Opinion: Life as a Target

English: Lord Monckton in Washington, D.C.

Monckton in Washington, D.C. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Attacks on my work that are aimed at undermining true climate change science have turned me into a public figure. I am not vain enough to embrace that role.

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley (with no apologies to Michael E. Mann)

As a climate researcher, I have seen my integrity perniciously attacked. Politicians have demanded I be tried for “high crimes against humanity”, for which the penalty is death, because of my work demonstrating the reality and threat of exaggerations about human-caused climate change.

I’ve been subjected to congressional investigations by congressman in the pay of the environmental lobby and was the target of a scientifically-illiterate eight-month “witch hunt” by a Minnesota Trotskyite. I have even received a number of anonymous death threats. My plight is dramatic, but unfortunately, it is not unique; climate skeptics are regularly the subject of such attacks.

The cynicism of my attackers is part of a destructive public-relations campaign being waged by banks, “renewable”-energy companies, insurance giants, front groups, and individuals aligned with them in an effort vastly to profit by vastly exaggerating the science in making suggestions that the burning of fossil fuels may cause potentially dangerous climate change.

My work first appeared on the world stage in the mid-2000s with the publication of a series of articles in the London Sunday Telegraph indicating inter alia that estimating past temperature trends using information gathered from tree rings to piece together variations in the Earth’s temperature over the past 1,000 years had been proven unreliable. What I found was that the recent small warming, which coincides with the fastest growth in solar activity in 11,400 years, is a much-precedented event in this period of reconstructed temperature changes. 

Though recent work published in the journal Science suggests that the recent warming trend has no counterpart for at least the past 11,000 years, and perhaps longer, the central England temperature record, which has proven a less inaccurate proxy for pre-thermometer temperatures than dubious tree-rings dubiously processed on dubious computers by dubious zitty teenagers paid by dubious rent-seekers like Michael E. Mann, confirms historical evidence that at the end of the Maunder Minimum temperatures rose at a rate of 4 Celsius/century for 40 years. Nothing like that has been seen since: the 20th century saw just 0.7 Cº of warming, and the 21st century shows none at all. In a graph showing the linear trend for the last 23 years, the trend line looks like a billiard cue.

Since the Doha climate conference of 2012, at which I inadvertently represented Burma, the graph – now known as the billiard-cue graph – has become an icon in the climate-change debate, providing potent, graphic evidence of the recent total absence of human-caused climate change. As a result, governments, banks, renewable-energy hucksters, academics, journalists and those who do their bidding saw the need to discredit it in any way they could, and I have found myself at the receiving end of attacks and threats of investigations, as I describe in my forthcoming book Climate of Freedom. In 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) praised my work publicly; and, jointly with Congressman John Linder, I have been awarded the Meese-Noble Award for Freedom for my work on climate change.

On three occasions, Representative Joe Barton (R-TX) invited me to testify before the Energy & Commerce Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives. On the third such occasion, the Democrats – for the first time in the history of Congress – refused the Republicans their free choice of witness because they wanted to protect their own witness, Al Gore, from the public humiliation to which my testimony would inevitably and deservedly have subjected him. I have also testified before the House Ways and Means Committee and the House Climate Change Committee. Inhofe and Barton are just two of the growing number of members of Congress who have seen through the climate scam.

More recently, Vaclav Klaus, as President of the Czech Republic, cited me twice in a speech on climate change in Washington DC, and subsequently accepted my invitation to deliver the annual Magistral Lecture at the World Federation of Scientists’ annual seminar on planetary emergencies.

The Chinese Ambassador to Italy forwarded my seminal, published paper on Clouds and Climate Sensitivity to Peking after his Scientific Counsellor, on hearing me present it, had commented: “This changes everything. It is clear there is no significant manmade influence on the climate.”

I, too, can name-drop sanctimoniously, just like Michael E. Mann.

Meanwhile, I’ve also been subject to a constant onslaught of character attacks and smears on websites, in op-eds, by a politicized and now-discredited clerk in the House of Lords acting without the authority of the House, in Michael E. Mann’s Climategate emails, and on left-leaning news outlets, usually by front groups or individuals tied to global-warming profiteers of the traffic-light tendency (the Greens too yellow to admit they’re really Reds): groups like Greenpeace, Deutsche Bank, the Environmental Defense Fund, Munich Re, and the World Wide Fund for Nature.

As the website WattsUpWithThat has frequently pointed out, climate researchers are in a street fight with those who seek to discredit the data that now comprehensively disprove the once-accepted scientific “evidence” simply because it is inconvenient for many who are profiting from attacking fossil fuel use.

Being the focus of such attacks has a lead lining: I’ve become an accidental public figure in the debate over human-caused climate change. Reluctant at first, I remain reluctant embrace this role, but nevertheless I choose to use my position in the public eye to inform the discourse surrounding the issue of climate change.

Despite continued albeit diminishing skepticism in official quarters, in reality the evidence against dangerous human-caused climate change is now very strong. By digging up and burning fossil fuels, humans are releasing carbon that had been buried in the Earth into the atmosphere, helping to stave off the mass extinctions that would follow from the next – and long overdue – Ice Age. And storms like extra-tropical system Sandy and hurricane Irene, and the oft-precedented heat, drought, and wild-fires of last summer cannot in logic, reason, or science be attributed to “global warming” that has become conspicuous chiefly by its near-total absence over the past two decades and perhaps more. In a deterministic climate object operating on a rational world, that which has not happened cannot have caused that which has.

If we continue down this path of lavishly-funded nonsense, we will be leaving our children and grandchildren a different planet—one with more extreme Socialism, more pronounced and widespread scientific illiteracy, worse episodes of cant even than those of Michael E. Mann (if that were possible), and greater competition for diminishing taxpayer subsidies. It will be worse than we ever thought.

Greater competition for diminishing taxpayer subsidies, even at a time when global population growth is declining, in turn, is a recipe for a national security nightmare. The worst thing we can do is bury our heads in the Cypriot sand and pretend that national bankruptcy doesn’t exist.

It is imperative that we take no action now to squander trillions enriching charlatans like Michael E. Mann. It would be one or two orders of magnitude less cost-effective to spend a single red cent today than to let global warming happen, enjoy the sunshine, go surfing, and pay the minuscule cost of adapting to its consequences the day after tomorrow.

