Lord Monckton complains to VUW

These documents posted two days ago on the NZ Climate Science Coalition’s web site record Christopher Monckton’s complaint against Victoria University of Wellington for refusing him access to its campus, for dishonesty and for slandering him.

Document 1. Lord Monckton’s complaint, repeated below.
Document 2. Is CO2 mitigation cost-effective? A paper to be published soon.
Document 3. Professor Boston’s fraudulent graph. Referring to the professor’s use in 2008 of a faulty IPCC graph from the AR4, 2007.

Here is the full text of his complaint, addressed to the Vice-Chancellor, Professor Pat Walsh.

11 April 2013

Professor Pat Walsh, Vice-Chancellor,

Victoria University of Wellington.



Dishonesty and other serious misconduct by three staff

I should be grateful if you would investigate dishonesty and other serious breaches of your university’s code of conduct on the part of three staff.

Professor Jonathan Boston

Professor Boston refused to permit the organizer of my current speaking tour of New Zealand to book a lecture theatre at your university, on the ground that he does not permit academic freedom on the question of climate change, raising fundamental questions about not only his but also the university’s commitment to academic freedom of discussion on important scientific and economic questions. I had hoped, inter alia, to present results of the paper at flag 1, which is to be published later this year in the 45th Annual Proceedings of the World Federation of Scientists. Dr. Pachauri of the IPCC, pointing out in Melbourne recently that global warming has paused for 17 years, said that “no issues should be off limits for public discussion”. Perhaps the message did not reach Professor Boston.

On investigation, I discover that Professor Boston has dishonestly used and still circulates a fraudulent graph, which he displays on your university’s website. He either knows it is fraudulent or is reckless whether it is fraudulent. Details are at flag 2. Professor Boston also unleashed a spectacular series of untruthful and defamatory remarks about me to the tour organizer who spoke to him. In this, too, he was dishonest and acted in bad faith.

His misconduct breaches the staff conduct policy as follows: 4.7.9.n (dishonesty); 4.1 (requirement to act with integrity and in a professional manner); 4.7.1.f (academic practices likely to bring the university into disrepute); 4.7.7 (exercise of academic freedom must be consistent with the obligation to act in good faith); and 4.7.9.j (behaving unreasonably so as to bring the university into disrepute).

Professor James Renwick

Professor James Renwick recently gave an interview to an agency reporter for the New Zealand Herald, which widely published an article containing libellous comments by him on its website on 2 April, 2013. The offending passage is below:

“Dr James Renwick, associate professor of physical geography at Victoria University, dismissed Lord Monckton’s views as ‘rubbish’.

‘He’s a great showman and speaker, and climate change is a vehicle to self-publicise. But he has no training and has studiously avoided learning anything about science, I would say.’”

I have not met Professor Renwick. I do not think he has attended any of my lectures or read any of my published papers on climate change. In saying I have “no training” he has lied. I have a Cambridge degree in Classical Architecture. The course included instruction in mathematics. I was last year’s Nerenberg Lecturer in Mathematics at the University of Western Ontario.

In saying I have “studiously avoided learning anything about science”, Professor Renwick has lied again. From the paper at flag 1 your investigators will be able to form some opinion of the extent to which I have learned anything about science.

In saying that “climate change is a vehicle to self-publicize” and that my views are “rubbish”, Professor Renwick is delivering gratuitous, baseless and childish insults, delivered in his capacity as a Professor at your university. Professors, qua Professors, have no business bringing the university into disrepute by thus viciously trying to do harm to the reputation of a blameless third party.

Professor Renwick’s serious misconduct breaches the staff conduct policy as follows: 4.7.9.n (dishonesty); 4.1 (requirement to act with integrity and in a professional manner); 4.7.1.f (academic practices likely to bring the university into disrepute); and 4.7.9.j (behaving unreasonably so as to bring the university into disrepute).

Professor David Frame

Professor David Frame also gave an interview to the agency journalist, and was reported as follows:

“Professor Dave Frame, director of the Climate Change Research Institute at Victoria University, described him as a ‘vaudeville act’ to be ignored.

“‘Someone who goes around saying things we know are not true can actually be quite harmful.’”

Professor Frame’s widely-circulated allegation that I “go around saying things we know are not true”, delivered and widely circulated in his capacity as a Professor at your university, is a grave libel. It imputes dishonesty to me without providing any evidence of my supposed dishonesty so that I can answer it. In making such an allegation Professor Frame is himself dishonest.

His insults to the effect that I am nothing more than a “vaudeville act” and that I am to be ignored, delivered in his capacity as a Professor at your university and widely circulated, were calculated to do me unjustifiable harm and to bring the university into disrepute.

In a separate published statement, Professor Frame issued further insults and said he refused to debate with me because he did not want to give my arguments “credibility”. In effect, he was admitting he would lose the debate, for if my arguments had won the debate they would not have lost credibility.

Professor Frame’s serious misconduct breaches the staff conduct policy as follows: 4.7.9.n (dishonesty); 4.1 (requirement to act with integrity and in a professional manner); 4.7.1.f (academic practices likely to bring the university into disrepute); and 4.7.9.j (behaving unreasonably so as to bring the university into disrepute).


I shall be content if, upon investigation, the following remedial steps were taken:

Professor Boston’s fraudulent graph should be removed forthwith from the university’s website. Otherwise, a complaint of scientific fraud may be made to the police. Severe damage has been done to the finances of working New Zealanders by the connected series of international serious scientific frauds that have exaggerated both the likely rate of global warming and the supposed consequences.

Professor Boston should write to the organizer of my tour to apologize for having spat upon academic freedom by refusing her – on improper grounds – the opportunity to book a lecture theatre.

