Thursday, December 3, 2020
Home Left Column Monckton fires back point-by-point rebuttal at warmist critics of new peer-reviewed study:...

Monckton fires back point-by-point rebuttal at warmist critics of new peer-reviewed study: ‘Shoddy, rent-a-quote ‘scientists’


Special to Climate Depot

Named and shamed: the shoddy, rent-a-quote “scientists”

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

IT IS time to be angry at the intellectual bankruptcy of climate “science” today. We should also be fearful of the UN’s gruesome plan, aided and abetted by ministers and bureaucrats worldwide, to establish a global climate “government” by an irrevocable treaty in Paris this December on the basis of what is now known to be dodgy and even fraudulent science.

No such treaty is needed. A climate science paper by Dr Willie Soon, Professor David Legates, Matt Briggs and me, just published in the Science Bulletin of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the Orient’s equivalent of Nature (at, click on “Current Issue” to find our paper) demonstrates that the billion-dollar climate models that have so profitably predicted Thermageddon are hopelessly wrong.

Instead of 3, 5 or even 10 Cº of global warming in response to our doubling the CO2 in the air, there will be 1 Cº and perhaps less even than that. What “climate crisis”?

On January 22, Victoria Woollaston reported our results at, the website of the London Daily Mail, under the heading Is climate change really that dangerous? Predictions are ‘very greatly exaggerated’, claims study.

What happened next demonstrates the sorry state to which climastrology has sunk.

Within hours a blog funded by the wealthy but mysterious “European Climate Foundation” had gathered instant rent-a-quotes from half a dozen soi-disant climate “scientists” savagely but anti-scientifically attacking our paper.

The propaganda piece was misleadingly, laughably called “Factcheck”. Each of the “scientists” who were quoted made untrue assertions. Several of these creatures can be proven not to have read our paper before shooting their unscientific mouths off.

The “Factcheck” gets its facts wrong from the get-go. It says our paper had claimed that the major errors made by the huge computer models, each of which gobbles as much electricity as a small town, occur because the models are complex.

No. We said the models were wrong because they were using a rogue equation borrowed from electronic circuitry and bolted on to the climate, where it does not fit. That equation, and that alone, leads the modelers erroneously to triple the small and harmless 1 Cº global warming we should expect from a doubling of CO2 in the air.

From there, the propaganda piece went scientifically downhill. I now name and shame the shoddy, rentaquote “scientists”, and I demand their dismissal.

Professor Richard Allan, a weatherman at Reading University, said observations confirmed that water vapour strongly amplifies the small direct warming from CO2.

The truth: some do, some don’t. For instance, the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project shows the water vapour content of the atmosphere as stable except in the climate-crucial mid-troposphere, where it has actually been declining for 30 years. That is the very opposite of what Professor Allan claims. The world has warmed by 0.5 Cº over the period, but the ISCCP record, at any rate, shows no more water vapour than before. The Professor should not have cherry-picked his facts.


Professor Reto Knutti of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology said we were wrong to study temperature change over the past 810,000 years because the climate was different when whole continents were covered by snow and ice.

The truth: four times in the past 810,000 years there were interglacial warm periods just like today (three of them were actually warmer). We had pointed out, correctly, that the range of average global temperatures in all that time, from iceball to hothouse and back, was little more than 3 Cº either side of the long-run average – about the same as the range of temperatures you set on your home heating thermostat. That is why we said climate feedbacks had to be very small.


Professor Knutti went on to say we had ignored the warming of the oceans.

The truth: that is how we know he had not even read our paper before rushing to attack it. Far from ignoring the oceans, we had added a lengthy appendix on ocean “warming”. We said the Chinese Academy of Sciences had roundly debunked the “ocean notion” that heat hiding in the oceans is the reason why satellites defy the UN’s predictions and show no global warming for up to 18 years 3 months.


The ocean notion had in fact been put forward by a single small group of climate “scientists” writing each of four papers under different lead authors’ names. In that way, when – as is usual – other scientists mention the papers citing only the lead author’s name, it appears that four different groups are advancing the ocean notion when in fact there is just one.

