UPDATE - have created a google spreadsheet that anyone who has the URL can edit:

https://spreadsheets.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Apd6Dt_7N4k-dGFYOG84VzdxTHh4VWJKZ3VjQ2ctVmc&hl=en_US

Can anyone provide other examples of direct Monckton quotes (sources please) and a scientist disagreeing with Monckton's interpretation of his own work?

Well, I remember him misrepresenting Dr Pinker a year or two back. Tim Lambert over at Deltoid dealt with a bit of that in his "debate". Here's the PDF linked to from Deltoid.

Yeah Pinker was a classic and probably started the whole Monckton misrepresents scientists thing off.

Tim also posted a video of the debate where Pinker was used.

Here are the videos of the Lambert debate where Pinker is used:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nB5N8EtNCzA&list=PLECB5DBAEB957FD5C

Solanki et al 2004, Nature:

"According to our reconstruction, the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago. We find that during the past 11,400 years the Sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode. Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades3."

Monckton quotes:

"...the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago. We find that during the past 11,400 years the Sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode....." <--- Leaves out critical part.

The paper and Potholer54's video on it.

I would actually recommend going through Potholer54's videos on Monckton, several good examples there.  He gives all of the sources in the video description below.

Peter Sinclair's videos (example) also contains some good examples, IIRC he has done a few debunking Monckton.

I hope that Richard Denniss knows he is unlikely to win a debate with a liar and a cheat.

That's what Abraham's presentation is chock full of.  http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/

Oh, and don't forget Potholer's 5 part series... http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/u/14/fbW-aHvjOgM

In fact, part 5 specifically goes through a list of things Monckton gets wrong... http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/u/4/TRCyctTvuCo

I would also suggest to Richard to take some time to look at what information is available about himself out there.  Monckton is going to be doing his own research on him and looking for ways to exploit his weaknesses.  Monckton is very good at this.  Be prepared with responses.  Be prepared to deflect and redirect Monckton's talking points.  Be prepared for Monckton to try to talk over him, even if it's a debate format.  Monckton will sense the strength of the moderator and take advantages of any weaknesses there.

Monckton is a very skilled debater.  He's good at controlling the audience.  Be ready with a few jokes of your own.  Bring a tinfoil hat and present it to Monckton.

"Bring a tinfoil hat and present it to Monckton."

Good ide Rob :)

You know, I actually think that would work really well... the tinfoil hat.  If you did it at the very first of the debate it would set him back on his heals.  Monckton has a tendency to get overly worked up.  And when he's worked up like this he's only credible to the very extreme elements of the crowd.  He'll also say almost anything at that point.  From there he pretty much digs his own grave, the way he did with the swastika episode.

The more we can all tag him with the extreme rhetoric the more he loses broader support.  That recent Wendy Carlisle piece from the ABC did a good job of highlighting his "fascism" rhetoric. (And it sounds like she had a bit of a scare in the process.)

But her scare was from the fact that Monckton's worshippers were acting, well, a little bit like Brown Shirts.

Exactly, Neal.  I think Monckton is not mentally stable (I honestly think he is clinically a sick man).  He may sound in control but there are a lot of synapse misfiring inside that brain of his.  While it's important to point out his inaccuracies related to how he presents climate science it's equally as important to highlight his blatant extremism.  His extremism does just as much to undermine his credibility as anything.

Note - have created a google spreadsheet that anyone who has the URL can edit:

https://spreadsheets.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Apd6Dt_7N4k-dGFYOG84VzdxTHh4VWJKZ3VjQ2ctVmc&hl=en_US

So if anyone has time to add some examples, would be fantastic. I'll do some later today but I have to go out for a few hours so I only had time to quickly create the spreadsheet this morning.

Okay, just went through John Abraham's entire talk, transcribed all the examples he cites and entered them into the spreadsheet. I've emailed this off to Richard Denniss to cite for his debate with Monckton tomorrow.

If anyone else wants to add to the spreadsheet or improve it, please do - the more the merrier and I'm thinking of working this into an SkS feature afterwards - perhaps a special page like http://sks.to/plimervsplimer

Might as well post it here:

http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2011/july/letter-to-viscount-monckton/

That's him told!!!

Cheers - John

@Rob, the definition of a delision is essentially a strong belief in something that is objectively false.  Monckton's claim to be a member of the house of lords "without a right to sit or vote" is objectively false - it isn't a matter of opinion; this has been pointed out to Monckton more than once (as John Mason mentioned), the fact that he still makes the claim is consistent with having a mild delusional disorder.  However it is also consistent with being a (failed) politician.