Climate change: proposed personal briefing

A letter sent from: The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

1 January 2010

His Excellency Mr. Kevin Rudd,

Prime Minister, Commonwealth of Australia.

Prime Minister,

Climate change: proposed personal briefing

Your speech on 6 November 2009 to the Lowy Institute, in which you publicly expressed some concern at my approach to the climate question, has prompted several leading Australian citizens to invite me come on tour to explain myself in a series of lectures in Australia later this month. I am writing to offer personal briefings on why “global warming” is a non-problem to you and other party leaders during my visit. For convenience, I am copying this letter to them, and to the Press.

Your speech mentioned my remarks about the proposal for world “government” in the early drafts of what had been intended as a binding Copenhagen Treaty. These proposals were not, as you suggested, a “conspiracy theory” from the “far right” with “zero basis in evidence”. Your staff will find them in paragraphs 36-38 of the main text of Annex 1 to the 15 September draft of the Treaty. The word “government” appears twice at paragraph 38. After much adverse publicity in democratic countries, including Australia, the proposals were reluctantly dropped before Copenhagen.

You say I am one of “those who argue that any multilateral action is by definition evil”. On the contrary: my first question is whether any action at all is required, to which – as I shall demonstrate – the objective economic and scientific answer is No. Even if multilateral action were required, which it is not, national governments in the West are by tradition democratically elected. Therefore, a fortiori, transnational or global governments should also be made and unmade by voters at the ballot-box. The climate ought not to be used as a shoddy pretext for international bureaucratic-centralist dictatorship. We committed Europeans have had more than enough of that already with the unelected but all-powerful Kommissars of the hated EU, who make nine-tenths of our laws by decree (revealingly, they call them “Directives” or “Commission Regulations”). The Kommissars (that is the official German word for them) inflict their dictates upon us regardless of what the elected European or any other democratic Parliament says or wishes. Do we want a worldwide EU? No.

You say I am one of “those who argue that climate change does not represent a global market failure”. Yet it is only recently that opinion sufficient to constitute a market signal became apparent in the documents of the IPCC, which is, however, a political rather than a scientific entity. There has scarcely been time for a “market failure”. Besides, corporations are falling over themselves to cash in on the giant financial fraud against the little guy that carbon taxation and trading have already become in the goody-two-shoes EU – and will become in Australia if you get your way.

You say I was one of “those who argue that somehow the market will magically solve the problem”. In fact I have never argued that, though in general the market is better at solving problems than the habitual but repeatedly-failed dirigisme of the etatistes predominant in the classe politique today.

The questions I address are a) whether there is a climate problem at all; and b) even if there is one, and even if per impossibile it is of the hilariously-overblown magnitude imagined by the IPCC, whether waiting and adapting as and if necessary is more cost-effective than attempting to mitigate the supposed problem by trying to reduce the carbon dioxide our industries and enterprises emit.

Let us pretend, solum ad argumentum, that a given proportionate increase in CO2 concentration causes the maximum warming imagined by the IPCC. The IPCC’s bureaucrats are careful not to derive a function that will convert changes in CO2 concentration directly to equilibrium changes in temperature. I shall do it for them.

We derive the necessary implicit function from the IPCC’s statement to the effect that equilibrium surface warming ΔT at CO2 doubling will be (3.26 ± ln 2) C°. Since the IPCC, in compliance with Beer’s Law, defines the radiative forcing effect of CO2 as logarithmic rather than linear, our implicit function can be derived at once. The coefficient is the predicted warming at CO2 doubling divided by the logarithm of 2, and the term (C/C0) is the proportionate increase in CO2 concentration. Thus,

ΔT = (4.7 ± 1) ln(C/C0)                           | Celsius degrees

We are looking at the IPCC’s maximum imagined warming rate, so we simply write –

ΔT = 5.7 ln(C/C0)                                      | Celsius degrees

Armed with this function telling us the maximum equilibrium warming that the IPCC predicts from any given change in CO2 concentration, we can now determine, robustly, the maximum equilibrium warming that is likely to be forestalled by any proposed cut in the current upward path of CO2 emissions. Let me demonstrate.

By the end of this month, according to the Copenhagen Accord, all parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change are due to report what cuts in emissions they will make by 2020. Broadly speaking, the Annex 1 parties, who will account for about half of global emissions over the period, will commit to reducing current emissions by 30% by 2020, or 15% on average in the decade between now and 2020.

Thus, if and only if every Annex 1 party to the Copenhagen Accord complies with its obligations to the full, today’s emissions will be reduced by around half of that 15%, namely 7.5%, compared with business as usual. If the trend of the past decade continues, with business as usual we shall add 2 ppmv/year, or 20 ppmv over the decade, to atmospheric CO2 concentration. Now, 7.5% of 20 ppmv is 1.5 ppmv.

We determine the warming forestalled over the coming decade by comparing the business-as-usual warming that would occur between now and 2020 if we made no cuts in CO2 emissions with the lesser warming that would follow full compliance with the Copenhagen Accord. Where today’s CO2 concentration is 388 ppmv –

Business as usual:                              ΔT = 5.7 ln(408.0/388) = 0.29  C°

–          Copenhagen Accord:           ΔT = 5.7 ln(406.5/388) =  0.27  C°

=          “Global warming” forestalled, 2010-2020: 0.02 C°

One-fiftieth of a Celsius degree of warming forestalled is all that complete, global compliance with the Copenhagen Accord for an entire decade would achieve. Yet the cost of achieving this result – an outcome so small that our instruments would not be able to measure it – would run into trillions of dollars. Do your Treasury models demonstrate that this calculation is in any way erroneous? If they do, junk them.

You say “formal global and national economic modelling” shows “that the costs of inaction are greater than the costs of acting”. You ask for my “equivalent evidence basis to Treasury modelling published by the Government of the industry and employment impacts of climate change”. I respond that the rigorous calculation that I have described, which your officials may verify for themselves, shows that whatever costs may be imagined to flow from anthropogenic “global warming” will scarcely be mitigated at all, even by trillions of dollars of expenditure over the coming decade.

Every economic analysis except that of the now-discredited Lord Stern, with its near-zero discount rate and its absurdly inflated warming rates, comes to the same ineluctable conclusion: adaptation to climate change, in whatever direction, as and if necessary, is orders of magnitude more cost-effective than attempts at mitigation. In a long career in policy analysis in and out of government, I have never seen so cost-ineffective a proposed waste of taxpayers’ money as the trillions which today’s scientifically-illiterate governments propose to spend on attempting – with all the plausibility of King Canute – to stop the tide from coming in.

Remember that I have done this calculation on the basis that everyone who should comply with the Copenhagen Accord actually does comply. Precedent does not look promising. The Kyoto Protocol, the Copenhagen Accord’s predecessor, has been in operation for more than a decade, and it was supposed to reduce global CO2 emissions by 2012. So far, after billions spent on global implementation of Kyoto, global CO2 emissions have risen compared with when Kyoto was first signed.

Remember too that we have assumed the maximum warming that the CO2 imagines might occur in response to a given proportionate increase in CO2 concentration. Yet even the IPCC’s central estimate of CO2’s warming effect, according to an increasing number of serious papers in the peer-reviewed literature, is a five-fold exaggeration. If those papers are right, after a further decade of incomplete compliance and billions squandered, warming forestalled may prove to be just a thousandth of a degree.

Now ask yourself this. Are you, personally, and your advisers, personally, and your administration’s officials, personally, willing to make the heroically pointless sacrifices that you so insouciantly demand of others in the name of Saving The Planet For Future Generations? I beg leave to think not. At Flag 1 I have attached what I have reason to believe is a generally accurate list of the names and titles of the delegation that you led to Copenhagen to bring back the non-result whose paltriness, pointlessness and futility we have now rigorously demonstrated. There are 114 names on the list. One hundred and fourteen. Enough to fill a mid-sized passenger jet. Half a dozen were all that was really necessary – and perhaps one from each State in Australia. If you and your officials are not willing to tighten your belts when a tempting foreign junket at taxpayers’ expense is in prospect, why, pray, should the taxpayers tighten theirs?

You say that climate-change “deniers” – nasty word, that, and you should really have known better than to use it – are “small in number but too dangerous to be ignored”, and “well resourced”. In fact, governments, taxpayer-funded organizations, taxpayer-funded teachers, and taxpayer-funded environmental groups have spent something like 50,000 times as much on “global warming” propaganda as their opponents have spent on debunking this new and cruel superstition. And that is before we take account of the relentless prejudice of the majority of the mainstream news media.

How, then, it is that we, the supposed minority who will not admit that the emperor of “global warming” is adequately clad, are somehow prevailing? How is it that we are convincing more and more of the population not to place any more trust in the “global warming” theory? The answer is that the “global warming” theory is not true, and no amount of bluster or braggadocio, ranting or rodomontade will make it true.

You say that our aim, in daring to oppose the transient fashion for apocalypticism, is “to erode just enough of the political will that action becomes impossible”. No. Our aim is simply to ensure that the truth is widely enough understood to prevent the squandering of precious resources on addressing the non-problem of anthropogenic “global warming”. The correct policy response to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing. No interventionist likes to do nothing. Nevertheless, the do-nothing option, scientifically and economically speaking, is the right option.

You say that I and others like me base our thinking on the notion that “the cost of not acting is nothing”. Well, after a decade and a half with no statistically-significant “global warming”, and after three decades in which the mean warming rate has been well below the ever-falling predictions of the UN’s climate panel, that notion has certainly not been disproven in reality.

However, the question I address is not that but this. Is the cost of taking action many times greater than the cost of not acting? The answer to this question is Yes.

Millions are already dying of starvation in the world’s poorest nations because world food prices have doubled in two years. That abrupt, vicious doubling was caused by a sharp drop in world food production, caused in turn by suddenly taking millions of acres of land out of growing food for people who need it, so as to grow biofuels for clunkers that don’t. The scientifically-illiterate, economically-innumerate policies that you advocate – however fashionable you may conceive them to be – are killing people by the million.

You say my logic “belongs in a casino, not a science lab”. Yet it is you who are gambling with poor people’s lives, and it is you – or, rather, they – who are losing: and losing not merely their substance but their very existence. The biofuel scam is born of the idiotic notion – a notion you uncritically espouse – that increasing by less than 1/2000 this century the proportion of the Earth’s atmosphere occupied by CO2 may prove catastrophic. At a time when so many of the world’s people are already short of food, the UN’s right-to-food rapporteur, Herr Ziegler, has roundly and rightly condemned the biofuel scam as nothing less than “a crime against humanity”.

The scale of the slaughter is monstrous, with food riots (largely unreported in the Western news media, and certainly not mentioned by you in your recent speech) in a dozen regions of the Third World over the past two years. Yet this cruel, unheeded slaughter is founded upon a lie: the claim by the IPCC that it is 90% certain that most of the “global warming” since 1950 is manmade. This claim – based not on science but on a show of hands among political representatives, with China wanting a lower figure and other nations wanting a higher figure – is demonstrably, self-servingly false. Peer-reviewed analyses of changes in cloud cover over recent decades – changes almost entirely unconnected with changes in CO2 concentration – show that it was this largely-natural reduction in cloud cover from 1983-2001 and a consequent increase in the amount of short-wave and UV solar radiation reaching the Earth that accounted for five times as much warming as CO2 could have caused.

Nor is the IPCC’s great lie the only lie. If you will allow me to brief you and your advisers, I will show you lie after lie after lie after lie in the official documents of the IPCC and in the speeches of its current chairman, who has made himself a multi-millionaire as a “global warming” profiteer.

However, if you will not make the time to hear me for half an hour before you commit your working people to the futile indignity of excessive taxation and pointless over-regulation without the slightest scientific or economic justification, and to outright confiscation of their farmland without compensation on the fatuous pretext that the land is a “carbon sink”, then I hope that you will at least nominate one of the scientists on your staff to address the two central issues that I have raised in this letter: namely, the egregious cost-ineffectiveness of attempting to mitigate “global warming” by emissions reduction, and the measured fact, well demonstrated in the scientific literature, that a largely-natural change in cloud cover in recent decades caused five times as much “global warming” as CO2. It is also a measured fact that, while those of the UN’s computer models that can be forced with an increase in sea-surface temperatures all predict a consequent fall in the flux of outgoing radiation at top of atmosphere, in observed reality there is an increase. In short, the radiation that is supposed to be trapped here in the troposphere to cause “global warming” is measured as escaping to space much as usual, so that it cannot be causing more than around one-fifth of the warming the IPCC predicts.

My list of the Copenhagen junketers from Australia’s governing class is attached. All those taxpayer dollars squandered, just to forestall 0.02 C° of “global warming” in ten years. Yet, in the past decade and a half, there has been no “global warming” at all. Can you not see that it would be kinder to your working people to wait another decade and see whether global temperatures even begin to respond as the IPCC has predicted? What is the worst that can happen if you wait? Just 0.02 C° of global warming that would not otherwise have occurred. It’s a no-brainer.

Yours faithfully,

VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY

THE RUDD GOVERNMENT’S COPENHAGEN JUNKET LIST

December 2009

The following 114 officials or representatives of the Australian Government and of State administrations attended the UN climate conference at Copenhagen in December 2009 –

1. Kevin Michael Rudd, Prime Minister
2. Penelope Wong, Minister, Clim. Chg. & Water
3. Louise Helen Hand, Ambassador for Clim. Chg.

4. David Fredericks, Dep. Chf. of Staff, Dept. of the Prime Minister
5. Philip Green Oam, Sen. Policy Advr., Foreign Affairs Dept.

6. Andrew Charlton, Sen. Advr., Prime Minister’s Dept.

7. Lachlan Harris, Sen. Press Sec., Prime Minister’s Office

8. Scott Dewar, Sen. Advr., Prime Minister’s Office

9. Clare Penrose, Advr., Prime Minister’s Office

10. Fiona Sugden, Media Advr., Prime Minister’s Office
11. Lisa French, Prime Minister’s Office12. Jeremy Hilman, Advr., Prime Minister’s Office
13. Tarah Barzanji, Advr., Prime Minister’s Office

14. Kate Shaw, Exec. Sec., Prime Minister’s Office

15. Gaile Barnes, Exec. Asst., Prime Minister’s Office

16. Gordon de Brouwer, Dep. Sec. Prime Minister’s Dept.

17. Patrick Suckling, 1st Asst. Sec., Intl. Div., Prime Minister’s Office
\
18. Rebecca Christie, Prime Minister’s Office

19. Michael Jones, Official Photographer, Prime Minister & Cabinet

20. Stephan Rudzki

21. David Bell, Federal Agent, Aus. Federal Police

22. Kym Baillie, Aus. Federal Police

23. David Champion, Aus. Federal Police

24. Matt Jebb, Federal Agent Aus. Federal Police

25. Craig Kendall, Federal Agent, Aus. Federal Police

26. Squadron Leader Ian Lane, Staff Offr., VIP Operations

27. John Olenich, Media Advr., to Minister Wong, Office of Clim. Chg. & Water

28. Kristina Hickey, Advr. to Minister Wong, Office of Clim. Chg. & Water

29. Martin Parkinson, Sec., Dept. of Clim. Chg.

30. Howard Bamsey, Special Envoy for Clim. Chg., Dept. of Clim. Chg.

31. Robert Owen-Jones, Asst. Sec., Intl. Div., Dept. of Clim. Chg.

32. Clare Walsh Asst. Sec., Intl. Div., Dept. of Clim. Chg.

33. Jenny Elizabeth Wilkinson, Policy Advr., Dept. of Clim. Chg.

34. Elizabeth Peak, Princ. Legal Advr., Intl. Clim. Law, Dept. of Clim. Chg.

35. Kristin Tilley, Dir., Multilat. Negots., Intl. Div., Dept. of Clim. Chg.

36. Andrew Ure, Actg. Dir., Multilat. Negots., Intl. Div., Dept. of Clim. Chg.

37. Annemarie Watt, Dir., Land Sector Negots., Intl. Div., Dept. of Clim. Chg.

38. Kushla Munro, Dir., Intl. Forest Carbon Sectn. Intl. Div., Dept. of Clim. Chg.

39. Kathleen Annette Rowley, Dir., Strategic & Tech. Analysis, Dept. of Clim. Chg.

40. Anitra Cowan Asst. Dir., Multilat. Negots., Dept. of Clim. Chg.

41. Sally Truong, Asst. Dir., Multilat. Negots., Intl. Div. Dept. of Clim. Chg.

42. Jane Wilkinson, Asst. Dir., Dept. of Clim. Chg.

43. Tracey Mackay, Asst. Dir., Intl. Div., Dept. of Clim. Chg.

44. Laura Brown, Asst. Dir., Multilat. Negots., Intl. Div., Dept. of Clim. Chg.

45. Tracey-Anne Leahey, Delegation Mgr., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
46. Nicola Loffler, Sen. Legal Advr., Intl. Clim. Law, Dept. of Clim. Chg.
47. Tamara Curll, Legal Advr., Intl. Clim. Law, Dept. of Clim. Chg.
48. Jessica Allen, Legal Support Offr., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
49. Sanjiva de Silva, Legal Advr., Intl. Clim. Law, Dept. of Clim. Chg.
50. Gaia Puleston, Political Advr., Dept. of Clim. Chg.

51. Penelope Morton, Policy Advr., UNFCCC Negots., Intl. Div., Dept. of Clim. Chg.

52. Claire Elizabeth Watt, Policy Advr., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
53. Amanda Walker, Policy Offr., Multilat. Negots., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
54. Alan David Lee, Policy Advr., Land Sector Negots., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
55. Erika Kate Oord, Aus. Stakeholder Mgr., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
56. Jahda Kirian Swanborough, Comms. Mgr., Ministerial Comms., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
57. H.E. Sharyn Minahan, Ambassador, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
58. Julia Feeney, Dir., Clim. Chg. & Envir., Dept. of Foreign Affairs & Trade
59. Chester Geoffrey Cunningham, 2nd Sec., DFAT, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to Germany
60. Rachael Cooper, Exec. Offr., Clim. Chg. & Envir., Dept. of Foreign Affairs & Trade
61. Rachael Grivas, Exec. Offr., Envir. Branch, Dept. of Foreign Affairs & Trade
62. Moya Collett, Desk Offr., Clim. Chg. & Envir. Sectn., Dept. of Foreign Affairs & Trade
63. Rob Law, Dept. of Foreign Affairs & Trade
64. Robin Davies, Asst. Dir. Gen., Sustainable Devel. Gp., Aus. Agency for Intl. Devel.
65. Deborah Fulton, Dir., Policy & Global Envir., Aus. Agency for Intl. Devel.
66. Katherine Vaughn, Policy Advr., Policy & Global Envir., Aus. Agency for Intl. Devel.
67. Brian Dawson, Policy Advr., Aus. Agency for Intl. Devel.
68. Andrew Leigh Clarke, Dep. Sec., Dept. of Res. Devel., Western Aus.
69. Bruce Wilson, Gen. Mgr., Envir. Energy & Envir. Div., Dept. of Resrc. Devel., W. Aus.
70. Jill McCarthy, Policy Advr., Dept. of Resrc., Energy & Tourism
71. Simon French, Policy Advr., Dept. of Agriculture, Fisheries & Forestry
72. Ian Michael Ruscoe, Policy Advr., Dept. of Agriculture, Fisheries & Forestry
73. David Walland, Acting Supt., Nat. Clim. Centre, Bureau of Meteorology
74. Damien Dunn Sen. Policy Advr., Aus. Treasury
75. Helen Hawka Fuhrman, Policy Offr., Renewable Energy Policy & Partnerships
76. Scott Vivian Davenport, Chf., Economics, NSW Dept. of Industry & Invest.
77. Graham Julian Levitt, Policy Mgr., Clim. Chg., NSW Dept. of Industry & Invest.

