Andrew Montford

Andrew W. Montford



Andrew W. Montford is an English writer, editor, chartered accountant, and the voice behind climate change skeptic blog Bishop Hill. He is also the author of The Hockey Stick Illusion  (2010). He currently lives in Scotland.

Montford set up the company Anglosphere in 2004 which provides editing services to the publishing industry and business.

Montford was named the Deputy Director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation in 2017.2(Press Release). “ANDREW MONTFORD APPOINTED GWPF DEPUTY DIRECTOR,” The Global Warming Policy Foundation, May 2, 2016. Archived May 3, 2017. URL:

Montford is also the deputy director of Net Zero Watch, a campaign group launched and managed by the Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF).3Who We Are,” Net Zero Watch. Archived October 30, 2022. Archive URL:

Stance on Climate Change

September 29, 2022

In an article titled “The Headlong Rush to ‘Net Zero’ Makes a New Great Depression a Racing Certainty” published by The Daily Sceptic, a climate denial blog edited by Toby Young, Montford wrote:4Andrew Montford. “The Headlong Rush to “Net Zero” Makes a New Great Depression a Racing Certainty,” The Daily Sceptic, September 29, 2022. Archived October 31, 2022. Archive URL: 

“The man in the street has been led to believe that global warming is a crisis. Make no mistake, this is a lie.” 

He continued, arguing that “the worst that the climate might throw at us will only cause a small loss of wealth” and that “the biggest impacts of climate change – sea-level rise and flooding – can be addressed through simple and relatively cheap adaptation measures”. 

Montford said that “the idea of a ‘climate emergency’ is now received opinion, despite the lack of supporting evidence”, because of “relentless scaremongering by green activists and hate campaigns launched against naysayers”. 

Similarly, Montford claimed that the renewables industry and green activists have played a trick on the public by persuading them “that an energy transition is possible”. 

He also called environmentalists “the green blob” and suggested that the plan to build more offshore windfarms – including “the peer-reviewed literature” in support of them, are “a scam to fool the politicians into keeping the renewables boondoggle going”. 

He summarised his hypothesis, saying: 

“The public has thus been caught in a pincer movement between two huge lies, and politicians, who only survive if they respond to public concerns, have wasted countless billions on renewables and have strangled the fossil fuel industry, the only sure way of keeping the lights on”. 

April 4, 2010

“I believe that CO2, other things being equal, will make the planet warmer. The six million dollar question is how much warmer. I’m less of a sceptic than people think. My gut feeling is still sceptical but I don’t believe it’s beyond the realms of possibility that the AGW hypothesis might be correct. It’s more the case that we don’t know and I haven’t seen anything credible to persuade me there’s a problem.”5Bruce Robbins. “Bishop Hill: the blogger putting climate science to test,” The Courier, April 4, 2010.

Key Quotes

February 13, 2022

In a Spectator article titled “How Britain’s fracking industry was regulated into irrelevance”, Montford accused environmentalists of launching a “scare campaign against the industry”, which he characterised as “astonishing in its brazenness”.6Andrew Montford. “How Britain’s fracking industry was regulated into irrelevance,” Spectator, February 13, 2022. Archived May 2, 2022. Archive URL:

He also criticised “environmental correspondents across the mainstream media” for relaying information about fracking “to a mostly credulous public, with not a note of doubt raised”, before claiming that micro tremors arising from fracking drilling operations were “of a size smaller than a lorry rumbling past your window”. 

In concluding, he wrongly suggested that windfarms and heat pumps take several decades to build, saying: “Environmentalists will say that we should instead build more windfarms and install more heat pumps […] but these projects would take several decades to deliver, so they are of little help in the near future”.

February 21, 2021

Montford wrote an article for The Spectator which stated:7Andrew Montford. “The good news on climate,” The Spectator, February 21, 2021. Archived February 25, 2021. URL: 

As I watch the snow blow past my window, it’s hard not to scoff at the idea of a ‘climate emergency’. However, I’m probably in a minority. The idea that we are currently experiencing a dangerous deterioration in our weather has been pushed so hard, and for so long, that the man in the Clapham Uber is now thoroughly convinced.”

