A Nobel Peace Prize denier;
Two detailed investigations by Committees of the House confirm that the IPCC has deliberately, persistently and prodigiously exaggerated not only the effect of greenhouse gases on temperature but also the environmental consequences of warmer weather.
My contribution to the 2007 report illustrates the scientific problem. The report’s first table of figures – inserted by the IPCC’s bureaucrats after the scientists had finalized the draft, and without their consent – listed four contributions to sea-level rise. The bureaucrats had multiplied the effect of melting ice from the Greenland and West Antarctic Ice Sheets by 10.
The result of this dishonest political tampering with the science was that the sum of the four items in the offending table was more than twice the IPCC’s published total. Until I wrote to point out the error, no one had noticed. The IPCC, on receiving my letter, quietly corrected, moved and relabeled the erroneous table, posting the new version on the internet and earning me my Nobel prize.
[…]
At the very heart of the IPCC’s calculations lurks an error more serious than any of these. The IPCC says: “The CO2 radiative forcing increased by 20 percent during the last 10 years (1995-2005).” Radiative forcing quantifies increases in radiant energy in the atmosphere, and hence in temperature. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 in 1995 was 360 parts per million. In 2005 it was just 5percent higher, at 378 ppm. But each additional molecule of CO2 in the air causes a smaller radiant-energy increase than its predecessor. So the true increase in radiative forcing was 1 percent, not 20 percent. The IPCC has exaggerated the CO2 effect 20-fold.
Why so large and crucial an exaggeration? Answer: the IPCC has repealed the fundamental physicalthe Stefan-Boltzmann equation – that converts radiant energy to temperature. Without this equation, no meaningful calculation of the effect of radiance on temperature can be done. Yet the 1,600 pages of the IPCC’s 2007 report do not mention it once.
Interesting that Monkton, unlike Chrsty, will keep the Nobel Prize moniker. He knows the political value of making claim to it.
We shall see what happens…this year apears to be a cooler year, not that what happens in any one year should matter, it is the accumulation of the trend.
Mind you, I would like to see one, just one, prediction from the AGW crowd come true, in direction AND magnitide. So far none of the models have shown any predictive power worth talkig about.
And yet ANOTHER ipcc scientist jumps the sinking ship. How many more holes must be punched into it before it goes down? That eco-warrior ship in the Antarctic only needed one.
I notice there is an email address for this gentleman (Monkton) at the end of the article. Perhaps john cross can email him and point out how he is in Error, that his science is not ‘very strong,’ or cross-reference him to articles that prove john cross correct on all counts, each day, EVERY day, concerning global warming.
Or perhpas john cross can take the advice of the King of Spain.
Sorry to keep popping up, but: does anyone here know if there is a website which is keeping track of all the ipcc scientists who have jumped ship so far? I know there has been at least half a dozen, one of the Major, and probably quite a few more who have fallen below the radar- certainly below any msm radar.
The IPCC are a bunch of crooks they are diliberartly distorting and fudging the whole thing about this global warming and they deliberatly left-out the MEDEVAL WARMING PERIOD the whole global warming is a fruad and a hoax the biggist lie in the world
I have been noticing an abrupt end to all the AGW supporters. Wonder what happened?
HEY – AGW types – Have you given up or are you currently on the beach in Bali?
(Sigh) I would like a good argument based on solid scientific examination (not regurgitated through the IPCC) that accounts for ALL the data.
But I guess that won’t be coming anytime soon. Too many holes to plug in what the IPCC has already put out!!
Once again, Global Warming will go down as one of the great scams of the 21 century.
Excellent article, outlining both the scientific and political corruption developed by and promoted by the UN.
The author reminds us that the UN is scientifically unreliable; the UN had previously rejected that AIDS was a serious epidemic and thus enabled millions of death; equally, its rejection of DDT against malaria had the same fatal results.
We all know the UN’s refusal to acknowledge genocide in Serbia, in the Sudan and the catastrophic results.
And, the UN’s involvement in corrupt money scams, as in Oil-For-Food in Iraq.
Kyotoism is a massive UN money scam. There is no science validating AGW. Climate change is natural. The agenda of the UN is becoming more open, more public, more articulated. It is to get the West to fund the industrialization of the ‘developing countries’. Absolutely nothing to do with pollution or with CO2 emissions, because the new industrial nations are blatantly exempt from any standards on either. Therefore, the emissions on the planet will increase. Not decrease.
The rhetoric in Bali and in the various activist talk confirms that the UN’s Kyotoism has nothing to do with climate change, with emissions, with pollution. It is instead, a massive money transference scheme to industrialize countries, using money from the West.