In the climate journals, we also found and reported at least two dozen other mutually incompatible excuses for the failure of the world to warm at even half the central, business-as-usual rate the UN’s climate panel had predicted in its first multi-thousand-page report in 1990.

The likeliest of those reasons why the models have exaggerated warming is that the profiteers of doom had predicted far too much global warming in the first place.

Professor Myles Allen, an earth scientist at Oxford, said the oceans had warmed “substantially” since 1970, though we had said they had not.

The truth: one of the most extreme estimates of ocean warming is that of the US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, which measures the warming but then artfully converts it into Zettajoules of ocean heat content. Then it sounds like a lot.

The trend on one of the most extreme indicators of global ocean warming, the NOAA dataset, shows 260 Zettajoules of growth in ocean heat content since 1970.  Converting it back to temperature, in recent decades the ocean has been warming at a rate equivalent to just 0.2 Cº per century.


There are 650 million km3 of ocean. Each cubic meter weighs 1.033 tonnes. There are 4,186,800 Joules per tonne per Kelvin. Then:

260 ZJ increase in ohc                           260,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 J

To raise                                                   650,000,000,000,000,000 m3

x 1.033 te m–3                                          671,450,000,000,000,000 te

x 4,186,800 J te–1 K–1             2,811,226,860,000,000,000,000,000 J K–1

These figures represent an ocean warming of just 0.0925 K in 45 years. That is equivalent to only one-fiftieth of a Celsius degree per decade, or a fifth of a degree per century. Besides, each of the 3500 ARGO bathythermograph buoys measuring ocean temperatures has to cover almost 200,000 cubic kilometres of seawater. How reliable are those ocean temperature measurements really likely to be?

Professor Allen went on to say we should not have compared long-term predictions by the UN with medium-term warming since 1990.

The truth: We compared the UN’s business-as-usual medium-term predictions from 1990-2025, adjusted to 2014, with real-world, measured medium-term warming over the past 25 years. The UN had predicted twice the warming that has occurred. We compared apples with apples. The graph would certainly not have passed peer review otherwise. It showed that the world has warmed in the quarter-century since 1990 at half the rate then predicted by the UN with “substantial confidence”.

namemonckton10 (2)

Professor Allen also said we had used satellites, which measured the air above the ground and not surface measurements: the two were “simply not related”.

The truth: at a climate conference I organized at Cambridge in 2011, Professor Jones of UEA showed a graph of warming since the UN’s first report in 1990. His own surface temperature record showed much the same trend as the satellite data over the period. I have updated it. The average of the two satellite datasets shows 0.34 Cº warming since 1990. Professor Jones’ surface dataset shows – wait for it – 0.36 Cº. The trivial difference: one-fiftieth of a Celsius degree in those 25 years.




Professor Piers Forster, a climastrologist at Leeds University, said we had “cherry-picked numbers”.

The truth: That is how we knew he had not read our paper before attacking it. He provided not a single item of evidence, scientific or other, that we had cherry-picked any number. Our paper had in fact discussed each value we used.

Most of the numbers had come from official sources, as he would have known if he had taken the scientific precaution of actually reading what we had written.

Professor Forster went on to challenge our assertion that modellers’ current central prediction of global warming was far too big because they had not taken account of a new, lower feedback estimate from the UN’s climate panel. He said the panel had “not identified or quantified significant changes in feedback estimates”.

The truth: That is how we know the Profesdsor had not even read either our paper or the UN climate panel’s latest report, for which I was an expert reviewer, before attacking us. For we showed a diagram from the UN’s report that cut the previous feedback estimate from 2 to 1.5 Watts per square meter per Cº, requiring the UN’s warming estimate to be cut from 3.2 to 2.2 Cº.


However, the UN had instead refused to make any central estimate of how much warming a CO2 doubling would cause – even though that is the main purpose of its reports. Plainly it did not want to admit that all its previous central estimates of global warming had been very substantial exaggerations.

Dr Jan Perlwitz, a NASA modeller, said our model was not new.

