Monckton's reply to Eos on Climate Denial

Christopher Monckton writes via email:

Dear Anthony, – Ivar Giaever and I were subjected to an unprovoked and more than usually scientifically illiterate personal attack at some length in the AGU’s Eos newsletter recently. I wrote the attached reply, which Eos are refusing to print. – Christopher

It appears that Eos has indeed refused to print this reply, as this according to the document properties, this document was created June 30th, when the early edition was available, and there’s been no response so far from Eos. -Anthony

Right of Reply

I am grateful to the editors of Eos for this right of reply to Corbin and Katz (Effective Strategies to Counter Campus Presentations on Climate Denial, Eos, 2012 July 3), an unjustifiable 1200-word personal attack on Dr. Giaever and me by way of a mélange or smørgasbord of the shop-worn logical fallacies of argument ad populum, ad verecundiam, and, above all, ad hominem.

The authors, arguing solely from consensus (ad pop.) among scientific experts (ad vcd.), say without evidence that speakers like us “intend to muddy the waters with respect to climate science” (ad hom.); they serially cite politicized websites and tendentious non-peer-reviewed presentations by non-climate-scientists against us as though they were authoritative (ad vcd.), while omitting to cite published rebuttals (e.g. Monckton of Brenchley, 2010) to these dubious sources (ad hom.); they accuse us of misrepresentation, distortion, and flawed analysis without adducing a single instance (ad hom.); they advance not a single scientific or economic argument; and they four times brand us as “climate change deniers” (ad hom.) – a hate-speech comparison with Holocaust denial. These allegations are serious and require a reply.

The authors also say we attempt to discredit their research when, as philosophers of science from al-Haytham via Huxley to Popper (1934) make clear, error-elimination by questioning of hypotheses is essential to the scientific method. They describe “strategies” to counter us – including “public displays” and “social media” – which surely belong more in the realm of political propaganda than of scientific discourse.

Our argument against the Party line they so uncritically espouse is that catastrophic manmade global warming has not been occurring at anything like the predicted rate; that there is no sound scientific reason to expect that it will; and that, even if it did, future adaptation would be at least an order of magnitude more cost-effective than heavy spending on attempted mitigation today.

Predictions of doom have failed. Envisat data show sea level rising in the eight years 2004-2012 at a rate equivalent to 3 cm/century. Growth in Antarctic sea-ice extent almost matches the decline in the Arctic over the past 30 years. Greenland’s land-based ice grew by a net 0.5 m in thickness from 1993-2008. Antarctica has cooled for 30 years, and has gained land ice. Northern-hemisphere snow cover reached a 30-year maximum in 2010/11. Tropical-cyclone activity worldwide was at a 30-year low over the past two years.

Above all, in the generation since 1990, the observed warming rate has turned out below the least estimate projected by the IPCC in that year. The models agreed with one another, but events have proven the consensus wrong. Despite rapidly-increasing CO2 concentration, there has been no statistically-significant warming for a decade and a half. The post-1950 warming rate, as the least-squares trend on the Hadley/CRU surface temperature series (HadCRUt3, 2011), is just 1.2 K/century. Yet IPCC (2007, table SPM.3, taken with fig. 10.26) implicitly predicts as the mean of all six emissions scenarios that Man’s influence, including an increase in CO2 concentration from 368 ppmv in 2000 to 713 ppmv by 2100, will cause 2.8 K warming by 2100 – 0.6 K previously committed, 1.5 K from CO2 emitted in this century, and 0.7 K from other greenhouse gases. This predicted (though unalarming) more-than-doubling of the post-1950 warming rate depends upon at least three implausible assumptions: that other gases augment CO2’s contribution to warming by as much as 43%; that as much as half of the warming caused by our past sins of emission has not yet come through the pipeline; and, above all, that unmeasured and unmeasurable temperature feedbacks will near-triple the small direct warming from greenhouse gases: thus, two-thirds of predicted consensus warming is guesswork.

