Lord Monckton, You're My Heroe!

Conclusion of Lord Monckton’s address to the Cambridge Union Society on 8 October 2007:

AL GORE says, “I believe this is a moral issue.” So it is. To “announce disasters” or “scary scenarios” or “over-represent factual presentations” in place of adherence to the scientific truth – that is a moral issue.

To let politicians insert data into official scientific documents; to alter those documents so as to contradict scientific findings; to manipulate decimal points so as to engender false headlines by exaggerating tenfold – those are moral issues.

To exaggerate by 2000% not only the atmospheric lifetime of a trace gas but also the effect of that gas on temperature; to reduce the magnitude of its predicted influence on temperature without reducing the predicted temperature itself – those are moral issues.

To claim scientific unanimity where none exists; to assert that catastrophe is likely when most scientists do not; to exalt theoretical computer models over real-world observations; to misstate the conclusions of scientific papers or the meaning of observed data; to overstate the likely future course of climatic phenomena by several orders of magnitude – those are moral issues.

To reverse the sequence of events in the early climate; to repeat that reversal in a propaganda book intended to infect the minds of children; to persist in false denial that past temperatures exceeded today’s; to state that climate events that have not occurred have occurred; to ascribe these non-events as well as specific extreme-weather events unjustifiably to humankind – those are moral issues.

To propose solutions to the non-problem of climate change that would cost many times more than the problem itself, if there were one; to advocate measures to mitigate fancifully-imagined future climatic changes when adaptation would cost far less and achieve far more; to ignore the real problems of resource depletion, energy security, bad Third World government and fatal diseases that kill millions – those are moral issues.

To advance policies congenial to the narrow, short-term political or financial vested interest of some mere corporation or faction at the expense of the wider, long-term general interest of us all – those are moral issues.

Above all, to inflict upon the nations of the world a policy of ever-grimmer energy starvation calculated not merely to inconvenience the prosperous but to condemn the very poorest to remain imprisoned in poverty forever, and to die in their tens of millions for want of the light and heat and power which we have long been fortunate enough to take for granted – that is a moral issue.

Sir, this House is the House of youth. Here high ideals are shaped and sharpened. Here of all places, it is surely understood that in each of us, however far apart in mere distance or origin or wealth or achievement, there is the image and likeness of our Creator; that by this intimate communion with our Maker each of us, however poor, is of unique and precious value; that therefore there is only one race, the human race; that the suffering children of Africa, of Asia and of south America, imploring us with their hopeless, hopeful eyes, are our people. They cannot look to their own. They look to us. We must get the science right or we shall get the policy wrong. We have failed them and failed them before.

We must not fail them again!

Al Gore, the Ultimate Flat-Earther

In Al Gore's recent appearance on 60 Minutes (also known as The Wasted Hour) he equated global warmng skeptics as akin to flat-earth advocates.

I submit that ultimately Scary Al is the quintessential flat-earther.

The flat-earther's were the holders of the "scientific consensus" of their day. It was those who challenged that common wisdom that were considered the lunatics.

The scientific community and mainstream media have buried their heads in the sand of the current dogma and refuse to even consider alternative evidence offered up by those who don't agree with their views.

They peer-review each other's articles and nod approvingly of anything that supports their preconceived notions, then categorically deny anything that questions their dogma. When they can't argue the science they resort to ad hominem attacks on their critics.

When you can't argue the facts, start hurling insults.

Seems to me the AGW crowd are the true, modern-day flat-earthers.

Not-So-Catastrophic Global Warming 2008

An interesting interview took place recently that so far has managed to escape the mainstream media. It appeared in The Australian and covered the interview of Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs.

In the interview she discussed recent data analyzed from a relatively new (2002) weather satellite launched by NASA called Aqua. What makes this satellite unique is that in addition to collecting temperature data, for the first time we are now collecting data on cloud formation and water vapour.

By way of background, Gore, Inc. and the climatescareologists have predicated all their catastrophic climate meltdown scenarios on positive feedback scenarios. In a nutshell, that means global warming factors feed on themselves, thereby magnifying their effects; a kind of perpetual motion machine that accelerates.

What that means is this: Factors that all the historical data says might cause a .5 degree warming, they magnify into a 3, 5 or 8 degree rise.

This despite the fact that nothing in the existing data has ever demonstrated such a massively compounding effect. The reality is, most of our natural world operates primarily on negative feedback.

The other tidbit of background information you need is that all these scary scenarios are based on computer models that not only include these positive feedback scenarios, but they completely ignore the effects of water vapor and cloud cover in their models! The stated reason is these elements of our climate are too poorly understood, and too complex to accurately model.

[An ADHD Moment: Let me see if I understand this...the atmospheric component that comprises up to 95% of all greenhouse gases is completely ignored by the models, yet they can confidently blame CO2, which comprises approximately .038% of the atmosphere, for all global warming?]

Well, now we have something that's actually tackling this complex aspect of our atmosphere and, guess what? Now only does water vapor not act as a multiplier on global warming, it actually has a negative feedback role suppressing the rising heat.

Looking at the data since 2002, when the satellite was launched, indicated we've been on a temperature plateau for the past six years. Correlating that to data back to 1998, the recent high-water mark for global temperatures, we've actually decreased in temperature.

For anyone living in the northern hemisphere this past winter, we know there's been a significant decline in average temperatures! Just ask the Chinese or the boys in Baghdad. Here in Minnesota we matched low-temp records that dated back to the late 1800s.

Trust me, we were praying for some positive feedback on global warming!

So, once again this huge terrestrial ball upon which we live is proving to have built-in mechanisms and features we are only beginning to understand. Perhaps that's why it has survived as long as it has.

Even mankind, with all our wonders, are not even close to causing its demise.

VP Condoleezza

Rumor has it the Condoleezza Rice has made it known that she'd be open to a Vice President slot on the McCain presidential ticket.

This could be a real win-win.

Not only is she a great woman and, I believe, a decent conservative, but she would help the Republican's out-democrat the Democrats. Being black and a woman, she's the best of Barack and Hillary combined, without any of their negatives!

And, she actually HAS some real-world, senior administration as well as as international relations experience.

Finally, in a plus for conservatives, at McCain's age there's a reasonable chance she could become president.

Go, Condi!