
Attacks on my work that are aimed at undermining true climate change science have turned me into a public figure. I am not vain enough to embrace that role.
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley (with no apologies to Michael E. Mann)
As a climate researcher, I have seen my integrity perniciously attacked. Politicians have demanded I be tried for “high crimes against humanity”, for which the penalty is death, because of my work demonstrating the reality and threat of exaggerations about human-caused climate change.
I’ve been subjected to congressional investigations by congressman in the pay of the environmental lobby and was the target of a scientifically-illiterate eight-month “witch hunt” by a Minnesota Trotskyite. I have even received a number of anonymous death threats. My plight is dramatic, but unfortunately, it is not unique; climate skeptics are regularly the subject of such attacks.
The cynicism of my attackers is part of a destructive public-relations campaign being waged by banks, “renewable”-energy companies, insurance giants, front groups, and individuals aligned with them in an effort vastly to profit by vastly exaggerating the science in making suggestions that the burning of fossil fuels may cause potentially dangerous climate change.
My work first appeared on the world stage in the mid-2000s with the publication of a series of articles in the London Sunday Telegraph indicating inter alia that estimating past temperature trends using information gathered from tree rings to piece together variations in the Earth’s temperature over the past 1,000 years had been proven unreliable. What I found was that the recent small warming, which coincides with the fastest growth in solar activity in 11,400 years, is a much-precedented event in this period of reconstructed temperature changes.
Though recent work published in the journal Science suggests that the recent warming trend has no counterpart for at least the past 11,000 years, and perhaps longer, the central England temperature record, which has proven a less inaccurate proxy for pre-thermometer temperatures than dubious tree-rings dubiously processed on dubious computers by dubious zitty teenagers paid by dubious rent-seekers like Michael E. Mann, confirms historical evidence that at the end of the Maunder Minimum temperatures rose at a rate of 4 Celsius/century for 40 years. Nothing like that has been seen since: the 20th century saw just 0.7 Cº of warming, and the 21st century shows none at all. In a graph showing the linear trend for the last 23 years, the trend line looks like a billiard cue.
Since the Doha climate conference of 2012, at which I inadvertently represented Burma, the graph – now known as the billiard-cue graph – has become an icon in the climate-change debate, providing potent, graphic evidence of the recent total absence of human-caused climate change. As a result, governments, banks, renewable-energy hucksters, academics, journalists and those who do their bidding saw the need to discredit it in any way they could, and I have found myself at the receiving end of attacks and threats of investigations, as I describe in my forthcoming book Climate of Freedom. In 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) praised my work publicly; and, jointly with Congressman John Linder, I have been awarded the Meese-Noble Award for Freedom for my work on climate change.
On three occasions, Representative Joe Barton (R-TX) invited me to testify before the Energy & Commerce Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives. On the third such occasion, the Democrats – for the first time in the history of Congress – refused the Republicans their free choice of witness because they wanted to protect their own witness, Al Gore, from the public humiliation to which my testimony would inevitably and deservedly have subjected him. I have also testified before the House Ways and Means Committee and the House Climate Change Committee. Inhofe and Barton are just two of the growing number of members of Congress who have seen through the climate scam.
More recently, Vaclav Klaus, as President of the Czech Republic, cited me twice in a speech on climate change in Washington DC, and subsequently accepted my invitation to deliver the annual Magistral Lecture at the World Federation of Scientists’ annual seminar on planetary emergencies.
The Chinese Ambassador to Italy forwarded my seminal, published paper on Clouds and Climate Sensitivity to Peking after his Scientific Counsellor, on hearing me present it, had commented: “This changes everything. It is clear there is no significant manmade influence on the climate.”
I, too, can name-drop sanctimoniously, just like Michael E. Mann.
Meanwhile, I’ve also been subject to a constant onslaught of character attacks and smears on websites, in op-eds, by a politicized and now-discredited clerk in the House of Lords acting without the authority of the House, in Michael E. Mann’s Climategate emails, and on left-leaning news outlets, usually by front groups or individuals tied to global-warming profiteers of the traffic-light tendency (the Greens too yellow to admit they’re really Reds): groups like Greenpeace, Deutsche Bank, the Environmental Defense Fund, Munich Re, and the World Wide Fund for Nature.
