Monckton's Slide Presentation to the California Assembly

As readers have seen here and here, Monckton presented a presentation to committee members of the California Assembly yesterday at the invitation of Assemblywoman Shannon Grove of Bakersfield. There were no Democratic members present during the presentation that I was aware of, as they made their intentions known early on.

The slide show in entirety is presented below, click to download and view the PDF file.

Monckton_ca_assembly_presentation (PDF 11.2 MB)

=================================

And here’s the summary:

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 wagons 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.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Jenn Oates

As a Californian and someone whose retirement depends on one of those public employee pensions, I wish they would listen.

Lew Skannen

OK so Lord Monckton makes some simple quantitative unambiguous points based upon solid science as reported by reputable third parties.
However the counter argument is as follows:
“WAAHHHHHH!!!! HE IS NOT A PROPER LORD!! WAAAHHH!!! HE ISN’T A CLIMATE SCIENTIST!! THERE IS A CONSENSUS OF 77 SCIENTISTS!! WAAHHHHHH!!!!!!”
Both sides make a good case and I must admit I am struggling to come to a conclusion on this one…
/sarc

Web

A tale, told by an idiot full of sound and fury.

Streetcred

The trolls Mandia, Honeycutt, Walker et al are out denigrating Lord Monckton at the CalWatchdog link. Go give it to them … I’ve started the ball rolling.

Richard111

Umm… the pdf is 11.5 KILObytes.

Louis

The fact that they changed the name from “global warming” to “climate change” demonstrates their lack of confidence in the hockey stick. The name “climate change” allows them to declare a crisis whether the temperatures warm or cool. The alarmists don’t care what the crisis is, they just need something to justify shutting down the industry and development that sustains human population. The idea that we don’t need to do anything is the last thing they will tolerate. When Lord Monckton makes the case that the “economically prudent and scientifically sensible course” is to “sit back, enjoy the sunshine, and adapt only if and when and to the extent necessary”, it is blasphemy of the highest order. To the self-appointed high priests of Gaia, such talk can have no other effect than to make him public enemy number one in their eyes. And that’s why I admire his courage in addition to his well-thought-out science and unassailable logic.

PaulC

Richard,
The file is 11,563 KB. ie 11.5 mb

morgo

Lew skannen australia is starting the carbon tax on the 1/07/2012 stand back see us being destroyed all in the name of saving the planet and most of us know it is one big fraud very sad

Jimbo

Grove said she extended an invitation to debate with Lord Monckton to Berkeley Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner, because Skinner is a self-described “climate change expert.” But Grove reported back that Skinner refused the offer to debate. Skinner said Lord Monckton “is not worthy” of talking with her. Grove reported that Skinner said Monckton has no credibility, and isn’t even a member of the House of Lords.

If the science is on your side then surely you would relish the opportunity to embarrass this so called Lord Monckton and settle the debate once and for all. Right?
/ End poking fun 😉
Had she turned up to debate she would have been eviscerated. And Lord Monckton is not even a climate scientist. Says it all really.

Web says—A tale, told by an idiot full of sound and fury.
JK Says—–Why don’t you tell us what is wrong with his facts.
Where are his factual errors?
And why don’t you also tell us just what is the evidence that man’s CO2 is causing dangerous warming. (Only evidence please, no citation to authority, references to drowning cuddly carnivores, or correlations – just solid evidence.)
Thanks
JK

Otter

Web says:
March 23, 2012 at 12:33 am
A tale, told by an idiot full of sound and fury.
——
Ok, web, so we know about you. But what about Lord Moncton’s excellent presentation?