The truth: our model, unlike any other simple model, included several “array variables” allowing very sophisticated estimates to be made very simply. For instance, the different temperature feedbacks – influences that happen because there has been a direct warming and either amplify or attenuate it – operate over different timescales, so that the rate of warming may well change from decade to decade or century to century. Our model used the output of a simple model by Dr Gerard Roe, a pupil of the formidable Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT, and incorporated it into a table of data that could be fed into the model.


Also, in a single densely-argued paper, we had for the first time enabled any physics undergrad with a pocket calculator to make respectable estimates of future manmade global warming. Never before had anyone let the daylight in on the magic. Here is the central equation of our model:

namemonckton14 (2)

Dr Perlwitz also said we had not cited previous authorities for one of the equations in our model.

The truth: that is how we know Dr Perlwitz had not even read our paper before attacking it. He has since had to row back on his allegation, for he had not realized we had indeed attributed the relevant equation to a systems engineer in the 1940s, and we had also acknowledged the UN, which had mentioned it in one of its reports.

Dr Perlwitz then contradicted himself, saying that the inapplicable equation was not used in the climate models anyway. Here is that equation, which belongs in electronic circuits but is not suitable if it is assumed, as the UN assumes, that temperature feedbacks are strongly net-positive:

moncktonnamed20 (2)

The truth: two papers by James Hansen, one of which was actually cited by Dr Perlwitz in his comments for the propaganda piece, specifically refer to the use of the equation, or of the system gain it determines, in NASA’s climate models. But the equation is not suitable to the climate because it does not correctly represent the fact that temperature change, unlike changing voltage in a circuit, restores equilibrium after a radiative imbalance. Also, it says that if feedbacks become great enough they will drive temperature down, but that cannot happen in the real climate.


If this equation applies to the climate, it does so only where temperature feedback is small. Then global warming cannot exceed 1.3 Cº per CO2 doubling, and it might well be as little as 0.4 Cº.

Dr Perlwitz then makes a similar point to Dr Knutti’s about our interpretation of the mere 7 Cº range of global temperatures from ice ages to hothouse Earths and back over the past 810,000 years. He says that the influence of orbital variations on the amount of radiation reaching the Earth was less than 0.5 Watts per square meter.

The truth: the UN’s climate panel says the manmade increase in radiation since the Industrial Revolution is 2.3 Watts per square meter – almost five times the forcing that Dr Perlwitz says was enough to cause 7 Cº warming during each of the past four interglacial warm periods. Yet the warming since 1750 has been only 0.9 Cº. If Dr Knutti is right, the warming since 1750 should have been 32 Cº, or 36 times what has actually been observed.

For one thing, Dr Perlwitz has failed to take into account the changes in CO2 concentration between ice ages and interglacial warm periods, which add a further 2.4 Watts per square meter of radiation to the system. And it is still not known for certain what caused the warm periods in the first place. Plainly there was more than 0.5 Watts per square meter of forcing at work.

Dr Perlwitz goes on to say we should not have set an upper limit of 0.1 on the closed-loop gain in the climatic feedback circuit. He thinks this value, which he quotes us as saying was “the maximum value allowed by process engineers designing electronic circuits”, is too low. He says: “There is no logic here, whatsoever, unless there is some metaphysical belief behind this of the kind that there was a chief process engineer of everything who wouldn’t allow positive feedbacks in the climate system either.”

The truth: Dr Perlwitz is guilty of one of the oldest and shoddiest tricks in the book: incomplete quotation. What our paper had said was this:

“… a regime of temperature stability is represented by g ≤ +0.1, the maximum value allowed by process engineers designing electronic circuits intended not to oscillate under any operating conditions.

Unaccountably, Dr Perlwitz somehow failed to include in his quotation the words in bold type. He also omitted to mention our explanation that followed:

“Of course, other assumptions might be made: however, in a near-perfectly thermostatic system net-negative feedback is plausible, indicating that the climate – far from amplifying any temperature changes caused by a direct forcing – dampens them instead. Indeed, this damping should be expected, since temperature change is not merely a bare output, as voltage change is in an electronic circuit: temperature change is also the instrument of self-equilibration in the system, since radiative balance following a forcing is restored by the prevalence of a higher temperature.”