As the website WattsUpWithThat has frequently pointed out, climate researchers are in a street fight with those who seek to discredit the data that now comprehensively disprove the once-accepted scientific “evidence” simply because it is inconvenient for many who are profiting from attacking fossil fuel use.
Being the focus of such attacks has a lead lining: I’ve become an accidental public figure in the debate over human-caused climate change. Reluctant at first, I remain reluctant embrace this role, but nevertheless I choose to use my position in the public eye to inform the discourse surrounding the issue of climate change.
Despite continued albeit diminishing skepticism in official quarters, in reality the evidence against dangerous human-caused climate change is now very strong. By digging up and burning fossil fuels, humans are releasing carbon that had been buried in the Earth into the atmosphere, helping to stave off the mass extinctions that would follow from the next – and long overdue – Ice Age. And storms like extra-tropical system Sandy and hurricane Irene, and the oft-precedented heat, drought, and wild-fires of last summer cannot in logic, reason, or science be attributed to “global warming” that has become conspicuous chiefly by its near-total absence over the past two decades and perhaps more. In a deterministic climate object operating on a rational world, that which has not happened cannot have caused that which has.
If we continue down this path of lavishly-funded nonsense, we will be leaving our children and grandchildren a different planet—one with more extreme Socialism, more pronounced and widespread scientific illiteracy, worse episodes of cant even than those of Michael E. Mann (if that were possible), and greater competition for diminishing taxpayer subsidies. It will be worse than we ever thought.
Greater competition for diminishing taxpayer subsidies, even at a time when global population growth is declining, in turn, is a recipe for a national security nightmare. The worst thing we can do is bury our heads in the Cypriot sand and pretend that national bankruptcy doesn’t exist.
It is imperative that we take no action now to squander trillions enriching charlatans like Michael E. Mann. It would be one or two orders of magnitude less cost-effective to spend a single red cent today than to let global warming happen, enjoy the sunshine, go surfing, and pay the minuscule cost of adapting to its consequences the day after tomorrow.
Global warming? As we shivering Scots lairds say as we carry glasses well filled with single malt whisky to our aged retainers as they gallantly shovel feet of unseasonal snow off our three-mile driveways, “Bring it on!”.
Christopher W. Monckton of Brenchley is a Distinguished Expert Reviewer for the IPCC’s forthcoming Undistinguished Fifth Assessment Report. Last year he was the Distinguished Nerenberg Lecturer in Mathematics at the Distinguished University of Western Ontario, where he discussed the mathematics of Doric architercture, probabilistic combinatorics, logic, climate sensitivity, feedback amplification, and climate economics in a Distinguished fashion. He directs Distinguished Monckton Enterprises Limited. He is the Distinguished author of numerous Distinguished reviewed papers in the Distinguished learned literature, and of the Distinguished forthcoming book “Climate of Freedom”. He is Distinguished for his notorious self-effacement, modesty, and humility – which is more than can be said for the Undistinguished Michael E. Mann.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I always love Lord Monckton’s use of language. It is always so precise and well targeted.
Dennis Ray Said
Dear Lord Monckton
Six years ago I sent you the equations regarding CO2 and the reasons why what was being said was impossible regarding the increase in the absorption spectrum to a 0.012% increase (against the entire atmosphere) of a trace IR absorbing gas. These equations, originating in the Quantum Mechanical relationships of the absorption and emission of radiation, by the CO2 molecule, were developed by the U.S. military and scientific organizations in the 1940′s-50′s as a result of their studies of the upper atmosphere in the development of heat seeking missiles. These physical studies could easily be repeated today and compared with the data gathered in that earlier era. This comparison will settle the question one way or another, once and for all.
**Dennis please link said equations.**
@Mike Alexander
“80 percent? Somehow, that doesn’t seem accurate. Am I wrong?”
No it isn’t and no you are not.
Jennifer Francis is an alarmist of the first order who doesn’t bother with facts.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
Russell says:
March 27, 2013 at 7:25 pm
“As Lord MacAlpine’s new best friend, George Monbiot said the other day :
His response to the devastating critique of his claims about climate change by the physicist John Abraham is magnificently bonkers.”