Richard111
Hmmm. What I downloaded was 11 563 kB

No democrates.
What makes the whole issue a political/religious issue for the warmists? The refusal to listen to anything that might disturb their beliefs. Follow dictates from the party

William Astley

It is quite amazing that the fanatic AGW believers do not have a basic understanding of the facts. The madness of converting food to biofuels is one example. A second example is economic impact of the Western Countries’ green scam programs.
Western Countries must compete with so called developing countries China and India for jobs. As most are aware hundreds of thousands of jobs have moved to Asia. The “green” subsides and green boondoggles are only applied to Western Countries. The carbon trading, carbon offsets, carbon taxes, carbon sequestration, conversion of food to biofuel, will not substantially reduce the growth of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it will destroy any possibility of economic growth. Western governments do not have surplus funds to send on boondoggles.
The wily Chinese are playing us for fools.
The following is the current estimated carbon dioxide emission by country and by geographic region in percentage of total world emissions. Also included below is the percentage change (comparing 2008 to 2010) of carbon dioxide emission for the country in question and the geographic region.
The largest emitter of carbon dioxide is China. China currently emits 25% of the world total, 50% more than the US. China’s carbon dioxide emissions are projected to significantly increase in the future, as China is putting one new large coal fired power plant into service every week. The yearly growth of electrical production in China is sufficient to power five cities the size of New York.
Attached below is an article and a link to a presentation by Richard Muller that presents the projected yearly increase in carbon dioxide emissions for the world based on the current observed changes in carbon dioxide emissions and theoretical changes in emissions based on last year’s Copenhagen meeting.
Source of data used to produce the table below.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2_emis/Preliminary_CO2_emissions_2010.xlsx
Projected emissions based on the Copenhagen proposed agreement.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703514404574588673072577680.html

2008 to
2010
% Change___% of Total World
-3.2% 16.4% US
-4.7% 1.5% Canada
-2.0% 1.4% Mexico
-3.2% 19.3%Total North America
2008 to
2010
% Change___% of Total World
-1.3% 0.6% Argentina
6.7% 1.3% Brazil
-6.4% 0.2% Chile
11.3% 0.2% Colombia
9.1% 0.1% Ecuador
13.3% 0.1% Peru
0.2% 0.1% Trinidad and Tobago
3.2% 0.5% Venezuela
-2.1% 0.5% Other S. & Cent. America
3.1% 3.6% Total S. & Cent. America
2008 to
2010
% Change___% of Total World
-6.5% 0.2% Austria
-14.8% 0.1% Azerbaijan
-6.4% 0.2% Belarus
-2.8% 0.3% Belgium & Luxembourg
-18.2% 0.1% Bulgaria
-6.4% 0.3% Czech Republic
-4.9% 0.1% Denmark
12.1% 0.2% Finland
-3.8% 1.1% France
-3.1% 2.3% Germany
-6.8% 0.3% Greece
-8.6% 0.1% Hungary
-6.3% 0.1% Republic of Ireland
-8.3% 1.2% Italy
1.3% 0.7% Kazakhstan
-8.1% 0.0% Lithuania
4.0% 0.5% Netherlands
1.4% 0.2% Norway
-1.9% 0.9% Poland
-1.4% 0.2% Portugal
-17.2% 0.2% Romania
-1.2% 5.0% Russian Federation
-16.0% 0.1% Slovakia
-16.6% 0.8% Spain
-2.1% 0.1% Sweden
-3.4% 0.1% Switzerland
4.0% 0.9% Turkey
8.6% 0.2% Turkmenistan
-13.5% 0.8% Ukraine
-5.7% 1.5% United Kingdom
-5.2% 0.4% Uzbekistan
-6.7% 0.6% Other Europe & Eurasia
-4.2% 20.0% Total Europe & Eurasia
2008 to
2010
% Change___% of Total World
6.7% 1.7% Iran
-2.3% 0.2% Israel
9.6% 0.3% Kuwait
9.4% 0.2% Qatar
13.9% 1.5% Saudi Arabia
3.9% 0.5% United Arab Emirates
11.6% 1.0% Other Middle East
9.1% 5.4% Total Middle East
7.3% 0.4% Algeria
10.9% 0.7% Egypt
3.7% 1.3% South Africa
1.8% 1.2% Other Africa
4.7% 3.6% Total Africa
2008 to
2010
% Change___% of Total World
-8.4% 1.1% Australia
8.0% 0.1% Bangladesh
17.2% 24.6% China
0.4% 0.1% China Hong Kong SAR
18.8% 6.2% India
17.4% 1.4% Indonesia
-5.8% 3.4% Japan
-4.2% 0.6% Malaysia
-11.8% 0.1% New Zealand
2.5% 0.5% Pakistan
8.1% 0.3% Philippines
10.8% 0.1% Singapore
10.6% 1.7% South Korea
2.4% 0.8% Taiwan
4.7% 0.9% Thailand
25.9% 0.5% Vietnam
-2.1% 0.4% Other Asia Pacific
12.7% 42.8%Total Asia Pacific
2008 to
2010
% Change___% of Total World
4.4% 94.6% sum of above
4.5% 100.0%TOTAL WORLD

