# Christopher Monckton of Brenchley replies to readers

Note: I posted this originally early this morning, something happened with wordpress.com hosting (I’m not sure what) and it disappeared, here it is again. – Anthony

Christopher Monckton of Brenchley replies to readers

I am most grateful to the many kind readers of www.wattsupwiththat.com who have commented on my open letter to the Australian Prime Minister. If you want to see a real “hockey-stick” graph, just look at the record of this wonderful website’s monthly hit-rates over the past couple of years.

Several readers raised the question whether the function ΔT = (4.7 ± 1) ln(C/C0) (in Celsius degrees) that I have derived for the rate of warming predicted by the IPCC in response to any given proportionate increase in CO2 concentration takes account not only of the direct forcing from CO2 enrichment of the atmosphere but also of any net-positive temperature feedbacks.

In fact the Monckton function does take account of feedbacks as well as forcings. Broadly speaking, the IPCC assumes (though this is almost certainly a monstrous exaggeration) that temperature feedbacks approximately triple any externally-forced initial warming. For the sake of minimizing any dispute, and solum ad argumentum (only for the sake of argument), I have simply calculated the warming the IPCC’s way, exaggerations and all.

One can test the function by calculating that 4.7 ln 2 (for a doubling of CO2) equals 3.26, the precise equilibrium temperature change, in Celsius degrees, predicted by the IPCC as its central estimate. For US and UK readers, the Monckton function in Fahrenheit degrees is ΔT = (8.5 ± 1.8) ln(C/C0).

My purpose in deriving this function was to facilitate instant calculation of the equilibrium temperature change predicted by the IPCC for any given change in CO2 concentration, without having to take separate account of the magnitude of the CO2 radiative forcing, of the Planck no-feedbacks climate sensitivity parameter, or of the sum of climate-relevant positive and negative temperature feedbacks.

A related question, also raised by several readers, was whether I should have taken account of the fact that not all feedbacks are linear. Since the IPCC assumes that all feedbacks are either linear or close enough to linear to be linearizable, I have adopted the same assumption, again solum ad argumentum, even though it is clear that the water vapor feedback, for instance, cannot be strictly linear.

Another reader has asked why I have calculated the effect of implementing the Copenhagen Accord only as far as 2020. This is the time-horizon for the Accord. The effect of the Accord over ten years would be to forestall warming of just 0.2 C° (0.35 F°) forestalled even if everyone complies fully. This outcome is so minuscule that extending the analysis beyond that date would be pointless, not least because by ten years from now it will be blindingly obvious to everyone a) that the climate is simply not warming anything like as fast (if at all) as the IPCC had ambitiously predicted, and b) that compliance with Copenhagen was little better than compliance with Kyoto. By 2020, the climate scare will be all over bar the shouting, and no one will be cutting CO2 emissions any more.

Another query was about whether I should have done the calculation on the basis of 7.5% of total CO2 emissions, rather than 7.5% of the additional 20 ppmv that we will emit on the trend of the past decade unless we cut emissions. Here, the enquirer is confusing emissions with concentration. CO2 emissions are rising at a near-exponential rate, but over the past decade CO2 concentration has risen at a strictly linear rate of a fraction over 2 ppmv/year. The IPCC’s case is that without our emissions CO2 concentration would stabilize, and would only drop back to its pre-industrial 278 ppmv after hundreds of years: therefore it is appropriate – solum ad argumentum, as ever – to hoist the IPCC with its own petard and to attribute all of the 2 ppmv/year increase in CO2 concentration to our current emissions, from which the calculation in the letter to Mr. Rudd follows.

Dr. Patrick Michaels, one of the most distinguished commentators on the climate scam, has done some excellent work demonstrating that over the past 30 years the relationship between CO2 emissions and CO2 concentration has remained broadly constant at approximately 14-15 billion tons CO2 emitted per 1 ppmv increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.

Therefore, if we ignored the IPCC’s belief – which certainly does not represent the consensus in the scientific literature – that CO2 lingers in the atmosphere for hundreds of years, then the correct calculation would be to assume that without our current emissions CO2 concentration would fall swiftly back to 278 ppmv from its present 388 ppmv – a drop of 110 ppmv. Then, if we saved 7.5% of total emissions, we should reduce CO2 concentration by 7.5% of 110 ppmv, or around 8 ppmv, in which event the warming forestalled over the next ten years would be 0.1 C°, still not worth all those trillions.

Next, a reader says he will not believe the UN’s computer models until they are capable of modeling all of the natural as well as anthropogenic causes of “global warming”. However, even then modeling is of limited value, because the climate is not merely complex and non-linear but mathematically chaotic. Therefore, as Lorenz (1963) proved in the landmark climate paper that founded chaos theory, unless we know the initial state of the climate at any chosen moment to a precision that is forever unattainable in practice, reliable, very-long-term weather prediction is not available “by any method” – and “very-long-term”, as the Met Office in the UK has learned to its cost in each of the past three summers and in the current winter, means just a few weeks. It is better to rely upon observation and measurement than upon models.

Which leads to my next answer. A reader says he wishes I had supplied references to support my statements in the closing paragraphs of the letter that the measured radiative forcing from changes in cloud cover between 1983 and 2001 was at least five times greater than that from CO2. The forcing from CO2 over that period – the only period warming that we could have influenced even in theory – was just 0.8 Watts per square meter. The forcing from decreased cloud cover, expressed as the sum of 19 annual means, was 4.5 Watts per square meter.

A recent blog posting by me at www.scienceandpublicpolicy.org explains the theory behind the radiative influence of changes in cloud cover. Briefly, where low-altitude, low-latitude cloud cover diminishes, more short-wave radiation hits the Earth rather than being reflected harmlessly back to outer space. When it hits the Earth, it is displaced to the long wave and then heads back towards outer space. Therefore, the ERBE and CERES satellites, whose data is publicly available, will show simultaneous decreases in outgoing short-wave and increases in outgoing long-wave radiation if decreases in cloud cover are the cause, and vice versa for increases in cloud cover.

There are several good papers on this measured phenomenon. See e.g. Palle, E, Goode, P.RT., Montañes-Rodriguez, P., and Koonin, S.E., 2004, Changes in the Earth’s reflectance over the past two decades, Science 304, 1299-1301, doi:10.1126/science.1094070; or Pinker, R.T., Zhang, B., and Dutton, E.G., 2005, Do satellites detect trends in surface solar radiation?, Science 308, 850-854. It is also worth looking at the data from the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project, a “Mark-I-Eyeball” methodology which confirms the short-wave and long-wave measurements of the ERBE and CERES satellites.

My letter to Mr. Rudd also referred to measurements showing that outgoing radiation from the Earth’s surface increases as sea-surface temperatures increase, and does not diminish as all of the IPCC’s capable of being forced with changes in sea-surface temperatures predict. These measurements are reported and analyzed in Lindzen R.S., and Choi, Y.-S., 2009, On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data, Geophysical Research Letters. I do not have the page reference, because I have the preprint that the authors kindly sent to me.

Another reader asked whether my letter had been “peer-reviewed”. Yes, I asked an eminent Professor in Australia to read it for me before it was sent to the Prime Minister and to other party leaders. Any errors, however, are mine alone.

A reader asks whether my letter to Mr. Rudd is available as a .pdf file. I have sent the file to Anthony Watts, who, I am sure, will kindly make it available to anyone who would like to see it. Thank you all very much for your kind interest: and, as always, thanks to Anthony for having given the letter a wider audience.

[Update: a pdf of Lord Monckton’s letter is available here. ]

Christopher Monckton of Brenchley replies to readers

I am most grateful to the many kind readers of wwwwattsupwiththat.com who have commented on my open letter to the Australian Prime Minister. If you want to see a real “hockey-stick” graph, just look at the record of this wonderful website’s monthly hit-rates over the past couple of years.
Several readers raised the question whether the function ΔT = (4.7 ± 1) ln(C/C0) (in Celsius degrees) that I have derived for the rate of warming predicted by the IPCC in response to any given proportionate increase in CO2 concentration takes account not only of the direct forcing from CO2 enrichment of the atmosphere but also of any net-positive temperature feedbacks.
In fact the Monckton function does take account of feedbacks as well as forcings. Broadly speaking, the IPCC assumes (though this is almost certainly a monstrous exaggeration) that temperature feedbacks approximately triple any externally-forced initial warming. For the sake of minimizing any dispute, and solum ad argumentum (only for the sake of argument), I have simply calculated the warming the IPCC’s way, exaggerations and all.
One can test the function by calculating that 4.7 ln 2 (for a doubling of CO2) equals 3.26, the precise equilibrium temperature change, in Celsius degrees, predicted by the IPCC as its central estimate. For US and UK readers, the Monckton function in Fahrenheit degrees is ΔT = (8.5 ± 1.8) ln(C/C0).
My purpose in deriving this function was to facilitate instant calculation of the equilibrium temperature change predicted by the IPCC for any given change in CO2 concentration, without having to take separate account of the magnitude of the CO2 radiative forcing, of the Planck no-feedbacks climate sensitivity parameter, or of the sum of climate-relevant positive and negative temperature feedbacks.
A related question, also raised by several readers, was whether I should have taken account of the fact that not all feedbacks are linear. Since the IPCC assumes that all feedbacks are either linear or close enough to linear to be linearizable, I have adopted the same assumption, again solum ad argumentum, even though it is clear that the water vapor feedback, for instance, cannot be strictly linear.
Another reader has asked why I have calculated the effect of implementing the Copenhagen Accord only as far as 2020. This is the time-horizon for the Accord. The effect of the Accord over ten years would be to forestall warming of just 0.02 C° (0.035 F°) forestalled even if everyone complies fully. This outcome is so minuscule that extending the analysis beyond that date would be pointless, not least because by ten years from now it will be blindingly obvious to everyone a) that the climate is simply not warming anything like as fast (if at all) as the IPCC had ambitiously predicted, and b) that compliance with Copenhagen was little better than compliance with Kyoto. By 2020, the climate scare will be all over bar the shouting, and no one will be cutting CO2 emissions any more.
Another query was about whether I should have done the calculation on the basis of 7.5% of total CO2 emissions, rather than 7.5% of the additional 20 ppmv that we will emit on the trend of the past decade unless we cut emissions. Here, the enquirer is confusing emissions with concentration. CO2 emissions are rising at a near-exponential rate, but over the past decade CO2 concentration has risen at a strictly linear rate of a fraction over 2 ppmv/year. The IPCC’s case is that without our emissions CO2 concentration would stabilize, and would only drop back to its pre-industrial 278 ppmv after hundreds of years: therefore it is appropriate – solum ad argumentum, as ever – to hoist the IPCC with its own petard and to attribute all of the 2 ppmv/year increase in CO2 concentration to our current emissions, from which the calculation in the letter to Mr. Rudd follows.
Dr. Patrick Michaels, one of the most distinguished commentators on the climate scam, has done some excellent work demonstrating that over the past 30 years the relationship between CO2 emissions and CO2 concentration has remained broadly constant at approximately 14-15 billion tons CO2 emitted per 1 ppmv increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Therefore, if we ignored the IPCC’s belief – which certainly does not represent the consensus in the scientific literature – that CO2 lingers in the atmosphere for hundreds of years, then the correct calculation would be to assume that without our current emissions CO2 concentration would fall swiftly back to 278 ppmv from its present 388 ppmv – a drop of 110 ppmv. Then, if we saved 7.5% of total emissions, we should reduce CO2 concentration by 7.5% of 110 ppmv, or around 8 ppmv, in which event the warming forestalled over the next ten years would be 0.1 C°, still not worth all those trillions.
Next, a reader says he will not believe the UN’s computer models until they are capable of modeling all of the natural as well as anthropogenic causes of “global warming”. However, even then modeling is of limited value, because the climate is not merely complex and non-linear but mathematically chaotic. Therefore, as Lorenz (1963) proved in the landmark climate paper that founded chaos theory, unless we know the initial state of the climate at any chosen moment to a precision that is forever unattainable in practice, reliable, very-long-term weather prediction is not available “by any method” – and “very-long-term”, as the Met Office in the UK has learned to its cost in each of the past three summers and in the current winter, means just a few weeks. It is better to rely upon observation and measurement than upon models.
Which leads to my next answer. A reader says he wishes I had supplied references to support my statements in the closing paragraphs of the letter that the measured radiative forcing from changes in cloud cover between 1983 and 2001 was at least five times greater than that from CO2. The forcing from CO2 over that period – the only period warming that we could have influenced even in theory – was just 0.8 Watts per square meter. The forcing from decreased cloud cover, expressed as the sum of 19 annual means, was 4.5 Watts per square meter.
A recent blog posting by me at www.scienceandpublicpolicy.org explains the theory behind the radiative influence of changes in cloud cover. Briefly, where low-altitude, low-latitude cloud cover diminishes, more short-wave radiation hits the Earth rather than being reflected harmlessly back to outer space. When it hits the Earth, it is displaced to the long wave and then heads back towards outer space. Therefore, the ERBE and CERES satellites, whose data is publicly available, will show simultaneous decreases in outgoing short-wave and increases in outgoing long-wave radiation if decreases in cloud cover are the cause, and vice versa for increases in cloud cover.
There are several good papers on this measured phenomenon. See e.g. Palle, E, Goode, P.RT., Montañes-Rodriguez, P., and Koonin, S.E., 2004, Changes in the Earth’s reflectance over the past two decades, Science 304, 1299-1301, doi:10.1126/science.1094070; or Pinker, R.T., Zhang, B., and Dutton, E.G., 2005, Do satellites detect trends in surface solar radiation?, Science 308, 850-854. It is also worth looking at the data from the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project, a “Mark-I-Eyeball” methodology which confirms the short-wave and long-wave measurements of the ERBE and CERES satellites.
My letter to Mr. Rudd also referred to measurements showing that outgoing radiation from the Earth’s surface increases as sea-surface temperatures increase, and does not diminish as all of the IPCC’s capable of being forced with changes in sea-surface temperatures predict. These measurements are reported and analyzed in Lindzen R.S., and Choi, Y.-S., 2009, On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data, Geophysical Research Letters. I do not have the page reference, because I have the preprint that the authors kindly sent to me.
Another reader asked whether my letter had been “peer-reviewed”. Yes, I asked an eminent Professor in Australia to read it for me before it was sent to the Prime Minister and to other party leaders. Any errors, however, are mine alone.

A reader asks whether my letter to Mr. Rudd is available as a .pdf file. I have sent the file to Anthony Watts, who, I am sure, will kindly make it available to anyone who would like to see it. Thank you all very much for your kind interest: and, as always, thanks to Anthony for having given the letter a wider audience.

## 210 thoughts on “Christopher Monckton of Brenchley replies to readers”

1. robert says:

Nice work Jack

2. JonesII says:

An admirable quixotesque endeavour indeed, and a confirmation of what nobility means: not to surrender own’s convictions or principles.

3. Lord M, you are my hero. Give ’em heck.

4. Peter D says:

Impressive keep it up.

5. Thank you Lord Monckton!

6. John Hooper says:

Let’s hope the “eminent Professor in Australia” isn’t Ian Plimer who’s done Climate Skepticism a massive disservice due to his sloppy fact checking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Plimer
And frankly, a little less hyperbole, pretentious latin and general affectation might help Chris Monkton’s cause, who’s already tarnished by his Thatcher connection.
Australians love a bubble-burster, but have little time for this brand of pomposity.

7. PJB says:

I left this comment on the original story but don’t blame me for the snafu 😉
Let history show that the “Brench-mark” for AGW refutation was established by the 3rd Viscount.

8. John Hooper (12:15:05) :
John, you do yourself a “a massive disservice” when using Wiki as a reference.
You can also skip refs to surrealclimate, IPCC, BBC, etc.

9. Kevin S says:

I guess since Lord Monckton has the time to right a nice little note to Mr. Rudd, “Albaby” has yet to take Lord M up on his offer. Shame. I could see it now. They could hold the debate in Memphis, Tenn., after all I think Lord M would be kind enough to allow Albaby the home field advantage out of sportsmanship. Then comes the big historical snow storm. Debating Albaby in his home state with a major blizzard rampaging through, what delicious irony. Oh well, a man can dream. Keep up the good work Lord Monckton.

10. JonesII says:

“The dogs are barking Sancho, signal for us to start riding”!!

11. TerryBixler says:

John Hooper
You quote Wiki, maybe you have joined the team. Monckton is a persistent seeker of truth, thank goodness he takes the time to battle with climate fascists one and all. At least you could have the courtesy to spell his name correctly.

12. charlie98 says:

@John Hooper (12:15:05) :Australians love a bubble-burster, but have little time for this brand of pomposity.
They may not appreciate the style but they cannot deny the substance

13. JonesII says:

And…it is not a coincidence that Cervantes’ El Quijote was written at the beginning of the Maunder minimum. Just to ponder on cycles…

14. kwik says:

John Hooper (12:15:05) :
Keep it up, Lord Monckton! And please, come to Norway too, and learn the Red-Green pocket-thieves some Latin, too.

