Testimony of
The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
California State Assembly
21 March 2012
IN the 6 decades since 1950 the world has warmed at a rate equivalent to 2 F°/century. The IPCC’s central estimate is that in the 9 decades to 2100 the rate will be 6 F°/century, three times the observed rate.
Two-thirds of the warming predicted by the IPCC’s (non-peer-reviewed) models is supposed to arise from temperature feedbacks. None of these feedbacks can be measured. There is no consensus about how big they are. There are powerful scientific reasons to suspect the IPCC has very greatly overstated them.
The principal conclusions of each of the four IPCC Assessment Reports are questionable:
- 2007: The IPCC twice concludes that the rate of warming is speeding up and we are to blame. But it uses a false statistical technique to reach its conclusion.
- 2001: The IPCC concludes that today’s temperatures are warmer than in 1300 years. How it reached this conclusion is under criminal investigation.
- 1995: The scientists had concluded that no discernible human effect on climate could be found. Just one man rewrote the report to say the opposite.
- 1990: The IPCC predicted rapid warming. A generation has passed and the predicted warming has not happened. This and many other predictions are overblown:
- Global temperature is rising more slowly than IPCC’s least estimate;
- Sea level has been rising for eight years at just 1.3 inches/century;
- Ocean heat content has barely risen in 6 years;
- Hurricanes and tropical cyclones are quieter than for 30 years;
- Global sea-ice extent has changed little in 30 years;
- Methane concentration is up just 20 parts per billion since 2000;
- The tropical hot-spot the IPCC predicts as our footprint is absent;
- Outgoing radiation is escaping to space much as usual.
California’s carbon tax, with other statewide measures to curb CO2 emissions, will cost $450 billion by 2020. Even if 25% of California’s emissions are abated by 2020, just 0.4% of global emissions will have been abated; CO2 concentration by 2020, instead of the business-as-usual 413 parts per million by volume the IPCC predicts, will be 412.9 ppmv; just one-thousandth of a Fahrenheit degree of warming will be abated; the cost of abating the 0.3 F° warming the IPCC predicts to 2020 by measures as cost-(in)effective as California’s policies would be $180 trillion, or $25,500 per head of global population, or a third of global GDP over the period; and the cost of preventing the 6 F° warming the IPCC predicts by 2100 would be $2700 trillion, or more than 10 times the maximum 3%-of-GDP cost of climate-related damage arising from not mitigating this predicted 21st-century warming at all.
Environmental over-regulation, cap-and-tax, “renewable”-energy mandates, and a 40-year ban on most offshore drilling are crippling California. The Monterey Shale holds 15 billion barrels of oil, yet over-regulation has cut production by more than a third to just 200 million barrels a year. Now 11% are jobless in California, second only to Nevada in the US (50% are jobless in construction); the 2012/13 State deficit is $6 billion; unfunded pension liabilities are $250 billion; 50,000 rich Californians (one-third of them) fled in 2007-2009, taking their businesses and jobs with them: twice as many firms fled the once-Golden State in 2011 as in 2010; Intel says it will never build another plant here; Globalstar, Trizetto, and eEye fled in just one month; Boeing, Toyota, Apple, Facebook, and DirecTV have all fled. The waggons are heading East.
The bottom line: No policy to abate global warming by taxing, trading, regulating, reducing, or replacing greenhouse-gas emissions will prove cost-effective solely on grounds of the welfare benefit from climate mitigation. CO2 mitigation strategies that are inexpensive enough to be affordable will be ineffective; strategies costly enough to be effective will be unaffordable. Focused adaptation to any adverse consequences of any warming that may occur is many times more cost-effective. Since the premium greatly exceeds the cost of the risk, don’t insure. Every red cent spent now on trying to stop global warming is a red cent wasted. Don’t mitigate: sit back, enjoy the sunshine, and adapt only if and when and to the extent necessary. That, however unfashionable, is the economically prudent and scientifically sensible course.
================================
Details: http://coalitionofenergyusers.org/monckton-event/
Lord Monckton is still a slave to the GHG theory. Since 1998 temperatures have plateaued to a slight fall but atmospheric CO2 levels continue to rise. Global radiated heat has, since measurements started in 1979, remained constant not fallen as the GHG theory predicts. Two observations not to fall within GHG speculation. Both observations should be mentioned by his noble Lordship.