78. Kate Jennifer Jones, Minister, Clim. Chg. & Sustainability, Qld. Govt.

79. Michael William Dart, Princ. Policy Advr., Office of Kate Jones, MP, Qld. Govt.
80. Matthew Anthony Jamie Skoien, Sen. Dir., Office of Clim. Chg. Qld. Govt.
81. Michael David Rann, Premier, S. Aus. Dept. of Premier & Cabinet, S. Aus.
82. Suzanne Kay Harter, Advr., Dept. of Premier & Cabinet, S. Aus.
83. Paul David Flanagan, Mgr., Comms., Govt. of S. Aus.
84. Timothy O’Loughlin, Dep. Chf. Exec., Sust. & Wkfc. Mgmt., S. Aus. Dept. of Premier
85. Nyla Sarwar M.Sc, student, Linacre College, University of Oxford
86. Gavin Jennings, Minister, Envir. & Clim. Chg. & Innovation, Victorian Govt.

87. Sarah Broadbent, Sustainability Advr.

88. Rebecca Falkingham, Sen. Advr., Victoria Govt./Office of Clim. Chg.

89. Simon Camroux, Policy Advr., Energy Supply Ass. of Aus. Ltd.

90. Geoff Lake, Advr., Aus. Local Govt. Ass.

91. Sridhar Ayyalaraju, Post Visit Controller, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK

92. Tegan Brink Dep. Visit Controller & Security Liaison Offr., Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
93. Melissa Eu Suan Goh, Trspt. Liaison Offr. & Consul, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
94. Lauren Henschke, Support Staff, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
95. Maree Fay, Accommodation Liaison Offr., Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
96. Patricia McKinnon, Comms. Offr., Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
97. Eugene Olim, Passport/Baggage Liaison Offr., Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
98. Belinda Lee Adams
99. Jacqui Ashworth, Media Liaison Offr., Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
100. Patricia Smith, Media Liaison Offr., Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
101. Martin Bo Jensen, Research & Public Dipl. Offr., Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
102. Mauro Kolobaric, Consular Support, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
103. Susan Flanagan, Consular Support, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
104. Stephen Kanaridis, IT Support Offr., Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
105. George Reid, Support Staff, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
106. Ashley Wright, Support Staff, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
107. Jodie Littlewood, Support Staff, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
108. Thomas Millhouse, Support Staff, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
109. Timothy Whittley, Support Staff Driver, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
110. Julia Thomson, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK

111. Donald Frater, Chf. of Staff to Minister Wong Office of Clim. Chg. & Water

112. Jacqui Smith, Media Liaison, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
113. Greg French, Sen. Legal Advr. (Envir.), Dept. of Foreign Affairs & Trade
114. Jeremy Hillman, Advr., Prime Minister’s Office


Sponsored IT training links:
Our 199-01 prep course includes all important tips and tools that one must have to go through to pass 642-611 and 642-654 exam.


About these ads

306 thoughts on “Climate change: proposed personal briefing

  1. At probably $15,000 a person, that’s about $1,600,000.

    Bet that would FEED about 100,000 people in the third world for 1/2 a year.

    But they would NOT be eating the Oyster’s and Caviar that was consumed in

    Copenhagen.

  2. Given that list, it’s nice to know that so many women in Australia are getting in on the goodies. In the bad old days, only men would be in on the scam.

    And while I’m at it…. Gaia Puleston, Political Advr., Dept. of Clim. Chg.?

    Gaia? Nice to know as well that the Mother Goddess is now working as a political troll in Oz.

  3. Lord Monckton

    There is clearly a role for you and Rowan Atkinson to team up to resurrect the great Edmund Blackadder to address the regal courtiers of middle Age climate incompetence and intemperance in a manner which:

    i. Renders the UK public into paroxysms of hysterical laughter;
    ii. Exports such laughter to as many parts of the globe as possible with attendant contributions to the UK’s somewhat unhealthy trade balance curently;
    iii. Communicates in a suitably farcical manner the matters of international importance which are usually best communicated through soap opera, comedy or farce to the general populace (a la AIDS through Eastenders etc etc).

    Perhaps the irony of your piece will be lost to some.

    Hopefully not to all.

    It definitely wasn’t to me…………

    Happy 2010……..

  4. Keep up the good work Lord Monckton!

    I’ve never seen anything fishy or erroneous with your science arguments; rather on the contrary they seem brilliant, accurate and relevant. My conclusion is that the Lord is either omniscient or has a large number of skilled advisors…

  5. Rudd will not read that, not sure his attention span is sufficiently long to get all the way through to the end. Plus it is not written in mangled bureaucratese (Rudd’s second language after Mandarin) so he will scarcely be able to comprehend what he reads anyway. Let’s hope Tony Abbott at least meets with Lord Monckton.

  6. Ah, Lord Monckton, there you go, being logical with religious fanatics again.

    He is a great man, willing and able to take on the high and mighty as well as the spiritually committed. I hope he is successful, but even if he is not, I doubt that we have seen the last of him.

  7. What is important to the politicians is that they be seen as “doing something”. It really doesn’t matter if what they are doing will make any difference, at least they are “doing something” even if that something will wreck our economy.

    To someone who buys the whole AGW rhetorical line, wrecking the economy is a lesser disaster than the certain doom that will come if we do nothing. So they use this threat of disaster to justify looting the treasuries of several nations.

    It is the perfect “disaster” for a politician. You can’t hear it, you can’t taste it, can’t see it, heck, you can’t even measure it! But it is “there” and the cure is TRILLIONS of dollars and tremendous programs requiring the assembling of huge bureaucracies to manage them. This will ensure that no friend of a politician goes unemployed for decades!

    What is even better is if the UN can be put in charge of all these various programs and offices as they are not elected, they are responsible to no country’s population, have no enforceable conflict of interest regulations, and are immune from “freedom of information” requests from any country. This allows the placement of individuals into regulatory capacities that stand to make a handsome profit from their regulations. They know where they are going to spend their money and who they are going to penalize so they invest in the companies standing to profit and short those they would hope to put out of business.

    It is indeed a global swindle the likes of which we have never seen before.

  8. Lord Monckton, please continue to expand on your efforts to spread the truth. I hope to see you as the antithesis of Al Gore, and once that happens on a global scale, it will polarize the world and force people for the first time to really think about where they should stand on this debate, rather than letting politicians think for them on such matters. Look forward to more presentations. Thank you.

  9. Australia needs all the publicity it can get about the AGW scam. When questioned, most of my well read, well educated friends had never heard of ClimateGate. ClimateGate has had barely a mention in the Australian press despite huge volumes of warmist junk articles. Recently, a more aware friend had a letter to the editor published but a sentence referring to ClimateGate was deleted.

    Fantastic to see that Monkton is coming down under to show the antipodeans that there are other views besides those in the Herald.

  10. Lord Monckton:
    A complete and utter demolition of the superstition (surely the best word for it) of global warming, though it may not have any effect on the wilfully stupid.

  11. What a stupid bloody farce, if it wasn’t so serious it would be laughable.

    Of course Bjorn Lomborg ( a sort of AGW believer ) has been sending a similar message for years with little response from Govts and generating a lot of hostility from green academics both in Denmark and abroad.

    We may as well flush those trillions $ down the toilet for all the good it will do, just think of the new research that could be done on new nuclear power generation that would consume all waste or just an extra billion targeting future nano battery technology, allowing cars to easily travel 500klms and then procede after a 5 minute battery recharge.
    We are being led and governed by a pack of fools and carpetbaggers, let’s hope that Monckton and others can throw a spanner in the works and halt this ridiculous religion of AGW.

    [REPLY – If we were merely flushing those trillions it wouldn’t be half as bad. Instead, those trillions will be devoted directly and with gusto to wealth destruction. ~ Evan]

  12. The Rudd company went to Copenhagen and participated in a resounding thud, but came back with nothing more than a dud.
    Next time, send in Elmer Fudd. The results will then match the expectations.

  13. You say that I and others like me base our thinking on the notion that “the cost of not acting is nothing”. Well, after a decade and a half with no statistically-significant “global warming”, and after three decades in which the mean warming rate has been well below the ever-falling predictions of the UN’s climate panel, that notion has certainly not been disproven in reality.

    Well put! Nice usage of “robust”.

  14. 99.9% of the worlds politicians are made from the same mold, (crudd is that wrong ?) it is unfortunate that we are all to blame for the catastrophe that befalls us, (to vote or not to vote? ) to use a Aussie expression ”[snip] is politics” we seem to listen to ”[snip]” and elect the [snip] that drops us in the [snip].
    Once in a lifetime there arrives a clear speaker who has a vision of what is right and wrong in the political dungheap, we, (those with no voice) are most fortunate to have Viscount Monckton of Brenchley to use the shovel that the rabble that take our money under false pretenses justly deserve.
    God bless you,

  15. Too much hard detail there for KRudd to comprehend, Lord Monckton! last I heard our “dear leader” was busy writing childrens books.

    God, or Lord Monckton, help us!

  16. His mind is made up, and like all Western governments, the opinion polls are the only possible thing that could change it. Loved the letter, but the scientific bits will go right over the heads of the political class, who can’t see the forest for the opinion polls, and criticising the UN will get you no favours from PM Rudd. As to his scientific advisors, they are firmly in the AGW camp too.

  17. I hope at least some of our main media in Australia print this list, if only to test the response of ordinary electors. But I’m not optimistic that any of them will take the least notice of what Lord Monckton says.

  18. Dear sir:

    Thank you for your untiring efforts.

    Your efforts are deeply appreciated by many and will, one day, be rewarded. The continued pressure has already made the discussion more open than we could ever have dreamed a few years ago.

    Also thanks to Anthony Watts and his crew for this wonderful medium.

    Clive
    Canada

  19. Words cannot express my admiration for the tenacious dedication of Lord Monckton in fighting the AGW scam. But I agree with Neil Crafter; Rudd will probably not have the attention span to read the entire letter. Perhaps the use of footnotes as the source of the bulk information to support the arguments would help? I liked this letter immensely, but imagine to hardcore left-wingers it is only so much bafflegab, as incomprehensible to them as their usually turgid writing is to me. A pity more Brits are not politically awake – how else to explain their bowing to the E.U.? Monckton for P.M.? (He’d be miles better than any of the current candidates, and shows real gumption in standing up for what is the truth.)

  20. I was in Copenhagen on 26/12/2009, after the conference, going up and down the street looking at the menus to decide where to have lunch. One restaurant was touting two “Klima” menus. I asked the waiter outside why they were “Klima” friendly. Can’t remember the details, one had duck as the main course.

    “Well, you know that greenhouse effect?”

    “I’ve heard something about it.”

    “Well, none of the food on these menus was grown in a greenhouse.”

  21. Huzzah! and “well done” to Viscount Monckton! Carry on.

    Given that most media voices are lock-step with the Calamitous Global Warming/Climate Change Doom Machine, sensible and skeptical voices in science have to rely on “Force Multipliers” such as VM of Brenchley to command alternative media attention.

    Loved your interview with the Norwegian Greenpeace activist in C’hagen. I suspect PM Rudd will offer an equal deer-in-headlights response to facts, logic, and reason.

    Meanwhile, the rest of us rational folk must keep up pressure on our elected representatives to STOP this landslide of insane, ineffectual legislation – designed only to
    extract taxes/fees/rate increases from productive people for the benefit of politicians, sloths, and eco-thugs.

    CO2 – plant food, not pollution.

  22. Lord Monkton. You are wasting your time. Mr Rudd’s reading talents could not cope. He has just managed to co-author a childrens book, ‘Jasper and Abby and the Great Australia Day Kerfuffle follows the adventures of Mr Rudd’s real-life family pets: Jasper, a high-maintenance black cat, and Abby, a lovable golden retriever’. Mr. Rudd took time out from gruelling and ultimately disappointing negotiations at the Copenhagen climate summit to co-author the book for charity. It goes on sale on January 26 Australia Day.

  23. The only way Rudd & co. are going to respond this is if they are under public pressure to do so.
    What Monckton presents is a great slate.

  24. ‘…..the proposal for world “government”….. find them in paragraphs 36-38 of the main text of Annex 1 to the 15 September draft of the Treaty.
    ‘The climate ought not (nor will anything else) to be used as a shoddy pretext for international bureaucratic-centralist dictatorship.’

    Socialism, the road to Slavery.

  25. Lord Monckton chats and refutes without scripts and never hides behind a PR team.

    He is the sole political voice that represent the masses of ordinary folk in the UK that are screaming climate & tax fraud.

    Sounds a bit corny but Lord Monckton, by the people for the people.

  26. Wish he had references at the end of his letter.

    I’m curious as to which papers he based the following statement on:

    “Peer-reviewed analyses of changes in cloud cover over recent decades – changes almost entirely unconnected with changes in CO2 concentration – show that it was this largely-natural reduction in cloud cover from 1983-2001 and a consequent increase in the amount of short-wave and UV solar radiation reaching the Earth that accounted for five times as much warming as CO2 could have caused.”

  27. Uh oh! People keep posting math and stuff on this site. Why is this the only place I’m seeing it? These make for the best threads, let’s hash it out pencilheads. Nice work by the lord M once again.

  28. On his way home from Australia, perhaps Lord Monkton could swing by Ontario, Canada. Our wayward Premier is determined to prepare us for “the Post Carbon World” with a cap and trade program.

  29. Fantastic the way our Noble Lord whacks the politcos with the cluebat.

    How much will get thru, gripped as they are with ba-da-bing! economics.

  30. Earlier today I happened to show my husband Lord Monckton’s marvellous youtube interview with the Greenpeace supporter in Copenhagen. I have rarely seen someone so thoroughly wipe the floor with an alarmist with such panache and good manners.

    He might look a bit odd, but he really is a bright, exceptionally well educated, polite, articulate and moderate man. Thank God he is on the side of the angels!

    Invariant: I would like to think he is omniscient!

  31. I just can’t believe 114 Australian Government Officials were in Copenhagen !.
    Holy Moly.

  32. “JDN (13:48:32) :

    I like this guy. I see that whoever has been writing his wikipedia entry doesn’t like him. He has a picture that makes him look crazy, and, the article is basically a condemnation of Monckton.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley

    Hmmmmm…didn’t we just have a post here on WUWT regarding a certain Wiki editor that seemed to be in possession of a biased pen?
    Perhaps there are more than one???

    Ack. Say it ain’t so.

    And the walls…keep tumblin’ down ;)

    JimB (in USA)

  33. There are times when Monckton has been wrong.

    However,

    When Monckton nails it, he nails it. Overall he’s able to compile the scientific “skepticism” and convey it in a clear way.

  34. Lord Monckton has such a comprehensive understanding of the scientific, financial, and political issues that I feel simply stupid and ignorant by comparison. I never felt that way when confronted by the AGW believers. I therefore, and humbly, yield to the Viscount. Well done Lord Monckton.

    RJ

  35. “JDN (13:48:32) :

    I like this guy. I see that whoever has been writing his wikipedia entry doesn’t like him. He has a picture that makes him look crazy, and, the article is basically a condemnation of Monckton.”

    Have a look at the revision history (under the “History” tab). There is a regular “change war” going on. That entry has been rewritten 500 times since November 30(!). Strangely enough our friend William M. Connolley only did five of them. Really quite flattering for Lord Monckton.

  36. Brave and accurate as usual. As you know our politicians are scientifically illiterate ( I am a UK/Australian citizen ) and their advisors have agendas unfortunately. I know Prof. Bob Carter tried with others to influence Penelope Wong with no success, “the science is settled” arguments. Keep trying!
    I trust Chris Monckton has recovered from his Copenhagen adventure.

  37. I have never seen so cost-ineffective a proposed waste of taxpayers’ money as the trillions which today’s scientifically-illiterate governments propose to spend on attempting – with all the plausibility of King Canute – to stop the tide from coming in.

    We are indeed fortunate to have a spokesman as eloquent Lord Monckton. I fear that that a rejection of the proposed meeting was anticipated, so the letter was made public at the same time. It may have been wiser to await a response from PM Rudd.

    What a magnificent summary post Copenhagen, almost Churchillian in it’s rhetoric.

    rodomontade I had to look that up in my OED !

  38. Lord Monckton:

    I agree with you and I especially admire and respect the way you address opponents as a gentleman.

    Well, I am no gentleman at all, I am just pondering the best way I can slam dunk deep into the mud every single name written on the website 350.org, and I mean every single name and I mean slam dunk deep, as in deep, and I probably mean I am no gentlemen but I definitely know I wonder, probably, who knows, who cares, yet so far. Talk in riddles is all I can do, most likely.

  39. I’m sure any change in global CO2 emissions makes very little difference to temperatures over the next ten years. But why did Monckton restrict his analysis to such a short time?

    I’m also sure a twenty-year-old smoker by cutting down on cigarettes will do little to improve her mortality rate over just the next ten years. Would Monckton advise her to keep up the habit because over ten years the pleasure lost would far outweigh the marginally increased risk of death?

    Politicians are normally criticised for taking a short-term view – but for Monckton it seems a virtue to be encouraged.

  40. What is it about the tone of this letter that makes me think that Kevin Rudd won’t read it? I wonder.

  41. Guacamole! I hope I never wind up on the Viscount’s bad side. Mr. Rudd, you have just been handed your hat…with your head in it.

  42. Let us pretend, solum ad argumentum, that a given proportionate
    increase in CO2 concentration causes the maximum warming imagined by
    the IPCC. The IPCC’s bureaucrats are careful not to derive a
    function that will convert changes in CO2 concentration directly to
    equilibrium changes in temperature. I shall do it for them.

    Since the IPCC, in compliance with Beer’s Law, defines the radiative
    forcing effect of CO2 as logarithmic rather than linear, our
    implicit function can be derived at once. The coefficient is the
    predicted warming at CO2 doubling divided by the logarithm of 2, and
    the term (C/C0) is the proportionate increase in CO2 concentration.

    Isn’t the whole alarmist case based on a lot of speculation about
    positive feedbacks? So I wouldn’t expect temperature to be such a
    straightforward function of CO2 level in their models.

  43. Nice, accurate, good, right.
    But unfortunately irrelevant still. It’s still all about the politics and not about the science. Keep up the good work, my lord; common sense may triumph in the end!

  44. He would have lost Rudd with using Latin, instead he should have used Mandarin, or worse yet, talk like Rudd himself, if you’ve ever heard Rudd talk you would know what I mean!

  45. Too many big words, and just seeing math equations will throw him off.

    Simplified statement:

    Say you were mislead by the fearmongers, be a champion for Australia and her people against this false “climate change” science, get reelected.

    Continue onward with this demolishing of Australia’s economy and sovereignty, get booted out of office and forever be a pathetic joke.

    That might reach him, if it ever gets through the insulating layers of advisers and “experts.”

  46. 114 Australians got a two week vacation, I was going to say “free”, but the Australian taxpayer paid for their vacation.

  47. So what chance do we have here in Australia, when our opposition member of parliament for the environment is a “Warmist”. Here we have a member who has swallowed the Alarmist, AGW rubbish, hook, line and sinker, and is using his own personal views as Opposition Policy, i.e. “Agrees with the Government.” I have corresponded with him through emails and have only conveyed the examples of how the “science is NOT settled.” The Darwin scandal, the CRU emails and data, and lists of the other scientists who have signed petitions disagreeing with the warming due to human pollution.

    Here is part of a email I received recently,
    “…but can I also encourage you to acknowledge that there are 115 Nobel Laureates (forget Al Gore) from the scientific fields who have embraced the science……..”

    So, again, what can you do when the Opposition still has its head stuck in the sand, and will not use any “due diligence” in researching the subject which is part of his “shadow portfolio” .
    I guess he will still collect his pay come Friday, weather he does any work or not !

  48. and you wonder why markey and waxman would not let gore debate this guy? Gore’s head would have exploded

  49. Thank you Lord Monckton.
    Laughter is a potent weapon. I do like rodomontade to describe our PM.
    Please be sure to brief the opposition leader Tony Abbott during your visit

  50. Unfortunately there is no ” programmatic specificity” as to when krudd is shown the door. He is an arrogant, condescending AGW clown.
    Keep up the good work “my Lord”

  51. Perhaps the greatest failing of both proponents, and their antagonists, is in disregarding the probabilistic nature of the arguments. Both sides tend to state their positions as fact, rather than recognizing that they are probabilities that are conditional on an ever changing array of estimated values and outright unknowns. Both parties seem afraid to admit that the answer is “maybe”.