Man Bearpig

”There were no Democratic members present during the presentation that I was aware of, as they made their intentions known early on.”
So who are the deniers ? Are they are the ones too scared to face scientific facts ?

William Astley

Are any of the above name callers interested in a scientific debate? Calling all extreme AGW supporters. Are the above comments the best that you have?
The extraordinarily high cost of a non-problem is the subject of debate. Do you understand the concept of a debate? It is necessary to provide facts and logic to support your side. So far all that I see is name calling which is not allowed in a debate. Name calling is a sign that it is not possible to defend the extreme AGW paradigm.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/monckton_ca_assembly_presentation.pdf
Christopher Monckton’s presentation to the California State Assembly lays out the essence of the scientific and economic case for the so called “skeptics”.
The programs proposed for California will not significantly reduce carbon emission, unless that state spends three to four times more than budgeted. Ignoring that fact and assuming the programs proposed will reduce California CO2 emissions by 20% and then using the same programs to reduce planetary temperature by 0.15C (using the IPCC models to determine the magnitude of the CO2 reduction required) would cost $179 trillion US dollars, $22,500 per capita, or 33% of global GDP. Obviously China, United States, UK, India, and so are not going to agree to spend 33% of the global GDP on scams which will not significantly reduce atmospheric CO2 which is not a problem anyway.
Why is the atmospheric warming due to an increase in CO2 a non-problem?
Observational data does not support the assertion that the planet amplifies (positive feedback) climate forcing changes positive or negative. Observational evidence indicates the planet resists climate forcing change by increase or decreasing clouds in the tropics (negative feedback). If there is negative feedback, the warming due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2, will result in less 1.2C warming. Based on actual measurements, the estimated warming due to a doubling of CO2 is 0.5C to 0.7C.
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf
On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications
We estimate climate sensitivity from observations, using the deseasonalized fluctuations in sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and the concurrent fluctuations in the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) outgoing radiation from the ERBE (1985-1999) and CERES (2000-2008) satellite instruments. Distinct periods of warming and cooling in the SSTs were used to evaluate feedbacks. An earlier study (Lindzen and Choi, 2009) was subject to significant criticisms. The present paper is an expansion of the earlier paper where the various criticisms are taken into account. ….
….we show that simple regression methods used by several existing papers generally exaggerate positive feedbacks and even show positive feedbacks when actual feedbacks are negative. We argue that feedbacks are largely concentrated in the tropics, and the tropical feedbacks can be adjusted to account for their impact on the globe as a whole. Indeed, we show that including all CERES data (not just from the tropics) leads to results similar to what are obtained for the tropics alone – though with more noise… … We again find that the outgoing radiation resulting from SST fluctuations exceeds the zerofeedback response

Peter Miller

California’s economic demise is becoming a monument to greenie/CAGW stupidity.
When politicians try and solve a non-existent problem simply because it is a trendy cause at that point of time, it always proves to be a pointless and expensive exercise. In the extreme case of California it is akin to economic suicide.
The status quo in California needs to be preserved in order to demonstrate to future generations the stupidity of imposing unrealistic carbon taxes and other green taxes or subsidies. California’s coming economic demise will doubtless become a lesson discussed in the economic textbooks of the future.
The same argument applies to retaining the status quo in Cuba; future generations need to be able to see the economic stupidity and misery of socialism, so they can avoid making the same mistake.
So, Californians should be proud of making the grand sacrifice in proving trendy carbon taxes create economic misery and decline, likewise North Korea for communism, Iran for theocracies, Syria for family dynasties, Venezuela for egotism, and as said earlier, Cuba for socialism.
Moncton just points out an inconvenient truth, not surprisingly he was boycotted by those responsible for the state’s current demise.