John Marshall says:
March 22, 2012 at 4:02 am
//////////////////////////////////////////////////
John
It would not surprise me if Lord Monckton was sceptic of the entire GHG theory. However, to come out and state that to be his position would, from a PR perspctive and a political perspective, make matters more difficult for him. He no doubt thinks that to openly hold such stance will tend to make many people label him as a ‘denier’ and to take his comments less seriously.
He may consider that the main goal is to halt political/economic madness and that this battle is won on the middle ground. It will be a slow war but slowly persuading people who are agnostic in the middle to become sceptical of the wildest claims and to think hard on the economic consequences of the fervant ‘warmist’ will bit by bit chip away at the political consensus. Politicains will cease to push the agenda when they realise that it costs votes, even if it is a good revenue earner. Thus changing public opinion is vital and this is a slow process best done from what appears a reasonable base.
As regards your two claims, Lord Monckton has frequently stated that the temperature rise has halted/plateaued these past 15 or so years. This is one of his arguments.
You are right to raise the measurement of outgoing radiation. This is an important point which is often overlooked. I rarely see commentators (myself included) on this site mention this. I have not seen Lord Monckton raise the point and I see no reason why it should not be mentioned alongside the ‘hotspot’ claim.
Gail Combs says:
March 21, 2012 at 7:03 pm
//////////////////////////////////////////////
In the UK in the 1970s we had about 8 million employed in manufacturing and 3 million civil servants. Now that figure has all but reversed! Our civil service has grown exponentially. Most of them are performing non jobs and are parasites living off the earnings of those employed in wealth generating jobs. It just cannot go on. There comes a limit when those in employed in wealth generating jobs cannot afford to support those in the service related sector, those employed in essential services such as teachers, doctors/nurses, firemen, police etc, the unemployed, those on other forms of benefit, the prison community and the bottom of the bottom those employed in the civil service and NGOs. I put the last two as bottom because many (admittedly not all) are purveyors of misinformation, misery, theft and not infrequently death and destruction and as such they are not that dis-similar to those locked up behind bars.
The rediculous thing is that when the UK had an empire spanning the globe (with all the logistics that that entailed), the civil service was only about 1/8th the size it is today! Tells you something about Victorian efficiency and jobsworth,
It does appear that the window of opportunity of installing a world government has probably been lost. Conspiracy theorists may moot that that is the reason begind the present financial crisis, Technocrats have been installed in two European Governments (Greece and Italy),others (Ireland and Portugal) have to have their budgest vetted by unelected technocrats in Brussles before being allowed to implement them and trillions of dollars, euros and pounds have been (and are being) taken from the ordinary people to enrich the elite, or at any rate bail the elite out so that the elite do not lose a fortune which they otherwise would have done when the Sh** hit the fan. Personally, I am not one for conspiracy theories but it does appear that as a consequence of the financial crisis there has been a lot power and wealth taken from the ordinary person and redistibuted. Not much of it has been re-distributed to the needy in developing countries and it is probable that there is insufficient left in the pockest of the ordinary person to take a second grab. That and the stalling temperatures and the fact that increasingly the blindfolds are coming off, renders it unlikely that a world government will be installed on the back of the CO2 scam..
Kelvin Vaughan says:
March 22, 2012 at 1:56 am
Jakehig says:March 21, 2012 at 3:30 pm
“…It’s equally true for banking….”
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Yes but!!
The response to the financial crisis was a socialist response not a free market capatist response. In the free market, the banks would have been allowed to fail and loss would have lain where it fell.
Whether that approach would have been better or not is difficult to know. Short term, it no doubt would have been horrendous, but long term who knows.
The crisis is now bound to drag on for decades especially in overly socialistic countries like much of Europe where there will be painlfully slow growth and ever increasing public debt due to the sheer size of the welfare budgets and protected employment rights etc. This will be a lingering pain for decades to come. The future for Greeks looks very very bleak and one can expect to see more violence on the streets.
