Christopher Monckton (born 1952), 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, and therefore, entitled to be called Lord Monckton, is known for his work as a journalist, Conservative political advisor, and a member of the UK Independent Party (UKIP). Starting as a journalist at age 22, in 1978, he became editor of the Catholic newspaper The Universe, and then went on to high-level editorial positions in leading British newspapers. But he has also been passionately engaged in disproving the so-called 'scientific consensus' on man- made global warming (lately renamed climate change) and contributes to a site called CLIMATE CHANGE DISPATCH, about which more later... In 1999, Monckton created 'Eternity', a geometric puzzle that involved tiling a dodecagon [12-sided figure] with 209 irregularly shaped polygons. A £1 million prize was won after 18 months by two Cambridge mathematicians. By that time, 500,000 puzzles had been sold. Monckton launched the Eternity II puzzle in 2007, but, after the four-year prize period, no winner came forward to claim the $2 million prize. He is also director of a pharmaceutical company which claims to have developed a broad-spectrum cure for infectious diseases. In other words, he seems to have the money to back the wager he makes here... His language to denounce the climate-change fanatics is unusually colorful and contemptuous, but he appears to have concrete facts for his arguments...
I challenge climate fascists to a $500,000 bet
by Christopher Monckton
April 13, 2015
The International Union of Climate Fascists, as it prepares to establish a totalitarian world “governing body” over us at the Paris climate yadayadathon this December, with the active support of governments worldwide
[and of the spiritual leader of the 1.27 billion-strong Roman Catholic Church, buying into the current secular religion of choice!], slavering at the prospect of bringing the democracy they hate to an end, faces a tiresome problem that just won’t go away.
Totalitarians can push man around and, oh boy, do they long to. But they can’t push nature around.
The climate scare parroted by bed-wetting eco-freako idiots worldwide began when the pseudo-scientific profiteers of doom on the U.N.’s fraudulent and corrupt climate panel, the IPCC (known universally in diplomatic circles as IPeCaC after the well-known emetic) predicted with “substantial confidence” 25 years ago that its useless but gratifyingly expensive climate models had captured the essential features of the climate.
Therefore, it predicted, by now the world would have warmed at – er – exactly double the rate that the thermometers and satellites have measured since. Oops! More grants needed.
In fact, according to the RSS satellite dataset,
you have to go back more than 18 years and four months since any global warming was detectable at all. Here are the actual data.
Now, the graphs showing
the inexorable lengthening of the “pause” in global warming that the moronic models failed to predict are causing panic in the ranks of the ungodly.
In their desperation to bring every government in the world to heel before December, they are not only redoubling their demands – now appearing almost daily –
for skeptical climate researchers like me to be tried, imprisoned and executed for “high crimes against humanity and nature,” or “branded on the forehead with cattle-irons,” as one climate-fascist journalist in Australia put it not so long ago.
They are also reduced to talking complete gibberish. But the worshipers at the temple of Thermageddon in the Marxstream media don’t realize that publishing that gibberish is scarcely going to help what they are prone to call “The Cause.”
For instance, last week the climate-fascist rag, the Melbourne Aaargh, reliably and relentlessly totalitarian in its down-with-democracy editorial policy, carried the following letter, remarkably half-baked even by its own low standards:
The slowing of atmospheric temperature rise over the past 15 years or so, used by climate change sceptics to debunk the work of the IPCC, is … evidence that the solar energy delivered to the Earth is being absorbed by the oceans.
The Arctic and Antarctic ice sheets are acting as giant dampers to contain temperature rise in the oceans. When both of these ice sheets melt away in the next decade or so, the rise in both ocean and atmospheric temperatures will accelerate rapidly and demonstrate that the passing of … tipping points … has, indeed, occurred.
There can hardly be clearer evidence that the future of our planet is squarely in the hands of our politicians. … I think it will need concerted action by statespeople of both genders and probably all political persuasions to haul us out of the dangerous intellectual lethargy into which we have been led.
The Arctic and Antarctic ice sheets will melt away in the next decade or so? What are they on? I want some. And, therefore, the oceans are gobbling up the sun’s energy? Oh, come off it. True, the oceans are warming (as best we can measure them, with just one thermometer reading per 200,000 cubic kilometres of sea) – but at a rate equivalent to
0.2 degrees Celsius per century.
Now, did that hysterical, lackwit prediction that the ice-sheets will vanish in the next decade or so come from some balding, pointy-headed, tatty-bejeaned weirdie-beardie with an egg-stained beard and fogged-up Joe90 pebble-lens spectacles?
