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.
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I have an issue with point 18.
“But the notion that going vegan will make any measurable impact on global temperatures is simply fatuous.”
Even if it is, we are soon going to have more people on this planet than we can possibly feed if people choose to eat meat. If we all went vegetarian we wouldn’t reach this point for a lot longer because of the change in trophic levels.
I wouldn’t be surprised if this article made it around the internet in a few days. It really helps to have someone in a position of power posting it (thank you kindly Monckton). Of course, we should all understand they are really pushing this through our unacknowledged understanding that pollution is destroying the planet – which they’ve highjacked into this CO2 fraud. In that case, the only thing you should take seriously is that the horrendous torture imposed upon innocent beings through the extreme over-consumption of animal flesh is dumping millions of tons of maneur, urine, blood, antibiotics, and other wonderful animal byproducts (like cow brains, think mad cow) into the water systems, which flow down with the pesticides used to create their massive amounts of feed, into the oceans where it is creating dead zones.
Emma,
“Even if it is, we are soon going to have more people on this planet than we can possibly feed if people choose to eat meat. If we all went vegetarian we wouldn’t reach this point for a lot longer because of the change in trophic levels.”
Your second point is true, but your first point is an opinion. How do you know we are soon going to have more poeple on the planet that “we can possibly feed” if people choose to eat meat?
It should be self evident that if your assertion is true then the price of meat would escalate so high that people could no longer “choose” to eat meat. They would then be rationed by price from eating meat and would be forced into turning vegetarian. And that sort of makes your second point a moot one.
Emma, we can’t feed them as it is now. And pray tell me, where is the most increase of population? In countries that already have shortage of food. Meat, vegan, doesn’t matter there. They don’t have anything to eat and they still reproduce like crazy.
Mankind is the only species that reproduces in masses, no matter the conditions.
The current overpopulation doesn’t come from meat.
It comes from stupid people.
I’m sure Pachauri is a great railroad engineer. But would I trust him on the climate? Nope. No way. It’s like needing surgery and going to your hairdresser for it.
Do I trust the UN? The very same organisation that pisses on democracy and freedom of speech? No way.
Do I trust the EU? The EU, which has been pissing on me for years now? No way.
Do I trust my government? Those people who tax me blind? Nope.
Do I trust Al Gore? Now that’s a good one. Trust Al Gore. Then I can trust Obama as well. And Hugo Chavez. What could possibly go wrong?
Everything.
No, I don’t trust any of them. Especially since they’re making claims that should alert anyone who had physics in school.
Dr. Pachauri seems to be blamed for something not actually his fault : his classification as a ‘climate scientist’.
According to the I.P.C.C. any-one that ever urinated on a copy of one of its reports can be a ‘climate scientist’ and included in the list of ‘2,500 of the world’s climate scientists’ ; the media, more than any-one else, have been the ones calling him — by virtue of his being the chairman of that panel — ‘a climate scientist’ and ‘the world’s leading climate scientist’.
There is no reason whatsoever for a railway engineer not to be able to grasp the concepts of climate science, were it a developed subject ; unfortunately even the real climate scientists — Lindzen, Singer, Clark, Michaels, Spencer &c. — admit to knowing too little about it to be able to make significant predictions, let alone the extravagant predictions, covering decades, advanced by the I.P.C.C. and the rest of the A.G.W. industry.
As others here have said, there is no excuse of ad-hominem attacks : they add nothing useful.
Martin Brumby (01:26:43) :
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.
—-
Sobering, but realistic projection of the (future and present) hatred coming from these “people”.
From point 3 in the article :
“The truth, however – neatly obscured by an ingenious rescaling of the graph and the superimposition of the four bogus trend lines on it”
Where is this rescaling of the map that the author of this article is saying he can see? I can’t see any rescaling of the map. Maybe someone can explain what the author of the article is talking about because to me it looks like the numbering on the axis is evenly spaced.
The “four bogus trend lines” are for periods of 25, 50, 100 and 150 years. How is this bogus when the trend lines are chosen because they are multiples of 25 year periods or one generation? This does not seem bogus to me. If they had chosen periods that had no relation to one another then i would be suspicious but this is not the case. Seems to me the author of this article is a bit bogus himself.
Regarding the graph, it appears that the problem is not so much in the horizontal axis, which as Vincent pointed out is evenly spaced and spanning the area of time that is supposedly being addressed. Although I think the graph needs further explanation as to the origin of the data and how it is being used, it appears that it is the VERTICAL axis that is deceptive.