Elsewhere in the article, he wrote: 

Global warming doesn’t seem to have damaged crops either. The food supply continues to grow, with fossil-fuel-derived fertilisers and the beneficial effects of higher carbon dioxide levels delivering new record yields across the globe almost every year.”

Montford cited a paper written by science policy analyst Dr. Indur Gokhlany in the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which stated that: “The detrimental effects of carbon dioxide and fossil fuels are overwhelmed by other concurrent changes that are beneficial.”8Indur M. Goklany. “Impacts of Climate Change: Perception and Reality,” The Global Warming Policy Foundation. Archived February 25, 2021. URL: 

June 12, 2019

In an article for the Conservative Woman, a right-wing blog closely linked to the anti-BBC group, News-watch, Montford attacked alleged bias from the BBC on the issue of climate change and energy policy, writing:9Andrew Montford. “The BBC’s biased guide to renewable energy,” Conservative Woman, June 12, 2019.Archived June 19, 2019. URL:

“In the political bubble, every major political party is hell-bent on driving us on to their centrally planned renewable future, regardless of the cost.”

“… like so many trips to promised lands, you can be sure that the journey to a renewables-powered future will exact a heavy cost.”

August 24, 2010

“… of course mankind has always affected the climate. If I had my time over again, I would have made this point more clearly. I don’t think you can get away from the radiative physics arguments for AGW. It seems likely to me that it has some effect, but as I tried to make clear in my 10 secs, we just don’t know how big.”10Newsnight reactions,” Bishop Hill, August 24, 2010.

“The CRU disclosures demonstrate that the peer review process can be subverted by a small but influential group of scientists.”11Memorandum submitted by Andrew Montford (CRU 36),”, February, 2010.

Key Actions

August 1, 2022

During the Conservative leadership election, TCW published an article by Andrew Montford titled, “Energy: Is reality starting to dawn?” in which he wrote: “one can’t help but wonder if members of the Green Blob have belatedly started to come to terms with the scale of the disaster they have unleashed upon the country.”12Andrew Montford. “Energy: Is reality starting to dawn?”, TCW, August 1, 2022. Archived August 8, 2022. Archive URL:

He continued: 

“The web of green measures that are quickly strangling the economy and driving households into penury were put in place in response to the Climate Change Act […] Repealing the Act may therefore be the single most important step for the new administration”.

Otherwise, Montford wrote, “the Climate Change Act will continue to grind British families into the dust”.

July 25, 2022

A Spectator article co-written by Benny Peiser and Andrew Montford titled “Can the new PM survive the looming winter energy disaster?” outlined their support for Kemi Badenoch and Suella Braverman’s “desire for meaningful change” after they both called for a “suspension of net zero targets” during the Conservative leadership election.13Benny Peiser and Andrew Montford. “Can the new PM survive the looming winter energy disaster?The Spectator, July 25, 2022. Archived July 25, 2022. Archive URL:

Peiser and Montford continued by arguing that climate and energy policy “has been built on the unfair demonisation of dissenters” and that while “most people assume that climate and environment policy emerge at the end of some rational decision-making process”, we are, they claim, “in the grip of an irrational race to the bottom”. 

They also agreed with the statement that “only a rapid return to fossil fuels will be able to stave off civil unrest and economic disaster” and accused the UK government of “a fit of virtue signalling” for allowing a recently closed coal-fired power station to be demolished.

They concluded by calling on the next Prime Minister, Liz Truss or Rishi Sunak, to “be the one who frees the economy from the green shackles that are threatening to bring the country to its knees”.

April 25, 2021

Montford wrote an article for The Telegraph criticising the government’s plans for a ‘Green Industrial Revolution,’ to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050, stating that it could be “the white elephant to end all white elephants.”14Andrew Montford. “Net zero is a disaster waiting to happen.The Telegraph, April 25, 2021. Archived April 26, 2021. URL: 

Criticising proposals to deliver 40 GW of offshore wind power by 2030, Montford wrote: “Decarbonisation’s big secret is that we still have no zero-carbon technology that can balance the electricity grid when it is driven by offshore wind farms.” He added: “Contrary to common belief, batteries are not even a plausible solution, and hydrogen is so absurdly expensive as to make its use unacceptable.”