No, it came from one of Australia’s foremost chemists, one Maurice “call me Maurie” Trewhella, a wealthy man with a string of patents to his name. Or, at least, it came from him, if it was not an April fool’s prank by one of his students that got printed a week late.
The fact is, though, that the editor printed this drivel. Is everyone in Melbourne on something interesting? Perhaps it’s in the water supply. I think we should be told.
Let us suppose, ad argumentum, that Call-Me-Maurie actually wrote the letter. In Australia, every candidate for any sort of degree in chemistry must ace a course in advanced thermodynamics – the study of what happens to heat and how long things take to melt and stuff.
In short, Maurie – if it was he who wrote the letter – must have known that
what he was writing could not by any stretch of the most febrile imagination come true while the concentration of CO2 in the air remains so small that, to the nearest tenth of one percent, there isn’t any.
Some 4,000 years ago, the temperature on the summit of the Greenland plateau was 2.5 Celsius degrees warmer than the present. Yet the ice did not melt. And it didn’t melt in the last interglacial period, 110,000 years ago, when again the temperature was 2.5 C degrees warmer than today’s. The last time the Greenland ice sheet melted was 850,000 years ago.
In modern conditions, nothing short of a massive natural cataclysm could make the Earth’s ice-caps melt. Even with nuclear weapons Man can’t do it. And our barely registering change in CO2 concentration certainly can’t do it. Still less can we affect the Antarctic ice sheet, which, the last time I checked, was 8,852 feet deep at the South Pole. That’s at least a mile and a half.
Let Maurie look up the thermal inertia of ice, and concentrate in particular on the minimum sustained ambient temperature necessary to begin the phase-transition (Hint: that’s the scientific name for your infantile “tipping-point,” Maurie) from solid ice to liquid water.
Frankly, the worst that might happen is that for a few weeks in the occasional late summer the Arctic ice-cap might melt, though it would come back quite rapidly in the winter.
In 2007, Al Gore told the Bali climate junket that the Arctic summer sea ice would be all gone by 2013. Like all of Gore’s profitably doom-laden predictions, that one was false.
Just a few months back, the combined extent of sea ice at both Poles reached a record high for the 35-year satellite era. The Melbourne Aaargh failed to report that fact. But Maurie ought to have checked. That’s what scientists do. But then, the “University” of Victoria has something of a reputation as a cross between a jumped-up polytechnic and a lunatic asylum.
So to the bet I propose. Subject to contract, I’m offering to pay Maurie $100,000 if the mean area of the combined Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets averaged over the year 2024 shall be less than 90 percent of the mean area of the two ice sheets averaged over the year 2014, provided that Maurie agrees to pay me $100,000 if the mean area of ice on the two land masses in 2024 shall be 90 percent or more of the mean area in 2014.
That’s the bet, and it’s a very fair and generous bet, Maurie. After all, you say all the ice on the two ice sheets will be gone within a decade or so. I’m offering you the chance to claim a fat $100,000 if more than one-tenth of your predicted ice loss happens by 10 years from now.
But wait. There’s more! Again subject to contract, I’m willing to offer four more climate bed-wetters the same deal. Perhaps the editor of the Melbourne Aaargh would like to take me on. Or some of the various climate-fascist billionaires. Steyer? Gates? Branson? Anyone?
To deter time-wasters: If you want to take up the bet, you must produce a solicitor’s letter to show you have the means to pay out on it when you lose; then, upon signing the legal contract for the bet, you must pay (and so must I) $10,000 up front to the Sovereign Military and Hospitaller Order of the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem, of Rhodes and of Malta in Rome for its charitable work in 140 countries worldwide. The Order keeps the 10% from each of us in any event.
Any takers? No, I thought not. Cowards, the lot of you. All talk and no action.
You all know as well as I do that you don’t believe even one-tenth of the lurid predictions you make or publish.
As just about every opinion poll now shows, the rest of the world doesn’t believe you, either. You can repeal freedom and democracy – and, at Paris, you will – but you cannot repeal the truth. Gaia won’t let you.
I think it is useful to read the declaration of purpose on the site CLIMATE CHANGE DISPATCH:
Climate Change Dispatch (CCD) is a site devoted to showing its visitors the facts behind the theory of global warming, which are not being told by the mainstream media and the global-warming zealots. As noted below,
we do not believe in consensus science. Beliefs belong in church, in prayers, but not in the scientific method.
Global Warmists (those who believe man is responsible for any fluctuation in the planet's overall surface temperature) have embraced climate change as a religion and not as a scientific endeavor for answers. We are here to change that. Our goal is not to change your mind, but to share with you all the possibilities that consistently contradict the theory of man-made (or anthropogenic) global warming (AGW).