Global warming? As we shivering Scots lairds say as we carry glasses well filled with single malt whisky to our aged retainers as they gallantly shovel feet of unseasonal snow off our three-mile driveways, “Bring it on!”.

Christopher W. Monckton of Brenchley is a Distinguished Expert Reviewer for the IPCC’s forthcoming Undistinguished Fifth Assessment Report. Last year he was the Distinguished Nerenberg Lecturer in Mathematics at the Distinguished University of Western Ontario, where he discussed the mathematics of Doric architercture, probabilistic combinatorics, logic, climate sensitivity, feedback amplification, and climate economics in a Distinguished fashion. He directs Distinguished Monckton Enterprises Limited. He is the Distinguished author of numerous Distinguished reviewed papers in the Distinguished learned literature, and of the Distinguished forthcoming book “Climate of Freedom”. He is Distinguished for his notorious self-effacement, modesty, and humility – which is more than can be said for the Undistinguished Michael E. Mann.

About these ads

121 thoughts on “Opinion: Life as a Target

  1. “Since the Doha climate conference of 2012, at which I inadvertently represented Burma,”

    :)))))))

  2. Dear Lord Monckton

    Six years ago I sent you the equations regarding CO2 and the reasons why what was being said was impossible regarding the increase in the absorption spectrum to a 0.012% increase (against the entire atmosphere) of a trace IR absorbing gas. These equations, originating in the Quantum Mechanical relationships of the absorption and emission of radiation, by the CO2 molecule, were developed by the U.S. military and scientific organizations in the 1940’s-50’s as a result of their studies of the upper atmosphere in the development of heat seeking missiles. These physical studies could easily be repeated today and compared with the data gathered in that earlier era. This comparison will settle the question one way or another, once and for all.

  3. Marvelous :)

    I was reading the earlier post re: Mann and immediately thought to myself ” hey Mikey, I don’t doubt what you say regarding attacks upon you and even accept that you may have had death threats, such is the sad nature of the human race but as for you complaints of persecution? Surely the same if not worse happens to those scientists who choose to speak out against the party line and try to give their evidence-based opinion?”

    I was hoping someone would comment about that and I’m so glad that it’s my many-times distinguished and learned friend ( can I say that, we are not acquainted but name-dropping is the order of the day ) Lord Monkton.

    Despite the hilarious comedy in this post that might be lost on some, there is much, much truth and I’m thankful for it.

    However I would couch Lord Monkton to call it a ‘pool stick graph’ lest he lose the majority of his audience with the billiards reference ;)

    made my night to read that.

  4. Bravo! My humble thanks for your efforts infighting these jackals lo these many cooling years, and for the many entertaining article, op-ed pieces and interviews! You are, sir, an International Treasure! (Enjoy your well-earned Lagavulin! Slainte!)

  5. I agree! The “Greenies” are socialistic, no, even worse, they want humankind to return to cave days, to live in simple agrarian societies without any real technology. This was the aim of Pol Pot, and he killed many to try to acheive that goal. The tide now seems to be turning in our favor, thanks to falling temps and WUWT, et al.

  6. Hilarious :-). Keep poking the charlatans with your sharp wit Lord Monckton!

    I saw Lord Monckton in person at his Brisbane speech, fantastic presentation – I thoroughly recommend anyone who gets a chance to see him live do so.

  7. “…global-warming profiteers of the traffic-light tendency (the Greens too yellow to admit they’re really Reds)….”
    Applause. Standing applause. Ovation.

  8. It appears Mann is attempting to distract people from observations and related analysis that indicates the extreme AGW paradigm is not correct. Mann does not want to debate the current observations and the extreme AGW paradigm as he cannot defend his position scientifically. Mann appears to be opposing freedom of information requests as he and others have something to hide.

    It appears Mann created the Hockey Stick graph that is displayed in IPCC AR3 report in the summary and four other promote locations in the report) by cherry picked tree ring data (finding trees in a region where precipitation is reduced when the planet is warmer and increased when it is cooler, so tree rings width for the trees in that region is inversely proportional to temperature) and then used a analysis technique enables the cherry picked incorrect data to make the cyclic warming and cooling go away.

    The climategate memos appear to indicate Mann and others are working to push an ideological agenda. There is no global warming crisis based on the science. The science does not support the extreme AGW paradigm. The planet warms and cools in cycles. The warming and cooling cycles show up in the climate record in both the interglacial periods and in the glacial periods. The warming and cooling cycles correlate to long term solar magnetic cycle changes. That is a scientific fact, an observation. It is obvious from the correlation of cosmogenic isotopes with long term climate change cycles (warming followed by cooling and in some cases abrupt cooling) that the sun is forcing the cycle. The scientific questions are how and why is the sun changing and how do those changes cause the cyclic climate changes.

    http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf

    What is the ‘Hockey Stick’ Debate About?
    … At the political level the emerging debate is about whether the enormous international trust that has been placed in the IPCC was betrayed. The hockey stick story reveals that the IPCC allowed a deeply flawed study to dominate the Third Assessment Report, which suggests the possibility of bias in the Report-writing… …The result is in the bottom panel of Figure 6 (“Censored”). It shows what happens when Mann’s PC algorithm is applied to the NOAMER data after removing 20 bristlecone pine series. Without these hockey stick shapes to mine for, the Mann method generates a result just like that from a conventional PC algorithm, and shows the dominant pattern is not hockey stick-shaped at all. Without the bristlecone pines the overall MBH98 results would not have a hockey stick shape, instead it would have a pronounced peak in the 15th century. …. Of crucial importance here: the data for the bottom panel of Figure 6 is from a folder called CENSORED on Mann’s FTP site. He did this very experiment himself and discovered that the PCs lose their hockey stick shape when the Graybill-Idso series are removed. In so doing he discovered that the hockey stick is not a global pattern, it is driven by a flawed group of US proxies that experts do not consider valid as climate indicators. But he did not disclose this fatal weakness of his results, and it only came to light because of Stephen McIntyre’s laborious efforts. …Another extension to our analysis concerned the claims of statistical significance in Mann’s papers. We found that meaningless red noise could yield hockey stick-like proxy PCs. This allowed us to generate a “Monte Carlo” benchmark for statistical significance. The idea is that if you fit a model using random numbers you can see how well they do at “explaining” the data. Then the “real world” data, if they are actually informative about the climate, have to outperform the random numbers. We calculated significance benchmarks for the hockey stick algorithm and showed that the hockey stick did not achieve statistical significance, at least in the pre-1450 segment where all the controversy is. In other words, MBH98 and MBH99 present results that are no more informative about the millennial climate history than random numbers. …”

    From Christopher Booker’s “The Real Global Warming Disaster: Is the Obsession with “Climate Change” Turning out to be the most costly scientific blunder in history?