Indeed, there is a growing body of papers in the peer-reviewed literature (see, for instance, Lindzen & Choi, 2009, 2011; Spencer & Braswell, 2010, 2011), whose authors, by a variety of methods, find temperature feedbacks net-negative, so that global warming cannot be much more than 1 Cº per CO2 doubling. Indeed, these two papers were among a dozen such papers referenced in our paper. From these considerations it may be deduced that Dr Perlwitz’s allegation that we had posited “intelligent design” as our reason for finding temperature feedbacks net-negative is false and without foundation.

Dr Perlwitz goes on to say we had made “claims” that complex models had “very much overstated global warming”, and that we had tried to substantiate this assertion with “merely a few graphics that are shown as supposed evidence”.

The truth: Our first graph compared the UN’s business-as-usual range of global-temperature predictions from its 1990 First Assessment Report and the observed temperature record since that date. The UN had predicted 0.7 to 1.5 Cº of global warming from 1990-2025: best estimate 1 Cº. However, the straight-line real-world warming trend is currently half the UN’s central prediction, and is visibly well below even the lower end of the UN’s range. The models had clearly “very much overstated global warming”. The graph is precisely plotted. The trend-line was calculated with a standard statistical formula, the least-squares linear-regression trend.

namemonckton10 (2)

Even the IPCC realizes its models have been running hot, as our second graph shows. Between the first and fifth Assessment Reports, it has all but halved its predictions.


Dr Perlwitz said the models that made the predictions in the UN’s 1990 report were not as sophisticated as those of today, and that we should have allowed for that.

The truth: The UN’s panel should have allowed for that. Instead, its 1990 report said:

“… we have substantial confidence that models can predict at least the broad-scale features of climate change.”

It was on the basis of that “substantial confidence” that we were told the science was “settled”. Now that our devastating graphs have shown the UN’s models had failed and the science was self-evidently not settled, Dr Perlwitz says we cannot blame the UN because its models were too simple. The fact is that its climate panel should not have expressed “substantial” or any “confidence” in predictions made by models that it ought to have known were inadequate.

Dr Perlwitz said that in our graph comparing the UN’s predictions with observed reality we had “only selected the scenario with the strongest forcing (Scenario A)”. Scenario B, he said had come closer to what had happened in the real world.

The truth: We selected Scenario A because, though Dr Perlwitz somehow failed to make this clear, the UN’s climate panel had described scenario A, not scenario B, as its “business-as-usual” prediction.

Dr Perlwitz said that in another comparison of several models’ predictions with real-world warming we had used only Scenario A from James Hansen’s testimony to the US Congress in 1988.


The truth: Though Dr Perlwitz somehow failed to say so, Dr Hansen, in his testimony to the U.S. Senate in 1988, had said that Scenario A was his business-as-usual case.

Dr Perlwitz criticized us for using 63 years of terrestrial temperature measurements as a basis for projecting observed trends into the future.

The truth: Global temperature follows an approximately 60-year natural cycle caused by what are known as the “ocean oscillations”, with approximately 30 years of warming followed by 30 years of cooling. Our 63-year period was thus approximately a full natural cycle. Why does this matter? The U.N.’s projections not only in 1990 but in subsequent Assessment Reports were based on the warming period of the ocean-oscillation cycle from 1976 to the turn of the millennium. That is why they were exaggerated and overshot so disastrously. Our use of the full cycle length was designed to avoid this problem and remove a well-known, major, naturally-occurring signal that might mask or distort the (probably small) contribution from Man.


Dr Perlwitz said we had compared satellite data for the region of the air just above the ground with data measured by thermometers at the surface. The two, he said, were too different,

The truth: Professor Allen had already trotted out this particular talking-point. In fact, the average of the two satellite datasets shows 0.34 Cº warming since 1990, while Professor Jones’ surface dataset shows 0.36 Cº, a difference of just one-fiftieth of a Celsius degree in 25 years between the surface and the air  just above it.

Dr Perlwitz said we had only used one of the two satellite datasets.

