Global Warming Hooey - PLUS - Lord Monckton’s address to the Cambridge Union Society

Global Warming Hooey
Written by Michael Coren
Saturday, 10 October 2009 15:51
IceCap.us


It's truly extraordinary how every left-of-centre journalist in the country has managed to become an instant expert on the arcane subjects of global warming and the science of climate change.

Imagine, for example, if some average Canadian hack who had never studied the Middle East suddenly announced that he was an authority on Israel-Palestine, knew which side was right and knew how to solve all of the associated problems. This, however, is what we are told every day when it comes to the fashion of sounding green. The more sympathy we can exhibit for Al Gore's polar bear or David Suzuki's whining, the more trendy and acceptable we become.

There are, however, an increasing number of peer-reviewed and intensely credible scientific minds who believe conventional thinking on global warming is nonsense. One such being Lord Christopher Monckton, former science adviser to British prime minister Margaret Thatcher and a world-renowned scholar.

He was in Canada recently and appeared on my television show. A man of compelling wit and eloquence, he has defeated so many environmental activists-he calls them "bedwetters"-that few of them will now debate him.

"Al Gore has refused several times. Here is a man who is paid $300,000 per speech and has his staff control all of the questions that are asked. People ask why he is so committed," Monckton said. "Simple. He was a failed politician worth $2 million; he's now a famous activist worth $200 million!"

According to Monckton there are more than 700 major scientists who steadfastly refute the notion that the climate is changing to any worrying degree, that global warming is a reality and that the planet is in danger. "It's all about the need of the international left to rally round a new flag."

Minimal

In a series of articles he appears to show that Earth's sensitivity to increased atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide is minimal. "Take the example of the medieval warm period," he says. "The bedwetters tell us that this was brief and irrelevant. Yet if we look at history we see it wasn't brief and is certainly relevant. Climate does change but it's minor and it has little if anything to do with man's intervention." A brief pause. "It's about money and control. There is a lot of money to be made out of the so-called green economy and it allows people to tell us what to do-which is what some people relish doing."

He continues: "Remember DDT, the pesticide used to kill mosquitoes that carried malaria. Jackie Kennedy read a book saying it was harmful, got her husband the president to bring pressure to have it banned and in 40 years 40 million people, mainly children, died. Now we've come to our senses and re-introduced it but only after the fashionable left did their damage.

"Global warming is similar. It makes no sense, is bad science and policies to deal with it will cause terrible problems. People are being indoctrinated and critics are intimidated into silence." Is he annoyed at his opponents' refusal to take him on? "Actually I'm rather delighted. It means I'm winning." Frankly, he's probably right.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The scientific reasons why “global warming” is not a global crisis

Conclusion of Lord Monckton’s address to the Cambridge Union Society
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!