“inserted by the IPCC’s bureaucrats after the scientists had finalized the draft, and without their consent – listed four contributions to sea-level rise. The bureaucrats had multiplied the effect of melting ice from the Greenland and West Antarctic Ice Sheets by 10.”
Well Imagine that…partisan-left zealots cooking data sets to justify their whacky social engineering agendas…do we see a pattern here yet?
How much more lying with numbers will we put up with from the profligate transnational left?
Why do we even give any validity to anything that comes from globalist-left gas bags?
The credibility game is lost lefty…now what?..you bring out the guns and force your power agendas on us?
The dam cracked, then it started to leak, now there’s a steady stream. Apres lui, le deluge!
Any one want to come to Winnipeg and step outside to discuss Global Warming?
You can step outside I’ll use a mic from inside and watch hypothermia set in.
Most of Hudson bay is covered in ice and it aint winter yet.
I am sure there are some liberals out there working real hard on making it illegal to say global warming is not happening.
They have almost succeeded in making it illegal to say anything negative about gays or Islam…
FAT ALBERT SPEAKS
“We must quickly mobilize our civilization with the urgency and resolve that has previously been seen only when nations mobilized for war,” he said, crediting the generation that defeated fascism around the world in the 1940s.
[…]
He said saving the global environment must become “the central organizing principle of the world community”.
MORE
Those buzz words are not random. Time is running out and it will become apparent that global warming isn’t happening to any great degree, the tides aren’t rising, The weather is just weather.
The Elites of the world, the UN and the environmental zealots see the opportunity of taking down capitalism and setting up the Feudal System (note the words Fat Albert used “the central organizing principle of the world community”) slipping away with ever passing non-climate disaster moment.
John West: “see the opportunity of taking down capitalism and setting up the Feudal System…”
I actually believe that somewhat. Of course, the feudal system is notable for the lack of an enabling ideology for it. The closest the modern world came to that enablement was corporate fascism – Mussolini’s variety.
As long as that ideology is lacking, though, the chances of full-blown feudalism emerging is remote. Ideas move people, and feudalism is not an ‘idea’ in the political sense.
all the geology proving the science behind agw incorrect and we still can’t find people who know how to read.
What we need is what the British did, and that is to have House of Commons committee meetings to look at all the facts of the case.
Harper should have these meetings to give Canadians an up close look at the science behind the IPCC.
And if history is correct, the IPCC will be proven to use computer models instead of real world observations.
The mainstream media is doing their all to make this into a left vs. right issue.
The MSM is doing all they can to try to paint Dion as an environmental leader.
We all know that isn’t true.
Harper will win a majority next election and it is in part to his environmental policy.
Go read Tim Lambert at Deltoid and get some facts on yet another idiotic GW denialist.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/12/monckton_watch.php
“Yes there was a typo in one of the tables. But others noticed this before Monckton did. It is wrong for Monckton to label a typo “dishonest political tampering”. And it’s wrong for him to claim that a quickly corrected typo is some sort of serious scientific problem. And his belated letter on the matter doesn’t entitle him to a piece of the Nobel.”
“The IPCC absolutely does not say that the contribuion of Grenland and Antarctica to sea-level rise will be at most 7 cm in this century. They explicitly say that they cannot give an upper bound.”
And so on re AIDS, and DDT, and CO2 radiative forcing.
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22430
“As a contributor to the IPCC’s 2007 report, I share the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore. Yet I and many of my peers in the British House of Lords – through our hereditary element the most independent-minded of lawmakers…”
Oh yeah, I can get behind this hereditary element. His father was defeated in 1999 in his bid for the chamber on a campaign of “Action against cruelty to animals, particularly fishing with rods. All cats to be muzzled outside to stop the agonising torture of mice and small birds.” http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/506461.stm
Just where do they find these guys? This one seems to have been picked from candidates for Upper-Class Twit of the Year: he has forgotten that he IS NOT A MEMBER in the British Upper Chamber. He received ZERO votes in an election for the House of Lords in March of this year. http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/HoLNotice070307.pdf
Actually, daniel ryan, I’d say that feudalism does have an ideology; it’s tribalism. That is, feudalism is a western term for an economic, political and social mode, which can more accurately be analyzed as tribalism.
Tribalism is economically and politically focused around kinship. There is obviously no middle class because a middle class, by definition, exists without hereditary economic and political power. Its power emerges from its work-actions not from kinship ties. Tribalism, as a mode of social organization, works quite well in no-growth societies, with medium size populations. It’s useless and dysfunctional in societies that require flexible reactions, change and innovation.
More Monckton (From Nov ’06)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ graphics/2006/11/05/warm-refs.pdf
@b_nicol:
I should warn you about using the word “idiotic” to describe a man who is, more and more, proving to have been on the correct side of this issue all along. Passing the buck can only go so far.
