Monckton Responds To Warmist Critics

By Paul Homewood

 

http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/01/25/monckton-fires-back-point-by-point-rebuttal-at-warmist-critics-of-new-peer-reviewed-study-shoddy-rent-a-quote-scientists/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ClimateDepot+%28Climate+Depot%29

 

Readers will probably recall the recent paper published on 23rd January by Monckton, Soon, Legates and Briggs which demonstrates that most climate models had hopelessly overestimated GHG warming.

The paper has already been reviewed at WUWT, so I don’t want to go over old ground. But what was surprising was the almost immediate attack on it from the shadowy European Climate Foundation.

Lord Monckton has now published a point by point rebuttal of the criticisms from six climate scientists, orchestrated by the ECF. Climate Depot has the full response, but this gives a good flavour of it:

 

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 modellers 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.

 

 

The full response is here.

 

 

This is not the first time we have come across the European Climate Foundation (ECF). It was David Rose of the Mail who exposed last October how they were at the heart of the green blob, channelling tens of millions of pounds every year from liberal groups, many in America, to climate lobbyists in Europe, including Greenpeace and WWF.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2807849/EXPOSED-shadowy-network-funded-foreign-millions-making-household-energy-bills-soar-low-carbon-Britain.html

 

It is also the ECF who fund the Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit, run by ex BBC warming propagandist Richard Black and set up to provide a one sided view on the climate debate.

 

It says a lot about the state of mainstream climate science when supposed scientists rush to help a political outfit to rubbish a peer reviewed paper, rather than being prepared to debate the facts.