“They claim to want a debate, but as soon as it turns against them they try to stifle it by intimidating their opponents. To me it suggests that these people can give it out, but they can’t take it.”
Russell, you are wrong! You just do not understand Lord Monckton’s style of British humour. (note the spelling). Don’t worry about it; very few Americans understand British humour (let alone Christopher Monckton’s version!)
BTW, probably more accurate than Mann’s claims!
With that self effacing humour, it would take one simple citizenship ceremony for Christopher to become a Dinky Di Aussie.
(for the non-Aussies, Dinky Di may well translate to ‘Distinguished’.
alexwade says:
March 27, 2013 at 7:01 pm
As I sit here on March 27, 2013 enduring well below normal temperatures I came to a shocking realization: I can take the extreme warm weather better than I can take the cold. …
I’ve met many people who moved to North Carolina from one of the northern states….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I am one of them. I am sitting here in woolies with the temp 36F (2C). In 2010 the temp in the first week of April reached over 90F (32C) Heck the daffodils haven’t even bloomed yet!
When the birds flaunt their plummage, and fight over the best breeding places, it is the end of the beginning.
Russell, so nice of you to turn up.
Paid by the word ?
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley (with no apologies to Michael E. Mann): “As a climate researcher, …”
=============================================================
Christopher, why did you say then before congress that you were not a scientist? “Researcher” is according to WordWeb dictionary “a scientist who devotes himself to doing research”.
“I am going to testify not, of course, as a scientist, because I am not one, but as a policy maker” (00:58-01:05, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08SVnB_PBNQ)
Nice one.
Typo alert. Surely “Doric architercture” should be “Doric architecture”?
Christopher Monckton of Brenchley (with no apologies to Michael E. Mann) Says:
“What I found was that the recent small warming, which coincides with the fastest growth in solar activity in 11,400 years, is a much-precedented event in this period of reconstructed temperature changes.”
You have my attention… I like the Idea of Solar Activity coinciding with the fastest growth in solar activity in 11,400 years, I know solar activity is the main driver of temperature variations on a monthly and decadal scale, I have even used a Sunspot v Temperature Chart I plotted to get the word out to local farmers about this years winter, as a result, I like to believe that I may have helped them to make a decision on whether to better prepare for this winter, where I live we’ve had some of the hardest hit areas with heavy snow this spring, we’ve had snow drifts of up to 6 foot locally and over 12 foot of snow in other areas, this winter our farmers locally have been on the ball and there were no livestock casualties, further afield there were farms caught-out and unaware of the dangers, as a result they’ve had heavy losses during this lamb season.
It is important that more people are informed of solar activity even shown a trend where they can decide for themselves. But, what more can we do when we’re up against “hockey sticks” that show a warming trend and a media that reports weather extremes as an anthropogenic Climate Catastrophe and a Met office that forecasts barbecue summers and U-turns on warming trends after the fact?
I’m disgusted by the treatment of Anthropogenic (man made) Global warming sceptics and what honest people like Anthony Watts, Christopher Monckton (and there are too many others to mention) put up with, orchestrated (attempted) character assassinations, smears, lies and misinformation and even death threats!!, Honestly, what is wrong with these people?
All I can say is; Anthropogenic Global warming sceptics like Anthony Watts, Christopher Monckton et al. are doing a fantastic job in standing up for debate, bringing back to science the commonsense, and the truth on how it’s not your fault, and that; there is no global Anthropogenic catastrophe on the horizon.
Thank You. 🙂
I always learn a new word or two from Lord Monckton. But it’s not often I learn a new 4-letter word. I thought the word “cant” had been misspelled until I looked it up. It can mean slant or tilt. But it can also mean jargon used to exclude or mislead people outside the group. Mann and others are very good at slanting the data and using inside jargon to mislead the world.
john robertson says:
March 27, 2013 at 8:01 pm
Only after it’s divided by the content–that balloons his check to nearly infinity.
Louis says:
March 27, 2013 at 8:25 pm
“Mann and others are very good at slanting the data and using inside jargon to mislead the world.”
=================
I dare you to prove that statement.
Being from MN, I am familiar with the stature of the MN Trotskyite, and his self-righteous diatribe following Christopher Monckton’s presentation at Bethel. Is the Trotskyite being called that because of Marxist, materialistic ideals?