Professors Renwick and Frame should each be invited to write to me to apologize for their libels circulated on the New Zealand Herald’s website, and to undertake not to repeat them in future.

Yours faithfully,

Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

Attached: Flag 1 Climate paper Is CO2 mitigation cost-effective?

Flag 2 Professor Boston’s fraudulent graph.

Views: 232

127 Thoughts on “Lord Monckton complains to VUW

  1. Robin Pittwood on 13/04/2013 at 6:12 pm said:

    Disgraceful bunch. Glad I didn’t get my degree from there.

    • Skeptics Skeptic on 04/08/2013 at 7:41 pm said:

      Christopher Monkton has no qualifications specifically relating to climate science. He has been debunked by scientists and science journalists alike, why should we take his opinion on anything to do with climate change or our reaction to it?

    • Andy on 04/08/2013 at 8:43 pm said:

      and you are?

    • Magoo on 05/08/2013 at 11:24 am said:

      Rajenda Pachauri, head of the IPCC, ‘has no qualifications specifically relating to climate science’. He has been debunked by the empirical evidence from numerous sources, as have his scientists that predicted such doom from AGW. Monckton has far more credibility because he deals with empirical evidence, instead of unfounded speculation based on failed computer models:


      Monckton deals with the blue squares and the green circles at the bottom (you know, reality), whilst the IPCC and your buddy Pachauri deals with all the squiggly lines above that are wrong, wrong, wrong (you know, fantasy).

    • Andy on 05/08/2013 at 4:01 pm said:

      He has been debunked by scientists and science journalists alike

      Much as I don’t like responding to drive-by trolling, the idea of “science journalists” debunking someone with no science qualifications seems somewhat ironic to me.

      How many of these “science journalists” have any science qualifications?

      Furthermore, why does a lack of science qualifications preclude someone from asking a rational and reasoned critique of another field?

      If I go to the doctor and he prescribes a treatment, then I am quite likely to research that treatment myself, rather than take everything at face value

  2. Simon on 13/04/2013 at 7:33 pm said:

    The graph that Monckton refers to is “fraudulent” because it draw a trend line through 25 years of data and that is insufficient data to make a trend. It is going too far to call that fraudulent but he has a point. The problem though is that this then makes a mockery of the “17 years with no warming” argument.
    You can’t have it both ways.

    • No, Simon. The multiple linear trends drawn on the graph of raw data violate the laws of statistics and logic. As Lord Monckton demonstrates, you can draw the exact opposite conclusion — the trend is reducing — by choosing different start and end points. It’s called “cherry-picking” and it’s deceptive, because which conclusion is correct? The technique is invalid because it gives no scientific insight into the data.

      It’s difficult to understand what you mean by ” it makes a mockery of 17 years without warming.”

    • Simon on 14/04/2013 at 1:46 pm said:

      Duh. The “17 years with no warming” is the ultimate in cherry picking. At least the 25,50,100, and 150 time periods were not self selected to exaggerate the point. Monckton’s example of a sine function with no trend is misleading because there is an increasing upward trend. Choosing a long time period reduces the risk of stochastic variation (not trend) affecting the regression.
      Chaotic systems can exhibit cyclic variation but these are not guaranteed to continue and some people see patterns where none exist. There are no semi-mystical 60 and 200 year cycles.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 14/04/2013 at 2:09 pm said:

      >”Duh. The “17 years with no warming” is the ultimate in cherry picking.”

      Again, that’s Santer’s argument Simon (read his quote down-thread)

      >”Choosing a long time period reduces the risk of stochastic variation (not trend) affecting the regression. ”

      And choosing the longer time period (than just the last rapid warming episode) reveals there were two other rapid warming episodes outside of anthro influence i.e. the latest is not “unprecedented” and there is no reason to apply anthro attribution to the latest but not to the earlier two but the earlier two being outside anthro influence.

      >”There are no semi-mystical 60 and 200 year cycles.”

      Ha! a cyclicity denier. Your mind really is a closed shop isn’t it Simon?

      The Sixty-Year Climate Cycle


      The influence of the de Vries (∼200-year) solar cycle on climate …


    • Simon,

      Richard C has given a good response to you and also comments on the cyclicity, but just on the cherry-picking: It’s only cherry-picking if your conclusion is along the lines of “[therefore] global warming has ceased.” We’re not saying that, we’re only saying: “for the last 17 years global warming has been at a standstill.” That’s very clear, says nothing about the future and it’s true. You are free to falsify it if you can, but it’s not cherry-picking, it simply makes a comment about a specific period, so it uses no fallacious reasoning.

      “At least the 25,50,100, and 150 time periods were not self selected to exaggerate the point.”

      I can’t believe you said this. No, the point was not exaggerated, but the periods certainly were self-selected, because the point was only made by cherry-picking the beginning AND THE END points of the linear trends. You really cannot pretend they somehow selected themselves. The technique itself of breaking the time series into arbitrary periods is invalid, because USING THE IDENTICAL METHOD that shows the rate of warming is increasing, you can prove exactly the opposite — that the rate of warming is decreasing — as Christopher Monckton demonstrates. What you defend is actually an excellent example of cherry-picking.

    • As I pointed out earlier, the “fraudulent graph” was exposed in 2010


      However, it is worse than just bad maths. The graph was inserted after the second order draft, and therefore was no subject to reviewers comments.