    “Because ‘they thought I was one of them’, as he (William David Deming)later explained, he was contacted by a ‘major person working in the area of climate change and global warming’. The identity of this scientist was later to be revealed as … John Overpeck … an IPCC lead author. Overpeck ‘let his guard down’ in sending Deming and ‘astonishing email that said “We have to get rid of the Mediaeval Warm period”

    “Whether evidence was taken from lake sediments or ice cores, glaciers in the Andes or boreholes in every continent (Huang et al, 1997), the results had been remarkably consistent in confirming that the familiar view was right. There has been a Little Ice Age, across the world. There has been a Mediaeval Warm period. … …The first comprehensive study (William: Of the published papers that analyzed the proxy data) was published in 2003 by … Soon and Baliunas … They had examined 140 expert studies of climate history of the past 1,000 years, based on every kind of data. The question … asked of every study (William: The survey study examined many different sets of proxy data from independent researchers) was whether or not it showed a ‘discernible climate anomaly’ at the time of the (1) the Little Ice Age and (2) the Mediaeval Warm period (3) whether it had shown the twentieth century to be the warmest time in the Millennium. There conclusion was unequivocal. Only two of the studies they looked at had not evidence of the Little Ice Age. Only seven of the 140 studies denied the existence of a Mediaeval Warm period, while 116 confirmed it. (William: Note the proxy studies that did not support the existence of the Medieval Warm period focused on a single region. Due to changes in prevailing winds specific coastal regions did not match the prevailing planetary climate change. i.e. The conclusion is still valid that there was a Medieval Warm period.)

    http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr2003/23/c023p089.pdf

    Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years

  9. “with no apologies to Michael E. Mann” I totaly Agree

    I Guess with all the AGW BS going over the years I have never seen what Christopher Monckton has had to say..

    Christopher Monckton in a good video on You tube from May 2012..

  10. Take care Christopher. As well as the punishing schedule of talks you have planned, please try to take time out to enjoy the place during your trip to New Zealand. The weather is wonderful at this time of year. You sound to me like a man under a bit of pressure. A nice relaxing holiday could be just the ticket.

  11. This made my day! My wife asked what I was chuckling about. I tried to explain…*sigh*

  12. In some future life I hope to be so clever. One of many items on my “bucket list” is to shake the hand of Lord Monckton.

  13. Hero’s welcome to Lord Monckton!

    It is so good to have an unelected representative of such ability while the peoples of both Europe and America allow themselves to be manipulated into electing their foes.

  14. In today’s world many live life in a different, digital and seemingly anonymous, way.

    Most folks don’t have the ability to cover their tracks on the internet or email and can be subject to “great scrutiny” if necessary.

    We have the tools to find nearly anyone or at least identify the device used with the digital fingerprints on it.

    “Death threats” are not acceptable and should not be tolerated, period!

    If assistance is needed, I am certain we have many here, including myself, who can help find the perpetrators and bring them to justice!

    Nice write up to boot, BTW :-)

  15. Lord Monckton,
    I cannot speak for anyone else here, but I can say with certainty, I am with you. We (freedom loving people in a global sense) are facing a tyrranical shift in the world these last few years especially, and without good people like you it would be a quicker trip to the butchers block. You are a good man and we seem to be a bit short on those at the moment. I suspect unfortunately that the dawn is still a ways off and the darkness is working feverishly to enslave us all before the rise of the sun. Godspeed in all your endeavors.

  16. Dear Lord Monckton,

    [Slim Pickens in Blazing Saddles]

    You use your tongue purdier than a $20 whore.

    [/Slim Pickens in Blazing Saddles]

    [Gabby Johnson in Blazing Saddles]

    Rerrrbit.

    [/Gabby Johnson in Blazing Saddles]

  17. As we shivering Scots lairds say as we carry glasses well filled with single malt whisky to our aged retainers as they gallantly shovel feet of unseasonal snow off our three-mile driveways, “Bring it on!”

    Shivering because of Global Warming!!!!

    Says Jennifer Francis, research professor with the Rutgers Institute of Coastal and Marine Science. “The sea ice is going rapidly. It’s 80 percent less than it was just 30 years ago. There has been a dramatic loss. This is a symptom of global warming and it contributes to enhanced warming of the Arctic,”

    80 percent? Somehow, that doesn’t seem acurate. Am I wrong?

  18. Keep up the good work, your Lordship.

    And watch your back, the Watermelons are losing, and they know it.

    They’ll fight like cornered rats.

  19. A standing Ovation…
    And I agree please take care of yourself, we can not afford to lose warriors of your caliber.

  20. :) I love it when Lord Monckton posts here. Not only do I always enjoy and appreciate what he’s got to say, but his words inevitably brings the trolls slavering in, and it’s been quiet here lately.

    I’m calling first dibs on any trolls tonight, Stealey!

    Thanks Lord Monckton, a pleasure as always.

  21. Mike Alexander says:
    March 27, 2013 at 5:46 pm

    As we shivering Scots lairds say as we carry glasses well filled with single malt whisky to our aged retainers as they gallantly shovel feet of unseasonal snow off our three-mile driveways, “Bring it on!”

    Shivering because of Global Warming!!!!

    Says Jennifer Francis, research professor with the Rutgers Institute of Coastal and Marine Science. “The sea ice is going rapidly. It’s 80 percent less than it was just 30 years ago. There has been a dramatic loss. This is a symptom of global warming and it contributes to enhanced warming of the Arctic,”

    80 percent? Somehow, that doesn’t seem acurate. Am I wrong?
    =================================
    LOL, no ….. well, it’s cli-sci math….. Apologies for the self promotion, but it’s easier if you just read it… ;) http://suyts.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/warmcold-strikes-again-lack-of-ice-blamed-for-snow-and-cold-climate-math-on-display-15-is-20-of-16/

  22. Lord Monkton:

    What happened to the “Minnesota Trotskyite”? Did you sue him for libel?

