of Norgaard in response to frivolous complaints.

This whole episode again underscores the fact that if you scratch beneath the surface of the rhetoric coming from global warming alarmists, you encounter some of the most offensive, despotic and downright dangerous ideology from people in positions of power that society has faced for decades.


You Tube Now Banning Videos Critical of Global Warming Alarmism

As mentioned in the Monckton interview above, Alex Jones gets an update from Marc Morano concerning their recent, 4th April 2012, Nightly News Interview that was banned by You Tube over some nebulous community guidelines violation. In this country you are not allowed to have a discussion about University Professors who call for your “treatment” if you don’t worship on the alter of the now disproved theory of anthropogenic global warming and or climate change.


“This is straight out of the playbook of Obama’s information czar Cass Sunstein, who in a 2008 paper advocated taxing, or outright banning of political ideas not approved of by the establishment – including skepticism of man-made global warming.” – Paul Watson.

Full write-up on this additional info, including the banned YouTube video uploaded to another video streaming service, may be seen at the following link to


—- more later on this story
Posted in climate, energy, politics | 2 Comments

Monckton’s Schenectady showdown in the USA

Originally Posted on March 10, 2012 by Anthony Watts @ WUWT
– Updated March 12 – Hartford Echo Player, as recommended by Monckton – near foot of page.
– Updated March 16  – Lord Christopher Monckton :  Nerenberg Lecture 2012 at foot of page.
– Updated March 21  – CHRW Radio interview and Schenectady Environment “Club” attack.
– Updated March 22  – Monckton appeared on the Ray Appleton Show on KMJ 580, Fresno, California.
– Updated Feb 2013  – Nerenberg Lecture – Courtier’s Conundrum – Full Video Available – MUST SEE.
Monckton vanquishes Union College “Greens too yellow to admit they’re really Reds”
Guest post by Justin Pulliam


Attendees listen to Monckton’s speech at Union College. Photo by Charlotte Lehman

THE NEWS that Lord Monckton was to give his “Climate of Freedom” lecture at Union College in Schenectady, New York, had thrown the university’s environmentalists into a turmoil. The campus environmentalists set up a Facebook page announcing a counter-meeting of their own immediately following Monckton’s lecture. There is no debate about global warming, they announced. There is a consensus. The science is settled. Their meeting would be addressed by professors and PhDs, the “true” scientists, no less. Sparks, it seemed, were gonna fly.

Traveling with Lord Monckton on the East Coast leg of his current whistle-stop tour of the US and Canada, I was looking forward to documenting the Schenectady showdown. I have had the pleasure of listening to His Lordship at previous campus events. He is at his best when confronted by a hostile audience. The angrier and more indignant they are, the more he seems to like it.

…… See The Video (sadly the audio on this recording is very poor quality)

….. Continue reading Original Article

Very nearly the same lecture was delivered just a few days later at another venue where the audio was of a much better quality, and you may wish to view this presentation as well (or instead).

The Global Warming Agenda – Lord Monckton Debunks the Myth

Lord Christopher Monkcton speaks on March 8th, 2012 at the University of Minnesota, proving that the science behind the global warming catastrophe theory is mistaken……  (this video is courtesy dwrocker1)


However, perhaps the best Video Presentation of all is the one recommended recently, by Lord Monckton Himself, which plays on a special Hartford University applet – see below.

What Lord Monckton is saying has such enormity and the ramifications so myriad, that perhaps you need to see the information again in any case, to appreciate the scale of the fraud and hokum that is taking place. The player has resizable internal windows, or you can view either window in Fullscreen mode as you desire. This is also the longest and most detailed of the three presentations represented here, and is probably still worth viewing even if you have viewed the others previously.


Click on the player image to open the actual Hartford Echo Player in a new window.
Move Slider – Introduction Starts at 00:08:35 – Monckton Starts Speaking at 00:13:20
Echo Player will probably take a few minutes to buffer, depending on your connection.
If the video fails to start then refresh page. If the video stutters when playing,
then pause the player for a few minutes to allow for stream buffering, or you can,
choose “Dial-in” instead of “Broadband” and get an HQ slideshow with audio track.


 Monckton talks with Michael Coren about the Nerenberg Lecture

Simple calculations done honourably and properly can prevent large and wasteful errors. For example, the cost of abating CO2-driven warming turns out greatly to exceed that of focused adaptation to the damage the warming may cause. Mathematical simplification of complex issues is no panacea and can be abused, but some attempt at rigour is preferable to the merely qualitative, partisan approach that is customary. Uncosted ideology is costly. It is immoral too.