Ernie

Dear Lord Monckton,
Imperial Margarine called. They want their crown logo back.

Steve C

Richard111 says (12:51 am)
> Umm… the pdf is 11.5 KILObytes.
Eh? The one that came to me was certainly 11.3 MB.

Richard111 says: March 23, 2012 at 12:51 am
Umm… the pdf is 11.5 KILObytes.
———-
Then I would advise you download it again, because I can confirm, since I just downloaded it, that it is 11.2 MB (11,839,618 bytes).

Help! Help!
I have need of showing such a slide show to younger children to point out several things at one time. The slide show is a good example of using a “power point” in a professional presentation. The slide show demonstrates that one can show a “linear trend” depending on the starting and stopping points picked in a data set. (question statistics) The slide show shows how to compactly present important data and points to a general audience. The slide show also demonstrates a lot of science that a middle school kid should be able to understand.
I wonder if anyone has a transcript of what the Lord said when he showed each slide. I would hate to not use the slide show in exactly the same manner as he did — would not be fair to him. (or at least come very close) And does he use basically the same slide show for all of his stops on this US tour?
Anyone?

Dave

Anthony,
The fact that democrats didn’t show up doesn’t bode well for the future of California. Time for you to sell your property while you can and move to a more sane state…

PaulC

Hi Ingvare,
Whats a few decimal points. They do it all the time (sarc)
Paul

Hilton Gray

Excellent set of slides, in fact probably the best I’ve seen from Lord Monckton

Chris Edwards

Dont forget the AGW scam is largely a socialist driven scam so don’t expect any Democrats to show up,, they know it is a scam but see the great potential for gaining huge power leverage out of it, and I think that’s is what it is all about. Socialism has a near hundred year history of drowning opposition and allowing no debate so don’t be surprised here, lucky for us we have the internet (for now anyway)

Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings and commented:
“The principal conclusions of each of the four IPCC Assessment Reports are questionable:”

ARW

If you accept the “fact” that the IPCC CO2 forced warming predicition of 6 degrees F/100years is correct and is caused by CO2 only, then there must be a natural non-antropogenic forcing balancing the CO2 effects given the measured rate of change in temperature. The result of taking all fossil fuel derived CO2 out of the system would surely result in a 6 degrees cooling. Not an attractive option at all really. The snowline woudl be marching down the mountains in California if were not for the SUV.

Kasuha

I like a lot in that presentation, mainly parts concerned about science. But there are also parts of it which I consider misleading or wrong.
Page 3 – ratio of the two slopes is 5:1 rather than 3:1. I consider it unfair psychological trick
Page 20 – highlighted warming intervals are as good as the IPCC’s ‘addition to science’ on page 18. Or is there a scientific source for it? None is mentioned on the page, unlike other pages which all contain references to sources.
Page 41 – the sea ice topic is again presented in a misleading way. I believe there is no dispute there are climate changes going on near the north pole and there were changes near the south pole some years back so it’s not like there are ‘almost no changes’ but that we are not sure of their nature. We may not like if some say it’s because of global warming but it’s just wrong to say they’re not there.
Page 55 – the historic/projected division line is obviously intentionally short and far away to hide the fact that most of the china’s explosive growth is forecast, not reality. Will it really go this way or is this forecast as good as IPCC’s?
Page 63 – biofules do not make hungry countries even hungrier. It’s money, food and products sent to them from ‘developed countries’ that ruin their industry and economy and make them even poorer. I don’t say that it’s ok if a hungry country is producing biofuels instead of food, but if that’s the country’s main export article and what the country needs the most is money to be able to import machines to start up their own industry then even that may be a good start.
Pages near the end are just psychological pressure.

Keith Battye

Jimbo says:
March 23, 2012 at 1:27 am (Edit)
Grove said she extended an invitation to debate with Lord Monckton to Berkeley Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner, because Skinner is a self-described “climate change expert.” But Grove reported back that Skinner refused the offer to debate. Skinner said Lord Monckton “is not worthy” of talking with her. Grove reported that Skinner said Monckton has no credibility, and isn’t even a member of the House of Lords.
————————————————————————————————————————–
This woman is obviously a close friend of James “Avatar” Cameron. These palookas will always avoid a debate with folk who know what they are on about.
Cowards.
I also note the comments by the usual dissemblers trying to smear Monckton as if their innuendos will make the truth of what he says less true.