April 14, 2021

Montford wrote an article for the Global Warming Policy Foundation criticising the costs of offshore wind subsidies, which the government had implemented as part of a strategy to achieve a 40 GW wind power target by 2030. He described the Beatrice offshore wind farm, located off the north east coast of Scotland, as a “financial basketcase,” stating: “The subsidy is of course an ongoing payment, so electricity bill payers are going to have to continue to cough up on the same scale far into the future.” 15Andrew Montford. “Hornsea and the ocean of offshore windfarm subsidies,” The Global Warming Policy Foundation, April 14, 2021. Archived April 19, 2021. URL:

April 1, 2021

Montford wrote an article for Spiked arguing that public concern about the impact of climate change was much lower than predicted, and that the dangers of climate change had been overestimated. He wrote: “Net Zero is already negatively impacting on the economy, and the fear spread by the green doom-mongers is harming our mental health and faith in the future.”16Andrew Montford. “Climate alarmism is misleading the public,” Spiked, April 1, 2021. Archived April 6, 2021. URL: 

Montford cited a press release from the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which showed the results of a poll by market research consultancy Savanta ComRes, commissioned by the GWPF. The poll found that “there is also a significant minority of the public who say they are ‘not very’ or ‘not at all’ concerned by climate change.”17(Press Release.) “Perceptions of climate impacts at odds with scientific data,” The Global Warming Policy Foundation, April 1, 2021. Archived April 6, 2021. URL: 

April 1, 2021

Montford wrote an article for The Conservative Woman commenting on a hearing in which Helen Quayle, policy officer for charity the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, had warned the House of Lords Environmental Committee about the dangers of offshore wind farm expansion for marine life. Montford wrote: “Perhaps, after all these years, they are getting close to confronting the evidence of the harm their support for wind farms has done to birds.” He concluded the article: “If we are going to cause an environmental catastrophe, I suppose we should at least record all the gory details.”18Andrew Montford. “The RSPB, wind farms and a change of direction,” The Conservative Woman, April 1, 2021. Archived April 6, 2021. URL: 

March 8, 2021

Montford wrote an article for The Spectator which commented on revelations that the government had misled the public about the cost of reaching net zero carbon emissions by 2050.  An email from the Treasury to then-Chancellor Phillip Hammond, published after a two year freedom of information dispute, said it considered an estimate for the annual cost of decarbonisation by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy as “more realistic” than the government-backed estimate published by the Climate Change Committee: £70 billion, as opposed to £50 billion. However, it said the cost of transition was “highly uncertain”.19Andrew Montford. “The hidden cost of Net Zero,” The Spectator, March 8, 2021. Archived March 9, 2021. URL: 

Montford criticised the government’s spending plans, writing: “Forcing taxpayers and consumers to spend sums like this seems the height of economic and social foolishness.” He added: “To do so only to deliver a world in which you will not know from one moment to the next whether there will be any energy to heat your home or even to keep the lights on defies comprehension.”

March 2, 2021

Montford wrote an article for The Conservative Woman stating that he would never again vote for the Conservative Party, which he argued had been taken over by green ideologues. He cited a paper written in the Global Warming Policy Foundation by its energy editor John Constable, which criticised a Statutory Regulation implemented in April 2019 making it illegal for businesses to misreport their carbon dioxide emissions. Montford said: “The idea that criminal offences can be introduced in this way is monstrous, of course, and something that might once have been seen as a feature of banana republics rather than developed nations.”20Andrew Montford. “Why I’ll Never Vote Tory Again,” The Conservative Woman, March 2, 2021. Archived March 2, 2021. URL: 21John Constable. “A Little Nudge With A Big Stick,” The Global Warming Policy Foundation. Archived February 23, 2021. URL:

Elsewhere in the article, Montford wrote: “I’ve voted Conservative all my adult life, but having read Constable’s paper, it’s hard to imagine doing so again. If I wanted authoritarian, collectivist environmentalism, I would have voted for Caroline Lucas and the Greens.”

