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.
chrisd3 says:
“Science isn’t debated on a stage.”
Wrong again. Science is debated everywhere, based on verifiable, testable facts and empirical measurements. Scientists such as Gavin Schmidt, Brenda Ekwurzel and Richard Somerville, to name only a few, have been participants in science debates like this one. As in most such debates, the audience was polled both before and after the debate. Before the debate the majority believed in the global warming crisis. Following the debate, the majority had switched to not agreeing that global warming is a crisis.
That is happening on a global scale, thanks to WUWT and its lightly moderated, uncensored debate threads: readers can see both sides of the issues and make up their minds. As a result, the public is beginning to realize that CAGW is a complete scam. Even more importantly, people are beginning to understand that CO2 is a completely harmless trace gas at current and projected levels, and that more of it is beneficial to the biosphere, and that a warmer planet is a net benefit. Thus, debate is essential for getting the truth out. And that is why the alarmist side will no longer debate.
Scientific debates are intended to ferret out the truth. That is the purpose of scientific debate. The truth is decided by the scientific facts presented. Albert Einstein engaged in running debates for years with some of his peers. Compare real science debates with the anti-science video propaganda emitted by Peter Hadfield. Those are just hit pieces manufactured by a coward who runs away from a real debate. Hadfield is a chicken, and that fact needs to be pointed out every time the potholer issue comes up.
The point, dear Smokey, is that no scientific theory has ever been, or will ever be, either refuted or confirmed on a stage. That simply does not, and will not, happen. The real debate is in the literature. Stage debates may be informative (or not) and entertaining (or not), but they are not part of the scientific process. No theory will ever be discarded because some guy lost a stage debate.
chrisd3 says:
“…no scientific theory has ever been, or will ever be, either refuted or confirmed on a stage.”
How would you know that? Prior to WWII there was nothing like today’s peer review system, which is now big business and extremely political. There is not much debate in the litrutchur, either. Read A.W. Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusion [available on the right sidebar], and you will see how thoroughly corrupt and intimidated the climate journal pal-review system is. There is very little debate allowed in climate journals, as this factual account of a professor of physics trying to get a simple Comment published makes very clear.
And to correct your statement: no scientific theory will ever be confirmed. Every conjecture, hypothesis, theory, and law is subject to falsification. Further, CO2=AGW is a conjecture; a scientific opinion; debates are also scientific opinions. Be honest, the only reason you’re trying to hair-split regarding science debates is because the alarmist crowd loses the debates.
Which brings us back to Mr Hadfield, who is too afraid to debate the man he attacked in his cherry-picked, unscientific videos. Hadfield had his opportunity. Now it’s Monckton’s choice of venue. But faced with a real debate, Hadfield chickens out. Despicable, no?
Oh, Smokey, Smokey Smokey, their is an open invitation for Monkton to return to the debate and offer sources of what he claims, yet somehow you see an entirely different picture. You say you refuse to do homework and it shows by your lack of verifiable proof for any of your claims whilst Peter takes the time to show exactly where he sourced everything so you can easily go prove him wrong if you feel he has misrepresented his position, If you feel your position is unassailable what harm is there in actually checking the sources apart from a fear of finding out you are, in fact, delusional.
Damn, there not their. One more point, it was Monkton who when asked to return to the debate said he would not be doing so. Who backed out ? Like to see your spin on that smokey.
Smokey says:
March 26, 2012 at 11:58 am
Since you have failed once again to back up your claims with any sources or evidence the only conclusion that can be drawn is that they are false.
If you would like to return to the debate and back up your claims that would be great, however if you are unable to do that them I’m afraid you have lost.
Better luck next time.
Smokey says:
“Which brings us back to Mr Hadfield, who is too afraid to debate the man he attacked in his cherry-picked, unscientific videos. Hadfield had his opportunity. Now it’s Monckton’s choice of venue. But faced with a real debate, Hadfield chickens out. Despicable, no?”
Again, care to back this up at all with sources or evidence?
The only person I’ve seen chickening out is Monckton with his email to Peter:
“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”
It’s Peter who is asking Monckton to return to the debate in his “Potholer’s Open Letter To Christopher Monckton”
@smokey:
Because I’ve studied science for half a century, and I understand how it works.
Which is why I said “confirmed” and not “proved.” Normally I wouldn’t even use that lesser word, but sometimes when speaking to those who don’t seem to have a firm grasp on science it’s easier. I have spent more hours of my life than I care to think about trying to explain to so-called “skeptics” why their protests that “AGW is just an unproven theory!!!!” are meaningless.