  23. As I sit here on March 27, 2013 enduring well below normal temperatures I came to a shocking realization: I can take the extreme warm weather better than I can take the cold. Last summer I had to endure several days when the high temperature was 103F (42C for most of the world). Being in North Carolina, we call a cool summer one where the temperature never gets above 95 degrees. But this very cool March has made me realize I rather have the hot summer than the cool winter. Sure, I like for it to be cool for a little while. But not in March.

    I’ve met many people who moved to North Carolina from one of the northern states. When I ask them why they moved here, just about all of them say because they are tired of the cold. This March I came to realize more than ever that it is better to be too warm than to be too cold.

  24. I agree with your assessment of the situation Lord Monckton. This is a political game that being played by opportunists, not scientists. The details are unimportant. This is a Meta Physical construction that the global warmers want to sell to the world. An abomination and crime against ordinary, hard working people. God speed.

  25. William Astley says:
    March 27, 2013 at 4:55 pm

    It appears Mann is attempting to distract people from observations and related analysis that indicates the extreme AGW paradigm is not correct. Mann does not want to debate the current observations and the extreme AGW paradigm as he cannot defend his position scientifically. Mann appears to be opposing freedom of information requests as he and others have something to hide.

    He ducks like a quack.

  26. It was frustrating for me prior to Climategate how much benefit of the doubt guys like Mann were afforded when the “mistakes” they relied on for their newsworthy publications did not look very innocent to me whatsoever when made by professionals with mathematical expertise enough to very much know better. This essay cheered me up immensely.

  27. Dennis Ray Said

    Dear Lord Monckton

    Six years ago I sent you the equations regarding CO2 and the reasons why what was being said was impossible regarding the increase in the absorption spectrum to a 0.012% increase (against the entire atmosphere) of a trace IR absorbing gas. These equations, originating in the Quantum Mechanical relationships of the absorption and emission of radiation, by the CO2 molecule, were developed by the U.S. military and scientific organizations in the 1940′s-50′s as a result of their studies of the upper atmosphere in the development of heat seeking missiles. These physical studies could easily be repeated today and compared with the data gathered in that earlier era. This comparison will settle the question one way or another, once and for all.

    **Dennis please link said equations.**

  28. @Mike Alexander
    “80 percent? Somehow, that doesn’t seem accurate. Am I wrong?”
    No it isn’t and no you are not.

    Jennifer Francis is an alarmist of the first order who doesn’t bother with facts.

  29. Russell says:
    March 27, 2013 at 7:25 pm
    “As Lord MacAlpine’s new best friend, George Monbiot said the other day :
    His response to the devastating critique of his claims about climate change by the physicist John Abraham is magnificently bonkers.”
    “They claim to want a debate, but as soon as it turns against them they try to stifle it by intimidating their opponents. To me it suggests that these people can give it out, but they can’t take it.”

    Russell, you are wrong! You just do not understand Lord Monckton’s style of British humour. (note the spelling). Don’t worry about it; very few Americans understand British humour (let alone Christopher Monckton’s version!)

  30. With that self effacing humour, it would take one simple citizenship ceremony for Christopher to become a Dinky Di Aussie.
    (for the non-Aussies, Dinky Di may well translate to ‘Distinguished’.

  31. alexwade says:
    March 27, 2013 at 7:01 pm

    As I sit here on March 27, 2013 enduring well below normal temperatures I came to a shocking realization: I can take the extreme warm weather better than I can take the cold. …

    I’ve met many people who moved to North Carolina from one of the northern states….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    I am one of them. I am sitting here in woolies with the temp 36F (2C). In 2010 the temp in the first week of April reached over 90F (32C) Heck the daffodils haven’t even bloomed yet!

  32. When the birds flaunt their plummage, and fight over the best breeding places, it is the end of the beginning.

  33. By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley (with no apologies to Michael E. Mann): “As a climate researcher, …”
    =============================================================

    Christopher, why did you say then before congress that you were not a scientist? “Researcher” is according to WordWeb dictionary “a scientist who devotes himself to doing research”.

    “I am going to testify not, of course, as a scientist, because I am not one, but as a policy maker” (00:58-01:05, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08SVnB_PBNQ)

  34. Christopher Monckton of Brenchley (with no apologies to Michael E. Mann) Says:

    “What I found was that the recent small warming, which coincides with the fastest growth in solar activity in 11,400 years, is a much-precedented event in this period of reconstructed temperature changes.”

    You have my attention… I like the Idea of Solar Activity coinciding with the fastest growth in solar activity in 11,400 years, I know solar activity is the main driver of temperature variations on a monthly and decadal scale, I have even used a Sunspot v Temperature Chart I plotted to get the word out to local farmers about this years winter, as a result, I like to believe that I may have helped them to make a decision on whether to better prepare for this winter, where I live we’ve had some of the hardest hit areas with heavy snow this spring, we’ve had snow drifts of up to 6 foot locally and over 12 foot of snow in other areas, this winter our farmers locally have been on the ball and there were no livestock casualties, further afield there were farms caught-out and unaware of the dangers, as a result they’ve had heavy losses during this lamb season.

    It is important that more people are informed of solar activity even shown a trend where they can decide for themselves. But, what more can we do when we’re up against “hockey sticks” that show a warming trend and a media that reports weather extremes as an anthropogenic Climate Catastrophe and a Met office that forecasts barbecue summers and U-turns on warming trends after the fact?

    I’m disgusted by the treatment of Anthropogenic (man made) Global warming sceptics and what honest people like Anthony Watts, Christopher Monckton (and there are too many others to mention) put up with, orchestrated (attempted) character assassinations, smears, lies and misinformation and even death threats!!, Honestly, what is wrong with these people?

    All I can say is; Anthropogenic Global warming sceptics like Anthony Watts, Christopher Monckton et al. are doing a fantastic job in standing up for debate, bringing back to science the commonsense, and the truth on how it’s not your fault, and that; there is no global Anthropogenic catastrophe on the horizon.

    Thank You. :)

  35. I always learn a new word or two from Lord Monckton. But it’s not often I learn a new 4-letter word. I thought the word “cant” had been misspelled until I looked it up. It can mean slant or tilt. But it can also mean jargon used to exclude or mislead people outside the group. Mann and others are very good at slanting the data and using inside jargon to mislead the world.

