Rosa Monckton is the daughter of Gilbert Monckton, 2nd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. She is married to the journalist Dominic Lawson and they have two daughters Domenica and Savannah: Domenica Lawson has Down's syndrome. Her godmother was Diana, Princess of Wales.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dominic Ralph Campden Lawson (born 17 December 1956) is a British journalist.
Educated at Westminster School and then Christ Church, Oxford, he is the son of a former Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer Lord Lawson and socialite Vanessa Salmon, heir to the Lyons Corner House empire, who died of liver cancer in 1985. Lawson had three sisters - TV chef and writer Nigella Lawson; Horatia; and Thomasina, who died of breast cancer in 1993 whilst in her early 30s. Through the Salmons he is a cousin to the journalist and environmentalist George Monbiot and the solicitor Fiona Shackleton.
Lawson is married to the The Honourable Rosamond Mary Monckton, daughter of the 2nd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. The Lawsons have two daughters (another daughter, Natalia, was stillborn some years ago), Domenica and Savannah; Domenica has Down's syndrome. Rosa Monckton is a patron of the disabled children's charity KIDS  and is involved in Down's charity work. Rosa Monckton has talked to the press about how Down's has affected her and her daughters' lives.
Lawson joined the BBC as a researcher, and then wrote for the Financial Times. From 1990 until 1995 he served as the editor of The Spectator magazine, a post his father had occupied from 1966 to 1970. In his capacity as editor of The Spectator he conducted, in June 1990, an interview with the cabinet minister Nicholas Ridley in which Ridley expressed opinions immensely hostile to Germany and the European Community, likening the initiatives of Jacques Delors and others to those of Hitler. Lawson added to the damage caused, by claiming that the opinions expressed by Ridley were shared by the Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher. Ridley was forced to resign from the cabinet shortly after this incident.
Lawson has several times been accused of working with MI6 (by for instance Richard Tomlinson), but has denied being an agent.
From 1995 Lawson was editor of The Sunday Telegraph until 2005, when he was dismissed and replaced by Sarah Sands. He is currently an Editorial and Opinion writer for The Independent and other titles including the Mail on Sunday. Since 2006, he has been a columnist for The Independent newspaper, where he usually takes lines contrary to the newspaper's general political position. For example he does not believe global warming is caused by increased greenhouse gas emissions, attributing it to solar radiation. The solar radiation argument formed the basis of Channel 4's "The Great Global Warming Swindle" programme. Also he writes a weekly column for The Sunday Times.
Rosa Monckton's elder brother is Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton (born 14 February 1952), journalist, outspoken climate change sceptic and creator of the eternity puzzle.
The eternity puzzle was a geometric puzzle with a million-pound prize, created by Christopher Monckton, who put up half the money himself, the other half being put up by underwriters in the London insurance market. The puzzle was distributed by the Ertl Company.
The puzzle consisted of filling a large almost regular dodecagon with 209 irregularly shaped smaller polygons. It was launched in June 1999, by Ertl Toys, marketed to amateur puzzle solvers and 500,000 copies were sold worldwide, with the game becoming a craze at one point. Eternity was the best-selling puzzle or game in the UK at its price-point of £35 in its launch month. It was voted Puzzle of the Year in Australia.
Christopher Walter Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (born 14 February 1952) is a British business consultant, policy adviser, writer, columnist, puzzle inventor and hereditary peer. A scion of a famous Tory family, his sister is Rosa Monckton, who was a friend of Diana, Princess of Wales. He served as an advisor to Margaret Thatcher's policy unit in the 1980s and invented the Eternity puzzle at the end of the 1990s, as well as the Eternity II in 2007. More recently, he has attracted attention for his outspoken views on climate change.
From the ABC
One of Britain's most prominent climate change sceptics says Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's plan to introduce an emissions trading scheme will have no effect on the climate. Lord Christopher Monckton is in Australia on a week-long speaking tour.
The controversial former journalist and political advisor to Margaret Thatcher disputes the UN Climate Panel's findings that the planet is warming.
He believes the world is cooling, and the Copenhagen Accord to cut global emissions is nonsense.
"It will destroy the economy of Australia and it will do it without the slightest immeasurable [sic] difference on the climate," he said.
"This is a policy as near to total lunacy as I have ever seen." Lord Monckton's stance has been questioned by climate change scientist and economist Dr Ben McNeil, from the University of New South Wales.
"Behind me there's virtually every CSIRO climate scientist, the Bureau of Meteorology, the chief scientist, the National Academy of Australia, and every body of science around the world on the ledger that there's no change in the fundamental science on climate change," he said.
Ms Monckton, who went on a Greek sailing holiday with Diana two weeks before she died, poured scorn on reports the princess had been pregnant and suggested Diana was still pining for her former lover, heart surgeon Hasnat Khan.
"She was treating this relationship with Dodi as a serious matter wasn't she? It doesn't suggest it was little more than a fling after a couple of days," Mr Mansfield asked her.