March 1, 2021

Montford wrote an article for The Conservative Woman, which commented on criticisms that climate science fact checking website Climate Feedback had made of an article written by Breitbart columnist James Delingpole. The article cited a report written for the Global Warming Policy Foundation by long-time analyst at the US Interior Department Dr Indur Goklany. Climate Feedback had claimed that Delingpole’s article “includes several inaccurate claims and cherry-picks information in a way that misleads readers about the scientific understanding of climate change.”22Andrew Montford. “The farcical climate ‘fact-checkers’ who don’t check facts,” The Conservative Woman, February 25, 2021. Archived March 1, 2021. URL: 23Breitbart article makes numerous false claims about the impacts of climate change, based on Global Warming Policy Foundation post,” Climate Feedback, February 12, 2021. Archived February 22, 2021. URL: 24James Delingpole. “Study Disputes that Earth is in a Climate Emergency,” Breitbart, February 7, 2021. Archived February 9. 2021. URL:

Montford’s article described Climate Feedback’s criticisms as “a hasty, amateur hit-job,” adding: “But this car crash of an article does at least allow us to see that misrepresentation and deception have become the tool-in-trade of the internet fact-checker. It allows us to see these people for what they are.”

November 27, 2020

 Montford wrote a report for the GWPF questioning the cost implications of decarbonising public transport, which stated that: “politicians seem to agree that battery electric vehicles (BEVs) are the way forward, although without apparently having considered the challenges involved.”25Andrew Montford. “Cost of decarbonising cars,”The Global Warming Policy Forum. Archived November 30, 2020. URL: 

An article accompanying the report quoted Montford disputing the costs associated with electric vehicles. Montford stated: “Several aspects of EVs make them more costly than petrol cars – the need to renew batteries, the time wasted at charging points, the need to find alternative transport when their range is inadequate. That’s only going to get worse as electricity prices soar in future. We could easily see the cost of motoring double. The working classes are going to be driven off the roads.”26Motorists face £700 billion bill for going electric,” The Global Warming Policy Forum, November 27, 2020.Archived November 30, 2020. URL: 

October 6, 2020

Montford criticised a pledge by Boris Johnson that the UK would become “the world leader in clean wind energy”, after the PM pledged that investment in offshore wind farms would generate enough electricity to power every home in the UK by 2030.

Writing in The Spectator, he claimed the implications for business and households in the UK were “horrifying”. He asked: “Who would want to live in a country that was set on such a destructive path? Who would want to invest in it? And when the Prime Minister claims that he’s going to create 60,000 jobs with his green spending spree, you have to wonder how many jobs he will destroy along the way. We can only hope and pray that he is playing to the crowd again.”27Andrew Montford. “Boris’s wind power pledge won’t be cheap”, The Spectator, October 6, 2020. Archived October 6, 2020. Archive URL: 28Boris Johnson: Wind farms could power every home by 2030”, BBC News, October 6, 2020. Archived October 8, 2020. Archive URL:

April 6, 2020

Writing in The Conservative Woman, GWPF Deputy Director Andrew Montford stated that “with the data refuting the climatologists’ predictions so clearly, it isn’t time that hydrologists shifted their attention away from prophecies of doom, and back on to making a real contribution to people’s lives?.” Montford, arguing that the amount of water vapour in the air was only increasing at a third of the rate predicted by the IPCC, denied that droughts or increased flooding could result from an intensification of the hydrological cycle.29Andrew Montford. “Flood and drought predictions don’t hold water,” The Conservative Woman, April 6th 2020. Archived September 7, 2020. Archive URL: 

March 5, 2020

In an article for The Conservative Woman, Montford disputed that polar bear numbers are dwindling as a result of climate change, writing that they “continue to be a tool for politically motivated activists and green-minded scientists who, it is clear, they are happy to deceive and mislead to advance their cause”.30Andrew Montford. “Polar bear disaster? Show us the evidence!The Conservative Woman, March 5, 2020. Archived December 15, 2020. URL:

Montford cited a paper written by Susan Crockford for the GWPF, which claimed that:31Susan Crockford. “State of the Polar Bear Report 2019,” The Global Warming Policy Foundation. Archived December 15, 2020. URL: 

It can hardly be claimed that lack of sea ice is causing Western and Southern Hudson Bay polar bear numbers to decline as a result of poor cub survival and reduced weights of adult females when breakup and freeze-up dates have been so advantageous for the last three years.” 