The truth: our graph comparing the warming predicted by the UN’s climate panel in 1990 with the real-world warming measured by satellites is plainly and clearly labelled to show that we used the mean of the temperature measurements from the two satellite datasets – Remote Sensing Systems, Inc. (RSS), and the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH).

Dr Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, has now weighed in to say that our paper is “complete trash”. Yet Dr Perlwitz said it was “not new”.

The truth: One might infer from these two responses, taken together, that the pre-existing models are nonsense. But the truth is that Dr Schmidt is merely guilty of yah-boo – not, perhaps, an adult scientific response from one in his exalted position. Certainly Dr Schmidt has not provided any reasoning.

Dr Schmidt said we had “arbitrarily restricted” the parameters in our model and had then declared all other models wrong.

The truth: We had provided reasons for our choice of every parameter value we used. Nearly all of our parameter values were from standard climate modelling – including Dr Schmidt’s own model. And we had not declared all other models wrong, except to the extent that their predictions to date have proven exaggerated. We had said of the central equation in our model: “It is not, of course, intended to replace the far more complex general-circulation models: rather, it is intended to illuminate them.

Conclusion: the climate fraud will not cease till someone is prosecuted

In the corporate world, economies with the truth on the systematic and ruthless scale evident in the untruthful comments of the half-dozen “scientists” we have named and shamed here would be severely dealt with.

The crafty misrepresentations, the outright falsehoods, the artful misquotations and deliberately incomplete quotations, the unproven assertions, the readiness to criticize a paper that several of these creatures can be proven not to have read, the claims to knowledge they do not possess: these and multiple other instances of gross misconduct would not be tolerated outside the ivy-covered walls of academe.

These anti-scientists, these perpetrators who have gotten the facts so relentlessly and often deliberately wrong, must expect to raise a suspicion in some minds that they had misbehaved either for some political objective or for the sake of maintaining a profitable income-stream from the governments they have panicked, or both.

The cost of the climate fraud to taxpayers runs to the tens of billions a year. It is the biggest fraud in history. So far, the fraudsters have proven untouchable. The public authorities, even when confronted with the plainest of evidence, have carefully looked the other way.

It is not for us to say whether the “scientists” whose untruths we have exposed here were fools or knaves or both. We report: you decide. But allowing the UN to establish an unelected, unaccountable, all-powerful global climate tyranny at Paris this December on the basis of “science” as shoddy and unprincipled as this would be a costly and – as our peer-reviewed paper at has definitively established – entirely unnecessary mistake.




  1. Big Ed isn’t going to discipline, much less support prosecution of their golden gooses with shoddy science but silver tongues.
    Any justice will have to come from the individual until collectively enough individuals demand enough is enough. Not sure if that will ever happen with an establishment media more interested in playing a key role in the pop-culture rather than objectively reporting on same.
    Government? Currently, no “denialists” need apply. If admitted fraudster Peter Gleick ever contributed anything positive to the planet, he demonstrated that alarmists are legally untouchable. The current DOJ is more interested in going after Gibson guitars than bringing climate frauds to justice.
    Common sense? Can’t teach that, if such a thing even exists on a large scale any longer. Gruber slapped us in the face with that slice of reality.
    No, there will be no justice. Eventually, the alarmists will simply fade into obscurity as the next easy-money scam for the pop-culture elites comes along humming the same melody with different lyrics.

  2. Drag them kicking and screaming from their Ivory Towers and prosecute them under the RICO statutes concerning organized criminal activity. The climate fraudsters are just like any criminal organization, isolate and prosecute the weak ones, then the threads of corruption will unravel quickly. We’re a new President away from demolishing the cult.

    • “The climate fraudsters are just like any criminal organization.”

      I would sadly disagree. The CAGW fraudsters are different from most criminal organizations in that they are working for the very government which is tasked with stopping them. The only reason why CAGW has been promoted with so many billions and billions of dollars in funding is because CAGW supports the idea that the sociopaths who run our government must be given more power and more ability to control and tax all energy used on the planet.

      You cannot prosecute CAGW fraud, because the system which punishes fraud is the exact same system which is paying to maintain the fraud.