      From the WUWT link

      The misleading graph was not in either the first or the second draft of the report that were subject to review. It was inserted into the final draft, after all the reviewer comments.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 15/04/2013 at 2:16 pm said:

      Andy I’m assuming you’re in the UK on business and not trawling the blogs as usual so the following, if you see it here, is in part something that has arisen on the issue of the recent rapid warming not being unprecedented. And what happens (or to be more exact – doesn’t happen) when the issue is pointed out. From the GWPF:-

      Belgian Scientists: Double Standards In Climate Change

      * Date: 13/04/13
      * István E. Markó, Alain Préat, Henri Masson and Samuel Furfari

      The authors of this paper recently presented their views on climate science at the Royal Academy of Belgium. No French or Belgian newspaper was willing to publish their assessment. Questioning the impact of mankind on climate change is evidently still a taboo in the French-speaking world.


      #3 The so-called “abnormally rapid” increase in global temperatures between 1980 and 2000 is not unusual at all. There have in fact been several such periods in the past, during which temperatures rose in a similar manner and at comparable rates, even though fossil fuels were not yet in use;


      #8 But the coup de grâce to the “warmists’ theory” – certainly not yet visible in the French and Belgian media – comes from the observation that for the past fifteen years or so the global temperature of the Earth has remained constant. During the same period CO2 emissions have increased by far more than in the past, reaching an unparalleled record this year. Honest climate scientists admit that this observation is an embarrassing inconvenience for their theory. However, attempts to make us believe that the Earth is continuing to warm up persist. Will we have to wait for another twenty, twenty-five or thirty years for the global warming advocates to finally admit that there is no unambiguous correlation between the global temperature of the Earth and human-generated CO2 emissions?


      These ten statements are facts. We would be ready to accept that they could be wrong, if evidence were presented to scientifically disprove them. In the meantime, and in view of the lack of coherence and unreliability associated with the numerous predictions made by the IPCC, it is time to set the record straight. The public and politicians must be informed about the hypothetical character of the predominant ‘consensus’ on climate change, which has been uncritically disseminated in the media for more than ten years. If it ever existed, this so-called “climate change consensus” has now been totally undermined by the facts.

      Despite the opportunity that we were given by the Royal Academy to raise this issue, we were unable to find any French or Belgian newspaper willing to publish this text. Questioning the impact of mankind on climate change is evidently still a taboo over here.


      The assertion implied (as in #3) by the IPCC’s underhand use of the “fraudulent graph” that global temperature rise between 1980 and 2000 was “abnormally rapid” is scandalous in my view but where are the media?

    • Richard C (NZ) on 15/04/2013 at 3:28 pm said:

      The truth, 1860 – 1880, 1910 – 1940, 1975 – 2001

      From: ‘Post Climategate: Towards a Reassessment of the Global Warming Consensus’

      By Marc Sheppard


      The Monckton section:-

      What a year it has been. We are the consensus now.

      So began Lord Christopher Monckton’s conference-ender [Heartland’s Fourth International Conference on Climate Change, 2010]. Monckton’s masterful closing remarks have become an ICCC tradition, in which he movingly congeals the many truths learned in the prior sessions. Once again, he did not disappoint.

      Monckton identified in Hadley data 3 recent and remarkably similar periods of rapid warming — 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-2001. The first two were obviously not CO2 related as average atmospheric CO2 (ACO2) for the periods were 290 and 310 ppmv, respectively. They both did, however, correspond to the PDO of the time (as noted above by Easterbrook.) The third, which as Monckton points out “accounts for almost all of the warming that has occurred since 1950 and we are told by the IPCC was chiefly caused by us – does have a rational explanation.”


      Fig 6. From Christopher Monckton. Three post-LIA rapid-warming periods betray warming’s natural drivers.

      It, too, corresponds with the PDO (Earth to GHG crazies – anything?). But Monckton found more. It’s a 2005 paper by Pinker et al. depicting a satellite-detected global brightening (an increase in the flux of solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface) from 1983-2001 due to a decrease in clouds. What’s truly remarkable is that the brightening for that 18 year period (2.9 Watts per square meter) represented nearly twice the IPCC’s estimate of the total anthropogenic influence on the climate in the 256 years between 1750 and 2005 (1.6 Watts per square meter). Please read and consider the previous sentence until you hear an “aha” somewhere in your vicinity before proceeding.

      Monckton was the final of many at this year’s conference to display Willie Soon’s 2009 graph of temperature v. solar irradiation (1880-2009) in China which appears to remove any doubt remaining of correlation.


      Fig 7. From Willie Soon. 130 years of Solar Irradiance (red) and mean surface temperature (blue). Alarmists: No link here.

      To recap – the U.N.’s top-dollar experts are presented with the occurrence of three all-but-identical rapid warming bursts since the end of the LIA. The first 2 are obviously naturally occurring as they align perfectly with PDO and solar irradiance, but not with ACO2. The third DOES correspond to rising ACO2, but also to PDO and solar activity. So to what does the IPCC attribute the third burst?

      Why, CO2, of course.


      Says Monckton: “At a time of grave economic hardship it is the height not only of folly but of cruelty to spend any more money whatsoever on trying to mitigate global bloody warming.” This was a rare moment of understatement from his Lordship. Given the new consensus — any time would be the wrong time to spend any money mitigating global warming.

      New consensus? Granted, not yet the collective position of the vocal scientific majority, but Monckton hit it right on the head:

      “In the end the truth is the center of every lasting consensus.”

      And the truth has become glaringly obvious.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 15/04/2013 at 8:55 pm said:

      Fig 7. is 130 years of Sunshine Duration Hours Over Japan (red) and mean surface temperature of China (blue)

      Not as the Sheppard article (and Monckton possibly) asserts – Solar Irradiance (red) and mean surface temperature (blue).

      TSI vs China-wide temperature from Soon et al. (2011) here:-

      Soon, W., Dutta, K., Legates, D.R., Velasco, V. and Zhang, W. 2011. Variation in surface air temperature of China during the 20th century. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 73: 2331-2344.


