Lord Monckton reports on Pachauri's eye opening Copenhagen presentation

From The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley in Copenhagen

In the Grand Ceremonial Hall of the University of Copenhagen, a splendid Nordic classical space overlooking the Church of our Lady in the heart of the old city, rows of repellent, blue plastic chairs surrounded the podium from which no less a personage than Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, was to speak.

I had arrived in good time to take my seat among the dignitaries in the front row. Rapidly, the room filled with enthusiastic Greenies and enviro-zombs waiting to hear the latest from ye Holy Bookes of Ipecac, yea verily.

The official party shambled in and perched on the blue plastic chairs next to me. Pachauri was just a couple of seats away, so I gave him a letter from me and Senator Fielding of Australia, pointing out that the headline graph in the IPCC’s 2007 report, purporting to show that the rate of warming over the past 150 years had itself accelerated, was fraudulent.

Would he use the bogus graph in his lecture? I had seen him do so when he received an honorary doctorate from the University of New South Wales. I watched and waited.

Sure enough, he used the bogus graph. I decided to wait until he had finished, and ask a question then.

Pachauri then produced the now wearisome list of lies, fibs, fabrications and exaggerations that comprise the entire case for alarm about “global warming”. He delivered it in a tired, unenthusiastic voice, knowing that a growing majority of the world’s peoples – particularly in those countries where comment is free – no longer believe a word the IPCC says.

They are right not to believe. Science is not a belief system. But here is what Pachauri invited the audience in Copenhagen to believe.

1. Pachauri asked us to believe that the IPCC’s documents were “peer-reviewed”. Then he revealed the truth by saying that it was the authors of the IPCC’s climate assessments who decided whether the reviewers’ comments were acceptable. That – whatever else it is – is not peer review.

2. Pachauri said that greenhouse gases had increased by 70% between 1970 and 2004. This figure was simply nonsense. I have seen this technique used time and again by climate liars. They insert an outrageous statement early in their presentations, see whether anyone reacts and, if no one reacts, they know they will get away with the rest of the lies. I did my best not to react. I wanted to hear, and write down, the rest of the lies.

3. Next came the bogus graph, which is featured three times, large and in full color, in the IPCC’s 2007 climate assessment report. The graph is bogus not only because it relies on the made-up data from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia but also because it is overlain by four separate trend-lines, each with a start-date carefully selected to give the entirely false impression that the rate of warming over the past 150 years has itself been accelerating, especially between 1975 and 1998. The truth, however – neatly obscured by an ingenious rescaling of the graph and the superimposition of the four bogus trend lines on it – is that from 1860-1880 and again from 1910-1940 the warming rate was exactly the same as the warming rate from 1975-1998.

click to enlarge

4. Pachauri said that there had been an “acceleration” in sea-level rise from 1993. He did not say, however, that in 1993 the method of measuring sea-level rise had switched from tide-gages to satellite altimetry against a reference geoid. The apparent increase in the rate of sea-level rise is purely an artefact of this change in the method of measurement.

5. Pachauri said that Arctic temperatures would rise twice as fast as global temperatures over the next 100 years. However, he failed to point out that the Arctic was actually 1-2 Celsius degrees warmer than the present in the 1930s and early 1940s. It has become substantially cooler than it was then.

6. Pachauri said the frequency of heavy rainfall had increased. The evidence for this proposition is largely anecdotal. Since there has been no statistically-significant “global warming” for 15 years, there is no reason to suppose that any increased rainfall in recent years is attributable to “global warming”.

7. Pachauri said that the proportion of tropical cyclones that are high-intensity storms has increased in the past three decades. However, he was very careful not to point out that the total number of intense tropical cyclones has actually fallen sharply throughout the period.

8. Pachauri said that the activity of intense Atlantic hurricanes had increased since 1970. This is simply not true, but it appears to be true if – as one very bad scientific paper in 2006 did – one takes the data back only as far as that year. Take the data over the whole century, as one should, and no trend whatsoever is evident.  Here, Pachauri is again using the same statistical dodge he used with the UN’s bogus “warming-is-getting-worse” graph: he is choosing a short run of data and picking his start-date with care so as falsely to show a trend that, over a longer period, is not significant.

