I think others have very capably answered much of your post but thank you for asking my opinions and here they are.
Lord Monckton is a journalist not a geologist. My recollection is he read classics at Oxford. He is without doubt an articulate and clever man and if you think I was attacking the messenger by casting a shadow over his state of mind that's probably fair comment. In fact if you check the NZ reference I used you will find a rather whacko website. I picked it because it matched some of the really weird websites denialists use.
In one of my other posts I identified the particular piece of Lord Monckton's work that should be suitable for the peer review process. It's his work on carbon dioxide induced radiative forcing. As others have pointed out, neither Al Gore's film nor the stolen emails are peer review type material. Al Gore's film is is a published work and has to withstand critical public analysis; which it gets in spades. The stolen emails were largely private communications together with some drafts of works for publication. It is unfortunate they were stolen but it is good to see an inquiry into the circumstances of the theft.
Tim Flannery is a palaeontologist as I recall so "bone scientist" is close to the mark. One of my children worked with him at the Australian Museum some years ago. I get the impression he is a very clever and personable man. Your assertion that I "probably support Tim Flannery" is too broad a generalisatoin for my liking. While I do support most of his work, I believe he is opposed to nuclear energy. I believe Australia would be well served by a well regulated, rigorously operated system of nuclear power plants, phased in over time to replace all of our coal burning plants and many of our gas turbines.
Lastly to MWP. I haven't read any peer reviewed, scientific work on the subject and don't have an opinion. If you care to provide me with an appropriate reference, I will have a look at it and get back to you.