The first assumption lacks credibility now that methane, the most significant non-CO2 greenhouse gas we emit, has stabilized: its concentration grew by only 20 parts by billion over the past decade. The second and third assumptions imply a volatility in surface temperatures that is belied by the paleoclimate record, which – allowing for great uncertainties –indicates that absolute temperature has not fluctuated by more than 3% or 8 K either side of the mean in the past 64 million years (Scotese, 1999; Zachos et al., 2001). That is enough to cause an ice age at one era and a hothouse Earth at another: but it is far too small to permit the closed-loop feedback gains of as much as 0.64[0.42, 0.74] that are implicit in the projected warming of 3.26[2, 4.5] K per CO2 doubling (IPCC, 2007, p. 798, box 10.2). In process engineering, where the mathematics of feedbacks adopted by climate science has its origins (see Bode, 1945; Roe, 2009), electronic circuits intended to be stable are designed to permit closed-loop gains of no more than 0.1. Given the Earth’s formidable temperature stability, the IPCC’s implicit interval of loop gains is far too close to the singularity in the feedback-amplification equation to be credible. For across that singularity, at a loop gain of 1, strongly net-positive feedback becomes as strongly net-negative: yet the inferred paleo-temperature record shows no such pattern of violent oscillation. Empirical evidence (e.g. Lindzen and Choi, 2009, 2011; Spencer and Braswell, 2010, 2011), though hotly contested (e.g. Trenberth et al., 2010; Dessler et al., 2010, 2011), indeed suggests what process-engineering theory would lead us to expect: that feedbacks in the temperature-stable climate system, like those in a well-designed circuit, are at most barely net-positive and are more likely to be somewhat net-negative, consistent with a harmless continuance of the observed warming rate of the past 60 years but inconsistent with the substantially greater (though not necessarily harmful) warming rate predicted by the IPCC.

Even if we assume ad argumentum (and per impossibile) that our unmitigated emissions will greatly accelerate the observed warming rate, the very high cost of measures intended to mitigate CO2 emissions exceeds the likely cost of climate-related damage arising from our failure to act now. To take a single topical and typical example, carbon trading in Australia will cost $10.1 bn/year, plus $1.6 bn/year for administration (Wong, 2010, p. 5), plus $1.2 bn/year for renewables and other costs, a total of $13 bn/year, rising at 5%/year, or $130 bn by 2020 at n.p.v., to abate 5% of current emissions, which represent 1.2% of world emissions (derived from Boden et al., 2010ab). Thus the Australian measure, if it succeeded as fully as its promoters intend, would abate no more than 0.06% of global emissions over its 10-year term. CO2 concentration would fall from a business-as-usual 410 to 409.988 ppmv by the end of the term. Forcing abated is 0.0002 W m–2; warming consequently abated is 0.00006 K; mitigation cost-effectiveness, which is the cost of abating 1 K global warming by measures of equivalent cost-effectiveness, is $2,000 trillion/K. On the same basis, the cost of abating all projected warming over the ten-year life of the policy is $300 trillion, or $44,000/head, or 58% of global GDP over the period. The cost of mitigation by such measures would exceed the cost of climate-related damage consequent upon inaction by a factor of approximately 50.

The very high costs of CO2 mitigation policies and the undetectable returns in warming abated imply that focused adaptation to any adverse consequences of such warming as may occur will be far more cost-effective than attempted mitigation today. CO2 mitigation strategies inexpensive enough to be affordable will be ineffective: strategies costly enough to be effective will be unaffordable. The question arises whether CO2 mitigation should any longer be attempted at all.

Readers of Eos may now decide for themselves to what extent the unsupported attack upon our reputations by Corbin and Katz was justifiable. True science is founded not upon invective and illogic but upon reason. Lose that: lose all.

References

Bode, H.W. (1945), Network analysis and feedback amplifier design, Van Nostrand, New York, USA, 551 pp.

Boden and Marland (2010a), Global CO2 Emissions from Fossil-Fuel Burning, Cement Manufacture, and Gas Flaring, 1751-2007, Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Center, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA.

Boden et al. (2010b), Ranking of the world’s countries by 2007 total CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Center, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA.

Dessler, A.E. (2010), A determination of the cloud feedback from climate variations over the past decade, Science 220, 1523-1527.

Dessler, A.E. (2011), Cloud Variations and the Earth’s energy budget, Geophys. Res. Lett.

HadCRUt3 (2011), Monthly global mean surface temperature anomalies, 1850-2011, http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt.

IPCC (1990), Climate Change: The IPCC Scientific Assessment (1990): Report prepared for Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change by Working Group I, J. T. Houghton, G.J. Jenkins and J.J. Ephraums (eds.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, New York, NY, USA, and Melbourne, Australia.