9. Pachauri said small islands like the Maldives were vulnerable to sea-level rise. Not if they’re made of coral, which is more than capable of outgrowing any sea-level rise. Besides, as Professor Morner has established, sea level in the Maldives is no higher now than it was 1250 years ago, and has not risen for half a century.

10. Pachauri said that if the ice-sheets of Greenland or West Antarctica were to melt there would be “meters of sea-level rise”. Yes, but his own climate panel has said that that could not happen for thousands of years, and only then if global mean surface temperatures stayed at least 2 C (3.5 F) warmer than today’s.

11. Pachauri said that if temperatures rose 2 C (3.5 F) 20-30% of all species would become extinct. This, too, is simply nonsense. For most of the past 600 million years, global temperatures have been 7 C (13.5 F) warmer than today, and yet here we all are. One has only to look at the number of species living in the tropics and the number living at the Poles to work out that warmer weather will if anything increase the number and diversity of species on the planet. There is no scientific basis whatsoever for Pachauri’s assertion about mass extinctions. It is simply made up.

12. Pachauri said that “global warming” would mean “lower quantities of water”. Not so. It would mean larger quantities of water vapor in the atmosphere, hence more rain. This is long-settled science – but, then, Pachauri is a railroad engineer.

13. Pachauri said that by 2100 100 million people would be displaced by rising sea levels. Now, where did we hear that figure before? Ah, yes, from the ludicrous Al Gore and his sidekick Bob Corell. There is no truth in it at all. Pachauri said he was presenting the results of the IPCC’s fourth assessment report. It is quite plain: the maximum possible rate of sea-level rise is put at just 2 ft, with a best estimate of 1 ft 5 in. Sea level is actually rising at around 1 ft/century. That is all.

14. Pachauri said that he had seen for himself the damage done in Bangladesh by sea-level rise. Just one problem with that. There has been no sea-level rise in Bangladesh. At all. In fact, according to Professor Moerner, who visited it recently and was the only scientist on the trip to calibrate his GPS altimeter properly by taking readings at two elevations at least 10 meters apart, sea level in Bangladesh has actually fallen a little, which is why satellite images show 70,000 sq. km more land area there than 30 years ago. Pachauri may well have seen some coastal erosion: but that was caused by the imprudent removal of nine-tenths of the mangroves in the Sunderban archipelago to make way for shrimp-farms.

15. Pachauri said we could not afford to delay reducing carbon emissions even by a year, or disaster would result. So here’s the math. There are 388 ppmv of CO2 in the air today, rising at 2 ppmv/year over the past decade. So an extra year with no action at all would warm the world by just 4.7 ln(390/388) = 0.024 C, or less than a twentieth of a Fahrenheit degree. And only that much on the assumption that the UN’s sixfold exaggeration of CO2’s true warming potential is accurate, which it is not. Either way, we can afford to wait a couple of decades to see whether anything like the rate of warming predicted by the UN’s climate panel actually occurs.

16. Pachauri said that the cost of mitigating carbon emissions would be less than 3% of gross domestic product by 2030. The only economist who thinks that is Lord Stern, whose laughable report on the economics of climate change, produced for the British Government, used a near-zero discount rate so as artificially to depress the true cost of trying to mitigate “global warming”. To reduce “global warming” to nothing, one must close down the entire global economy. Any lesser reduction is a simple fraction of the entire economy. So cutting back, say, 50% of carbon emissions by 2030, which is what various extremist groups here are advocating, would cost around 50% of GDP, not 3%.

17. Pachauri said that solar and wind power provided more jobs per $1 million invested than coal. Maybe they do, but that is a measure of their relative inefficiency. The correct policy would be to raise the standard of living of the poorest by letting them burn as much fossil fuels as they need to lift them from poverty. Anything else is organized cruelty.

18. Pachauri said we could all demonstrate our commitment to Saving The Planet by eating less meat. The Catholic Church has long extolled the virtues of mortification of the flesh: we generally ate fish on Fridays in the UK, until the European Common Fisheries Policy meant there were no more fish. But the notion that going vegan will make any measurable impact on global temperatures is simply fatuous.

