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 www.scibull.com, 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 www.mailonline.com, 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 …
Report: Greenpeace Activist Calls for Climate Change ‘Deniers’ to be Beheaded
‘Seven ways climate change could kill you (really)’
http://thefern.org/2015/01/seven-ways-climate-change-kill-really/…