Articles Tagged "Lord Monckton"
Sorted by: Date Posted
Monday, December 3rd 2012, 12:37 PM EST
DELEGATES at the 18th annual UN climate gabfest at the dismal, echoing Doha conference center – one of the least exotic locations chosen for these rebarbatively repetitive exercises in pointlessness – have an Oops! problem.
No, not the sand-flies. Not the questionable food. Not the near-record low attendance. The Oops! problem is this. For the past 16 of the 18-year series of annual hot-air sessions about hot air, the world’s hot air has not gotten hotter. There has been no global warming. At all. Zilch. Nada. Zip. Bupkis.
The equations of classical physics do not require the arrow of time to flow only forward. However, observation indicates this is what always happens. So tomorrow’s predicted warming that has not happened today cannot have caused yesterday’s superstorms, now, can it?
That means They can’t even get away with claiming that tropical storm Sandy and other recent extreme-weather happenings were All Our Fault. After more than a decade and a half without any global warming at all, one does not need to be a climate scientist to know that global warming cannot have been to blame.
Or, rather, one needs not to be a climate scientist. The wearisomely elaborate choreography of these yearly galah sessions has followed its usual course this time, with a spate of suspiciously-timed reports in the once-mainstream media solemnly recording that “Scientists Say” their predictions of doom are worse than ever. But the reports are no longer front-page news. The people have tuned out.
Saturday, November 17th 2012, 12:23 PM EST
Lord Christopher Monckton joins Michael Coren to talk about Al Gore's newest 'weather report'. Does even Gore believe his own babble?
Click source for MUST SEE VIDEOLINK
Sunday, November 11th 2012, 4:11 AM EST
To The Honorable Fred Upton: Chairman Committee on Energy & Commerce
To The Honorable Ed Whitfield: Chairman Subcommittee on Energy & Power
U.S. House of Representatives
From Professor Fred Singer and others
Dear Chairman Upton and Chairman Whitfield:
The recent election should be a time to return to fact-based policy making. This is especially true in energy policy.
Last week, a tropical storm intensified by meeting two other storms struck the East Coast. The storm battered the Mid-Atlantic and Northeastern states, devastating portions of New York and New Jersey and resulting in more than 8 million homes losing electricity from the Carolinas to Wisconsin. Experts are projecting $10 bn in damages and lost business.
Saturday, October 20th 2012, 10:27 AM EDT
Your Newsnight segment on Arctic sea ice (BBC2 TV, 8 September 2012) featured a “scientist” who said ice loss since a high point in 1979 would cut the Earth’s albedo and, by this feedback, cause warming equivalent to 20 years’ global CO2 emissions.
On the IPCC’s current central climate-sensitivity estimates, 20 years’ CO2 emissions would only warm the Earth by ¼ C°. But since the IPCC’s first projections in 1990, temperature has risen only half as fast as predicted: so make that just ? C°.
The glaciologist the programme relied on got the math wrong. Ignoring the growth in Antarctic sea ice since 1979, as the programme unwisely did, the loss of 2.5 million km2 of Arctic sea ice (measured as the linear trend on the NSIDC data) will warm the Earth by only 1/20 C°, and only then if the ice loss is permanent. Halve that to allow for the compensating effect of record Antarctic sea-ice growth: say, 1/40 C° of global warming, equivalent to just 2 years’ CO2 emissions on the IPCC’s current projections, not 20 years’ emissions.
Some relevant points your programme did not make:
Wednesday, September 19th 2012, 7:17 PM EDT
Exclusive WND Interview: Christopher Monckton of Brenchley on where Mitt went wrong about the 47%
WASHINGTON – Mitt Romney, at a private fundraiser some months ago, got real about the central difference between Mr. Obama’s far-out socialism and the Republicans’ free-market capitalism. He said, bluntly, that 47 percent of working-age Americans pay no income tax. He said, self-evidently, that his low-tax message would mean nothing to them. He said, rightly, that many of them believe they are entitled to free food stamps, free welfare, free health care.
He added, infelicitously, that his job was not to worry about the 47 percent. Earlier this week a hate-speech blog, Mother Jones, got hold of a video recording made by a member of Romney’s audience and – quivering with the partisan, pietistic outrage that is the hallmark of the hard left – condemned Romney for not worrying about the 47 percent.
A year or two ago, Mother Jones, trembling with the artificial angst of the instinctual Communist, listed me as the world’s second most influential climate skeptic (or, as the extremists poisonously like to put it, “denier”). ExxonMobil was no. 1.