I find him to be more of a wannabe of small stature that puts himself in the position of being part of the ‘first response team’ which puts out little skeptical fires.
I have not heard much from him of late since a hurricane expert called him batshit stupid for suggesting there should be a category 6 hurricane.
u.k.(us) says:
March 27, 2013 at 8:40 pm
Climategate 1 and Climategate 2.
Stay tuned for *drum roll* Climategate 3!
(Or don’t you read?)
Thanks once again, Christopher, for your very important efforts in behalf of science and humanity.
Greg House says:
March 27, 2013 at 8:02 pm
Because some of the best researchers haven’t been brainwashed by the likes of Dr. Mann at the helm of (now questionable) universities like UVa and Penn State.
Besides, even YOU can be a great climate researcher if you’re honest, Mr. House.
Are you honest?
Paid, by observing word and deed (literally: ‘by the looks of it’) “To carry the sword.”
Similar circumstances found in “Julius Caesar”, Act 3, Scene 2 where Antony says (and taken grossly out of context here for my purposes):
. . . ” I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him. ”
BTW, good show, Christopher Monckton of Brenchley.
.
The Infowars video linked by njsnowfan above is extremely educational. It is a cogent and detailed explanation of “Agenda 21”, and it’s not a “conspiracy theory”. It’s right there. Right in front of all of us to see. And they’re making it happen!
Maybe this is a large reason that the trolls usually come out to smear Lord Monckton when his posts appear here. Nobody likes to see their nefarious plans laid bare for all to see.
I’m familiar with the “target” mentality. I’ve had business deals where I’ve been painted as a bad guy. I’ve been on the “wrong” side of many arguments over the years. I’m currently dating someone a lot younger than me, and some people seem to think that’s open season on insults and saying some pretty horrible things. But during my school years I was bullied and learned a lot about handling bullies.
Bullies are usually unable to handle some aspect of their life, and tend to attack others in order to compensate. Lord Monckton’s approach is exactly the right way: don’t “fight”, just reason. In the end, it doesn’t matter what the bully says, thinks, or does, it only matters what onlookers see. If they see a calm, measured, reasonable response to a bullying, aggressive approach, they are more likely to listen to the calm, reasonable voice. After all, we are competing against a hugely funded propaganda machine (in spite of their ridiculous claims that it’s the other way around), and our goal is to make victims of this machine understand that they are, in fact, victims.
In the end, truth and reality will win out. In another 20 years, or ten, people will laugh at this current voodoo mysticism of “AGW” or climate change or whatever they’re calling it. It’s already a lot easier to find a skeptic than a believer, and every public discussion or internet discussion has fairly equal representation from both sides. Ten years ago that was not the case.
Anyway, that’s me rambling. GOOD JOB LORD MONCKTON! Count me, a Canadian, as one who is glad you’re on my side!
In reply to Lord Moncton’s comment:
”If we continue down this path of lavishly-funded nonsense, we will be leaving our children and grandchildren a different planet—one with more extreme Socialism, more pronounced and widespread scientific illiteracy, worse episodes of cant even than those of Michael E. Mann (if that were possible), and greater competition for diminishing taxpayer subsidies. It will be worse than we ever thought.”
William:
Here! Here!
Socialism works until one runs out of other people’s money to spend. We need a half dozen Margaret Thatchers. Any idiot can lead a country off a cliff. Leaders must understand reality and lead to solutions.
As it obvious (based on observations and analysis) the planet resists (negative feedback) rather than amplifies (negative feedback) forcing, there is no extreme AGW problem to solve. If there is no global warming problem due to the increase in atmospheric CO2 the issue then becomes economic (job creation and avoiding destroying jobs) and environmental, concerning energy sources and use.
It is odd people will accept the reality that a physical structure such as a bridge can only carry a fixed load and yet they can be sold on government Ponzi schemes.
Governments have a limited amount of money to spend. Individual people understand the tragic consequences of individuals spending more than they earn. (i.e. If only the government would spend more money thousands of green jobs would be created. Note the jobs disappear when the government money stops. The scam is tax money is limited.)