    • Richard C (NZ) on 13/04/2013 at 7:58 pm said:

      >”….because it draw a trend line through 25 years of data and that is insufficient data to make a trend”

      You really should have read Document 3, ‘Professor Boston’s fraudulent graph’ before putting your ignorance on show Simon. If you had, you would have seen this (page 5):-

      Yet the IPCC, in its defective graph, had indeed sought to deduce from a “relatively short trend” in the data – namely, the last 25 years – that the magnitude of the trend was exceptional, when, as Her Majesty’s Government were compelled to admit upon questioning, the trend over that period had two previous precedents occurring at approximately 60-year intervals in the 150-year instrumental record:

      Surely the correct conclusion is that – so far, at any rate – there is no discernible human influence on global temperature: merely a continuation of the recovery of global temperatures from the Little Ice Age (a recovery that began 300 years ago), overlaid by a ~60-year periodicity in global temperature:

      [see graph]

      None of these considerations rule out a gentle (though not yet plainly detectable) influence on global temperature from rising CO2 concentrations. However, examination of the 161-year record of global mean surface temperature anomalies does appear to indicate –

       that there has been no acceleration in the warming rate, which, at its supra-decadal maximum from 1976-2001, was no greater than in 1860-1880 or 1910-1940;

       that most of the warming from 1950 to date must have been caused not by us but by natural variability in the climate, perhaps including the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, with whose warming and cooling phases its ~60-year quasi-periodicity appears to coincide; and

       that the mean decadal warming rate of almost 0.4 C°/decade that the IPCC predicts for the next 90 years as its central estimate on the A2 emissions scenario is two and a half times the maximum decadal warming rate observed over the past 161 years, which was just 0.17 C°/decade.

      The last of these conclusions raises questions about the reliability of the IPCC’s central climate-sensitivity estimate, which appears excessive. Remove the apparent exaggeration and the global warming problem vanishes.

      Dr. Pachauri, the science chairman of the IPCC, to whom I reported the defective IPCC graph in person and in writing in 2009, has not taken any action to have the graph corrected.


      That’s the “because” in its fullest Simon, not your superficial understanding of the issue.

      >”The problem though is that this then makes a mockery of the “17 years with no warming” argument”

      Rubbish. The current temperatures (the “standstill” part this century) are the negative phase of the ~60-year periodicity as above. The difference this time compared to 1860-1880 or 1910-1940 is that the quasi-200 yr cycle was in a positive phase so temperatures rose after that but now that the 200 yr cycle has gone negative there wont be a repeat of warming as there was after both of those previous periods.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 13/04/2013 at 10:39 pm said:

      >”…the “17 years with no warming” argument” ”

      That’s Santer’s argument Simon.

      Dr David Whitehouse

      95. Looking at tropospheric data, which also shows the recent temperature standstill, Ben Santer of the U.S. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory published a paper that concluded:

      Because of the pronounced effect of interannual noise on decadal trends, a multimodel ensemble of anthropogenically-forced simulations displays many 10-year periods with little warming. A single decade of observational TLT data is therefore inadequate for identifying a slowly evolving anthropogenic warming signal. Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature.

      133. The addition of the polar data made HadCRUT4 warmer in the last decade but also flatter (see Figure 15). The new UK Met Office global temperature data confirmed that the world has not warmed for just the past decade but for 15 years. Figure 15 shows the
      global annual average temperature since 1997. No statistically significant trend can be discerned. The only statistically acceptable conclusion to be drawn from the HadCRUT4 data is that between 1997 and 2011 it remained constant, with a global temperature
      of 14.44 ±0.16°C (2 standard deviations).

      134. The important question is whether 15 years is a sufficient length of time from which to draw climatic conclusions that are usually considered over 30 years, as well as the implications for climate projections. Global warming simulations, some carried out by the UK Met Office and mentioned previously, have been able to reproduce ‘standstills’ in
      global warming of a decade or so while still maintaining the long-term 0.2°C per decade
      average rise. These decadal standstills occur about once every eight decades. However, such climate simulations have not been able to reproduce a 15-year standstill:

      Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 years or more, suggesting that an
      observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate (NOAA 2008).

      179. Statistically there has been no change in the average annual temperature of the globe since 1997, meaning that the standstill is now 16 years. The latest five-year average of HadCRUT3 and HadCRUT4 data shows a decline for the first time.

      181. In an interview with The Australian in February, Rajenda Pachauri, the chair of the IPCC, acknowledged the reality of the post-1997 standstill in global average temperatures.

      However, Pachauri’s assertion that it will take a temperature standstill of ‘30-40 years at least’ to affect theories of man-made global warming is without a scientific basis. The 16-year standstill already strains climate models, and if it continues for a few more years it will increasingly demonstrate that the climate models on which the IPCC has based its
      assumptions are inadequate.


      182. Whether the global temperature standstill of the past 15-16 years continues, or is replaced by warming, as the IPCC predicts, only future data will tell. Meanwhile, the length of the standstill implies that the challenge it offers for models of future climate prediction, and explanations for past warming, cannot be ignored. We are on the cusp of climate model vulnerability.


  3. Simon on 13/04/2013 at 7:38 pm said:

    I see the threat has been treated with the seriousness that it deserves. http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/education/8545516/Sceptics-ire-amuses-but-views-retain-sting

  4. Huub Bakker on 13/04/2013 at 7:39 pm said:

    We had Monckton talk in Palmerston North today. An excellent speaker. My wife and one daughter noted that he used just about every technique in the book of effective speaking. I just noted what things he chose to talk about and how he presented them.

    He gave a financial analysis of the Australian Carbon Tax showing how incredibly cost-ineffective it is. Interestingly, he would have used our ETS but he says that most of the numbers are deemed classified by the Government. Why should it be classified? The numbers should be in the Budget.

