Climate change sceptic hits back at critics

Global warming sceptic Lord Christopher Monckton, who will speak in Dunedin next Tuesday, responds to claims made about him.

The article ''Kiwi scientists rally against climate change sceptic'' (New Zealand Herald online edition 3.4.13) twice describes me as a climate change ''denier'', a phrase also used in a letter to the Otago Daily Times editor.

That hate speech is inaccurate. I do not deny we can change the climate: I question how much we do.

The statement from the Herald article that ''New Zealand's top climate change scientists have rallied together to slam'' me is inaccurate. The reporter incited several scientists to comment. He did not let me reply.

The statement that I say ''New Zealanders ... shouldn't be worried about rising temperatures or sea levels'' inaccurately implies they are rising worryingly. Yet the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) climate-science head says warming has paused for 17 years. Sea level has risen for eight years at just 3.2 cm/century.

The statement that I oppose emissions trading because it is ''too expensive'' is inaccurate. I oppose it because it is cost-ineffective. The statements also used in a letter from one of your correspondents, to the effect that I have ''no training'' and ''no scientific training'' and have ''studiously avoided learning anything about science'' are inaccurate. I studied mathematics during my Cambridge degree course, have published several scientific and economic papers on climate change in learned journals, have lectured on climate at faculty level, and was last year's Nerenberg Lecturer in Mathematics at the University of Western Ontario.

The unevidenced statements that I say things scientists ''know are not true'' and ''pick data and statistics to suit [my] argument'' are inaccurate.

The statement that I once argued for the quarantine of Aids patients ''in internment camp-like facilities'' is inaccurate. I argued that, though quarantine (with no mention of internment camps) is the standard public-health response to a new, incurable and fatal infection, Western sensibilities would make it impossible. Tens of millions would die. Sadly, they did.

The statement that ''the world's leading scientists'' predict the world will ''heat up by 3% this century'' is inaccurate. They predict 3degC warming, up 1%. Their predictions in all four IPCC Assessment reports have proven exaggerated.

The implication that I deny any increase in greenhouse gases is inaccurate. I do not deny it: I question whether it matters.

The statement that I ''promote [my]self as an ''expert reviewer'' for the IPCC's forthcoming Fifth Assessment Report, implying I am not one, is inaccurate. I satisfied the IPCC that my publication record justified my appointment.

Various letter writers' comments about me also require correction. The numerous unevidenced statements that I am an ''unscientific fraud'' and ''charlatan and fraud'' and have acted ''fraudulently'' and ''falsely'' are inaccurate.

The implication I was wrong to say the United Nations aimed to form a world ''government'' is inaccurate. Annex 1, paragraphs 36 and 38 of the draft Copenhagen climate treaty of 2009 mentioned an unelected ''government'' with global powers of taxation and enforcement, for which the 186-page draft was a blueprint. When the draft was publicised it failed.

The statement that I called Prof Garnaut ''a Nazi'' is inaccurate. I told a small group of Californian Zionists that his assertion that laymen should defer to the expertise of climate scientists was a Fascist opinion, and apologised to him when my remark was publicised.

The statement I attended Churchill College, Cambridge, on a ''choirboy scholarship'' is inaccurate. I attended the College on my academic merits (and cannot sing).

The statement I falsely claim to be a sitting member of the House of Lords is inaccurate. In reply to a journalist's question ''Are you a member of the House of Lords'', I replied, ''Yes, but without the right to sit or vote.'' A written opinion from a barrister specialising in peerage law says: ''The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley is a member of the House of Lords, albeit without the right to sit or vote, and he was and remains fully entitled to say so.''

The statement I ''fraudulently'' claimed to represent Burma at the 2012 UN climate conference in Doha is inaccurate. The conference chairman who allowed me to speak, though I was only an observer, told the conference he knew I was not from Burma.

The statement I ''falsely claimed to be a Nobel Laureate'' is inaccurate. The professor of physics at Rochester University, New York, presented me with a Nobel prize pin he had made with gold recovered from a physics experiment after I had corrected a serious error in the Fourth Assessment Report of the UN's climate panel in 2007.

I am an expert reviewer for the Fifth Assessment Report, due to be published this year. The statement that I ''falsely claimed ... to be scientific adviser to Margaret Thatcher'' is inaccurate. I was one of six policy advisers to her as prime minister at 10 Downing St from 1982 to 1986 and, in that role, gave her advice on scientific as well as other policy matters.

 - Lord Monckton will speak in Christchurch and Timaru next Monday, Dunedin on Tuesday, Gore on Wednesday and Invercargill on April 26.

 

drivesouth1.png

drivesouth2.png