With the capitalistic response, there would have been huge hurt but it would probably have been over in a few years and a correction followed by growth would have followed. In Iceland, they allowed their banks to fail, and this is now one of the best performing western economies. A few years on, things are looking up for Iceland. May be that was a better approach.
dp says:
March 21, 2012 at 6:24 pm
The end game of California’s misspent wealth is there will be no money left for the inevitable adaption that will be required should any of the alarmist nightmares come true. Not a penny of the trillions that will flow into this program will prevent what they say is inevitable – they haven’t the capacity to slow it let alone stop it. Why to into that dark time with empty pockets, then?
///////////////////////////////////////////////////
I have repeatedly made this point.
The precautionary principle has been misapplied by the ‘warmists’/’grenies’.
The precautionary principle is as long as yopur imagination is fertile.
The true disaster scenario which the precautionary principle needs to address is that we spend trillions of dollars mitigating CO2 emissions all to no effect because CO2 is not the temperature driver that it is thought to be AND temperatures continue to climb unabatted (since this is due to natural variation) AND warmer temperatures truly are the disaster that warmists claim, and we are now bankrupt having wasted trillions of dollars on mitigation (which was ineffective) such that we now have no money left to spend on adaption that is required. NOt being able to adapt millions die due to rising sea levels displacing homelands, droughts, famine, disease and other severe weather/climate events.
This disaster scenario is made worse since it raises not only a financial problem but also a practical problem; in our efforts to mitigate emissions the western/developed world will have de-industrialised and therefore will not have the industrial infrastructure to perform the required adaption. The developing world will also lack that infra structure. This will compound the difficulties of carrying out the required adaption.
The politicians should wake up and consider the real disaster scenario and correctly apply the precautionary principle to that. Adaption if and only if necessary carried out when and only when necessary. That is the correct policy.
That policy carries considerable upside since it may that no or little money needs to be spent on adaption. Further, it may be that a warmer climate is on balance a good thing (not a bad thing) and not seeking to restrict the warming allows the world to benefit from a warmer climate.
If only politicians were not so dumb.
Gail Combs says:
March 21, 2012 at 7:03 pm
//////////////////////////////////////////////
In the UK in the 1970s we had about 8 million employed in manufacturing and 3 million civil servants. Now that figure has all but reversed! Our civil service has grown exponentially. Most of them are performing non jobs and are parasites living off the earnings of those employed in wealth generating jobs. It just cannot go on. There comes a limit when those in employed in wealth generating jobs cannot afford to support those in the service related sector, those employed in essential services such as teachers, doctors/nurses, firemen, police etc, the unemployed, those on other forms of benefit, the prison community and the bottom of the bottom those employed in the civil service and NGOs. I put the last two as bottom because many (admittedly not all) are purveyors of misinformation, misery, theft and not infrequently death and destruction and as such they are not that dis-similar to those locked up behind bars.
The ridiculous thing is that when the UK had an empire spanning the globe (with all the logistics that that entailed), the civil service was only about 1/8th the size it is today! Tells you something about Victorian efficiency and jobsworth,
It does appear that the window of opportunity of installing a world government has probably been lost. Conspiracy theorists may moot that that is the reason behind the present financial crisis, Technocrats have been installed in two European Governments (Greece and Italy),others (Ireland and Portugal) have to have their budgets vetted by unelected technocrats in Brussels before being allowed to implement them and trillions of dollars, euros and pounds have been (and are being) taken from the ordinary people to enrich the elite, or at any rate bail the elite out so that the elite do not lose a fortune which they otherwise would have done when the Sh** hit the fan. Personally, I am not one for conspiracy theories but it does appear that as a consequence of the financial crisis there has been a lot power and wealth taken from the ordinary person and redistributed. Not much of it has been re-distributed to the needy in developing countries and it is probable that there is insufficient left in the pockets of the ordinary person to take a second grab. That and the stalling temperatures and the fact that increasingly the blindfolds are coming off, renders it unlikely that a world government will be installed on the back of the CO2 scam.
The good Lord did it again!
Clear and simple statement of facts.
(Believe it should be Benchley in the headline.)
richard verney says:
March 22, 2012 at 5:56 am
The response to the financial crisis was a socialist response not a free market capatist response….
The crisis is now bound to drag on for decades especially in overly socialistic countries like much of Europe….
With the capitalistic response, there would have been huge hurt but it would probably have been over in a few years and a correction followed by growth would have followed. In Iceland, they allowed their banks to fail, and this is now one of the best performing western economies. A few years on, things are looking up for Iceland. May be that was a better approach.
