Guest blog by Christopher Monckton on climate change

220px-Monckton-washington-09

Science is not, repeat not, done by consensus. Head-counting scientists forms no part of the scientific method. The fallacy of argument from consensus (or, as the medieval schoolmen sneeringly called it, the argumentum ad populum) has no place in any rational argument. Nor is it any help to appeal to the supposed authority of scientists (who, for one thing, are as prone to rent-seeking and profiteering as anyone else: white lab-coats are no indication of exceptional purity). For the fallacy of argument from authority (the argumentum ad verecundiam) is another bogus form of argument. Both of these fallacies, and a dozen others like them, were categorized and excoriated by Aristotle 2350 years ago. They really should not appear in any educated discussion of a scientific topic today.

In fact, the claimed “consensus” does not exist. The largest peer-reviewed survey of opinion as expressed in the peer-reviewed learned journals on climate and related scientific topics found just 41 of 11,944 papers, or 0.3%, endorsing the official UN IPCC “consensus” to the effect that most of the global warming since 1950 was manmade. However, the authors of the “study” that analyzed the 11,944 papers reported the “consensus” as 97.1%. Police in Queensland and in the UK have been poring over the paper concerned, and prosecutions may yet follow. The patience of those of us who have diligently been contributing papers to the learned journals (my latest, on the IPCC’s aprioristic failure to take uncertainties properly or honestly into account, is attached) is running short, and outright falsehoods such as the “97%” lie are no longer going to be tolerated.

It is in fact barely possible that most of the warming since 1950 was manmade, but only if one assumes not only that CO2 exerts a larger forcing on the climate object than is at all plausible but also that the “temperature feedbacks” in response to the direct warming arising from that forcing are strongly net-positive when observation indicates they are somewhat net-negative. A paper by me in Physics and Society in 2008 was among the first to suggest, by the application of elementary climate physics, that there would be less than 1 K global warming in response to a doubling of CO2 concentration – and that only half of that would be likely to make itself manifest within 100 years of the doubling. Now such papers are appearing just about once a week, as others pick up the threads I exposed in that early paper. Indeed, I am very close to publishing a further paper providing for the first time a climate model that anyone with a pocket calculator can use to obtain estimates of climate sensitivity less unreliable than those of the billion-dollar brains on whose feverishly over-excited and anti-scientific predictions the climate scare was founded.

The fact that there has been no global warming for 18 years 1 month, according to the RSS satellite dataset, comes as no surprise at all to me. For I see things not only in a mathematical perspective informed by both physical theory and observation but also by the climate over geological time. One example: in the Neoproterozoic era, 750 million years ago, CO2 concentration was three orders of magnitude greater than it is today. It was at least 30% of the atmosphere, compared with today’s paltry 0.04%. Yet during that era of very high CO2 concentration glaciers a mile high came and went twice, at the Equator. And how many equatorial glaciers are there today?

True, the Sun was somewhat fainter then than now. And the continents were in different places. But I have seen the tillite deposits of one of the major equatorial glacial moraines at Arkaroola Station, South Australia, rubbing shoulders with deposits of dolomitic limestone (which can only be precipitated out of the ocean if the atmosphere contains at least 30% CO2). I have poured hydrochloric acid on to the rock to see the CO2 foaming back out of it. I have seen the curly mallee trees above it, which only grow on dolomitic limestone (though the 600 other mallee species are not so picky). And I have done some calculations that suggest the forcing effect of CO2 was – and, therefore, is – a very great deal less than the models find it to be. I was so perplexed by the IPCC’s forcing value (which has already had to be cut by a hefty 15%) that I investigated how it had been arrived at. I discovered – not greatly to my surprise – that it had been reached by intercomparison between three models. There appears to be no direct, observational estimate of the CO2 forcing, because that forcing cannot easily be distinguished from the far more significant water vapor forcing. It is really the latter that keeps the planet warm: at the crucial lower-to-mid-troposphere altitudes where it would be necessary for warming to take place if there were to be much effect on near-surface temperatures, the characteristic absorption bands of CO2 are almost entirely overlain by those of water vapour.

It is only in the upper troposphere, where water vapor is rarer, that CO2 might in theory have some warming effect. However, the atmosphere in the upper troposphere is so attenuated that little warming is to be expected at that altitude. No surprise, then, that in the mid-troposphere, where the models predict that in a warming world the rate of warming would be thrice that at the surface, no such “hot-spot” is to be observed. It was I who gave the “hot-spot” its name: but it is non-existent in very nearly all of the datasets.