February 24, 2020

Montford authored a paper for the GWPF titled “£3 Trillion and Counting” (PDF), which summarised a series of four reports on the cost of the UK reaching “Net Zero” emissions. The paper claimed that attempting to meet the 2050 net-zero target in the way the government’s Committee on Climate Change and National Grid envisaged, will “do more harm than good” and concluded by suggesting that renewables “represent a monumentally expensive dead end”.32Andrew Montford. “£3 Trillion and Counting” (PDF), The Global Warming Policy Foundation, 2020. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog. 33Cost of ‘Net Zero’ Will Be Astronomical, New Reports Warn,” The Global Warming Policy Foundation, February 24, 2020. Archived February 25, 2020. URL:

At the same time, a second paper authored by Montford was published which covered two alternative technologies for reducing carbon emissions instead of what it called the UK’s “extremely silly” wind and solar-centric policy –‘small-scale nuclear’, which involves putting a system of smaller reactors in factories, and the use of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels to drive turbines. Montford concluded the paper by suggesting we are at “the threshold of a revolution in the way we generate electricity”. He went on to say:34Andrew Montford. “Reducing Emissions Without breaking the bank” (PDF), The Global Warming Policy Foundation, 2020. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.

Not a manufactured revolution, like the one that has brought the environmental horrors of wind and solar, and has filled the pockets of rent-seekers at the expense of everyone else, but a real revolution that makes power cheaper and more reliable, and one that rewards innovation and risk-taking rather than political influence. What a pity it would be if we were to cover our landscapes with unreliable wind turbines at just the moment when a better way forward emerged.”

The GWPF reports and subsequent coverage were strongly criticised for being misleading.35Simon Evans. “The UK is aiming for net-zero emissions by 2050 Because climate change is “the greatest and most pressing challenge facing the modern world” (UK govt Jan20) But what will it cost to get there? Let’s take an “honest” look at the evidence, shall we? (source,” Tweet by @DrSimEvans, February 25, 2020. Retrieved from Archived .png on file at DeSmog.

October 15, 2019

Montford wrote an article for the right-wing blog site the Conservative Woman claiming that renewables subsidies were costing UK households an average of £340 each. The article was based on a post by the GWPF‘s Energy Editor John Constable.36Andrew Montford. “On your utility bill, the soaring price of green gesture politics,” Conservative Woman, October 15, 2019. Archived October 15, 2019. URL:

He ended by saying:

“It’s worth remembering why we are doing this. It’s certainly not going to make any difference to the Earth’s temperature: our carbon dioxide emissions are a tiny fraction of the global total, and smaller than annual increases in China and India. No, we are doing this as a gesture: a way to show our leadership on climate change, setting an example to the rest of the world.”

In August, the GWPF announced one of the editors of the Conservative Woman, Kathy Gyngell, had joined its board of trustees.37Richard Collett-White. “Cambridge Professor and Anti-BBC Campaigner Join Board of Climate Science Denial Campaign Group,” DeSmog, August 9, 2019.

April 9, 2019

Montford wrote an article for The Spectator, claiming that a famous scene in a new documentary by David Attenborough, showing walruses falling off a cliff as a result of shrinking Arctic sea ice, was “not quite what it seems.” Called the programme “an eight-part, multi-million pound fundraiser” for the environmental organisation WWF, which co-produced it, Montford refers to work by well-known climate science denier, Susan Crockford.38Andrew Montford. “Has Netflix’s Our Planet hidden the real cause of walrus deaths?The Spectator, April 9, 2019. Archived April 24, 2019. URL:

The Global Warming Policy Foundation has published a number of pieces of work by Crockford, largely revolving around Crockford’s claim that polar bear populations are “continuing to thrive” and changes in their populations are not linked to climate change. Crockford has worked for the free-market, Koch-funded thinktank the Heartland Institute and gave a presentation to the 2019 annual meeting of the Canadian climate science denial group, the so-called Friends of Science.