Mike M

If CO2 was as dangerous as these democrat morons believe then they need to consider how it is possible for a concentration of 100X higher of the ‘pollutant’ than ambient can save a life via mouth to mouth resuscitation? They should consider how a 3X to 4X concentration is intentionally applied in greenhouses for better crop yields?
It’s amazing that they can ignore such simple proven facts as those and believe unproven climate nonsense as a means to impress their constituents that they are committed to some sort of imagined moral high ground, that they are determined to ‘Save the Planet’ and their opponents are not.
What needs to be done is to flip the meme around in the minds of the voters that these nitwits are determined to “SACRIFICE California” on the basis of an thoroughly unproven and increasingly baseless theory.

Richard111

Ooops… teach me to not start thinking before breakfast.
Fooled by a fast download.

Paul Coppin

Glad to see the la-la-la-la-la-la in lalaland is alive and well. Not.

Gail Combs

Web says: @ March 23, 2012 at 12:33 am
A tale, told by an idiot full of sound and fury.
____________________________________
YES, that certainly sounds like Berkeley Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner. If she wasn’t scared out of her stockings and really thought she could demolish Lord Monckton she would of debated him. The fact she did not and came up with idiotic excuses speaks for itself.
I really really hope the rest of the businesses in California pack up and leave. Because it is about time politicians discovered the reality of these two statements.
“Socialism works until you run out of other people’s money” ~ Margaret Thatcher
“If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law” ~ Winston Churchill

Gail Combs

markstoval says:
March 23, 2012 at 3:10 am
Help! Help!
______________________
Do not forget the Minnesotans for global Warming have some great videos good for children. (I love “Hide the decline”) http://www.minnesotansforglobalwarming.com/m4gw/videos/

“WAAHHHHHH!!!! HE IS NOT A PROPER LORD!! WAAAHHH!!! HE ISN’T A CLIMATE SCIENTIST!! THERE IS A CONSENSUS OF 77 SCIENTISTS!! WAAHHHHHH!!!!!!”
==================
This is not so funny as it should have been, because it basically sums up the rebuttal fairly accurately.

Gail Combs

Dave says:
March 23, 2012 at 3:20 am
Anthony,
The fact that democrats didn’t show up doesn’t bode well for the future of California. Time for you to sell your property while you can and move to a more sane state…
_________________________________
I agree, You really need to get out NOW before your property becomes completely worthless.
Even profitable firms fleeing California
Cali to Business: Get Out! – WSJ

Relo Expert: Top 10 Reasons Businesses Flee California
10 – California’s high corporate tax rates….
9 – Hostility from government agencies — local, county and state employees often view business owners as “the enemy,” according to Vranich’s clients.
8 – Costly, business-killing regulatory measures…..
7 – Extravagant state spending with no end in sight.
6 – Unfriendly business environment — California is ranked 51st (even behind D.C.) in the country for being a “business friendly state.”
5 – High cost of doing business within California’s cities, which are some of the highest in the nation.
4 – High personal income tax rates …
3 – California’s Alternative Minimum Tax…
2 – Litigious environment in California …
1 – General quality of life…
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2011/02/relo-expert-top-10-reasons-businesses.html

Sounds like darn good reasons to relocate.

REPLY:
The idea of moving out of California is constantly on my mind. The Golden State has become The Altered State where hard work, playing by the rules, and entrepreneurship is vilified, rather than rewarded. – Anthony

Robert

wasn’t this monckton guy the dude that Peter Hadfield destroyed in an online debate last month?

adolfogiurfa

It would be fantastic if Lord Monckton could make a spanish version of his thoughtful presentation, for the sake of spanish speaking countries, now being daily brainwashed by politicians and NGO´s.