    The public, being nearly totally ignorant of the intricacies of probability theory, respond to the loudest voice. Politicians, being ever aware of the danger of being seen as “indecisive”, adopt the position they think will enhance their political goals.

  52. So Lord Monckton, does the world end in 2020?
    If you use 2050 as the calculate date, the temperature difference between BAU and Copenhagen is significantly greater, even without further reductions in emissions.
    Such a pitiful trick; regretfully we have learnt to expect no better from his lordship.

  53. He’s a remarkable man indeed. Dazzling intellect, humorous, graps all the issues of AGW, and has an eloquent command of language.

    So it’s little wonder why he was shoved to the ground, in Copenhagen.

    But even less surprising is that Monckton got right back up and kept on going.

  54. Appomattox @14:46:23:

    Isn’t the whole alarmist case based on a lot of speculation about
    positive feedbacks? So I wouldn’t expect temperature to be such a
    straightforward function of CO2 level in their models.

    Yes, Appo, you are correct. As even the IPCC itself cannot claim catastrophic warming from their “basic science of green house gas” they invent completely undemonstrated, let alone proven, imaginary “positive feedbacks”, with lots of hand-waving.

    Apart from the lack of evidence from the AGWers, there is demonstrably no posititve global warming feedback mechanism in the Earth’s climate system. If there were, then the Earth would currently be uninhabitable – don’t forget it has been warmer previously than today, and it has been cooler; now, at present, it is as it is temperature wise.

  55. Lord Monckton slaughters the willfully ignorant with an agenda. Truth is worth 50,000 times more than lies.

  56. Monckton of Brenchley,

    as a working class Grammar School lad, I find myself a little amazed, and proud, to salute a Lord.

  57. Lord Monckton, keep up this excellent work in presenting the robust and rigorous science countering the assertions stemming from the pro-AGW science now pervading the ether. This work is sorely needed here in Australia – where most of the mainstream media circus is embedded in the pro AGW camp – with the leading clown in this circus being “our” taxpayer-funded ABC. And with the media circus supported by individuals within taxpayer-funded institutions, such as the CSIRO, LaTrobe University, Macquarie University, University of Melbourne, and others, the need for systematic and logical confrontation of the pro-AGW science is a rather pressing need right now. However, unfortunately for our national well-being, the modus operandi of our current Prime Minister is dictated by opinion poll, with the result that he will only act consistently with the robust scientific evidence for CO2 being a greenhouse bit player and for the global mean temperature decrease since 1998, when opinion polls dictate that he does so. The overtly dismissive nature and ad-hominem attacks in a number of points made in the Prime Minister’s speech to the Lowy Institute is deliberate – because it is in accord with his finely-tuned dance to public opinion – rather than such points being reflective of anything he believes in. Therefore, a possibly better approach is either to offer a totally private invitation to display data, present conclusions, and facilitate a Q and A session with our Prime Minister, and follow this with comparable sessions to an audience comprising editors of selected major Australian newspapers with popular websites, such as the “The Australian”. I write these ideas here because I believe we have to get behind the public face of our current Prime Minister, and because we have to reach the uncommitted “silent majority” rather than trying, fruitlessly, to reach the rabidly pro AGW, hair-shirt, chardonnay-sipping, greenie fringe and politicans of like mind.

  58. As an Australian (and former knee-jerk Labor voter) all I can say is that having to read an elitist pom explaining common sense to KRudd and Co is almost as depressing as knowning that Labor is deader than the Tree of Knowledge. If I could be convinced that Tony Abbott isn’t a crypto-creationist, and that he wouldn’t immediately sell out to the Turnbull wing, then I would be ready to quit my job and devote the next few years to doing everything I could do to ensure the Coalition triumphs at the next election.

  59. Curiousgeorge (15:00:15) : “Perhaps the greatest failing of both proponents, and their antagonists, is in disregarding the probabilistic nature of the arguments.”

    It may seem that skeptics are fighting fire with fire, but if the warmists weren’t running at us with so many torches and tankers of gasoline, we wouldn’t be bringing out the fire hoses. The fire is all theirs, and we’ve yet enough hoses, ie.

    “The public, being nearly totally ignorant of the intricacies of probability theory, respond to the loudest voice.”

    As a memeber of this “ignorant” public, I’m not unaware of the possibilities. No one can predict the future of the climate, and Monckton doesn’t attempt to do this. He could be right, that we’d only spare ourselves a measly .02 degrees, but then again because things are cyclical, we might cool off a lot more than that. In either case, we should remain skeptical because we’re either spending too much for nothing or we risk crediting the measures as working more magic than it actually might have.

    OTOH, if we don’t do anything, and it stays wamer or gets warmer… Well, the warmists will still be screaming, but we won’t be pillaged nor will we have world governing body of wealth redistribution.

    I’ve worked this out to the bet of my abilities, and imo the best thing is to do nothing.
    I see no good reason to change my mind. But maybe you can help? What do you see that I do not?

  60. Lord Monckton

    Alas, I fear that this ‘tour de force’ demolition job by the noble lord will be to no avail at this time – these people have the ‘bit between the teeth’ as it were and the money is already committed. The round filing cabinet will be used for this letter!

    However for me it was a wonderful read. The command of our language was just breathtaking as was of course its comprehensive and logical assay of the salient issues as well as the conclusions.

    Even so there seems to be a swelling number of people who realise that this lunacy has to be resisted with all our strength and who better to lead this charge with elequence than Lord Monckton?

  61. I have always been an atheist and that now precludes me from a belief in the new religion of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).
    When scientists are able to effectively model all of the causes of global warming – from greenhouse gasses to cloud cover to solar radiation / reflection, the effect of the helliosphere, sunspot activity and the sun’s millennia long nuclear cycle then perhaps their predictions for the future may be more believable.
    Then AGW advocates with scientific models derived from valid (not forged) peer reviews – and models which actually tally with observable changes may even cease to be known as and behave like religious zealots.

  62. Can somebody send that picture or a better one to Wikipedia to replace the dreadful one of Lord Monckton that warmist editor ChrisO put there and keeps putting back?
    You’ll need to provide evidence that a picture has been approved by the copyright holder to be put on Wikipedia.

    Of another OK picture – “It is quite possible that it was a work commissioned by Monckton and distributed as a file photo to various news outlets, but we would need to have some evidence of this before it can be used here. — ChrisO”

  63. The public, being nearly totally ignorant of the intricacies of probability theory, respond to the loudest voice. Politicians, being ever aware of the danger of being seen as “indecisive”, adopt the position they think will enhance their political goals.

    The public has become largely aware that the warming scare is a just that, a scare, in that their world is growing colder year on year on year.
    The public is not stupid, and gets the one-sided nature of the news they have been force-fed. Up-chuck.
    The politicians-in-charge, on the other hand, are caught between a poorly advised agenda and a cold place. They need someone to ‘talk them down’ off the ledge.
    A hard-headed pol will not change position unless widely supported to do so.
    Call it Climate Crisis Intervention.
    Rudd is one of many.

  64. Again a most valuable piece of excellent work.

    How about having it translated and shared among blogs and MSM worldwide?
    Some will pick it up and many people will be happy to learn about it and start asking tough questions.

    Thank you.
    Happy New Year.

  65. Lord Monckton has written a well reasoned and researched letter to a guy who eats his own ear wax. Mind you, an entire nation elected him as leader. I’m not sure what we could reasonably expect in response.

  66. Lord Monckton,

    Slightly off topic, but could I suggest your goodself or someone close to you runs in the forthcoming election in Redcar. I liked your analysis of the carbon credit fraud.

    Could I suggest that your manifesto be that the carbon credits from shutting down the steel mill should go to the workers and community of Redcar rather than to Tata.

  67. If his words weren’t so harsh and condescending I would widely distribute this piece. But it’s a rough read and not terribly polite. An uninvolved third party reading this will be offended by the language (even if there is history to it).

    Still, I do very much appreciate Lord Monkton’s perseverance.
    I would love to attend one of his speeches.

  68. One of the proudest moments of my life was being accused by MeFinny2, on the Graundian CIF, of being the Admirable Viscount. If only!
    Sir, a question, if offered by the BBC to be the host of “Have I got News for You”, would you accept?

  69. To The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley,

    On behalf of the Human Race, thank you.

    At this very time on this planet, we find that most of the world governing leadership and academic intelligentsia is being hijacked by fools, misfits and social engineering cretins whom masquerade as politicians, scientists and naturalists.

    It is a very sad occasion when we find ourselves today that those in high ranking offices who have been given the responsibility to manage our economic and social structures, and those who have risen to esteemed levels of academic excellence, up till recently covertly, but now openly without any reservation turn these very institutions into mockery.

    What we have today is not only the debasement of science. What we have is something far, far worse. The “Scientific Method” that we scientists so proudly proclaimed and righteously held in esteem has succumbed to the same sorry vagaries that has plagued other fields of knowledge, I speak of course of … corruption.

    Alas from this decade and forever onward, a Ph.D, M.Sc or even the watered down B.Sc is no longer worth the paper it is written on. Never again can we now trust the credentials of a scientist or their institution of learning. Science has been infiltrated by self-serving minions, arrogant selfish egotists, and worse yet, lying, cheating dishonest scoundrels. This filth that plagues our beloved Science will not only create greater work, greater confusion, greater obstruction, and greater misdirection of tax-payers money. As this plague grows, it will become harder and harder to find the “good work”, for it will be covered, surrounded and not even be allowed to exist!

    Science is entering a new age. The Age of Dark Science is here. No longer an honest hard working scientist must only focus on the search of knowledge, he/she must now also spend most of their time filtering through the lies, intrigue and wasteful time of argumentation to a bunch of misfits and scoundrels to seek the truth. Alas, this is indeed Dark Science.

    To travel along The Path of Knowledge, one only needed as our compass, adequatio intellectus et rei. But now in our new Dark Age of Science, this path is now fraught will illusion, lies and deceit, and so as scientists and engineers we found ourselves now requiring also a very good lie detector!

    Alas, dear Science, I now know you not.

    Viscount Monckton, this sorry sorry tale we find ourselves is I suppose to be expected. When such large sums of money are at play, evil always lurks. What can be said or done to at least slay this present dark science where Man is elevated to the level of a God … never mind what Helios and his brethren think!

    All I can say sir is this, all I can offer is those wise words by Senca the philosopher, “Cui prodest”. But don’t forget what happened to him for doing so!

  70. “…the non-result whose paltriness, pointlessness and futility we have now rigorously demonstrated.”

    Don’t mince words, there, Lord Monckton. Tell him how you really feel about Copenhagen. :-)

  71. In the United Kingdom, we once had a peculiar Second Chamber of hereditary peers (and a few bishops, since the church is established). This has gradually been eroded with such excuses as ‘not representational’, ‘undemocratic’, et al. However, its strength, long gone, was that its members were beholden to nobody. Sadly, Viscount Monckton is probably one of the last expressions of such independent minds who speaks as he finds.

    An aside …
    As a philosopher, mathematician, and physicist (I have more than a few years on the clock) I envy his eloquence.

  72. Curiousgeorge (15:00:15) :

    Sorry George, but you are completely and utterly wrong. The stories being told by the IPCC and the politicians who fund them have not produced ANY factual evidence that the extra man-made CO2, and the ‘amplification’ effect of water vapour, is the main driver of climate change which will cause catastrophic global warming.

    The whole idea has been falsified by what’s happening with our climate over the past few years and the so the hypothesis didn’t even make it to the theory stage. No buts, no maybes – this is what following the scientific method is all about.

    Political spin, big money, alarmist media stories and the farrago of lies and bad practice illustrated in the Climategate documents are the only thing now keeping this preposterous idea alive.

    You need to start to live up to your pseudonym, George, and examine the facts for yourself.

    Lord Monckton gets my admiration for the way he has nailed the crux of the CAGW issue in one short document. It matters not if the ‘powers that be’ choose to attack or ignore it. Just by putting forward the facts enough people will read it to ensure the fiasco is dead.

    The CAGW ship has foundered on the rock of truth. However, we must all be vigilant regarding the next scam, and do everything we can to expose it and nip it in the bud. The pressure from the ‘old money’ families to protect their lineage through control of a world government will never go away.

  73. Dear lord Monckton
    Your logic is exemplary, i only wish you were back in the political arena to provide some backbone to a conservative party that has lost its way on this and many other issues

  74. Nice work….

    We could use a similar letter to the Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg :-) . Norway sent at least 125 negotiators, observers, advisors etc.

    http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/klima/1.6884349

    The number 125 probably excludes norwegian NGOs (Bellona and others).

    Of course, Norway is much, much closer to Denmark than Australia. But we are also not so many (~4.85 millon).

    Being close to Denmark didn’t mean our “red-green” (that is what the government calls itself) prime minister used the train or even one of the 17 daily commercial flights, going there. A private chartered plane was required ….

    http://www.aftenposten.no/klima/article3423862.ece

  75. Appomattox (14:46:23) : “Isn’t the whole alarmist case based on a lot of speculation about positive feedbacks?”

    Been a long time since I used latin, but solum ad argumentum translates to something like “base of the argument” or “what the argument rests on”.

    So he’s saying… Let’s pretend that what is argued is true, that a given amount of CO2 does what the IPCC models say it should it do.

    Or it might mean “for the sake of argument”. I’m not certain, as it’s been over 20 years since I read or spoke a latin phrase!

  76. Richard Telford (15:02:31) :
    So Lord Monckton… such a pitiful trick; regretfully we have learnt to expect no better from his lordship.

    The joke is on you. As Monckton shows, even the worst IPCC scenario is about a teaspoonful of warming. Not even a bucketful and certainly not a tidal wave. Monckton is doing the REAL longterm work: investigating the science: this takes effort and suspension of belief of what anyone tells you. Which is what Monckton says to people himself (you can see it on the video of him in Copenhagen): “Don’t just believe me. Check the facts for yourself.”

  77. It is embarrassing to me, as an Australian, to have such a half-witted, ideologically corrupt government as that of Rudd’s. I suppose I can at least take some comfort in the fact that I didn’t vote for the fools.

    I also take some comfort in the fact that our Senate recently rejected Rudd’s stupid ETS (our version of Cap & Trade); though unfortunately only with the assistance of the Greens who voted against it because it didn’t go far enough!

    The Bill will come back before the House on 2 February. It will pass the House because Rudd’s party controls it. It will then be sent off to the Senate. I can only just hope that the Opposition in the Senate again has the sense to vote this ridiculous legislation down.

    Believe me, those of us in this country who reject emphatically the thesis of AGW (and we are not a significant voice) are doing all we can to inform our elected representatives, and more particularly the Members of Her Majesty’s Opposition, on the scam and fraudulent science of AGW.

    I think we will get there in the end [fingers crossed] but it is by no means yet a done deal.

    Cheers

    James from Melbourne

  78. The good Lord should also have taken Rudd to task for one obvious (intended ??) impact of his speech to the Lowy Institute – namely scaring the living daylights out of any publicly funded Australian scientist daring to report an anti AGW result from research.

    Orwellian intimidation.

  79. Will someone please write a proper biography for Monckton for Neutralpedia, to undo the scurrilous entry at Wikipedia – please?

    Information is powerful. If we can build up this gift, Neutralpedia, as a bulwark of real climate science information, it will be something that even Australians can check. But the real science, the real bios, and the real story all need to be collected there first. This needs cooperation, because this is a virtual war against the tyranny of ignorance that we need to win. And it needs lots of volunteers to do the work. But it is possible.

  80. Richhard Telford 15:02:31

    “So Lord Monckton, does the world end in 2020?
    If you use 2050 as the calculate date, the temperature difference between BAU and Copenhagen is significantly greater, even without further reductions in emissions.
    Such a pitiful trick; regretfully we have learnt to expect no better from his lordship.”

    0.5 of a degree C is significantly greater? Maybe on your planet, but not here.

  81. The Green tab at Huffington post doesn’t get updated much anymore. That’s a step in the right direction.

  82. @ Benjamin (15:19:10) : Firstly, I’m not using “ignorant” in a pejorative sense. Everyone is ignorant of something to one degree or another.

    “I’ve worked this out to the bet of my abilities, and imo the best thing is to do nothing.”

    You may be correct. Or you may not be. That is the essence of Probability. There are methods of calculating which decision may be superior to the other, but which are far too complex to describe here. Instead, I’ll refer you to E.T. Jaynes; “PROBABILITY THEORY: THE LOGIC OF SCIENCE” – http://omega.albany.edu:8008/JaynesBook.html – (you’ll need a postscript reader ) The complete book is also available at Amazon. And related studies and works in the field of Probability, in particular the insights of Thomas Bayes and subsequent elaboration on his theory.

    My point being that even the IPCC associated all of their projections with conditional probability statements (those being somewhat different than projecting from past frequencies of occurrence, such as those associated with dice ). Those conditional probabilities (of the likelihood of future events) have been studiously ignored by everyone in their quest to establish supremacy of their position.

  83. problem is, despite the ouster of turnbull, the coalition is not making an issue out of climategate. as the australian media, outside of andrew bolt’s blog, is also not addressing the issue, most fellow aussies i talk to have no idea what has been uncovered and what continues to be exposed. they think it’s just a ‘conspiracy theory’ of some kind, not worth investigating cos the emails etc are probably fake! best i can do is forward them links to WUWT/CA and the like.
    bolt’s blog is a joke really cos, if u pick up any murdoch rag, it is packed full of AGW rubbish, with not a mention of any questions being asked about the science or the climategate emails/code/harry doc etc.
    the coalition apparently has a funding problem, not surprisingly, given that “big money” is fully behind the cap’n’tax bubble. greens are gung-ho as well, which means, as in UK, there’s no-one to vote for.
    sad to watch business channels 24/7 talking about the bubbles of the decade just ended, yet never a mention of the bubble about to begin, even tho matt taibbi in rolling stone laid out the AGW Bubble for them months ago.
    tragic how their ‘experts’ will no doubt happily sell the AGW bubble/carbon traading, just as they sold the public on the housing and dotcom bubbles of the past.
    unrelated but another interesting observation by a commenter on christopher booker’s met office piece, which shows the public are keenly alert to the games the met office is playing:

    “Our Local newspaper here in North Essex last week carried the news that, due to a procedural change at Writtle Collage Chelmsford,we can’t be sure if the weather we are having is the coldest ever.
    The reason for this is -under new arrangements with the Met office- the ground thermometer is no longer cleared of snow, which acts as an insulator and keeps the temperature higher than it really is.
    To this lay man,that sounds rather like cooking the books.
    If the temperature isn’t recorded in exactly the same way since records began how can we have any faith in the statistics?”

  84. JDN (13:48:32) :

    I like this guy. I see that whoever has been writing his wikipedia entry doesn’t like him. He has a picture that makes him look crazy, and, the article is basically a condemnation of Monckton.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley

    Not a surprise. It was almost certainly edited several times by William Connolley and his fellows. On the talk page, I can find the names of two such editors – Kim Dabelstein Petersen and ChrisO. Both of them have been edited hundreds, maybe thousands of articles related to the global warming controversy. The article about Lord Monckton was modified 500 times since 17 April 2008. (see here) More than 35 out of these 500 edits were carried out by Connolley, about 45 by Kim Dabelstein Petersen and 78 by ChrisO. All in all, one-third of all modifications related to this arcticle since early 2008 are originating from the very same group.

    One of their most recent action was the prevention of any chage to the Wikipedia article on Climategate by making it ‘protected’ (literally uneditable). Furthermore, there is immense amount of evidence that they have even tried to destroy an effort to rename the article from Climatic Research Unit email hacking accident to Climatic Research Unit data release controversy. The renaming is supported by the majority of editors interested in the covered topic, see the discussion HERE.

    Dear Anthony,

    I would say that you should publish an editorial documenting the hijacking of the Climategate entry on Wikipedia, comitted by Mr. Connolley and his close associates.

  85. You really have to be careful when you want to tell Monckton he’s wrong. You could end up being embarrassed. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is finding this out.