Why would they be charting the period of 1860-2010 based on its relation to the apparently cherry-picked timeframe of 1961-1990? Why should it matter how 150 years compares to an arbitrary period of 30 years within those 150 years? Because most people expect the vertical axis of a graph to represent increase (or decrease) in amount or volume, this graph becomes deceptive. It’s vertical axis represents a DIFFERENCE in temperature between these two periods, not a rising or lowering of temperatures.
If they meant for this graph to be useful, transparent and honest, they would present the temperature data as one would expect: with the rise in tend as you look toward the right of the graph representing the actual rise in temperatures over that 150 year period IN RELATION TO ITSELF (not in relation to its difference from the 30-year period from 1961-1990). Also, given that we know temperatures have been declining over the past decade (which the global warming theorists have had to concede, while now claiming that that’s just another part of warming), it is apparent that the chart DOES NOT illustrate the rise of temperature from 1860-2010. As far as I can tell, it probably actually represents the rise in temperatures between 1961-1990, which was probably the height of rising temperatures before they started falling again. What do you think?
No Lisa, I was talking about both vertical and horizontal axis when i said they were evenly spaced. I really don’t know what Lord Monckton is going on about when he claims the axis have been rescaled. They have not been rescaled in any way that i can see. The numbers for both horizontal and vertical axis are evenly spaced. He needs to explain why he wrote that because what he wrote looks to be totally wrong and misleading.
As to the question of why the graph shows only the period from around 1860-2010. Well it’s another failure of this article that this hasn’t been explained. I believe the reason is because around 1860 was when instrumental measurements of temperature started to be taken. You can use proxies instead if you want to reconstruct an earlier period.
The graph shows what the temperature was in each and every year since around the 1860s so of course it illustrates the rise in temps since 1860. I don’t know how anyone can say otherwise when you can clearly see the dots on the graph are for temperature in each and every year from around 1860 to our current decade. It clearly shows the long term trend of rising temperatures.
Surely it is entirely appropriate that a railway engineer be put in charge of a gravy train?
Oops, I was wrong on some specifics – I don’t have the time for this, really. I wasn’t concerned about the timeframe of 1860-2010; it was the vertical axis of 1961-1990 that doesn’t make sense, at least according to how graphs are generally designed. Monckton may understand the graph, but he may not be a very good teacher, and thus may not be describing it clearly (I doubt I’m a teacher of data by nature, either).
The graph cannot show a trend of rising temperatures because the increase shown in the chart represents a “difference” between specific temperatures, not the actual temperatures themselves.
Note how the vertical axis title states that it represents a “difference” from 1961-1990. A difference, in such cases, usually represents the subtraction of one item from another: the difference between the two items. It also appears that this represents the difference of a given year as it relates to the AVERAGE of the years 1961-1990 (averaged after they are added together). I don’t believe any scaling has been changed, per se; but it appears that the vertical “0” point has been altered to create a false impression. You cannot have a difference that is negative. Differences are always positive (nothing can get less different than ‘the same,’ which is represented by “0” difference).
While it appears that the timeframe between 1860-1975ish illustrates an increase in temperature, it really illustrates an increase in the DIFFERENCE between the temperatures of a specific year (between 1860-1975ish) and 1961-1990. That is probably why the numbers take a dip prior to 1960. Just prior to 1960, the difference between a given year on the horizontal axis and the average temperature of 1961-1990 would be somewhat decreased, because the timeframes are getting closer together (and thus the differences are decreasing). Chances are that a similar dip doesn’t occur after 1990 because temperatures began DECREASING at a slightly accelerated rate than they had previously risen, which indeed would be illustrated as a ‘higher’ DIFFERENCE. That difference, however, could be in EITHER HIGHER OR LOWER temperatures – it is only a difference as it relates to the period of 1961-1990 (as the vertical axis indicates).
To get an idea of this, print out the graph and draw vertical lines at 1960 and 1990. Then draw horizontal lines at 0.3 and -0.3. Note how the data inside the resulting box averages around 0 on the vertical axis. Is this because the period of 1960-1990 is used as the average from which a “difference” is to be determined (on the vertical axis)? The horizontal axis therefore represents how different the temperature was from the data in that box you just drew. It appears that something else is involved here, and that might be explained by the likelihood that the location of “0” on the vertical axis was altered. Again, you can’t have a negative difference, so there can’t be a -0.5 difference between the temperatures of, say 1920 and (the average of) 1961-1990. It would appear that these ‘scientists’ took their data and put it into as many scenarios as they could until they came up with a mathematical graph that would simply LOOK like a constant rise in temperature (when, in this case, it actually represents a difference in temperatures, not a rise in temperatures).
Also, what exactly are “estimated actual” global mean temperatures? They are clearly labeled “estimated,” so they cannot represent “actual” temperatures. Adding the word actual was either deceptive or indicative of a lack of professionalism. So, if these “actual global mean temperatures” are in reality “estimated,” what did they do to estimate these so-called-actual mean temperatures? Note also how the “Difference (C) from 1961-1990” begins at -0.8 but stops at 0.6 (not 0.8), even though there is no data below -0.6 (which in itself is a difference that is impossible). This serves to increase the false impression that the temperatures are raising ‘off the chart.’
I sincerely agree that we should all be concerned about the future of Earth, and they are using this subconsciously to encourage us to believe them (which is not scientific). It is pollution, however, of the water, animals, plants, atmosphere and even airwaves that has grown to such an extreme that it is threatening the life of the planet itself. One must ask why the international global warming theorists are suggesting nothing to address this, as it is obvious that it should be a central issue of reducing the footprint of humans on our planet.
That was all probably way too long to post.
The matters raised by Lisa & Vincent :
First, the scaling. I confess that — unless he mean simply that the bottom of the right-hand y-axis be 13.2 rather than zero — I don’t really understand Monckton’s complaint about the ‘re-scaling of the graph’ : all the scales on the axes are linear. The only adjustment to the scaling that would have been necessary for the graph to make sense is inversion of the differences (multiplication by -1) ; v.i.
Secondly, Lisa’s point about not having negative differences. Consider this : let ‘a’ be the mean temp. in the years 1961-1998 (the datum) ; ‘b’ the temp. in any given year (the variable) ; the difference is given by the formula ‘b – a’ (variable minus datum).
If therefore the temp. in any given year be greater than the mean for 1961-1998, the difference will be negative ; hence the need (v.s.) to invert this set of data before plotting it, the negative becoming positive and vice versa.
The need of inversion arises only through mathematical convention and is not one of the A.G.W. industry’s ‘tricks’ of which we have recently heard so much.
Thirdly, the superimposition of the trend lines. Although it is obvious that the start dates of these have been chosen because years of low mean temp., it actually makes no difference where a trend line starts (unless perversely you start in 1998) : warming to some extent will be disclosed.
Whether the Earth is warming is not really the point at issue, however, for the climate has always varied and always will ; what matters are (a) whether the variation in climate arise from changes in the atmospheric concentration of carbon-dioxide and, if so (and only if so), (b) the extent, if any, to which the activities of man give rise to these changes. For upon the answer to these questions depend policy and the expenditure of vast amounts of our children’s and grand-children’s income.
The presentation of this graph, by side-stepping the enormous rise in the global level of industrial activity since the War, obfuscates this — the most important — point.
Sorry ; the second paragraph of my second point was back-to-front :
“If therefore the temp. in any given year be greater than the mean for 1961-1998, the difference will be negative ; hence the need (v.s.) to invert this set of data before plotting it, the negative becoming positive and vice versa.”
That ought to have read —
“If therefore the temp. in any given year (‘b’) be _less_ than the mean for 1961-1998 (‘a’), the difference (‘b – a’) will be negative ; hence the need …”
And Homer nods …
Absolutely. The graph is not terribly important, aside from the fact that it is part of the information being used to support a controversial theory (theories are neither true nor false, only useful or not useful) that in itself is not addressing a very tangible, uncontestable problem – pollution from over-industrialization.
It is possible that the difference is being calculated as Pericles stated – but what is meant by “difference” in the graph is not unambiguous. For example, let’s say that the average temperature for 1961-1990 is 14.0c, then:
If 1920 was 13.7c, then : 14.0 – 13.7 = 0.3 (but the chart says -0.3)
If 2000 was 14.4c, then: 14.0 – 14.4 = -0.4 (but the chart says 0.4)
However, have the graph’s authors definitely specified that they are literally subtracting a given year from the average of 1961-1990? It appears that they may simply be charting how different a given year is from the average of 1961-1990, in which case:
1920 would be 0.3, because that is how much 13.7 differs from 14.0
2000 would be 0.4, because that is how much 14.4 differs from 14.0
We don’t know. It doesn’t specify. We do know, however, that temperatures have been decreasing for the past decade, so the chart could not be accurate if it were claiming temperatures were continuing to rise at present. Given that fact, which has been recently acknowledged by the global warming theorists, one must wonder how they managed to continue the upward trend into the 2000s in this very strange concept of a graph.
Aha ! What Lisa says throws up another correction I ought to have made to my text : the fact that the difference given by the formula ‘b – a’ is negative when the year’s mean temp. (‘b’) is less than the average for 1961-1998 (‘a’) obviates the need to invert these data. So the difference was not exactly being ‘calculated as Pericles stated’ : sorry again !
Where Lisa is confusing herself, I think, is in subtracting ‘b’ from ‘a’, which is opposite to the normal way in which mathematicians and statisticians effect such calculations. Normally one subtracts the datum from the measured variable to arrive at the difference for that data point.
What the graph, taking the trend line for the 150-year period (red), appears to tell us is that the mean temp. has risen over that period by about three-fifths of a Celsius degree : about two-fifths of a degree per century.
I haven’t actually made the same calculation starting in 1940 — the point at which industrial &c. output of carbon-oxides increased dramatically owing to the marked increase in industrial activity — but I’d guess, from inspection, that it would be around one-quarter of a Celsius degree, also near-enough two-fifths of a degree per century.
All nit-picking argument over whether the temp. is rising however merely diverts attention from the only important questions : whether carbon-dioxide variation be the cause of the change and, if so, whether human activity lie behind it.
I’m sorry to say this, but Lord Mockton got the math wrong in #15. Radiative forcing for one-year change in CO2-concentration is 5,35*ln(390/388) = 0,0275 W/m^2; change in surface temperature to balance the radiative forcing is ~0,007 K; and taking climate sensitivity into account as stated by IPCC, we get temperatures rise by ~0,02K.
Sir;
Thank you for your efforts. Of course a railway engineer is not an idiot, but is far from a expert in anythng to do with climate. Why are all the faces of the global warming avocates English teachers, railway engineers, failed Havard Divinity School students and failed politians? Because it is not about science. It is about power, which is money. Always follow the money if you want to determine what is what.
How long are we going to let the “liar liar pants on fire” brigade get away with giving the world a load of shit about the climate?
These tossers need to receive the BIG MESSAGE.
I am very proud of what you are doing to expose this travesty. I feel so vindicated. Please don’t give up, and keep on the media to cover this more and more. I continue to push my blog on twitter, but my blog is mostly articles from others with the same opinion as mine, I doubt anyone will mind :
http://climategatehoax.blogspot.com/
On the down side, I find myself on Sarah Palins side, and that scares me !! LOL …All the best everyone !
Mr. Vindicated
” 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. …….”
As well as being vastly more entertaining, Lord Monckton’s is the only type of peer review that has any credibility left in ‘climate science’.
“Bill Tuttle (02:02:59)
Not sure how you can claim that an engineer, railway or otherwise, has no background in the physical sciences. What do you think engineers do? How do you think one gets awarded an engineering degree?
”
If they can no longer rely on Global Warming, then Eurostar could sure use some railway engineers.
I have always been a confirmed sceptic on this issue – until recently when I ceased merely being a ‘sceptic’ and became utterly convinced that the CO2/warming hypothesis has all been a monumental con with no basis in science. I follow everything Lord Monckton says on this issue (as well as many others, on both sides).
What I would suggest, is that everyone reading my comment now, finds out the name and email address of their local MP/political representitive (a little Googling will find the info very easily – just type “MP (or your country’s equivilent) for….” and your local area), opens up their Outlook/email server and sends an email voicing their concern for the political operations currently in motion in spite of the Climategate revelations, and in spite of thousands of scientists who have voiced opposition to the IPCC assessments.
Do it NOW, PLEASE. I emailed my local MP a few days ago, and have had an acknowledgent email already – although I am still awaiting a full response – understandable to be delayed at this time of year, to be fair.
So do it. Voice your concerns, quote some facts, and be heard.
Our freedom is at stake.
I would like to thank you Lord Monckton for the effort and energy that you expend to keeping us informed on these issues.
It is so obvious to me that the bold faced lies that we have fed concerning global warming are all about and control.
I live in Alberta Canada and I am painfully aware of the efforts that greenpeace to shut down our oilsands. It is astonishing to me how some would love to see the destruction of an entire industry without even entertaining the slightest debate of the facts.
Thank you Lord Monckton
Lord Monckton, who also claimed to have won the Nobel Prize while in Australia, should be in stand-up comedy. We are living in the shadow of the vanishing snows and melting glaciers, on both Indian and Chinese sides, not in some comfortable armchair.
Please get real?
Well done, Lord Monckton, and thank you.