15. jgfox says:

John Hooper (12:15:05)
“who’s already tarnished by his Thatcher connection.”
Oh, not only is Lord M. too pretentious, but he is attacked for what Sen. Joseph McCarthy made popular … Guilt by Association.
I love Lord M.’s style and Mr. Hooper should direct his ire at what is being presented and not use hyperbolic “ad homenium” attacks.
Oh, Heavens … I used a Latin phrase. And to tell the truth, I liked Margaret Thatcher.
Therefore, my arguments should be rejected out of hand.
”An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: “argument toward the person” or “argument against the person”) is an argument which links the validity of a premise to an irrelevant characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.”[1] (Wikipedia)

16. Thank you sir. I join with others here and at http://www.freerepublic.com in applauding your courage and integrity. The referenced article was published there as well.
Again, for those readers at that site who were also able to read and enjoy your works, thank you.
Robert notes that the gracious Lord did not address nor correct critics of the “unworthy and insulting” picture of him forced on us by the “even-handed and unbiased” Wikipedia editors … 8<)

17. D. King says:

“…as the Met Office in the UK has learned to its cost in each of the past three summers and in the current winter… It is better to rely upon observation and measurement than upon models.”
It must be so embarrassing to fire up their multi million pound computer, with the latest predictive models, adorned with bristling “Fudge Factor” subroutines, and have it consistently spew the wrong answer.
Thank You Lord Monckton

18. Jeremy says:

It’s pompous to call someone out for speaking lies? That’s news to me.

19. Mike says:

This is the coolest lordship since Lord Peter Wimsey.

20. No wonder Al Gore won’t debate Monckton. Can’t wait to see him talk in person in Oz.

21. Jeremy says:

Al Gore will *never* debate Lord Monkton. Americans by prejudice associate a British accent with educated authority, and a southern accent with lower-education. On their manner of speaking alone, Al would be up a creek.

22. Gravelly says:

Can’t wait for your tour of Australia, LM! I hope we will be informed of your itinerary on this site. We’ll never hear anything of it on the taxpayer funded ABC!

23. Atheist Ranter says:

Go for it Lord Monckton. Kick arse!
As has been said by others above, you’re my hero…

24. Tony Brookes says:

I would suggest that there are none who have not been elevated by connection with Margaret Thatcher. She made very, very, few mistakes during her Premiership but had many fundamental successes. Incidentally if one had to rely on Wikipedia for accurate information one would never be able to complete the Times crossword.

25. Claude Harvey says:

In one of the great English language traditions, I propose a new word (a verb in this case) to describe the act of utter ravishment, sexual or otherwise. I propose “Monck”, as in “Monck ’em!”
CH

26. oakgeo says:

Lord Monkton’s original letter to Rudd calculates a forestalling of 0.02 C° in the decade 2010-2020, but this reply to readers says 0.2 C°. Based on the clear calculations in the Rudd letter, I believe that 0.02 C°/decade is correct.
It might be wise to make the correction in this post.

27. Vincent says:

John Hooper,
“Chris Monkton’s cause, who’s already tarnished by his Thatcher connection.”
You mean because of the irony that it was Thatcher who began this whole AGW scare nonsense?

28. Josh says:

Monckton Rules!

29. PeterW says:

“Australians love a bubble-burster, but have little time for this brand of pomposity.” As an Australian I concur – Rudd is a pompous little twat.

30. Another Brit says:

John Hooper (12:15:05)
“Already tarnished by his Thatcher connection.” This would seem to me a personal viewpoint, rather than a valid fact. I could say the same about anyone associated with a politician I did not like. I regret to say that such a comment is to me both pointless and offensive. To say that a sound command of the English language is pompous is to do Lord Monckton a disservice, and also anyone else who writes or speaks in a clear and unambiguous way. Any argument should be clear and without room for multiple interpretations, particularly when such arguments might end up in a court of law.
As a non-scientist, I find Lord Monckton’s work to be a beam of light in an otherwise dark and confused world. He has an ability to explain complex technical matters in a way that is clear to even a layman like myself. I also suspect that many Australians may have plenty of time for Lord Monckton, but then I am not given to making generalisations about millions of people who I do not personally know.
As an Englishman, I would like to thank Lord Monckton for persevering in what must be, at times, a lonely endeavour . I wish we had more politicians and Peers of the Realm with the same degree of courage in their convictions.

31. Brian P says:

love it

32. xyzlatin says:

John Hooper, anyone who seriously quotes Wikipedia as a reference, loses credibility, particularly after it has been shown that Wiki is a player in AGW and that all posts on climate change, including those about skeptical scientists, have been slanted with a view to trashing the skeptic case. Have you been sleeping during Wikigate?
Christopher Monkton’s speech and writing reflects his very good education and upbringing. It used to be that everyone learned latin roots of words in primary school in Qld at least, and many people learned Latin at high school. This Australian appreciates well written and logical prose, and excellent speech.
Our Australian PM is noted for his convoluted and pretentious speech and play acting affectation, red herring casting, and lack of logical thought. His neo liberal essay was an excellent illustration of this.
Christopher Monkton’s speech and writing is a display of excellent clarity of thought.

33. oneuniverse says:

John Hooper: “..tarnished by his Thatcher connection.”
Thatcher guided the UK out of economic ruin and irrelevancy, with great courage. Many would consider it an honour to have been associated with her.

34. Squidly says:

Lord Monckton, you are a true gentleman, and one hell of a good man! I, as many here, have the utmost admiration for you and wish you all of the very best as you proceed into this new year!
Thank you very much for everything that you do!
Happy New Year! .. and God bless!

35. xyzlatin says:

sorry mis-spelled Monckton.

36. Richard Garnache says:

When it’s all over, it will be people like Lord Monkton that will be recognized for saving the world. Not the political scientists from IPCC.

37. Steve in SC says:

Kevin S (12:22:03) :
algore is not looked on fondly in the great state of Tennessee.
His strongholds are the ghettos of Memphis and the burbs of Nashville.
The rest of the state pretty much despises him, particularly in east Tennessee where the denizens are still voting for Lincoln.

38. xyzlatin says:

Although Monckton’s writings/letters are long, each paragraph deals logically with new points, precise down to the last argument. I enjoy reading this and it is in marked contrast to most people arguing the alarmist case, as they just repeat the same tired mantra.

39. James Allison says:

Dear Lord Monckton
This skeptic thanks you for the stance you have taken and the work you are doing chipping away at the AGW brick wall. Here in NZ our PM John Key rushed through parliment an ETS bill that sees I think the first taxes starting July this year.
I’m sure many Kiwis would really appreciate you sending John Key a similarly written letter 🙂
Warm regards
James Allison

40. james griffin says:

Lord Monchkton puts his reputation on the line and if he could be easily undermined the AGW’s would have a go.

41. Tony R says:

Thanks to Watts Up for Lord Monckton’s letter.
Someone has suggested the PM will ignore it.
I disagree. Lord Monckton has done his homework on Kevin Rudd well.
The directly targeted political implications, the challenge to Rudd for a direct briefing on the science and the threat of a proposed speaking tour will terrify the PM. This is just the sort of thing he can’t cope with, and rightly so.
He is a misinformation and a no information whiz-kid.
I would expect the opposition to get involved for plenty of free hits.

42. Tom P says:

“This outcome is so minuscule that extending the analysis beyond that date would be pointless…”
But nobody believes there is likely to be any large change in the temperature profile under any potential emissions scenario over ten years. But by 2100 there may to be up to a 2C difference in warming depending on how curbs are enforced, if realistic calculations based on more than simple linear trends are performed.
Your calculations rest on your guess that the relationship between emissions and atmospheric concentration should remain fixed and linear into the future. However, this relationship hasn’t remained “broadly constant” in the past, as you claim, but has twisted and turned repeatedly:
http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/9829/co2concemissions.png
Why would it follow a straight line in the future?
It’s certainly a common error to ignore emerging nonlinearity in future trends. Less common is to make such a mistake while also ignoring a nonlinear historical record.

43. Rob H says:

The fact that the 2020 objectives for reducing carbon emissions will achieve almost nothing is surely not the point. Kyoto achieved nothing as well, yet the fallback of AGW supporters was to continue the obligations of Kyoto. The real objective is control of every facet of economic life by governments under the guise of “climate change” control. That is why Monckton will not receive a response, just as other skeptics are ignored. Rudd has all the “science” he needs to do what he really wants.

44. Sam the Skeptic says:

“Therefore, as Lorenz (1963) proved in the landmark climate paper that founded chaos theory, unless we know the initial state of the climate at any chosen moment to a precision that is forever unattainable in practice, reliable, very-long-term weather prediction is not available “by any method” – and “very-long-term”, as the Met Office in the UK has learned to its cost in each of the past three summers and in the current winter, means just a few weeks. It is better to rely upon observation and measurement than upon models.”
What else do we need to know?
“It is better to rely upon observation and measurement than upon models.” — precisely! How did we come to lose sight of that basic tenet of all science?

45. No one should ever quote Wiki! I mean, come on, they don’t even know what decade we’re in! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010s They (the contributors) have forgotten that we use the Gregorian calendar – which starts with 1.

46. Rod says:

When putting forward information contrary to the AGW movement’s views I have occasionally faced some very negative responses from otherwise normal, sensible and rational people – people who are not part of the activist groups, but who have clearly developed closed minds on this issue through the persistent influence of the politicians, activists and media. The answer to this phenomenon may lie in the insights into mind control covered here:
http://merchantsofdeception.com/mod/wordpress/cult-expert-steve-hassan-video-interview/

47. M White says:

OT but thought you might be interested
“National Grid warns over high gas demand”
“LONDON, Jan 4 (Reuters) – Britain’s gas supplies improved significantly after National Grid (NG.L) issued a gas balancing alert (GBA) on Monday warning consumption may have to be cut as cold weather gripped the country, the network operator said.”
http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKLDE6031IE20100104
“Britain’s coal-fired power plants overtook gas in the UK power generation mix on Monday afternoon, after an unusually long period of gas fired power domination for winter, after gas prices surged on tight supply.”
We’re in a recession, I wonder how we will manage in a few years time when things takes off again and our coal and nuclear fired power stations are closing.

48. Rob Vermeulen says:

“Therefore, if we ignored the IPCC’s belief – which certainly does not represent the consensus in the scientific literature – that CO2 lingers in the atmosphere for hundreds of years”
The hundred of years mentioned in the IPCC reports is the half-time necessary to dampen a given change in mass of CO2 per unit volume, and this figure was neer really challenged. This should not be mistaken with the average time a CO2 molecule spends in the atmosphere before being re-absorbed, which is of the order of several years.

49. wws says:

John Hooper wrote: “And frankly, a little less hyperbole, pretentious latin and general affectation…”
I think John’s primary objection is that there are far more 3 and 4 syllable words than he is comfortable with. For example, when Monckton uses the phrase “mathematically chaotic” John would probably feel much better if he had instead said “icky”.

50. Palle et al with the Earthshine project is a good source. The ISSCP data suffers problems with the overlap of data from a variety of satellite platforms and can’t be used as solid evidence for cloud cover variation.
Nonetheless, the steric component of sea level rise in the ’90’s supports the view that the additional forcing due to lowered cloud cover was in the region of 4W/m^2 as Lord Monckton states.
Go Christopher!

51. Keith W. says:

Kevin S., no, not Memphis! That’s where I live. It’s cool enough right now, I don’t need snow, especially when you consider the city basically shuts down when there is more than a fraction of an inch. Try Knoxville, up in the mountains. They are more used to snow.

52. Peter of Sydney says:

I don’t understand how the IPCC climate change computer models have any value at all. It’s like economic models that often get it wrong People still use them and some even make very important decisions based on such inaccurate models. I suppose it’s part of human nature – we all like to predict things. The trouble is the climate is far more complex than an economy, so any climate model is bound to be useless. Apart from the invalid assumptions, incomplete forcing equations and lack of a complete understanding of how the climate works, there’s the proof now that the models are totally wrong simply by comparing them to observational data. Of course, a few AGW believers go as far to say the observational data must be wrong. How’s that for stupidity? Give it a few more years, if not sooner and the current cooling cycle may go far enough to freeze all AGW believers (including politicians) into permanent silence. Nothing beats the truth, not even an Orwellian society, which is still a distinct possibility.

53. I have the feeling Sir, that it is like writing to a dog, whenever I see K.Rudd on TV he reminds me of my dog, I tell my dog something and you can see by his expression that he want to understand, but he does not, as he repeats his mistakes. (maybe I should write my dog a letter ? )
Thank you Lord Monckton I wish you all the very best in everything you do.

54. BrianSJ says:

Just a nit-pick on accuracy. Eighth para above “The effect of the Accord over ten years would be to forestall warming of just 0.2 C° (0.35 F°) forestalled even if everyone complies fully. ”
Earlier article:= “Global warming” forestalled, 2010-2020: 0.02 C°
Are these values supposed to be the same or an order of magnitude different?

55. KimW says:

John Hooper said, Quote. “And frankly, a little less hyperbole, pretentious latin and general affectation might help Chris Monkton’s cause, who’s already tarnished by his Thatcher connection. “Unquote.
Frankly, I read a clear, reasoned and logical argument progressing from point to point. Whats pretentious about Latin ? our language is full of such words. I see an almost infinite amount of such reasoned argument from the skeptics side as against the AGWshouters pushing red herrings as “tarnished by his Thatcher connection”. When was Thatcher last PM of the UK ? and what has that got to do with scientific arguments about climate forcings ?

56. Max says:

Anthony– This is OT, but I don’t know how else to send it. A Christmas Day, AP article featured in the Seattle Times describes a midwest “Massive Storm” (link below). Incredibly, however, through the entire article on a huge winter snowstorm, the word “cold” never appears! Wind speeds and snow depths are specified, but the temperature is not mentioned; even once.
I thought it was rather remarkable.

57. Bruce Armour says:

Yes indeed! We all hail Anthony Watts and Christopher Lord Monckton for a Job Well Done! on this day, the 4th day of the Age of Aquarius, heralded by the Mystery BLUE Spiral over Norway on December 9, 2009 and arriving at High Moon of the Rare BLUE Moon on January 1, 2010.

58. aylamp says:

His position gives him access to forums that are denied to many more informed people, which is good. (But, speaking as a Scot, he’s still an English twit).

59. Andrew30 says:

Bit OT, but interesting.
“For a fresh look at climate change”
‘Russia’s open mind on climate issues and emphasis on independent studies could pave the way for a truly objective international review of the causes and effects of climate change. “It is necessary to fund and organise climate research in such a way that scientists are protected from the state’s political interference and even from fellow scientists,” says Prof. Konstantin Sonin of the New Economic School in Moscow’

60. @ John Hooper (12:15:05) “And frankly, a little less hyperbole, pretentious latin and general affectation might help Chris Monkton’s cause, who’s already tarnished by his Thatcher connection.”
Would you prefer text speak Dear Boy ? Lord Monckton writes in a perfectly understandable fashion and conveys the full import of his reasoning with style. We are lucky to have champions like him to help slay the AGW dragons. Baroness Thatcher was,in her day,one of the finest brains in politics. This letter will have to be answered by Mr.Rudd ,in full, if he is to show any form of statesmanship.

61. Kum Dollison says:

UAH for Dec: 0.28

62. UAH lower troposphere out – +0.28 deg c.

63. Bryn says:

The use of Latin phrases may seem pretentious to some, who have not been exposed to its discipline. As a Brit who was taught Latin, but who has lived longer in Oz than in the UK, I also baulked initially at Lord Monckton’s style, thinking it would get the adverse reaction voiced by some here, typical of the all too prevalent “cultural cringe” of this nation. Then I realised LM, used words from other languages also. Collectively he was employing phrases with succinct meanings, entirely appropriate for the message. Compared with the convoluted twittering of our PM, LM wins hands down.
But this all a side issue. Now the question is how the PM will reply?

64. UAH lower tropospheric temp for 2009 was +0.26 deg c. Still no net warming for eleven years now.

65. Ken Hall says:

My daughter has started a science degree in zoology at a prestigious university.
The very first thing she was taught in the key skills lecture in relation to references is ***wikipedia is NOT an acceptable reference***
There you go, scientific credibility 101, do NOT use wikipedia.