  86. It doesn’t matter what Christopher Monckton says, Piltdown Warming is Real, the science is settled, the debate is over, and anyone who disagrees is an anti-semite and a child sexual preditor. We must ignore such corporate-funded deniers and act now by empowering Governments to control run-away liberty and raise taxes to save the earth. Who are we to question Science? After all, Science is government funded. Need we say more?

  87. rbateman (15:28:49) :

    The public has become largely aware that the warming scare is a just that, a scare, in that their world is growing colder year on year on year.
    The public is not stupid, and gets the one-sided nature of the news they have been force-fed. Up-chuck.
    The politicians-in-charge, on the other hand, are caught between a poorly advised agenda and a cold place. They need someone to ‘talk them down’ off the ledge.

    I like your analogy but as far as I’m concerned Kevin 07 went way out on that ledge at the behest of the Billionaire banksters and industrialists that run this planet not the Australian people, therefore he can go jump.
    What we desperately need is one single politician that actually represents we the Australian people, the mad monk Tony Abbot has seen a political opportunity with Kelvin’s failure and it will be interesting to see how far he will go to exploit it.

  88. Lord Monckton,

    As always, my deepest thanks. This letter should be presented via full page ad in the largest newspapers in circulation. I will personally contribute $1000 toward each full page ad.

  89. It`s the same as the financial bailouts. Politicians need to be seen as doing something even if doing nothing is the best option. Letting banks fail (as South Korea did a decade ago) was the best way to clear the system of bad assets. But politicians chose the worse solution.

    They justified their actions with threats of financial collapse of the world economies.

  90. @ rbateman (15:28:49) : I did not say the public ( or any individual ) was “stupid”. See my response to Benjamin (15:19:10) : .

    Ignorant of important information perhaps. Misled, certainly.

  91. How many billions of dollars could go towards medicine , education, food and shelter for the worlds poor instead of spending it on this AGW farce, that’s what really burns me.

    Brent in Calgary

  92. A brilliant letter by Viscount Monckton, albeit one that will fall on the deaf (and brain dead) ears of Prime Minister Rudd. But I have an idea! Instead of trading carbon credits, let’s trade some citizenship credits. We can become citizens of Australia long enough to vote this charlatan Rudd out, then I’ll trade my U.S. citizen credits to many of you Aussies to help us vote out our charlatan Obama here.

    It can’t be worse than the current carbon trading scheme.

  93. robert (14:53:48) :
    and you wonder why markey and waxman would not let gore debate this guy? Gore’s head would have exploded

    Imploded, robert.
    Failure mode for anything containing a vacuum is called implosion.

    And in sympathy with those two politicians, I agree. That would be something to be prevented.

  94. Some wag criticized Lord Monckton’s choice of the one decade time scale. I think the wag knows even less about logs than I do. Here’s how I figure it:

    50 years at the rate of increase mentioned in the article is 100ppmv.
    100 year is 200ppmv.

    Getting out my scientific calculator and using the equations in the article…

    100 ppmv CO2 increase over 50 yrs:

    1.3 degrees increase over 50 yrs (biz as usual)
    1.21 over 50 yrs (mitigation)

    200 ppmv CO2 increase over 100 yrs:

    2.36 degrees over 100 yrs (biz as usual)
    2.22 with mitigation

    The mitigation mentioned in the article saves us from 0.14 degree increase in temps over 100years.

    Is this correct?

  95. While I agree totally with Lord Monckton’s sentiments, I find that his emotional writing style, while appropriate for a newspaper article, is counter-productive when dealing with politicians and their entourages. You don’t convince a politician, particularly one as useless as KRudd (I can say that here), by telling him (or implying), he’s an idiot. You’ve used ad hominem type argument. (Which I have no problem with here – I’m amongst friends).

    The letter needed (too late now), a filter which would have tidied up statements like

    “Besides, corporations are falling over themselves to cash in on the giant financial fraud against the little guy that carbon taxation and trading have already become in the goody-two-shoes EU – and will become in Australia if you get your way.”

    or

    “Now ask yourself this. Are you, personally, and your advisers, personally, and your administration’s officials, personally, willing to make the heroically pointless sacrifices that you so insouciantly demand of others in the name of Saving The Planet For Future Generations? ”

    So I think it’s a totally wasted mission with KRudd or the far worse (miserable) PWong – who has a forest of chips on her shoulders, compared with KRudd’s say, half a dozen. Via Senator Minchin to Opposition Leader Tony Abbott, there may be some effect and if a “front page news” article as opposed to an editorial or comment type, could be achieved there may be hope of getting to the ordinary people. But there are essentially 2 news organisations – Murdoch’s – where comment/blog differences are allowed but all news is censored – does Rupert have big Carbon Investments? or the Fairfax one, where the news stream is rabid AGW but the commenters are not, but the owners may be approachable – unless they too, have invested in Big Carbon, and the ABC which mirror-images the BBC – say no more!

    There may be some traction with “the list”, but it needs as well, all of the NGOs – and the frauds who became Tuvaluans or Sinking Calathumpians for the Copenhagen lovefest (I prefer to think of the “fest” part as not coming from the word to “feast”, but from the word to “fester”).

    Regardless, I look forward to Lord Monckton’s to our shores.

  96. Kaboom (15:32:14) :

    Has this letter been “peer reviewed”?

    Inquiring minds want to know…

    Lord Monckton IS a peer… of the realm… therefore as soon as he looked it over it was immediately peer reviewed :)

  97. Lord Moncton is always intelligent, interesting, and wonderfully assertive with the relevant science. More power to him.

    Lucy Skywalker (16:37:16) : “Will someone please write a proper biography for Monckton for Neutralpedia, to undo the scurrilous entry at Wikipedia – please?”

    Thanks for the link. Neutralpedia is an absolutely necessary site in this crazy “war”, as you aptly name it. “…An independent wiki platform that has been set up to complement Wikipedia by being a home to neutral documentation of controversial issues.” Visit neutralpedia.com, Neutralpedia:Community Portal, log in with a user name, and follow instructions. I hope many WUWT participants will contribute. It is rare to find such a large community of highly intelligent and wisely skeptical individuals (scientists and non-scientists) as found on WUWT.

  98. Greg Cavanagh (15:43:39) :

    “War is cruelty. There’s no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over.”

    ~~William Tecumsah Sherman

  99. Here is an interesting and disturbing view from the past…

    [ ‘Revolt of the Scientist ‘
    By: Pannekoek
    From: Retort, Vol.4, No.2, Spring 1948; Written: 1948

    http://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1948/revolt.htm

    “It must be borne in mind that a government, a ruling class cannot go to war if the people are unwilling and resisting. Therefore a moral and intellectual preparation is no less necessary than a technical and organizational preparation. They know intuitively what Clausewitz the well-known German author of “On War” expressed in this way: that in every war spiritual forces play the main role. Systematic propaganda in the press, on the radio and in the movies, must awaken the patriotic bellicose spirit and suppress the instinctive but unorganized resistance.”]

    This quote has all the similarity between the marxist view in propaganda and how todays world governments prepare and defend global warming, and how the unorganized resistance resembles the skeptics that refuse to agree with that propaganda.

    We are at war, but not a war against countries but ideologies. Ideologies that pit brother against brother, wife against husband, scientist against scientist, and left against right.

    Lord Monckton writes: “You say that our aim, in daring to oppose the transient fashion for apocalypticism, is “to erode just enough of the political will that action becomes impossible”. No. Our aim is simply to ensure that the truth is widely enough understood to prevent the squandering of precious resources on addressing the non-problem of anthropogenic “global warming”. The correct policy response to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing. No interventionist likes to do nothing. Nevertheless, the do-nothing option, scientifically and economically speaking, is the right option.”

    While I partly agree with Lord Monckton, I suggest that skeptics take aim at a counter-revolution to be included to combat the alarmists, even if a do-nothing option is considered. A revolution of scientists against MSM, EPA, WWF, Greenpeace and any other entity or organization that support AGW and Climate Change as a whole. This is not a revolution against Governments or countries, but a war against the environmentalists.

    The Alarmists have, and are, at war with anyone that disagrees with them and it seems only appropriate that we counter this conflict.

    I suggest the immediate boycott of any environmental product or outlet that supports AGW. I suggest every scientist involved in climate change or climatology immediately go on strike. I suggest that any skeptic of global warming cancel subscriptions of any kind to cable and/or satellite broadcasting services.

    Any service or product of climate change is the weapon of the green movement. If we choose to buy their products, watch their cable programs and are employed to that service or product only enhances the green movement.

    All of this must come to an end. Cut off their funding and profit. End the environmentalists control through systematic refusal and denial of their services and products and institute and implement separate and wholly genuine products and services that are created for and support a realistic approach to a heliocentric induced climatology. A climatology that is not centered on AGW, but a climatological process that focuses on the real science of space weather and its effect on our environment and the meteorological science that accompanies it.

    What I suggest is use the same methods that the ultraleftists use. Fire against fire. Mano y mano.

    Here, read this excerpt from:

    ‘How to Make a Revolution’

    http://www.socialistaction.org/revolution.htm

    “The key to victory is moving the masses. Any concept, any struggle that eliminates this will only end in disaster. Unfortunately, the ultraleft idea that you can go around the masses, or make the revolution without them, is one that is creeping into the thinking of many students and young people today. But there ill be a reaction to this. One of the troubles with ultraleftism is, of course, that when people react against it, they sometimes react against militancy in general, and flip over to become opportunists. In fact, you’re going to see people who were opportunists yesterday going over to being ultraleft today, and the ultralefts of today flipping over to become opportunists. Because all of them are looking for the same thing – a shortcut. And there is no shortcut to change the system. ”

    The problem isn’t with government, but the political action committees, i.e. Greenpeace, WWF, etc., behind them. I don’t support a revolution against any gov’t, but against those that use the gov’t to satisfy their agenda.

    I’m sure this all seems all too reminiscent of a particular work of fiction I wish not to mention, but what I consider is beating the environmentalists at their own game.

    I’m sick and tired of the ad hominem attacks, the peer-reviewed process, science being manipulated by ultraleftists and every other misdeed propagated by the green movement.

    Its time to take the initiative.

  100. Why use 20 words when 2000 will do, eh? Sorry, but this is perceived as pomposity dressed in velvet, even if the facts and reasoning are sound. Simplify, simplify, simplify. It will travel much farther.

  101. “The lefty prime minister of AUS,

    Just got punched in the schnozz,

    By the bug-eyed Brit Brenchley,

    Who torqued his nuts, wrenchly,

    To Denier cheers and guffaws”

  102. If people in the UK would like to see Lord Monkton’s common sense aproach to climate study reflected in Government, then be aware that he has recently been appointed the climate change spokesperson for UKIP. The only “mainstream” political party in the UK dedicated to tackling the architects of the global dictatorship. Vote like you mean it!

  103. DonS (14:42:26) :

    >Seekers of truth do not do Wikipedia. On any topic. Ever.

    Wikipedia is the libel machine of the mob. I was just noticing that their standards get thrown out if the mob is big enough.

  104. Antonio San (17:47:03) :

    We need one to Sarkozy, Merkel, Brown, Obama etc…

    President Obama would be enough. Copenhagen looked to him as a savior just as the world looked to Woodrow Wilson as a savior in Paris in 1919 with The Treaty of Versailles. Wilson was the key and his signature sealed the deal (even though he was warned by the British representative that his signature could lead to a tyrannical leader rising in Germany).

    Without Wilson the The Treaty of Versailles would not have passed. And without Obama Copenhagen failed, and so will all successive AGW conferences.

  105. Neil Crafter (13:40:04)

    Neil, if I can read the entire article with my AADD [using read aloud 3] then a politician should.

  106. Curiousgeorge (16:54:35) :

    George,

    I don’t need 2,700 pages to realize that there’s always a possibility. I’ve neither the time nor the IQ to appreciate the finer points of probability theory, and my eyes wouldn’t thank me for it, I’m sure.

    But even if taking the time did enlighten me, that still doesn’t tell me what’s on _your_ mind. I do believe I asked. Now if you will, please… I’m all ears…

  107. Brent Matich (17:07:26) :
    “How many billions of dollars could go towards medicine , education, food and shelter for the worlds poor instead of spending it on this AGW farce, that’s what really burns me.”

    Thank you Brent, I agree 100%

  108. “CodeTech (17:46:58) :

    Kaboom (15:32:14) :

    Has this letter been “peer reviewed”?

    Inquiring minds want to know…

    Lord Monckton IS a peer… of the realm… therefore as soon as he looked it over it was immediately peer reviewed :)”

    CodeTech, it was a very poor pun on my part, I must admit.

    The ear-wax muncher is just going to ignore this – like any other Inconvenient Truth. Given the extraordinary AGW bias of the Australian media, it is going to be next to impossible to raise the Cone of Silence regarding Lord Monckton’s letter.

    I doubt whether any print media in Australia would even publish a paid full-page advertisment containing such an open letter ….. however, if they did, I would be more than willing to contribute to the cost.

  109. All average global temperatures since 1895 are accurately predicted (standard deviation of concurrent measured minus predicted temperatures since 1900 is 0.064 C) by a simple model using the first law of thermodynamics and the time-integral (same as ‘running total’ if time steps are equal) of sunspot count.

    The effective sea surface temperature oscillation (zero change over a period) was discovered. There was no need to consider any change to the level of CO2 or any other greenhouse gas. Climate change is natural.

    The model, with an eye-opening graph, is presented in the October 16 pdf at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true. (The integral of the PDO Index http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/PDO.latest indicates a substantial measure of sea surface temperatures, as does the time-integral of ENSO 3.4, but not all so replace all references to PDO with ESST for Effective Sea Surface Temperature).

    The SSTs are associated with a thermal capacitance so the time-integral of temperature anomalies is proportional to energy. This makes it rational to plot the time-integral of temperature on the same graph with calculations using conservation of energy.

    This model predicted the ongoing temperature decline trend. None of the 20 or so models that the IPCC uses do.

  110. I just wish the good Lord Monckton would write a similar letter to Obama…but with only one syllable words and lots of pictures. I’m not sure it would resonate with Obama, but I hear rumor that some members of Congress may actually have something better than a room temperature IQ. No evidence to date…just rumor.

  111. latitude (18:26:39) :

    Brent Matich (17:07:26) :

    Thank you Brent, I agree 100%

    I do too. And I would add clean well water to that list.

  112. @ Benjamin (18:23:40) :

    But even if taking the time did enlighten me, that still doesn’t tell me what’s on _your_ mind. I do believe I asked. Now if you will, please… I’m all ears…”

    I thought I was being clear, but apparently not. I believe the most vulnerable aspect of the IPCC, and AGW generally, lies in how they derived the probabilities associated with their predictions/scenarios. From my reading of the IPCC report and related data I’ve found no evidence or explanation for their statements regarding the probability of the stated outcomes. Merely a general “more likely than not”, “highly likely”, etc. It seems to me that it would be a more profitable avenue of attack, rather than what is currently being pursued.

    Even the simple calculation of gage repeatability and reproducibility is not offered, yet it would be a key factor in determining the subsequent probabilities. In the models, what distributional assumptions were made? And so on.

  113. Too late, My Lord. The Prime Minister is engaged in writing a book about his cat and his dog and that effort might engage his entire mental capacity for several months.

    The cat and dog are important because there is no good political news on the horizon for this Prime Minister. Indeed, it is rumoured that a high Chinese official named him a “small yapping dog.”

  114. Just get that letter printed in Andrew Bolts, Piers Akerman and Tim Blairs Columns in Australian papers.

    At least it will then get into a MSM paper

    Well done Sir

  115. David Alan (17:55:55) :

    I agree with you, really I do.

    But the greens have the high ground in most of their fights. Save the whale, save the baby seals, save the white pointer sharks, save the planet. We all want to do these things; the pointy end of the conflict is the resulting laws implemented to fulfill such ideology.

    It’s not really their fault either, as the cause is good. It’s the burden of the implementation which hurts.

    I work in the engineering department of a local council, and know first hand the heavy hand of the EPA. Any mention and mangroves and you may as well cancel the project before you spend ANY money on it.

    All I’m saying is that it’s very hard to argue against the green movement when their motivations / ideology is generally good. Arguing against the implementation is too late and will have no effect. I just can’t see any environmental laws ever being annulled.

  116. Even though climate alarmist Wikipedia editors have done their darndest to remove the word Climategate from Wikipedia, Google always has Wikipedia as the top search result for Climategate. Probably Google have hard-coded it that way.

    Unfortunately the general public are being directed by Google first to the worst possble site for accurate information about Climategate. Fortunately there are balanced articles on the first page of search results. At the moment! I’m sure we will notice if Google start fudging the search results, so they had better not do that.

  117. I agree totally with Lord Monckton, but would like to make another point. If the so called climate change impacts will occur over 20-80 years per IPCC, won’t the life expectancy of our current infrastructure expire by then as well? As a practicing Civil Engineer, I know we design our infrastructure for 20 to 50 year life spans, not forever. Updating or rebuilding costs would be bourne regardless. It would be logical that as we update that infrastructure, impacts from climate change (natural of course!) would be addressed during that time. Have we not already been doing this for as long as man has existed. Evolution is not a strictly biological phenomenom.

  118. “Gary (17:56:23) :

    Why use 20 words when 2000 will do, eh? Sorry, but this is perceived as pomposity dressed in velvet, even if the facts and reasoning are sound. Simplify, simplify, simplify. It will travel much farther.”

    I agree. It’s far too long and I ended up skipping most of it, despite being sympathetic to the cause.

  119. the US Navy believes that the planet is getting warmer and that the Arctic Ocean will be ice free in the summer by 2030 When will you start attacking the military’s position on global warming ?

  120. Good ol’ Lord Monckton. Clear and concise as ever….. Giving Kevin Rude the facts.

    I hope Monckton gets an interview on our useless and Labor government owned, taxpayer funded, socialist propaganda network, The ABC….. But they probably won’t interview him.

  121. what many don’t realise is that Australian politics is currently another episode of Yes Minister except that Sir Humphrey is the Prime Minister.

  122. I am probably being dense here but shouldn’t he be calculating for 7.5% of the total emissions not just the 20ppm expected increase?

    What am I missing?

  123. John Ryan (19:33:27):

    the US Navy believes that the planet is getting warmer and that the Arctic Ocean will be ice free in the summer by 2030 When will you start attacking the military’s position on global warming ?

    When you learn how to use correct punctuation.

  124. Lord Monckton:

    I strongly suspect that Rudd receiving your letter would make no difference. Aside from being more suited to the MSM’s (mainstream socialist media’s) rhetoric on global warming, he is only interested in his grand aspirations and the political climate. Better to send it to Tony Abbott.

    I am currently reading your excellent presentation titled, “Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!”. I recommend it as a one-stop place to become familiar with the sceptical arguments. http://tiny.cc/KSrWs

  125. What a fabulous letter.

    Each time I see something new from Lord Monckton, I realize what a treat it was to see him live at his talk in St. Paul in October. His talk from then is available on Youtube and he destroys the AGW scare mongers before the climategate emails became available.

  126. “Antonio San (17:47:03) : We need one to Sarkozy, Merkel, Brown, Obama etc…”

    Obama would have to put it on his teleprompter to read it . . .

    Lord Monckton, please come to America and run for president. We’ll figure out some way to hide your birth certificate, and explain the time you’ve spent living in England, and such. There is a certain amount of precedent for that.

  127. Lord Monkton, while your at it…… do you think you could catch a quick flight over to New Zealand and explain the same thing to our prime minister John Key, his science adviser Peter Gluckman and our ‘climate change’ minister (how did we all end up with one of those in parliament?) Nick Smith.

    I would also be eternally indebted to you if you could let the entire Labour, Green, United Future and Maori Parties in on the good news.

    I’m not a rich person, but I have children whom I want to grow up knowing that they are NOT going to fry / drown because of a harmless trace gas essential to all life on earth. So I’m willing to humbly offer:

    1) My left kidney
    2) Every Qantas air point I’ve accumulated
    3) Every usable unit of energy my body has, here by donated to your message in the most determined fashion I can muster!