  36. john robertson says:
    March 27, 2013 at 8:01 pm

    Russell, so nice of you to turn up.
    Paid by the word ?

    Only after it’s divided by the content–that balloons his check to nearly infinity.

  37. Louis says:

    March 27, 2013 at 8:25 pm

    “Mann and others are very good at slanting the data and using inside jargon to mislead the world.”
    =================
    I dare you to prove that statement.

  38. Being from MN, I am familiar with the stature of the MN Trotskyite, and his self-righteous diatribe following Christopher Monckton’s presentation at Bethel. Is the Trotskyite being called that because of Marxist, materialistic ideals?
    I find him to be more of a wannabe of small stature that puts himself in the position of being part of the ‘first response team’ which puts out little skeptical fires.
    I have not heard much from him of late since a hurricane expert called him batshit stupid for suggesting there should be a category 6 hurricane.

  39. u.k.(us) says:
    March 27, 2013 at 8:40 pm

    Louis says:

    March 27, 2013 at 8:25 pm

    “Mann and others are very good at slanting the data and using inside jargon to mislead the world.”
    =================
    I dare you to prove that statement.

    Climategate 1 and Climategate 2.

    Stay tuned for *drum roll* Climategate 3!

    (Or don’t you read?)

  40. Thanks once again, Christopher, for your very important efforts in behalf of science and humanity.

  41. Greg House says:
    March 27, 2013 at 8:02 pm

    By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley (with no apologies to Michael E. Mann): “As a climate researcher, …”
    =============================================================

    Christopher, why did you say then before congress that you were not a scientist? “Researcher” is according to WordWeb dictionary “a scientist who devotes himself to doing research”.

    “I am going to testify not, of course, as a scientist, because I am not one, but as a policy maker” (00:58-01:05, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08SVnB_PBNQ)

    Because some of the best researchers haven’t been brainwashed by the likes of Dr. Mann at the helm of (now questionable) universities like UVa and Penn State.

    Besides, even YOU can be a great climate researcher if you’re honest, Mr. House.

    Are you honest?

  42. john robertson says March 27, 2013 at 8:01 pm

    Russell, so nice of you to turn up.
    Paid by the word ?

    Paid, by observing word and deed (literally: ‘by the looks of it’) “To carry the sword.”

    Similar circumstances found in “Julius Caesar”, Act 3, Scene 2 where Antony says (and taken grossly out of context here for my purposes):

    . . . ” I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him. ”

    BTW, good show, Christopher Monckton of Brenchley.

    .

  43. The Infowars video linked by njsnowfan above is extremely educational. It is a cogent and detailed explanation of “Agenda 21″, and it’s not a “conspiracy theory”. It’s right there. Right in front of all of us to see. And they’re making it happen!

    Maybe this is a large reason that the trolls usually come out to smear Lord Monckton when his posts appear here. Nobody likes to see their nefarious plans laid bare for all to see.

    I’m familiar with the “target” mentality. I’ve had business deals where I’ve been painted as a bad guy. I’ve been on the “wrong” side of many arguments over the years. I’m currently dating someone a lot younger than me, and some people seem to think that’s open season on insults and saying some pretty horrible things. But during my school years I was bullied and learned a lot about handling bullies.

    Bullies are usually unable to handle some aspect of their life, and tend to attack others in order to compensate. Lord Monckton’s approach is exactly the right way: don’t “fight”, just reason. In the end, it doesn’t matter what the bully says, thinks, or does, it only matters what onlookers see. If they see a calm, measured, reasonable response to a bullying, aggressive approach, they are more likely to listen to the calm, reasonable voice. After all, we are competing against a hugely funded propaganda machine (in spite of their ridiculous claims that it’s the other way around), and our goal is to make victims of this machine understand that they are, in fact, victims.

    In the end, truth and reality will win out. In another 20 years, or ten, people will laugh at this current voodoo mysticism of “AGW” or climate change or whatever they’re calling it. It’s already a lot easier to find a skeptic than a believer, and every public discussion or internet discussion has fairly equal representation from both sides. Ten years ago that was not the case.

    Anyway, that’s me rambling. GOOD JOB LORD MONCKTON! Count me, a Canadian, as one who is glad you’re on my side!

  44. In reply to Lord Moncton’s comment:

    ”If we continue down this path of lavishly-funded nonsense, we will be leaving our children and grandchildren a different planet—one with more extreme Socialism, more pronounced and widespread scientific illiteracy, worse episodes of cant even than those of Michael E. Mann (if that were possible), and greater competition for diminishing taxpayer subsidies. It will be worse than we ever thought.”

    William:
    Here! Here!

    Socialism works until one runs out of other people’s money to spend. We need a half dozen Margaret Thatchers. Any idiot can lead a country off a cliff. Leaders must understand reality and lead to solutions.

    As it obvious (based on observations and analysis) the planet resists (negative feedback) rather than amplifies (negative feedback) forcing, there is no extreme AGW problem to solve. If there is no global warming problem due to the increase in atmospheric CO2 the issue then becomes economic (job creation and avoiding destroying jobs) and environmental, concerning energy sources and use.

    It is odd people will accept the reality that a physical structure such as a bridge can only carry a fixed load and yet they can be sold on government Ponzi schemes.

    Governments have a limited amount of money to spend. Individual people understand the tragic consequences of individuals spending more than they earn. (i.e. If only the government would spend more money thousands of green jobs would be created. Note the jobs disappear when the government money stops. The scam is tax money is limited.)

    Governments cannot change engineering reality. The green team sell a fantasy. Wind is free. Perhaps we could request that the wind would blow on demand and blow in the regions where electric power is consumed. It is odd that there are no public sources that summarize the engineering facts and economics of ‘green’ energy. The obvious first question is how much will total carbon dioxide emissions be reduced if trillions of deficit dollars were used to subsidize ‘green’ energy projects? Space tourism to the moon is a good idea except for the costs and practical issues such as the risk of death. The cost of a battery storage unit per MW is four times the cost of a single cycle natural gas power plant. The batteries have a limited life and need to be replaced. Batteries are not economical or practical for large system storage. The estimated for a wind power system needs to include the cost for a single cycle natural gas plant to provide backup power for the times when the wind does not blow or changes in velocity (power generated is at the cube of wind velocity). The problem is a single cycle natural gas power plant is roughly 30% efficient. A combined cycle natural gas power plant is 60% efficient but costs roughly 4 times more. If one uses a single cycle natural gas plant to provide backup as compared to a combined cycle natural gas power plant there is minimal reduction in CO2 emissions over a combined cycle natural gas plant. Also the calculations above do not include the energy input required to produce and install the wind power system. Oddly if the engineering is not fudged spending trillions of dollars on ‘green’ energy does not significantly reduce the amount of carbon dioxide emissions unless the ‘green’ energy source is nuclear. A scam is a scam regardless of one’s environmental beliefs.