And all of this is before we even begin to consider the economic case. A paper by me for the World Federation of Scientists’ Annual Proceedings three years ago demonstrated that it is 10-100 times costlier to mitigate global warming today than to adapt to its imagined net-adverse consequences the day after tomorrow. I remain the only researcher to have applied the IPCC’s own climate methodology and results to the standard techniques of intergenerational investment appraisal in order to provide a proper economic analysis. So far, the most heroically stupid of all the heroically stupid methods of trying to make non-existent global warming go away is to introduce electric vehicles, as you will see from my Energy & Environment article, which contains an admittedly breathless summary of the calculation.

So far, despite careful enquiry, I have seen no compelling case for doing anything about the climate. It has changed for 4.5 billion years. It will continue to change. And there is not a lot we can do about it. There are plenty of real and solvable problems: why waste an instant longer on non-problems that could not – even to the extent that they were rela problems – be solved except at entirely disproportionate and extravagant cost?

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

37 Responses to Guest blog by Christopher Monckton on climate change

  1. Francis says:

    Lord Monckton’s credentials cannot be denied, although some will try.

    Global warming has become a massive diversion to give governments excuses to put in controls, raise taxes and so on. I do hope that those who prepared these reports are taken to task. But we know that will never happen because there is no accountablity for actions good or bad in this day and age.

    However, what cannot be denied is that fossil fuels do create pollution, pollution that kills us and damages the environment. So our efforts should be put there. We must separate these two issues so that the argument can be clearly addressed.

    • Roger Helmer says:

      I agree, Francis — though fossil fuel power plants are much cleaner now than they used to be (and gas is much cleaner than coal and lignite). But the point that cannot be made too often is that CO2 is not a pollutant. It’s a natural, odourless, non-toxic trace gas that promotes plant growth, crop tields and bio-mass formation, and which is essentail to life in earth.

      • Ian Terry says:

        Steady up here Roger. You are getting too close to the truth, fact and common
        m sense. You are breaking the mould of the perception of politicians. Keep it up

    • ferretman555 says:

      I’m in total agreement, less waste, higher efficiency and lets reclaim energy for further uses. Water at a height is potential energy, The Eden Project in Cornwall uses electricity to pump the site bowl of water (22 litres per second) , wind power could do the same task and be truly green. Water at an altitude is energy and could power a funicular rail to the Dome. It might also be used several times as it runs down hill to St Austell ar close to see level.

      http://www.gardenaction.co.uk/garden_centres/eden_project14.asp

      Why don’t we develop and use Armstrong’s hydraulic accumulators and motors?

  2. catalanbrian says:

    Ah yes, how interesting. This is the man who pretended to be a member of the House of Lords when he was not (and still is not), the man who claimed to be Margaret Thatcher’s climate change adviser, who was nothing of the sort, the man who, without permission, occupied Myanmar’s seat at the UN climate change conference in Doha and had to be escorted from the building. He was subsequently banned for life from attending any UN climate change meetings. This is the man who proposed that all people with AIDS/HIV should be isolated from society permanently! He was even sacked from his role of UKIP party leader in Scotland by Nigel Farage. He claims to be a scientist but like pretty much everything he claims there is no evidence whatever of this. Unsurprisingly he does not claim to be a charlatan! I am surprised that you, Mr Roger Helmer, have anything to do with him let alone allowing him to guest blog for you.

    • Sock Puppet Hunter says:

      catalanbrian is not a real blogger and has not written a post on his “blog” since he signed up in 2012. His remarks are all of course “ad hominem”, yet another aristotlean fallacy of logic. If the dustbin man told me that the climate has always changed, it would still be true. If a certified raving lunatic told me that the climate always changed, it would still be true, even if the raving lunatic could neither understand the consequences, or even the meaning of the words that he was saying, Facts are facts, whoever is the narrator of those facts, but you Mr. “calatanbrian”, are a sock puppet and a troll seemingly.

      cantabrian’s “blog” snapshot – http://i.imgur.com/8WBuvxo.jpg

    • Flyinthesky says:

      In the absense of a protracted response this “should” tell you all you need to know:
      “He was subsequently banned for life from attending any UN climate change meetings.”
      The more credible your contradictions are the more aggressively you will be responded to. You really are the eu’s ideal and compliant citizen, god help us.