  128. Curiousgeorge (18:54:04) : ” It seems to me that it would be a more profitable avenue of attack, rather than what is currently being pursued.”

    Thanks for the clarification. And, well, I don’t know, but I’ll trust that you’re right.

    And that would require data, wouldn’t it? We all know the story there. So consider this… If skeptics keep putting forward “ineffective attacks”, and the public starts to mimic them, that will only pressure the warmists to do what they should have done already…Release the data.

    I don’t think the public is being mislead, but rather made useful in ways that it otherwise was not. It’s taking the scenic route because there isn’t any other way to go (yet…). I can sympathize with your concerns, though. In the non-scientific, political/media forums, the skeptical side says all kinds of things that just plain don’t make any sense. “There has been no warming!” and “CO2 is not a GHG!”, and the like (and misinformation is even worse on economics, I can assure you!).

  129. John Ryan said:

    ~ The US Navy believes that the planet is getting warmer and that the Arctic
    ~ Ocean will be ice free in the summer by 2030 When will you start attacking ~ the military’s position on global warming ?

    So from what prophetic body did they obtain that, the CIA or the CRU?

  130. John Ryan (19:33:27) :

    the US Navy believes that the planet is getting warmer and that the Arctic Ocean will be ice free in the summer by 2030 When will you start attacking the military’s position on global warming ?

    The Navy would be negligent if it did not plan for all contingencies.

  131. Benjamin (20:11:42):

    “…the skeptical side says… “There has been no warming!” and “CO2 is not a GHG!”, and the like…”

    Can you please point me to those quotes? Thanx.

  132. MY FIRST IMPRESSION (as a free translation of what I think Lord Monkton means.)

    He said: “I am writing to offer personal briefings on why “global warming” is a non-problem to you and other party leaders during my visit. For convenience, I am copying this letter to them, and to the Press.

    What I think he wants KRudd to hear: “I know I can’t reason with you, but I’ll explain why you are wrong so others can see for themselves what a twit you are. Also, since I have the ear of those who’s agreement you need to remain politically viable, perhaps knowing that will get you to “see reason” (i.e., why it’s in your interest to drop the AGW political hot potato). Feel free to begin groveling before them at any time. As an added measure, I’m notifying the press in order to maximize the heat you feel. If the press get sufficiently interested in your inability to grasp the falsehood of AGW, and the disastrous consequences your policies would have, you know they have the potential to make your precious climate change seem positively frigid by comparison.”

    He’s certainly not someone I would like to have as an enemy.

  133. Please can we get a list of venues when known? I’d love to attend if at all possible. Jerome

    The itinerary is still to be detailed, but what has been agreed with Lord and Lady Monckton so far is:

    Sydney January 26 & 27, Newcastle the 28th, Brisbane 29th, Noosa 30th & 31st, Melbourne Feb. 1st & 2nd, Canberra 3rd, Adelaide 4th & 5th, Perth 8th.
    See :

    http://agmates.ning.com/group/climatscepticsparty/forum/topics/lord-moncktons-tour-of

    A couple of tips M’Lord. Aussies because of their heritage and what happened at Gallipoli are not too fond of English peerage. But they will give you a fair go and decide when they listen to what you have to say.

    I would cut down on the Latin and math and maybe adapt some of your phrases into ones that Aussies can understand like G’day, how are you going, fair dinkum etc and tell then how good at cricket they are especially against the Poms. They will love that.

    Beware that the ABC and other media will be starting to plan a personal attack on you already but you should be in big demand on TV like ABC’s Tony Jones Lateline who had Lord Stern for a twenty minute chat but he will try and demolish you.

    Good Luck, I am sure that you will be a resounding success. I will be cutting short a holiday especially to come and see you in Sydney.

  134. Smokey (20:23:53) :

    It’s just something I’ve noticed among the general public of laypeople on the net, over the years, so I don’t have any links. If you’re still curious, I recommend the comments found on Yahoo News articles, as that’s where I usually read MSM and comments, and is what I was refering to.

    What I think is that it all depends on what they read. For example, the “there’s been no warming”, might refer to an article, site, blog, etc that they read that was talking about the recent decade or it might refer to the 1940’s to the 1970’s, or even since the MWP (aren’t we still below that peak?). Folks making comments on the fly don’t usually make specific references as to what period they’re talking about, and perhaps that’s because they themselves don’t know.

    I don’t think this a big problem, though of late… I find it kind of annoying because it makes the skeptical side look misinformed, disorganized (well, perhaps we are, on that), and that is blood to the sharks, who of course come out to try and remind people of that. But…eh… I suppose they would come out anyway…

  135. King of Cool

    Thanks for the info and link.

    I agree that Monckton should tone down the language to be less formal. As for fawning to Aussies re sport, no way. Tell ‘em how good the poms are and that the Aussies will get a sever thrashing next time. Aussies prefer a challenge, and it makes it all the more fun when the poms lose!

    I’ll be chucking some money in the pot if I can dredge up a grand.

  136. way o/t
    John Ryan (19:33:27) :

    “the US Navy believes that the planet is getting warmer and that the Arctic Ocean will be ice free in the summer by 2030 When will you start attacking the military’s position on global warming ?”
    =====================================
    the military’s job is to be ready for anything. everything considered they are doing o.k.
    since when does:
    1) the military have a “position” on global warming?
    2) the u.s. navy believe the planet is getting warmer….

    if they do, they were following the consensus. wow.

  137. King of Cool (20:36:28)

    While Lord Monckton is over there get him to explain to you what really happened at Gallipoli, another Murdoch myth that needs busting.

  138. Well said Lord M. Good stuff indeed.

    I wonder when he, or someone else ( hint hint ) will take up the strange statement that . . .

    ” While the Climategate revelations may imply fiddling with the UEA data the other data bases agree completely with the CRU results so all is well and CO2 is the enemy”.

    Now it seems to me that as we know the CRU stuff was fiddled which indicates to me at least that the NOAA and GISS stuff was fiddled in the same way. That needs some looking at doncha think?

  139. as an aussie who joined climatesceptics after hearing Rudds Offensive damning of anyone who dared disagree with his Jackboot ideas for how we Shall act..
    I am pleased it was climatesceptics who invited him here!
    donations are gladly accepted to assist, as oil companies and carbon traders with vested interests are NOT funding his visit:-)
    I have sent the UWT link to the local paper however as a Murdoch subsidiary. hmm I doubt the edior has the guts to use it.
    I am printing it and plan to hand it out all over the town:-) as a small act to educate
    the “big words” and math may confuse many.
    but the answer to the sums, is pretty easy to figure out:-)
    naff all for a lot of grief!

    Kyoto is killing farmers here, see Peter Spencer Hunger strike(www.Agmates.com), will KRUDD even talk to him?
    NO
    and he enabled a scam to blockade people on buses to be pulled over for fictitious safety checks for up to 6hrs!! to stop the protestors who wish to calmly express their disgust over stolen+ unpaid!!! land reclamations in the name of Kyoto.
    Underhanded? yes
    devious? yes.
    gutless? YES!
    He will be voted out asap!
    sadly until we get Abbott to wake up a little more I don’t want to vote for him either.

  140. Are we coming?

    http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:2UdyT1bdC4wJ:www.silobreaker.com/jonathan-w-greenert-11_86752304+us+navy+planning+for+global+warming&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

    Or are we going?

    http://solveclimate.com/blog/20091016/fuel-thirsty-u-s-navy-pledges-50-cut-oil-use-2020-and-more

    If we don’t have the fuel to get there, why even bother to plan the journey in the first place? Perhaps ‘planning’ is all they think they can afford after the massive destruction of our economy by the “geniuses” currently at the helm?

    Personally, I think that they are nearly all nuts.

  141. Here downunder, the Socialist Left parademe has captured the three tiers of education and consequently the MSM. Some sceptics consider that PM Rudd has set his sites on becoming Secretary General of the U.N. He will not be persuaded to change direction by the compelling arguments and evidence presented by Lord Monkton or any one else. Only if the evidence of corrupt data and CRU climategate bypasses the MSM gatekeepers and reaches the broad public, might good science and common sense prevail.

  142. Greg Cavanagh (19:12:43) :

    ” … the greens have the high ground in most of their fights. Save the whale, save the baby seals, save the white pointer sharks, save the planet.”

    I’m glad you brought up the ‘save the whales’ part Greg. I just recently watched a film called, “The Cove”. Quite the documentary on the subject of dolphins. If you haven’t had the opportunity to see the film, go check this site out:

    http://www.thecovemovie.com/

    The Japanese have been killing over 20,000 dolphins a year and processing, distributing, and labeling the meat from dolphins as whale meat. The most unfortunate part of the story is that the meat had been tested for having highly toxic levels of mercury in it.

    While I’m not suggesting that the greens aren’t doing enough, they could be doing more. Instead of running around and involving themselves in climate change, their efforts should be more focused on the protection of endangered species and the toxic pollutants harming them.

    The donations and profits that these organizations have at their disposal shouldn’t be spent on brainwashing everyone into thinking that CO2 is a culprit, but spent on the real cause. Toxins and abuse by countries that don’t regulate the abuse or regulate the emissions from the manufacturing industries from these countries.

    If I was an activist from Japan, I would be calling for a boycott of goods and services from China for their willful negligence to halt the toxins thats produced from little or no regulations from these industries.

    The environmentalist should be ashamed for their lack of vision and lack of responsibility in protecting whales and seals and sharks. Their guilt lies in the fact that they took up a cause that lacks credibility and facts, while the facts point to shoddy industrial regulations and third world governments with no regard for the real poisons and toxins they create.

    Using CO2 as their focus and vision has blinded them from the real threats and villains.

    The more I research into the subject of climate change, the more I become convinced that CO2 was designed to be the villain only because it links the destruction of the industries, regulated and non-regulated that produce CO2 and the false notion that CO2 also is to blame for AGW.

    The facts are clear. Mercury and arsenic and other toxic waste, not being regulated in China and other developing countries like India and Africa and the Philippines, are the real villains. The other fact is that space weather is the greatest factor in climate change.

    Our responsibility as skeptics is to break this cycle of misinformation on climate change and prepare and inform the future generations of this planet of the real threat we are presented with.

    Also, if the greens can’t focus on what their real responsibilities are, maybe we should encourage our governments to find others who are capable and willing of performing the tasks necessary to address those specific environmental issues.

    There maybe hope for us yet, but it will take ones actions to truly give hope.

  143. If Lord Monckton’s goal was to obtain an audience with the Rt. Hon. Mr. Rudd, I’m afraid that possibility was killed by his last few paragraphs, if it was alive at all by halfway through the document. But if it was simply to make his point, he has done it well, and with his hard-hitting, fact-oriented approach, not to mention his own credentials, it’s pretty hard to ignore. I presume the letter was worded as it was because it had already largely been determined that he would not be given a hearing, and so he opted to get maximum mileage from the request itself. Well enough; I hope Mr. Rudd is wise enough to know these are not the words of a wild-eyed “right wing” crank, but of a thoughtful advisor with much-needed words of wisdom.

  144. Australian Alps get snow every SH winter (that is, every NH summer), and the next Australian winter will be no different. Wanna bet?

    “The name Australian Alps is applied not because of special structural features but for the general characteristics of massiveness and of being snow-clad for five to six months each year.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica

  145. westhoustongeo (14:46:05) :

    Guacamole! I hope I never wind up on the Viscount’s bad side. Mr. Rudd, you have just been handed your hat…with your head in it.
    ——————————–
    Allow me to translate for our American friends across the pond… just read ass for hat.

    REPLY [ I presume you mean “donkey”. -mod ]

  146. Neil Crafter (13:40:04) is dead right — unfortunately.

    Prior to his election in December 2008, Rudd made the preposterous claim that “…climate change was the great moral issue of our time…”, but like everything else he utters, it was empty rhetoric.
    For Rudd, ‘climate change’ was a means to an end — election victory.

    However, it is the climate of opinion in the electorate that has changed.

    Never mind, he’ll just keep smiling and move on.
    The ridiculous peripatetic poseur wants to be the Secretary-General of the UN.

    He would be a perfect.

  147. janama (13:59:42) :

    I bet that K Rudd is way too arrogant to even reply let alone acknowledge the letter.

    You got it wrong. Stop thinking about Rudd as a fully functional person and more like Julia Gillard’s glove-puppet. Julia Gillard is a socialist through-and-through, and global warming is nothing more than a vehicle for her socialist agenda.

    Now you’ll understand why there will be no reply or acknowledgement.

  148. Wow, I would sure hate to get on Lord M’s wrong side – that letter is masterly. Unfortunately our narcissistic numpty of a PM doesn’t have the capacity to read and understand it even if he had the inclination.

    I, too, took extreme offense at the nasty, spiteful, vitriolic rant from our elected leader who was basically behaving like a child who couldn’t get his own way – thank goodness someone could stand up for us against what can only be described as rampant bullying.

  149. Kevin Rudd is a just a bureaucrat who rose above his station and actually is an intellectual lightweight compared with Tony Abbott who is a Rhodes scholar. The only reason Rudd is prime minister of Australia is because of Labor Party factional brawling. His deputy, Julia Gillard, speaks in montotones. True! Just google her. Then there’s our Climate Change minister, lesbian Penny Wong. In so far as scientific knowledge is concerned Wong, Gillard and Rudd are five-star card-carrying idiots. They know nothing about science or the scientific method yet they are desperately trying to keep the Good Ship Climate Alarmism afloat.

  150. Greg Cavanagh (19:12:43) : 3/ 01/ 010

    You write in complaint-

    “But the greens have the high ground in most of their fights. Save the whale, save the baby seals, save the white pointer sharks, save the planet.”

    Do you not see that you have ALLOWED the greens this slack? That by writing as you do, you are adding more license? You can still take the high ground, as the Viscount has done, of “save the hungry”.

    In my time, we controlled the greens by refusing them the public credibility they so crave. We did it by prompt rebuttal of lies.

    I’m a bit disappointed that you younger folk have let the situation get so bad.

  151. Wow. Did you see all those ‘scientists’ in the Department of Climate Change?

    Multiply all of those (30) by a salary of, say, $70,000 AUD.
    Then multiply by 5 to include all departmental costs (an average figure for administrators, to include buildings etc:).
    Then multiply by 20, to allow for those that did not go.

    That’s a couple of hundred million.

    Then multiply by 50 to allow for many other nations’ climate expenditures.

    That’s, err, I’ve run out of toes.

    .

    And how much does Lord Monckton claim from the government each year???

    .

  152. >>Ah, Lord Monckton, there you go, being logical with
    >>religious fanatics again.

    Oooohh, don’t say that. Lord Monckton IS a religious fanatic – of the Catholic variety.

    Although I note that his advisors have recently told him to keep ‘Our Dear Lord’ out of Climate Change discussions – as he had a habit of dropping it into his interviews and creating a couple of minutes of stunned silence.

    .

  153. What a fantastic letter – authoritative, suitably patronizing and, despite the seriousness of the content, quite witty. Using your opponents own figures against them is always entertaining!

    Very much look forward to seeing your in-depth interview on the BBC – oh, wait…

  154. >>. I see that whoever has been writing his wikipedia entry
    >>doesn’t like him. He has a picture that makes him look
    >>crazy, and, the article is basically a condemnation of
    >>Monckton.
    >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley”

    Then change it!!

    I don’t know enough about him to do so myself, but just log on and change the entry. And if the ‘gatekeepers’ change it back, then give them hell and change it again (keep copies of your changes). A new picture would be a first requirement.

    .

  155. >>I am probably being dense here but shouldn’t he be
    >>calculating for 7.5% of the total emissions not just the
    >>20ppm expected increase?

    I did wonder that.

    But even if we added the previous emissions, it would not alter the figures by much. Table 1 here suggests previous man-made emissions were 12 ppm of the 368 ppm total in the atmosphere.

    http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

    So if you add that to the 20 ppm forecast for the next decade, it would only increase Monckton’s warming figures by 50%. And 50% of naff-all is, well, naff-all.

    Can anyone else clarify what Monckton means here?

    .

  156. It is truly great news that Lord Christopher Monckton will be in Australia to help expose the deceptions implicit in the AGW alarmism campaign that Prime Minister Rudd and Minister Wong will embark on soon in an effort to resell their huge new tax on everything (the Emissions Trading Scheme / Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme).

    Just a point of clarification on the Australian tax funded Copenhagen junkteers list. My understanding is that the junketeers included not only the 114 Federal and State Government recipients, listed above, but also a healthy contingent of tax funded Local Government (Municipal Council) junketeers.

    As alluded to by others here, His Lordship would be wise to regard any invitation to be interviewed by Government funded ABC TV (truly the BBC’s antipodean lovechild) with extreme caution. Undoubtedly interviewers like ABC, AGW believer Tony Jones, would seek to restrict any interview to a narrow scope focused on perceived areas of weakness, curtailing responses that threaten to deliver inconvenient facts challenging the warmist litany, in short a hatchet job. Examples of this technique can be seen in the Jones interview a couple of years ago with Martin Durkin, producer of TV documentary “The Great Global Warming Swindle” and more recently with Professor Ian Plimer author of “Heaven and Earth”.

  157. Good stuff although I wish he could do it without his Europhobia showing so blatantly, with mentions of goody-twoshoeses and Komissars. It makes him sound irrational and loony. We don’t need that kind of emotional use of argument to make the case.

    Maybe somebody should buy Rudd et al a copy of Bjorn Lomborg’s “Cool It”. It saddens me to think of the money we are NOT spending on overcoming poverty directly, because we are saving the dosh to cure climate change that really is not as critical as the Warmists would have us believe.

    Veronica
    (in a freezing cold office in southern England. Can’t get the temp above 15 degrees C in here.)

  158. @Geoff Sherrington (01:57:17) :

    You did notice that the post by Greg Cavanagh @ (19:12:43) did agree with my comments from (17:55:55) ?

    While saying; “I’m a bit disappointed that you younger folk have let the situation get so bad.”, it probably wouldn’t hurt to be a bit more encouraging, rather than accuse his age for his misstep.

    It is our responsibility to educate others in the arena of skepticism, regardless of age, especially towards those that have witnessed the seemingly futility of confronting alarmism.

    Besides, I don’t agree that the situation is too bad to rectify. Some of us just feel a little defeated at times.

    The tide in climate reality is changing. That should be enough to give hope to those that need it.

  159. Beth Cooper (22:35:01) :

    Some sceptics consider that PM Rudd has set his sites on becoming Secretary General of the U.N.

    Christopher Hanley (23:26:47) :

    The ridiculous peripatetic poseur wants to be the Secretary-General of the UN.

    Kevin Rudd needs to get real. Gordon Brown is way ahead in the national bankrupting stakes.

  160. I think it’s just a pity that Lord Monckton didn’t nip Thatcher’s nonsense in the bud right at the outset and maybe this entire lunacy that is AGW may never have happened…

  161. xyzlatin (14:51:30) :

    So what chance do we have here in Australia, when our opposition member of parliament for the environment is a “Warmist”. Here we have a member who has swallowed the Alarmist, AGW rubbish, hook, line and sinker, and is using his own personal views as Opposition Policy, i.e. “Agrees with the Government.” I have corresponded with him through emails and have only conveyed the examples of how the “science is NOT settled.”
    ——————–

    I thought I read an article on WUWT a few months ago about how the Australian opposition leader was thrown out of his position and replaced with an AGW Skeptic?

  162. People have noted that Monckton can be extreme in his views, and his commentary. And he has strong religious views. Certainly his views on AIDS were extreme. Having said that, he DID have a plan, and reasons behind it, right or wrong. He does now as well (right or wrong). I may not agree with all his views, or his religion, and why should I have to? What I like is his excellent way of putting others down in an appropriate way by using the FACTS, not conjecture. To wit:

    1. The UN
    2. That wonderful interview with a Greenpeace demonstrator – pure gold, and not an insult in sight.
    3. The ‘Hitler Youth’ who forcibly disrupting his speech
    4. Kevin Rudd, who seriously insulted him and his ilk (and all of us ‘deniers’)
    5. pretty much anyone who goes against him instead of his reasoning, which has a great deal of merit and I have not yet seen convincing rebuttal of (some on RC, but more pooh-poohing than anything else).