66. carlbrannen says:

Re ” I do not have the page reference”, now you do:
On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data Export
by: Richard S. Lindzen, Yong-Sang Choi
Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 36, No. 16. (26 August 2009), L16705.
See: http://www.citeulike.org/user/JoyKing/article/5683732

67. Monckton has never acknowledged that his former partner in crime, Margaret Thatcher was the prime instigator of global warming politics. Nor that she created the Hadley Centre as part of her war against coal (and the miner’s union) , wishing to make room for oil (her husband was a director of Britoil) and nuclear power.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5955955/Weather-records-are-a-state-secret.html
Enron and BP persuaded Occidental Oil puppet, Al Gore to sign the Kyoto Protocol and insert carbon trading into article 17. The oil companies and banks(IETA) were the leading promoters of a Copenhagen treaty.
http://www.angrymermaid.org/ieta
Strangely, Rajendra Pachauri was on the Board of Directors of the Indian Oil Corporation when he became IPCC chairman on 20 April 2002.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajendra_K._Pachauri
Doesn’t really fit his idea of a socialist takeover, does it ? Never mind, it’s certainly filled a lot of seats on his American lecture tour. I thought Monckton spoke very well on the science, but the right wing politics is a liability as well as being nonsensical.
This is how the oil companies changed sides and hijacked the environmental lobby with carbon trading.
Opposing Views on Global Warming: The Corporate Climate Coup
by Prof. David F. Noble – York University, Toronto, Canada
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5568
Everything points to big oil.

68. Galen Haugh says:

With regards to Wiki, I responded to one of their appeals at the top of a Wiki page, found they were looking for people to contribute their expertise, and sent them an email telling them there was no way I’d consider contributing under the current open structure that encourages topic tromping. I suggested they reconfigure their editing pages to support multiple contributions from various editors and then they’d have something worth looking at eventually–let the public view different ideas and decide for themselves. I told them that having a system that supports different changes over and over and back and forth on a single page is completely nuts. I hope someday they come up with a system that can’t be compromised but until they do people should ignore Wiki for anything even remotely controversial, which applies to practically everything worth discussing.

69. Demesure says:

Lord crocodile Ruddee Monckton, visiting Oz. I can’t wait to see how he’ll skin the warmist there.

70. Lord Monckton,
I am a relative latecomer to the “climate wars” – so late that I did not learn of your recent Canadian tour, until it was too late. So, I’m a Canadian who is very concerned that our government has pledged to harmonize “climate change” policies and practices with those of our neighbour to the south.
Would it be possible to slightly modify your most enlightening letter to Rudd, so that it could be sent to Obama who – lacking common sense and knowledge of the facts – seems bound and determined to embark on a disastrous “anti-C02 crusade” (via the EPA)?
Thank you.

71. Jimmy Haigh says:

I ask again – why wasn’t His Lordship a sceptic back in the day’s of Thatcher?
Still, better late than never! He’s doing good stuff now.

72. DirkH says:

“Tom P (13:15:33) :
It’s certainly a common error to ignore emerging nonlinearity in future trends. Less common is to make such a mistake while also ignoring a nonlinear historical record.”
Here we go, next you say feedback and then tipping point. Listen: The climate models don’t even got the direction of the temperature change right over the last 10 years. They’re junk. Very expensive junk but junk. “We can’t explain where the energy went and it’s a travesty we can’t…” you know who said that. It was one of the “credible climatologists”.
Don’t get me started on nonlinear. Or i’ll say logarithmic.

73. Tenuc says:

John Hooper (12:15:05) :
“Let’s hope the “eminent Professor in Australia” isn’t Ian Plimer who’s done Climate Skepticism a massive disservice due to his sloppy fact checking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Plimer
And frankly, a little less hyperbole, pretentious latin and general affectation might help Chris Monkton’s cause, who’s already tarnished by his Thatcher connection.”
You do yourself a disservice, John, by using the most unreliable source on the planet in endeavouring to besmirch Mr. Plimers’s good reputation.
Your execrable comment about Lord Monckton’s use of the Queen’s English also leads one to understand that you have little comprehension of our mother tongue.
TIme for you, I think, to rouse yourself from this CAGW induced torpor and breathe the coffea arabica.

74. Don E says:

I would like to see a similar analysis done for methane. CO2 laws are proposed in the future. The future in now in San Francisco. We are being threatened with fines and penalties is we don’t sort our garbage. The rationale is that sorting garbage, keeping food scraps out of the landfill, will help to “stabilize” the climate by 2050.

75. Tom P says:

Kum Dollison (13:52:03) :
So 2009 was 0.21 C warmer than 2008. I’ve won a little money!
Did anyone spot Dr Spencer has changed his running average period to 25 months from the 13 months he’d used for the rest of the year? The much cooler temperatures of 2008 will now continue to contribute to the smoothed trend line for another year.
I’d be interested to learn what motivated the change.

76. Treeman says:

Just wondering who it was that actually measured pre-industrial CO2 levels at roughly 280ppm? Who else backed up that claim? Have their analytical methods been verified? Did they archive a sample of pre-industrial atmosphere for posterity?

77. JP says:

My son’s high school in Brussels automatically gave 0 to any student who used Wikipedia as source.

78. xyzlatin says:

Eric Smith, in case you haven’t noticed, Margaret Thatcher has been out of office for many years, and is an old lady. I can appreciate the history lesson, but it has very little to do with today’s action, as Margaret Thatcher is no longer a player. If she were say, like Patchouri, a person directing and influencing decisions, references to her would be appropriate. To continually be bringing her actions up as being akin to Lord Monckton’s, is using her as a strawman argument.
I believe the tour we are discussing is to Australia, not America, and the letter is to the Australian PM.
There are a lot of murky players in this AGW scam, jumping on the money bandwagon. Big Oil is nothing compared to Big Government and Big Universities gobbling up cash.
Big Government the socialist version, takes money from the people to give to its friends and backers and voters. The Australian Govt ETS legislation is now going to give 50% of middle to lower income people more than it is (supposedly) going to cost them in higher prices. If this is not socialist vote buying, I don’t know what is. Socialist/Communist Governments are far more to be feared than Big Oil.
Big Oil is only interested in the financial bottom line, socialism is intent on intruding and controlling every area of each person’s daily life and thinking.

79. Keith Minto says:

oakgeo (12:44:30) :
Lord Monkton’s original letter to Rudd calculates a forestalling of 0.02 C° in the decade 2010-2020, but this reply to readers says 0.2 C°. Based on the clear calculations in the Rudd letter, I believe that 0.02 C°/decade is correct.
It might be wise to make the correction in this post.

I noted that as well, but it would be appropriate to let LM do the editing.
As for our Kevin Rudd,his visionary sight is trained on horizons much further than the shores of Australia, to the highest level of the UN in fact. He is trained in diplomacy and consensus making and as has tied his horse firmly to the AGW post, I can envisage no change in his personal stance on AGW, nor that of the Government that he leads.

80. Tom P says:

DirkH (14:16:17) :
“Listen: The climate models don’t even got the direction of the temperature change right over the last 10 years.”
UAH average 1999: 0.04 C
UAH average 2009: 0.26 C
Positive slope for fit to all the UAH data for the last decade. What values have you calculated?
As for Trenbeth’s quote, the “travesty” was in the lack of satellite instrumentation, not the lack of warming. As he said:
“What this is saying is we need better observations. What it’s not saying is that global warming is not here.”

81. Veronica says:

Nice replies, Lord M. I notice you say you will reply to scientific and economic arguments – but not stylistic ones. I really do think a little less scathing ire and more cool rationality would help your very worthwhile cause. In marketing a cause, perception is reality. Don’t get caught up in the rhetoric just because you are articulate and witty. Keep it calm – erm, cool it…

82. JMANON says:

A couple of points;
1) The USA has, through long addiction to Hollywood, come to associate Brits with either the bad guys: the ever articulate and excellent Alan Rickman (Die Hard) being one typical example, or, with upper class Twits – for example, Hugh Grant et al in 4 weddings – safely assumed to know nothing but to say it nicely.
We might therefore suppose that Al Gore might be tempted if he thought he could capitalise on this.
Al Gore was astute enough to recognise the value of films over the written word as being believed – Oliver Stone’s JFK proved that most movie audiences believe what is on film rather than what is in the Warren Report. His Disaster movie was thus a clever way to convince many movie goers of the “truth” of the title. So he is well acquainted with the tricks of the Hollywood trade.
But, he can’t be sure he can make either characterisation stick and while “An Inconvenient Truth” was a sure thing, virtually guaranteed to convince even if entirely fictitious (as it largely seems to have been), he has no such guarantees in a TV debate with CM who might be either a bad guy or an upper class twit or which might confuse Americans too much trying to make up their minds.
Plus, he is 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley – now we have a real problem. The madness of George the III was allegedly changed to the Madness of King George because audiences would wonder how they missed the previous two films…. and that might prove a distraction, or that being a viscount might invoke the love of “royalty” so common in republics. Not a Sir or a Dame, or even a Lord but a Viscount.
Oh dear.
No predicting the outcome.
Note this is not about what either says. Al Gore can tell lies on film and be believed but CM can tell the truth in print or on You Tube and not be believed…. winning arguments is not about the truth.
Sad, but there it is and on balance Al Gore might feel he could win the debate. But he also has Browns disease (Gordon Brown) that he lacks self belief. He has avoided even question times after photo ops. It might also be that he is good working from a prepared script or the idiot board but thinking on his feet might be one of his weaknesses and his reluctance to ever engage in conversation or discussions is designed to protect him from this. In all his political career, we ought to be able to discover just how good he is off the cuff compared to off the auto-cue.
Now while any politician knows it isn’t what is said but how it is said, the notorious debate between Nixon and Kennedy in the 1960s showed that the winner on the radio was not the winner in the same debates on TV.
Too much risk that AG might not be perceived to perform as well as CM. As CM showed when dealing with the “Hitler Youth” he can remain calm and incisive and accurate under pressure. Plus working with the truth makes it easier to respond which puts Al Gore at a disadvantage.
2) we need a new Internet law or a corollary to Godwin’s Law that covers references not just to Hitler but also to Margaret Thatcher. (Not to be confused with CM’s own reference to Hitler Youth which, in the circumstances was extremely apt. I also liked that CM did not back down when one of the “Hitler Youth” tried to play the race card by declaring himself Jewish. Bad move. It made his position worse, not better – he should not have been so ready to adopt Hitler Youth or Brownshirt tactics – especially if he expected to play the race card.)
3) We need another internet law, unless one exists, that covers people who use Wiki as a source. This ought to be an automatic argument loser, just like Godwins law and its proposed corollary – references to Margaret Thatcher (which can sometimes boomerang because to many people she was the greatest UK prime minister since Churchill).

83. Appomattox says:

Thank you for the clarification. If they assume the feedbacks are
basically linear, I wonder why we are spending so much money on their
supercomputers.
Using their own arguments against them is powerful but risky– ex falso
quodlibet.

84. Smokey says:

Tom P (13:15:33),
Sorry, but the IPCC models are wrong. How do I know that? Because planet Earth tells us the IPCC is wrong: click
Being in error by over 100% means the entire alarmist contingent has been wrong all along. But we already knew that.
AND… I also know why the alarmist contingent hates Lord Monckton so much: what have they got? The clueless Al Gore? The conniving Gavin Schmidt? The insufferably arrogant & provably wrong Hokey Stick Mann?
While we have a guy who is polite, and intellectually superior to all those weenies put together — and he’s real Viscount! How cool is that?
No wonder they’re jealous.

85. DirkH says:

“Don E (14:17:23) :
I would like to see a similar analysis done for methane. CO2 laws are proposed in the future. The future in now in San Francisco. We are being threatened with fines and penalties is we don’t sort our garbage. The rationale is that sorting garbage, keeping food scraps out of the landfill, will help to “stabilize” the climate by 2050.”
Simple superstition. We have that in Germany for 15 years or so now. Once i went to the glass recycling bin and it had written out the draconian punishment (up to 10000 Deutsche Mark) for throwing in bottles late in the evening. Understandable – the poor souls living there would not be able to sleep given the noise.
I decided to throw all recycable goods into the normal bin from that moment on – would anyone catch me the fine would be much less.
5 years ago a big old CRT monitor of mine died. The things were full of lead. I called the local utility and asked: Where do i put this? They told me: You can bring it to us or just throw it in the normal bin. I said: Are you sure? All that lead? Yes they said.
Don’t expect any logic. Sturgeons law applies.

86. Richard S Courtney says:

Eric Smith:
At (14:06:30) you wrongly assert:
“Monckton has never acknowledged that his former partner in crime, Margaret Thatcher was the prime instigator of global warming politics. Nor that she created the Hadley Centre as part of her war against coal (and the miner’s union) , wishing to make room for oil (her husband was a director of Britoil) and nuclear power.”
Your assertions are incorrect in every detail.
Before explaining your errors, I need to point out two facts. Firstly, Lord Monckton’s right-wing political views are poles apart from my old-fashioned British socialist views. And, secondly, his and my views on AGW are the same: see
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=2938
AGW is a political issue that abuses science in its promotion. Lord Monckton and I share a desire to stop that abuse so we can cooperate in oposing it (as is demonstrated at the above URL). I admire him and his work, and our different political views do not diminish that admiration.
I can personally act as witness that on several occasions Lord Monckton has agreed the fact that Mrs Thatcher (now Baroness Thatcher) elevated AGW from having been an obscure scientific hypothesis to become an international political issue and that she created the Hadley Centre.
For the facts of the origin of AGW, please see my item at
http://www.john-daly.com/history.htm
It explains that Mrs Thatcher fostered the AGW issue as a method to generate her personal credibility among her international political peers. However, as the item at the URL says:
“Mrs Thatcher could not have promoted the global warming issue without the support of her UK political party. And they were willing to give it. Following the General Election of 1979, most of the incoming Cabinet had been members of the government which lost office in 1974. They blamed the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) for their 1974 defeat. They, therefore, desired an excuse for reducing the UK coal industry and, thus, the NUM’s power. Coal-fired power stations emit CO2 but nuclear power stations don’t. Global warming provided an excuse for reducing the UK’s dependence on coal by replacing it with nuclear power. ”
Please note that this does not mean Mrs Thatcher started the scare as a method to harm the coal industry and/or the NUM as some people – including you – have claimed. Her real reason was (as I say above) for reasons of her personal political advancement on the international political stage.
The explanation of this at the URl derived from an assessment I first conducted in 1980 and provided to the British Association of Colliery Management (BACM) in 1981. I updated part of that paper for the late John Daly in the late 1990s and he put the update on his web site at the URL.
In 1980 BACM was concerned that the UK’s coal mining industry was being affected by the ‘acid rain’ scare that then existed, so BACM commissioned me to investigate if there were similar scares which were likely to occur. I interviewed as many interested parties as I could identify and after that I drew up influence diagrams for each identified potential scare.
This revealed that two potential scares deserved attention; viz. anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) global warming (AGW) and micro-dust. Of these, AGW was by far the most likely to become a real threat.
At the time, AGW was so obscure an issue that BACM had not heard of it. But my analysis concluded that AGW would become so serious an ‘environmental’ issue that it would displace all other ‘environmental’ issues whether or not it obtained any supporting scientific evidence. This conclusion derived from the positive feedback loops in the AGW influence diagram and these loops are shown in the colour-coded influence diagram in the item at the URL. The issue gains impetus from political input to all the feedback loops, but remove all mention of ‘science’ (i.e. everything colour-coded green in the diagram) and the issue still runs. So, AGW appears to be an environmental issue but – in reality – it is a purely political issue.
BACM rejected my analysis as being “extreme” and, therefore, “far fetched”. Since then AGW has displaced all other ‘environmental’ issues but has yet to obtain any supporting scientific evidence. So, I leave it to others to assess if my 1981 paper was “extreme” and, therefore, “far fetched”.
So, from the beginning, AGW was a political issue. My complaint at AGW is that science is being abused for a political purpose, and I strongly assert that such abuse of science is wrong whatever the purpose. Hence, despite our great political differences, Lord Monckton and I share a common desire to stop the pretence that AGW is other than an abuse of science as a tool to promote a political agenda. The IPCC admits this pretence as I explain below.
In 2001 (before I was invited to join the Editorial Board of ‘Energy and Environment’: E&E) I published a refereed paper in E&E that discussed the IPCC SRES scenarios as reported in Chapter 2 of WG III of the IPCC Third Assessment Report (i.e. the TAR).
Its Conclusion section includes these closing statements:
“The Chapter is honest about one thing, though. It openly admits why it pretends such mumbo-jumbo is science. Its Introduction states that the Chapter considers “societal visions of the future” that “most share a common goal: to explore how to achieve a more desirable future state”. There are many differing opinions on what would be a “a more desirable future state” (c.f. those of Mussolini and Marx) but the Chapter does not overtly state its definition of “desirable”.
And the Chapter concludes: “Perhaps the most powerful conclusion emerging from both the post-SRES analyses and the review of the general futures literature is that it may be possible to very significantly reduce GHG emissions through integration of climate policies with general socio-economic policies, which are not customarily as climate policies at all.”
Simply, this conclusion of Chapter 2 of WG III TAR calls for changes to socio-economic policies that are not climate policies (at very least, this conclusion provides an excuse for such changes). And the Chapter’s Introduction states that these changes are intended to achieve “a more desirable future state” based on “societal visions of the future”.
This conclusion derived by the method that generated it for the purpose stated in the Chapter is an abuse of science. Indeed, it is not science to make predictions of how to change the future by use of selected scenarios when “no systematic analysis has published on the relationship between mitigation and baseline scenarios”: this is pseudo-science of precisely the same type as astrology. ”
Richard

87. Tom P says:

Smokey (14:51:27) :
I’m sure you agree that increased temperatures have in the past pushed up CO2 concentrations with a time lag of up to one thousand years as the oceans degassed. Hence the measurements you show are for a system far from equilibrium.
The equilibrium concentration doubling temperature will therefore be larger than the value indicated by a fit to this data. But at least these measurements provides a lower limit, though one which is considerably larger than the doubling temperature Monckton himself would admit.