It is time for Railroad Engineer Pachauri to get back to his signal-box. About the climate, as they say in New York’s Jewish quarter, he knows from nothing.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Glenn

Much appreciated, Lord Monckton.

Tengil

Well written!

PhilW

Lord Monckton…..The Devil Slayer!

Iren

Lord Monckton and Senator Steve Fielding (Australia) have written an open letter to Dr. Rajendra Pachauri asking him to correct the defective diagram and saying that he should be stripped of his office.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/pachauri_letter.pdf

durox

in a few years the whole climate propaganda will seem like a bad dream. i guess we’re about to wake up soon or sooner ;]

Mike Atkins

While entertaining for the right audience, perhaps his tone is a little OTT for more neutral audiences (and I am a big fan of his). Also, a 50% reduction in emissions = 50% drop in GDP is a bit simplistic (maybe a model would help). I disliked the reference to a railroad engineer – this disqualifies any of us who are not climate scientists from looking at the facts and making up our own minds.

Henry Galt

Don’t hold back m’Lord, tell it like it really is.

yonason
Pteradactyl

An excelent, factual report – but why is it not splashed accross the worlds media? Surely there is someone with enough influence with a large media organisation out there to ‘dare’ them to publish it?
The ‘net is buzzing with the story yet the lunatics are still in charge of the asylum (and our country!).

Rereke Whakaaro

It is interesting.
Even with the fall-out from ClimateGate, and even with the MSM starting to realize that their readers are now better informed through the web than their journalists are through the press briefings, the people at the center of all this still cling to their mantras.
They look like, as they say in Australasia, “possums in the headlights”.
Pity we never found out if Lord Monckton got to ask his question or not.

Phil A

Magnificent stuff. Only sad that it won’t be this comprehensive demolition job that gets reported in the MSM.

yonason

“…the latest from ye Holy Bookes of Ipecac, yea verily…
“Hurl ye, hurl ye, let the fleecing of the World commence.”

Mohib

Perhaps he missed this climate gate e-mail [1255550975.txt]:
SCHNEIDER: “As we enter an El Nino year and as soon, as the sunspots get over their temporary–presumed–vacation … there will likely be another dramatic upward spike like 1992-2000.”
Note also the word “likely” betraying they actually have no idea what drives climate up, and their best guess is that it is the sun.
But then again MANN said it best [1256735067.txt]:
As we all know, this isn’t about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations.
And MANN again [926010576.txt]:
I trust that history will give us all proper credit for what we’re doing here.

Phillip Bratby

The Viscount didn’t say whether he got to ask his question.

VG

I think Monckton is working far too hard to get the message across. All that he needs to say is that human activity produced (if it is even human, we actually do not know), C02 IS NOT CORRELATED with rising temperature (vice versa, yes it is). A simple equation C02 out = C02 in, it has not increased or decreased, its always been here (unless its radiated into space.. I don’t think so). As Spencer and Christy have shown excess heat is radiated/lost into space. It is actually a beautiful self regulating system.

Your second paragraph is needlesly offensive. Remove it or tone it down and I’ll be able to share it with my friends.
Thanks for the whole post!

i remembered the science classes in school. i dont recall getting good grades just by guessing, being almost right, or telling a good story. what happened to that kind of science?
oh, it might be that now we have peer-review…

Peter

Don’t these AGW alarmist realise they are digging a deeper and deeper hole for themselves the longer they peddle such nonsense? However, I don’t mind. Let them do it for some more time. Eventually they will look even more stupid than they already do. More please!

inverse square

It’s like a bad dream…….maybe I’ll wake up tomorrow morning, switch on the radio, and the whole world will have woken up and come to it’s senses……

Mapou

Well said, Lord Monckton. Pachauri is the worst kind of demagogues. He does not try to hide his lies with subterfuge. He’s as loud and as brazen as can be and he gets away with it. This tells me that the skeptics have their work cut out for them.