IPCC (2007), Climate Change 2007: the Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007 [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Avery, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)], Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, and New York, NY, USA.

Lindzen, R.S., and Y.-S. Choi (2009), On the determination of feedbacks from ERBE data, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L16705.

Lindzen, R.S., and Y.-S. Choi (2011), On the observational determination of climate sensitivity and its implications, Asia-Pacific J. Atmos. Sci., 47(4), 377-390, doi:10.1007/s13143-011-0023-x.

Monckton of Brenchley, C.W. (2010), Response to John Abraham, SPPI Reprint Series, Science and Public Policy Institute, Washington DC, USA, July 12, http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/response_to_john_abraham.pdf.

Popper, K (1934), Logik der Forschung, rewritten by the author in English as The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Hutchinson, London, 1959.

Roe, G. ( 2009), Feedbacks, Timescales, and Seeing Red, Ann. Rev. Earth & Planet. Sci. 37, 93-115.

Scotese, C.R., A.J. Boucot, and W.S. McKerrow (1999), Gondwanan paleogeography and paleoclimatology, J. Afr. Earth Sci. 28(1), 99-114.

Spencer, R.W., and W.D. Braswell (2010), On the diagnosis of radiative feedback in the presence of unknown radiative forcing, J. Geophys. Res, 115, D16109.

Spencer, R.W., and W.D. Braswell (2011), On the misdiagnosis of surface temperature feedbacks from variations in Earth’s radiant-energy balance, Remote Sensing 3, 1603-1613, doi:10.3390/rs3081603.

Trenberth, K.E., J.T. Fasullo, C. O’Dell, and T. Wong (2010), Relationships between tropical sea-surface temperature and top-of-atmosphere radiation, Geophys. Res. Lett, 37, L03702.

Wong, P. (2010), Portfolio Budget Statements 2010-11: Budget-Related Paper No. 1.4. Climate Change and Energy Efficiency Portfolio, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, Australia.

Zachos, J., M. Pagani, L. Sloan, E. Thomas, and K. Billups (2001), Trends, Rhythms and Aberrations in Global Climate 65 Ma to Present, Science 292, 686-693.

─ CHRISTOPHER MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY, Chief Policy Advisor, Science and Public Policy Institute, Washington, DC, USA; monckton@mail.com.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

233 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
July 13, 2012 5:38 am

P. Solar says:
July 13, 2012 at 1:57 am
“attack on Dr. Giaever and me ” should be “Dr. Giaever and myself”.

“Dr. Giaever and me” is the correct usage.
“invective and illogic” , my dictionary is having trouble finding the word “illogic”.
When in doubt, go to Merriam-Webster.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/illogic

Steve in SC
July 13, 2012 5:42 am

It would seem to me that EOS is on a par with Rolling Stone.

July 13, 2012 5:45 am

Myrrh says:
July 13, 2012 at 12:46 am
And it seems that is the ethos of this site. While proclaiming itself open to science views it ends up censoring anything it can’t handle which challenges its own entrenched unproven science.

The fact that you’ve been posting at WUWT for a good long while *without* being censored proves your statement is false.

Tom Bakewell
July 13, 2012 5:51 am

One might try reading Lord Moncton’s writings out loud. They scan quite well. For me that is a sign of a very well trained writer. And in fairness to all, there are significant differences in the English that divide the British from the Americans. Dictionaries for all!!!

Dave
July 13, 2012 5:53 am

Who in AGU had the authority to reject the reply by Monckton? If they do not reconsider, I, for one, shall not renew my long-term memership of AGU,

G. Karst
July 13, 2012 5:56 am

Myrrh:
Do you hate everyone equally including yourself?
In grade school, were you the kid everyone liked to pick on?
Do you hold animosity for other’s circumstance of birth and jealously resent people who are born with station and titles?
Do you feel people should be punished for the color of their parents skin or any of the other superficiality(s) and attributes we are born with.
If yes… Do you know where to seek help? Just asking – out of concern. GK

wws
July 13, 2012 5:57 am

The silver lining here is that FAR more people (including scientists) will read Monckton’s reply here than will ever read that sad little testament to ingrown academic politics known as “eos”.
If Eos were never published again, there are probably less than 100 people on the planet who would actually care. It’s just another propaganda vehicle now.