Nerenberg Lecture 2012

 At Last a Recording of the actual Lecture Posted Feb 2013

Here is an interesting video of a relevent radio show transmission ….

Just Right #241 – March 15, 2012. Bob Metz and Robert Vaughan host with special guests, Lord Christopher Monckton, and Professor Christopher Essex of the University. “Just Right”, airs live from the University of Western Ontario every Thursday from 11 am to noon, on CHRW Radio, 94.9 FM (London, Ontario, CANADA).


Play MP3 Stream of the Radio Show, if you prefer, in the “On Page Player” below

alternatively you can . . . . . .

Download or Play the MP3 File with your Computer or other Device.
(right click the above hyperlink to choose options)


Monckton in a rift with Union college Earth scientist and activist

– Originally Posted on March 17, 2012 by Anthony Watts

Readers may recall this piece “Monckton’s Schenectady showdown” in which he schools a number of students despite “en-masse” collections (to use Donald Rodbell’s words) of naysayers. Mr. Rodbell and Erin Delman, pictured below, wrote this essay (which I’ve excerpted below) in their student newspaper The Concordiensis, citing their angst that Monckton was speaking.

A lord’s opinion can’t compete with scientific truth

 Claims Erin Delman, President of the Union College Environmental Club

– photo by Charlotte Lehman

Lord Monckton replied to their attack with a comment at their website where they posted this unwarranted and mistaken denunciation. However it is best explained by Watt’s original article, and do note the literally hundreds of supportive comments for Lord Monckton.

—- To continue reading this story at WUWT Website ( Click Here)

Monckton on the Ray Appleton Show – Fresno, California 22 March 2012

…… There will be more on this thread here later
Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Heartland “Fakegate” : why the perps should be prosecuted

- New Material Added : 09th March 2012
 - Main Story Text Originally Posted on February 23, 2012 @ WUWT Website

by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

Christopher Monckton

Yesterday I had the pleasure of chairing a packed meeting in the Palace of Westminster (don’t tell the Clerk of the Parliaments), at which Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT spoke even more brilliantly than usual on “global warming”, and engagingly answered many questions from Parliamentarians and the public. [see video at the foot of this article – Ed.]

Afterwards, Dick went to brief a Cabinet Minister (who shall be nameless, but he is a good egg, and privately regards catastrophic manmade “global warming” as nonsense). The Minister indicated – in effect, and with scarcely-concealed regret – that the party line set by David Cameron in response to various opinion polls, focus groups and other such artifices for identifying and following a consensus rather than setting a lead, and not the objective scientific and economic truth, was likely to remain the basis of UK climate policy.

In reality, orders issued to our elected nominal “government” by the hated, unelected Kommissars of the EU, our true government, who have exclusive competence to decide and dictate the UK’s environment and climate policies, are and will remain the basis of UK climate policy, regardless of what (or whether) Cameron and his vapid focus groups think (if “think” is the right word). Government of the people, by the people, for the people has perished from this once-free, formerly-democratic corner of the Earth. We have all the trappings of democracy and none of the reality.

Oakland Liar “Pinocchio” Gleick Confessed

Over tea and scones at the National Liberal Club while Dick was with the Minister, several of us discussed what we call Fakegate – the frauds recently perpetrated to the detriment of the blameless Heartland Institute. Among some there was a feeling, often expressed by the nicer but more woolly-headed and ineffectual sort of skeptic, that somehow scientists who commit frauds ought not to be prosecuted for them, for otherwise academic research would become impossible. [see this article at Jo Nova for an explanation of "Fakegate" Fiasco - Editor]

I hear this unsoundly-founded point so often that it is hard to keep an even temper. A fraud is a fraud is a fraud, whether perpetrated by a scientist or by anyone else. The mistreatment to which the Heartland Institute has been subjected by a fraudster and counterfeiter constitutes several serious, imprisonable offenses, known in US law as felonies. The perps, whoever they be, should be investigated, brought for trial, prosecuted, and fined or – better still – imprisoned. Punishment for specific, manifest scientific frauds in no way prejudices, compromises, or trammels the freedom and purity of academic research. It protects and enhances them.