No, it’s a theory. Just like gravity, evolution, relativity, and the germ theory of disease.
No, I already explained why stage debates on science are worthless. Perhaps you weren’t listening. I’ll say it again. Stage debates are a contest of debating skills, not a search for truth. The winner is the side that debates better, not the side with the correct facts.
And of course the reason why Monkton is afraid of an ongoing online debate is because, unlike a live debate in which he can make any number of untrue claims which other contestents have no way of verifying at the time, his adversary can go away, check his ‘facts’ and come back with evidence if the ‘facts’ don’t check out (As they usually don’t, as already demonstrated by Hadfield)
@JonBo:
Precisely. This is one of the primary reasons why live debates on science are of no scientific value at all. They may (or may not) be entertaining, but they are certainly not dispositive. I’ve been attempting to explain this to “Smokey”, with little apparent success. Winning a live debate does not mean that the facts are on your side. It means you’re a better debater, and nothing more.
JonBo says:
March 27, 2012 at 5:08 am
And of course the reason why Monkton is afraid of an ongoing online debate is because, unlike a live debate in which he can make any number of untrue claims which other contestents have no way of verifying at the time, his adversary can go away, check his ‘facts’ and come back with evidence if the ‘facts’ don’t check out (As they usually don’t, as already demonstrated by Hadfield)
______________________________________
OH?
Then I guess this Monckton responds to Peter Hadfield aka “potholer54″ – plus Hadfield’s response and this Update on the Monckton – Hadfield debate must come from an alternate universe.
EPIC FAIL!
Must of us here at WUWT do check our facts and sometimes get into a rousing good debate. This one is an excellent example Unfortunately you are a fine example of those who spout off WITHOUT checking their facts first.
[snip. Posting under multiple screen names. ~dbs, mod.]
[snip. You are posting as “hmm” and “geez” as screen names. Please follow site Policy. ~dbs, mod.]
JoeyBB,
Please don’t assign me your homework. The fact is that Hadfield pestered Anthony to be allowed to post his ad hominem attacks on Monckton, and Anthony agreed. Fair enough.
But now by the rules of fair play, Monckton has the right to demand that Hadfield must debate him in a formal, moderated debate.
Hadfield declined, confirming his status as a chicken. Defend the cowardly Hadfield all you want, but he is still a chicken who will not debate.
[snip. Posting under multiple screen names violates site Policy. ~dbs, mod.]
[snip]
I don’t believe this. Why are you removing all my comments? The anonymous moderator should send me an e-mail and explain what’s going on. I’m considering e-mailing Mr. Watts about this. Surely he does not condone such blanket censorship.
[Reply: The moderator is not anonymous. I am dbstealey. Feel free to email Anthony your complaints. Until then I suggest that you read and abide by site Policy. ~dbs, mod.]
Seriously Smokey you need to learn the meaning of ad hominem before using it, Peter has done what Monkton says you should do and check the source of his claims and found that he has grossly misrepresented the facts on just about every key point Monkton presents, note that, key points. Now since you refuse to do “homework” how can anything you say be held as valid apart from your “say it is so, repeatedly so thus it must be”, mantra.
chrisd3,
Scientific debates have value. Oxford Union has hosted their debates since the 1800’s. You just don’t like the fact that the alarmist side loses all the debates.
Maybe this will help.
@Smokey:
I’m thoroughly bored with telling you over and over again why scientific debates serve no scientific purpose. At this point I can only assume that you’re just not listening, so this conversation, if you can call it that, is at an end..
Have a nice day.
Ted,
If Monckton “grossly misrepresented the facts on every key point” as you claim, then that would come out in a debate, no? But Hadfield is too chicken to debate, so the point is moot.
Again saying Hadfeild refuses to debate over and over does not make it true, Hadfeild came here , into the lions den, and presented his side and Monkton said he was going to respond, we are still waiting, now who is refusing to debate who? If Monkton’s position is so unassailable why does he not return?
Ted says:
“Again saying Hadfeild [sic] refuses to debate over and over does not make it true…”
Then get the cowardly chicken to debate. All pothole has done is attack. But he is too cowardly to get into a real, honest debate. He is a chicken, and Monckton is right to ignore him. I wouldn’t give the chicken the time of day after his one-sided, ad hominem attacks. And now he hides out. Where is he, and why are you carrying the chicken’s water for him? You can’t even spell his name and you’re acting like a big brother protecting a chicken little brother who’s afraid to fight.
. . .
chrisd3,
Thank you for your opinion. Run along now.
OK this thread is just devolving into tit for tat attack language, and frankly I’m fed up with it all. Thread closed.