Gail Combs

Robert says:
March 23, 2012 at 6:22 am
wasn’t this monckton guy the dude that Peter Hadfield destroyed in an online debate last month?
____________________________
You have that backwards.
See: Monckton responds to Peter Hadfield aka “potholer54″ – plus Hadfield’s response
UPDATE: Below is Peter Hadfield’s response in entirety, submitted Feb 7th, 2012. I’ve made only some slight edits for formatting to fit. Comments are open. – Anthony
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/11/monckton-responds-to-potholer54/

rogerkni

Robert says:
March 23, 2012 at 6:22 am
wasn’t this monckton guy the dude that Peter Hadfield destroyed in an online debate last month?

Here’s Monckton’s rebuttal:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=hadfield

Frank K.

REPLY: The idea of moving out of California is constantly on my mind. The Golden State has become The Altered State where hard work, playing by the rules, and entrepreneurship is vilified, rather than rewarded. Anthony

Come to New Hampshire, Anthony! No sales tax, no state income tax, beautiful scenery – OK, so our winters are cold and snowy (can’t have everything :).

Monroe

Hold it!
I spend my winters in Carp and I think Cali is worth fighing for. And you guys are doing a great job.
Signed,
Freezing my ass of in BC cause it’s been snowing for a week.

Stephen Pruett

Robert, Hadfield didn’t destroy Monckton. Both are less than objective and arguing more about semantics than substance (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/11/monckton-responds-to-potholer54/). Monckton challenged Hadfield’s assertions, and Hadfield’s responses often did not address the real issue but focused on some detail about which he perceived Monckton was wrong. Climate is always changing but the recent report that the Himalayan glaciers have lost only a very small amount of ice in recent years, the observation that overall sea ice has changed little, in spite of very dynamic fluctuations in the arctic, sea level increases are not accelerating and have even declined over the last few years, and global average temperature has not increased significantly in the last decade (perhaps longer). Any objective person who respects the methods of science would have to question the IPCC climate models’ sensitivity to CO2, which project alarming warming. Instead, the “consensus” group seems to be more and more desperate (e.g., Gleick), and I have never seen any of them admit to error or miscalculation. In contrast, scientists with proper objectivity and skepticism respond to valid criticism and make adjustments (e.g., Lindzen and Choi 2009 and 2011). This whole “debate” is drastically unscientific in that there are mostly advocates on both sides who have thrown out even the pretense of Baconian objectivity. I believe this will hurt all of science and society for many years to come.
I became a skeptic after reading extensively following climategate and observing the mainstream climate science group defend the indefensible. One of the most striking findings from this reading was part of an interview with Phil Jones. He was asked why he was so sure CO2 was the main driver of climate. He said (paraphrasing here, I don’t remember the exact quote), because we can’t think of anything else it could be. That basic idea has also been expressed by others. You don’t have to be a scientist (although I am) to understand that this is a remarkably weak reason to ascribe causation in a system as complex as the earth climate system. I don’t suppose a huge ball of molten material at the core of the planet could have any impact, or cyclical changes in orbital patterns changing sun exposure, or cosmic rays altering cloud patterns, or changes in the amount of water vapor, or land use changes, or natural variations in atmospheric and ocean circulation patterns, etc etc etc etc etc?

Apple and Facebook are leaving California due to overregulation? Whoppers like that really don’t help the credibility of the piece.
REPLY: Apple moved manufacturing to China, taking advantage of lower manufacturing costs than they could get in CA. Facebook made a big data center in Sweden http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2011/10/27/facebook-goes-global-with-data-center-in-sweden/
“Facebook will build a huge new data center in northern Sweden to support the rapid global growth of its users, the company said today. The new data center in Lulea, Sweden will be Facebook’s first facility outside the United States.”
Whopper’s like yours don’t really lend much credibility to you – Anthony

kakatoa

Anthony I believe Senator Roderick D. Wright (from the LA area, representing the 25th District) attended panel discussion. Senator Wright is a member of the democratic party. He voted no on the 33%RES as noted here- “It Ain’t Necessarily So” http://sd25.senate.ca.gov/news/2011-02-24-it-ain-t-necessarily-so