    Consequences of carbon taxes. The third component of the green Ponzi scheme is the belief that a tax on fossil fuels will not turn into a tax on the consumer and industry. If only the politicians could tax and spend more then all the problems would be solved. The super blocks (US and EU) seem to believe that there will be no consequence to structural imbalances.

    Carbon dioxide balance issue. Finally the point which you have made again and again: Even accepting the IPCC dystopia AGW warming, Western action without China and Indian action will only reduce the speed of the rise of CO2.

    As governments are running out of borrowed money (the US, EU, and Japan appear to be competing to reach the limits of borrowing for very large governments) to spend. People only slow down when driving on snowy roads when they see other cars in the ditch.

    Greece:

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/michael-lewis-on-greeces-budget-woes/article558530/

    The average government job pays almost three times the average private-sector job. The national railroad has annual revenues of 100 million euros against an annual wage bill of 400 million, plus 300 million euros in other expenses. The average state railroad employee earns 65,000 euros a year. …. ….Twenty years ago, a successful businessman turned minister of finance named Stefanos Manos pointed out that it would be cheaper to put all Greece’s rail passengers into taxicabs: It’s still true. “We have a railroad company which is bankrupt beyond comprehension,” Manos put it to me. “And yet there isn’t a single private company in Greece with that kind of average pay.” … …. The Greek public-school system is the site of breathtaking inefficiency: One of the lowest-ranked systems in Europe, it nonetheless employs four times as many teachers per pupil as the highest-ranked, Finland’s. Greeks who send their children to public schools simply assume that they will need to hire private tutors…. ….The retirement age for Greek jobs classified as “arduous” is as early as 55 for men and 50 for women. As this is also the moment when the state begins to shovel out generous pensions, more than 600 Greek professions somehow managed to get themselves classified as arduous: hairdressers, radio announcers, waiters, musicians and on and on and on…. …..The Greek public health-care system spends far more on supplies than the European average – and it is not uncommon, several Greeks tell me, to see nurses and doctors leaving the job with their arms filled with paper towels and diapers and whatever else they can plunder from the supply closets”

  45. As a scientist of some note myself, I consider you one of my most notable heroes. I work in the life sciences because I value human life above all else on the planet. What the warm-earthers have done is to condemn countless millions to suffering and death due to their selfish contrivances, and that on a scale heretofore unequalled.

    Please carry on with Godspeed, Lord Monckton!

  46. We owe a great deal to this man – a true nobleman, and not by blood but by character.

    I find the traffic light analogy most entertaining – and the envirofascists obviously have red-green coloblindness.

  47. Well said Lord Moncton, hopefully one day you will get your wish for a public debate with Al Gore. Till then bless you for fighting the good fight.

  48. In the future history books Christopher Monckton will be regarded as a visionary and a hero of science and one of the few who stood against the man made global warming fraud from the start. Those like Mann and others? Their names will be forever reviled and scorned, they will be remembered as charlatans and frauds no better than Lysenko of the USSR. History will not be kind to the alarmists nor should it be, the damage they have wreaked on our civilisation will last for decades.

  49. Lord Monckton, it is your eloquence as a speaker that they find the most threatening. Proponents of alarmism cherish such qualities as a sign of higher intellect (in your case rightfully so) and therefore it causes them massive cognitive dissonance where they refuse to accept this as true. Their only way to cope is to believe you to be truly evil and therefore worthy of smearing and ridicule.

  50. Thank you Lord M: a wonderful savaging of Mann, carefully crafted with truth and sardonic humour.

  51. TomB
    I got to shake his hand at a little school in the middle of New South Wales Australia on 19 March as he travelled through on his way, I think to Adelaide. Such shame few people came to hear him speak apart from the school children as his visit was not well advertised. All the best to you my Lord.

  52. William Astley says, “It is odd that there are no public sources that summarize the engineering facts and economics of ‘green’ energy.”

    That’s true. There’s an opening for a Reference Page here. Anthony? Poptech?

  53. We woke AGAIN to another fall of snow. That’s about the third or fourth day running. Even one snow shower this late would be exceptional. When I talk to people, I sense more and more that people are getting angry.

    There’s no rhyme or reason for these daft carbon taxes. Even if there were, a recession certainly isn’t the right time to be applying them and people just cannot understand why the EU is going it alone when it looks closer and closer to collapse.

  54. It’s the Christopher Monckton’s of this world that give us balance and prevent totalitarianism. I really hope that there will come a day when this man is given due credit by those who are most in his debt, namely the climate science community. He and shamefully few others are all that stand between them and utter disgrace.

  55. people just cannot understand why the EU is going it alone when it looks closer and closer to collapse

    That’s easy. The EU is a massive gravy train for failed politicians from miniscule, inconsequential countries and they will do whatever it takes to keep their pet communist ideas alive and when it all collapses their money is not in €s.

  56. Contrasting a Monckton with a Mann is unfair. The former is a real man, and a very impressive one at that, while the latter is in large part a Mitty – one who is both pathetic and prominent thanks largely I suppose to his imaginings being deemed newsworthy, or even edgy, by the ill-informed or irresponsible.

  57. My Dear Lord M,

    Any professional scientist or engineer with substantial post-grad physics and extensive practical GHG heat transfer knowledge takes one look at the Trenberth Energy Budget Cartoon and says ‘my God, how could they be so stupid?’.

    There is no ‘back radiation’ a failure to understand that the Stefan-Boltzmann equation predicts the potential flux a body of given temperature and emissivity could emit to a sink at absolute zero.

    The main thermal GHG IR from the slightly cooler atmosphere to the Earth’s surface annihilates surface IR in the same wavelength so there is no 15 µm CO2 band emission, no CO2-AGW, reducing operational emissivity and increasing surface temperature, the real GHE <9 K.

    Even if there were any surface CO2 band IR emission, it could not be directly thermalised because it is in excess of Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium.