    On another note, I got the talk advertised on the Massey University email list that goes to all staff. This is used for advertising all such talks. I got a complaint from a staff member in Environmental saying that I should not be using the list to advertise such rubbish, Lord Monckton is a liar, how will people know he is telling them lies, we need to do these things to save our children and grandchildren… Standard party line. As if universities were anything but places where any such debates are to be encouraged or that people can generally tell when they are being conned; a lot of ‘I know best’. Someone went around and took down many of the posters we put up on campus too. Long live the enlightened university atmosphere I say!

    As a last comment, we had to move the talk at the last moment as the original venue, booked months before, was double-booked. Found out two hours before the talk. A genuine error almost certainly but even paranoids have enemies. 🙂 We ended up with about 50-60, only two or three of whom admitted to some alarm at the start of the talk.

    • Good account, Huub, thank you.

      It’s surprising that Monckton gets this reaction from the committed anti-sceptic, who instinctively wants to shut him up, yet is himself accused of silencing free speech when he applies for a hearing in a university. Strange. Thanks for your support!

    • Huub Bakker on 13/04/2013 at 8:02 pm said:

      Indeed. The reaction was straight out of the party manifesto. Still, he was the only person in the University to complain and it’s not as though he had a vested interest is it?:-)

      The sad thing is that he is somewhat of a spokesman on the topic and, as always seems to be the case, has the ear of the local media.

      Never debate, only denigrate!

  5. “I understand he has threatened to contact the British authorities and have degrees from Victoria University deregistered. It is an empty threat. He threatens people all over the place.”

    What a joke. Pity this annual circus is the last one with the potty peer. He’s one of the best comedians, or clowns, I have come across.

    Always good for a laugh.

    • Huub Bakker on 13/04/2013 at 7:56 pm said:

      So much so that you actually went to one of his talks Ken? Are you secure enough in your belief that you can do so or do you think the whole topic is so unimportant that you don’t need to do any more thinking or learning about it.

      Had you gone to one of his talks you would know that, according to the data in the IPCC reports, and the Stern Report, attempting to mitigate global warming will cost us upwards of 45 times more than adaptation would. Or, having gone to one of the talks, you will understand the simple maths well enough to explain why our ETS is, in fact, the most cost-effective way to go.

      We’re waiting for your enlightenment Ken.

    • Gary on 13/04/2013 at 8:54 pm said:

      Hmmm Ken, if Lord Monckton is in your words…”He’s one of the best comedians, or clowns, I have come across.” Then what Label could we put on Al Gore…Snake Oil salesman??

    • David on 14/04/2013 at 2:43 pm said:

      Resorting to type I see Ken. You’re all class. Still, it provides amusement to the rest of us to see you all wound up like this. It must be pretty disheartening to see your “beliefs” shown to be an illusion.
      How is Dr (for a Dr he is) Michael Manns court case going against Mark Steyn ? Plenty of popcorn needed for that one.

    • Shh, David, we don’t mention court cases around here. Everyone is a bit sensitive – been in mourning for the last few months.

    • Magoo on 14/04/2013 at 11:27 pm said:

      Oh I don’t know about that Ken. Ever since the court case the National govt has pretty canned the ETS and pulled out of the Kyoto II. Perhaps it’s a coincidence, who knows?

  6. Huub Bakker on 13/04/2013 at 7:46 pm said:

    Simon, the figure of 17 years is significant because that is the figure that the climate scientists themselves gave as a suitable period. The claim was that after 15+ years of no warming the models would be in trouble. They are.

    A statistician colleague of mine said that it takes seven points to make trend. The graph was not fraudulent because of the 25 years being too short for a trend. It was fraudulent because choosing four trends over 150, 100, 50 and 25 years and comparing them to claim that the warming trend is accelerating is statistical fraud. They are not comparable in this way.

  7. The issue around the “fraudulent graph” was documented back in 2010 as the “IPCC’s new calculus”

    For example:


  8. In my home country, the USA, there is a parlor game where when watching , say a sporting event, every time some event happens everybody gets a shot or a beer. I can play this game on this esteemed blog. Every time one of the resident warmists [yes you Simon and Ken] make a goofy statement I get some more sauvignon blanc.

    • Joe V. on 14/04/2013 at 3:01 am said:

      That seems a surer way of drinking yourself self to oblivion Stan than watching sport. In sport the events are celebrated because they are usually hard won and not assured, whereas from warmists the goofy statements are inevitable.

  9. realityrulesok on 14/04/2013 at 6:56 am said:

    I went along to Lord Monckton’s talk in Auckland expecting a popular science presentation, but it turned out to be a Holy Roller preach-to-the-converted kind of thing.

    I guess he lost me when he showed a slide of Arctic sea ice that only went to 2003, then said “and its been fine since then”, which everyone knows is just not true. At question time, someone pointed out an obviously faked photo, and all Monckton could say was that he hadn’t taken it. and then he wouldn’t take any more questions.

    I left with my hand on my wallet, half-expecting to be asked to “tithe for Jesus” or some such nonsense. Sure, the guy is a showman, of the “mad dogs and Englishmen” school, but one wonders what his agenda can be, apart from keeping the natives amused.

  10. Richard C (NZ) on 14/04/2013 at 10:44 am said:

    Lord Monckton could be proved right in some regards . . .

    The Climate Change Express is behind schedule.

    Lord Christopher Monckton has been saying so for years, and attracting great criticism for it — but he appears, in some important regards, to have been correct. There is mounting evidence that climate change is happening more slowly than scientists thought.