We endeavor to explain the theory of AGW (in which the principal culprit is CO2 — a trace gas), through facts, articles, multimedia, and other sources not readily accessible through the mainstream media and other "expert" sources.
Another goal is to deconstruct the man-made global theory propagated by ex-VP-turned-green-activist Al Gore and the highly political IPCC. Ten years ago it was a multi-million dollar industry.
As of 2013, global warming has become a cottage industry now worth trillions of dollars (IPCC funding, grants, construction, government expansion, emission taxes, failed "green" industries, carbon trading schemes, and more). All of which are hinged on the delicate backbone of consensus science.
As the deceased Michael Crichton, M.D.,
[also author of Jurassic Park and other mega-bestsellers of science fiction] reminds us:
The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.
In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus… There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.
Also keep in mind that global warming is a non-partisan issue, or at least it should be, and so is this site. Global warming (climate change) is an important issue that affects us all, regardless of our political leanings, socio-economic status, or any other demographic we happen to belong.
At about the same time, one of my favorite political commentators in the USA, Thomas Sowell, who is that rarity, a black intellectual who is also conservative, tackles an issue mentioned above by Lord Monckton - a persecution of 'non-consensus' scientists who do not happen to agree with the party line laid down by the climate fascists...
THE NEW INQUISITION
US lawmakers are looking to intimidate
'non-consensus'scientists
April 13, 2015
How long will this country remain free? Probably only as long as the American people value their freedom enough to defend it. But how many people today can stop looking at their electronic devices long enough to even think about such things?
Meanwhile, attempts to shut down people whose free speech interferes with other people’s political agendas go on, with remarkably little notice, much less outrage. The Internal Revenue Service’s targeting the tax-exempt status of conservative groups is just one of these attempts to fight political battles by shutting up the opposition, rather than answering them.
Another insidious attempt to silence voices that dissent from current politically correct crusades is targeting scientists who do not agree with the “global warming” scenario.
Rep. Raul Grijalva has been writing universities, demanding financial records showing who is financing the research of dissenting scientists, and demanding their internal communications as well.
Mr. Grijalva says that financial disclosure needs to be part of the public’s “right to know” who is financing those who express different views.
He is not the only politician pushing the idea that scientists who do not march in lockstep with what is called the “consensus” on man-made global warming could be just hired guns for businesses resisting government regulations.
Sen. Edward Markey has been sending letters to fossil-fuel companies, asking them to hand over details of their financial ties to critics of the “consensus.”
The head of the National Academy of Sciences has chimed in, saying: “Scientists must disclose their sources of financial support to continue to enjoy societal trust and the respect of fellow scientists.”
This is too clever by half. It sounds as if this government bureaucrat is trying to help the dissenting scientists enjoy trust and respect – as if these scientists cannot decide for themselves whether they consider such a practice necessary or desirable.
The idea that you can tell whether a scientist – or anybody else – is “objective” by who is financing that scientist’s research is nonsense. There is money available on many sides of many issues, so no matter what the researcher concludes, there will usually be somebody to financially support those conclusions.
Some of us are old enough to remember when this kind of game was played by Southern segregationist politicians trying to hamstring civil rights organizations like the NAACP by pressuring them to reveal who was contributing money to them. Such revelations would of course then subject NAACP supporters to all sorts of retaliations and dry up contributions.
The public’s “right to know” has often been invoked in attempts to intimidate potential supporters of ideas that the inquisitors want to silence. But have you heard of any groundswell of public demand to know who is financing what research?
Science is not about “consensus” but facts. Not only were some physicists not initially convinced by Einstein’s theory of relativity, Einstein himself said that it should not be accepted until empirical evidence could test it. That test came during an eclipse, when light behaved as Einstein said it would, rather than the way it should have behaved if the existing “consensus” was correct.
That is how scientific questions should be settled, not by political intimidation. There is already plenty of political weight on the scales, on the side of those pushing the “global warming” scenario.
The fact that “global warming” models are not doing a very good job of predicting actual temperatures has led to a shift in rhetoric, with “climate change” now being substituted. This is an issue that needs to be contested by scientists using science, not political muscle.
Too many universities are too willing to be stampeded by pressure groups. Have we forgotten Duke University’s caving in to a lynch mob mentality during the “gang rape” hoax in 2006? Or the University of Virginia doing the same thing more recently?
Politicians determined to get their own way by whatever means necessary may have no grand design to destroy freedom, but what they are doing can amount to totalitarianism on the installment plan.
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 16/04/2015 00:07]