
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.
Well said Lord Moncton, hopefully one day you will get your wish for a public debate with Al Gore. Till then bless you for fighting the good fight.
The Leftists have loosed upon us a league of Lysenkoists.
In the future history books Christopher Monckton will be regarded as a visionary and a hero of science and one of the few who stood against the man made global warming fraud from the start. Those like Mann and others? Their names will be forever reviled and scorned, they will be remembered as charlatans and frauds no better than Lysenko of the USSR. History will not be kind to the alarmists nor should it be, the damage they have wreaked on our civilisation will last for decades.
Lord Monckton, it is your eloquence as a speaker that they find the most threatening. Proponents of alarmism cherish such qualities as a sign of higher intellect (in your case rightfully so) and therefore it causes them massive cognitive dissonance where they refuse to accept this as true. Their only way to cope is to believe you to be truly evil and therefore worthy of smearing and ridicule.
Thank you Lord M: a wonderful savaging of Mann, carefully crafted with truth and sardonic humour.
TomB
I got to shake his hand at a little school in the middle of New South Wales Australia on 19 March as he travelled through on his way, I think to Adelaide. Such shame few people came to hear him speak apart from the school children as his visit was not well advertised. All the best to you my Lord.
William Astley says, “It is odd that there are no public sources that summarize the engineering facts and economics of ‘green’ energy.”
That’s true. There’s an opening for a Reference Page here. Anthony? Poptech?
We woke AGAIN to another fall of snow. That’s about the third or fourth day running. Even one snow shower this late would be exceptional. When I talk to people, I sense more and more that people are getting angry.
There’s no rhyme or reason for these daft carbon taxes. Even if there were, a recession certainly isn’t the right time to be applying them and people just cannot understand why the EU is going it alone when it looks closer and closer to collapse.
It’s the Christopher Monckton’s of this world that give us balance and prevent totalitarianism. I really hope that there will come a day when this man is given due credit by those who are most in his debt, namely the climate science community. He and shamefully few others are all that stand between them and utter disgrace.
people just cannot understand why the EU is going it alone when it looks closer and closer to collapse
That’s easy. The EU is a massive gravy train for failed politicians from miniscule, inconsequential countries and they will do whatever it takes to keep their pet communist ideas alive and when it all collapses their money is not in €s.
Contrasting a Monckton with a Mann is unfair. The former is a real man, and a very impressive one at that, while the latter is in large part a Mitty – one who is both pathetic and prominent thanks largely I suppose to his imaginings being deemed newsworthy, or even edgy, by the ill-informed or irresponsible.
My Dear Lord M,
Any professional scientist or engineer with substantial post-grad physics and extensive practical GHG heat transfer knowledge takes one look at the Trenberth Energy Budget Cartoon and says ‘my God, how could they be so stupid?’.
There is no ‘back radiation’ a failure to understand that the Stefan-Boltzmann equation predicts the potential flux a body of given temperature and emissivity could emit to a sink at absolute zero.
The main thermal GHG IR from the slightly cooler atmosphere to the Earth’s surface annihilates surface IR in the same wavelength so there is no 15 µm CO2 band emission, no CO2-AGW, reducing operational emissivity and increasing surface temperature, the real GHE <9 K.
Even if there were any surface CO2 band IR emission, it could not be directly thermalised because it is in excess of Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium.
So, go on with your work: there is no CO2-AGW and it is more likely to be cooling for fundamental physics' reasons.
Burning fossil fuels will NOT alter the next ice age timing since CO2 does NOT increase atmospheric temperature. Any thinking that a life giving trace gas can alter, either drastically or minutely, climate is preposterous and violates the laws of thermodynamics and quantum mechanics.
Thank you very much!!!
Alfred
Thank you, Lord Monckton, for what you are helping to do, dispersit superbos mente cordis sui.
Cheerio, lad. It’s always good to hear from you, Chris.
It was Christopher Monckton’s two articles in the Sunday Telegraph that first put global warming onto my radar. In his second article, Monckton withdrew a claim that was in the first one. This impressed me, as he seemed to be honest. On the third Sunday the Telegraph printed a reply from Gore. This *really* opened my eyes to what was going on. Gore’s arguments seemed to depend on insults and name-calling, and not on science.
All I can say is: Christopher Monckton, never give up. There is hope that science will eventually regain its integrity and that the truth, whatever it may be, will prevail. And thank you.
From another Chris
Generally splendid, Lord Monckton. One thing that stood out was “dubious tree-rings dubiously processed on dubious computers by dubious zitty teenagers” which seems to be both inaccurate about computers and a childishly worded ad hominem that detracts from the whole piece.
Keep up the good work.
Not a ‘snooker-cue graph’, but a ‘cricket bat graph’. (The batsman is encouraged to play with a straight bat and, in doing so, often dispatches drives to the Mann at silly mid on!)
Lord Monckton brings up a very good contrast. Mann is not being persecuted. He is being laughed at. Monckton is being persecuted. As are most climate skeptics. But the persecutors are Mann and his ilk, so to deflect from his own crimes, he claims victimhood (note, not martyrdom). And as everyone knows, Victimhood is the holy grail of Socialists.
Nicely put, M’Lord. Now, if you could just distill the essence down to a 140 character tweet so those vast intellects on the warming side might comprehend it?
I am currently reading an excellent book on MI6 by Gordon Corera in which the hopelessly inadequate and beffudled attempts to investigate Kim Philby as a Soviet spy in the 1950s and 1960s feature prominently. It seems the British elite have a long history of incompetence when trying to determine what passes as good and true amongst their own upper class (‘but he was one of us!’), something I suspect doesn’t seem to have improved much within today’s climate change movement.
Christopher, as always, I admire your persistence and knowledge, but please study Dr Svalgaard’s work on the influence of the sun. After decades of study, his informed opinion is that intrinsic variations of the sun has no significant influence on the earth’s climate on anything but the longest time-scales (hundreds of millions of yrs). And, from that, the earth’s climate fluctuations are caused by internal factors and orbital (Milankovitch) changes.
http://lsvalgaard.wordpress.com
Thank you for the laugh at Michael Mann’s expense.
I suggest the the following relationship is logical and comically accurate:
John
Thanks, Lord Monckton!
You have been an inspiration.