Ms Monckton replied Diana tended to speak and write in an extravagant way but agreed the letters were not just written to make someone happy.
But she rejected suggestions that Diana has misled her about her feelings for Mr al Fayed and Inquest hears Diana love letters to Dodi - ABC News (Australian Broad... that she had ended the relationship with Mr Khan because she was in love with Dodi.
"She was not misleading me," Ms Monckton said, who Monckton down in tears during the cross-examination.
"We talked about it a lot. She told me Hasnat would never have her back once the photographs of her with Dodi had appeared and she was very upset about it."
Gus: do I see a very strange puzzle here...?
Why would Diana write a letter such as : thanks "Darling Dodi" for a holiday on his yacht, adding "this comes with all the love in the world and as always a million heartfelt thanks for bringing such joy into this chick's life".
In another exchange, dated August 13, 1997 - a week after the first media reports of their affair and just over two weeks before the couple were killed in a Paris car crash - Diana sent him some cufflinks that had belonged to her father. "Darling Dodi, these cufflinks were the very last gift from the man I loved most in the world, my father," her letter said.
"They are given to you as I know how much joy it would give him to know they were in such safe and special hands. Fondest love, Diana."
Was Ms Monckton a "plant" to spy on Diana's moves? Is Mr Monckton a "plant" to discredit climate change scientists...? And is the death of Diana a coincidence considering Diana's confidante being married to a man accused of being an MI6 agent several times?
From Mike Carlton
Christopher Walter Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, has that tweedy manner, those poached egg eyes, and the cut glass accent which remind you, irresistibly, of the mad excesses of the British aristocracy. The mass slaughter of wildlife on blasted Scottish heaths, vile food in draughty country houses, the buggering of young boys at grim public schools, all that.
There is no suggestion, of course, that Lord Monckton indulges in any of the above. His blue-blooded eccentricities are richer still. A former policy adviser of some sort to Margaret Thatcher, he has called for AIDS victims to be rounded up and quarantined. He once told The Guardian that he had helped win the Falklands War by urging Thatcher to have a bacillus introduced into the drinking water of the Argentine troops in Port Stanley.
''I can tell you from experience there is nothing more demoralising than having the trots in a trench,'' he informed the startled interviewer.
The buzziest of the many bees in His Lordship's coronet, though, is climate change, which he regards as a lie, a fraud, and a monstrous conspiracy designed to bring about a Communist World Government. This, apparently, will come to pass at the Copenhagen conference next month. Communists who, in Monckton's words, "piled out of the Berlin Wall and into the environmental movement and took over Greenpeace", will dupe world leaders into signing away the sovereignty of their nations to set up "a transnational government" that will destroy capitalism by transferring the wealth of the West to the Third World.
Naturally, this fantasy has been lapped up by the Über-Right in the United States, where Monckton has recently made a lecture tour and been a welcome guest on Rupert Murdoch's execrable Fox News channel. His schtick is to dazzle his audience with a computer presentation full of sciencey stuff - all of which has been comprehensively debunked by people who actually know what they are talking about - and then to bleat that the Marxist apocalypse is nigh.
You will not be surprised to learn that the batty peer has also found disciples in our sunburnt land.
Comments by Gus:
It has to be said here that very few people understand the problem of "global warming"...
Even well-educated intelligent people do argue the science is iffy, while they do NOT UNDERSTAND it — and of all things DO NOT TRY TO UNDERSTAND IT, because let's face it, it's complex — very complex and it's, as I call it — flux-science. Thus these good people dismiss the theory and the prognosis. They do it often in the end mostly because it is very uncomfortable to think that we, humans, are changing the planet...(as if we have not already by other means — such as destroyed forests and created fields for cultivation, modified coastlines, build cities, rubbished the seas, pushed species to extinction, such as the Tasmanian tiger and the Passenger pigeon)
One of the next argument is that climate "changes" anyway, and has changed over milleniums. Thus it's impossible to gauge how much we are contributing, if at all, and make a convincing case to demonstrate the reality of the problem.
One of the arguments also presented by the sceptics is that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, or that water vapour is more so than CO2... Let me say this: it has been demonstrated for more than 110 years that CO2 IS A GREENHOUSE GAS like water vapour and other gases such as methane. Despite many variability in the atmosphere, the warming contribution of CO2 can be quantified.
Presently, the incremental values of change are in the range of 0.017 degree C increase PER YEAR worldwide should the temperature of the earth increase by only 2 degree C by 2100. And in some years, there will be decrease while in other years there will be increase. On the long term trend, there is an increase.
The next argument is that we humans are not contributing to the CO2 equation anyway as CO2 exists in a natural state and is part OF THE CYCLE OF LIFE. In the latter part of this proposition, truer words could not be spoken. The argument is how much CO2 in the atmosphere is inducing climate change and how much is pumped by human activity alone.
