Deep in the comments of a tedious post about a pointless film named 50 To 1 based on absurd calculations by a man who was last seen applying mathematics to the question of whether Obama’s birth certificicate is fake comes this curious statement from one “Monckton of Brenchley”:
Those who suggest that the argument is unsound or originates elsewhere will be relieved to know that this is indeed not only an original result (which is in line with, but more detailed than, other results in the reviewed economic literature) but also a reviewed result. I have just corrected the page-proofs and the underlying paper will appear in the 45th Annual Proceedings of the World Federation of Scientists, to which I presented the calculations last August.
Impressive! A World Federation Of Scientists! Sounds important!
Except a quick search for the “45th Annual Proceedings of the World Federation of Scientists” returns nothing but Monckton making the same boast elsewhere on the internet. Not to worry! Let’s just search for “Annual Proceedings of the World Federation of Scientists”.
A search for “World Federation Of Scientists” brings us to a website that looks like it hasn’t been updated since 1997, and there we find a link to a page listing “Contributions to the 45th Session of the International Seminars on Planetary Emergencies”. Sure enough, Monckton lectured the assembled about his whimsical interpretation of economics of adaptation.
A further search returns to us the name of last year’s journal – “International Seminar on Nuclear War and Planetary Emergencies: 44th Session“. So Monckton got the name of the publication wrong. Maybe because he gets a lot of things wrong, but maybe because he didn’t want anyone to find it.
But is it peer-reviewed?
It is not peer reviewed!
Christopher Monckton is lying yet again. It’s merely a collection of speeches made in that forum which have been edited by someone. Editing is not peer review, and this isn’t the first time Monckton has pretended that basic editing is peer review either.
Other things that aren’t peer review – anecdotal stories about “meeting [being] unable to find fault with the calculations” does not equal peer review!
Monckton is lying again and he’s dragging down a filmmaker who’s too blind or thick to realise he’s being lied to by a fraud who’s claimed to be a member of the House Of Lords (nope), a Nobel Prize winner (nope) and that he can cure HIV (no no no!).
Monckton concludes his comment with this statement:
Those who say no rational argument will ever move the true-believers should not despair. If we gently but firmly persist in arguing rationally, the fact will become evident and the truth of what we say will be recognized. Have courage!
Here is Monckton arguing rationally.