July 13, 2012 5:58 am

oldspanky says:
July 13, 2012 at 3:16 am
I wouldn’t publish Monkton’s writings either–mainly because his writing style is pompous, ornamented, and seemingly designed to exhibit his knowledge of classical languages more than his knowledge of the facts…It’s just bad writing.
It’s actually very *good* writing. The reply was aimed at the editors and readers of Eos, who (we can reasonably presume) would have castigated him for failing to cite the appropriate references in taking Corbin and Katz to task.

Jimbo
July 13, 2012 6:04 am

Eos is defending the future funding of it trades union members. Huge amounts of MONEY are at stake and these climate bandits have to pay their mortgages and feed their families. Allowing the word ‘deniers’ is all about defending its member’s future funding by trying to shut down the debate. If anything the debate is getting worse due to the lack of warming and failed predictitons / projections.

July 13, 2012 6:07 am

Many times now, I have tried to explain that whether the net effect of more CO2 is one of warming or cooling, or wether an increase in CO2 is more or less neutral, has never been finally proven.
e.g. 1
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/06/uah-global-temperature-for-june-2012-up-slightly/#comment-1028920
e.g. 2
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-Aug-2011
As my investigations continue (an ozone connection seems very likely) ,
it appears that global cooling has started
Monckton says
Above all, in the generation since 1990, the observed warming rate has turned out below the least estimate projected by the IPCC in that year. The models agreed with one another, but events have proven the consensus wrong. Despite rapidly-increasing CO2 concentration, there has been no statistically-significant warming for a decade and a half.
Henry says
Surprise. Surprise. As looked at from the development in maxima – which are not plotted by the honorable dr’s and prof’s and which more directly tells us what amount of energy is coming in – we actually started on a cooling cycle, since 1995.
Although to me it all looks like natural processes at work, concerning the UV-O2-O3 cycle, I would still be a bit worried about how much cooling we can expect in the future, exactly.
http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here
So, as far as myself is concerned, I think this whole discussion on whether a bit more CO2 causes any warming at all is moot and a big waste of time. I would rather be more worried about the effects of “climate change” caused by (natural) cooling that is coming up ahead…

Gail Combs
July 13, 2012 6:16 am

trccurtin says:
July 12, 2012 at 11:37 pm
If Chris M would cut out the Latin and write more concisely in plain English he would stand more chance of getting published.
_________________________
If the government’s “Progressive” that is Fabian schools would bother to actually TEACH instead of brainwash, people would be able to understand Lord Monckton. However the ability to read and the ability to reason is poison in a totalitarian socialist state so education is aimed at making us all good little ‘team players’ and not individualists.

July 13, 2012 6:17 am

Stuart B says:
July 13, 2012 at 2:09 am

I read this with the usual dismay, then realised something of which I had not been clearly aware. Of course, the totalitarian programme makes me very angry, sometimes gasping with disbelief that they are getting away with it – it must have been like this in 1930′s Germany or early Soviet Russia, before the avalanches hit and the great silences began. But what hurts – what really hurts – is the perversion and corruption of science. For those of us – which is to say, all of us – whose lives depend on the truthfulness and morality of the scientific enterprise, this is a poisoning of the wells on an unprecedented scale. It is a crime against humanity, and I do mean this in a literal sense – many lives will be lost. It may be that people will learn to live under a global regime of extreme and enduring secular tyranny – we know that people can survive under such conditions, albeit in physical and spiritual misery.
However, to systematically dismantle the processes and results of true science is an attempt to condemn all of us to a kind of hell, a place where there is no hope. We should not only be angry, but very afraid. It may be asking too much of the courage of most scientists to stand up against what is happening now. In the past, I believe the only way these oppressive regimes have crumbled has been the pressures of internal contradictions making them unworkable. However, ‘pressure’ in this sense only arises when there is an outside world to exert that pressure, either by force or by competition. If the regime we are contemplating here is truly global, where is its Nemesis? Martians?

Well said.
I think this deserves its own post, Anthony/moderators.

yaosxx
July 13, 2012 6:21 am

oldspanky: “He desperately needs and editor…who is generally symathetic, ”
In need of an editor, perhaps old spanky…?