88. John Hooper says:

To everyone: you miss my point. I love the Mad Monck, but there’s no doubt his infatuation with the sound of his own voice somewhat distracts from his message. I’m just saying if you’re trying to win over the proletariat, try not being so smug.
You don’t have to use big words to prove you’re smart. You need to communicate to the masses in their own language.
Al Gore understands this. So does Obama. Last time I looked they both had Nobel Prizes. Monckton, on the other hand, is generally ridiculed in the media for his own vanity. He has no connection with the public, and thus little sway in terms of political persuasion.
As for Wikipedia not being a reliable reference: well stop whinging and edit it yourself. But, in Plimer’s case, you might find it hard finding anyone credible praising Heaven and Earth. He’s a publicity disaster.
If we want action on this subject it’s not enough to preach to the already converted. We need to convince the mainstream media our spokespeople are diligent scientists, and not just a bunch of eccentrics.

89. Andrew30 says:

Jimmy Haigh (14:14:12) :
RE: “I ask again – why wasn’t His Lordship a sceptic back in the day’s of Thatcher?”
There was no CO2 ‘global warming’ ‘consensus view’ during Thatchers’ time in office, so what was exactly is you question about?
Margaret Thatcher served as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1979 to 1990.
During Thatcher.
“(the) consensus view expressed by IPCC in 1990, when it was stated that the effect of increased carbon dioxide concentrations could not yet be identified in the observed record”
Thatcher leaves office then…
“This work played a critical role in the conclusion reached by the 1995 assessment of the IPCC that “the balance of evidence suggests that there has been a discernible human influence on global climate”.
Read up on it, check the history here and in other places, and then you can inform yourself and perhaps answer many of you own questions.

90. Galen Haugh says:

JMANON (14:47:59) :
A couple of points;

Oh dear.
No predicting the outcome.
Note this is not about what either says. Al Gore can tell lies on film and be believed but CM can tell the truth in print or on You Tube and not be believed…. winning arguments is not about the truth.
—-
Reply: Perhaps, but while I’ve not seen a definitive poll about Gore’s believability, I’ve asked several associates what they think of Al Gore and all I get is eye rolls.
In their gut they know the guy’s a liar.

91. DirkH says:

Hi, back again, Tom P, for you, the “travesty” mail:
Kevin Trenberth wrote:
> Hi all
> Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are
> asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two
> days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high
> the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the
> previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also
> a record low, well below the previous record low. This is January
> weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday
> and then played last night in below freezing weather).
>
> Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning:
> tracking Earth’s global energy. /Current Opinion in Environmental
> Sustainability/, *1*, 19-27, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [PDF]
>
> (A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)
>
> The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment
> and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the
> August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more
> warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.
Now he says CERES data indicates a lot of warming but he doesn’t see it on the ground. That is how i interpret this.
And my own very subjective note is: We had the coldest 20th Dec since 1981 here where i live. This might of course be due to some microclimatic changes.
But i remember vividly that the AGW prophets warned us: Global warming is difficult to recognize. It doesn’t lead to extreme high records in the summer, no, it is rather that the nights don’t get as cold as they were, the winters will be a little warmer, you won’t really notice…
And that doesn’t describe what i see outside, sorry. Reality bites.

92. Galen Haugh says:

John Hooper (15:29:56) :
“Al Gore understands this. So does Obama. Last time I looked they both had Nobel Prizes. ”
—-
Reply: And that should give you a good indication just how worthwhile such an award is–pretty much worthless. I listen to either of them and my stomach turns.
“As for Wikipedia not being a reliable reference: well stop whinging and edit it yourself. ”
—-
Reply: Please refer to my (14:09:18) comment above. Wiki is a lost cause until they change their format.

93. Theo Goodwin says:

Christopher writes:
“Dr. Patrick Michaels, one of the most distinguished commentators on the climate scam, has done some excellent work demonstrating that over the past 30 years the relationship between CO2 emissions and CO2 concentration has remained broadly constant at approximately 14-15 billion tons CO2 emitted per 1 ppmv increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.”
Isn’t it true that measurements of airborne carbon dioxide concentrations depend on the assumption that CO2 molecules are distributed randomly “throughout” Earth’s atmosphere except near carbon sources or sinks on the surface? Isn’t this a scandal? I understand that there are few measurements of CO2 concentrations at 100 miles up because it is so expensive to make them. But shouldn’t we be candid about this and doubt our own science for its lack of empirical evidence.
The usual justification for the assumption is that CO2 does not condense the way water vapor does and, therefore, CO2 can be assumed to be distributed randomly. But does that make sense? CFCs don’t condense but we know that their “harmful actions” are not distributed randomly; rather, they gather nicely over the poles and, supposedly, create ozone holes just there but not over Nebraska. Isn’t it likely that CO2 has many unknown characteristics in the volume between the surface and the top of the atmosphere? Couldn’t there be rivers of CO2?

94. Marc says:

Thank you, Viscount, for your resolute opposition of the pernicious assault on our liberty and prosperity.
As I read this and your many other excellent articles, I reflect sadly that Western education systems are fast becoming incapable of producing minds like your own.
No wonder then, that the risable pseudo-science of AGW has so nearly proved the mechanism by which truly mediocre and malign individuals such as Rudd, Gore, Pachauri et al garner dictatorial power over us all.
When the history of this hitherto-incredible “Climate Change” episode is written, a few names will be remembered with honour. Steve McIntyre’s and your own will surely be foremost amongst them. No doubt at that point it will seem apposite to paraphrase Sir Winston; “Never in the defence of liberty and prosperity have so many owed so much to so few”, regarding your cool, rational defence of our civilization.
If the horrors of 20th Century totalitarianism have anything to teach, it is the banality of evil. Despotic regimes capture torpid populations in the way that slowly warming water boils a frog. While small men, enraged by the fact of their own inadequacy, still seek to impose themselves on the rest of us, there will remain a need for the knight errant.
Keep swinging, Viscount!
Thanks again,
Marc.

95. Pascvaks says:

Monckton is a fighter, regardless of the ranting of some who have commented here that his armor is somewhat scuffed and his steed occasionally smells and has mud and blood on its hooves. For those who would have their champion immaculate and in polished silver, an Archangel among men, dream on. Lords and Ladies are as human as you or I and, if only occasionally, some even rise above the average. They’re similar to “scientists” you could say, some sub-par, many quite hum-hoo, and a few sehr-guts.

Outstanding.

97. John Whitman says:

Thank You Lord Monckton.
It is good we have a great argumentative world to be in . . . the best kind of world to do independent thought and action.
John

98. Benzopf says:

John Hooper:
I’ve listened to hours of Monckton’s lectures now and he hardly comes off as pompous. He sounds educated, which isn’t a crime last time I checked. You seem to imply it is.
I don’t think people should hide their education or their background. If we as parents endeavor to give our kids advantages we did not have, why should we then vilify the children who received them? Wealth is nothing to be ashamed of.
In fact, if Lord Monckton tried to effect some breezy, fake connection with the masses, that WOULD offend me. As someone who grew up in grinding poverty, nothing pisses me off more than some jackass (Gore, Obama, Hillary) trying to talk my language.
Monckton shows me respect by not talking down to me.
And BTW- Gore won the Nobel prize; ipso facto, it is worthless.

99. Allen63 says:

Very clear point by point response. Concrete. Indicative of someone who has thought things out and has the self confidence to make their ideas clear and learn from possible criticism.
Moreover, though I normally use “shirtsleeves” language myself, its refreshing to see someone use the language well.

100. John A says:

The rationale is that sorting garbage, keeping food scraps out of the landfill, will help to “stabilize” the climate by 2050.

It should stabilize the rat population.

101. Dr.T G Watkins(Wales) says:

Forget titles and accidents of birth, but judge a man by what he knows, says and, more importantly, by what he does. As a poor and oppressed Welshman, I’d be happy to have Chris Monckton at my side on the rugby field or in the proverbial trenches. (assuming he can tackle)

102. Jose A Veragio says:

Peter of Sydney (13:31:10) :
“I don’t understand how the IPCC climate change computer models have any value at all. It’s like economic models that often get it wrong People still use them and some even make very important decisions based on such inaccurate models. ………………………..the proof now that the models are totally wrong simply by comparing them to observational data. Of course, a few AGW believers go as far to say the observational data must be wrong. How’s that for stupidity? ………

While the models help us to test our ever evolving (mis-)understanding of the universe, to hold up their complexity as some reason why their ‘predictions’ must be true – in the face of divergence from observed behaviour too, seems to be missing the point entirely.
It’s difficult for the tax payer to imagine ‘though , when so much has been spent on them, that they are good for little else.
Their value is only maintained while they are being constantly revised to take account of observed reality. When that stops they fall behind what we know & become little more than, albeit very expensive, playthings.
When the Climate fails to match their predictions, has the Climate got it wrong … and does it care ?

103. xyzlatin
I don’t see any socialism in the developed world today.
Richard S Courtney
Monckton did not acknowledge Thatcher to me in emails. He insisted on his insane socialist takeover theory.
You cannot assert one minute she used AGW to attack the coal industry, then the next that she didnt. no matter how much you wish to disagree with me. You cannot invent words and put in Tickell’s mouth either.
It is clear the oil companies have been behind this from the start, and Monckton, Alex Jones or anyone else claiming a global socialist takeover will be seen as crazy extremists outside a tiny section of the American population. They are a liability in terms of opposition to AGW.
Global governance is an ongoing agenda, but anyone who thinks Shell or Goldman Sachs are socialists will not be taken seriously.

104. Andrew30
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5955955/Weather-records-are-a-state-secret.html
Back in 1990, Mrs Thatcher, temporarily under the spell of the prophets of runaway global warming, authorised lavish funding for the then-head of the Met Office, Sir John Houghton, to set up its Hadley Centre in Exeter, as a “world-class centre for research into climate change”. It was linked to the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, to create a record of global temperatures based on surface weather stations across the world, a data set known as HadCrut. Sir John himself played a key role at the top of the new IPCC as chairman of its scientific working group.
Sir John was a fervent believer in the theory that the cause of global warming is man-made CO2, and the HadCrut computer models, run by his CRU ally Professor Phil Jones, were programmed accordingly. Sir John (and the Hadley Centre) continued to play a central part in the running of the IPCC, selecting many of the contributors to its reports that were the main driver of global warming alarm. He and Prof Jones were also prominent champions of the IPCC’s notorious “hockey stick” graph, which rewrote climate history by suggesting that global temperatures had suddenly shot up in the late 20th century to easily their highest level in history

105. cohenite says:

Lord Monckton and Ian Plimer will be in Newcastle on 28/1/10, at the Town Hall at 12.30pm. I’m looking forward to it; and unlike Copenhagen I’ll make sure Lord Monckton isn’t attacked from behind.

106. John Sims says:

Mr John Hooper gave it as his opinion that Viscount Monckton is “tarnished by his Thatcher connection”. In that case, so am I, and so are the large number of other people who voted for her in three general elections – all of which she won. I suppose, Mr Hooper, that you’re not tarnished by your Kinnock or Blair connections?
But then, you may be alluding to something else entirely – and, who knows, possibly another Thatcher? In which case, Mr Hooper, I hope you and others will treat this post as being null and void.

107. King of Cool says:

Watch out M’Lord. Nature has handed Mr Rudd some powerful ammunition that he is already using in declaring the latest BOM Report of Australia’s Second Warmest Year on Record as proof of Global Warming and that Tony Abbott was lying when he said that global warming had stopped.
Expect a battery of artillery aimed at you firing this new “evidence” as soon as you step off the aeroplane.
http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/climate/change/20100105.shtml
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/labor-seizes-on-temperature-figures-as-evidence-of-global-warming/story-e6frg6xf-1225816209762

108. Jonathan says:

In Monckton’s formula: ΔT = (4.7 ± 1) ln(C/C0) could he be too generous with the value of the coefficient?
It is possible that the coefficient of 4.7 is too large.
The IPCC in TAR said the temperature rose 0.6 degrees during a time when carbon dioxide rose from about 280 to 380.
Plug those values into the formula: 0.6 = xln(380/280) or
0.3x = 0.6
X = 2, not 4.7

109. JohnD says:

Lord Monckton,
Thank you for your convictions and stamina.

110. 3x2 says:

Another Brit (12:50:34) :
As a non-scientist, I find Lord Monckton’s work to be a beam of light in an otherwise dark and confused world.
And isn’t that just the problem. Tear gas v analysis of the numbers. I notice that our resident “cult o doom™” population don’t attack his science or numbers.
VCM … (sort of private letter):
Have I got this part right … you have now joined the UKIP?
I ask simply because of late I would have voted (next election) for the BNP in preference to the spineless morons on offer ATM. Really, would you want someone who apologises to “green” for driving a car in preference to a bicycle running your country? WC is probably spinning at a quantum level in his grave right now.
I’m tired of the Cabal and their “gas ‘o’ doom™”, I detest “greens” and their Malthusian, population killing, back to the Iron Age BS. I’m tired of main party UK politicians trying to “out green” each other and don’t even get me started with our un-elected “EU” People’s Commissars back handing their friends at my expense with no referendum . Enough already. Communism died years ago.
World Socialist Command (and Champagne) Economy … I hope those UN blue helmets are made of sterner stuff than they look. Tis a thousand years since the moat was breached (discounting invited Dutch of course).
You have my vote.

111. 3x2 says:

Jonathan (17:16:18) :
In Monckton’s formula: ΔT = (4.7 ± 1) ln(C/C0) could he be too generous with the value of the coefficient?
Methinks you doth miss the point. Double or triple that coefficient if you like, the point remains the same.

112. Richard S Courtney says:

Eric Smith:
At (16:57:33) you say to me:
“You cannot assert one minute she used AGW to attack the coal industry, then the next that she didnt. no matter how much you wish to disagree with me. You cannot invent words and put in Tickell’s mouth either.”
I did no such thing!
I clearly distinguished between
(a) Mrs T’s reason for proclaiming AGW
and
(b) the reason why her poltical party let her raise it.
Indeed, AGW was a distraction from the ‘acid rain’ scare that was harming the coal industry at the time. If your assertion were true then she would not have raised the AGW issue.
And I cited Sir Crispin’s words to me as I explained above at (15:17:04).
Please note that (as I explained at (15:17:04)) my analysis was conducted in 1980 and predicted the subsequent development of AGW. The prediction of that analysis subsequently proved correct but it was not based on any ‘Big Oil’ conspiracy theory.
I do not share Lord Monckton’s politics but I support his excellent work debunking AGW although we have very different political opinions.
Richard

113. amicus curiae says:

john Jooper..you believe a Wiki entry on Lord M..
yeah and you believe in AGW too I guess.
If Ian Plimer of Bob Carter were the readers I’d be happy and proud!
I just wish I could get to Melbourne to hear Lord Moncktons talks. 450km ea way is a bit too far sadly:-(
Give KRudd and WRong the hell they deserve!