Jim Cornelius

not sure if posting is working properly – test

Jim Cornelius

Open letter from Peter Hadfield to Christopher Monckton
Dear Mr. Monckton,
A couple of months ago you entered into a debate with me on wattsupwiththat.com (See “Update on the Monckton-Hadfield debate” – http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/07/update-on-the-monckton-hadfield-debate/) about alleged errors in your public lectures — allegations that I made in a series of videos on my YouTube channel. But as soon as I presented documentary evidence to back up my claims, you suddenly fell silent. Despite promising Anthony Watts that you would respond when you returned from Australia mid-February, you have not done so, and now you have written to tell me that you are, in effect, running away. Sorry, I don’t know how else to phrase your abrupt retreat from our debate as soon as I showed evidence that supports my allegations and starkly contradicts your claims.
I am referring to your e-mail to me dated March 22nd:
= I am on a very busy tour and will be still more busy when I return to the UK, so I do not know when I shall have further time to respond. Many people like to engage in debates on inconsequentialities and, while I try to accommodate them, other priorities must sometimes come first.=
Let me address the first excuse first. I understand you are currently on a busy tour, but you promised Anthony Watts you would respond when you returned from your last tour, and you did not. Meanwhile I note that you have had plenty of time to respond to a university newsletter that criticized you, and you spent two hours talking on skype to a small classroom of students. I fail to see why these are “priorities”, while my 57,000 subscribers and the hundreds of thousands of subscribers to wattsupwiththat are not deserving of an answer from you concerning clear evidence that you seriously misled your audiences over a period of several years. The people watching this debate have watched you vacate your chair, and are still expecting to see you to re-appear from backstage at any moment with some incisive rebuttal after checking my evidence. I am sure they will be as shocked as I am to hear the squealing of car tyres as you make good your escape.
You have, after all, been given every advantage in this debate. It is taking place on wattsupwiththat, a regular forum for you and one that YOU chose, so there can be no suggestion that the umpire is biased against you. In fact, even though he and I disagree on the climate issue, Anthony Watts has been good enough to give us equal space for our responses. You were given not just one but two to rebut my videos, responding first to a summary of my videos that was made by someone in a WUWT comments forum, and then directly to something that was, as you put it: “not word what [Peter Hadfield] said, but I hope that they fairly convey his meaning.”
With respect, no, the points you wrote did not fairly convey my meaning — in fact they ignored the substance of the allegations altogether and a lot of your response focused on ad hominem attacks questioning my integrity, honesty and intelligence.
So when I responded with the actual allegations, along with supporting documentary evidence –17 video clips of your speeches, 13 scientific papers and studies and one newspaper article that you yourself cited — and showed that you had clearly misquoted or misrepresented your own sources, you inexplicably fell silent, and then failed to deliver your promised response.
Your other excuse: “Many people like to engage in debates on inconsequentialities”
If you think these issues are “inconsequentialities” then why did you bring them up time and again during your many public speeches? The sun is largely responsible for recent warming — there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature over the last 500 million years — only one Himalayan glacier is retreating — the Earth has been cooling — Greenland isn’t melting — there is no long-term decline of Arctic ice…. etc. etc. It was you, not I, who decided these should be the bedrock of your case against anthropogenic climate change. I simply asked you for the sources of your assertions and when you gave them to me I checked them — and it turned out that you either misrepresented or misquoted these sources, or your source does not have the authority you claim it does.
And if you think they are inconsequentialities, why have you decide to expend several thousand words on wattsupwiththat trying to rebut them? You were quite happy to do so when you thought the debate would be easy, and when you addressed your own rather crude summary of what you thought I was alleging. It was only when I came back with details and a wealth of supporting evidence that you apparently decided it was better to beat a hasty retreat than try to answer such prima facie evidence.
I appreciate that you would much prefer this kind of debate to take place on stage, where oratory is paramount. It is much harder to engage in this kind of debate online, where everything is written down and can be quoted back, where sources are demanded for any facts you give, and where these sources can be checked and verified. But this is the nub of our debate — whether you have chosen reliable sources and quoted and represented them correctly.
Nowhere in my videos or in the WUWT debate have I suggested that you are making these errors deliberately, or that you are being dishonest ( a courtesy you did not extend to me), and neither have I descended to ad hominem attacks or name calling (also a courtesy you did not extend to me.) Errors are simply errors in my book, and if you unintentionally misled your audiences over several years then I accept that it was unintentional.
After all, the truth alone is worthy of our entire devotion… as you yourself said at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy last year.
In the same speech you said: “Before we subjucate the truth to mere expediency, convenience or profit it is first desirable to discern the truth.”
And again: “What matters here are the facts; what matters here is the truth.”
For a man so dedicated to the truth I am surprised that you did not jump at the opportunity to either rebut my allegations by showing that it is I, not you, who misread these sources and quotes, or check your sources again and acknowledge that you made these errors. In that spirit, I urge you to rejoin the debate that Anthony Watts has so kindly agreed to host.
This may be the triumph of hope over experience. My experience tells me that you won’t be too busy to issue a long response addressing the issue of the debate itself and why you shouldn’t have to continue it, or an attempt to deflect the debate onto some other subject or forum, combined with another ad hominem attack on me — instead of what everyone would LIKE to see, which is a clear rebuttal or acceptance of the evidence I provided.
Video on Youtube.