Organized Entropy
July 13, 2012 6:25 am

old spanky says:
“I wouldn’t publish Monkton’s writings either–mainly because his writing style is pompous, ornamented, and seemingly designed to exhibit his knowledge of classical languages more than his knowledge of the facts. He desperately needs and editor. Until he can present his message to someone like me, who is generally symathetic, he has no hope at all of reaching anyone else. No one should assume his response was rejected because of an agenda. It’s just bad writing.
Sir, I full heartedly agreed with your point when I was a tortured undergrad trying to understand the material my professors required me to learn. I struggled through and somewhere along the way realized that the “secret scientific ninja (Latin/Greek) language actually made my understanding of concepts expressed in the many papers I read much easier. If a single ninja term succinctly expresses an idea that would take a small paragraph in plain English to describe, I am thankful for having learned the terms and their meanings. This is a science based blog and a great place to learn the language scientists and engineers use to express their ideas. Since many conversations span multiple disciplines, each with terms not common to others, you will sometimes need a dictionary other than Webster’s to understand what is being expressed during the discourse. I have found on this site that if you are polite when asking, many here are happy to answer your questions and willing to explain any term you do not understand.

organized3ntropy
July 13, 2012 6:28 am

old spanky says:
“I wouldn’t publish Monkton’s writings either–mainly because his writing style is pompous, ornamented, and seemingly designed to exhibit his knowledge of classical languages more than his knowledge of the facts. He desperately needs and editor. Until he can present his message to someone like me, who is generally symathetic, he has no hope at all of reaching anyone else. No one should assume his response was rejected because of an agenda. It’s just bad writing.
Sir, I full heartedly agreed with your point when I was a tortured undergrad trying to understand the material my professors required me to learn. I struggled through and somewhere along the way realized that the “secret scientific ninja (Latin/Greek) language actually made my understanding of concepts expressed in the many papers I read much easier. If a single ninja term succinctly expresses an idea that would take a small paragraph in plain English to describe, I am thankful for having learned the terms and their meanings. This is a science based blog and a great place to learn the language scientists and engineers use to express their ideas. Since many conversations span multiple disciplines, each with terms not common to others, you will sometimes need a dictionary other than Webster’s to understand what is being expressed during the discourse. I have found on this site that if you are polite when asking, many here are happy to answer your questions and willing to explain any term you do not understand.

organized3ntropy
July 13, 2012 6:30 am

Mod, Sorry about the double post. I think saying it one time was plenty.

Gail Combs
July 13, 2012 6:31 am

Terri Jackson says:
July 13, 2012 at 1:46 am
I call for a boycott of AGU by all scientists who value the scientific method….
____________________________
I did that a long time ago with the American Chemical Society. I was a member for over thirty years when I dropped my membership with a scathing letter on their stand on CAGW.

July 13, 2012 6:43 am

But true science as a body of knowledge and a set of universal propositions developed during the Enlightenment is precisely what is being rejected. Rather than saying that outright, Eos simply refuses to publish a valiant stand on behalf of knowledge and a view of natural sciences that does not sway as the servant of political ideology.
This is supposed to be the Age when the behavioral sciences trump all and facts and reality are in the way. This week in the US the National Science Foundation (which has such plans for refashioning the West and the people who live here via the Belmont Challenge and now that Future Earth Alliance with UNESCO and UNEP part of the scheming coalition) was part of a large group of federal agencies that included many large tax-free foundations that rejected the traditional theory of how the human mind works. You know the one that has the extensive body of research backing it up. That was deemed to be “too narrowly focused on individual thinking and learning.”
In its place the US is positing all the Common Core education reforms it is financing and mandating on the sociocultural perspective of the mind. Why? Because it is a theory that can apply to all individuals. Because it is politically useful for a political bureaucracy intent on pushing a reorganization of the West around sustainability principles. No Matter the Cost.
As part of that tragic pivot the federal government officially redefined what is to constitute an academic discipline and how it is to be taught in school. Disciplines are now “distinct communities that engage in shared practices of ongoing knowledge creation, understanding and revision.”
I guess they are not interested in Lord Moncton’s type of revising. In particular science is redefined as “a social process through which individual scientists and communities of scientists continually create, revise, and elaborate scientific theories and ideas.”
I guess this new definition only applies to properly credentialed scientists which would go to Bain’s allusion earlier in the week that Jo Nova was not so qualified. Or officially sanctioned scientists for sharing in the desired political, social, or economic goals. There goes Lord Moncton.
Science is now a social process of the Right People? That really has never gone well.