114. ZT says:

Off topic – but I wanted to share the following link:
‘History of America Before Columbus’ – published in 1900. (Presumably free of AGW and oil company biases).
Here are some highlights:
…discussing the recorded tribute paid to Rome in 1327 from Greenland – leads to an estimate of the population of Greenland in 1327 of 75,000 people (i.e. more than 2008). This is around page 176.
“There is another way which we may follow in making this calculation of the number of ancient Greenland’s people.
The collectors of St. Peter’s Pence in the year 1327 have left us an interesting record of the exchanges and relative values of northern and of southern Europe’s moneys at that time.”
“Gravier justly remarks that the families of the Northmen were generally large; and, in fact, all Europe was for a whole century wondering in dismay where all the swarms of Northman invaders might come from. We would not exaggerate, therefore, if we should allow ten persons to each family, and estimate the colonial population of ancient Greenland at seventy-five thousand people.”
‘Whatever the climate may be in Greenland to-day, it is the general opinion of the learned and of the people in Iceland, not to say a well-established fact, that it was considerably milder at the time of its first Scandinavian colonization.’
‘The slightest examination of the ruins at Kakortok and in the neighborhood reveals the fact that every building, every residence of the Northmen, had its garden and a portion of cultivated land, which, together with their bays, their table-lands, and wild mountains, provided them not only with the necessaries, but also with many a luxury of daily life.’
‘There was plenty of land for all to provide their animals with grass in summer and with hay in winter, and even to raise for themselves sufficient vegetables, small fruits, and a moderate supply of some cereals.’
‘Bardson concludes his description of Greenland by saying that in these localities as beautiful wheat did grow as anywhere else’

115. 3x2 says:

Peter of Sydney (13:31:10) :
Apart from the invalid assumptions, incomplete forcing equations and lack of a complete understanding of how the climate works, there’s the proof now that the models are totally wrong simply by comparing them to observational data.
I think that in the rush to highlite the more obvious elements of climategate some have missed a point or two . That is to say that The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. “ is what gets the headline but read on (in the same paragraph) and there is (in my reading at least) a more worrying aspect.
My reading is that despite the obvious possibility that they may have an inadequate theory and incomplete models they would rather believe that “the data” is wrong.
Now call me old fashioned, but when the measured data doesn’t match either your theory or your model …. could just be that your real data is correct and your theory and derived model need revision. then again I’m notaclimatescientist so what would I know?
(1255550975.txt and related mail)
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the
moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published
in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even
more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is

116. photon without a Higgs says:

John Hooper (12:15:05) :
I see you’ve done floppy fact checking of Ian Plimer’s facts.
As we all know anything having to do with global warming in Wikipedia is butchered by William Connolley.

117. photon without a Higgs says:

John Hooper (12:15:05) :
tarnished by his Thatcher connection.
The truth is ‘global warming’ has been tarnished by Al Gore’s connection to it.
And you did know, of course, that Al Gore is a politician?

118. DonS says:

Always so informative, WUWT has elicited a uniquely educational experience by publishing Monckton’s articles.
First, I learn that some object to Latin expressions as pretentious and crave plain talk. Possibly they don’t know that over 60% of English words, in one or more of their forms, are associated with Latin roots. Remove those roots from English, the most expressive language on the planet, and the language would be a guttural Northern European polyglot incapable of expressing scientific, medical, geographic, mathematical, astronomical, philosophical, or psychological (did I miss any?) thought with precision.
Now, imprecision of language on WUWT is the single most detracting factor of the endeavor. There we are, avidly on the trail of a well reasoned argument, and CLANG, a language failure. An affect where there should be an effect, an it’s instead of an its, a misspelling, a verb in the wrong person, a malapropism. The train is lost, the effort is wasted, and we must begin again to tease the author’s meaning from the tortured words.
Lord Monckton does not torture us in these ways. His sentences move smoothly, informatively and inevitably to their inescapable conclusions. This is communication rarely understood by those who do not have daily contact with it. Do not condemn it nor its purveyor. Instead, parse it, refer to any reference you require, but understand it before you dismiss it.
Lord Monckton, I applaud your eff’orts, just remember: no droit de seigneur around us Americans, y’all.

119. Tom FP says:

I did not understand “…does not diminish as all of the IPCC’s capable of being forced with changes in sea-surface temperatures predict.” – am I being thick or is it a typo?
Latinisms are a useful way to compress and clarify argument, but not if the writer feels they have to be explained in English. Try trusting us, milord, most of us can work out what “solum ad argumentum” means.
Interesting that Thatcher should be assailed for founding CRU. What’s wrong with an intitute set up to study climate in the 80s? It’s the fact that by the 90s the alchemists by then in charge weren’t actually studying climate that bothers us. We were told they had “computer” models that predicted catastrophe. We now learn they had “computer-and-man-with-a-keyboard-and-an-agenda” models. Hardly Maggie’s fault, is it?

120. savethesharks says:

Richard S Courtney (15:17:04) : et al….
This has been an enlightening history surrounding Baroness Thatcher.
I, as a kid, was always in awe of her leadership.
No leadership is perfect….and if there was a major reaction from the countless COAL-induced deaths in the UK….it is NOW understood why.
In the modern world, when things like this occur, there is an understanding reaction the other way: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog
That being said….we all learn from our mistakes.
The QUESTION is now will we learn or just continue to bicker…
In reality, IF we want to survive as a species [and I’m sorry but just by the Gothic Norman architectural specimens towering on the British Isles alone, Homo Sapiens has EARNED its right to live], but if we want to survive, we need to NOW pay attention to learning how to adapt to Mother Earth.
This, as Mr. Courtney so accurately points out, is BEYOND political differences.
The real issue here is the TRUTH.
And this, like the Scientific Method, cuts through all the chaff and gets down to business.
AS with many others on here, The Viscount is admired for his commitment to just that.
As we say in the USA….. MAD PROPS.
And I am a Christopher, too, though not a Lord. 😉
Chris
Norfolk [the other Norfolk not East Anglia lol] , VA, USA

121. Tom FP says:

Incidentally, had Thatcher remained in power, I’ll bet, scientist as she is, she would have taken sufficiently sceptical view of their pronouncements to have kept the CRU honest. These guys were emboldened, not by the success of their work, (it was manifestly unsuccessful) but by the abundant evidence that they had the political establishment eating out of their hands. Thatcher ate from nobody’s hand – even gave her chum Ronnie a bollocking when he invaded Grenada without asking her first.
Let’s not forget the political lethargy that has so nearly allowed this druidism to prevail.

122. Andrew30 says:

3×2 (19:19:07) :
Re: “they would rather believe that “the data” is wrong.”
I disagree.
I hear a scientist questioning the data. I would only do this if the model I had developed and tested with all available data, actually ‘worked’ to predict the last 10% of the data in the series based on the prior available 90%. That is to say, I am really, really sure my model works in its predictive capacity.
Having published my model based on this data, I now find that in the real future none of my predictions are being realized. I can not explain it. So I question the data, not the data I am getting now, I question the data I received in the PAST. I read this as the author questioning the past data, not the current reality.
This thing would not need thousands of scientists to be involved. All that was need was for one or two people in perhaps five or six countries to adjust the raw data (as we have seen). Anyone using the data when making a comparison to CO2 would find the results that had been seeded into the data. The scientists would not be aware that they were being played. They would honestly think that their conclusions were correct. Only none of their predictions would ever be confirmed.
Only the ones that actually were in control of the raw data and making the ‘adjustments’ needed to know of the exact requirements of the adjustment needed to seed the outcome into the data. When a scientist begins to say things like “the data must be wrong”, or “data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate”, perhaps they might not have been in on the ‘adjustments’ and they are likely frustrated because their model ‘works’ for the past and recent past. Think about the statement “we can’t account for the lack of warming”, it is an observation that would invalidate the whole theory. It is a serious problem for the author of the email.
The author of that email could not explain it, but perhaps someone else could.
If I ever found out that this had been done to me and my work, well…….

123. Claude Harvey says:

To those who seem to resent Monckton’s aristocratic lineage, let us imagine the response from a similarly pedigreed Lord on the other side of the dispute to Monckton’s efforts, should my previous suggestion be adopted, to wit:
“…I propose a new word (a verb in this case) to describe the act of utter ravishment, sexual or otherwise. I propose “Monck”, as in “Monck ‘em!”
“I say, old boy! I believe we’ve been Moncked in the hindquarters.”
I think being “Moncked” will carry considerably more sting among a certain set than merely being “XXXXXX” by a gang of revolutionary rabble.
CH

124. DirkH says:

“photon without a Higgs (20:06:30) :
John Hooper (12:15:05) :
I see you’ve done floppy fact checking of Ian Plimer’s facts.
As we all know anything having to do with global warming in Wikipedia is butchered by William Connolley.”
You forget to mention his droogs Brigade Harvester Boris and i think Stefan Schultz. Credit where credit is due.

125. Kevin S says:

@Keith W. (13:30:36)
I’ll defer to the gentleman from Memphis as to the actual location for said debate in the spirit of economic harmony. Having grown up in Houston, Tx., I too know just how devastating one snowflake can be to a city. 😉

126. Torsten Wedin says:

Lord Monckton,
can you please come to Sweden to teach our politicians about climate change. They think they can do God’s work and change the climate. By the way, I am very impressed by your work, Sir. Very impressed!

127. 3x2 says:

“And frankly, a little less hyperbole, pretentious latin and general affectation might help Chris Monkton’s cause, who’s already tarnished by his Thatcher connection. “
Down with Monkton and his edumakashun!
Eric Smith (14:06:30) :
(re: Thatcher …) If I can forgive him then, unless you are posting from S. Yorkshire, maybe you could too.
The oil companies and banks(IETA) were the leading promoters of a Copenhagen treaty.
You have to laugh at the greens and their “Big Oil/Money” conspiracy to ignore global warming … blind to the 100 billion + action
Doesn’t really fit his idea of a socialist takeover, does it ? Never mind, it’s certainly filled a lot of seats on his American lecture tour. I thought Monckton spoke very well on the science, but the right wing politics is a liability as well as being nonsensical.
I nonsensically feel that you may have a rather idealistic view of “socialism” – remember that, under any system, somebody always gets the Caviar, Champagne and a Caribbean island.
Jimmy Haigh (14:14:12) :
I ask again – why wasn’t His Lordship a sceptic back in the day’s of Thatcher?
Not my place to speak for LM but I’m fairly sure that we can all change our minds (unless you are a rabid warmer or a spineless politician) about anything as new evidence comes along. Until Sunday I believed that Leeds would loose 7-0 at Old Trafford … now I know better.
John Hooper (15:29:56) :
I’m just saying if you’re trying to win over the proletariat, try not being so smug.
You don’t have to use big words to prove you’re smart. You need to communicate to the masses in their own language.
Proletariat? Masses? Why yes Mr. Lenin I will endeavour to understand these earthlings and their earthly inconsistencies. May take some time rodin’ around in me red book tho’.

128. Steve Schaper says:

Surely Lord Monckton was ennobled by his association with Lady Thatcher, except that he already was. She, along with John Paul the Great and Ronald Reagan brought down a 70-year tyranny and freed hundreds of millions of people from slavery. In all history, there are but few that that can be said of.

129. Vern says:

John Hooper (15:29:56)
We need to convince the mainstream media our spokespeople are diligent scientists, and not just a bunch of eccentrics.
You say this as if this is simply a case of presenting a convincing set of scientific facts by outstanding scientists to the ‘mainstream’ ….in order to have them do what? Investigate the scientific basis of the issue themselves, weigh the pros and cons of the various points of view and report accurately on it? Let me be the first to inform you that they aren’t called the ‘lamestream media’ for nothing! What you are suggesting assumes that that media are irreproachably honest, that there is no bias that enters into the equation, that media themselves don’t have an agenda and that they can be trusted to adjudicate the ‘difference of views’ fairly and report on it all accordingly. Sheeeeesh!
My personal position is that I don’t want the mainstream media anywhere near this story as I don’t trust them any further than I can throw them… particularly with something as important as changing hearts and minds on such a complicated issue. Don’t bother to try and push a rope. A satisfactory conclusion to this whole sad saga of the last 15 years will occur when a groundswell of opinion by everyday people catches fire and starts taking their politicians to task for being sucked in on the scam and in the process, wasting everyone’s tax dollars. Let the media avoid this issue until perhaps either they can’t ignore it any more….or better yet, they go broke when their agenda-driven machine keeps on pushing the nonsense but the general public says ‘sorry but we aren’t buying it’. With the internet and forums such as this, that in fact is not only possible but I think it is already happening. I can say that my family, friends, neighbours, workplace, casual acquaintances and even the politicians have all been inundated by my arguments and I consider it a victory if they at least agree that what they have been told for the past umpteen years needs to be scrutinized a lot more closely. I encourage everyone else to do the same until truth overcomes the lies and agenda.
As for as your earlier post about ‘Lord Monckton being tarnished by his Thatcher connection’, let me suggest that this comment says far more about you than it does about Lord Monckton.

130. xyzlatin says:

So, where do you start to put this AGW rubbish down ??
Courier Mail, Brisbane, Australia 3:08PM 5/Jan/10 :-
“LAST year was Australia’s second warmest on record and closed out the warmest decade on file, according to the Bureau of Meteorology.
The latest temperature data “is consistent with global warming”, the bureau states in its 2009 annual climate statement released on Tuesday.”
I guess we just have to keep chipping away, some days I hope it would freeze down to the equator, then the penny may drop.
BTW, I’m very careful for what I wish for !!!

131. inversesquare says:

DirkH (14:16:17) :
‘Don’t get me started on nonlinear. Or i’ll say logarithmic.’
Heh…. nice one Dirk:)
Notice that my screen name is ‘inversesquare’……
Natural science is full of logarithms. Fortunately for us, mm carbon emissions are not exponentially rising and reasons are quite logical……hence why they would never be predicted to rise in this way by the IPCC people….nothing they assume can be said to follow any sort of fact based logic…. Logic, yes. Fact based……NO!
JonesII (12:27:04) :
“The dogs are barking Sancho, signal for us to start riding”!!

132. Geoff Sherrington says:

Eric Smith (14:06:30) :
Re the Thatcher years –
As one who was politically aware during these years, also involved in the uranium industry and its politics, also deeply involved in combatting the menace of unionism, also in management of a company with coal mines, I say that your reconstruction of history is false, undocumented and designed to smear. Please document some reliable sources or I’ll never stop marvelling at how history is re-invented by the earnest.

133. Torsten Wedin says:

Speaking about statistics…. Do you know that the last decade was the warmest decade of the century. When I think about it… it was also the coldest decade of the century 😉 .

134. Lord Monckton, you owe an apology to the family of Jackie Kennedy. Your history of DDT is in error, and your savage attack claiming she killed 40 million people is beyond the pale.

135. yonason says:

I would like to know if Lord Monkton has read the Gerlich & Tscheuschner paper,
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
and if so, what his assessment of it is.
Also, wishing you success in your mission to Australia, and all future attempts at restoring sanity to politics gone wrong.

136. RoHa says:

The real difficulty here is that nice Mr. Rudd and nice Ms. Wong are politicians.
They have nailed not merely their colours, but also their trousers to the mast of the good(?) ship Global Warming.
Mere science will not have any effect on them.
They need, first, to be convinced, not merely that they ship is going in the wrong direction, but that it is sinking, and will take them down.
Second, they need to be offered a way they can un-nail themselves without embarrassment or the attendant loss of votes.
Perhaps Lord Monkton can apply his political skills to solve this problem.

137. El Buggo says:

Christopher Monckton on Alex Jones today is giving COP 15 updates.
Monckton Says he is filing charges with the Indian police on well known scientific discrepancies presented as fact at the COP 15 meeting. Also talks about how they’re outsourcing British steel worker jobs to India because of gloBULL warming AND a lot more of extremly important info.
Listen to it here:
http://podcast.gcnlive.com/podcast/alex/0104102.mp3

138. Thank you Lord Monckton for your ongoing efforts for sanity. But we are all waiting for your Australian tour and no one seems to know the times and venues or how to make reservations.

139. Gail Combs says:

Jeremy (12:39:11) :
“Al Gore will *never* debate Lord Monkton. Americans by prejudice associate a British accent with educated authority, and a southern accent with lower-education. On their manner of speaking alone, Al would be up a creek.”
The American city with the highest per capita Phds is Durham NC – a nice SOUTHERN city, accent and all. So that excuse doesn’t fly either.

140. Baa Humbug says:

John Hooper (12:15:05) :
Speak for yourself please m8, I’m an aussie and I have nothing but respect, admiration and support for all that Lord Monckton is doing in this AGW debate.
For those who criticise the content, tone and anything else in Lord Moncktons letter, please post any letters or correspondence you’ve had with the PM or any other govt. personalle

141. phlogiston says:

Thanks again Lord Monckton for taking your valuable time to make this contribution.
I never heard following Copenhagen how you recovered from the assault on you by the police – I hope you have made a full recovery.

142. I asked this on the original SNAFU’d blog –
A question for Lord Monckton or anybody else:
I recently saw a comment on realcliamte.org:
” a misunderstanding between ‘airborne fraction of CO2 emissions’ (not changing very much) and ‘CO2 fraction in the air’ (changing very rapidly”.
Can someone explain to me in layman’s terms what is the difference between these two fractions?
*****************
@John Hooper
“And frankly, a little less hyperbole, pretentious latin and general affectation might help Chris Monkton’s cause, who’s already tarnished by his Thatcher connection.”
How scientific of you to present a personal opinion as fact.
“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Plimer”
You’d fail a university course if you tried that lazy trick!
“Australians love a bubble-burster, but have little time for this brand of pomposity.”
When did the people of Australia vote for you as their spokesman?
******************
@Another Brit
“As an Englishman, I would like to thank Lord Monckton for persevering in what must be, at times, a lonely endeavour . I wish we had more politicians and Peers of the Realm with the same degree of courage in their convictions.”
I totally agree and I second this. Lord Monckton is part of the old breed of Englishman and still has that stiff upper lip. Too bad there are not so many of them around these days.