Three frauds are evident in Fakegate. First, wire fraud by whoever used electronic means to obtain internal documents that were the property of the Heartland Institute by what the ineffable Richard Black of the unspeakable BBC calls “subterfuge” and what the criminal law bluntly calls “deception”. Secondly, circulation of a counterfeit document purporting to be a true Heartland document. Thirdly, reporting of the affair with reckless disregard for whether the counterfeit document was genuine on the part of the loony-left BBC, the Pooterish Scotsman, Britain’s Marxist daily The Guardian, and various blogs, notably the relentlessly malevolent and consequently uninfluential Desmogblog.

Title 18 (Crimes and Criminal Procedure), Part I (Crimes), Chapter 63 (Mail Fraud and other Fraud Offenses) of the US Codex Iuris deals with “Mail Fraud and other Fraud Offenses”. Paragraph 1341 defines “fraud” simpliciter:

“Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property” [or, by Paragraph 1346, “the intangible right of honest services”] “by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, or to … procure for unlawful use any …  article, or anything represented to be or intimated or held out to be such counterfeit or spurious article, for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice or attempting so to do, … or deposits or causes to be deposited any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by any private or commercial interstate carrier, or takes or receives therefrom, any such matter or thing, or knowingly causes to be delivered by … such carrier according to the direction thereon, … shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. …”

In general, whoever knowingly perpetrates across state boundaries or recklessly perpetuates a deception calculated to cause financial or pecuniary advantage in goods or services to some or suchlike loss to others commits the Federal criminal offense of fraud.

If the deception be furthered by electronic means, it is wire fraud. If it be furthered by the use of counterfeit documents, it is a distinct count of fraud. If it be furthered by reckless and detrimental publication and repetition of the contents of counterfeit documents as though they were the real thing, when no steps before publication had been taken to verify that the documents relied upon were true, it is also fraud.

Let us begin with the wire fraud. The relevant US statutory offense seems to me to be 18 USC 1343 (Wire Fraud) of the US Codex Iuris, which opens with these words:

“Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property” [or, by Paragraph 1346, “the intangible right of honest services”] “by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.”

I am unfamiliar with US law, and cannot confirm that these provisions still stand part of the US code, or that they have not been amended, or that there is no case law or rule of interpretation preventing their application in the present case. On the face of it, though, the obtaining of documents that were the property of the Heartland Institute by a scheme or artifice whereby the fraudster misrepresented himself as a Board member of the Heartland Institute was achieved by electronic means across state boundaries between the Pacific and the Great Lakes.

The term “interstate commerce” is interpreted latae sententiae in US law, since it is widely defined in the US Constitution itself. Therefore, the fraudster would not be able to escape a wire-fraud charge by asserting that his deception of the Institute was not “in interstate commerce”. Even if the court were to find that the deception was not “in interstate commerce”, the deception would still constitute fraud simpliciter under paragraph 1341 of the Code, though not wire fraud under paragraph 1343.

Next, the fraud arising from the creation and circulation of the counterfeit document. Whether or not the fraudster who deceived the Institute also uttered the bogus document, he certainly circulated it. Consequently, even if he thought but did not know it was genuine, his reckless circulation of it without having verified that it was genuine, and in the company of other documents obtained by fraud, would constitute a distinct but connected fraud charge – and, given the malicious content of the counterfeit document and the very grave harm that it was calculated to do to the Institute, a very serious charge at that. The court would also take account of the fact that the perp had obtained all documents but the counterfeit document from the Institute and was, in the circumstances, under a particular duty to verify the genuineness of the document before circulating it with the others.

Finally, there is the fraud perpetrated by the various news and internet media, especially in the UK (where Marxism is many journalists’ creed) in perpetuating the Fakegate fraud by rushing to publication or broadcast without having verified the genuineness of the document that turned out to be counterfeit. Here, the well-established legal doctrine of mens rea applies. To commit a crime, one must know that one is committing a crime, or one must act in a manner calculated to cause harm to another while being reckless as to whether the harm that one’s actions are calculated to cause constitutes a criminal offense.

Fraud charges against the guilty news media and blogs would not be likely unless and until the Fakegate fraudster had first been brought to justice before a Federal court.