Andrew P

Thanks for posting this Anthony, I just read Lord Monckton’s excellent letter to Pachauri, which is available at http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/pachauri_letter.pdf

Ed Zuiderwijk

And Pauchari is well-known to be a vegetarian himself, so no surprise he jumps on the eat-no-meat bandwagon.

Martin Brumby

Fine piece by Monckton and there is a good video link as well on the next WUWT thread “China declares Copenhagen Climate Conference hopeless”.
Whilst the Copenhagen circus will no doubt fail in the eyes of everyone except the self serving political ‘leaders’ who will fudge some famous rhetorical ‘victory’ at the 11th hour (as Monckton predicts), he is also right to point out that, behind the scenes, the framework for a World Government will have been strengthened.
But remember, this AGW thing is way too big to fail.
Richard North’s latest posting:-
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/12/climate-justice.html
should be absolutely required reading for everyone on here.
Make no mistake, the clowns that have hyped up this scam and inflated it to its present grotesque extent have created a monster which will cause untold damage to the developed world on the one hand and perpetuate the misery and life without hope for the third world poor.

Thank you, Viscount Monckton for your work at Copenhagen, I’ve watched videos of your presentations there and was especially entertained by your on the street debate with that clueless Greenpeace drone woman.

VG

Based on the latest information I think it is safe to say that skeptics etc… do not need to say anymore that there has been any significant warming at all. Even skeptics say/admit that “there has been warming” this no longer holds (based on current evidence). ALL the raw data needs to be re-analysed before such statements are made

ad

Thank you Christopher.

Jason F

The lies just pile up, the main issue for me is that the more layers we peel back on the AGW gravy train the more corruption is uncovered. It’s unbelievable just the extent of how corrupt this is, for a long time I used to ask myself what do these people have to gain by claiming AGW is real? I could see the looming taxes but in the back of my mind I would think surly there must be something in this as the public face of the pro AGW debate was of impartial scientists and appointed officials with no bias and nothing to gain financially.
How wrong could I have been?
James Cameron just released a £500mil movie the most expensive ever made, how much has this AGW fiction cost so far? I’d get my popcorn to watch the wheels come off this but for the fact that I believe people have lost their lives through this fraud.
Here in the UK we have little choice in forming opinion in the political sphere both main parties have extreme climatitus, I didn’t vote at the last election UKIP are going to get my vote this time and I suspect both leading parties are in for a bit of a shock come election time.

L Gardy LaRoche

Front-page story on the Daily express:
CLIMATE CHANGE ‘LIES’ BY BRITAIN
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/146517

Brilliant review !

Andrew W

There are several points Monckton makes that don’t quite add up to me, but the one I find most intriguing is the suggestion that the masses of dead coral that coral Islands are composed of will grow as sea levels rise. Now, obviously the live coral reefs that surround these islands are growing, but the islands themselves aren’t live coral.

Lindsay H

Is there any legal redress one can take if an officer of the United Nations ie Pachauri as chair of the IPCC knowingly gives false statements in support of a political agenda.
He may claim his advisors prepare his presentations based on “peer reviewed ” papers. But his failure to reference the conflicting data or levels of uncertainty in his claims on behalf of the IPCC, shows a level of bias that should undercut the credibility him, the IPCC & the UN itself.

Perhaps not my favourite blog, but it shows up what Monckton still misses re. Pachauri: huge conflicts of interest due to the fact he is rolling in the money accruing from alarmism – like Al Gore.
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/12/vast-nexus-of-influence.html

Nigel S

Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron;
Thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.

Green Dragon

Your Lordship,
Please don’t be coy, did you get an opportunity to ask a question(s)?
If you did was it answered?
If it was not, did you make an intimate acquaintance with UN security personnel?
Regards

Nov. 23, 2009
It isn’t necessary to list all the changes I have identified between what the scientists actually said and what the policy makers who wrote the Summary for Policy Makers said they said. The process is so flawed that the result is tantamount to fraud. As an authority, the IPCC should be consigned to the scrapheap without delay.
Dr Philip Lloyd Pr Eng – former Coordinating Lead Author, UN IPCC
http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=87726