    • So they claim that Monckton is right because one article in The Economist agrees with him partially on the sensitivity issue, and then goes on to make some completely unsupported accusations against him.

      Nice one Gisborne Herald, NZ journalism at its finest

    • You must understand, Andy, Richard does not understand what he is linking too. He has only been trained to google, cherry pick, hot link and use a key board. Not understand. He is a trained monkey with a key board.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 14/04/2013 at 12:59 pm said:

      Training implies an ability to learn Ken, and to comprehend what is being typed on the keyboard. Somehow I doubt – if in fact I am a “trained monkey with a key board (sic)” as you assert – there are any other monkeys that can match me on that.

      You certainly can’t Ken, although I will defer to your obviously superior ability to insult via a “key board (sic)”. That ability is simply masterful and peerless, I just haven’t got the time to devote to the training necessary to match it – the field is your own Ken.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 14/04/2013 at 1:14 pm said:

      BTW Ken, a key board is something normally used to hang keys on (as I would) – not what one would attempt to type text characters with (as I don’t – do you Ken?).

    • Richard C (NZ) on 14/04/2013 at 2:21 pm said:

      Pre-emptive clarification in case Ken goes into a spin:-

      >”….and [,in my case,] to comprehend what is being typed on the keyboard”

      That given I managed to compile this comment:-


      I don’t think the other monkeys learn to do that at Monkey Training School.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 14/04/2013 at 12:37 pm said:

      Had to marvel at the ignorance quoted from the Economist and interpreted thus:-

      ” “It is not clear why climate change has ‘plateaued’. It could be because of greater natural variability in the climate, because clouds dampen warming or because of some other little-understood mechanism in the almost infinitely complex climate system.”

      That “greater natural variability” being the 60 yr climate cycle understood by most DAGW sceptics but not GHG-centric climate scientists of this era (or if they do they are not letting on) and “some other little-understood mechanism” being the 200 yr solar driver cycle understood by those who study it objectively (non GHG-centric astrophysicists) and knowledge increasing daily but little understood by wider GHG-centric climate science although understood by the GHG-centric solar specialists who in the face of the obviously ineffective GHG forcing this century think GHG forcing will “offset” any solar induced cooling over the next 30 yrs (e.g. Jones, Lockwood and Stott – AR5 Chap 10).

      Even luke-warmer Monckton is about to get a lesson in cyclicity over the next year or two given all he is arguing is “less warming”. He might start by consulting the GAT, SST and OHC metrics this century where the onset of cooling is already evident.

  11. realityrulesok on 14/04/2013 at 1:20 pm said:

    Richard C., you quoted one para from the Gisborne Herald editorial, but not the following one:

    “That doesn’t make the dapper hereditary peer right, though. His criticisms over misuse of data by “bad scientists” apply equally to his own rapid-fire patter. He glosses over the complexity of the climate system, cherry-picks data, removes context and relishes in tales of offence within what is a vast body of climate science — all to back his claims of political and bureaucratic conspiracy.”

    That was certainly my impression – he’s some kind of snake-oil salesman, who’s not too keen for anyone to look behind his particular curtain. When asked in Auckland, he claimed his trip was paid for out of ticket sales, but the numbers don’t seem to stack up. Perhaps the mining industry is chipping in again, as they did last time?


    • Richard C (NZ) on 14/04/2013 at 1:56 pm said:

      Yes plenty of unsubstantiated slime and slur there realityrulesok but FYI, I’m not a luke-warmer and don’t subscribe to Monckton’s continued warming views in general (albeit “less”) but I do to most of his AR5 comments in terms of the IPCC’s unnecessary exaggeration i.e. he’s much closer to your side than mine in terms of non-existent warming.

      I take the empirical approach in conjunction with planetary and celestial cyclicity and thermochemical physics, that is the GAT, SST and OHC metrics mentioned elsewhere – the reality of those is an onset of cooling consistent with the solar driver explanation but completely inconsistent with the GHG forcing that Monckton subscribes to.

    • realityrulesok on 14/04/2013 at 3:29 pm said:

      OK, RC, if you are for real, please provide links to published scientific papers that detail your “empirical approach’, experimental results and conclusions drawn from them.

      I’m particularly interested in your refutation of GHG forcing – are you saying that GHG molecules do not absorb / re-emit IR? if so, how do you explain a century of experimental evidence that they do, and what is your alternative theory of quantum mechanics?


      Frankly, I find it easier to believe that you have no idea what you’re talking about, but i’m trying to keep an open mind. Go ahead, surprise me!

    • Richard C (NZ) on 14/04/2013 at 4:06 pm said:

      >”…are you saying that GHG molecules do not absorb / re-emit IR?”

      No, see this synopsis for starters:-


      And the following comment.

      Empirical method,


      Scientific method,


      For the experimental method wrt CO2 thermochemical forcing see Lallemant, Sayre and Weber 1996 in the first link.

    • realityrulesok on 14/04/2013 at 5:51 pm said:

      RC, this is too weird – do you seriously claim to invalidate climate science via an obscure paper on modelling flames in industrial furnaces?

      Or have I missed something, because I have a feeling that we’re not in Kansas any more….

    • Richard Christie on 14/04/2013 at 6:11 pm said:

      fer crissake, realityrulesok, don’t ask Richard C to put up links.
      Show some compassion, he suffers from compulsive linking disease.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 14/04/2013 at 6:15 pm said:

      >”obscure paper” ? Get real RR.

      There is far greater knowledge and application of radiative heat transfer in combustion engineering than there ever will be in climate science RR. And if you think their experimental science is wrong you’ll have to go round to every Mech/Chem/Heat engineer and every industrial application all over the world informing them so – good luck with that RR.

