Opinion: Life as a Target

English: Lord Monckton in Washington, D.C.
Monckton in Washington, D.C. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

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.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
121 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
March 28, 2013 8:13 am

**Dennis please link said equations.**
Loudon, The Quantum Theory of Light, 1978.
Doppler broadening, page 82-83
Collision or pressure broadening, equation 5.20, page 87.

March 28, 2013 8:14 am

AlecM says March 28, 2013 at 3:27 am

There is no ‘back radiation’

Simple observational experimentation sheds doubt, nay. disproves this assertion. It is covered in basic meteorological texts even.
Would you like a couple of cites?
.

SAMURAI
March 28, 2013 8:21 am

That was a hoot, Lord Monckton!
I do believe the gauntlet has been thrown down at the feet of Dr. Mann. Yes, he most certainly is a charlatan and a rather thin-skinned one at that.
If Dr. Mann decides to add you to his long and growing list of “slanderers”, please advise the details of your defense fund and I’ll happily contribute. That would be great fun to watch.
My, but you do know how to generate excellent PR opportunities to get the truth out.
Cheers!

Icepilot
March 28, 2013 8:51 am

C. Monckton of Brenchley – Well done and appreciated.

Colin
March 28, 2013 9:56 am

I tried to get into an actual debae with a newspaper columnist who was going on about Catastrophic Climate Change, asking him what science he was basing is befief on. Yes – I should have known better. Never got a response. However there was a column by him stating that he had received a number of emails decrying his comments. He trotted out the “consensus” line and the d-word. Again I should have known better – I emailed in regarding the latest column. The response containedoverwhelmin evidence” and the d-word again. The avenue of last restort for these people. Oh well. I’m in good company though with Lord Monckton. Keep up the good fight. Eventually the science and Mother Nature will prove us right. I just hope its not too late.

graphicconception
March 28, 2013 10:06 am

I feel obliged to point out to his lordship that he is a day early.
The traditional day for crucifying people is tomorrow!
That is the best laugh I have had since the Marcott et al paper came out.

JohnC
March 28, 2013 10:20 am

Here in the Isle of Man we had the worst blizzard in 50 years a week ago and farmers are still
digging out dead sheep, lambs and cattle from up to 20ft drifts and yet the usual clowns are
preaching a temp. rise of up to 4.5C, God give me strength.
Regards

March 28, 2013 10:51 am

denniswingo says March 28, 2013 at 8:13 am

Loudon, The Quantum Theory of Light, 1978.
Doppler broadening, page 82-83
Collision or pressure broadening, equation 5.20, page 87.

Isn’t there a difference here, between molecule resonance/vibrational modes (e.g. bending, twisting) with a polar molecule (e.g. H2O and CO2 but not N2) with a specific EM (Electromagnetic) signature vs quantum changes in electron energy levels? (Having not read the cited text.)
.

DaveG
March 28, 2013 10:57 am

Lord Monckton. Sir you are a hero.

MartinGAtkins
March 28, 2013 12:36 pm

Long may your Distinguished modesty, and humility continue.

Rob
March 28, 2013 1:00 pm

Nature is now on a chilling track(AGW truly dosen’t have long to live).
Great, great work!

Amos McLean
March 28, 2013 1:15 pm

Joe Public says:
You cite an impressive list of qualifications, but have you ever shared a Nobel prize?
—–
Of course he has – the Nobel Peace Prize 2012 was awarded to European Union (EU) , as a UK resident therefore, he has “shared” the prize!
😎

March 28, 2013 1:49 pm

Do I detect plagiarism???? LOL

John@EF
March 28, 2013 2:18 pm

[snip. This is a Hadfield-free site. — mod.]

John@EF
March 28, 2013 3:25 pm

Poptech says:
March 27, 2013 at 11:26 pm
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.
======================
There is zero threat caused by eloquence, simply revulsion of the charlatanism which now underpins Monckton’s reputation. It was Monckton himself who damaged his credibility, others simply exposed the self-administered damage.
… but the classic literature major certainly never ceases to be entertaining …. and eloquent.

dbyrd
March 29, 2013 4:23 am

Lord Monckton uses facts, logic, mathematics and science as tools to explore and elucidate climate phenomena. Mann is a tool of a political phenomena that has delusions of science and obfuscates logic, facts and mathematics.
I