But one of the next arguments is that even if "we did" change the climate of the earth, a 2 degrees C increase would be beneficial anyway.
Thus at this end of this argumentation, we — the climate change theorists — have no chance to fight against such well-crafted but delusive arguments.
And when the climate sceptics next argue that the climate change theory is a left-wing communist plot designed to siphon wealth out of the developed countries, there is no way we can prove to the contrary, because, although the presentation of the argument is totally ludicrous — there is a bit of truth in it. Climate warming theory solutions demand adjustments to our modern way of life that invariably lead to a small reduction of the expansionist consumerism of the western world — while helping poorest people to enjoy better comfort in life, without increasing their carbon footprints. Politics and religious beliefs are very important factors in the solutions as they are important in the counter-arguments to global warming in this debate. Yet the process itself could not care less about these stylistic interpretations of what we do: If CO2 in the atmosphere increases, so does the temperature. Full stop.
For some sceptics, this scientific theory and its demands are seen as a destructive plot rather than an unfortunately necessary opportunity to smartly improve everyone's life on earth since we would need to be cleverer, more caring and less "consumerised" in order to reduce our "carbon footprint" on this planet...
We know that nearly 99 per cent of our industries and food production is "carbon" based, leading to emissions of CO2 and methane. Some of our activities are carbon neutral as they are part of (or an extension of) the surface carbon cycle. Such activities are some of our food production, although some of our crop productions are carbon "adding" by deforestation and "habitat" destruction.
Most of our other activities are not carbon neutral.
These activities are based on "fossil" fuels of which most HAVE NOT BEEN PART OF THE SURFACE CARBON EQUATION for more than 120 million years.
Annually we release billions of tons of CO2 — from this added carbon — CO2 that CANNOT be recycled by natural processes alone. Thus the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere increases by about 1.5 PPM (parts per millions or more) EVERY YEAR. Same (different amount, possibly lesser quantities — although very difficult to quantify and more than has been estimated) can be said for methane (but 10 times more greenhouse gas than CO2). As the earth warms and the melting ice uncovers oceans and frozen permafrost — these events release vast amount of methane with melting.
We cannot deny that our present activities are thus increasing the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. The denial of this process is like saying that one plus one does not equal two. But some people are prepared to deny this nonetheless.
For those who think that an average increase of 2 degrees C would be "beneficial", let me say this: such an increase is likely to raise the sea level by around 70 cm worldwide... This "modest" rise would only be an average and would affect high tides. It would flood low laying lands regularly. The Thames barrier for example would have to be raised. Piers and jetties in Sydney would have to be raised. Low lying island in the pacific and Indian Ocean would become totally unliveable. Places like the Ganges delta may loose up to 20 per cent of its area. Cities like New York would get flooded basements on a regular basis. Not only that, an increase of 2 degrees C will lead to an increase in the number and the strength of extreme climatic events. For example a low pressure system and king tide combined could lead to the sea rising more than 5 metres above present level in affected areas. In hurricane-prone zones, this could lead to a rise of 12 metres above present sea level at the centre. This would (will) lead to the destructive flooding of cities like New Orleans and Venice like we've never seen before. Some places like Hobart, Tasmania may enjoy warmer climes...
But the problem is that although the rise of 2 degrees C is presently properly calculated according to REDUCING OUR CARBON FOOTPRINT by at least 50 per cent by 2050, this reduction is unlikely to happen. Some scientists are already predicting a rise of about 6 degrees C by 2100 (increase of 0.05 degree C yearly world average).
Such a rise would be approaching catastrophic proportions.
I have expressed my views here before, and they need to be reiterated: even a rise of 12 degrees C by 2100 ( or even 100 years later) WOULD NOT BE the end of the world, nor an Armageddon. But the changes would be dramatic and demand some massive adjustments to our way of living. Many other creatures may not be so lucky to survive, while some might thrive— such as mosquitoes and cockroaches...
Be prepared. Be aware... We can do something about limiting the damage or we can let it go on its course. Presently we are the masters of our carbon contribution into the atmosphere to a point... When this contribution becomes our master is difficult to predict, but it will. My bet is on 2032 (in US global warming solution), then the next instalment in 2070. I won't be there to check. But the school-kids of today should be alerted to the problem and properly briefed. They are the ones who will be granddads and grandmas facing the onslaught should the temperature reaches 6 degrees C above present...
Meanwhile for the other conspiracy theorists, the interpretation of the death of Princess Diana is more of a stylistic manipulation. Some people may have deliberately contributed to it or not. There were too many coincidences to feel easy about it being a simple accident. But, no science nor the fate of the planet is involved in that. Yet the French coroner's report should be released in full honesty forthwith to confirm or deny the pregnancy of the Princess. The words of her "confidante' — a sister of Mr Monckton, a misinformed climate change sceptic — is not enough to be trusted either way...
Meanwhile, Let George Monbiot sell his wares...