Governments cannot change engineering reality. The green team sell a fantasy. Wind is free. Perhaps we could request that the wind would blow on demand and blow in the regions where electric power is consumed. It is odd that there are no public sources that summarize the engineering facts and economics of ‘green’ energy. The obvious first question is how much will total carbon dioxide emissions be reduced if trillions of deficit dollars were used to subsidize ‘green’ energy projects? Space tourism to the moon is a good idea except for the costs and practical issues such as the risk of death. The cost of a battery storage unit per MW is four times the cost of a single cycle natural gas power plant. The batteries have a limited life and need to be replaced. Batteries are not economical or practical for large system storage. The estimated for a wind power system needs to include the cost for a single cycle natural gas plant to provide backup power for the times when the wind does not blow or changes in velocity (power generated is at the cube of wind velocity). The problem is a single cycle natural gas power plant is roughly 30% efficient. A combined cycle natural gas power plant is 60% efficient but costs roughly 4 times more. If one uses a single cycle natural gas plant to provide backup as compared to a combined cycle natural gas power plant there is minimal reduction in CO2 emissions over a combined cycle natural gas plant. Also the calculations above do not include the energy input required to produce and install the wind power system. Oddly if the engineering is not fudged spending trillions of dollars on ‘green’ energy does not significantly reduce the amount of carbon dioxide emissions unless the ‘green’ energy source is nuclear. A scam is a scam regardless of one’s environmental beliefs.
Consequences of carbon taxes. The third component of the green Ponzi scheme is the belief that a tax on fossil fuels will not turn into a tax on the consumer and industry. If only the politicians could tax and spend more then all the problems would be solved. The super blocks (US and EU) seem to believe that there will be no consequence to structural imbalances.
Carbon dioxide balance issue. Finally the point which you have made again and again: Even accepting the IPCC dystopia AGW warming, Western action without China and Indian action will only reduce the speed of the rise of CO2.
As governments are running out of borrowed money (the US, EU, and Japan appear to be competing to reach the limits of borrowing for very large governments) to spend. People only slow down when driving on snowy roads when they see other cars in the ditch.
Greece:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/michael-lewis-on-greeces-budget-woes/article558530/
The average government job pays almost three times the average private-sector job. The national railroad has annual revenues of 100 million euros against an annual wage bill of 400 million, plus 300 million euros in other expenses. The average state railroad employee earns 65,000 euros a year. …. ….Twenty years ago, a successful businessman turned minister of finance named Stefanos Manos pointed out that it would be cheaper to put all Greece’s rail passengers into taxicabs: It’s still true. “We have a railroad company which is bankrupt beyond comprehension,” Manos put it to me. “And yet there isn’t a single private company in Greece with that kind of average pay.” … …. The Greek public-school system is the site of breathtaking inefficiency: One of the lowest-ranked systems in Europe, it nonetheless employs four times as many teachers per pupil as the highest-ranked, Finland’s. Greeks who send their children to public schools simply assume that they will need to hire private tutors…. ….The retirement age for Greek jobs classified as “arduous” is as early as 55 for men and 50 for women. As this is also the moment when the state begins to shovel out generous pensions, more than 600 Greek professions somehow managed to get themselves classified as arduous: hairdressers, radio announcers, waiters, musicians and on and on and on…. …..The Greek public health-care system spends far more on supplies than the European average – and it is not uncommon, several Greeks tell me, to see nurses and doctors leaving the job with their arms filled with paper towels and diapers and whatever else they can plunder from the supply closets”
As a scientist of some note myself, I consider you one of my most notable heroes. I work in the life sciences because I value human life above all else on the planet. What the warm-earthers have done is to condemn countless millions to suffering and death due to their selfish contrivances, and that on a scale heretofore unequalled.
Please carry on with Godspeed, Lord Monckton!
What I found was that the recent small warming, which coincides with the fastest growth in solar activity in 11,400 years,
Unfortunately, solar activity has not had the ‘fastest growth in 11,400 years’:
http://www.leif.org/research/The%20long-term%20variation%20of%20solar%20activity.pdf
http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Svalgaard14.pdf
We owe a great deal to this man – a true nobleman, and not by blood but by character.
I find the traffic light analogy most entertaining – and the envirofascists obviously have red-green coloblindness.