  3. The Wasp says:

    catalanbrian, if you could refute the case he has put forward I would listen to you!!!!!

  4. Ex-expat Colin says:

    Its a cracker…shortly followed by some trawling/trolling from old WUWT submissions. Same old, same old! Close to tears I was…not.

    The only thing proven is that yes…climate does change. No degree of any type required to understand that simple fact. It takes something like a PPE degree(?) to be easily fooled about that topic though.

    Bishop Hill posted on the topic of the 97% consensus (con) yesterday. I think its the first time I saw commenter’s going for full ahead prosecution and asset confiscation of all those involved in the execution of the Climate Change Act 2008. Tricky but necessary.

    Don’t know why anybody has much to do with the UN dopes (and I have experienced them) so an alleged ban from there is to be congratulated. It was funny.

    • Sock Puppet Hunter says:

      Those “UN” types live in a bubble world of “Yes Men” and they only hear what they want to gear, but that will not include any evidence that might put their playboy lifestyle sinecure jobs at risk. If there is no man made climate change problem, then we don’t need a whole apparatus of waffling boondogglers to “investigate” solutions, do we?

      This is something that “claptrapian”, the so called blogger and his ilk will never understand, unless of course “crabbybrian” is really a sock puppet for some other well known troll like creature like a Stoat, for example.
      😮

      • ferretman555 says:

        Don’t mistake ferretman for one though, its my Yahoo id and dates back to when I owned a Daimler Ferret armored car, complete with its 50cal machine gun.

      • Wun Hung Lo says:

        Confucius say —

        “Virtue is not left to stand alone. He who practices it will have neighbors.”

  5. Ian Terry says:

    The planet has and always will be changing and we do have to learn to live with it not fight it. In Canada and America more and more cases are slowly butsurely finding their way into court with claims against the human impact on human life when surounded by turbines. Noise, low frequency infrasound, property values. impact on wild life and her in dictatorship Scotland contamination to water courses and nobody listens they just want it to go away until they have earnt their millions from the subsidies. Then the poor old tax payer will be left shelling the money out. But what do we know and who gives a s***. All the high % of supporters who are for RE and the like, the most of them live in the cities and never really get out into the countryside just fly over it on their way to the sunny med.

  6. Anne says:

    There is absolutely no need for any one of us to worry our little heads re Climate Change for the EU has got it all covered-worked out- for there is a Directive covering it for 2050, there is also one for 2020 too, so none of us should worry our little heads especially those in our House of Commons, for I am sure-IF WE ARE STILL IN THE EU BY THEN- the Cons/Libs and labs will go through the motions of Governing and the climate will also “do as its told”.
    By 2050, the European Union could cut most of its greenhouse gas emissions. Clean technologies are the future for Europe’s economy.
    Roadmap for moving to a low-carbon economy in 2050 http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/roadmap/index_en.htm

    • Ian Terry says:

      Very good Anne. Have just gone to the link and well it is an eye opener. Already I can see the squadrons of pigs forming up over the channel just as the Luftwaffe did back in the 1940s. Words come easy it is the action that counts, and at what cost to industry and the domestic consumer. It is well proven that every green job costs about four in the real world.

  7. thomas fox says:

    This Lord is more than an speaker  ,he could be a teacher of  Maths ,Latin,Science  but has dedicated his life to exposing the Climate Change Scam that is costing us all dear!     He needs to be returned to the House of Lords to awaken them from the slow grinding corn mill of long endless debate 

    Sent from Molto for iPad

  8. Jane Davies says:

    Instant lowering of greenhouse gases will be achieved by closing down the EU “government” building in Brussels.

    • Roger Helmer says:

      And as an interim measure, we could close down Strasbourg first, saving on some estimates 60,000 tons of CO2 a year! Yesterday parliament voted by a substantial margin to abandon Strasbourg — but of course we have no authority to do so. Only the Council can change the treaties. Yet another EU policy which no one can justify, no one can explain, and no one can change.

      • Ex-expat Colin says:

        That very much sounds like:

        The elected in majority say do this or that
        The unelected in distinct minority say ..nope!

      • Wun Hung Lo says:

        The French will never let the EU dispose of Straz
        It was part of the original agreement of the “Five”

        Confucius say – – –
        “He who will not economize will have to agonize.”