    Yes he is arrogant, but I do not mind arrogance when coupled with ability, and he is very capable. We need more like him, and more like Steve McIntyre and other very capable scientists. They can do the science, and he can do the media thing – he is great at that. As many have noticed, he never, and I mean never, folds under pressure. We need that to get the message across. And we need that right now more than ever.

    He does not want to meet with Rudd, I suspect. He wants to get in the media, and that will have far more impact that any amount of discussion with closed minds. There are many open minds here, but they are not hearing any of our views because of a media blackout.

    All power to the man, and I welcome him to our great country with open arms!

  163. AGW is, and never has been, nothing less than a political ploy to take control away from the idiots (We The People). The use of ‘scientists’ is similiar to the use of puppits or monkeys by a sidewalk vendor. We’ve been had! While the puppits and monkeys are performing the retarded sub-culture audiance is distracted and Simon LeGree & Co. are tieing Nelly to the railroad tracks. Where is our hero, who can save her (us) before it’s too late? See next weeks flick at the Bijou’s Kiddy Flick Extravaganza.

    We’ve been played for suckers. Hello! We even elected all these marxists and sold our media to them. The Soviet Union didn’t die. It vaporized and, like a lethal gas in days of yore, was carried by the wind around the world.

    People who haven’t seen war (and revolution) first hand think they’re so safe.

  164. Benjamin (16:21:36):
    solum ad argumentum, as you hazarded, means “just for the argument.” Solum, is the adjective (solus/a/um) “alone,” and not the neuter noun, “soil” or “ground.”

    King of Cool (20:36:28) says (inter alia): “I would cut down on the Latin…”. Well, de gustibus non disputandum, but I for one like the Latin.

    Plus apud me tamen vera ratio valebit quam vulgi opinio. [Cicero, Paradoxa Stoicorum, I. 8., “sound teasoning will have more weight with me than the mob’s opinion.”]

  165. Phil’s Dad (19:58:39) :

    “I am probably being dense here but shouldn’t he be calculating for 7.5% of the total emissions not just the 20ppm expected increase?”

    Monckton has just guessed a relationship between emissions cuts and CO2 concentration over a ten-year period. You need that relationship plus the doubling temperature to have any hope of estimating future warming. Monckton’s calculation as it stands cannot tell us much, although as emissions projections give very similar results for the next ten years he’s unlikely to be very wrong over such a short period.

    As for longer periods, there is a considerable difference in the projections of around 2C by 2100 depending on how far emissions are cut. But as Monckton has missed out a critical part of the calculation he has no hope of getting a meaningful estimate of the effects of any curbs in CO2 over that time period.

  166. Going back to that list of delegates – there were over 30 from the Dept. of Climate Change! Who was looking after the climate in Oz during their absence?

  167. Lord Monckton, congratulations on your logical and clear articulation of the issues to demonstrate that the IPCC’s AGW theory is the biggest and most costly hoax of all time. Facts based on evidence, not so called consenus, is the key issue. Thanks also for destroying Rudd’s put-downs.

    Your commentary on the millions of poor people dying of starvation, and one of its causes is so important to any civil and caring society. Especially when both yourself and Bjorn Lomborg highlight the fact that we should and can use the otherwise wasted trillions of dollars on these needy folk.

    The Australian Electricity Supply Industry with it’s internationally super competitive low prices have been a major basis of our increasing national wealth, and individual well-being, with hundred’s of years of coal yet to be mined. Rudd’s ETS would destroy this major domestic and export earning industry, as well as our lifestyle (dont be fooled by so-called compensation – its all another increasing tax to pay and national debt to pay off for decades to come).

    Again thanks for your intervention and support, we need it and we all now need to apply email pressure to govenment members.

    May the good lord bless your wise use of your god-given talents as you fight to put to death the greatest and most dangerous hoax of all times.

    Many thanks, Ian

  168. Deadman (06:09:38)

    Maybe you can help. I am an engineer and Latin never figured in my education.

    I understand that the present species of man is known as Homo sapiens – the Latin for Wise man or Knowing man?

    It strikes me that anybody who claims that they can measure and control by legislation the temperature of this planet is of a slightly different species that of “Arrogant man” which would be Homo ????

    TIA

  169. Tom P,

    “But as Monckton has missed out a critical part of the calculation he has no hope of getting a meaningful estimate of the effects of any curbs in CO2 over that time period.”

    FYI greg2213 (17:22:18) has taken the calculation forward to a projected 100ppm increase in CO2. Briefly, he has calculated that the mitigation mentioned in the article saves us from 0.14 degree increase in temps over 100years. The details are shown under his post.

    There have been many variarions of these mitigation vs temperature calculations from Pielk jr, Lomborg and others, and they all come to the same general result: emission reduction of the sorts of levels bandied about by politicians lead to insignificant reductions in temperature. To have any chance of achieving large temperature reductions, you would need massive reduction targets of around 80%, but globally, not merely shifting the emissions to India and China. That is neither possible nor desirable.

  170. It would be interesting if someone could obtain from the 114 freeloaders a complete diary of their stay in Copengagen with and hour by hour account from each one as to what they were actually doing. I hear the shopping is pretty good there!

  171. Thank goodness for Lord Monckton of Benchley and his remarkable grasp of science and his equally remarkable gifts in communication with intelligent audiences. Sadly, I agree with some posters that Lord Monckton’s letter is too long and too literate and numerate for the average politician to understand as politicians tend to be Alpha Males, hardwired for chestbeating, emitting loud catch-phrases that sound smart but don’t have to make sense and leaping about being seen to be doing something; they are not capable of quiet and intelligent introspection. hence Browns slur that not believing in AGW is to be a ‘Flat Earther’.
    As a Kiwi, I am embarrassed that our former PM, Helen Clark, was a Kyoto enthusiast.

  172. Lord Monkton,

    Like you I am not a climate scientist, though I do have some limited understanding of the issues. You are far my superior in that respect. What I am most curious about these days is the relative silence of some of the main protagonists of Climate Change. Here in Canada we have heard precious little from David Suzuki and south of us Al Gore seems to have vanished? Any word on why you think they have become so silent in the MSM? Why also does it seem society is being so slow to bring the perps of engineered CC data to account? Billions of dollars have been spent, and perhaps people have died indirectly as a result of the actions of these people and others like them. Do you think there will be a day of judgment for them or will we just pass over this as something to political to tackle? Am I wrong to want justice after so many hard earned tax dollars have already been misappropriated? Frankly I am angry that people like Gore seem to be getting off with this “travesty”. These are the questions upper most in my mind, but I have not read to much directly related to these questions. Can you weigh in?

  173. Believers in good company:
    Fidel Castro a “believer” too:

    HAVANA, 4 (UPI) – Former Cuban President Fidel Castro accused the government of U.S. President Barack Obama of seeking “to divide the Third World” with their positions on climate change and called for developing states to “fight “to prevent it.
    In his first comment to the local press in 2010, began writing articles in 2007, Castro accused the U.S. president of “misleading” world opinion with a speech “hollow, demagogic and supporting” at the Copenhagen Summit, held in December.
    “He tried with his maneuvers to divide the Third World, more than 150 separate underdeveloped countries of China, India, Brazil, South Africa and others with whom we must fight together,” he explained.
    In the third comment on the results of the summit the former president, retired because of his health, called for “real deals” climate that prevent “a catastrophe that could lead to the extinction of our species.”
    “Rich nations and their leaders, including the U.S. Congress seem to be discussing what will be the last to disappear,” said Castro. JMG
    04/01/2010 14:18

    http://www.ansa.it/ansalatina/notizie/notiziari/cuba/20100104141835006123.html

    (in spanish)

  174. Queen1 (13:53:55) :

    “Lord, I would hate to be his wife and get in an argument with that man.

    [REPLY – Or maybe he learned it all from her? ~ Evan]”

    His wife has a man of honor, integrity and intelligence, certainly a better choice than Al Gore or Slick Willy who would not know the truth if it bit them in the face. Can you imagine trying to discuss anything with those two?

    Dorian Sabaz (15:51:46) :

    “To The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley,

    On behalf of the Human Race, thank you.

    At this very time on this planet, we find that most of the world governing leadership and academic intelligentsia is being hijacked by fools, misfits and social engineering cretins whom masquerade as politicians, scientists and naturalists.

    … The “Scientific Method” that we scientists so proudly proclaimed and righteously held in esteem has succumbed to the same sorry vagaries that has plagued other fields of knowledge, I speak of course of … corruption…

    Science is entering a new age. The Age of Dark Science is here. No longer an honest hard working scientist must only focus on the search of knowledge, he/she must now also spend most of their time filtering through the lies, intrigue and wasteful time of argumentation to a bunch of misfits and scoundrels to seek the truth. … d so as scientists and engineers we found ourselves now requiring also a very good lie detector!..”

    Well said sir you hit the nail on the head.

    The Age of Dark Science does not only concern climate science but has infected other sciences as well wherever there is profit to be made. Food is another crisis as Lord Monckton pointed out “Millions are already dying of starvation in the world’s poorest nations because world food prices have doubled in two years.” This can be traced back to the 1995 WTO Agreement on Ag and NAFTA that allowed tax subsidized grain from the EU and USA to undercut and bankrupt native farmers followed a decade later by the Biofuel laws that doubled and tripled those artificially low prices once the native farmers had been removed as competition. Monsanto, seller of seed and Cargill, seller of grain had their highest profits in 2008 while the poor rioted and starved. Guess who was instrumental in the WTO agreement? Why Dam Amstrutz, VP of Cargill wrote the WTO Ag agreement and the 1996 US Farm bill. Monsanto’s CEO was Clinton’s Chief Foreign Trade Advisor while another Monsanto connection was Sec of Ag and Mike Taylor, Monsanto’s lawyer, was in the FDA making sure GMO food was declared “equivalent” so it could be sold without testing. (So much for the Democrats representing the interests of the little guy.)

    That is just the tip of a very nasty festering Cesspool of lies and corruption that has lead to illness and death in the USA and threatens to become much worse as The Food Cartel increases their stranglehold on the US bureaucracy, Congress, UN, EU and the WTO.

    References:
    “The Festering Fraud Behind Food Safety Reform” http://www.foodsafetynews.com/contributors/nicole-johnson/

    “History, HACCP and the Food Safety Con Job” http://www.opednews.com/articles/History-HACCP-and-the-Foo-by-Nicole-Johnson-090906-229.html

    “The WTO and the Politics of GMO” http://www.publiceyeonscience.ch/images/the_wto_and_the_politics_of_gmo.doc

    To The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley,

    There are many of us who deeply appreciate your efforts, My husband and I are an additional two.

  175. Well said, Lord Monckton!
    Tom P (14:39:48) :I’m sure any change in global CO2 emissions makes very little difference to temperatures over the next ten years. But why did Monckton restrict his analysis to such a short time?
    0.02° in ten years or 0.2° in a hundred years, we can’t measure it, it is insignificant, so why care?

  176. Dear lord Monckton – Chris Grey 16:09
    Your logic is exemplary, i only wish you were back in the political arena to provide some backbone to a conservative party that has lost its way on this and many other issues.

    =================
    Rejoice
    Lord Monckton has joined UKIP in the UK. (Conservatives are Labour Lite)

  177. Ryan C (05:49:05) :

    I thought I read an article on WUWT a few months ago about how the Australian opposition leader was thrown out of his position and replaced with an AGW Skeptic?

    The opposition to the current government is a coalition of two parties. The Liberal party and The National party. The Liberals are what would be known as conservative representatives of the urban and suburban electorate.

    The Nationals represent (notionally) rural and suburban agricultural producers.

    There is no way the Nationals are going to support an idiotic tax on carbon dioxide (cow farts).

    They would have split the coalition by running candidates in the suburbs and probably would have taken seats from the Liberals.

    Faced with a party split they threw out the then leader of the opposition who was all for a watered down version of a carbon dioxide tax.

    Tony Abbott is now the leader of the Liberals but he has yet had time to find his feet. Time is on his side.

    I think what will happen is the Nationals will compel Tony Abbott to go down fighting. It’s better to pick up the mess later than to sell your soul for a few urban votes. There is nothing that can be done by the Australian parliament that can’t be undone.

    It’s just a matter of controlling as best they can the amount damage the ideologically driven ratbags that now dominate the House of Representatives can do if they win the next election.

    If both houses are dissolved it’s by no means certain that the Labor party and the greens will dominate the senate.

    If they don’t control the senate then Labor will have to look for another way of destroying the wealth of the country.

  178. …Benjamin (20:11:42):
    “…the skeptical side says… “There has been no warming!” and “CO2 is not a GHG!”, and the like…”

    The only way one could get that impression is from warmers repreating the claim as they attempt to reuduce the skeptic’s side to this easily rejected straw man.

    I’ve been all over this issue in many forums and the notion that the skeptic’s side can be summarized that way is pure distortion.
    I don’t care where you’ve been or what you percieve.

    And what is the point of making that point here of all places?

    You couldn’t find that shallow straw man anywhere here.

    Even on the lesser forums where more casual laypersons visit the “no warming” mentions are for the most part rejections of the current warming or warming as the alarmists describe.

    The very few mentions of CO2 not being a GHG are either meaning not significant GHG or challenges to the AGW position.

    Again, the mischarcterization of the skeptics as you stated it is just that.

  179. The UN climate change convention will be just one of the many legally binding conventions already approved and accepted, and currently being operational, which have the common objective of establishing a new world government.
    From the World Health Organization to the International Court of Justice, etc.
    It is too late by now.

  180. David Alan (17:55:55) :

    Here is an interesting and disturbing view from the past…

    I agree we need to wake up the masses to exactly what Al Gore’s “Wrenching Transformation of Society” is… a return to feudalism.

    The achilles heel is the central banking/oil connections to AGW and the Green movement. Sincere Activists are NOT happy to learn “their environmental movement” has been Hijack by bankers intent on making lots of money off the poor. This approach helps to at least get them to listen and start to think. It also may buy us the time to do re-education.

    Ignoring Elites, Historians Are Missing a Major Factor in Politics and History
    “… Over the last quarter-century, historians have by and large ceased writing about the role of ruling elites in the country’s evolution. Or if they have taken up the subject, they have done so to argue against its salience for grasping the essentials of American political history. Yet there is something peculiar about this recent intellectual aversion, even if we accept as true the beliefs that democracy, social mobility, and economic dynamism have long inhibited the congealing of a ruling stratum. This aversion has coincided, after all, with one of the largest and fastest-growing disparities in the division of income and wealth in American history….Neglecting the powerful had not been characteristic of historical work before World War II. ” http://hnn.us/roundup/archives/11/2005/3/#11068

    This is the form of “socialism” the central bankers are planning:
    “What unites the many different forms of Socialism.. is the conception that socialism (or a reasonable facsimile thereof) must be handed down to the grateful masses in one form or another, by a ruling elite which is not subject to their control…” http://search.marxists.org/archive/draper/1966/twosouls/0-2souls.htm

    And no as Lord Monckton states it is not a conspiracy theory. Here it is in black and white:
    “…characterizing my family and me as “internationalists” and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” – Pg. 405 of David Rockefeller’s Autobiography, 2002

    David Rockefeller speaking at the UN Business Council in Sept 17 1994
    “This present window of opportunity, during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for too long – We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order. “

  181. Lord Monckton possesses a rare gift. A brilliant mind armed with a silver tongue and the ability to deliver a rhetorical thrashing while remaining the perfect gentleman. If we have his equal here in states I would dearly love to know who that is.

  182. “Sean van der Lee (14:51:46) :
    Bravo! Monckton is my hero!”

    It’s not me but I do agree, completely. It’s fantastic the good Lord is coming to Australia this month (so to speak). Kevin Rudd reintroduces his ETS TAX on the Australian parliament in February, for the Third time. Australia is now in an election cycle and Rudd’s new tax and the lie behind it are now exposed.

    Australian’s, in particular, don’t like “being taken for a ride”. Well, I grew up with this motto and I feel the public around the world are being treated in this contemptuous way.

  183. John Ryan (19:33:27) :

    the US Navy believes that the planet is getting warmer and that the Arctic Ocean will be ice free in the summer by 2030 When will you start attacking the military’s position on global warming ?

    John,
    Are you not cognizant of one of the most delicious and appropriate examples of oxymoron in the English language? Have you never heard of “military intelligence”.

  184. His wife has a man of honor, integrity and intelligence, certainly a better choice than Al Gore or Slick Willy who would not know the truth if it bit them in the face. Can you imagine trying to discuss anything with those two?

    Yes, obviously, and no, of course not.

    But the slickster, being a natural, carries it off better. Al Gore always struck me (in Mizner’s phraseology) as a mouse studying to be a rat. Studying very hard but not really making the grade. Not for lack of effort, mind.

  185. Vincent (06:45:05) :

    “FYI greg2213 (17:22:18) has taken the calculation forward to a projected 100ppm increase in CO2.”

    …using the same guessed relationship between CO2 emissions and concentrations as Monckton assumed in his letter. As no such relationship has held steady in the past fifty years, there is no justification for using such a relationship to project forward to 2100.

    Despite approval from some posters here, Monckton’s calculations, based as they are on a directly proportional relationship between annual emissions and CO2 atmospheric concentration, have no basis in either the historical data or the underlying science.

  186. Hi Anthony,

    This is an interesting theory – peer reviewed too!

    http://miskolczi.webs.com/

    The Miskolczi-principle
    Earth-type planetary atmospheres, having partial cloud cover and unlimited reservoirs of water vapor, maintain an energetically maximized (constant, ‘saturated’) greenhouse effect that cannot be increased by emissions.

    Three quantities:
    – the theoretical unperturbed equilibrium greenhouse effect;
    – the actual empirical greenhouse effect; and
    – the 1948-2008 61 yr average greenhouse effect
    are the same, within 0.1C temperature difference.

    With other words,
    – the theoretical unperturbed equilibrium global average IR absorption of the Earth’s atmosphere: A=84.55%;

    – the 1948-2008 61 yr global annual mean NOAA/NCEP/NCAR absorption: A=84.57%; and

    – the global mean absorption from the independent TIGR-2 radiosonde database: A=84.69%

    proves the validity of the saturated greenhouse effect concept.

  187. IMO AGW is no longer in the realm of scientific observation, measurement or even theory. It is now official policy and we need to understand that no government will accept contrary evidence no matter how scientifically accurate, because they have jointly CREATED the policy. When even opposition parties have bought in, we can conclude that whatever the agenda, it must be good for politics and therefore power. Another observation to be made is that the so called independence of the MSM has been entirely debunked.

  188. Tom P,

    “using the same guessed relationship between CO2 emissions and concentrations as Monckton assumed in his letter.”

    But isn’t that exactly what the IPCC have done – guess the relationship between CO2 emissions and concentrations?

  189. As a rather pedantic aside, how very refreshing to see that Monckton is one of the few people who use the correct scientific terminology in relation to temperature. He refers to a temperature change of “0.02 C°”, rather than the more common “0.02 °C.”

    To clarify: 0.02 °C is a defined temperature (0.02 degrees above zero on the Celsius scale), while 0.02 C° is a temperature difference (0.02 of a Celsius degree), which is of course what is usually meant in such discussions.

    I find this attention to detail very reassuring.

  190. Vincent (09:44:43) :

    Tom P,

    “using the same guessed relationship between CO2 emissions and concentrations as Monckton assumed in his letter.”

    But isn’t that exactly what the IPCC have done – guess the relationship between CO2 emissions and concentrations?

    Vincent is right. Every incarnation of Monkton’s lecture that I’ve heard comes with the carefully worded caveat that the equation he is using is the IPCC’s just to point out that even if the IPCC’s assumptions about a direct correlation between mmCO2 and temps is poppy cock (as there is absolutely not a single shred of evidence of this), the answers they get are still pie in the sky scaremongering.