    So, go on with your work: there is no CO2-AGW and it is more likely to be cooling for fundamental physics' reasons.

  58. Burning fossil fuels will NOT alter the next ice age timing since CO2 does NOT increase atmospheric temperature. Any thinking that a life giving trace gas can alter, either drastically or minutely, climate is preposterous and violates the laws of thermodynamics and quantum mechanics.

  59. Thank you, Lord Monckton, for what you are helping to do, dispersit superbos mente cordis sui.

  60. It was Christopher Monckton’s two articles in the Sunday Telegraph that first put global warming onto my radar. In his second article, Monckton withdrew a claim that was in the first one. This impressed me, as he seemed to be honest. On the third Sunday the Telegraph printed a reply from Gore. This *really* opened my eyes to what was going on. Gore’s arguments seemed to depend on insults and name-calling, and not on science.

    All I can say is: Christopher Monckton, never give up. There is hope that science will eventually regain its integrity and that the truth, whatever it may be, will prevail. And thank you.
    From another Chris

  61. Generally splendid, Lord Monckton. One thing that stood out was “dubious tree-rings dubiously processed on dubious computers by dubious zitty teenagers” which seems to be both inaccurate about computers and a childishly worded ad hominem that detracts from the whole piece.

    Keep up the good work.

  62. Not a ‘snooker-cue graph’, but a ‘cricket bat graph’. (The batsman is encouraged to play with a straight bat and, in doing so, often dispatches drives to the Mann at silly mid on!)

  63. Lord Monckton brings up a very good contrast. Mann is not being persecuted. He is being laughed at. Monckton is being persecuted. As are most climate skeptics. But the persecutors are Mann and his ilk, so to deflect from his own crimes, he claims victimhood (note, not martyrdom). And as everyone knows, Victimhood is the holy grail of Socialists.

  64. Nicely put, M’Lord. Now, if you could just distill the essence down to a 140 character tweet so those vast intellects on the warming side might comprehend it?

  65. I am currently reading an excellent book on MI6 by Gordon Corera in which the hopelessly inadequate and beffudled attempts to investigate Kim Philby as a Soviet spy in the 1950s and 1960s feature prominently. It seems the British elite have a long history of incompetence when trying to determine what passes as good and true amongst their own upper class (‘but he was one of us!’), something I suspect doesn’t seem to have improved much within today’s climate change movement.

  66. Christopher, as always, I admire your persistence and knowledge, but please study Dr Svalgaard’s work on the influence of the sun. After decades of study, his informed opinion is that intrinsic variations of the sun has no significant influence on the earth’s climate on anything but the longest time-scales (hundreds of millions of yrs). And, from that, the earth’s climate fluctuations are caused by internal factors and orbital (Milankovitch) changes.

    http://lsvalgaard.wordpress.com

  67. Thank you for the laugh at Michael Mann’s expense.

    I suggest the the following relationship is logical and comically accurate:

    Mann is to integrity as turtles are to wings.

    John

  68. **Dennis please link said equations.**

    Loudon, The Quantum Theory of Light, 1978.

    Doppler broadening, page 82-83

    Collision or pressure broadening, equation 5.20, page 87.

  69. AlecM says March 28, 2013 at 3:27 am

    There is no ‘back radiation’

    Simple observational experimentation sheds doubt, nay. disproves this assertion. It is covered in basic meteorological texts even.

    Would you like a couple of cites?

    .

  70. That was a hoot, Lord Monckton!

    I do believe the gauntlet has been thrown down at the feet of Dr. Mann. Yes, he most certainly is a charlatan and a rather thin-skinned one at that.

    If Dr. Mann decides to add you to his long and growing list of “slanderers”, please advise the details of your defense fund and I’ll happily contribute. That would be great fun to watch.

    My, but you do know how to generate excellent PR opportunities to get the truth out.

    Cheers!

  71. I tried to get into an actual debae with a newspaper columnist who was going on about Catastrophic Climate Change, asking him what science he was basing is befief on. Yes – I should have known better. Never got a response. However there was a column by him stating that he had received a number of emails decrying his comments. He trotted out the “consensus” line and the d-word. Again I should have known better – I emailed in regarding the latest column. The response containedoverwhelmin evidence” and the d-word again. The avenue of last restort for these people. Oh well. I’m in good company though with Lord Monckton. Keep up the good fight. Eventually the science and Mother Nature will prove us right. I just hope its not too late.

  72. I feel obliged to point out to his lordship that he is a day early.

    The traditional day for crucifying people is tomorrow!

    That is the best laugh I have had since the Marcott et al paper came out.

  73. Here in the Isle of Man we had the worst blizzard in 50 years a week ago and farmers are still
    digging out dead sheep, lambs and cattle from up to 20ft drifts and yet the usual clowns are
    preaching a temp. rise of up to 4.5C, God give me strength.
    Regards

  74. denniswingo says March 28, 2013 at 8:13 am

    Loudon, The Quantum Theory of Light, 1978.

    Doppler broadening, page 82-83

    Collision or pressure broadening, equation 5.20, page 87.

    Isn’t there a difference here, between molecule resonance/vibrational modes (e.g. bending, twisting) with a polar molecule (e.g. H2O and CO2 but not N2) with a specific EM (Electromagnetic) signature vs quantum changes in electron energy levels? (Having not read the cited text.)

    .

  75. Joe Public says:
    You cite an impressive list of qualifications, but have you ever shared a Nobel prize?
    —–
    Of course he has – the Nobel Peace Prize 2012 was awarded to European Union (EU) , as a UK resident therefore, he has “shared” the prize!
    8-)

  76. Poptech says:
    March 27, 2013 at 11:26 pm

    Lord Monckton, it is your eloquence as a speaker that they find the most threatening. Proponents of alarmism cherish such qualities as a sign of higher intellect (in your case rightfully so) and therefore it causes them massive cognitive dissonance where they refuse to accept this as true. Their only way to cope is to believe you to be truly evil and therefore worthy of smearing and ridicule.
    ======================
    There is zero threat caused by eloquence, simply revulsion of the charlatanism which now underpins Monckton’s reputation. It was Monckton himself who damaged his credibility, others simply exposed the self-administered damage.

    … but the classic literature major certainly never ceases to be entertaining …. and eloquent.