      • Good point. It will take political change in conjunction with prosecutions of previous and current EPA employees for their sue-and-settle schemes. FOIA information has outlined the nefarious relationships between Green fraudsters organizations, government employees, and the media, now we just need the political will. Difficult, yeah — impossible, no.

        • Hey Realheadline! Pardon me for going off on a bit of historical and theoretical trivia here… During the early days of the American Republic, a group of citizens (usually 18 members or so) could self organize into a citizens Grand Jury. They did not need permission from a Judge or a District Attorney or anyone else — they were self-authorized. The citizen Grand Juries could, if they decided the evidence was compelling, bring a “presentment” against any politicians, representatives or public employee. A presentment is basically an indictment against a public official for some crime or dereliction of duty. The local courts were then legally bound to respond to presentments and to bring charges against the officials charged.

          I am not sure when citizen Grand Juries and presentments fell out of common usage… but it sure seems like a good idea!

          • America has been bought out by legislators who ignore the will of the people, play the race card on every issue, &?allowed the worst president in American history to expand his powers. I dont know how Australia did it but our “leaders” are all in bed together &ive lost all hope for America. It didnt start w/obama but he has upped the game exponentially congress, yhe courts, & the media have acted against Americas interests in unison. Ive voted, contacted legislators, signed petitions, written letters & done everything legally available to me & its only gotten worse.

          • Yes, but us Australians are now fighting for the literal life of our current government against one of the most vicious leftist attacks you could imagine, from every corner of the harlot media sphere and those sharlatan ‘academics’ that have infested our universities. They’re like syphilis, once you’ve got it, it just slowly eats away at your system and there never seems to be an end to how nasty it can get. Actually, I would prefer syphilis to the authoritarian scum that are trying to take out our current government.

            Come PARIS 2015, if every other country signs onto this globalist madness, then our government will then have to defend its reticence on scientific and economic suicide to the GEN-Y’s who have all lost their brains for a collectivist cult. Imagine being the only lemming that didn’t take the plunge? This is not how GEN-Y think. If jumping is popular, then jumping wins. The Twittersphere will convince them that jumping is trendy, and the taunts on Facebook will drive their collectivist sensibilities crazy.

            God help us all … please.

            • Eyes.., I’m not sure that God is the place to look for help since in His zeal to protect the most slow witted any suffering from recognition of the imbecility of their own ludicrous assertions they are left with little guidance.
              We look to you Aussies with admiration and pray you will hang in there through the inevitable onslaught from the loony left.
              Arationofreason re. global warming fanatics.

              • Well, if we do survive the zombie apocalypse of the GEN-Y infected green-rage virus, then it will definitely be a miracle close to the parting of the red sea (and I mean that), so I will definitely be giving glory to divine powers alone.

                It is so sad to see what is happening to the USA right now. Just as other ethnicities and cultures lament the state of their fellow travelers on Earth, so I lament the Anglosphere’s UNravelling of events that started in 1215 in a small field at Runnymede. 800 years later, it is being buried in a shallow grave at the UN Headquarters, and the greenazis are urinating on the grave in true Bolshevik fashion.

  3. Ah yeah, baby…

    The beat goes on, beat goes on

    Drums keep pounding a rhythm to the brain

    La de da de de, la de da de da

    Oh yeah baby…. it just goes on and on.

    Sonny & Cher, couldn’t have said it better. Ah life was simpler back then, and cooler too. We only had climate cooling to contend with!

    I have written many times here before about this climate fraud. I am most definitely one of the first to call it what it is …. FRAUD. I am glad to see now that many others are starting to call it that too. But there is a problem, a serious problem….

    We all know that this is fraud, when scientists use their tenured position, to lie and cheat, to write falsehoods and subvert the foundations of science to gain person financial gain through government funding programs. And climate warming is just that fraud, no different to someone who breaks into a bank steals money. If you are a climate warmer and have profited from government funding you are a fraudster and belong in prison FULL STOP

    But who is going to put these people in prison? La de da de de, la de da de da….

    The government? Nope. They need these scoundrels of science so they can get away with their own frauds, raising taxes upon a public, all because they too have failed and laid waste in their responsibilities.