143. Gail Combs says:

M White (13:27:49) :
“…We’re in a recession, I wonder how we will manage in a few years time when things takes off again and our coal and nuclear fired power stations are closing.”
The Carbon Trading/cap & Trade or whatever your country calls the law will stifle first world countries, there may be a bubble from carbon trading but no industry or manufacturing so you are talking permanent Depression. That is the whole purpose behind Carbon Trading and CO2 reduction – to insure first world countries are permanently crippled, and their wealth and land transfered to the ultra-wealthy before they move on to rape the third world countries.
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilisations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
Maurice Strong, Father of CAGW, and Kyoto
or as Professor Maurice King put it
“Global sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduce resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.”
I talked to a friend who is a professor and ardent CAGW supporter. I pointed out that Cap and Trade would mean life long poverty and a reduced standard of living for his little girl. His reply was that she was aware of that and willing to make the “sacrifice” Note the next week the kid was bragging about daddy’s new SUV!
Brainwashing, it is nothing but brainwashing and they have infected the University profs with the disease and call it socialism and envronmentalism.
CHORUS:
For we are the worms of the earth
Against the lions of might.
All of our days we are tied to the land,
While they hunt and they feast and they fight.
We give our crops and our homes and our lives
And the clerics tell us this is right….
by Bob Esty
As I said Feudalism complete with a new religion to keep the peasants compliant.

144. C.W. Schoneveld says:

Dear Lord Monckton,
Having had, like you, a classical education it always pains me when I see the term “data” accompanied with a verbal form in the singular. To my dismay I just noticed while reading your piece that this corruption has disfigured your text too. Apart from that I admire your work. Your perfect use of the Socratric method in your exchange with that Norwegian singer in Copenhagen should become a standard teaching aid in any classical education.

145. C.W. Schoneveld says:

correction: “Socratic”

146. DennisA says:

Eric Smith: “Everything points to big oil.” Seems to me that Big Beanz have played a major part and still do with John Kerry on the world stage.

147. Vincent says:

Eric Smith,
“It is clear the oil companies have been behind this from the start, and Monckton, Alex Jones or anyone else claiming a global socialist takeover will be seen as crazy extremists.”
Clear how? I am prepared to believe the oil companies have jumped on board as rent seekers, but show me some evidence they were behind it from the start. Richard Courtney had, 30 years ago, produced a report which described the mechanisms that would lead to the dominance of AGW. History has shown that to be correct, although as we know, correlation does not equal causation.
You then erroneously claim that Monckton claimed a “socialist takeover.” He never mentioned the word “socialist” in his letter to Rudd. I have heard him use the word “communistic” and possibly “fascist” in other articles. However, it should be clear, that democracy is not a necessary prerequisite for a capitalist society – China has proved that quite well.
The recurring theme in Lord Monckton’s articles is a warning about loss of democracy in pursuit of world governence. The fact that oil companies (and many others) think they will prosper via government handouts does not mean they are “socialist” or part of a socialist conspiracy. I think your reasoning is a bit muddled on all this.

148. Don says:

Anthony,
I don’t know where to post this, so put it where you will.
The Head of the UK’s Met office, Mr John Hirst, has, according to an article in today’s issue of the Daily Telegraph, been given a 25% pay rise. This is ‘ a performance-related increase ‘
He is now paid more than the British Prime Minister.

149. Chris Schoneveld says:

Rt Hon David Miliband MP
Secretary of State.
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA),
Nobel House
17 Smith Square
London
SW1P 3JR
16 July 2009
Dear Secretary of State,
My friend, who is in farming at the moment, recently received a cheque for £3,000 from the Rural Payments Agency for not rearing pigs. I would now like to join the “not rearing pigs” business.
In your opinion, what is the best kind of farm not to rear pigs on, and which is the best breed of pigs not to rear? I want to be sure I approach this endeavour in keeping with all government policies, as dictated by the EU under the Common Agricultural Policy.
I would prefer not to rear bacon pigs, but if this is not the type you want not rearing, I will just as gladly not rear porkers. Are there any advantages in not rearing rare breeds such as Saddlebacks or Gloucester Old Spots, or are there too many people already not rearing these?
As I see it, the hardest part of this programme will be keeping an accurate record of how many pigs I haven’t reared. Are there any Government or Local Authority courses on this?
My friend is very satisfied with this business. He has been rearing pigs for forty years or so, and the best he ever made on them was £1,422 in 1968. That is – until this year, when he received a cheque for not rearing any.
If I get £3,000 for not rearing 50 pigs, will I get £6,000 for not rearing 100? I plan to operate on a small scale at first, holding myself down to about 4,000 pigs not raised, which will mean about £240,000 for the first year. As I become more expert in not rearing pigs, I plan to be more ambitious, perhaps increasing to, say, 40,000 pigs not reared in my second year, for which I should expect about £2.4 million from your department. Incidentally, I wonder if I would be eligible to receive tradable carbon credits for all these pigs not producing harmful and polluting methane gases?
Another point: These pigs that I plan not to rear will not eat 2,000 tonnes of cereals. I understand that you also pay farmers for not growing crops. Will I qualify for payments for not growing cereals to not feed the pigs I don’t rear?
I am also considering the “not milking cows” business, so please send any information you have on that too. Please could you also include the current Defra advice on set aside fields? Can this be done on an e-commerce basis with virtual fields (of which I seem to have several thousand hectares)?
In view of the above you will realise that I will be totally unemployed, and will therefore qualify for unemployment benefits. I shall of course be voting for your party at the next general election.
Yours faithfully,
Nigel Johnson-Hill

150. Disputin says:

“cohenite (17:00:27) :
Lord Monckton and Ian Plimer will be in Newcastle on 28/1/10, at the Town Hall at 12.30pm. I’m looking forward to it; and unlike Copenhagen I’ll make sure Lord Monckton isn’t attacked from behind.”
Forgive me, but I’m starting to appreciate the irritating American habit of writing “Paris, France”, etc. In the case of Newcastle, is that Newcastle, NSW or Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK? My first hope was the latter (in which case I’d go), but I’m beginning to think it must be in Oz. Pity. For those two I’d have gone.
(PS I think we can safely exclude the dozen or so Newcastles in the US, plus a few in Canada, Jamaica, etc. as well as several others in the UK.)

151. geronimo says:

xyzlatin: “LAST year was Australia’s second warmest on record and closed out the warmest decade on file, according to the Bureau of Meteorology.
The latest temperature data “is consistent with global warming”, the bureau states in its 2009 annual climate statement released on Tuesday.”
We have the same problem with the “scientists” at the Met Office, they seem to believe that sceptics don’t believe in global warming, and that by proving the world is getting warmer the case for the connection of CO2 is made. As I’ve said elsewhere. The world is warming, the CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing, but the assertion that CO2 caused the warming in the absence of a mathematical connection that can be observed isn’t science it’s soothsaying.
Monckton does have a distinctive old English style of speaking and writing. It is a harmless affectation taken by many people of education in the UK. Over the years I’ve had the privilege of working with many of these people and can say that none of them are have been anything but courteous and inclusive, these characteristics are part of the affectation, along with an ability to speak their mind without offence. Although I do wish he’d not use the words “liars” and “lies”.

152. Tom FP says:

Jimmy Haig – as a true scientist, I’m sure Monckton was and remains a sceptic. He may have changed his opinions, suspicions, etc, as he learned – that is what scientists are supposed to do – that is the point, to them, of science. That’s why they do a thing called research – not, as you seem to think, with the object of confirming their prejudices. Scientific theory isn’t like supporting a footy team – a lifelong commitment to be honoured regardless of the team’s fluctuating merits. Sadly, that’s the way the Hockey Team druids approached their work.
Try and understand that true scepticism is indispensible AT ALL TIMES to real scientists.

153. 40 Shades of Green says:

Hi,
Did you inadvertantly write “.2” rather than “.02” below.
.2 isn’t bad bang for relevant buck.
Another reader has asked why I have calculated the effect of implementing the Copenhagen Accord only as far as 2020. This is the time-horizon for the Accord. The effect of the Accord over ten years would be to forestall warming of just 0.2 C° (0.35 F°) forestalled even if everyone complies fully.

154. Vincent
I meant the start of the emissions trading process in 1997. That is why AGW has beeen so successful; in the face of falling temperatures. Richard Courtney’s report on Thatcher is literally fiction. I’m not saying he is wrong, but he invented it.
Monckton wrote “The Treaty of Copenhagen, like it or not, is communist” in an email to me. That is completely insane and allows the Guardian to very correctly call him a clown. His performance in Minnesota, playing up the the right wing Americans was pathetic.
Geoff Sherrington
The world will dismiss Monckton as a publicity seeking, right wing lunatic, because that is exactly what he is. He is a liability to any anti agw movement.

155. John Hooper says:

Look, it’s all very well to mock the mass media’s failings, but if you want to win this campaign, you need to win them over. Stop calling them names. Start writing letters to the editor that are well researched, aren’t tarnished by political agenda and don’t involve name-calling.
You, personally, might yearn for the Thatcher years, but let me assure you in the UK, those most sold on AGW do not share your affection. Talking her up will cost you politically whatever you believe. Just keep a lid on it.
We must take partisanship out of the equation, and win over the Left, not alienate them.
If you don’t understand this, you are demeaning the science in the name of petty politics. You are no better than the one-eyed likes of George Monbiot.

156. Yertizz says:

Well done, Lord Monckton.
Hope you gather even more support from around the world and eventually smash this scam completely.

157. Tenuc says:

yonason (22:25:45) :
would like to know if Lord Monkton has read the Gerlich & Tscheuschner paper,
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
and if so, what his assessment of it is.”

Reply: Thanks for the link to “Falsi cation Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics.” Taking into account the fudging that has been going on with the CRU/GISS/IPCC global temperature anomaly, if this paper is correct, then the current global cooling we observe could have started in the mid-70’s.
I too would be interested to see Lord Monckton’s views on this paper?

158. Tim Clark says:

Eric Smith (14:06:30) :
Everything points to big oil.

Eric, if you have any insider connections to big oil, please list forthwith. I believe Lord M could use the cash to continue his altruistic endeavor. Enlighten the readers of this blog with some person or organization we can contact “en masse” ( a little pompous french) on behalf of the Viscount.

159. George says:

I can’t let the “pompous” dig go by without comment. On the contrary, Monckton is a gentleman the likes of whom we haven’t seen since Churchill. He is kinder and more civil than I could be under the circumstances.
I admire someone who goes where the truth leads. I wish more people had this much character.

160. Veronica says:

@ John Hooper
I understand your point and agree. I do think Lord M is a bit of a hero but I would like him to tone down the sneering and aggressive language (the Latin is a minor niggle). The trouble is that the public does tend to imbue members of the House of Lords with the label of pomposity and superiority, and Lord M’s house style tends to back up that assumption. Likewise Richard Dawkins might have made more converts to atheism if his book hadn’t been quite so bellicose.
The word “Sceptic” in this context has the connotation of right wing belligerence about it. What would help our cause as the rational, non-hysterical stickers-to-the-facts is a degree of sweet moderation (as Billy Bragg once put it) and cool rationality, not sniping emotional attacks referencing Komissars and Eurosceptical UKIP policies.
Then we can dissect away the political hyperbole and look at the facts.

161. Peter Plail says:

If last year was the second warmest in Australia’s history, this means that there was a previously hotter year and thus the climate must be cooling.

162. thethinkingman says:

What was wrong with LM’s letter and style?
I am a think colonial living in Zimbabwe and I understand him to have said, very convincingly, AGW is bollocks. Did I miss something?

163. thethinkingman says:

Sorry that should have been “thick” colonial. Which I suppose I just confirmed. LOL

164. Gail Combs says:

Vincent (02:03:06) :
Eric Smith,
“It is clear the oil companies have been behind this from the start, and Monckton, Alex Jones or anyone else claiming a global socialist takeover will be seen as crazy extremists.”
Clear how? I am prepared to believe the oil companies have jumped on board as rent seekers, but show me some evidence they were behind it from the start. Richard Courtney had, 30 years ago, produced a report which described the mechanisms that would lead to the dominance of AGW. History has shown that to be correct, although as we know, correlation does not equal causation…”

Do not make the mistake of thinking bankers and Corporate Execs are Capitalists. Many are not. Both Maurice Strong and David Rockefeller (both active in environmentalism and AGW) are “Socialists” as well as big oil honchos.
This is the form of “socialism” I am talking about.
“What unites the many different forms of Socialism.. is the conception that socialism (or a reasonable facsimile thereof) must be handed down to the grateful masses in one form or another, by a ruling elite which is not subject to their control…” http://search.marxists.org/archive/draper/1966/twosouls/0-2souls.htm
Or as David Rockefeller put it , “We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. . . . It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.”
As Lord Monckton states it is not a conspiracy theory. Here it is in black and white:
“…characterizing my family and me as “internationalists” and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” – Pg. 405 of David Rockefeller’s Autobiography, 2002
David Rockefeller speaking at the UN Business Council in Sept 17 1994
“This present window of opportunity, during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for too long – We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order. “
The 1972 UN Earth Summit, headed by Maurice Strong, was the start of organizing and hijacking the environmental movement as well as AGW. Strong, a big shot in Canadian oil, was Vice President of the World Wildlife Fund, member of the Club of Rome, Trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation, Senior Advisor to the World Bank and the UN, and above all, he served on the UN Commission on Global Governance. David Rockefeller’s Chase bank was training ground for three World Bank President’s and Rockefeller hosts a luncheon for the World Bank Hotshots yearly at his Westchester NY home.
The whole Rockefeller/Strong/Saudi/Khashoggi/CIA/Bush/oil/banking interconnections are worth looking at considering the 1973 Oil Crisis bankrupted third World Countries so they had to get World bank/IMF loans with SAPs strings controlling their governments.
Strong’s early work with YMCA international “…may have been the genesis of Strong’s realization that NGOs (non-government organizations) provide an excellent way to use NGOs to couple the money from philanthropists and business with the objectives of government.” http://sovereignty.net/p/sd/strong.html
“Very few of even the larger international NGOs are operationally democratic, in the sense that members elect officers or direct policy on particular issues,” notes Peter Spiro. “Arguably it is more often money than membership that determines influence, and money more often represents the support of centralized elites, such as major foundations, than of the grass roots.” The CGG has benefited substantially from the largesse of the MacArthur, Carnegie, and Ford Foundations…” http://www.afn.org/~govern/strong.html
And of course the UN is also key in directing the international NGO’s Like Greenpeace and WWF. http://www.un.org/esa/coordination/ngo/
The more you dig the more it become apparent AGW and Environmentalism did not thrive by pure happenstance. “..The greens have the high ground in most of their fights” making them ideal for pushing through legislation that some how always gets twisted to the advantage of the big international corporations and central bankers because they pack the bureaucracies with their puppets.
The Bilderberg Group is an unofficial, annual, invitation-only conference of around 130 guests, most of whom are persons of great influence in the fields of politics, business, banking, and media. The group has met annually at hotels or resorts throughout the world since 1954. They claim their meetings are entirely innocent however I have a problem believing they have met for over 50 years for teacakes and bridge especially with the very tight security enforced at the meetings.

165. The Skeptical community is fortunate to have Lord Monckton as a champion.
When I first heard him speak (on U Tube) I was absolutely entranced – razor-sharp wit, scientific knowledge, charm and panache all in one elegant package. As a Kiwi with very working class origins, I lose patience with those who would limit us all to the lowest common denominator in communication. To those who find the Latin tags irritating or uninteligable, buy a dictionary of Latin quotations and do some reading – you will enrich your life!