  77. Lord Monckton uses facts, logic, mathematics and science as tools to explore and elucidate climate phenomena. Mann is a tool of a political phenomena that has delusions of science and obfuscates logic, facts and mathematics.

    I

  78. Isn’t there a difference here, between molecule resonance/vibrational modes (e.g. bending, twisting) with a polar molecule (e.g. H2O and CO2 but not N2) with a specific EM (Electromagnetic) signature vs quantum changes in electron energy levels? (Having not read the cited text.)

    These different modes effect the fundamental wavelengths of absorption/emission. Statistically if a CO2 molecule was hit with x number of IR photons at any one of these wavelengths, over time a gaussian curve would result.

    In the lower atmosphere, many, but not all, of the CO2 wavelengths are saturated, that is that they absorb or emit all of the radiation at the resonant wavelengths. The distance in the atmosphere that it takes to absorb all of this radiation is described as the extinction coefficient.

    Adding more CO2 to the atmosphere should do two things. The first is that the total area under the gaussian curve is increased. More total area, more absorption. The second is that the extinction coefficient should change in a manner that the distance to total absorption decreases, and the altitude of the point where the absorption/emission lines desaturate will increase.

    HOWEVER

    There are two variables that modify this behavior, and these are represented in the equations in Loudon’s text.

    The first is pressure. Pressure broadens the absorption/emission lines. There is actually a transformation equation which is a Gaussian to Lorentz transformation, developed by Lorentz and used by Einstein in relativity, another subject. As pressure increases the lines develop “wings” which as you are thinking about, are modifications of the bending modes basically because the interval between inelastic mechanical collisions decrease relative to the time between the absorption/emission of an IR photon, and thus the total area of absorption increases. Here is the catch though, this pressure broadening is against the ENTIRE atmosphere, not just the relative increase in the partial pressure of CO2.

    The second is temperature. Increased temperature increases the mechanical velocity of molecules in the atmosphere. This again acts to shorten the time between collisions relative to the QM absorption/emission time. It also increases the velocity of these collisions, increasing the area of the “wings” even more.

    There are other minor variables but these are the dominate ones. Thus when you talk about the effect of the increase in CO2, if you are talking about pressure, it is for an increase from 0.028% of the atmosphere to 0.0395% of the atmosphere, probably not even detectable if you actually measure. Also, the effects of increased CO2 are altitude dependent, that is that warming will be less in the western USA above 5000 ft vs at sea level, and since any spectral broadening is temperature dependent, when it gets colder the gaussian shape decreases.

    Pressure and temperature are have FAR more influence on the absorption and emission of CO2 than a statistically insignificant increase in partial pressure.

    Water vapor on the other hand…..

  79. Steve C says: William Astley says, “It is odd that there are no public sources that summarize the engineering facts and economics of ‘green’ energy.”

    That’s true. There’s an opening for a Reference Page here. Anthony? Poptech?

    You can find what I had compiled here,

    The Anti “Green” Energy Resource

  80. Lord Monckton, I will keep your struggle in my daily prayers. I am unspeakably proud that you chose to wear the crucifix I gave you in San Diego so openly. Bless you, sir, you are brave intellectually and spiritually.

  81. Mr. Corcoran very kindly gave me his beautiful St. Benedict’s Cross when I spoke in San Diego last year. I told him I would wear it around London to dissuade Britain’s vapid Prime Minister, “Dave” Cameron, from carrying out a mad proposal from one of his “Ministers” to ban the wearing of Christian symbols in public. I like to think that the word eventually reached “Dave”. In any event, his nasty proposal – which drove hundreds of thousands of formerly Conservative voters into the arms of the United Kingdom Independence Party – was hastily dropped. The “Conservative” party is now imploding. Its unreasoning hatred of the teachings and symbols of Britain’s national religion has played almost as large a part in its decline as its half-witted clambering on to the “global warming” bandwaggon just as the wheels were falling off.

  82. As a climate researcher of some 7 years, for which I owe the fullest gratitude to the internet and its search engines, I have foud myself mocked, belittled, ridiculed and slandered by other people who use the internet.

    I have been subjected to taunts, even to the root of my identity. I have suffered the ignonimy of having my opinions strained through the sieve of ‘science’, as if my beliefs were permeable to reason. My plight is dramatic to me, but it is eclipsed by the high drama of so-called ‘experts’, ‘public figures’ and the like.

    The cynicism of my attackers is evident not only in their disregard for my opinions, but chiefly for my feelings, in their campaign to populate the internets with their overweening world-views. In their desparation to distort the truth, they have resorted to deploying ‘facts’ and ‘scientific rigour’.

    My work first appeared in a now-defunct forum in 2007, just prior to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, which does not list me as a contributor at any level. Clearly they were not monitoring the internets, which indicates the level of their ‘professionalism’. Since then I have posted on climate blogs innumerate, such as WUWT. What I have found is a plethora of conflicting views – primarily conflicting with mine. I am only now beginning to see how these flank attacks, whose objective is the demise of my cherished opinions, have been carefully orchestrated, as has the maintenance of my status as a ‘bit player’ in the great climate debates.

    I have been massaged by Nicole Kidman, chatted with Her royal Excellency, Queen elizabeth II, spent a few hours in the company of Carrie Fischer and worked with Bryan Brown, as well as Matt, Damien and Eve from my day job.

    I, too, can name drop.

    If we continue down this path of relegating my views to the oblivion of insignificance, I will be hurt. Badly hurt. And that may have consequences for my progeny, if ever i get around to having any.

    Global warming? What is that compared to the need for me, and others whose worldview is consistent with mine own, to have our beliefs respected sufficient to bend the world’s future to our designs? It’s just wrong, I tell you, and no amount of distraction from authoritative commentary or interactive argument will weaken my resolve. I have been, and remain, highly skeptical of any arguments that detract from my predilections.

    Barry, of Barryworld, is a distinguished reviewer of blogsites and you tube, and a distinguished downloader of the leaked AR5 report, upon which he has commented with distinction, albeit unrecognized at this point. Last year he was a distinguished teacher of minds young and old, and a distinguished participant in the great climate debates on the illustrious internets. He has a distinguished business and pays undistinguished taxes, and is the author of numerous blog posts, distinguishable from others by his nom de plume. He is undistinguished for his enforced emplacement within the ranks of ordinary laypeople commenting on climate science, which is less than can be said for the likes of M Mann and C Monckton.

Comments are closed.