RockyRoad
July 13, 2012 6:57 am

Myrrh says:

July 13, 2012 at 12:46 am
Readers of Eos may now decide for themselves to what extent the unsupported attack upon our reputations by Corbin and Katz was justifiable. True science is founded not upon invective and illogic but upon reason. Lose that: lose all.
Hypocrite. Hypocrite. Hypocrite.
When his cherished unproven science is questioned he becomes exactly like those he rants against here – demanding that we be sent into ghettos and not allowed to take part in any discussions which have the Greenhouse Effect as a given. Unable to give any real science to back this claim he to resorts to viscious ad homs and arguments from authority.
And it seems that is the ethos of this site. While proclaiming itself open to science views it ends up censoring anything it can’t handle which challenges its own entrenched unproven science.
So don’t be fooled by his appeal to objective science analysis and emotional angst about being censored, he’s just the same kind of sh*t.

Myrrh is the dried resin of several Commiphora tree species. The word comes from the Hebrew word murr or maror, which means “bitter”. (my bold)
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-myrrh.htm
Enough said.

AnonyMoose
July 13, 2012 6:57 am

Onion says:
July 12, 2012 at 10:14 pm
ad magnifico

Bravo! Encore!
(Estamos hablando otros idiomas además del Inglés.)

Pamela Gray
July 13, 2012 7:07 am

Latin is a wonderfully rich yet incredibly efficient language, able through the use of affix, to pack tremendous meaning into a single word while retaining its rich and fluid sentence structure. Translate the highly efficient latin into English and you end up with a very heavy Bible indeed.
As to the argument, 4 marks to Lord M. By the way, the new US Common Core State Standards has done away with the overally emotional persuasive mode of writing and speech in favor of the factual logical argumentative mode. And Lord M. is the Master and Commander of that ship.

Pamela Gray
July 13, 2012 7:11 am

Overly Pam, not overally. But great example of silliousness doncha think?

Gail Combs
July 13, 2012 7:15 am

Stuart B says:
July 13, 2012 at 2:09 am
I read this with the usual dismay, then realised something …..
____________________________
Yes that is the true horror. A world wide descent into the dark ages – literally.
The energy use per capita in the USA in 1900 were 40 % of today’s. The Luddites want to cut us to HALF the emissions of the year 1900 when 90% of Americans were self-supporting farmers and there was no real industry.

…Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard said the EU’s executive commission would press ahead with plans for a low-carbon economy despite Poland’s objections.
“They cannot set the pace for all of Europe,” Hedegaard told The Associated Press.
The EU’s road map reflects the stated goal by European governments to reduce emissions by 85-90 percent by 2050, compared to 1990 levels…. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/14/eu-carbon-emissions-cuts-poland_n_1344923.html

World energy consumption since 1820 in charts
Already in 2009, More than one in five British households suffers fuel poverty
To me the most horrifying thing of all was talking to a University prof about CAGW and finding he was quite willing to condemn his OWN CHILD to this misery. In his words “We have talked to her and she understands why she will not have the living standard we do.” Moments later the little girl (11 yrs) was grabbing my hand eagerly showing off her Daddy’s brand new SUV…. I felt sick.

Gail Combs
July 13, 2012 7:25 am

Snotrocket says:
July 13, 2012 at 3:23 am
Myrrh: Please show evidence of any occasion, written or verbal, when Lord Monckton has said he does not believe in a Greenhouse Effect (sic). I leave it to others on this blog to point out the many more idiotic statements in you comment…
_________________________
THAT is Myrrh’s problem. (s)he thinks that any version of the “Greenhouse Effect” – reradiation of IR towards earth by GHGs – is pure bunk. Second law and all that.

July 13, 2012 7:30 am

P. Solar July 13, 2012 at 1:57 am
*****
Also his latin is more impressive than his use of English.
“attack on Dr. Giaever and me ” should be “Dr. Giaever and myself”.
*****
Sorry, P. Solar, but “me” is perfectly correct and preferred by many who think that “myself” sounds a bit pretentious.
IanM