166. Jimbo says:

John Hooper (12:15:05) :
“…sloppy fact checking.”
“…who’s already tarnished by his Thatcher connection.”
If you had bothered to check your facts you will find out that:

“The UK Government became a strong supporter of climate research in the mid-1980s, following a meeting between Prime Minister Mrs Thatcher and a small number of climate researchers, which included Tom Wigley, the CRU director at the time. This and other meetings eventually led to the setting up of the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

So Hooper, in your eyes has the Hadley Centre been tarnished by the Thatcher connection? Had you checked your facts you would know how pro-warming the Hadley Centre is.
Never quote Wiki on contentious climate issues.
History of the Global Warming Scare

167. mathman says:

Ed Darrell:
What is your source for malaria deaths?
I have a good friend who served for many years in the military as an entomologist. He has assured me in no uncertain terms that the use of DDT as a topical treatment on the walls of dwellings has a profound effect on the survival of the mosquito which spreads malaria.
It is the topical use of DDT, especially on walls and ceilings of bedrooms, which could have prevented 40,000,000 malaria deaths. But such use has been banned. Such topical use does not effect birds. Such topical use does not effect humans. But the scare tactics of Rachel Carson and the Kennedy family certainly did more harm than good.
It is, regrettably, true that widespread open air spraying of DDT is not effective. But the universal ban on any use of DDT in any way whatever has been counter-productive.
Meanwhile–can we get away from logarithms for a while? All of the climate information I have ever seen is periodic, not logarithmic. One of my favorite exercises is fitting a sine curve to annual temperature variations. The Sun’s behavior is certainly periodic, on several different scales. The variations in the orbit of our Earth are periodic, again with multiple periods. And the global history if alternating ice ages and tropical periods is periodic.
As for Lord Monckton: those of us across the pond are fortunate indeed that an alert, articulate, and informed man has taken it upon himself to cleave to the heart of the issue. The game of a worldwide carbon licensing bureaucracy is not worth the candle of any supposed diminution of man-made global warming. That he should use the results of the IPCC to hoist them on their own petard [a little Latin lingo, there] is truly delicious.
And the stunning list of the Australian freeloaders who got a two-week paid vacation in Copenhagen was just whipped cream on top!

168. LeonardYoung says:

It is a pity that sceptics vs believers has become a left/right political argument. There are many sceptics who don’t fit that paradigm and indeed it is utterly counter-productive to identify any view on climate change as being an indicator of polarised political positions. I tend to left of centre and merely seek the truth. Lord Monckton’s well known right wing views on many issues are not to my taste and I find many of his social views somewhat odious. However his knowledge and presentation of the facts on climate are extremely compelling and stated with the kind of clarity entirely lacking elsewhere. It is the facts that I am interested in, and for that reason I am grateful for his contribution, but that doesn’t imply any agreement with his political views on other matters.

169. Jimmy Haigh says:

Andrew30 (15:37:53) :
I’ve been a sceptic since 1988 (Thatcher’s time) when a fellow student told me about Hansen. We were having a few beers at the time. My response was the same then then – as it is now – AGW it total crap.
Don’t get me wrong – His Lordship would open the batting in my team any day, He’d probably get the new ball too.
I just wish that AGW had been nipped in the bud way back then.
I have another theory. The University I was at used to get a lot of funding from the oil industry. In 1985 the oil price crashed and that was the end of oil industry funding. I remember saying that I’d probably go into show business as there was no chance of getting an oil industry job at the time. AGW came along just at the right time for the Universities…

170. Vincent says:

Gail Combes,
Your position is broadly in agreement with my own. I agree totally that individuals like Rockefeller and Strong have been behind AGW from the beginning, as a means of gaining power. However, because two magnates/powerbrokers happen to be in the oil industry, it is not the same as saying that the oil industry has been behind AGW. The oil industry comprises hundreds of companies with thousands of board members who quietly go about their business of making a profit. Rockefeller and Strong are members of a cabal coincidentally touching oil but also including the likes of Rothschilds (finance) as well as many others (Gore, Branson, Pachauri etc). In fact, you mentioned several in your own post. As someone once complained to me in the eighties, the world is controlled by the billionaires.
“Do not make the mistake of thinking bankers and Corporate Execs are Capitalists. Many are not. Both Maurice Strong and David Rockefeller (both active in environmentalism and AGW) are “Socialists” as well as big oil honchos.”
Yes and no. They are certainly not capitalists in the accepted sense, yet I have a problem with the term “socialist”. Socialism implies state ownership of the means of production and distribution of the proceeds of industry to the working classes. Yet, it is clear that the proposed cap & trade bills in their various forms will have the reverse effect by removing wealth from the very classes that socialism purports to distribute it to. A better term would be “plutocracy” – rule of the masses by the rich, or even “kleptocracy.”
Whatever we decide to call it, one thing it will never be is a “democracy.”

171. Jimmy Haigh says:

Mathman (06:58:52) :
“Meanwhile–can we get away from logarithms for a while? All of the climate information I have ever seen is periodic, not logarithmic.|
I’m with you Mathman. The Earth goes round the Sun goes round the Galaxy goes round the Universe. It’s all cyclical.

172. Vern says:

John Hooper (04:44:13) :
Look, it’s all very well to mock the mass media’s failings, but if you want to win this campaign, you need to win them over. Stop calling them names. Start writing letters to the editor that are well researched, aren’t tarnished by political agenda and don’t involve name-calling.
Mass media’s ‘failings’? I can think of a number of terms to use here but trivializing most of the media’s past responses and calling them ‘failings’ wouldn’t be one. And you think that the media needs to be ‘won over’? Why make the effort? And on what grounds do you think that they can be trusted to present a fair perspective? Your approach reminds me of the story of when the snake wanted to be carried across the river. The skeptical potential carrier said “But you will bite and poison me if I let you near me” to which the snake offered “I promise I won’t this time…please, just this one time”. Halfway across the river, the snake bit and poisoned the volunteer carrier who screamed “Why did you do that? You promised you wouldn’t!” The snake said “yes…. but I’m a snake and I couldn’t help it!” Such is the distrust that should be the norm when the history of most of the media on this issue is so consistently biased and obviously agenda driven… and none of it with a view to presenting a fair perspective on those who don’t believe in AGW.
Mr. Hooper…. Here’s a challenge for you. Earlier on this posting I outlined my experience when I wrote a ‘well researched, untarnished-by-political-agenda and with no name-calling’ letter to the editor of a major newspaper in the area I live. As a matter of fact, I have submitted several letters…. none have been printed and none have had their receipt even acknowledged. Now before you jump on this experience as being something that happened because ‘my letters probably weren’t worthy of acceptance, they were inflammatory, they were too vicious’ … or some other description like this, you need to understand that I’ve encouraged a number of other ‘smart people’ to write as well and they can report a virtually identical experience to mine. Here’s the challenge for you – why don’t you write a serious letter to the newspaper of your choice which in the past has taken a pro-AGW view and for which the only stipulation is that your letter present a reasonably firm perspective that anyone would say adequately counters the typical pro-AGW position that has been demonstrated as being taken by that newspaper in the past? Then report back here as to whether they actually printed it. (In this context, I’m referring to an actual ‘letter to the editor’ as opposed to simply supplying a comment to an op-ed piece written by somebody else.) My experience tells me that it is easily predictable as to how this will turn out…..
The events following the CRU email release of Nov 19th clearly indicate that it should have been called ‘climediagate’, not climategate. I think if you follow through with the challenge outlined above, you will begin to understand why.

173. John Hooper says:

Here’s what will happen with Chris Monckton’s letter:
http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/12/16/dont-waste-your-time-waste-theirs-a-guide-to-writing-to-ministers/
Rudd won’t give a damn what Monckton thinks. It’s a numbers game, and it’s unlikely embracing skepticism, or “denial,” as he calls it, will win an election.
Bear in mind this is a leader whose biggest triumph to date is invoking an added tax on premixed drinks (alcopops), and is readying to censor the Internet against unanimous howls of condemnation from industry insiders and commentators.

174. Vincent says:

Eric Smith,
“Monckton wrote “The Treaty of Copenhagen, like it or not, is communist” in an email to me. That is completely insane and allows the Guardian to very correctly call him a clown.”
Ok, I’m begining to see where you’re coming from. If Lord Monckton meant “communist” in the most literal sense, a la Karl Marx, then I can see that the Guardian would jump on it in short order. However, I believe he is using the term in it more perjorative sense, namely implying totalitarianism, but I’m sure that will not placate neither your nor the Guardians ire.
Many people are of the opinion that AGW, climate change, or whatever you choose to call it, is a convenient excuse for the imposition of global governance and the erosion of democracy. This is a view I respect, but I agree it is unhelpful to use terms like “communism.” The fact is however, that it needs to be said, and simply sticking to the science is not enough. If Lord Monckton is playing to a right wing audience in Minnesota, is he guilty by association? In some peoples minds maybe, but those are the people whose ideology is already predefined by right vs left wing politics. This is sad, but is perhaps just the way it is.

175. Tenuc says:

David Rockefeller speaking at the UN Business Council in Sept 17 1994
“This present window of opportunity, during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for too long – We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order. “
Looks like our quiet sun and the resultant cold icy blast have blown that window he was mentioning in. I forecast that sceptics will outnumber CAGW believers by two to one by April of this year.
Thanks goodness for our wonderful climate. If the price of freedom is a few more world wars, I’ll take that risk every time. Mankind does not make progress when it is herded and fleeced like a flock of sheep. We thrive on adversity.

176. Tenuc says:

Mathman (06:58:52) :
“Meanwhile–can we get away from logarithms for a while? All of the climate information I have ever seen is periodic, not logarithmic…”
Agreed. There are those who smell the coffee and those who don’t.
However, the climate does not follow it’s periodic movements like a precise clock – rather it exhibits the quasi-cyclical motion of deterministic chaos, along with the turbulence, boundary effects and bifurcations which can kick it quickly into a different mode.

177. Gail Combs says:

Vincent (08:50:04) :
….Yes and no. They are certainly not capitalists in the accepted sense, yet I have a problem with the term “socialist”. Socialism implies state ownership of the means of production and distribution of the proceeds of industry to the working classes. Yet, it is clear that the proposed cap & trade bills in their various forms will have the reverse effect by removing wealth from the very classes that socialism purports to distribute it to. A better term would be “plutocracy” – rule of the masses by the rich, or even “kleptocracy.”
Whatever we decide to call it, one thing it will never be is a “democracy.”
I put “socialist” in quotes because that is what Maurice Strong calls himself. Feudal lord wannabes is what I would call the bunch of them… As well as very very dangerous. The consolidations of wealth and power by these people is terrifying once you start digging.
For example a minor player, Stan Greenberg, husband of US Congresswoman Rosa DeLaura has directly influenced elections in 60 different countries The World Bank/IMF SAP programs (Strong and Rockefeller again) have made life a living he!! for the poor in third world countries. Food, Finance, UN sponsored NGOs, the internal politics of many countries, their finger prints are everywhere.

178. Dr. Dweeb says:

Firstly, Monckton rocks! His socratean (?) dismembering of the Norwegian Greenpeace zealot in Copenhagen was masterful. pip pip!
As wonderful as I find Monckton’s letter to Krudd, it will fall on baren ground. Krudd’s agenda like the agenda of all of the left, has no need of facts, truth or intellectual rigour – Marx didn’t need these values and neither does Krudd, nor his court of sycophants.
I was appalled when I learned that Krudd had one of the larger entourages. But given the quality (cough, cough) of the individual himself, it is hardly surprising.
As an Australian and resident of Copenhagen for many decades now, it was somewhat amusing to me to see the city overwhelmed by third world freeloaders – many of whom were clearly uncomfortable with the low to sub-zero temperatures. Seems like we may hit -10C tomorrow night and open air skating on the lakes will be a real possibility shortly – even in the “urban heat island” that is Copenhagen.
The fact is that here in Copenhagen we were during the conference, and are still, experiencing a very cold winter. This added a certain parodoxical nature to the whole event. Protesters freezing their “green” arses off while demanding action on Global Warming was simply brilliant – though the incongruous nature of this seems to have passed unnoticed by the masses.
I was also appalled when the Copenhagen City Council chose to fill the main town square with “Green Propaganda” rather than our annual skating rink. I guess ice skating was inconsistent with the “warming” message. 🙁
Enough random thoughts. I shall continue to follow Monckton closely for he is, after all, one of the most eloquent decomposers of the lie that is, AGW.
Dweeb

179. Phil Clarke says:

Lord Monchkton puts his reputation on the line and if he could be easily undermined the AGW’s would have a go
Er, the ball is rather in his court. Arthur Smith posted a detailed list of 125 errors in the Viscount’s climate sensitivity calculations as posted on the APS Physics and Society forum website.
http://www.altenergyaction.org/Monckton.html
To my knowledge Lord Monckton has not seen fit to respond to this critique. Perhaps he could do so here?
By the way …
I spoke to Al Saperstein of Wayne State University in Michigan, one of two co-editors of Physics & Society, the offending newsletter. He stressed that that the article was not sent to anyone for peer-reviewing. Saperstein himself edited it. “I’m a little ticked off that some people have claimed that this was peer-reviewed,” he said.
“It was not.”

http://www.newscientist.com/blog/environment/2008/07/now-will-you-publish-my-paper-showing.html

180. Stefan says:

Phil Clarke (12:40:44) :
Arthur Smith posted a detailed list of 125 errors in the Viscount’s climate sensitivity calculations as posted on the APS Physics and Society forum website.
http://www.altenergyaction.org/Monckton.html
To my knowledge Lord Monckton has not seen fit to respond to this critique. Perhaps he could do so here?

What do you make of that list? For example, is using the word “most” for “more than half” a reasonable criticism, in your eyes? Does the IPCC’s claim that at least one of their model runs, somewhere, follows a temporary flat trend, make sense to you? Does it make sense to you that anything short of 20 years has nothing to do with climate?
I mean, this is really the crux of the matter. Do you appeal to “experts”, or do you think for yourself?

181. The “.02C” in the original letter seems to have been revised to “.2C” in the response to readers, unless I missed something === still not a very significant change….

182. C.W. Schoneveld (01:30:19) :
Dear Lord Monckton,
Having had, like you, a classical education it always pains me when I see the term “data” accompanied with a verbal form in the singular. To my dismay I just noticed while reading your piece that this corruption has disfigured your text too.

I am a language pedant who dislikes pedantry. I think hard about language rules and obey only those that I consider validly based. The ‘”Data” is plural’ rule is not. If we accept “datum” as a singular noun, then only one thing qualifies as a datum: a single bit. That makes all usages of the word prior to the popularisation of computers incorrect, because people used “datum” for such things as the specification of a single place or time, or a colour, or someone’s weight, etc. All those values are plural because they all require multiple data – i.e. bits. And there is no salvation in pointing out that they are just one number or attribute rather than a collection, because mathematically any collection of numbers can be recast as a single number and vice versa. No, the rule has now failed irretrievably, but there is another rule that works:
“Data” is a quantity noun – like water, air, bread, ale, and so on.
Just as water is made of molecules, so data is made of bits. Data as quantity ‘just works’.

183. Neal says:

John Hooper (12:15:05) :
Who cares if he doesn’t carry himself the way you want? I have similar reactions to things. For instance, there is an internet article “Climate change deniers vs. Consensus” when I read that title, I said to myself, “What bias.” Instead of letting myself get twisted up, I decided to see what was said and whether the words had any merit. So I read it. Here it is:
http://tinyurl.com/yhh534j
I found this to be a cartoonish characterization of the actual positions of people, and it lends itself to those who agree with it to feel safe and superior in their knowledge that they understand the truth, when really it is merely surface statements that have little proof. All it means to me is the science isn’t settled.
Meanwhile, I think you should reconsider your thought about just who is arrogant. It seems to me Michael Mann is arrogant, with his trick to “hide the decline.” This trick, along with other nefarious methods used by IPCC principles, could cost trillions of dollars, further enslave the population to the state, etc. To me, that is arrogance.

184. George E. Smith says:

“”” John Hooper (12:15:05) :
Let’s hope the “eminent Professor in Australia” isn’t Ian Plimer who’s done Climate Skepticism a massive disservice due to his sloppy fact checking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Plimer
And frankly, a little less hyperbole, pretentious latin and general affectation might help Chris Monkton’s cause, who’s already tarnished by his Thatcher connection. “””
Wow ! Now there’s a real scientific evaluation for you. Perhaps you could elaborate on your obtuse comment there John.
Is Lord Monckton to be castigated for his science advice to the Government of Margaret Thatcher; or is it perhaps for what may have rubbed off on the Viscount, from being in her presence; let alone her administration.
I would venture that the Great Britain of the Thatcher era, was a lot more deserving of the adjective; than is the shallow shadow of it that exists today.
Being Australian is only an excuse for a certain amount of plain rudeness; even we Kiwi folk aren’t that bush; and who knows, we are a pretty uncouth bunch too.
You might entertain a thought about just what the WW-II era might have been like; absent the effect of Viscount Monckton’s family. I have, and it makes the hair stand up on the back of my neck.
Here in America; we like to bash the Reagan era instead, as being the root of all of our evils. Well it was the same era; but today’s socialists like to make it the cause of all of their perceived misery. We have come that far, from the grand experiment that the founders of this country, and the framers of its Constitution launched into the world.
As for the Science in Lord Monckton’s exposition; well I’m not a believer in either “forcings” or “climate sensitivity”; that monstrosity evidently coined by Steven Schneider at Stanford (so I’m told).
Any study of the global temperatures, and atmospheric CO2 abundance covering the time since the Cambrian; will surely disabuse anyone of the notion that somehow the mean global surface temperature, varies as the logarithm of the CO2 abundance in the atmosphere; or for that matter follows any other recognizable mathematical function.
And calling H2O a “feedback” effect; while CO2 is a “greenhouse gas” effect; makes about as much sense as saying that Mercury is a planet; but Pluto is not a planet. Both move in orbits around the sun; so they are just as much planets, as all of these new extra solar planets that supposedly exist around some other distant stars; by what authority do they get the title of planet; when we know far less about their orbits or anything else about them, than we do about Pluto.
Water is a permanent component of earth’s atmosphere; and for the most part it is always more abundant in the atmosphere than CO2 or methane or any other pretender GHGs yet it isn’t properly modeled in any computer climate model. Which might explain why none of those models explain the climate we have already had; let alone predict that which is yet to come.