The dripping malevolence of the commentaries by the various news media and blogs on what the counterfeit document purported to reveal about the Heartland Institute’s supposed attitude to the teaching of science in schools would count very much against them in court. The intent to cause harm to the Heartland, and to cause collateral damage to Anthony Watts and others, is very clear. On the other hand, those who at least acted promptly by publishing Heartland’s announcement that the document was counterfeit will have mitigated their crime to some extent. Those blogs that continue to publish the counterfeit document rather than removing it, and one blog that pretended to “confirm” the document as genuine, will face long prison sentences.


Or will they? Much of the scientific criminality surrounding the “global warming” scam only happens because the fraudsters in white lab-coats reckon that they are untouchable. They have the protection of governments, who are themselves profiting mightily by the scam; they are fawned upon by the news media, much as Al Capone was in Chicago; they are lionized by their academic institutions for the massive government grants they attract to investigate what, day by day, becomes more visibly a teacup tempest rebranded as Apocalypse; and, worst of all, the skeptics who ought to report the frauds – and without whose reports the authorities are unlikely to act ex proprio motu – are a bunch of wee, cowering, timorous beasties.

Since fraud across state boundaries is a Federal offense, any citizen of the United States, whether or not he is in any way connected with any of the parties to the frauds, has the right – and the duty – to go to his nearest police station and make a complaint that frauds have been committed to the detriment of the Heartland Institute. The complainant does not need to have any connection with the Institute, nor any permission from it. He just has to be as outraged as I am.

Oakland Police Chief – Howard Jordan

All he has to do is to go in and ask the police to investigate the frauds that have occurred. The facts are plain enough, and so is the law. The police will be bound to investigate and to pass a report of their investigation to the District Attorney, who, in matters of interstate fraud, would be likely to consult the State’s Attorney General. On the facts as I now have them, prosecution would certainly result, and conviction would be very likely.

But will anyone act? Around the fragrant tea-table overlooking the silent Thames, there was a marked reluctance to do anything other than talk about it. One said, “I couldn’t possibly make a complaint. Just think of all the unwelcome publicity.” In fact, there would be no publicity, since any complainant not connected with the Heartland Institute will play no further role in the case once he has undertaken the simple duty of reporting the fraud to his friendly, local police station.

Another said, “We really mustn’t interfere with academic freedom in this way.” Yet the action of the fraudster was not an exercise of academic freedom, still less a triumph for it. It was an abuse of it. It was a fraud. It was an offense. It was a serious offense. Read the Code.

Marcus Tullius Cicero

The law, said Cicero in a beautiful passage in his De Legibus, is founded upon and rooted in love.  And what is a sin? In Christian theology it is a failure of love. A sin is a sin because its fake-etrator is knowingly or recklessly doing harm and, to the extent of the harm done, is failing to love the victims of his wrongdoing. It is precisely because of the harm done to the Heartland Institute and to Anthony Watts and others that the sin – in law the offense – is grave. And it is precisely to prevent such harm from being done that the law provides punishment for fraudsters – as long as someone, anyone, has the guts to go into a police station and start the ball rolling by making a complaint.

The Late Lord Denning

If just one or two of the numerous scientific frauds that are being reported to me were instead reported to the police, and if prosecutions and convictions were to ensue in just one or two cases, the “global warming” scam would come sharply to an end. Those scientists working in climate and related fields who have acted or published fraudulently (there are just a few of them, and they know who they are) would once again be reminded that they are not an untouchable, priestly caste at liberty to ignore the laws that the rest of us must follow. As the late Lord Denning used to say, in that gentle Hampshire accent of his, “Be you never so high, the law is above you.”


Global Warming: How to approach the science

 A Seminar by Prof Richard S. Lindzen, held at the Committee Rooms,
House of Commons, Westminster, London, UK. – 22nd February 2012.

Part 1


Part 2


Questions & Answers Session following Prof Lindzen’s seminar


 – For the Full Text of Professor Lindzen’s Presentation (with slides) – Click Here (PDF)


As Lord Monckton stated in his closing speech, Professor Lindzen has been travelling the World for some time, trying to educate the public about climate change, and the relationship of the various parameters which cause this effect. The Professor has also been at pains to point out that current government policies can actually harm the economies of the world, without actually having any measurable effect on the climate.

On Wednesday the 6th of April 2011, Professor Richard Lindzen appeared with Chris Smith on 2GB Radio, in Sydney, Australia to criticise the Australian Carbon Tax of Julia Gillard. Lindzen says the carbon tax will be a heavy tax with no benefit.