March 29, 2013 10:36 am

Isn’t there a difference here, between molecule resonance/vibrational modes (e.g. bending, twisting) with a polar molecule (e.g. H2O and CO2 but not N2) with a specific EM (Electromagnetic) signature vs quantum changes in electron energy levels? (Having not read the cited text.)
These different modes effect the fundamental wavelengths of absorption/emission. Statistically if a CO2 molecule was hit with x number of IR photons at any one of these wavelengths, over time a gaussian curve would result.
In the lower atmosphere, many, but not all, of the CO2 wavelengths are saturated, that is that they absorb or emit all of the radiation at the resonant wavelengths. The distance in the atmosphere that it takes to absorb all of this radiation is described as the extinction coefficient.
Adding more CO2 to the atmosphere should do two things. The first is that the total area under the gaussian curve is increased. More total area, more absorption. The second is that the extinction coefficient should change in a manner that the distance to total absorption decreases, and the altitude of the point where the absorption/emission lines desaturate will increase.
HOWEVER
There are two variables that modify this behavior, and these are represented in the equations in Loudon’s text.
The first is pressure. Pressure broadens the absorption/emission lines. There is actually a transformation equation which is a Gaussian to Lorentz transformation, developed by Lorentz and used by Einstein in relativity, another subject. As pressure increases the lines develop “wings” which as you are thinking about, are modifications of the bending modes basically because the interval between inelastic mechanical collisions decrease relative to the time between the absorption/emission of an IR photon, and thus the total area of absorption increases. Here is the catch though, this pressure broadening is against the ENTIRE atmosphere, not just the relative increase in the partial pressure of CO2.
The second is temperature. Increased temperature increases the mechanical velocity of molecules in the atmosphere. This again acts to shorten the time between collisions relative to the QM absorption/emission time. It also increases the velocity of these collisions, increasing the area of the “wings” even more.
There are other minor variables but these are the dominate ones. Thus when you talk about the effect of the increase in CO2, if you are talking about pressure, it is for an increase from 0.028% of the atmosphere to 0.0395% of the atmosphere, probably not even detectable if you actually measure. Also, the effects of increased CO2 are altitude dependent, that is that warming will be less in the western USA above 5000 ft vs at sea level, and since any spectral broadening is temperature dependent, when it gets colder the gaussian shape decreases.
Pressure and temperature are have FAR more influence on the absorption and emission of CO2 than a statistically insignificant increase in partial pressure.
Water vapor on the other hand…..

March 29, 2013 3:17 pm

Steve C says: 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?

You can find what I had compiled here,
The Anti “Green” Energy Resource

David Corcoran
March 29, 2013 9:30 pm

Lord Monckton, I will keep your struggle in my daily prayers. I am unspeakably proud that you chose to wear the crucifix I gave you in San Diego so openly. Bless you, sir, you are brave intellectually and spiritually.

March 29, 2013 11:41 pm

Mr. Corcoran very kindly gave me his beautiful St. Benedict’s Cross when I spoke in San Diego last year. I told him I would wear it around London to dissuade Britain’s vapid Prime Minister, “Dave” Cameron, from carrying out a mad proposal from one of his “Ministers” to ban the wearing of Christian symbols in public. I like to think that the word eventually reached “Dave”. In any event, his nasty proposal – which drove hundreds of thousands of formerly Conservative voters into the arms of the United Kingdom Independence Party – was hastily dropped. The “Conservative” party is now imploding. Its unreasoning hatred of the teachings and symbols of Britain’s national religion has played almost as large a part in its decline as its half-witted clambering on to the “global warming” bandwaggon just as the wheels were falling off.

barry
April 1, 2013 9:30 pm

As a climate researcher of some 7 years, for which I owe the fullest gratitude to the internet and its search engines, I have foud myself mocked, belittled, ridiculed and slandered by other people who use the internet.
I have been subjected to taunts, even to the root of my identity. I have suffered the ignonimy of having my opinions strained through the sieve of ‘science’, as if my beliefs were permeable to reason. My plight is dramatic to me, but it is eclipsed by the high drama of so-called ‘experts’, ‘public figures’ and the like.
The cynicism of my attackers is evident not only in their disregard for my opinions, but chiefly for my feelings, in their campaign to populate the internets with their overweening world-views. In their desparation to distort the truth, they have resorted to deploying ‘facts’ and ‘scientific rigour’.
My work first appeared in a now-defunct forum in 2007, just prior to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, which does not list me as a contributor at any level. Clearly they were not monitoring the internets, which indicates the level of their ‘professionalism’. Since then I have posted on climate blogs innumerate, such as WUWT. What I have found is a plethora of conflicting views – primarily conflicting with mine. I am only now beginning to see how these flank attacks, whose objective is the demise of my cherished opinions, have been carefully orchestrated, as has the maintenance of my status as a ‘bit player’ in the great climate debates.
I have been massaged by Nicole Kidman, chatted with Her royal Excellency, Queen elizabeth II, spent a few hours in the company of Carrie Fischer and worked with Bryan Brown, as well as Matt, Damien and Eve from my day job.
I, too, can name drop.
If we continue down this path of relegating my views to the oblivion of insignificance, I will be hurt. Badly hurt. And that may have consequences for my progeny, if ever i get around to having any.
Global warming? What is that compared to the need for me, and others whose worldview is consistent with mine own, to have our beliefs respected sufficient to bend the world’s future to our designs? It’s just wrong, I tell you, and no amount of distraction from authoritative commentary or interactive argument will weaken my resolve. I have been, and remain, highly skeptical of any arguments that detract from my predilections.
Barry, of Barryworld, is a distinguished reviewer of blogsites and you tube, and a distinguished downloader of the leaked AR5 report, upon which he has commented with distinction, albeit unrecognized at this point. Last year he was a distinguished teacher of minds young and old, and a distinguished participant in the great climate debates on the illustrious internets. He has a distinguished business and pays undistinguished taxes, and is the author of numerous blog posts, distinguishable from others by his nom de plume. He is undistinguished for his enforced emplacement within the ranks of ordinary laypeople commenting on climate science, which is less than can be said for the likes of M Mann and C Monckton.

1 3 4 5