  9. Richard111 says:

    If you can get hold of a copy of Perry’s Chemical Engineering Handbook you will see in Chapter 5 fig. 21 a graphic of carbon dioxide AND water vapour spectral emittances after RADCAL when temperature is 1,500K (1,227C). The graph clearly shows CO2 emittance is almost completely swamped by H2O emittance. Only the 4.3 micron band is fully available to CO2.
    Problem is only the SUN can generate photons in the 4.3 micron band in sufficient quantities to have any effect. The peak radiation temperature is about 400C and ALL CO2 molecules will be at local atmospheric temperature so they will be capable of absorbing a 4.3 micron photon (also a 2.7 micron photon if any got passed the H2O molecules). When a photon is absorbed it ceases to exist. The vibration level of the CO2 molecule, NOT the kinetic speed, will increase sharply. The
    question is what exactly happens now? If the CO2 molecule collides with an N2 or O2 molecule then some of the vibrational energy can increase the kinetic speed of the N2 or O2 molecule. So what happens to the rest of the energy? Well, the CO2 molecule has some 3,800 spectral emittance lines centred on the 15 micron band covering 13 to 17 microns. The CO2 molecule is thus very, very effective at emitting excess energy.
    Another point to consider is the CO2 molecule is a unique entity. IT IS NOT PART OF THE SURFACE OF ANYTHING. That CO2 gas molecule can radiate over better than 360 degrees CUBED directions and the higher the altitude of that molecule the more likely is the radiation to escape to space.
    To conclude, this befuddled layman simply cannot see how carbon dioxide gas in the atmosphere traps heat.

  10. Paul Henke says:

    I have been aware of these arguments for some years. It is obvious that when they are examined in detail they are shown to be correct in all respects. It is due to the accuracy of Christopher Monckton’s unbiased research that the proponents of climate change who blame the human race won’t debate with him. Even the simplest of examination shows that mankind cannot be responsible and that it was time we aimed our efforts and wealth at protecting ourselves from the havoc climate change brings.

  11. DICK R says:

    Even if there was man made global warming so what, if the ecolunatic want to live in damp freezing huts let ’em , include me out.

  12. Richard111 says:

    DICK R

    Sadly, you cannot include yourself out. Or your family, your children and your grandchildren.
    Without access to cheap and reliable energy it will become increasingly difficult to produce and distribute FOOD. Also the evidence points to increasing cold. The cold needn’t be severe to have a major impact on crop production levels. There are many reports around the world already even though there are claims of massive increases because of GM crops. Not all countries have access to GM and I read new seed is required each year. Big problem if no transport.

    • Flyinthesky says:

      Let’s not confuse GM as being a technology to feed the world, it’s an ongoing attempt to cartelise all agri business.

      • Martin Reed says:

        Agreed. GM is about enslaving farmers in perpetuity to seed manufacturers. There is little evidence that GM has consistently resulted in improved yields and much evidence that radically engineered plants have dangerous effects further down the line. However big business tends not to consider such longer term consequences for the simple reason that they know that no court of law is ever going to bring them to account and make them pay if things go wrong. If we are not to be held responsible for our actions in law it is hardly surprising that takes second place to all the other pressures that exist in the modern world.

  13. fiu says:

    As some folks promote only the Carbon theory, we should be asking how are these Carbon taxes currently spent? Are they spent reducing our carbon output? Or financing conflict with tanks and military aircraft?

    They don’t seem to be spent encouraging development of efficient energy use, only cutting consumption back by price, so profit is maintained and infrastructure costs are reduced.

    The Tax regime is never used to reduce the taxes of carbon neutral folk growing trees for fuel, or those who come off the water grid with solar bore hole pumping.

    There is no incentive for consumers to disconnect from the Electric grid, and be self sufficient. Might it be that big business and profit is more in control of policy then we think?

    Its politically correct to promote the uplifting of Africa with foreign aid grants. This must inevitably increase CO2 emissions directly and indirectly. Africa seems to be the perfect example of a low carbon economy, why make them energy dependent now.

    Is the new DAB radio system the way to go? The old transistor radio would operate for many weeks on cheap batteries, A DAB radio depletes them is a day, this makes a nonsense of taking your TV set off standby to save the planet!

  14. DougS says:

    Nobody does it like Lord Monckton – makes me feel sad for the rest, and even sadder for the eco loon AGW alarmists!
    All they’ve got are logical fallacies – strip those out of their rantings and you’re left with no evidence of AGW.

  15. Pingback: New study destroys that “97% of scientists” claim…….or not, as the case may be | Roger Helmer MEP

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s