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/007588.html
@ET:
I didn’t mean an attributed ideology, but one that is explicitly propounded and justified. To use an example: I don’t recall any analog to “The Rights of Man” that justifies feudalism.
Is there a physicist out there who can give us a good primer on the Stefan-Boltzman law? Specifically, recognizing that the earth is not an ideal black body, and the irradiance is proportional to the fourth power of the temperature, does this in fact create a limit beyond which rising CO2 concentrations could no longer make a contribution to surface warming?
daniel, we might be going off topic, but, defining feudalism as ‘tribalism’, then, an explicit ideology in the West at least, might be found in the writings of the scholastics, of Aquinas, of the neoplatonists , ie, of anyone who supports a metaphysical truth above and beyond that available to the human intellect. Plato’s Republic outlines such a society. It certainly justifies a tribal/feudal society.
Corrected URL:-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nwarm05.xml
More Lord M.
@ET: I suppose you can count Plato as one, although St. Thomas is iffy given that he puts God in the centre of it. Plato, though, is really a spokesperson for a hierarchical society in general. He doesn’t attempt to justify the feudal bond between lord, land and common.
To bring the thread back to topic, one aspect of the feudal system, if my recollection is accurate, is special rights for the guilds. In modern terms, “only the guild can judge the guild.” IPCC’s embarrassments may lead to a push in that direction.
It would be amusing to see the science “guild” lobbying for the right to hash out controversies behind closed doors…
“I should warn you about using the word “idiotic” to describe a man who is, more and more, proving to have been on the correct side of this issue all along. Passing the buck can only go so far.”
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/007588.html
…and this is an example of Monkton’s accuracy in what way?
Surely he must have some education in climatology or epidemiology to become such an expert, right? Nope, he received a diploma in Journalism (Wikipedia). “A number of his writings on global warming, including his letter to Senators Snowe and Rockefeller and his IPCC critique, have been published by the Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI), part of Frontiers of Freedom, a conservative organization funded by ExxonMobil that has campaigned against the screening of An Inconvenient Truth in U.S. schools”.
Imagine, ExxonMobil funding GW skeptics. What would they have to gain by doing that, I wonder.
The Heartland Institute (http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=10594): “Instead of raising cigarette taxes, simple justice demands that cigarette taxes be reduced to zero. In fact, states should consider taping a dime or a quarter to every pack of cigarettes as a way of thanking smokers for reducing the burden on taxpayers!” Sounds like Steve Milloy – former Big Tobacco denier and current AGW denier – of JunkScience(and indeed it is).com.
At least Micheal Crichton doesn’t hide the fact he writes fiction.
Well, b_nichol, here’s a shocker for you: John Maynard Keynes didn’t had a degree in economics.
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Printonly/Keynes.html
Here’s another shocker for you: Lord Monckton’s papers – at least, the ones that I’ve read – copiously cite people who do have the relevant expertise. You not liking what they say does not invalidate their degrees and experience.
A third shocker for you: could it be possible that Lord Monckton had those people review what he wrote?
As far as the old oil-munny bit, the wool you’re trying to pull has long since frayed. The AGW supporters are singing the more-grants tune. What do they have to gain by singing the AGW tune I wonder.
As far as spurious analogies are concerned, you sound like the grandson of a sooper-carbeurator crank. Is that spurious enough?
b_nicol. Why do you insist on demonizing the guy. IPCC didn’t mind including him on their list, and BTW, there are plenty of “non-scientists” on that list. Here’a an idea – how about addressing his arguments, rather than calling him names and that, of course, he is an oil shill. Meanwhile, Al Gore, who has zero scientific background, gets a Nobel Prize. Doesn’t that seem odd to you?
Anyway, the problem is not AGW, it’s the stupididity of Kyoto, compounded with the exaggerations pointed our by Monkton (which you seem to ignore) cause of to ill-define the problem (China and India polluting the h**l out of the world is), forcing us into some morality play where they are heroes and saboteurs.
Do you support Kyoto, which ensures increased pollution of all kinds, because it is so flawed as to not consider giant emitters, combined with some nonsense (nonscience) about, “well we got rich polluting, so now it’s OK for China and India. In fact, let’s send some carbon credits so they can build windmills and biomass plants, that is, when China’s not too busy building coal-fire generating plants on a weekly basis.
Ludicrous positions like that, maybe that’s what idiotic, eh?
I know I might get slagged for this comment by some o’ the regulars, but John Cross is polite and sticks with the subject matter – both of which are to his credit.
Shamrock, just a point …
The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded by politicians and is not a science award.
Hey unfortunately, eventhough there has been a number of scientists that have jumped the IPCC ship, They are not getting the press. Just look at the CBC and CTV,,, not news…Canada is still the culprit.