    The justice system? The beat goes, the beat goes….

    If the justice system got involved, they would have to put all those fine professors and PhDs in prison. What is that going to do for the bastion academic wisdom and knowledge, and all those courts that rely on them, and where will it end! Climatology, Paleoclimatology, NASA, Harvard, Yale, Oxford, Cambridge… there are a lot of PhDs to put in prison. And then, what about the other bastions of Knowledge, how about all the lies that are written in history textbooks and archaeology, and then biggies…Biology, and Physics! Oh, you think global warming is a problem, nothing like the lies we are telling young minds in Cosmology and Evolution, and so … drums keep pounding a rhythm to the brain, La de da de de, la de da de da.

    As you can see if you are going to want justice or just change, the problem is not about calling these people fraudsters and asking for their jobs. Ain’t going to happen, you got tenure that protects these criminals (tenure, a 19th century concept that has out lived its purposes), you have the government protecting them and themselves, and you have the justice system who protects the elites of society and puts largely only the lower classes in prison.

    AGW is only a consequence of a larger problem we have in our societies that we are beginning to fall to the hands of, corruption. All systems after a time fall to the entropy of sin, lies, theft and corruption. We have a system where the elites of society can do whatever they want, and hide behind the protection of immunity to be given impunity to do their iniquity.

    So for as long as the rest of you people harp on the futile, the evil doers with immunity, will continue on with their iniquitous behaviour. If you want justice, if you want change, if you want science to be better, science to use the scientific method, there are several things to be done….

    – Governments must not be allowed to introduce policy or taxes without a vote by the people, in short, society and economic direction must come from the Will Of The People not the elites, and there and only there we can battle it out with the truth and facts, not behind closed doors where the evil doers can hide,
    – Nobody, not academics or politicians should be allowed to have shield laws, like tenure, or immunity from prosecution
    – The justice system must not be based on a judge’s ruling, for they are by their very class, conflicted with interest, they must only preside over courts not rule in them, we must have juries of our peers who can also sentence,
    – If its not testable, or verifiable and if scientific hypotheses can not be falsifiable, then YOU DON’T FUND IT WITH TAX PAYERS MONEY

    So go ahead pontificate, defend, declare, illustrate and counter example all you like, nothing will change, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WILL CHANGE, if you do not change the entire system as it is now. The negative forces of entropy will continue as it has done for the last 6 thousand years of civilization, and our system will collapse, for entropy always wins in the end if you do not put energy back into the system and change it for the better.

    I started calling these people FRAUDSTERS, and finally now some of you are call them that too….finally. Well it ain’t enough, if you really want something better, its time for change, positive, reinforcing change, otherwise, as Greece is now going to discover soon, chaos, anarchy, poverty and out right misery will continue…Entropy has a sense of humour doesn’t it, it comes in all forms and guises, in Greece its, Syriza. I wonder what will/is it be called in your neck of the woods?

    The beat goes on, the beat goes….

    La de da de de, la de da de da

    • “We all know that this is fraud, when scientists use their tenured position, to lie and cheat, to write falsehoods and subvert the foundations of science to gain person financial gain through government funding programs.”

      I’m going to rattle a cage but you say these things and a few others bleat them too but so far there has been no evidence I can see that in any way proves this. On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the paper by His Lordship, as defended by his flunky while at stool, is wrong. Keep an eye on Retraction Watch for your next conspiracy rant subject.

  4. The point should be made that the most daming evidence of the therory comes from the fact that the satellite measurements should not be the same as the surface measurements according to green house gas therory. They should be higher! But, if anything, they are currently lower!

  5. “>>> Dr Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, has now weighed in to say that our paper is “complete trash”. <<<"

    … and by saying so, without any substantiation, just out of spite, really, has offended the Chinese Academy of Sciences and its reviewers. Were he just a nobody, as he should be, there'd be no harm done. But as a director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, he should hold his tongue. As it is, the Chinese Academy of Sciences happens to advise the Chinese leadership on these matters, who will thus have a good reason to think even less of the American position in climate negotiations. Well done, Dr Schmidt. I couldn't have wished for more myself.