    Someone said it earlier….. he’s using the IPCC’s own equation to rip their argument to shreds…

  191. Curiousgeorge (18:54:04) :

    @ Benjamin (18:23:40) :

    …Even the simple calculation of gage repeatability and reproducibility is not offered, yet it would be a key factor in determining the subsequent probabilities. In the models, what distributional assumptions were made? And so on.

    Both of you might like to look at AJ strata’s article on the error in the temperature measurement taken directly from the IPCC/climate gate records. If the error is +/- 1 degree or more how can you talk of tenths of a degree changes much less see them?

    He starts talking about the error about mid way down the article.

    http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/11420

    “…And once you expand this from a local region to an entire country you can see how the errors have to be in the +/- 1° C range even for today’s technology. These people claiming global warming exists at 0.8°C level with an accuracy of 0.05°C just don’t have the detailed data to back up their claims.

    Anyway, I don’t need to do a lot on the error budget (that is for the alarmists to prove and defend). What surprised me was the one CRU document where CRU proves there is no demonstrable global warming (even by their own ridiculously optimistic assessment). Check out this graph from their report….

    The title of this graph indicates this is the CRU computed sampling (measurement) error in C for 1969. Note how large these sampling errors are. They start at 0.5°C, which is the mark where any indication of global warming is just statistical noise and not reality. Most of the data is in the +/- 1°C range, which means any attempt to claim a global increase below this threshold is mathematically false. Imagine the noise in the 1880 data! You cannot create detail (resolution) below what your sensor system can measure. CRU has proven my point already – they do not have the temperature data to detect a 0.8°C global warming trend since 1960, let alone 1880….”

    When you add in Anthony’s surface station project, there is no way the global temperature data is good to even the +/- 1°C range!

  192. I’ve come in late on this one but I have read the letter in full and spent some time trying to make the maths make sense. At the moment I suspect there’s an error in the statement:

    “….the effect that equilibrium surface warming ΔT at CO2 doubling will be (3.26 ± ln 2) C°.”

    I don’t understand what this actually means and cannot relate it to the calculations that follow. Does anyone else out there see the connection? If I (we?) can’t what hope does Mr Rudd have.

    My worst fear is that it’s a printer’s mis-statement of an otherwise correct equation that’s gone un-noticed and Lord Monckton’s letter will simply be seen in the same light as warmist’s claptrap – not worth the paper it’s written upon!
    Surely we havent inadvertently scored an own goal?

  193. Tenuc,

    What if water vapor isn’t unlimited, such as over large land masses such as Asia? Maybe this is why most of the warming is seen in the Northern Hemisphere (especially Asia), and essentially no warming in the Southern Hemisphere (since it is mostly covered by ocean). By the way, source of trends can be found in the satellite data.

  194. David Alan (23:03:51) :

    Greg Cavanagh (19:12:43) :

    ” … the greens have the high ground in most of their fights. Save the whale, save the baby seals, save the white pointer sharks, save the planet.”

    ….The environmentalist should be ashamed for their lack of vision and lack of responsibility in protecting whales and seals and sharks. Their guilt lies in the fact that they took up a cause that lacks credibility and facts, while the facts point to shoddy industrial regulations and third world governments with no regard for the real poisons and toxins they create.

    It is all of apiece the Environmental Movement was hijacked in the 70’s at the start of the AGW campaign.

    The 1972 UN Earth Summit, headed by Maurice Strong, was the start of organizing and hijacking the environmental movement as well as AGW. Strong, a big shot in Canadian oil, was Vice President of the World Wildlife Fund, member of the Club of Rome, Trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation, Senior Advisor to the World Bank and the UN, and above all, he served on the UN Commission on Global Governance. David Rockefeller’s Chase bank was training ground for three World Bank President’s and Rockefeller hosts a luncheon for the World Bank Hotshots yearly at his Westchester NY home.

    The whole Rockefeller/Strong/Saudi/Khashoggi/CIA/Bush/oil/banking interconnections are worth looking at considering the 1973 Oil Crisis bankrupted third World Countries so they had to get World bank/IMF loans with SAPs strings controlling their governments.

    Strong’s early work with YMCA international “…may have been the genesis of Strong’s realization that NGOs (non-government organizations) provide an excellent way to use NGOs to couple the money from philanthropists and business with the objectives of government.” http://sovereignty.net/p/sd/strong.html

    “Very few of even the larger international NGOs are operationally democratic, in the sense that members elect officers or direct policy on particular issues,” notes Peter Spiro. “Arguably it is more often money than membership that determines influence, and money more often represents the support of centralized elites, such as major foundations, than of the grass roots.” The CGG has benefited substantially from the largesse of the MacArthur, Carnegie, and Ford Foundations…” http://www.afn.org/~govern/strong.html

    And of course the UN is also key in directing the international NGO’s Like Greenpeace and WWF. http://www.un.org/esa/coordination/ngo/

    The more you dig the more it become apparent AGW and Environmentalism did not thrive by pure happenstance. As you stated “..the greens have the high ground in most of their fights” making them ideal for pushing through legislation that some how always gets twisted to the advantage of the big international corporations and central bankers because they pack the bureaucracies with their puppets.

  195. inversesquare (10:49:47) :

    “…he’s using the IPCC’s own equation to rip their argument to shreds…”

    No he isn’t. He’s combining the IPCC doubling temperature with a relationship of his own making – a proportionality between emissions and the increase in atmospheric CO2.

    The result of this mixture is as one might expect – a mess without any justification from either the IPCC or indeed the critics who might dispute the IPCC values.

    For some reason an attempted justification of his unique “Monckton function” has been pulled: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/04/christopher-monckton-of-brenchley-replies-to-readers/

    I wonder why?

    [Reply: The Viscount Monckton article was not pulled. We’re working on the problem with WordPress. In the mean time, the same Monckton article replying to WUWT readers was reposted earlier this morning. ~dbs]

  196. “market is better at solving problems than the habitual but repeatedly-failed dirigisme of the etatistes predominant in the classe politique today.”

    Christopher Monckton sometimes waxes uberpretentious (using his title in letters and articles is pretty tacky), even if he generally makes a lot of sense, and should hire someone to check his material before mailing. I doubt the slobbering Prime Minister of Australia made it through the first page.

    Hint: Throwing French into English does not improve the English, or make one sound brilliant. It’s the Origin Sin of university undergraduates chasing Liberal Arts degrees.

  197. Spen (06:19:19) :

    …..Department of Climate Change….

    Reminds me of “Department of Silly Walks”.

    hehe

  198. Geoff Sherrington (01:57:17) :

    Greg Cavanagh (19:12:43) : 3/ 01/ 010

    “….In my time, we controlled the greens by refusing them the public credibility they so crave. We did it by prompt rebuttal of lies.

    I’m a bit disappointed that you younger folk have let the situation get so bad.

    Geoff, It is our fault for allowing the pseudo-socialists to take over our education systems and use them for brainwashing the young instead of teaching them to think. I doubt there is 1 in 100 US college graduates that could pass the high school exams my Grandma took. (If I recall the WJ did that challenge test a couple of decades ago and shamed several college professors)

    “…”For 10 years, William Schmidt, a statistics professor at Michigan State University, has looked at how U.S. students stack up against students in other countries in math and science. “In fourth-grade, we start out pretty well, near the top of the distribution among countries; by eighth-grade, we’re around average, and by 12th-grade, we’re at the bottom of the heap, outperforming only two countries, Cyprus and South Africa. http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0804/0804textbooks.htm

  199. Is it so wrong to enjoy surnames such as Suckling and Curlland kolobaric and French and Littlewood? Bwwwaaahhhhh.

    And doesn’t Multilat Negots sound suspiciously racist?

    You Aussies are killers. Bwaaahhhhh.

  200. Pascvaks (06:05:59) :

    “AGW is, and never has been, nothing less than a political ploy to take control away from the idiots (We The People)…

    We’ve been played for suckers…

    People who haven’t seen war (and revolution) first hand think they’re so safe.”

    Unfortunately you are correct. We are right on schedule, according to a Scottish History Professor, Alexander Tyler of the University of Edinburgh.

    “… A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply can not exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate that promises the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy which is always followed by a dictatorship.”

    “The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations is about 200 years. During those 200 years each nation went through a social progression that followed a common pattern:

    1. From bondage to spiritual faith.
    2. From spiritual faith to great courage.
    3. From courage to liberty.
    4. From Liberty to abundance
    5. From abundance to complacency.
    6. From complacency to apathy.
    7. From apathy to dependence.
    8. From dependency back into bondage.

    If we do not learn from history our children we be doomed to a form of feudalism run by sociopaths.

    “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilisations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
    Maurice Strong, Founder of the UN Environmental Programme

    or as Professor Maurice King put it: “Global sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduce resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.”

    Then there is this from Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies, Stanford and co-author with John P.Holden, Obama’s Science Advisor: “Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving a child a machine gun”

    Or how about this?

    “Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”
    David Brower, First Executive Director of the Sierra Club

    Think he is kidding? Well the USDA doesn’t, they helped fund the development of spermicidal corn. You may never want to eat a taco chip again or breakfast cereal again guys. http://noblelie.com/2009/03/10/gmo-population-control-spermicidal-corn/

  201. Anton (12:07:34) :

    “market is better at solving problems than the habitual but repeatedly-failed dirigisme of the etatistes predominant in the classe politique today.”

    Christopher Monckton sometimes waxes uberpretentious (using his title in letters and articles is pretty tacky), even if he generally makes a lot of sense, …………………………….

    Hint: Throwing French into English does not improve the English, or make one sound brilliant. It’s the Origin Sin of university undergraduates chasing Liberal Arts degrees.”

    Whilst not denying the shameless indulgences … fancy this is rather just an allusion again to the the EU, about which waxes so lyrical 2 paragraphs earlier, in a tongue where such concepts have much more traction, in the same way that the Law likes to use Latin for precision of meaning.

  202. Green Sand (06:43:28):
    Standard Latin for arrogant man is homo superbus, which might not look quite right to modern eyes, perhaps. Other possibilities (all with adjectives which have obvious English derivatives) are:

    homo arrogans
    homo immodestus
    homo imprudens
    homo pomposus

  203. The fact that Rudd gave this speech at the Lowy Institute, named for the now filthy rich, Australian based businessmen and former Jewish terrorists (oh sorry, freedom fighters) the Lowy brothers says it all. Rudd wants to be Sec. Gen. of the UN and will do and say anything to that end.

  204. Keith Minto (14:34:34) :

    We are indeed fortunate to have a spokesman as eloquent Lord Monckton. …………………………….

    What a magnificent summary post Copenhagen, almost Churchillian in it’s rhetoric.

    rodomontade I had to look that up in my OED !

    Indeed , who else could make climate science so enthralling…?

  205. Deadman (13:47:19) :

    “Green Sand (06:43:28):
    Standard Latin for arrogant man is homo superbus, which might not look quite right to modern eyes, perhaps. Other possibilities (all with adjectives which have obvious English derivatives) are:

    homo arrogans
    homo immodestus
    homo imprudens
    homo pomposus

    Seems the Standard Latin has it then,
    while arrogance as we know it is based in ignorance,
    showing off is not a crime.

  206. Deadman (13:47:19)

    Jose A Vergaio (14:21:57)

    Many thanks – so Homo Superbus it is!

    It would appear that “The Team” had a bus that is now full of politicians all singing – “And the wheels on the bus go round and round”

    Time the wheels came off!

  207. JonesII (08:19:21) :

    “The UN climate change convention will be just one of the many legally binding conventions already approved and accepted, and currently being operational, which have the common objective of establishing a new world government.
    From the World Health Organization to the International Court of Justice, etc.
    It is too late by now.

    Reply:
    No it is not. The Pseudo-socialists have worked long and hard here in the USA to convince people that once a treaty is signed it is legally binding and there is no way out. Bull poo.

    “This [Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty.” – Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17.

    The Reid Court (U.S. Supreme Court) held in their Opinion that,
    “… No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or any other branch of government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution. Article VI, the Supremacy clause of the Constitution declares, “This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all the Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land…’

    “There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification which even suggest such a result…

    “It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights – let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition – to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power UNDER an international agreement, without observing constitutional prohibitions. (See: Elliot’s Debates 1836 ed. – pgs 500-519).
    “In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and Senate combined.”

    http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/staterights/treaties.htm

    also states “A treaty can be nullified by a statute passed by the U.S. Congress (or by a sovereign State or States if Congress refuses to do so), when the State deems a treaty the performance of a treaty is self-destructive. The law of self-preservation overrules the law of obligation in others….”

    We in the USA can undo all the damage done by treaties such as NAFTA and WTO IF we can find some politicians with the backbone to stand up to the international corporations and bankers who run the world. Whether the damage done in the EU can be undone is another question since I do not understand the ins and outs of the politics over there but again the key is real honest and intelligent leadership which unfortunately ins in very short supply throughout the world.

    As John Sherman said in referring to the National Banking Act:
    “The few who could understand the system will either be so interested in its profits, or so dependent on its favours, that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of the people mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantage that capital derives from the system, will bear its burdens without complaint, and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests.”

  208. Most excellent. I’ve sent this to every climate-change [snip] I know and I’ve simply asked them to successfully (factually) dispute just one single fact that was made by Mr. Monckton.

    I doubt I will receive a single coherent response.

    [ try ‘believer’ or something a bit less insulting, please. -mod ]

  209. My Dear Lord Monckton,
    You, Sir, are a bloody ripper! As this is a public letter, I hope you will not mind if I copy your letter and send it to everyone I can…. it is an essential piece to read.
    Congratulations on such a valiant effort in bringing some sanity into this awful attempt at global beaurocratic control, using dodgy science as the stick and less than nothing as the carrot.
    Regards,
    Phil

  210. Tom P (09:04:05) :

    “…Despite approval from some posters here, Monckton’s calculations, based as they are on a directly proportional relationship between annual emissions and CO2 atmospheric concentration, have no basis in either the historical data or the underlying science.”

    Given the more current CO2 data was taken on Mauna Loa, one of the Earth’s most active volcanoes, there is no underlying science to begin with.

    “The U.S. NOAA openly admits to producing a CO2 record which “contains no actual data.” http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/greenhouse_gas_observatories_d.html

    And then there is the cherry picking of the historical CO2 gas analysis from 1826 – 1960. http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/realCO2-1.htm

    The CO2 data is as full of errors as the temperature data, therefore it is nothing but garbage in garbage out. In true science, after forming the hypothesis you gather RELIABLE data. The climate scientists haven’t even preformed the first step – calibrate your instruments!

  211. Deadman (13:47:19) :

    Green Sand (06:43:28):
    Standard Latin for arrogant man is homo superbus, which might not look quite right to modern eyes, perhaps. Other possibilities (all with adjectives which have obvious English derivatives) are:

    homo arrogans
    homo immodestus
    homo imprudens
    homo pomposus

    ROTFLMAO
    Thanks Deadman, I vote for homo pomposus, it fits so many….

  212. Dear Lord Monckton,

    Delighted to hear you are coming down under.

    I too have challenged Rudd to public debate on this issue via his website. No reply. Remember he is a man who visits a strip club in NYC but was “too intoxicated” to remember what happened, one of 26 followers of an american porn star (female) on Twitter, and a writer (as opposed to a reader, like GWB) of children’s books. Are we not blessed with a multi faceted genius as “our dear leader”? Kindly get back on the Alan Jones radio program and rip the bastard to shreds before he crucifies the Australian people whilst getting publicly buggered by the financial elite who put him in power.

    BTW may I take it that you know who Frank Lowy is?

    You are, Sir, truly noble in your service to humanity.

    John Doris
    Sydney

  213. One factual error in the letter was that world grain production didn’t decline in 2008, actually it increased (check the FAO reports). Nonetheless carryover grain stocks decreased because of a demand problem. There was an 8% increase in coarse grain utilization largely due to the reckless biofuels mandates. So policymakers tried to save the world from accelerating CO2 by reaching deep into the worlds food basket and surprise surprise we starved the masses. That is real reason to use the word travesty.
    roger samson

  214. Well done Viscount Monckton! Excellent work!! Keep it up.
    I have been thinking about the ulterior motives of the chief-pushers of the AGW scam and apart from the Cap & Trade scheme, the introduction of World Government, de-industrialisation and population reduction, it looks as if they want to distract from the real environmental threats i.e. chemical polution, dying oceans, deforestation, GM, etc. The danger is that these real environmental threats will not be taken serious anymore once the AGW has been debunked and will be considered another case of crying wolf. Also, environmental groups who have supported AGW will have lost credibility unless they distance themselves from the scam now.

  215. Wonderful read. Monckton is far more respectable, erudite and persuasive than I, however I expect the effect on Mr Rudd will be much the same as my own attempt. Nil.

    Mr Rudd’s website at http://www.aph.gov.au/K_Rudd_MP/ or http://www.kevinpm.com.au/ accepts public feedback. Here’s the letter I sent him on 20090717.
    ————————————
    Mr Rudd, I descend from a family of dedicated conservationists. My father was Milo Dunphy, founder of the Colong Foundation and the Total Environment Center, and on the management ctte of the Kosciusko National Park. My grandfather was Myles Dunphy, primarily responsible for creation of the NSW Blue Mountains National Park. I too consider myself a dedicated conservationist, and attempt to keep myself well informed on global environmental issues.
    For decades, I was fully convinced that global warming was one of the most critical challenges facing Humanity. However, in recent years, as the science has developed, I came to realise that on this issue, things are not as they originally appeared. In summary, not only does global temperature turn out to NOT correlate with atmospheric CO2 levels, but much of the global warming political and science push originates from groups who’s motivations are ideological and monetary, rather than altruistic. I do not know whether you are among those who honestly still believe the misleading arguments, or whether you are one of the core group pushing this dishonest agenda (as is Al Gore.) I shall assume you are genuine. In that vein, I offer links to a sampling of illuminating articles:

    http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
    CO2 is responsible for climate change? Really?
    “There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm — about 18 times higher than today.”

    http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
    Climate and the Carboniferous Period

    http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/environment/weather_and_climate/news.php?q=1219023946
    Dearth Of Sunspot Activity To Herald New Ice Age?

    motls.blogspot.com/2008/06/sun-jupiter-saturn-spin-orbit-coupling.html
    Does a Spin–Orbit Coupling Between the Sun and the Jovian Planets Govern the Solar Cycle?

    http://www.garynorth.com/public/5156.cfm
    It’s Not Just That Global Warming Is Fake. What Matters Is Why This Fakery Is Being Promoted.
    Gary North

    http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM600.pdf
    A detailed, footnoted, 12-page article, written by three scientists, two with Ph.D’s from CalTech.

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/spl/climate-change-con-trick.html
    Another Global Warming Denier
    The Australian Geologist Who’s Exposed the Hoax

    There are very many real and urgent issues that must be addressed regarding Humankind’s place on this finite, fragile planet. I could provide a list of them, in the order of urgency as I see things, if you wished for a more lengthy discussion. However global warming isn’t one of those issues. Even if it were, the idea that CO2 levels are the major driving factor is just plain wrong. There are other factors of much greater significance, many of which are very poorly understood. For instance, variable solar output – on which there is a recently developing radical difference of opinion, still not viewed as ‘mainstream’, but which I (as someone who knows a bit about the science involved) consider very worthy of attention. Google ‘Electric Universe’ for a sampling on that topic.

    Best regards,
    Guy Dunphy

  216. Quite the most enjoyable reading experience I have had from this Anthropologic Global Warming fiasko/circus, so far.

    Thanks Lord Monckton, this anarcho-socialist old rabbit can manage that title without gagging in the circumstances, not least for the references to other even more egregious crimes against humanity ongoing from the quarters from which such titles as yours normally derive.

    Well said, and I hope that Kevin Rudd, whose opinion probably doesn’t matter, since puppets are not normally permitted a voice; yet I hope he does manage to read this at some point.

    At least he’ll have heard the word, and I endorse each and every last one of them in this case..

  217. Since the chief climate science denialist censor on this site [snip]

    [Be polite, and your posts will stay up. ~dbs, mod.]