– An Interesting Analysis of the “Fakegate” affair can be see at WUWT
Things About Peter Gleick That “Might Also Interest or Intrigue You”
– by David Ross

According to his own account, Peter Gleick “received an anonymous document in the mail describing what appeared to be details of the Heartland Institute’s climate program strategy.”

Why was the “Climate Strategy” leaked only to Gleick? His explanation is less than convincing: “I do not know the source of that original document but assumed it was sent to me because of my past exchanges with Heartland and because I was named in it.” None of the other people named in the document (some of whom have also had “past exchanges” with Heartland) received a copy.

Why didn’t Gleick show the “Climate Strategy” document to anyone else? He has many journalist contacts. Any one of them could have given him their opinion on the veracity of the document and told him exactly what to do with it.

Instead, he then “solicited and received additional materials directly from the Heartland Institute under someone else’s name” in an attempt to “confirm the accuracy of the information in this document.”

read more at WUWT : Things About Peter Gleick ………


-There will be more on this story later . . . . . .
Posted in climate, MEDIA | Leave a comment

US Congressman Rohrabacher’s speech on climate issues

As part of the debate on H.R. 1633  [Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act of 2011] on the 8th of December  2011, according to the House rules, Representatives have the right to entreat to make a speech of up to an hour long on any subject in the Public interest. Mr. Dana Rohrabacher of California 46th District, Huntington Beach, made the following remarks on the floor of the House, as a matter of public record.

Mr. Speaker, tonight, as a strong advocate of human progress through advancing mankind’s understanding of science and engineering, I rise to discuss a blatant abuse and misuse of science. A few nights ago, I watched a video of President Eisenhower’s 1961 Farewell Address. . . . . . .

President Dwight Eisenhower’s Farewell Address to the Nation January 17, 1961

Unfortunately, his much heralded prescient warning of a military/industrial complex has obscured another warning in that farewell address that is just as significant: Eisenhower pointed to the danger “of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”

The Congressman then went on to explain just exactly how this “blatant abuse and misuse of science” had taken place, and why this fraudulent and hokum theory has mesmerised the public and politicians alike. Hear this actual speech for yourself. Congressman Rohrabacher rises at 05:57:20 into the debate. WordPress cannot play this video in “Full Screen” mode, however there are no diagrams or photos to see. This C-Span version is preferable to the “official C-Span” YouTube version, which for some mysterious reason cuts Rep. Rohrabacher  off  before the end.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

A further analysis of this speech and its implications and ramifications, can be seen in this supporting article on the dianoetic WUWT Website posted by Anthony Watts, on 17th Dec.

These remarks have implications for the UK, and the World as well as the USA. See also the previous articles about these climate frauds, featuring Lord Monckton at this website.


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Monckton Pans Bureaucrat Power Grab – Endorses Ron Paul

Lord Monckton, noted man-made climate-change critic, talks with Alex Jones, about an effort by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to vastly expand its power to regulate businesses, communities and ecosystems in the name of “sustainable development.” He goes on to criticise the EU for advising the UN how to create self-amending treaties, which can then be expanded by unelected bureaucrats. As a tireless campaigner for liberty, truth, justice, and freedom from overbearing and corrupt bureaucracies, Monckton denounced all US Republican Presidential Candidates, with the notable exception of Ron Paul.

If people want to vote for Ron Paul, that is thier choice, and they should have the absolute right to excercise it.”, said Monckton. He continued. “If Ron Paul is the only one who isn’t buying into all this enviro-garbage, then he’s the one you should vote for.

Part 1

Part 2

This is Lord Monckton’s view, and not yet an Official UKIP Endorsement of Ron Paul

Ron Paul is a Republican Party Candidate for President of The United States

               Ron Paul    Ron Paul - Legalise Freedom

Golden State Viral Video – The Ron Paul Song

BUY NOW ON iTunes:  [proceeds go to RevPAC]


Watch this presentation : see why so many are endorsing Ron Paul


Troops for Ron Paul : Endorse Liberty


 One last best hope : Ron Paul – part 1

 One last best hope : Ron Paul – part 2


Nigel Farage and Ron Paul – Common ground across the Atlantic


The Euro Breakdown – Nigel Farage prophesied it!


Having seen the above video presentations you may well ask . . . . .

Who is really behind this contemptuous agenda ?

Could it be The Club of Rome & The Committee of 300 ?


For more on Coleman, Kissinger & Club of Rome, Committee of 300 & more: See Here


Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments