A letter sent from: The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
1 January 2010
His Excellency Mr. Kevin Rudd,
Prime Minister, Commonwealth of Australia.
Prime Minister,
Climate change: proposed personal briefing
Your speech on 6 November 2009 to the Lowy Institute, in which you publicly expressed some concern at my approach to the climate question, has prompted several leading Australian citizens to invite me come on tour to explain myself in a series of lectures in Australia later this month. I am writing to offer personal briefings on why “global warming” is a non-problem to you and other party leaders during my visit. For convenience, I am copying this letter to them, and to the Press.
Your speech mentioned my remarks about the proposal for world “government” in the early drafts of what had been intended as a binding Copenhagen Treaty. These proposals were not, as you suggested, a “conspiracy theory” from the “far right” with “zero basis in evidence”. Your staff will find them in paragraphs 36-38 of the main text of Annex 1 to the 15 September draft of the Treaty. The word “government” appears twice at paragraph 38. After much adverse publicity in democratic countries, including Australia, the proposals were reluctantly dropped before Copenhagen.
You say I am one of “those who argue that any multilateral action is by definition evil”. On the contrary: my first question is whether any action at all is required, to which – as I shall demonstrate – the objective economic and scientific answer is No. Even if multilateral action were required, which it is not, national governments in the West are by tradition democratically elected. Therefore, a fortiori, transnational or global governments should also be made and unmade by voters at the ballot-box. The climate ought not to be used as a shoddy pretext for international bureaucratic-centralist dictatorship. We committed Europeans have had more than enough of that already with the unelected but all-powerful Kommissars of the hated EU, who make nine-tenths of our laws by decree (revealingly, they call them “Directives” or “Commission Regulations”). The Kommissars (that is the official German word for them) inflict their dictates upon us regardless of what the elected European or any other democratic Parliament says or wishes. Do we want a worldwide EU? No.
You say I am one of “those who argue that climate change does not represent a global market failure”. Yet it is only recently that opinion sufficient to constitute a market signal became apparent in the documents of the IPCC, which is, however, a political rather than a scientific entity. There has scarcely been time for a “market failure”. Besides, corporations are falling over themselves to cash in on the giant financial fraud against the little guy that carbon taxation and trading have already become in the goody-two-shoes EU – and will become in Australia if you get your way.
You say I was one of “those who argue that somehow the market will magically solve the problem”. In fact I have never argued that, though in general the market is better at solving problems than the habitual but repeatedly-failed dirigisme of the etatistes predominant in the classe politique today.
The questions I address are a) whether there is a climate problem at all; and b) even if there is one, and even if per impossibile it is of the hilariously-overblown magnitude imagined by the IPCC, whether waiting and adapting as and if necessary is more cost-effective than attempting to mitigate the supposed problem by trying to reduce the carbon dioxide our industries and enterprises emit.
Let us pretend, solum ad argumentum, that a given proportionate increase in CO2 concentration causes the maximum warming imagined by the IPCC. The IPCC’s bureaucrats are careful not to derive a function that will convert changes in CO2 concentration directly to equilibrium changes in temperature. I shall do it for them.
We derive the necessary implicit function from the IPCC’s statement to the effect that equilibrium surface warming ΔT at CO2 doubling will be (3.26 ± ln 2) C°. Since the IPCC, in compliance with Beer’s Law, defines the radiative forcing effect of CO2 as logarithmic rather than linear, our implicit function can be derived at once. The coefficient is the predicted warming at CO2 doubling divided by the logarithm of 2, and the term (C/C0) is the proportionate increase in CO2 concentration. Thus,
ΔT = (4.7 ± 1) ln(C/C0) | Celsius degrees
We are looking at the IPCC’s maximum imagined warming rate, so we simply write –
ΔT = 5.7 ln(C/C0) | Celsius degrees
Armed with this function telling us the maximum equilibrium warming that the IPCC predicts from any given change in CO2 concentration, we can now determine, robustly, the maximum equilibrium warming that is likely to be forestalled by any proposed cut in the current upward path of CO2 emissions. Let me demonstrate.
By the end of this month, according to the Copenhagen Accord, all parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change are due to report what cuts in emissions they will make by 2020. Broadly speaking, the Annex 1 parties, who will account for about half of global emissions over the period, will commit to reducing current emissions by 30% by 2020, or 15% on average in the decade between now and 2020.
Thus, if and only if every Annex 1 party to the Copenhagen Accord complies with its obligations to the full, today’s emissions will be reduced by around half of that 15%, namely 7.5%, compared with business as usual. If the trend of the past decade continues, with business as usual we shall add 2 ppmv/year, or 20 ppmv over the decade, to atmospheric CO2 concentration. Now, 7.5% of 20 ppmv is 1.5 ppmv.
We determine the warming forestalled over the coming decade by comparing the business-as-usual warming that would occur between now and 2020 if we made no cuts in CO2 emissions with the lesser warming that would follow full compliance with the Copenhagen Accord. Where today’s CO2 concentration is 388 ppmv –
Business as usual: ΔT = 5.7 ln(408.0/388) = 0.29 C°
– Copenhagen Accord: ΔT = 5.7 ln(406.5/388) = 0.27 C°
= “Global warming” forestalled, 2010-2020: 0.02 C°
One-fiftieth of a Celsius degree of warming forestalled is all that complete, global compliance with the Copenhagen Accord for an entire decade would achieve. Yet the cost of achieving this result – an outcome so small that our instruments would not be able to measure it – would run into trillions of dollars. Do your Treasury models demonstrate that this calculation is in any way erroneous? If they do, junk them.
You say “formal global and national economic modelling” shows “that the costs of inaction are greater than the costs of acting”. You ask for my “equivalent evidence basis to Treasury modelling published by the Government of the industry and employment impacts of climate change”. I respond that the rigorous calculation that I have described, which your officials may verify for themselves, shows that whatever costs may be imagined to flow from anthropogenic “global warming” will scarcely be mitigated at all, even by trillions of dollars of expenditure over the coming decade.
Every economic analysis except that of the now-discredited Lord Stern, with its near-zero discount rate and its absurdly inflated warming rates, comes to the same ineluctable conclusion: adaptation to climate change, in whatever direction, as and if necessary, is orders of magnitude more cost-effective than attempts at mitigation. In a long career in policy analysis in and out of government, I have never seen so cost-ineffective a proposed waste of taxpayers’ money as the trillions which today’s scientifically-illiterate governments propose to spend on attempting – with all the plausibility of King Canute – to stop the tide from coming in.
Remember that I have done this calculation on the basis that everyone who should comply with the Copenhagen Accord actually does comply. Precedent does not look promising. The Kyoto Protocol, the Copenhagen Accord’s predecessor, has been in operation for more than a decade, and it was supposed to reduce global CO2 emissions by 2012. So far, after billions spent on global implementation of Kyoto, global CO2 emissions have risen compared with when Kyoto was first signed.
Remember too that we have assumed the maximum warming that the CO2 imagines might occur in response to a given proportionate increase in CO2 concentration. Yet even the IPCC’s central estimate of CO2’s warming effect, according to an increasing number of serious papers in the peer-reviewed literature, is a five-fold exaggeration. If those papers are right, after a further decade of incomplete compliance and billions squandered, warming forestalled may prove to be just a thousandth of a degree.
Now ask yourself this. Are you, personally, and your advisers, personally, and your administration’s officials, personally, willing to make the heroically pointless sacrifices that you so insouciantly demand of others in the name of Saving The Planet For Future Generations? I beg leave to think not. At Flag 1 I have attached what I have reason to believe is a generally accurate list of the names and titles of the delegation that you led to Copenhagen to bring back the non-result whose paltriness, pointlessness and futility we have now rigorously demonstrated. There are 114 names on the list. One hundred and fourteen. Enough to fill a mid-sized passenger jet. Half a dozen were all that was really necessary – and perhaps one from each State in Australia. If you and your officials are not willing to tighten your belts when a tempting foreign junket at taxpayers’ expense is in prospect, why, pray, should the taxpayers tighten theirs?
You say that climate-change “deniers” – nasty word, that, and you should really have known better than to use it – are “small in number but too dangerous to be ignored”, and “well resourced”. In fact, governments, taxpayer-funded organizations, taxpayer-funded teachers, and taxpayer-funded environmental groups have spent something like 50,000 times as much on “global warming” propaganda as their opponents have spent on debunking this new and cruel superstition. And that is before we take account of the relentless prejudice of the majority of the mainstream news media.
How, then, it is that we, the supposed minority who will not admit that the emperor of “global warming” is adequately clad, are somehow prevailing? How is it that we are convincing more and more of the population not to place any more trust in the “global warming” theory? The answer is that the “global warming” theory is not true, and no amount of bluster or braggadocio, ranting or rodomontade will make it true.
You say that our aim, in daring to oppose the transient fashion for apocalypticism, is “to erode just enough of the political will that action becomes impossible”. No. Our aim is simply to ensure that the truth is widely enough understood to prevent the squandering of precious resources on addressing the non-problem of anthropogenic “global warming”. The correct policy response to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing. No interventionist likes to do nothing. Nevertheless, the do-nothing option, scientifically and economically speaking, is the right option.
You say that I and others like me base our thinking on the notion that “the cost of not acting is nothing”. Well, after a decade and a half with no statistically-significant “global warming”, and after three decades in which the mean warming rate has been well below the ever-falling predictions of the UN’s climate panel, that notion has certainly not been disproven in reality.
However, the question I address is not that but this. Is the cost of taking action many times greater than the cost of not acting? The answer to this question is Yes.
Millions are already dying of starvation in the world’s poorest nations because world food prices have doubled in two years. That abrupt, vicious doubling was caused by a sharp drop in world food production, caused in turn by suddenly taking millions of acres of land out of growing food for people who need it, so as to grow biofuels for clunkers that don’t. The scientifically-illiterate, economically-innumerate policies that you advocate – however fashionable you may conceive them to be – are killing people by the million.
You say my logic “belongs in a casino, not a science lab”. Yet it is you who are gambling with poor people’s lives, and it is you – or, rather, they – who are losing: and losing not merely their substance but their very existence. The biofuel scam is born of the idiotic notion – a notion you uncritically espouse – that increasing by less than 1/2000 this century the proportion of the Earth’s atmosphere occupied by CO2 may prove catastrophic. At a time when so many of the world’s people are already short of food, the UN’s right-to-food rapporteur, Herr Ziegler, has roundly and rightly condemned the biofuel scam as nothing less than “a crime against humanity”.
The scale of the slaughter is monstrous, with food riots (largely unreported in the Western news media, and certainly not mentioned by you in your recent speech) in a dozen regions of the Third World over the past two years. Yet this cruel, unheeded slaughter is founded upon a lie: the claim by the IPCC that it is 90% certain that most of the “global warming” since 1950 is manmade. This claim – based not on science but on a show of hands among political representatives, with China wanting a lower figure and other nations wanting a higher figure – is demonstrably, self-servingly false. Peer-reviewed analyses of changes in cloud cover over recent decades – changes almost entirely unconnected with changes in CO2 concentration – show that it was this largely-natural reduction in cloud cover from 1983-2001 and a consequent increase in the amount of short-wave and UV solar radiation reaching the Earth that accounted for five times as much warming as CO2 could have caused.
Nor is the IPCC’s great lie the only lie. If you will allow me to brief you and your advisers, I will show you lie after lie after lie after lie in the official documents of the IPCC and in the speeches of its current chairman, who has made himself a multi-millionaire as a “global warming” profiteer.
However, if you will not make the time to hear me for half an hour before you commit your working people to the futile indignity of excessive taxation and pointless over-regulation without the slightest scientific or economic justification, and to outright confiscation of their farmland without compensation on the fatuous pretext that the land is a “carbon sink”, then I hope that you will at least nominate one of the scientists on your staff to address the two central issues that I have raised in this letter: namely, the egregious cost-ineffectiveness of attempting to mitigate “global warming” by emissions reduction, and the measured fact, well demonstrated in the scientific literature, that a largely-natural change in cloud cover in recent decades caused five times as much “global warming” as CO2. It is also a measured fact that, while those of the UN’s computer models that can be forced with an increase in sea-surface temperatures all predict a consequent fall in the flux of outgoing radiation at top of atmosphere, in observed reality there is an increase. In short, the radiation that is supposed to be trapped here in the troposphere to cause “global warming” is measured as escaping to space much as usual, so that it cannot be causing more than around one-fifth of the warming the IPCC predicts.
My list of the Copenhagen junketers from Australia’s governing class is attached. All those taxpayer dollars squandered, just to forestall 0.02 C° of “global warming” in ten years. Yet, in the past decade and a half, there has been no “global warming” at all. Can you not see that it would be kinder to your working people to wait another decade and see whether global temperatures even begin to respond as the IPCC has predicted? What is the worst that can happen if you wait? Just 0.02 C° of global warming that would not otherwise have occurred. It’s a no-brainer.
Yours faithfully,
VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY
THE RUDD GOVERNMENT’S COPENHAGEN JUNKET LIST
December 2009
The following 114 officials or representatives of the Australian Government and of State administrations attended the UN climate conference at Copenhagen in December 2009 –
1. Kevin Michael Rudd, Prime Minister
2. Penelope Wong, Minister, Clim. Chg. & Water
3. Louise Helen Hand, Ambassador for Clim. Chg.
4. David Fredericks, Dep. Chf. of Staff, Dept. of the Prime Minister
5. Philip Green Oam, Sen. Policy Advr., Foreign Affairs Dept.
6. Andrew Charlton, Sen. Advr., Prime Minister’s Dept.
7. Lachlan Harris, Sen. Press Sec., Prime Minister’s Office
8. Scott Dewar, Sen. Advr., Prime Minister’s Office
9. Clare Penrose, Advr., Prime Minister’s Office
10. Fiona Sugden, Media Advr., Prime Minister’s Office
11. Lisa French, Prime Minister’s Office12. Jeremy Hilman, Advr., Prime Minister’s Office
13. Tarah Barzanji, Advr., Prime Minister’s Office
14. Kate Shaw, Exec. Sec., Prime Minister’s Office
15. Gaile Barnes, Exec. Asst., Prime Minister’s Office
16. Gordon de Brouwer, Dep. Sec. Prime Minister’s Dept.
17. Patrick Suckling, 1st Asst. Sec., Intl. Div., Prime Minister’s Office\
18. Rebecca Christie, Prime Minister’s Office
19. Michael Jones, Official Photographer, Prime Minister & Cabinet
20. Stephan Rudzki
21. David Bell, Federal Agent, Aus. Federal Police
22. Kym Baillie, Aus. Federal Police
23. David Champion, Aus. Federal Police
24. Matt Jebb, Federal Agent Aus. Federal Police
25. Craig Kendall, Federal Agent, Aus. Federal Police
26. Squadron Leader Ian Lane, Staff Offr., VIP Operations
27. John Olenich, Media Advr., to Minister Wong, Office of Clim. Chg. & Water
28. Kristina Hickey, Advr. to Minister Wong, Office of Clim. Chg. & Water
29. Martin Parkinson, Sec., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
30. Howard Bamsey, Special Envoy for Clim. Chg., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
31. Robert Owen-Jones, Asst. Sec., Intl. Div., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
32. Clare Walsh Asst. Sec., Intl. Div., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
33. Jenny Elizabeth Wilkinson, Policy Advr., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
34. Elizabeth Peak, Princ. Legal Advr., Intl. Clim. Law, Dept. of Clim. Chg.
35. Kristin Tilley, Dir., Multilat. Negots., Intl. Div., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
36. Andrew Ure, Actg. Dir., Multilat. Negots., Intl. Div., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
37. Annemarie Watt, Dir., Land Sector Negots., Intl. Div., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
38. Kushla Munro, Dir., Intl. Forest Carbon Sectn. Intl. Div., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
39. Kathleen Annette Rowley, Dir., Strategic & Tech. Analysis, Dept. of Clim. Chg.
40. Anitra Cowan Asst. Dir., Multilat. Negots., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
41. Sally Truong, Asst. Dir., Multilat. Negots., Intl. Div. Dept. of Clim. Chg.
42. Jane Wilkinson, Asst. Dir., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
43. Tracey Mackay, Asst. Dir., Intl. Div., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
44. Laura Brown, Asst. Dir., Multilat. Negots., Intl. Div., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
45. Tracey-Anne Leahey, Delegation Mgr., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
46. Nicola Loffler, Sen. Legal Advr., Intl. Clim. Law, Dept. of Clim. Chg.
47. Tamara Curll, Legal Advr., Intl. Clim. Law, Dept. of Clim. Chg.
48. Jessica Allen, Legal Support Offr., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
49. Sanjiva de Silva, Legal Advr., Intl. Clim. Law, Dept. of Clim. Chg.
50. Gaia Puleston, Political Advr., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
51. Penelope Morton, Policy Advr., UNFCCC Negots., Intl. Div., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
52. Claire Elizabeth Watt, Policy Advr., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
53. Amanda Walker, Policy Offr., Multilat. Negots., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
54. Alan David Lee, Policy Advr., Land Sector Negots., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
55. Erika Kate Oord, Aus. Stakeholder Mgr., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
56. Jahda Kirian Swanborough, Comms. Mgr., Ministerial Comms., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
57. H.E. Sharyn Minahan, Ambassador, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
58. Julia Feeney, Dir., Clim. Chg. & Envir., Dept. of Foreign Affairs & Trade
59. Chester Geoffrey Cunningham, 2nd Sec., DFAT, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to Germany
60. Rachael Cooper, Exec. Offr., Clim. Chg. & Envir., Dept. of Foreign Affairs & Trade
61. Rachael Grivas, Exec. Offr., Envir. Branch, Dept. of Foreign Affairs & Trade
62. Moya Collett, Desk Offr., Clim. Chg. & Envir. Sectn., Dept. of Foreign Affairs & Trade
63. Rob Law, Dept. of Foreign Affairs & Trade
64. Robin Davies, Asst. Dir. Gen., Sustainable Devel. Gp., Aus. Agency for Intl. Devel.
65. Deborah Fulton, Dir., Policy & Global Envir., Aus. Agency for Intl. Devel.
66. Katherine Vaughn, Policy Advr., Policy & Global Envir., Aus. Agency for Intl. Devel.
67. Brian Dawson, Policy Advr., Aus. Agency for Intl. Devel.
68. Andrew Leigh Clarke, Dep. Sec., Dept. of Res. Devel., Western Aus.
69. Bruce Wilson, Gen. Mgr., Envir. Energy & Envir. Div., Dept. of Resrc. Devel., W. Aus.
70. Jill McCarthy, Policy Advr., Dept. of Resrc., Energy & Tourism
71. Simon French, Policy Advr., Dept. of Agriculture, Fisheries & Forestry
72. Ian Michael Ruscoe, Policy Advr., Dept. of Agriculture, Fisheries & Forestry
73. David Walland, Acting Supt., Nat. Clim. Centre, Bureau of Meteorology
74. Damien Dunn Sen. Policy Advr., Aus. Treasury
75. Helen Hawka Fuhrman, Policy Offr., Renewable Energy Policy & Partnerships
76. Scott Vivian Davenport, Chf., Economics, NSW Dept. of Industry & Invest.
77. Graham Julian Levitt, Policy Mgr., Clim. Chg., NSW Dept. of Industry & Invest.
78. Kate Jennifer Jones, Minister, Clim. Chg. & Sustainability, Qld. Govt.
79. Michael William Dart, Princ. Policy Advr., Office of Kate Jones, MP, Qld. Govt.
80. Matthew Anthony Jamie Skoien, Sen. Dir., Office of Clim. Chg. Qld. Govt.
81. Michael David Rann, Premier, S. Aus. Dept. of Premier & Cabinet, S. Aus.
82. Suzanne Kay Harter, Advr., Dept. of Premier & Cabinet, S. Aus.
83. Paul David Flanagan, Mgr., Comms., Govt. of S. Aus.
84. Timothy O’Loughlin, Dep. Chf. Exec., Sust. & Wkfc. Mgmt., S. Aus. Dept. of Premier
85. Nyla Sarwar M.Sc, student, Linacre College, University of Oxford
86. Gavin Jennings, Minister, Envir. & Clim. Chg. & Innovation, Victorian Govt.
87. Sarah Broadbent, Sustainability Advr.
88. Rebecca Falkingham, Sen. Advr., Victoria Govt./Office of Clim. Chg.
89. Simon Camroux, Policy Advr., Energy Supply Ass. of Aus. Ltd.
90. Geoff Lake, Advr., Aus. Local Govt. Ass.
91. Sridhar Ayyalaraju, Post Visit Controller, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
92. Tegan Brink Dep. Visit Controller & Security Liaison Offr., Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
93. Melissa Eu Suan Goh, Trspt. Liaison Offr. & Consul, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
94. Lauren Henschke, Support Staff, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
95. Maree Fay, Accommodation Liaison Offr., Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
96. Patricia McKinnon, Comms. Offr., Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
97. Eugene Olim, Passport/Baggage Liaison Offr., Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
98. Belinda Lee Adams
99. Jacqui Ashworth, Media Liaison Offr., Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
100. Patricia Smith, Media Liaison Offr., Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
101. Martin Bo Jensen, Research & Public Dipl. Offr., Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
102. Mauro Kolobaric, Consular Support, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
103. Susan Flanagan, Consular Support, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
104. Stephen Kanaridis, IT Support Offr., Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
105. George Reid, Support Staff, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
106. Ashley Wright, Support Staff, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
107. Jodie Littlewood, Support Staff, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
108. Thomas Millhouse, Support Staff, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
109. Timothy Whittley, Support Staff Driver, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
110. Julia Thomson, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
111. Donald Frater, Chf. of Staff to Minister Wong Office of Clim. Chg. & Water
112. Jacqui Smith, Media Liaison, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
113. Greg French, Sen. Legal Advr. (Envir.), Dept. of Foreign Affairs & Trade
114. Jeremy Hillman, Advr., Prime Minister’s Office
Sponsored IT training links:
Our 199-01 prep course includes all important tips and tools that one must have to go through to pass 642-611 and 642-654 exam.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
as an aussie who joined climatesceptics after hearing Rudds Offensive damning of anyone who dared disagree with his Jackboot ideas for how we Shall act..
I am pleased it was climatesceptics who invited him here!
donations are gladly accepted to assist, as oil companies and carbon traders with vested interests are NOT funding his visit:-)
I have sent the UWT link to the local paper however as a Murdoch subsidiary. hmm I doubt the edior has the guts to use it.
I am printing it and plan to hand it out all over the town:-) as a small act to educate
the “big words” and math may confuse many.
but the answer to the sums, is pretty easy to figure out:-)
naff all for a lot of grief!
Kyoto is killing farmers here, see Peter Spencer Hunger strike(www.Agmates.com), will KRUDD even talk to him?
NO
and he enabled a scam to blockade people on buses to be pulled over for fictitious safety checks for up to 6hrs!! to stop the protestors who wish to calmly express their disgust over stolen+ unpaid!!! land reclamations in the name of Kyoto.
Underhanded? yes
devious? yes.
gutless? YES!
He will be voted out asap!
sadly until we get Abbott to wake up a little more I don’t want to vote for him either.
Are we coming?
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:2UdyT1bdC4wJ:www.silobreaker.com/jonathan-w-greenert-11_86752304+us+navy+planning+for+global+warming&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a
Or are we going?
http://solveclimate.com/blog/20091016/fuel-thirsty-u-s-navy-pledges-50-cut-oil-use-2020-and-more
If we don’t have the fuel to get there, why even bother to plan the journey in the first place? Perhaps ‘planning’ is all they think they can afford after the massive destruction of our economy by the “geniuses” currently at the helm?
Personally, I think that they are nearly all nuts.
Here downunder, the Socialist Left parademe has captured the three tiers of education and consequently the MSM. Some sceptics consider that PM Rudd has set his sites on becoming Secretary General of the U.N. He will not be persuaded to change direction by the compelling arguments and evidence presented by Lord Monkton or any one else. Only if the evidence of corrupt data and CRU climategate bypasses the MSM gatekeepers and reaches the broad public, might good science and common sense prevail.
R.S.Brown (21:53:20) :
Most snow since 1951… North China !!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8438871.stm
… just more weather. It will be Australia’s turn in a few months.
RSB,
in a few months the only snow here will be on old Christmas cards.
Greg Cavanagh (19:12:43) :
” … the greens have the high ground in most of their fights. Save the whale, save the baby seals, save the white pointer sharks, save the planet.”
I’m glad you brought up the ‘save the whales’ part Greg. I just recently watched a film called, “The Cove”. Quite the documentary on the subject of dolphins. If you haven’t had the opportunity to see the film, go check this site out:
http://www.thecovemovie.com/
The Japanese have been killing over 20,000 dolphins a year and processing, distributing, and labeling the meat from dolphins as whale meat. The most unfortunate part of the story is that the meat had been tested for having highly toxic levels of mercury in it.
While I’m not suggesting that the greens aren’t doing enough, they could be doing more. Instead of running around and involving themselves in climate change, their efforts should be more focused on the protection of endangered species and the toxic pollutants harming them.
The donations and profits that these organizations have at their disposal shouldn’t be spent on brainwashing everyone into thinking that CO2 is a culprit, but spent on the real cause. Toxins and abuse by countries that don’t regulate the abuse or regulate the emissions from the manufacturing industries from these countries.
If I was an activist from Japan, I would be calling for a boycott of goods and services from China for their willful negligence to halt the toxins thats produced from little or no regulations from these industries.
The environmentalist should be ashamed for their lack of vision and lack of responsibility in protecting whales and seals and sharks. Their guilt lies in the fact that they took up a cause that lacks credibility and facts, while the facts point to shoddy industrial regulations and third world governments with no regard for the real poisons and toxins they create.
Using CO2 as their focus and vision has blinded them from the real threats and villains.
The more I research into the subject of climate change, the more I become convinced that CO2 was designed to be the villain only because it links the destruction of the industries, regulated and non-regulated that produce CO2 and the false notion that CO2 also is to blame for AGW.
The facts are clear. Mercury and arsenic and other toxic waste, not being regulated in China and other developing countries like India and Africa and the Philippines, are the real villains. The other fact is that space weather is the greatest factor in climate change.
Our responsibility as skeptics is to break this cycle of misinformation on climate change and prepare and inform the future generations of this planet of the real threat we are presented with.
Also, if the greens can’t focus on what their real responsibilities are, maybe we should encourage our governments to find others who are capable and willing of performing the tasks necessary to address those specific environmental issues.
There maybe hope for us yet, but it will take ones actions to truly give hope.
If Lord Monckton’s goal was to obtain an audience with the Rt. Hon. Mr. Rudd, I’m afraid that possibility was killed by his last few paragraphs, if it was alive at all by halfway through the document. But if it was simply to make his point, he has done it well, and with his hard-hitting, fact-oriented approach, not to mention his own credentials, it’s pretty hard to ignore. I presume the letter was worded as it was because it had already largely been determined that he would not be given a hearing, and so he opted to get maximum mileage from the request itself. Well enough; I hope Mr. Rudd is wise enough to know these are not the words of a wild-eyed “right wing” crank, but of a thoughtful advisor with much-needed words of wisdom.
Australian Alps get snow every SH winter (that is, every NH summer), and the next Australian winter will be no different. Wanna bet?
“The name Australian Alps is applied not because of special structural features but for the general characteristics of massiveness and of being snow-clad for five to six months each year.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica
westhoustongeo (14:46:05) :
Guacamole! I hope I never wind up on the Viscount’s bad side. Mr. Rudd, you have just been handed your hat…with your head in it.
——————————–
Allow me to translate for our American friends across the pond… just read ass for hat.
REPLY [ I presume you mean “donkey”. -mod ]
Neil Crafter (13:40:04) is dead right — unfortunately.
Prior to his election in December 2008, Rudd made the preposterous claim that “…climate change was the great moral issue of our time…”, but like everything else he utters, it was empty rhetoric.
For Rudd, ‘climate change’ was a means to an end — election victory.
However, it is the climate of opinion in the electorate that has changed.
Never mind, he’ll just keep smiling and move on.
The ridiculous peripatetic poseur wants to be the Secretary-General of the UN.
He would be a perfect.
janama (13:59:42) :
I bet that K Rudd is way too arrogant to even reply let alone acknowledge the letter.
You got it wrong. Stop thinking about Rudd as a fully functional person and more like Julia Gillard’s glove-puppet. Julia Gillard is a socialist through-and-through, and global warming is nothing more than a vehicle for her socialist agenda.
Now you’ll understand why there will be no reply or acknowledgement.
Wow, I would sure hate to get on Lord M’s wrong side – that letter is masterly. Unfortunately our narcissistic numpty of a PM doesn’t have the capacity to read and understand it even if he had the inclination.
I, too, took extreme offense at the nasty, spiteful, vitriolic rant from our elected leader who was basically behaving like a child who couldn’t get his own way – thank goodness someone could stand up for us against what can only be described as rampant bullying.
Kevin Rudd is a just a bureaucrat who rose above his station and actually is an intellectual lightweight compared with Tony Abbott who is a Rhodes scholar. The only reason Rudd is prime minister of Australia is because of Labor Party factional brawling. His deputy, Julia Gillard, speaks in montotones. True! Just google her. Then there’s our Climate Change minister, lesbian Penny Wong. In so far as scientific knowledge is concerned Wong, Gillard and Rudd are five-star card-carrying idiots. They know nothing about science or the scientific method yet they are desperately trying to keep the Good Ship Climate Alarmism afloat.
Greg Cavanagh (19:12:43) : 3/ 01/ 010
You write in complaint-
“But the greens have the high ground in most of their fights. Save the whale, save the baby seals, save the white pointer sharks, save the planet.”
Do you not see that you have ALLOWED the greens this slack? That by writing as you do, you are adding more license? You can still take the high ground, as the Viscount has done, of “save the hungry”.
In my time, we controlled the greens by refusing them the public credibility they so crave. We did it by prompt rebuttal of lies.
I’m a bit disappointed that you younger folk have let the situation get so bad.
Wow. Did you see all those ‘scientists’ in the Department of Climate Change?
Multiply all of those (30) by a salary of, say, $70,000 AUD.
Then multiply by 5 to include all departmental costs (an average figure for administrators, to include buildings etc:).
Then multiply by 20, to allow for those that did not go.
That’s a couple of hundred million.
Then multiply by 50 to allow for many other nations’ climate expenditures.
That’s, err, I’ve run out of toes.
.
And how much does Lord Monckton claim from the government each year???
.
>>Ah, Lord Monckton, there you go, being logical with
>>religious fanatics again.
Oooohh, don’t say that. Lord Monckton IS a religious fanatic – of the Catholic variety.
Although I note that his advisors have recently told him to keep ‘Our Dear Lord’ out of Climate Change discussions – as he had a habit of dropping it into his interviews and creating a couple of minutes of stunned silence.
.
What a fantastic letter – authoritative, suitably patronizing and, despite the seriousness of the content, quite witty. Using your opponents own figures against them is always entertaining!
Very much look forward to seeing your in-depth interview on the BBC – oh, wait…
>>. I see that whoever has been writing his wikipedia entry
>>doesn’t like him. He has a picture that makes him look
>>crazy, and, the article is basically a condemnation of
>>Monckton.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley”
Then change it!!
I don’t know enough about him to do so myself, but just log on and change the entry. And if the ‘gatekeepers’ change it back, then give them hell and change it again (keep copies of your changes). A new picture would be a first requirement.
.
>>I am probably being dense here but shouldn’t he be
>>calculating for 7.5% of the total emissions not just the
>>20ppm expected increase?
I did wonder that.
But even if we added the previous emissions, it would not alter the figures by much. Table 1 here suggests previous man-made emissions were 12 ppm of the 368 ppm total in the atmosphere.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
So if you add that to the 20 ppm forecast for the next decade, it would only increase Monckton’s warming figures by 50%. And 50% of naff-all is, well, naff-all.
Can anyone else clarify what Monckton means here?
.
It is truly great news that Lord Christopher Monckton will be in Australia to help expose the deceptions implicit in the AGW alarmism campaign that Prime Minister Rudd and Minister Wong will embark on soon in an effort to resell their huge new tax on everything (the Emissions Trading Scheme / Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme).
Just a point of clarification on the Australian tax funded Copenhagen junkteers list. My understanding is that the junketeers included not only the 114 Federal and State Government recipients, listed above, but also a healthy contingent of tax funded Local Government (Municipal Council) junketeers.
As alluded to by others here, His Lordship would be wise to regard any invitation to be interviewed by Government funded ABC TV (truly the BBC’s antipodean lovechild) with extreme caution. Undoubtedly interviewers like ABC, AGW believer Tony Jones, would seek to restrict any interview to a narrow scope focused on perceived areas of weakness, curtailing responses that threaten to deliver inconvenient facts challenging the warmist litany, in short a hatchet job. Examples of this technique can be seen in the Jones interview a couple of years ago with Martin Durkin, producer of TV documentary “The Great Global Warming Swindle” and more recently with Professor Ian Plimer author of “Heaven and Earth”.
Good stuff although I wish he could do it without his Europhobia showing so blatantly, with mentions of goody-twoshoeses and Komissars. It makes him sound irrational and loony. We don’t need that kind of emotional use of argument to make the case.
Maybe somebody should buy Rudd et al a copy of Bjorn Lomborg’s “Cool It”. It saddens me to think of the money we are NOT spending on overcoming poverty directly, because we are saving the dosh to cure climate change that really is not as critical as the Warmists would have us believe.
Veronica
(in a freezing cold office in southern England. Can’t get the temp above 15 degrees C in here.)
@ur momisuglyGeoff Sherrington (01:57:17) :
You did notice that the post by Greg Cavanagh @ur momisugly (19:12:43) did agree with my comments from (17:55:55) ?
While saying; “I’m a bit disappointed that you younger folk have let the situation get so bad.”, it probably wouldn’t hurt to be a bit more encouraging, rather than accuse his age for his misstep.
It is our responsibility to educate others in the arena of skepticism, regardless of age, especially towards those that have witnessed the seemingly futility of confronting alarmism.
Besides, I don’t agree that the situation is too bad to rectify. Some of us just feel a little defeated at times.
The tide in climate reality is changing. That should be enough to give hope to those that need it.
There is an ultimate need for making the same offer to the German Government!
By James Delingpole
If any of your idiot friends still believe in AGW, make them read this letter
Lord Monckton has written a letter about AGW to Kevin Rudd, offering to give the Aussie premier a private briefing to correct a few misconceptions he may have on the subject.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100021272/if-any-of-your-idiot-friends-still-believe-in-agw-make-them-read-this-letter/
Beth Cooper (22:35:01) :
Some sceptics consider that PM Rudd has set his sites on becoming Secretary General of the U.N.
Christopher Hanley (23:26:47) :
The ridiculous peripatetic poseur wants to be the Secretary-General of the UN.
Kevin Rudd needs to get real. Gordon Brown is way ahead in the national bankrupting stakes.
I think it’s just a pity that Lord Monckton didn’t nip Thatcher’s nonsense in the bud right at the outset and maybe this entire lunacy that is AGW may never have happened…