Christopher Monckton of Brenchley replies to readers

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.

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.

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

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?

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’.

“”” 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.

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.

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.

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?

“”” Veronica (05:34:46) :
@ur momisugly 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.