A similar article by the director of the GWPF, Benny Peiser, was published on the Conservative Woman website.39Benny Peiser. “Attenborough and a shaggy walrus story,” Conservative Woman, April 10, 2019. Archived April 24, 2019. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.

The director of the documentary explained the “heartbreaking” scene in a Telegraph article.40Joe Shute. “Our Planet’s director reveals the heartbreaking truth behind its dying walrus scene,” The Telegraph, April 9, 2019.Archived April 24, 2019. URL:

March 15, 2019

Montford was invited onto BBC Scotland’s “Nine” news programme on the day of a global climate strike by school students. The move led to green groups refusing to appear on the show and the segment was eventually cancelled.41Mike Small. “Comment: The BBC Broke More Than its Editorial Guidelines in Inviting a Climate Science Denier to Discuss the School Strikes,” DeSmog, March 18, 2019.

On the same day, the Global Warming Policy Forum, campaigning wing of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, re-published a 2014 report by Andrew Montford and John Shade, entitled “Climate Control: Brainwashing In Schools,” which argued that “eco-activism” was being given “free rein in many UK schools.” The report warned:42Andrew Montford, John Shade. “Climate Control: Brainwashing In Schools,” Global Warming Policy Forum, March 15, 2019. Archived March 19, 2019. URL:

“There are clear grounds for very serious concern. We therefore call upon the Secretary of State for Education and his counterparts in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to undertake urgent inquiries into climate change education in our schools.”

Michael Gove, then Education Secretary, said he had “read with concern” the report, with a spokesperson of his saying:43Daniel Martin. “Heads are breaking the law if they preach eco agenda, warns Gove: Education Secretary’s ‘concern’ at report that accuses ‘activist’ teachers,” Daily Mail, April 10, 2014. Archived March 11, 2019. URL:

Schools should not teach that a particular political or ideological point of view is right – indeed it is against the law for them to do so.”

The report includes a foreword by Professor Terence Kealey, then vice-chancellor of the private University of Buckingham. Kealey joined the GWPF as chair of a so-called international temperature data review project in April 2015, with the aim of investigating the reliability of current temperature data. It was accused of attempting to create a “fake controversy” ahead of the Paris climate summit later in the year by Bob Ward, policy and research director at the London School of Economics’ Grantham Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.44Ben Tufft. “Leading group of climate change deniers accused of creating ‘fake controversy’ over claims global temperature data may be inaccurate,” The Independent, April 26, 2015.Archived March 26, 2019. URL:

November 23, 2017

After the GWPF published a book by Bernie Lewin titled “Searching for the Catastrophe Signal: The Origins of The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,” Montford interviewed the book’s author in a GWPF video (see below).45Searching for the Catastrophe Signal: The Origins of The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,” Accessed December 4, 2017. 46The Climate Policy Cart Led Climate Science Horse,” YouTube video uploaded by user GWPF, November 23, 2017. Archived .mp4 on file at DeSmog.

“It was only when the IPCC was threatened with alienation from the climate treaty process that it suddenly concluded “a discernible human influence on global climate,” the GWPF press release reads.47NEW BOOK: CLIMATE POLICY CART LED CLIMATE SCIENCE HORSE,” The Global Warming Policy Foundation, November 23, 2017. Archived with FreezePage December 4, 2017.

November 25-26, 2011

Montford appeared at EIKE‘s International Climate and Energy Conference in Munich, Germany. His speech was on “Climategate” and the Hockey Stick graph.48Andrew Montford, Bishop Hill blog,” YouTube Video. Uploaded by user EikeKlimaEnergie, April 2, 2012.

The European Institute for Climate and Energy is a German climate skeptic organization with possible connections to the Committee for Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT).

September 2010

Montford was commissioned by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) to write an inquiry into the “Climategate” e-mails. He was compensated £3000 for his services, and GWPF released the results in September, 2010.49Andrew Montford. “The Climategate Inquiries,” The Global Warming Policy Foundation, September 14, 2010. Archived January 24, 2016. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmogBlog. 50Fred Pearce. “Montford lands some solid blows in review of ‘climategate’ inquiries,” The Guardian, September 14, 2010.