The MSM onslaught continues.
It is depressing.
However I am still proud of our current government in their negotiating skills,… Canada won’t agree with absolute controls unless the USA, China and India agree.
This is negotiation at its best. I just hope that the Canadian government doesn’t cave in at this time. The only way to get the USA , China and India in the game is to have the NGOS go after china, India and the USA and not Canada.
THEY GO AFTER US AS THEY CONSIDER US WEAK AND THEY HAVE THE MSM ON THEIR SIDE>
I would love to have the existing government negotiate my next car purchase , our house insurance policy. etc..
Canada with its measly 2% of the so called GHG emissions is nothing…
By increasing costs in Canada (Carbon Transferring) with Co2 taxes or whatever, would just means that the manufacturing would go to China, (Anyone starting to see Chinese cars yet… just wait)
After the Holocaust the survivors determined that the world must never forget the atrocity that befell their people. I think we would be wise to never let AGW pass from the memory of people so as to alert them of public panics still to come. Obviously no one has learned the lessons from past panics
Al Gore is a snake oil salesman and who wants to oil a snake?
“I know I might get slagged for this comment by some o’ the regulars, but John Cross is polite and sticks with the subject matter – both of which are to his credit.”
I’m not sure where I went off the rails: I linked to some Monkton articles and the original article he wrote for the Heartland Institute (was it the wacky tobacco quote?)
Anyway, Daniel and Shamrock, the whole point is the question of AGW; not the Kyoto Accord or the stupidity thereof, regardless if I support it or not. Nor is Keynes. And I hope you don’t want to compare research grants with Exxon’s corporate profits.
“Lord Monckton’s papers – at least, the ones that I’ve read – copiously cite people who do have the relevant expertise”. (Links?)
Indeed, there are credible, professional scientists who have published peer-reviewed papers that come to differing observations and conclusions on Global Warming. But then we get people who, shall we say, have limited expertise, dubious credibility or flawed methodology appearing with yet more arguments against what could very well be the single most important event for the next 100 years. From what I could gather today, Monkton appears to be just the latest. Perhaps some perspective is required.
That’s all I’m going to say on the matter.
Hypocrisy (AGW Style) :
1) personal credibility is an issue only when questioning AGW, questioning Hocky Stick Man (HSM) is not allowed.
2) Science – you must be an very specific expert with 100 years experience to question AGW but any green-face painted idiot can spout off about polar bears to the media with approval
3)Money – gov’t money has absolutely no strings tied to it, yet all oil money is tainted.
4) Sins of the Father/Guilty by association – AGW deniers that even remotely know anyone in industry are tainted, yet the inbred nature of the Enviro crowd and socialists is just fine.
5) Do as I say… – Businessman flying to meetings are commiting Gaiacide, Enviros flying to Bali is necessary for saving Gaia. You should wear a sweater in your house, Gore needs your electricity.
and the list goes on and on.
Now, there are hyprocrites on the side of the skeptics for sure. But being a skeptic here is the default position, they are not out to enforce any global agreement or change the way anyone works/lives. The hypocrisy is really limited to musings on the web.
Al Gore and company take us to a whole new level of hypocrisy.
There are serious questions about the credibility of the science. If you can’t refrain from showing hypocrisy then don’t be surprised if you convince no-one.
@b_nichol:
Fair enough: you do acknowledge that the science ain’t settled. If you’re interested, there are five factors that put me on the other side of the divide:
1) Prior predictions of that sort which fizzled.
2) An earlier serious flirtation with computer programming, which left me with a sense of its limits.
3) A serious flirtation with mathematical logic, which left me eating my foot on a regular basis. I realized that all the logic in the world doesn’t change inadequate or missing premises.
4) A sense of my own “limited CPU power,” in the general sense.
5) From (3), I picked up the standard rule of thumb in harder academics: a person who asserts his/her case emotionally is presumed to be slipshod in some way. That sieve worked on me, and I have to say it was to my long-term benefit.
otter: All I have ever asked you to do is to look at the science. Now, I don’t mind being told to shut up, but it is far from a scientific argument.
In regards to Moncton, I could e-mail him Tim Lambert’s post on his work, but I suspect he has already seen it.
Regards,
John
Daniel: Thank-you, (although I suspect that my saying thank you increased your chances of getting slaged)! In fact, I have received a couple of private e-mails expressing the same thing.
I have enjoyed our discussions in the past, and will in the future, but I am bogged down at work right now. O, to be retired!
Best,
John
Now, I don’t mind being told to shut up, but it is far from a scientific argument.
But isn’t the title of this discussion page, “The Sound of Settled Science” (with the implication being that AGW “deniers” should just shut up, stop arguing, lollygagging and “get with the program”?).