In both instances, the blog very carefully avoided the obvious. The hate-speakers deliberately did not consider whether or not we skeptics might be scientifically correct, as (after 15 years without any global warming at all) everyone now knows we were.
And they deliberately wrenched Romney’s remarks from their obvious context, which was that he is fighting an election campaign and would gain little by trying to influence the non-contributing half of the U.S. electorate.
Tuesday, September 18th 2012, 7:04 PM EDT
Updated with link correction
Click source for MUST SEE VIDEOLINK: Michael Coren talks to Lord Monckton about climate myths
Wednesday, September 12th 2012, 6:42 PM EDT
WND Exclusive: Christopher Monckton of Brenchley on the greater trustworthiness of theists
Someone should remind the “Democrats” that the dollar bill says “In God We Trust.” Most of your nation’s Founding Fathers were Christians. They recorded their belief that all men “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.”
One of their earliest amendments to your Constitution guaranteed freedom of religion. To this day, yours is one of the most God-fearing yet tolerant nations on Earth.
The “Democrats,” at their national convention, cut the words “God-given” from the party platform. When the ensuing embarrassment provoked a panic vote to restore God, pagan delegates booed.
The “Democrats” don’t believe in democracy, the United States, the Constitution, or the clause that says a president must be a natural-born citizen. They don’t believe in free enterprise, or the free market, or any freedom. Now they don’t really believe in God.
Does this matter? Yes. “No religion,” wrote Sir Thomas Browne in his Religio Militis, “so magnifieth goodness as the Christian religion doth.” Christians (I speak from experience) are sinners, but at least we are trying to be better.
Wednesday, August 29th 2012, 3:34 AM EDT
The following is an AMS Disinformation Statement calculated to provide an untrustworthy, prejudiced, and scientifically-outdated misrepresentation of pseudo-scientific issues of great concern to us in getting more grants but of no concern to those of the public still at large.
This statement provides a brief overview of why we want more money now, and why we will continue to want more money in the future. It is based on a highly-partisan selection from the scientific literature, presented as though science were based upon the ancient logical fallacy of argument from “consensus”, and further distorted by the bureaucrats of the Mental Panel on Climate Change, the US Notional Academy of Science and Television Arts, and the US Global Cash Recoupment Program.
Saturday, August 25th 2012, 8:56 AM EDT
Exclusive for WND: Christopher Monckton of Brenchley on economics of fighting 'global warming'
ERICE, Sicily – The capture of the once-pure environmental movement by the hard left is far from cheap for the rest of us. I have just told the annual planetary-emergencies conference of the World Federation of Scientists that on the basis of the lunatic anti-CO2 policies now fashionable among scientifically illiterate governments, it would cost $6 quadrillion to prevent the 6 degrees Fahrenheit of predicted “global warming” that will not happen anyway.
Professor Antonino Zichichi, one of the world’s top six particle physicists (he discovered a form of anti-matter 40 years before the multi-billion-dollar Large Hadron Collider did), is the most famous Italian scientist since his hero Galileo. He founded the Federation half a century ago and, at the age of 83, is its president to this day.
Nino looks like a proper scientist. Imagine giving his friend Albert Einstein an electric shock, and that is what his hair looks like. He is fitter than me and attributes his good health to walking an hour every day, not drinking alcohol and not eating lunch (that’s for wimps). He lives in a medieval stone house in the unspoiled, monastic village of Erice, Sicily, perched high on a 2,500-foot crag overlooking the blue Mediterranean.
Tuesday, August 14th 2012, 7:04 AM EDT
In August 2012, a climate extremist addressed to various skeptical climate researchers what he offensively called “an appeal to you to be reasonable”. Christopher Monckton of Brenchley replied, whereupon the extremist – unable or unwilling to produce a single scientific argument – said he did not wish to pursue the debate further. This paper is an extended version of the reply to the climate extremist.
I shall overlook your appeal to me and others to “be reasonable” – unpleasantly and unjustifiably implying that merely because we disagree with you we are unreasonable.
You make the following four unreasonable assertions, explicitly or by implication:
1. The predictions about "global warming" made by James Hansen in 1988 have proven accurate, because he says so.
2. James Hansen, in a recent Washington Post op-ed, was right to attribute certain extreme-weather events over the past two years to manmade "global warming".
3. The majority of climate scientists endorse your extremist view of Man's influence on the climate, and are more likely to be correct than the minority.
4. If we cannot be sure what the truth is, we should act on the balance of probabilities.
Click source to download PDF file (16 pages)