      I notice you didn’t address this:-

      The IPCC curve is from Myhre et al. (1998) so the ball is in your court:-

      What you have to demonstrate is that the IPCC’s curve representation is superior to those of Lallemant, Sayret and Weber 1996

      Too hard?

      BTW, no comment either on CO2 being a refrigerant (coolant, code R744) from this comment I referenced:-


      Too hard too?

    • Richard Christie, you must admit he is very good at this linking lark.. He was trained well in his monkey school.

      Pity he is a one trick pony though. Doesn’t have any comprehension to go with it. Or humility. Thus he makes mistakes and claims chemists are wrong in their fundamental understanding of IR absorbing molecules.

      He’ll be off to Stockholm soon – assuming his invitation was stolen in the mail as part of the Agenda 21 conspiracy!

    • Richard C (NZ) on 15/04/2013 at 9:53 am said:

      >”Thus he makes mistakes and claims chemists are wrong in their fundamental understanding of IR absorbing molecules.”

      Clearly from this comment it is evident you are an outright liar Ken Perrott. And have no clue whatsoever what you are talking about. Now you’re just making up BS and throwing it around.

      You gave up on the scientific argument when you got out of your depth and ended up agreeing with my argument (it’s on record), so now you’re reverting to form (as Ross notes).

      You’re only contribution here is as a troll and an obnoxious one at that. But a loser troll, and everyone lurking can see that Ken.

      Richard T. I’m asking for a retraction of Ken Perrott’s outright lie from the record. Specifically this:-

      “claims chemists are wrong in their fundamental understanding of IR absorbing molecules”

      And any more lies he happens to propagate in regard to my argument from now on.

    • Hi RC,

      I can see where you’re coming from, as your opponents have been pulling your tail a fair bit. But don’t give in to the desire to shut them up. People make that identical claim about climate sceptics, saying they don’t deserve to speak in public forums. It’s quite wrong. The best thing is to calm down and politely refute what they say. Your opponents need the oxygen of your sarcasm, bitterness and rage or their assault withers. The rest of us can see their nasty tactics for what they are, we all support you, and you’re doing some great research work which is enlightening to read. I hope you continue.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 15/04/2013 at 11:56 am said:

      >”politely refute what they say”

      It just takes too long and wastes too much time RT, why not just cut off blatant lies at source by moderation?

      I’m doing 10 hr nightshifts over the next six months so I haven’t got time for the backtracking required for that refuting exercise. There are far more interesting new developments occurring almost day-by-day now particularly in solar phenomena. If there’s one thing that will conclusively disprove DAGW it is the impending negative phase of the de Vries cycle. The effects are due to become progressively more evident over the next few years so I’m more attuned to that than anything else except perhaps ocean heat (where the alarmist argument has gone since the atmospheric alarm collapsed).

    • RC,

      Your pithy, if infrequent, summaries are well appreciated, thanks.

      My meaning was incompletely expressed, I’m sorry. I should have said I would advise you to politely refute what our opponents say and ignore ad hominem attacks. For that matter, ignore any statements of a personal nature (the deprecatory nature of which is beyond refuting anyway). You may have noticed I’ve stopped censoring what people say. The generally courteous, if still assertive, company seems to exert a moderating influence on off-topic remarks, insults and name-calling, and the worst exponents simply get banned.

      Besides, you’re asking me to judge whether a statement is intended as a lie, and that’s impossible when I can be unsure if it’s even wrong. In summary: if it’s an insult, ignore it, if it’s wrong, say so and refute it, and if you think it’s a lie say whatever you like, but carefully.


    • Richard Treadgold – like your little joke “our opponents have been pulling your tail a fair bit.” Quite appropriate for a trained monkey with a keyboard.

      But come on, you also are not averse to pulling Richard’s tail when you say of him:
      “you’re doing some great research work which is enlightening to read.”

    • Ken,

      Oh dear. You should have paid more serious attention to: “the worst exponents simply get banned.”

      Now you will go away.

    • Mike Jowsey on 15/04/2013 at 4:02 pm said:


    • Magoo on 15/04/2013 at 11:30 pm said:

      Time out until he learns to play nicely with others.

    • Huub Bakker on 14/04/2013 at 4:19 pm said:

      The tickets may well not be enough to pay for his trip; it is being underwritten by the Climate Realists Coalition. But hell, not making a profit on the tour is bound to be a good reason to believe that he is being paid $1000s per talk (not $300,000 like Gore) in secret by ‘Big Oil’! (Would that be the same Big Oil that has also invested heavily in green energy?)

      That’s a conspiracy theory well worth believing in. 🙂

      I’m with Monckton on that one; while there are undoubtly some conspracies involved, most of the alarmist movement comes from vested interests leaping on to the bandwagon. Scientists needing future funding is one (As an academic I know all about that.) Another comes from organizations like Greenpeace or the US Environmental Protection Agency — both of these have achieved what they set out to do and should disband or be scaled right down. There just aren’t enough environmental crises to keep the dollars rolling in so they have to invent some.

  12. realityrulesok on 14/04/2013 at 5:39 pm said:

    Yeah, right, Huub, so I guess the US military is just part of the conspiracy as well… 😉

    “America’s top military officer in charge of monitoring hostile actions by North Korea, escalating tensions between China and Japan, and a spike in computer attacks traced to China provides an unexpected answer when asked what is the biggest long-term security threat in the Pacific region: climate change.

    Navy Admiral Samuel J. Locklear III, in an interview at a Cambridge hotel Friday after he met with scholars at Harvard and Tufts universities, said significant upheaval related to the warming planet “is probably the most likely thing that is going to happen . . . that will cripple the security environment, probably more likely than the other scenarios we all often talk about.’’