  218. Deadman (06:09:38) : “solum ad argumentum, as you hazarded, means “just for the argument.” Solum, is the adjective (solus/a/um) “alone,” and not the neuter noun, “soil” or “ground.”

    lol… thanks, Deadman (seems my latin isn’t just a bit rutsy, but outright corroded in some places…A deadman speaks better latin that I do! :-)

    Steve Oregon (07:56:25) : “And what is the point of making that point here of all places?”

    It was in response to CuriousGeorge, who raised the point of the public being mislead because certain probabilities weren’t being taken into consideration. And given my observations of the general public in regards to the AGW issue, I was telling CG that I can understand where he’s coming from (even if I don’t understand his concerns of the probabilities involving gages).

    Anyway, when I still come across many comments (not here, usually, but again elsewhere) that say “the earth hasn’t warmed” or “hasn’t warmed the last 100 years” or “CO2 isn’t even a GHG”… Well, what else am I to think, other than many are still unclear?

    That said, what mass skepticism thinks isn’t all that important (to me, anyway). It’s annoying at times to read untrue or misunderstood points, yes, but so long as it’s enough to gun down the draconian measures seeking to become law… that’s all it needs to do.

    Gail Combs (11:18:47) :

    These gages CuriousGeorge speaks of are not really anything I’m arguing, for or against. I’m a layperson, so I doubt I’ll get anything from the link you provided. Still, thanks. I’ll have a look over it. Maybe I can come to better understand what CG means, if only… because! :-)

  219. Dear Lord Monckton

    Thank you once again for all the effort you are putting into Australia and the rest of the world. Heaven knows it needs it. I recently phoned Mr Rudd’s office and mentioned that we are heading for a one world government with climate being as good as excuse as any to get us there and the respondent almost hysterically and rapidly denied it. She sounded aggressive and yet defensive if you can understand my meaning. If you have any dates for public speaking engagements we should all be trying to promote now to families and small companies etc who will feel the full economic brunt If they get away with this almighty scam. Worse still, if we don’t stop them millions will die in places not as fortunate as Australia.

    Thank you again

    Norma

    Perth

  220. [snip]

    [ try again, without all the insults, please. Oh, and remember a valid email address is required. -mod]

  221. @Gail Combs

    Your penmanship alone should make the banking institutions and those that own them, you have so distinctly thrashed, cringe in shame for their malfeasance.
    While I salivate here at the thought of including the banking institutions into my bag of collected NGO’s I would like to bring to justice, I just don’t think my bag is big enough to hold that much iniquitous corruption. :)

  222. Ryan C (05:49:05) :
    I thought I read an article on WUWT a few months ago about how the Australian opposition leader was thrown out of his position and replaced with an AGW Skeptic
    ——————
    Yes Ryan C, you are correct. The person I have been emailing is the Shaddow Minister for the Enviroment, Geff Hunt.

    Tony Abbott replaced Turnbull as the Opposition leader, but now, in my view, seems to have dropped the ball. I have this feeling “he has been got at”. He now talks about the “Tax” rather than his view he had before “AGW is a fraud”.
    I think we all need leaders that will step up to the plate and call it as it is, “we have been scammed”.

  223. There were a number of comments about Lord Monckton’s letter being too long.

    My goodness…it’s FOUR BLOODY TYPEWRITTEN PAGES.

    Oh…I forgot…the list of the dilletante scumbags brings it to five and a half…sorry to pull you away from coverage of Tiger Woods’ Vanity Fair cover.

    If you’re really pained by reading four pages, how do you expect to perform when the real job comes?

  224. It’s bloody freezing over here(UK)!
    Expecting 10 inches of snow tonight.
    Has anyone senn Al Gore since Copenhagen?
    WAKE Up!
    They are screwing us every which way, lies, lies and more domned lies.
    Global warming, war on terror, Christmas day bomber, Swine flu, bird flu, sars,
    Codex Alimentarius (look it up), 9/11, 7/7, WMD.
    COME ON EVERYONE
    KICK THE BASTARDS OUT! NOW!!!

  225. K.Rudd has no real power anyway.. He is just a puppet like the rest of them. The shadow government/NWO and all their luciferian plans needs to be fully exposed. The only thing that is going to prevent global genocide and an open occult socialist society is a well informed public…
    Information is paramount. AGW, The Money Scam, False Flag Wars and the recent Swine Flu pandemic scam etc etc etc, all need to be exposed and NOW!, Before our hijacked governments erode our remaining civil liberties, freedom of speech and right to breathe air for free. They poison our water, food and medicines, sterilize and infect us with toxic vaccinations and lie compulsively about everything from history to current events.. Ahhhhhhh.. When does the next shuttle leave to get me off this rock???

  226. The Scams

    #1

    The UK/Euro lightbulb scam.

    Dear Board of Directors,

    We have 200 million dangerous lightbulbs that nobody will buy.

    They are a serious biohazard and poisonous pollutant (mercury).

    We can start an Environmental Cleanup Outfit for when a bulb is broken or expired. Another government contract. We could sub it to Rentokil. No limit to fees. It the environment. Its public health.

    Since nobody wants this misconceived rubbish we have to force them to pay.

    Here’s the plan.

    We mail them to every home.

    Then we use the government to extract our profits and costs by taxation, in the form of carbon offsets. Then we go to market and sell our carbon offsets. Win win win for us, woe woe woe for everyone who needs to use a lightbulb.

    Signed:

    Chairman of the Board.

    Ruthless F. Bastard MBE

    MORE SCAMS TO FOLLOW

  227. Dear Lord Monckton,

    I have scoured the Australian newspapers since Jan 1, the date of publication of your article. I have found no mention of your response/challenge to Rudd’s speech at the Lowy Institute.

    Frank Lowy, who owns Westfield, is a former Israeli commando and part owner of the twin towers. He is one of the boots on Rudd’s neck. Another is Rudd’s very wealthy wife. If Rudd had any decency he would by now be a squirming maggot. But he is a psychopath with no morality, like most of his kind. He has the power to starve science of funds unless the outcomes support his political agenda. And he does.

    He is part of a plan to remove the sovreignty of this nation an all others. To deny any effect to our Constitution, thereby betraying our people and his office.

    Ironic perhaps then that the finest champion of our human rights in Australia turns out to be a British Lord, low on rhetoric, high on facts.

    On a practical note I would like to interview you for presentation on unseentv.com.au . This site contains entertainment, some risque, but no pornography, as well as current affairs. The MSM is likely to be stony ground.

    I do hope you can find the time to come down here to speak, and have wondered if your tremendous work has tired you or sent you broke.

    We are indebted to you mate,

    John Doris

  228. Guy Dunphy (20:32:13) :

    I know the Dunphy name well, and good luck with your letter, Guy. If you get a reply let us know, perhaps (knowing how long a reply may take) in the ‘notes and tips’ section.

    Keith.

  229. Deadman (20:44:15) :

    It is abridged because the average reporter at Australian newspapers was not the recipient of an advanced or even comprehensive education. Most reporters would have little hope of understanding the nuance. Should you doubt this, sample some Australian TV or radio news.

    Those of us old enough and travelled enough to have been exposed to a wider section of global society find no problems with the manner of presentation of the Viscount, because we speak and act similarly.

    Cogito ergo sum.

    Thank you for you polite time in reading this.

  230. Geoff Sherrington (00:31:16):
    Ego quoque relatores stulti et eloquentium verum scio intellegoque. (Telam-copulam meam videas.)
    Di t’ament.

  231. Despite the fawning love affair the commentators here express about Monckton, it is probably useful to point out that Monckton is creative with the truth, especially when it comes to his (ab)use of the IPCC data. http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/moncktons-artful-graph/

    Eliminating lines on graphs because they don’t fit in with his preconceived notions of denial do not make a very convincing argument. But, unfortunately, most commentators prefer the easy luxury of denial to the more disturbing reality of the need for radical changes to how we live.

  232. Correct me if I am wrong but isn’t the world constantly on the move possibly rotating on it’s axis ? thus creating a warmer climate in the south and a colder climate in the north, I read somewhere in the past year that Australia is moving north at about half a metre a year and with all those volcano’s spewing gas’s etc into the atmosphere who is responsible for controlling that ? are the countries with large industries going to be penalized greater than the poorer countries ?
    No way just place a tax on the poor old John Citizen whilst the pollies increase their saleries year by year, My Lord you are on the right track I asume those with their snout in the trough will not take the time to read all correspondence in this e-mail.

  233. Thank god theres some sense from the Lord, we need more resistance worldwide to this disgusting fraud from ALL people with working brains. The people who believe the hype are brainwashed and deluded. What a shame most people just believe the telly news without using any reasoning or research into recent history or even common sense.

  234. Whether Mr Rudd choses to ignore the contents of this letter, and the invitation extended in it, or surprises by showing some courage for once, his taxing objectives will be greatly wounded either way. Straight A’s for content and presentation!
    (PS: Whilst it is a minor side issue, I think it is unfair to label the entire Copenhagen entourage as “junketers”. I pity this poor tourist as his trip must have been bedlam looking after this long list of pretenders and trough feeders! As per original list that I saw:
    “Eugene Olim, Paasport/Baggage Liaison Officer DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark”
    Interestingly, he was also the only one on that original list who didn’t warrant a “Mr” or “Ms” in front of his name and they couldn’t even spell his role title correctly. When he was finally finished each day with servicing the demands of the other 113, he probably had to stand out in the cold eating takeaway fish & chips while everyone else supped on in 5 and 6 star establishments!

  235. Rudd’s ultimate political objective is to become Secretary General of UN. The actions he takes are those that score him brownie points towards that end with the internataional power brokers that may make his ambition a reality. The cost to the people of australia is just “collateral damage” to him as was the carnage he caused in Queensland politics in his push for his federal ambitions.
    Current destructive policies aimed at UN ambitions are:
    1; AGW and associated ETS,
    2; soft approach to illegal immigrants,
    3; millions of $ thrown at Aboriginal housing that creates international headlines with his name attached but does nothing to solve real problems.
    Rudd is an extremely accomplished politician, sadly for Australia, a man of many words but little substance. He therefore will not take the risk of being seen to give Lord Monckton any credibility by meeting with him – unless he can work it in a way that discredits Monckton in a way that can be used by his army of spin doctors to further his own ends.

  236. The Center for Media Research has released a study by Vertical Response that shows just where many of these ‘Main Street’ players are going with their online dollars. The big winners: e-mail and social media. With only 3.8% of small business folks NOT planning on using e-mail marketing and with social media carrying the perception of being free (which they so rudely discover it is far from free) this should make some in the banner and search crowd a little wary.

    http://www.onlineuniversalwork.com

  237. Since the US is now disregarding the Constitution and electing non-citizens (arguable, I realize, but I’ve not seen Obama’s long-form BC that proves where he was born, the doctor who delivered him, etc.), can we have Lord Monckton for President next?

    He has courage and common sense, rare in politicians these days.

  238. Now I know how Richard Dawkins feels when dealing with creationists…

    Thank you, Lord M – I have now added ‘rotomontade’ to my vocabulary!

  239. anzon (11:28:39) :

    “….the effect that equilibrium surface warming ΔT at CO2 doubling will be (3.26 ± ln 2) C°.”

    I don’t understand what this actually means and cannot relate it to the calculations that follow. Does anyone else out there see the connection? If I (we?) can’t what hope does Mr Rudd have.

    Don’t worry Anzon, Monckton knows exactly what he’s doing.

    Mr. Rudd cann’t be expected to understand it, but will his advisers ?

    The self styled, pseudo-scientific intelligesia are already ripping into it and setting themselves for a cred. shredding.

  240. Lord Monckton,

    Could you please let us know if you plan to stand for Parliament in Australia???

    We need someone we can lead, certainly don’t have that at present… (does anyone know where Krudd is today??).

    You are making an impact on this farce, the world needs peple like you, and our inspirational farmer Peter Spencer.

    My only fear is that someone will conspire to do you harm to shut you up.

    Be well, stay well and keep the message going.

  241. Global Warming over the past 100 years. I think not. If anyone is interested go to the Bureau of Meterology site and look up temperatures and historical measuring sites. A quick glance ( and I have not done the stats on them yet) would indicate that there were very few measuring stations prior to 1950. Of the few that were around prior to this date, how in the name of god could they possibly be able to measure temperature variance not having the technology that we use today. One perfect example is the site at Sydney Airport. Established in 1939 and is still there. How can they possibly compare the temperature then and now after all the building, infrastructure and other reflective heat additives that are there now.
    Cruddonomics me thinks. Surprising what you can do with statistics to fool the gullible.
    Wake up Rudd we are not all foolsi

  242. Great Blog!

    There might be global warming or cooling but the important issue is whether we, as a human race, can do anything about it.

    There are a host of porkies and not very much truth barraging us everyday so its difficult to know what to believe.

    I think I have simplified the issue in an entertaining way on my blog which includes discussion on the CO2 issue and climategate.

    http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

    Please feel welcome to visit and leave a comment.

    Cheers

    Roger

  243. I love Lord Monkton!

    Go you good thing!

    Such eloquence in your arguments.

    Keep up the good work.

  244. Like most politicians worldwide, Australian politicians like Rudd will not debate Lord Monckton because they CANNOT debate him. Clearly, they would lose any debate with him because Lord Monckton has the facts and people such has Rudd have ideology and fantasy, both of which are unsupportable. So they don’t even try to support their positions. But a question. For Aussies. How the hell did you ever select a dud like Rudd as your leader? Was he the best available? But Aussies shouldn’t feel too bad. Here in Canada, Canadians elected a communist as Prime Minister – Trudeau – bosom buddy of Fidel Castro. (When Trudeau kicked off Castro came to his funeral!) And then to add insult to injury Canadians elected another arrogant dud as PM – Jean Chretien. Nice thing about the US system is that they have recall – and impeachment. Politicians like Rudd can be summarily removed from office before they can do serious damage to a nation.

  245. Dear Russ,

    You don’t mention the traitor Harper. Odd. He is a rabid Zionist and your nuts are David Beckham in Canada.

    There is no recall in Australia. The only way to dismiss an elected government is the prerogative power of the Crown as may be exercised by the Governor General. This happened in 1975. The Whitlam Govt was sacked by GG John Kerr. An election returned Malcolm Fraser of the Liberal Party. Fraser these days speaks like a voice from the past for smaller Govt and human rights.

    On an ancestral, anecdotal, cross cultural note, there is a Glasgow phrase “I will give you the severe Malky” This is rhyming slang for a razor slash. Malcolm Fraser=Razor.

    I have heard that Lord Christopher has agreed to a speaking tour in Australia in the immediate future.

    What a perfect opportunity for the MSM to call Rudd out. See Piers Ackerman in today’s Sydney Telegraph. It is already on the go. LCM would relish the opportunity to demolish that steaming,oozing, supurrating Krudd who leads this once good nation, and is determined to stab its people in the back. 152 useless Govt personnel sent with Krudd to Copenhagen. How much did that cost? How big was their Carbon Footprint?

    The man cannot be ignorant of the consequences of his stance. Its just that he’s a snivelling, sychophantic servant of the powers the be. A whore to forces in direct conflict with the interests of the Australian people and based on scientific fraud, An Andy Pandy Puppet who just does what the string pullers command and has no memory of where he has been before.

    He is in truth a nobody. But his speeches on the issue of AGW will have him roasted and hanged in public for the traitor he is. We hate liars.

    So lets do them in.

    John I Doris
    Sydney
    Australia

  246. C’mon Krudd,

    VISIT OF CHRISTOPHER MONCKTON

    He’s here. Your nemesis awaits at your doorstep. Are you going to cower in Kirribbilli House while the big bad wolf blows your door down with a refreshing breeze of truth?
    How about a skiing trip to the Himalayan glaciers while the heat is on in Australia? Remember Australia? The country that was conned into setting you on the world stage where you posture and pander, pose and proselytise. You will go down in history as the parasitic ponce who preyed on the people of this proud nation with the pretence that they must pay for being alive on this planet.

    Come out and fight you nematode! And bring your 150 advisers. Maybe they can tell you how your settled science became scuttled science. Not one of them is worth the pay they suck out of the taxpayer under the ultimate threat of Government violence.

    Facts have a funny way of biting the arse off liars, and yours, Mate, has been Gored off. You’ll need a big nappy to stop the blood during your photo ops tomorrow. How dare you show your face.

    John Doris

  247. Dear PM ,AKA KRudd

    This is Australia day. The day above all others when we celebrate our loyalty to the Lucky Country.

    But you are about to sell the soul of this country to international corporations and bankers under the pretext of the need to address a fictional disaster scenario. Global warming.

    The swine flu scam is now over. How much did you spend on wasted, untested doses of useless and dangerous vaccine?

    How much of it is now to be wasted, shelf life expired? Publish the figures. Publish the advice. Identify its authors.

    Will you sack the public servants who gave you wrong advice, who duped you, you poor ignorant, sucked in Prime Minister of Australia.

    Or will you invoke the “precautionary principle”? Did you not notice the WHO reduction of the term “Pandemic” to nothing.

    Do you not understand that WHO is a slave to BigPharma, and, therefore so are you.

    But we the people don’t buy it. So why should we pay for your conspiracy with corporate gougers to rip off our tax dollars to buy useless dangerous crap which is now just going to waste.

    Or are you just a badly advised dupe? As our leader aren’t you supposed to be the best of the best, along with your 152 advisers at Copenhagen?

    Turning to Climate. Is it not your job to find and speak the truth?

    Do you not have a constituency among Australian Farmers? Or are you part of the multinational “Haves and have mores”

    Your plans punish the people in order to excuse the polluters. This is a stealth tax. Deny that in public please. You cannot make that admission without conceding you are a fool or a fraud. The world faces food shortages and your policies reduce Australian food production. Has it not occurred to you that to increase food production in Australia would help our exports and help feed the world.?

    We have land, and land management ingenuity, in abundance. Peter Spencer makes the point that you gapingly fail to understand,

    FOOD COMES FIRST

    If you want biofuels grow hemp. Industrial hemp. Grow algae which are infesting our waterways anyway. That grows in a tank. Do not divert human food to feed cars.

    Rudd I cannot conclude that you are stupid, so can you convince me you are not a major criminal?

    John Doris
    Sydney
    Australia

  248. I have to say, if Mr Rudd didn’t read the treaty for himself to find the theme of “governance” for himself, I can’t see him taking the time to read Moncktons’ reply!!! I would love to see him actually attend one of these lectures, or better still, debate it in a public forum, ha! Kevin would have as much chance as those poor Greenpeace lemmings the viscount schooled in Copenhagen….

    Either Kevin is unaware of how close he is to selling our country out to the malevolent elite agenda, or he is manipulated, or worse, in on it….

    All three scenarios make him unfit to be the leader of our country….

    On top of that, I don’t believe that Tony Abbott would understand how he narrowly prevented our country from letting what is for now called the UN wedge its foot in the doorstep of our system of policy and governance…forever.

    At the time I was intrigued why Turnbull was essentially licking Labours’ arse on this issue…so I looked into his history. One thing that stood out for me was his Goldman Sachs career…major player in this umbrella agenda of which climate change is just the hook handle, the bit that sticks out underneath. Is/was Turnbull in on this Orwellian manipulation as well? Was what Tony Abbott did to defeat the ETS a fluke of opposition?, or is he going to push the same agenda, just from a more palatable angle?

    Political parties are two wings of the same bird, the flight plan stays the same.

  249. Why is it all of a sudden, our fault, that global warming is occurring? Is it really what we eat, drink, shit, drive in, breath?

    I mean, this sort of stuff ( changes in the environment), has happened on several ocassions, well before cars and man were even on this planet to leave a, “carbon footprint”.

    Think about it people. Hot periods and Ice ages happened before. Do your research. Don’t fall for the ole Mia Culpa routine. If its not religion making you feel terrible about yourself, its your fucking government and eat shit money grubbing pricks riding the “Go Green!” gravy train.

    Remember, everything you need to know you learned in kindergarten. Like extreme hot periods (when the dinosaurs roamed the earth) and Ice ages ( when mammals like the mammoth ruled).

Comments are closed.