You can see the 1861-2005 temperature graph with two additional trend lines that have comparable slope and duration as the yellow trend line here:
http://agbjarn.blog.is/users/fa/agbjarn/img/ipcc1850-2005.jpg
The lines that have been added are dotted and pink.

ye Holy Bookes of Ipecac
Priceless…

Dominic

O/T I know but I have just watched a recording of last night’s BBC Newsnight program in which their “ethical man” Justin Rowlatt demonstrated the “science of global warming” in his kitchen with an audience of members of the public.
The reason for my mentioning this programme is because Sir David King, who used to be the UK chief scientist, was there and when challenged by one of the observers of the experiment about the behaviour of the scientists at the UEA, he made the claim that the “hack” was highly sophisticated and that it took place over many years and included “interception of mobile phone messages”. I think he was trying to imply that it was the russians or some state power that had done it.
This is the first time I have heard such an outrageous claim and the mobile phone issue is completely new to me. Can anyone shed any light on this.
Here is the link. It only works for UK residents. Would be good if someone could upload it to youtube. I can’t as I am in France.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/newsnight

inverse square

Andrew W,
It may have something to do with the masses of the stuff that washes up on the beaches….Last time I checked (my wedding a few months ago) coral islands are surrounded by coral beaches made up of broken off bits of coral, slowly grinding it’s way to the top of the beach…..and I reckon it would be safe to say that the angle of the beach (high top low tide) never really changes….but there is always a pile of larger coral pieces building up above the high tide mark……
I’d be pretty interested in this as well…maybe someone that frequents this blog may be able to explain….

The warming is coming! It’s scary! It’s bad!
The ice-caps are melting! The bears are so sad!
Soon they will drown and it’s ALL YOUR DARN FAULT!
So pay double for everything, now, at WalMart!
When energy doubles and triples and more,
It’s just the beginning – all prices will soar!
The warming is coming! It’s scary! It’s bad!
The ice-caps are melting! The bears are so sad!
So pay more for food – c’mon – go and see!
The corn tastes much better in my SUV!
Tax ’em says Waxman – and Markey agrees –
By spending our wages on these fantasies,
In ten years we might cool .01 degrees!
The warming is coming! It’s scary! It’s bad!
The ice-caps are melting! The bears are so sad!
Let’s go! Get aboard! This train’s out the station,
Don’t breathe out Co2 – that’s so out of fashion!
Carbon’s connected to all human efforts,
Taxed and controlled, it’s like a collective,
Oh, poor broken earth – your fever’s infected!
The warming is coming! It’s scary! It’s bad!
The ice-caps are melting! The bears are so sad!
Throw money, throw jobs, throw whatever you’ve got,
To cool every nation on earth, and, if not,
Then throw out science and all rational thinking –
Hey – it’s not like we’ll miss it – our brains have gone missing –
Sold like our souls for Gore’s fat commission…
The warming is coming! It’s already here!
Now gimme your wallet -You’ll pay for that fear…
©2009 Dave Stephens
http://www.caricaturesbydave.com

supercritical

Well, Andrew, a good question. How DO those coral islands form?
As there are a lot of them, and they are well-known, presumably the question has been studied before, and there is likely to be an answer that is readily discoverable. When you have found it, could you post it here?
And , if you post the other points that you can’t get to ‘add up’, perhaps you would post them to see if anyone here can answer them.