philincalifornia

Dave says:
March 23, 2012 at 3:20 am
Anthony,
The fact that democrats didn’t show up doesn’t bode well for the future of California. Time for you to sell your property while you can and move to a more sane state…
+++++++++++++++++++++++
After his 7:00pm presentation later that day at Sacramento State, he was asked by a lady in the audience how he could ever get his points across to such people. His response – “Vote them out”.

Rob Crawford

Kasuha:
“Pages near the end are just psychological pressure.”
I’ve never before heard a AGW alarmist express concern over this.

William Astley

In reply to Chris Edwards,
Chris Edwards says:
March 23, 2012 at 4:24 am
Don’t forget the AGW scam is largely a socialist driven scam so don’t expect any Democrats to show up,, they know it is a scam but see the great potential for gaining huge power leverage out of it, and I think that’s is what it is all about. Socialism has a near hundred year history of drowning opposition and allowing no debate so don’t be surprised here, lucky for us we have the internet (for now anyway)
Chris,
The Democrats are not stupid. They are just ignorant. They have big hearts which is the hook for the scams. (Scams require a hook.)
P.S.
Calling all RealClimate supporters. William Connelly, are you out there? Can you defend the extreme AGW position? I notice Realclimate has had no discussion of the costs of the scams.
Anyone want a debate? Why is it so quiet?
99% of the Democrats have no idea the Californian “green” programs are scams that will waste billions of Californian tax dollars and will result in almost no reduction of CO2 emissions for the state of California. A scam is a scam. A fantasy is a fantasy. The only people who support scams is the fraction of percentage of the state that directly benefit in the scam.
Democrats have a long list of issues that they want to spend money on such as education, health care, and so on. Democrats are just in a state of denial. They do not understand why Greece economic collapsed. 50% unemployment of the Greek youth. Year after year of decline of the Greece GDP. No realistic possibility of avoiding complete default. What are the consequences of complete economic collapse? Democrats will follow the AGW piped piper over the cliff.
99% of the Democrats have do not understand that the planet resists (negative feedback) rather than amplifies (negative feedback) the warming due to the increase in CO2. Planetary cloud cover increases or decreases in the tropics thereby reflecting more or less sunlight into space which resist the climate forcing change (negative feedback).
99% of the Democrats do not understand that the IPCC analysis supports the assertion that if the planet’s response to a change in forcing is negative a doubling of CO2 will result in less than 1.2C of global warming.
99% of the Democrats do not understand the IPCC process and reports has been hijacked by the AGW jihad movement.
The term skeptic is not appropriate. There is observational data and analysis in published papers that unequivocally supports the assertion the planet’s response to a change in forcing is negative. If the planet’s response a change in forcing is negative the warming due to a doubling of CO2 will result in less than 1.2C of warming with majority of the warming occurring at high latitudes which will result in an expansion of the biosphere.
CO2 is not a poison. Plants eat CO2. Commercial greenhouses inject CO2 into the greenhouse to increase yield and reduce growing times. A doubling of atmospheric CO2 results in an increase in cereal crop yields of 30% to 40%.