  6. Announcement 01/27/2015: The 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley has posted a response at CFACT’s “Climate Depot” to opinions stated by a number of “soi-disant climate ‘scientists'” on the Monckton et al. paper. His Lordship continuous to be “exemplary with his courteous replies to the scientific points that have been addressed to him” (James Rowlatt, Clerk of Mr. Monckton), as he already has demonstrated at Thought Fragments, one of the blogs of these “creatures” who have been “savagely, but anti-scientifically attacking”. Consequently, Mr. Monckton demands the “dismissal” of the “named and shamed” culprits for their illicit statements. Further down he makes clear that “the climate fraud will not cease till someone is prosecuted”. His Lordship’s divine revelations were “definitively established” as irrefutable truth, by being published as a “peer-reviewed paper” in Science Bulletin in the People’s Republic of China, one of the remaining places in the world where the true meaning of freedom of speech and freedom of science as the freedom of the leaders and lords to speak without being contradicted and criticized is still being honored, and science-serfs are not allowed to hide within “the ivy-covered walls of acadame”. Science Bulletin is extremely prestigious with an impact factor of 1.365, which makes it “the Orient’s equivalent of Nature” whose impact factor is only 30 times higher. “Perpetrators” of the “biggest fraud in history” who have “misbehaved” by trashing his Lordship’s revelations, or, generally, by publishing results from so-called scientific research that undermine his Lordship’s just struggle against the dark forces behind the “UN’s gruesome plan” to “establish an unelected, unaccountable, all-powerful global climate tyranny”, must be “severely dealt with”. Everyone hail the Viscount!

    • “a “peer-reviewed paper” in Science Bulletin in the People’s
      Republic of China, one of the remaining places in the world where the
      true meaning of freedom of speech and freedom of science as the freedom
      of the leaders and lords to speak without being contradicted and
      criticized is still being honored, and science-serfs are not allowed to
      hide within “the ivy-covered walls of acadame”.
      And this from a ‘Communist’ run government. How *far* we in the west have sunk.

  7. Monckton has been told repeatedly that the feedback equation he refers to is not used in GCMs. The feedback is an emergent property of the physics encoded in the GCMs. This is not a difficult concept to grasp. I have read the Hansen paper he has referred to to back up his claim and nowhere does it say that this equation is used in a model.

  8. Keep it up Chris. They try and make it all seem very complicated but the only relevant fact is their models don’t work. It doesn’t matter how much bluster and finger wagging they do the models and reality differ by rather a lot because the models don’t work.

    We don’t have to fight about what’s wrong with the theory. It’s obviously wrong because the models don’t work. It is time for them to go away and start again because the models encompass all they think they know about the climate and the models don’t work.

    Seriously it isn’t complicated, the models don’t work. The rest is just bullshit until the models do work.

  9. The “heat is in the ocean” is such a bogus claim or theory! The “ocean conveyor belt” relies on colder, denser water, sinking in polar regions, displacing deeper water in the process, ultimately upwelling in areas farther away from the polar regions. You can’t sink warmer water; the notion defies physics and elementary oceanographic principles!

  10. Why doesn’t that risible clown, fraudster and serial liar Chris Monckton put his money where his big mouth is and launch a private prosecution? I’m sure his sponsors at Koch Industries and Exxon would be more than happy to put their hands in their pockets (again) to fund such a case. Let’s see Monckton go before judge and jury, under oath, and spout his hilariously misinformed heap of horse manure.

    Come on Monckey brains. Bring it on!

- Advertisment -

Related Articles

Antarctica might go green say scientists (only 2km of ice and 50C of warming to go) More great journalism from The Guardian: Climate change is turning Antarctica green, say researchers Or maybe it isn’t. Check out the brave actual prediction:...

MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen’s talks in Prague

By Dr. Lubos Motl Richard Lindzen's talk in Prague Richard Lindzen, prof emeritus at MIT, is the most famous atmospheric physicist among the climate skeptics. I...

Study: Earth is becoming GREENER, not BROWNER due to climate change

Guest essay by Dr. Patrick J. Michaels It’s hard to say how many punny posts we came up with using those words when Carol...