Martin Brumby

Just in case anyone is in doubt about how nasty things could get, just consider what will be going through the minds of the people at Copenhagen as they return home.
The eco-warriors will be absolutely furious that the ‘fat cats and the Western governments have put their profits before saving the planet’. Just as the vegetarians and anti-vivisectionists morphed into the terrorist ‘Animal Rights’ movement, there will be a eco-fascist hard core who will now go from silly civil disobedience campaigns down the terror route. Think Baader Meinhoff.
The big finance men will be disappointed that cap and trade looks more doubtful and will also blame the skeptics, certainly but also the politicians (and perhaps the Greenies for diverting their attention). But hey! Big money men make big money whether markets go up or down! So they’ll be annoyed but not too concerned.
It will give yet another headache to Brown, Rudd & Obama. But they will know that they will be at the front of the queue, when they are forced out of office, for a cushy sinecure with the new World Government. They will blame those pesky ‘flat-earth’ skeptics.
And what of all the tin pot dictators from the third world? (OK, they are not ALL tin pot dictators…) Obviously they aren’t all entirely stupid. As the ‘scientists’, the media and the Western ‘leaders’ have hyped this thing up so much, the tin pot dictators will know absolutely that there has got to be some good handouts in the offing. Sure, not as much as they hoped, but still…
But that is far from being all the benefit. They have been given a superb propaganda tool to use when they get home. “Look, I went all the way to Copenhagen to get some ‘Climate Justice’ for you all! I busted a gut but all they would give me is the lousy few hundred million (I’ve put in my Swiss Bank Account for that rainy day!) They wouldn’t pay their ‘Climate Debts’!”
“OK, I understand you haven’t any clean water. I understand your kids don’t get educated. I know there isn’t any health care or electricity in your village and you couldn’t afford it if there was. But all that’s because we have to save the world and the Yanks and Brits won’t pay their debts! ….What’s that? Bad governance and corruption? What are you talking about? Police… arrest that yankee spy!”
Just remember 9/11. In vast areas of the world today, the majority of the population have been told that 9/11 was a conspiracy by the CIA and Israel. They believe it. There is no reasoning with them. They will now be told that the reason their life is so miserable is because of the West’s ‘Climate Change’. Do you think that reasoned debate about climate science will change their minds?
You and your kids and grandkids will have all this to pay for, one way or another.
Those who have blown up this hoax MUST be held accountable.

Rhys Jaggar

Would you forward this to all warmist journalists who display their emails at their organ’s websites?
Please ask them to try and refute your arguments, point by point, line by line, and if they can’t, for them to leave journalism and enter either politics, the Masons or the Moonies.
Well written and thank you, my Lord.

It’s necessary to just keep pushing this out on the Internet. Some in the MSM are starting to listen, too few however.

Fred Lightfoot

Russian TV ( RT) in English
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=33
even if it is Russian TV it has got the message, in a interview with Michael MacCracken ( Climate Institute, IPCC Obama adviser etc ) was call a liar, mentally deficient, by Piers Corbyn as they debated climate in Copenhagen,

Clive

Thank you Lord Monckton.
Your letter (and that of SENATOR STEVE FIELDING) as posted by Iren is outstanding stuff. Everyone should read it , make a PDF copy and email to their politicians. The link repeated here.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/pachauri_letter.pdf

jaypan

Lord Monckton’s letter to Pachauri is excellent.
The part that makes me angry is Pachauri’s conflict of interest.
These are the people saying that sceptics are paid by big oil and tobacco???
I’ll distribute at least this part.
Maybe MSM and politicians understand that better than the science behind.

Cassandra King

Have a look at the UKs daily express, a national daily, the only national daily so far to cover the AAM fraud in detail.
Perhaps readers would like to pop over and offer words of gratitude for the newspapers courage in covering the scandal where many others are ignoring or covering it up?

Chris

Mr. Monckton,
Thank you so much for that report.
Our children (ages – 13 & 15), think you’re great! They have been watching your You Tube videos re: Nazie Youth, and they agree with you – without any prompting from their parents!
There is still hope….
Chris

KeithGuy

Did anyone else watch Newsnight last night?
It’s the BBC’s latest attempt to polarize the global warming debate into ‘scientists’ versus ‘sceptics’, by suggesting that anyone with any degree of scepticism towards the ‘proven Science’ behind AGW is some kind of a ‘Flat Earther’.
To prove that AGW is a real threat to civilisation they conducted an experiment that showed the relationship between CO2 and temperature in front of a very compliant audience made up of members of the public.
In the experiment two large bottles were used, one of which had CO2 added. Two ultraviolet lamps were then shone into the bottles and SHAZAM!… the bottle with the CO2 added warmed up more quickly.
I am now going to state the obvious:
to the BBC.
WE UNDERSTAND BASIC PHYSICS! We’re not as stupid as you think we are.