____________________________
When treating a “poor doer” I always worm to rid them of internal parasites. That is what Iceland has done, rid herself of the parasites. Congressman McFadden tried to do the same for the USA but failed. He was driven from office, shot at twice and poisoned. http://www.rense.com/general27/gad.htm
A Judge who defied the Banking Cartel also died
As he says: Every red cent spent now on trying to stop global warming is a red cent wasted. Don’t mitigate: sit back, enjoy the sunshine, and adapt only if and when and to the extent necessary.
So we need to focus on what we sceptics propose be done. It is too hard to just be opposed to any action. For example, would it not be prudent to PLANT MORE TREES? If they help mitigate some warming great … and if the sun is actually going into a minimal cycle we can burn the trees to fight the cooling.
Is there a blog devoted to such actions?
richard verney says: @ur momisugly March 22, 2012 at 6:10 am
The precautionary principle has been misapplied by the ‘warmists’/’greenies’…
The true disaster scenario which the precautionary principle needs to address is that we spend trillions of dollars mitigating CO2 emissions all to no effect because CO2 is not the temperature driver …. and we are now bankrupt having wasted trillions of dollars on mitigation (which was ineffective) such that we now have no money left to spend on adaption that is required…
The politicians should wake up and consider the real disaster scenario and correctly apply the precautionary principle to that. Adaption if and only if necessary carried out when and only when necessary. That is the correct policy….
If only politicians were not so dumb.
________________________________
The politicians are not dumb they are GREEDY.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/280715/busted-doe-altered-loan-program-bulletins-andrew-stiles
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2043282/Nancy-Pelosis-brother-law-given-loan-bigger-Solyndra-solar-plant.html
If they actually followed the precautionary principle we would have technology funded that would allow us to survive an Ice Age as well as warming. However stripping the “Great Unwashed” of their wealth, their technology, the ability to migrate easily or defend themselves certainly takes care of the “Over Population” problem and makes sure the survivors can be carefully chosen by the very wealthy.
Makes you wonder about all the genetic data bases on babies these days.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-186118/DNA-test-baby.html
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-02-04/health/baby.dna.government_1_genetic-testing-dna-samples-genetic-diseases?_s=PM:HEALTH
http://www.cchfreedom.org/pr/NBS&Parents_Brief2.pdf
You can’t have 5% growth per annum – ad infinitum. Surely the the earth’s resources will run out out at some point? Maybe it’s some kind of multi-gerarational ponzi (read fiat money) ponzi scheme. Just sayin’.
It’s a start.
“On Dennis Miller’s radio show Thursday Lord Christopher Monckton, a former policy adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and an activist against global warming “alarmism,” went all-in on questioning President Barack Obama’s citizenship.
“… the 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley hinted about his position on the issue in April 2010 at a tea party rally on the National Mall near the White House.
But on Miller’s show, he said the birth certificate issue was far more important that combatting so-called anthropogenic global warming.
“I mean, hey you got a president who has a false birth certificate on the Internet, on the White House website,” Monckton said. “It’s not even clear where he was born…
“… Miller protested by saying he disagreed with the suggestion that Obama has a fraudulent birth certificate. But Monckton dug in his heels.
“I don’t know whether he is Kenyan or not,” Monckton said.
“The point is that if I were you, I would want to make absolutely sure that he was born here before allowing him to be elected. And the birth certificate that he put up on that website, I don’t know where he was born. But I do know that birth certificate isn’t genuine.”
Monckton firmly asserted that the birth certificate on the White House website wasn’t real, and claimed it could be dismantled with software.
“It appears in layers on the screen in such a way you can remove quite separately each of the individual dates,”
Monckton said.
“You use Adobe Illustrator and each of the individual dates is in its own separate layer. This thing has been fabricated. Sheriff [Joe] Arpaio of Arizona has had a team on this for six months. And he has now gone public and said there’s something very desperately wrong with this and of course nobody is saying anything because the entire electorate has been fooled.”
“… I haven’t a clue where Obama was born and I wouldn’t want to entreat into the private grief behind investigating. But the point is, is what he has done on the White House website is he has put up a document which he is plainly a forgery and I would regard that as a very serious matter.”
http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/22/lord-monckton-im-no-birther-but-obama-birth-certificate-plainly-a-forgery/