Three British enquiries, one by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, one an independent panel chaired by Lord Oxburgh, and an independent review led by Sir Muir Russell, had all exonerated CRU scientists from any misconduct or fraud before GWPF insisted on the additional effort.

According to Montford’s own report, the other three enquiries were “rushed, cursory and largely unpersuasive.” He also criticizes the enquiries’ lack of climate change skeptics on their panels, despite the fact that at least one known climate change skeptic, Graham Stringer, was present.

Montford could not be ignorant of this fact, as he recorded a conversation with Stringer on his blog, who he described as “the sole dissenter from the majority opinion represented by the report.”51A chat with Graham Stringer,” Bishop Hill, April 10, 2010.

The GWPF also submitted a Memorandum by Nigel Lawson and Benny Peiser, while Andrew Montford submitted one of his own.

March 2010

Montford released The Hockey Stick Illusion, published by Stacey International.

The book received mixed reviews. RealClimate concluded that “the real goal of those whose story Montford tells is not to understand past climate, it’s to destroy the hockey stick by any means necessary.”52The Montford Delusion,” RealClimate, July 22, 2010.

The Guardian also examined Montford’s book and found numerous “glaring inaccuracies” that would be cause “to treat with some scepticism Montford’s assessment of the validity of the inquiries into the hacked email messages.”53Bob Ward. “Did climate sceptics mislead the public over the significance of the hacked emails?”, The Guardian, August 19, 2010.

Alastair McIntosh, writing for the Scottish Review of Books, concluded that “Montford’s analysis might cut the mustard with tabloid intellectuals but not with most scientists. The Hockey Stick Illusion might serve a psychological need in those who can’t face their own complicity in climate change, but at the end of the day it’s exactly what it says on the box: a write-up of somebody else’s blog.”54Alastair McIntosh. “Reviews: THE HOCKEY STICK ILLUSION,” Scottish Review of Books, Volume Six, Issue Three (2010).

According to a review by Geoscientist, “Montford’s book presents McIntyre’s case, complete with speculations about his opponents’ motives, and gives little space to the detailed rebuttals provided by Mann and his co-authors. Indeed Montford admits in his Preface that the book grew out of a summary of postings on McIntyre’s blog ‘Climate Audit’. This explains the bias in his story.”55Bob Ward. “Not so jolly hockey stick,” Geoscientist, Vol. 20, Number 10 (October, 2010). Retrieved from The Geological Society website.

The book received positive reviews from sources including Matt Ridley in The Spectator and Christopher Booker in The Telegraph.

September 2006

Andrew Montford began posting at his blog Bishop Hill.

While the blog first focused on British politics, it later devoted a large portion of coverage to “Climategate,” and Montford has since called his site “one of the main websites for global warming sceptics in the UK.”56Memorandum submitted by Andrew Montford (CRU 36),”, February, 2010.

Montford said that his interest in the issue surrounding the “Hockey Stick” graph was piqued when he came across Climate Audit, a website run by Steve McIntyre  — a climate change skeptic and past mining-industry executive.57Bruce Robbins. “Bishop Hill: the blogger putting climate science to test,” The Courier, April 4, 2010.


Social Media


Andrew Montford has never published an article in a peer-reviewed journal.

His most notable publication has been his 2010 book The Hockey Stick Illusion, published by Stacey International.

Other Resources


Related Profiles

Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) Background The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is a UK-based think tank founded by former Conservative Chancellor Nigel Lawson with the p...
Background The Conservative Woman (CW) is a conservative blog established in 2014 as a “counter-cultural offensive against the forces of Leftism, feminism and modernism.”“About Us,” The Conserv...
Andrew Wheeler Credentials MBA, George Mason University (1999).“Andrew Wheeler,” LinkedIn. Accessed April 12, 2018. Archived pdf on file at DeSmog. JD, Washington University in...
Net Zero Watch Background Net Zero Watch (NZW) is a campaign group launched and managed by the Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF) that claims to "scrutinise" the UK government's net zero emi...