185. George E. Smith says:

But as to mathman’s objection to “logarithms”; not quite so fast there.
True the earth’s distance from the sun varies approximately sinusoidally with TIME; while the lifetime of a radioisotope sample varies with the logarithm of the fraction remaining; but none of that prevents the earth’s time cyclical temperature from still being a logarithmic function fo CO2 abundance in the atmosphere.
It isn’t of course; but not because the climate is cyclical.

186. Phil Clarke (12:40:44) :
Er, the ball is rather in his court. Arthur Smith posted a detailed list of 125 errors in the Viscount’s climate sensitivity calculations as posted on the APS Physics and Society forum website.
http://www.altenergyaction.org/Monckton.html
To my knowledge Lord Monckton has not seen fit to respond to this critique. Perhaps he could do so here?

That list, by one Arthur Smith, is so petty, vindictive, and biased that it would be beneath even my dignity to respond to it, let alone one who has done as much serious work on the subject as Lord Monckton. Let’s just look at the very first point shall we?

E1
Monckton: (IPCC, 2007) concluded that anthropogenic CO2 emissions probably caused more than half of the “global warming” of the past 50 years
Confused. The relevant statement from the IPCC AR4 WG1 SPM is “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” (p. 10). Note Monckton has substituted “more than half” for “most” (“most” is an approximate term, but generally implies more than “more than half”), “CO2” for “greenhouse gas” (incorrect but irrelevant), “probably” for “very likely” (strong reduction in implied certainty), “past 50 years” for “since the mid-20th century” (inconsequential) and “global warming” (in quotes) for “observed increase in global average temperatures” (Monckton’s change loses the IPCC’s implication that warming has in fact been observed).

My commentary: “Most” means more than half. Period. Has this author subjected the papers of the likes of Mann to this level is nitpicking? And incorrect nitpicking at that? Monckton’s “concluded that” is the correct way in English to announce that you are summarising rather than quoting. “Most” means more than half.
‘”CO2″ for “greenhouse gas” (incorrect but irrelevant)’: Actually it is not incorrect. A summary doesn’t need to correspond to one single passage in the summarised work. Anyone who thinks the IPCC is NOT placing the vast bulk of the blame on CO2 needs their head analysed. And how can anyone think that the alleged causation by CO2 is not relevant when the world’s economies are to be destroyed on that basis?
‘”probably” for “very likely” (strong reduction in implied certainty)’: This author can’t read English. One who claims something is very likely IS claiming that it is probable. Since when does someone summarising a paper have to include every claim made in that paper? Monckton is using the fact that they claim it is probable. They do, which is all he needs for his argument. Furthermore, “Likely” is not as strong a word as “probable”: If you were to balance on the edge of a cliff, I might advise you not to because “You’ll likely kill yourself”. And I might say that whilst knowing that you are a good balancer and the probability of your killing yourself is only 40%, say. So, this objection is pathetic.
‘”past 50 years” for “since the mid-20th century” (inconsequential)’: “The mid-20th century” is not a reference to 1951, it is a vague term that easily covers any time from around 1940 to 1960. And rounded references like “50 years” could be 50, 51, or so on. This is common English usage! Only if some error in the conclusion followed from the change would something like this be worth commenting upon. But this very writer calls it inconsequential. So why mention it? To meanly inflate the bulk of the criticism, obviously. This alone tells you how much – or how little – you should rely on such an author.
‘”global warming” (in quotes) for “observed increase in global average temperatures” (Monckton’s change loses the IPCC’s implication that warming has in fact been observed’: Rubbish pure and simple. But let’s subject Arthur Smith’s writings to the same scrutiny as he subjects Lord Monckton’s, shall we? Confused, wrong, irrelevant: the word ‘observed’ in print is an explicit claim, not an implication. And Monckton’s usage definitely retains the implication; to drop it, he would have had to say something like “the alleged global warming”.
So, E1, a collection of malice, fallacies, trivialities, failure to understand the English language, and unfairness (he certainly would not subject his friends’ writings to this level of juvenile nitpicking).
A final comment about engaging in serious discussions: Before anyone earns the right to be answered, they first must demonstrate genuineness and seriousness. Merely pointing out inconsequential real and imagined flaws does not qualify. No human being is perfect, no one writes a perfectly accurate paper. If we spend our time looking at something like Smith’s list, we expect to be rewarded with the discovery of flaws relevant to Lord Monckton’s conclusions, not merely a petulant attack on his style or minor flaws. Is there something real in the rest of Smith’s list? Not up to E10 there isn’t, at which point I rightly stopped reading. This writer has betrayed his malice and his bias for all to see.

187. jerry says:

LM Wrote

CO2 emissions are rising at a near-exponential rate, but over the past decade CO2 concentration has risen at a strictly linear rate of a fraction over 2 ppmv/year.

and

Dr. Patrick Michaels, one of the most distinguished commentators on the climate scam, has done some excellent work demonstrating that over the past 30 years the relationship between CO2 emissions and CO2 concentration has remained broadly constant at approximately 14-15 billion tons CO2 emitted per 1 ppmv increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.

As these statements appear to be in direct contradiction to each other, which is correct? Or is there an alternative explanation?
Thanks
jerry

188. Bulldust says:

Thanks again Milord… I eagerly await your arrival in Perth, assuming you shall venture there.
I wonder how the fraud case is progressing against Pachauri.

189. Alexej Buergin says:

” Ron House (15:37:13) :
I am a language pedant who dislikes pedantry. I think hard about language rules and obey only those that I consider validly based. The ‘”Data” is plural’ rule is not. If we accept “datum” as a singular noun, then only one thing qualifies as a datum: a single bit. That makes all usages of the word prior to the popularisation of computers incorrect, because people used “datum” for such things as the specification of a single place or time, or a colour, or someone’s weight, etc. All those values are plural because they all require multiple data – i.e. bits.”
Datum/Data existed long before the computer, and a point in space was and is a datum (that needs a lot of bits to define), several points in space were and are data. Your new definition of the word may be bold (and even a bit arrogant) but just proves that the avareness of the difference is being lost, just as with visa (which still is Visum sing./Visa pl. in German).

190. Vincent says:

Gail Combs,
“I put “socialist” in quotes because that is what Maurice Strong calls himself.”
Point taken.
” Feudal lord wannabes is what I would call the bunch of them… As well as very very dangerous.”
Yes. Yet owning a few billion dollars ought to be enough for anyone – it would for me, but hey, so would a few million.
It is interesting is it not, that the more wealth and power individuals amass, the more it energizes them to try and sieze more and more. (Well, except for Abramovich – he seems content with his billions.) It should be a rich field (no pun intended) for psychologists.

191. Neil Crafter says:

Lord Monckton’s letter to Kevvy Rudd was published in the Opinion pages of todays The Australian newspaper. It simply called Christopher Monckton “a politician”. I think they could have described him a little better. Still, was good to see it there. The Australian is quite balanced in what it publishes in its opinion pages.

192. Roger Knights says:

C.W. Schoneveld (01:30:19) :
Dear Lord Monckton,
Having had, like you, a classical education it always pains me when I see the term “data” accompanied with a verbal form in the singular. To my dismay I just noticed while reading your piece that this corruption has disfigured your text too.

Fowler states, “Latin plurals sometimes become singular English words (e.g., agenda, stamina) …” As long as it’s OK to employ those words as singulars, it’s OK to do the same for “data.”
Not only is it acceptable to use “data” as a collective singular, using data as a plural word is incorrect because it throws the speaker (including those who use “data are”) into inconsistency with his habitual method of speaking, as Phillip W. pointed out on this site several moons ago. He wrote:

No, Walt, data is; data is an English word. English includes many words originally press-ganged from Latin, which have changed their grammatical type.
…….
‘Data’ is naturally and consistently used as a mass noun in conversation: the question is asked how much data an instrument produces, not how many; it is asked how data is archived, not how they are archived; there is talk of less data rather than fewer; and talk of data having units, saying they have a megabyte of data, …

Because of this inconsistency with long-established and near-universal usage, and because, as Fowler shows, there is no real rule forbidding “data is,” “data are” will never be accepted–it will always sound odd or even affected, outside of a scientific journal, where a different convention has taken hold.

193. Vincent says:

Phil Clark,
re Moncktons 125 errors.
Several posters have already commented so I don’t want to sound repetitive. Smith’s rebuttal reads like a clever lawyers statement to the court, that plays up minor errors and legal loopholes. At one point he calls Monckton’s “checksum” an algebraic tautology as if that were to discredit his argument, but then seems to forget that his method does not depend on the checksum at all (which is why he called it a tautology in the first place).
Smith also spends a lot of time arguing against the Monckton’s feedback equation because it is not found in the IPCC paper. This is itself a form of circular logic because it implies that an equation is unacceptable if it isn’t in an IPCC report somewhere.
The whole thing has a “Simpsonesq” feel to it, as when groundsman Willy was charged with carjacking. During the trial, each time Homer said something like “I can’t remember, it’s all hazy,” the prosecutor would reply “Hazy, like the moors of Scotland?” to gasps from the Jury.
You see how gullible the jury were?

194. Smokey says:

I have to agree with Roger Knights (04:42:57). English is a very open language that routinely adopts words from other languages. If we’re going to be critical of the proper use of language, the place to start is with the thousands of ill educated newspaper writers and their editors – whose language skillz are still better than their understanding of basic science.
If the best that Lord Monckton’s critics can do is to criticize his Anglicized use of the word data, then their case fails. As always, the central question isn’t style, it is this: does a rise in CO2 cause a measurable rise in temperature? And if it does, is it significant, or can it be disregarded as inconsequential?
Having taken 4 years of Latin, I still recall a little of it. I would like to give a quiz to the average newspaper reporter/editor: fill in the blank with the correct response:
nominative singular datum
genitive singular dati
dative singular dato
accusative singular datum
ablative singular dato
nominative plural data
genitive plural datorum
dative plural datis
accusative plural data
ablative plural _______ .
Better yet, let’s give that quiz to any politician who refers to CO2 as “carbon”. Wouldn’t that be fun?

195. George E. Smith says:

“”” Veronica (05:34:46) :
@ John Hooper
I understand your point and agree. I do think Lord M is a bit of a hero but I would like him to tone down the sneering and aggressive language (the Latin is a minor niggle). The trouble is that the public does tend to imbue members of the House of Lords with the label of pomposity and superiority, and Lord M’s house style tends to back up that assumption. “””
Sorry Veronica; time to hit the history books; well that is if detail accuracy is of any interest to you.
Christopher Monckton; the Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, is not, and so far as I know, has never been a member of the House of Lords; or for that matter of any other position in the British Parliament. And I am sure he would be happy to tell you that himself. He WAS a Science Advisor to Mrs. Thatcher’s Government, and I believe he also actually ran for elective office at one time (unsuccessfully).
His history and record, are no mystery to those who would like to know; and in this Google age it is very easy to at least get something more than hipshoot assumptions.
You might find the dossiers of his father, the second Viscount, and his grandfather, the first Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, to be equally intriguing.
I know that a lot of Americans find the old British history of “aristocracy” to be somewhat quaint, and even anathema to their thinking; yet they routinely flock to the gates of Buckingham Palace, to watch the changing of the guard. Since America’s own “history” barely extends from the “weather” range to the “climate” timescale, they perhaps don’t understand, even their own origins.
Christopher Monckton’s family earned their official recognition through deeds; not through accident of birth. Evidently that particular recognition was inheritable; although I am not sure whether that would now continue.
And in any case it is none of my damn business.
But HOL he is not; and I welcome his inputs to this struggle for sanity, and reality; before a bunch of suicidal fools end up doing actual real damage to this planet, and its people.

196. Phil Clarke says:

Smith’s rebuttal reads like a clever lawyers statement to the court, that plays up minor errors and legal loopholes
Nonsense. Smith’s analysis is a thorough and substantive filleting of Moncktons ‘science’ and demolishes every claim advanced with logic and rigour.
Let’s take just one of the 125, number E28. Here Monckton divides the global warming trend by 2. This is based on a 2007 McKitrick and Michaels paper (itself controversial) which found that due to urbanisation, the observed trend overstated the actual trend by a factor of 2.
Even if M&M were correct that would only justify reducing the trend over land, that is, 30% of the globe. To apply it to the whole global trend as Monckton does is simply wrong. This gaffe alone invalidates his conclusion and there are over a hundred more. Anyone care to defend it? Its more than the author seems inclined to do.
To be taken seriously, Monckton needs to frame his ideas for publication, I am afraid that what he has posted to date just wouldn’t pass the most cursory review.

197. phlogiston says:

Phil Clarke (11:55:00)
“pass the most cursory review”
I dont know if you’ve noticed but no-one on this site is struck dumb with awe at the mention of academic review by Climate journals. We are too well aquainted with the evidence showing such journal review to be a sham, instigated by a corrupt unprincipled mob of incestuous buddys spending their working days emailing each-other about how to sterilise the climate literature of AGW-skeptical opinion. So currently none of the “leading” climate journals are worth the paper they’re printed on. You are right to come to this site for real scientific debate on climate.

198. Phil Clarke says:

We are too well aquainted with the evidence showing such journal review to be a sham
Oh Really? Do tell us more …..

199. Smokey says:

Vincent (04:44:20) has it exactly right.
Phil Clarke’s preposterous claim that “Smith’s analysis is a thorough and substantive filleting of Moncktons ’science’ and demolishes every claim advanced with logic and rigour,” verges on parody.
Phil informs us with a straight face that “every claim” of Monckton’s 125 statements has been demolished. Every one of them: 125 out of 125 are wrong. What are the odds, eh?
Phil Clarke should really go into comedy writing. Because no one here would take anyone seriously who made such an obviously ridiculous statement.
The fear and loathing of Lord Monckton exhibited by the AGW crowd is the direct result of his extensive knowledge. If he was an ignorant clown, no one would pay any attention to him. It’s only because he has annihilated his debate opponents, accurately refuted the IPCC, and bested the rest of the alarmist contingent that they feel compelled to attack him.
They have no choice, because they are scoundrels. They know that he is a better man than any of them, and their hatred and envy shows through as they try to drag him down to their level.
But hey, maybe I’m wrong. So if someone can set up a televised debate with mutually agreed moderator and rules, between, say, Lord Monckton and Michael Mann, then we’ll see the public’s reaction. They will know which one rides the white horse, and which one is the odious Elmer Gantry.
But I think that while Monckton would be chomping at the bit for a fair and square debate like that, Hokey Stick Mann would tuck his tail between his ample thighs and scurry off into the night.
Only one way to find out.

200. Spector says:

I wonder if Lord Moncton’s comments on the threat of irrevocable loss of our national sovereignty posed by the Copenhagen treaty might have contributed to China refusing to sign any substantive agreement. I assume their leadership has full access to YouTube.

201. oneuniverse says:

“If you want to bet that 2010 will be warmer than 2009 (using GISS data), click here”
Too many unknown variables, particularly within the GISS organisation 🙂

202. Phil Clarke says:

Phil informs us with a straight face that “every claim” of Monckton’s 125 statements has been demolished. Every one of them: 125 out of 125 are wrong. What are the odds, eh?
No, Mr S – 125 was the number of errors Smith found in Monckton’s ‘science’, not the number of claims made. You would make a better case if you could take some of Smith’s points and explain where he has erred.
But you didn’t.
Bye for Now.

203. yonason says:

Richard S Courtney (15:17:04) :
WOW! Very enlightening. Thank you.

204. Spector says:

I wonder if we are really talking about ‘errors’ or just technical disagreements. This has become a political issue of the first water and true science is often lost in the smoke and noise.
The supposed finding of 125 ‘errors’ cited here reminds me of a similar number of ‘errors’ supposedly found in former Vice-President Gore’s film. Of course, some of those error claims were judged true in a UK judicial proceeding.

205. Spector says:

RE: yonason (12:17:16) :
Ditto! Thanks for pointing it out.