    “People are surprised sometimes,” he added, describing the reaction to his assessment. “You have the real potential here in the not-too-distant future of nations displaced by rising sea level…

    But when it comes to pragmatic military planning, Locklear said he is increasingly focused on another highly destabilizing force.

    “The ice is melting and sea is getting higher,” Locklear said, noting that 80 percent of the world’s population lives within 200 miles of the coast. “I’m into the consequence management side of it. I’m not a scientist, but the island of Tarawa in Kiribati, they’re contemplating moving their entire population to another country because [it] is not going to exist anymore.”

    The US military, he said, is beginning to reach out to other armed forces in the region about the issue.

    “We have interjected into our multilateral dialogue – even with China and India – the imperative to kind of get military capabilities aligned [for] when the effects of climate change start to impact these massive populations,” he said. “If it goes bad, you could have hundreds of thousands or millions of people displaced and then security will start to crumble pretty quickly.’’”


    • Richard C (NZ) on 14/04/2013 at 6:30 pm said:

      “probably”, “if”, “could”, “kind of” – he’s quite a scientific authority this US Navy Admiral Samuel J. Locklear III.

      On the other hand he might just be spending a little too much time reading alarmist climate scenarios – and believing them.

    • Huub Bakker on 14/04/2013 at 7:11 pm said:


      “Conspiracy – a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful”. Apple dictionary.

      Since all crime is committed by lone people and planned, loudly, in public places with the intent not to do anything unlawful or harmful, there are no conspiracies anywhere. Yeah, right!

      Conspiracies are a part of everyday life, from students deciding to bully a classmate to the EPA choosing to run secret, clinical trials on asthmatics by getting them to breathe in exhaust fumes from idling trucks (without any attempt at ethics approval that they would never have got.)

      To deny that conspiracies are present is to either deny the dictionary definition or deny the obvious.

      For the rest of your comment, what has the armed forces thinking on climate change got to do with the argument? Are they now considered experts too? They are certainly a vested interest who have to worry about their funding. As such they will use the crisis de jour to lobby for more funding. I know my colleagues are happy to include climate change in their proposals solely to improve their chances, even when climate change has nothing to do with their work.

      And the funny thing is, once you assume that AGW is real, then ANYTHING that changes over time can be laid at the door of climate change.

    • All this goes to show is that the Military are just as capable of talking “weapon grade BS” as any other bureaucratic institution.

      Presumably the battles of the 21st Century will consist of generals firing eco-drivel interspersed with copious acronyms and impenetrable corporate-speak at each other.

      The general populace will succumb by losing the will to live.

    • For example

      We have interjected into our multilateral dialogue – even with China and India – the imperative to kind of get military capabilities aligned [for] when the effects of climate change

      Any clues on what that means?

  13. Ross on 14/04/2013 at 6:17 pm said:

    If VUW don’t do anything about the complaint , all it says is their staff conduct policy isn’t worth the paper it is written on ( or the pixels used to write it digitally). LM at the very least should get a response otherwise the Vice Chancellor will not only be seen to be a fool but will leave the University unable to “caution” errant staff behaviour in the future.

  14. realityrulesok on 14/04/2013 at 6:41 pm said:

    Ah, I see RC, you are a (retired?) thermal engineer who is trying to shovel stuff he doesn’t understand (climate) into something he does (furnaces).

    Good luck with that, but excuse me if I don’t journey down that particular rabbit hole with you.

    Back to Monckton; as we used to say, back in the ‘hood, if bullshit was tar-seal, he’d be the main road from here to London. Apart from the tinfoil-hat crowd, does anyone take him seriously?

    I tried Googling him, and found a bunch of interesting links, where he gets taken apart by some professor of thermal engineering – one of your mates, RC?



    • Richard C (NZ) on 14/04/2013 at 7:05 pm said:

      >”….trying to shovel stuff he doesn’t understand (climate) into something he does (furnaces).”

      Err no. The concept of radiative heat transfer is applicable to both. Lallemant, Sayre and Weber 1996 verify a number of curves but the IPCC curve is not one of them. One of those verified is Leckner graphed here at 273K (typical of lower mid-troposphere – what temperature range is the IPCC curve applicable to BTW? Citation please):-


      The verification:-

      Emissivity correlations are usually limited to calculations of the CO, and H20 total emissivity. Mathematically, these models appear either in the form of the weighted sum of gray gases model (WSGGM)4-‘5 or in the form of polynomials.‘-3 Existing WSGGM are somewhat less general than the polynomial correlations since coefficients for the WSGGM have to be recalculated for each H20/ CO1 partial pressure ratio. Polynomial correlations such as those of Leckner2 and Modak3 do not feature such shortcomings; they involve many more fitted coefficients (e.g. 48 for each species in Modak’s model) but retain all the generality required to model total emissivity of gas mixtures. Both types of correlations are accurate enough and simple to use in engineering calculations. However, they are often limited to total emissivity calculations in volumes of gas with a mean beam length greater than 1 cm. This section surveys the total emissivity correlations presented in Table 2. Only the models which have been widely applied in CFD modeling of flames and engineering combustion problems are described.

      3.2. Polynomial Approximations
      The two most well-known and general total emissivity correlations using polynomials are those developed by L.eckne2 and Modak.3 Prior to these publications, Hadvig’ derived polynomial expressions to calculate the total emissivity of HzO-CO2 gas mixtures for pW/pC = 1 and pW/pC = 2. However, in view of the limited range of applicability of this model, it is excluded from the assessment in Section 4.

      4.1. Generalities
      In this section, the exponential wide band model (EWBM)25,26 is used to provide benchmark data to validate the total emissivity models developed by Johnson6 Leckner,2 Taylor and Foster,’ Modak,3 Smith et a1.,13 Coppale and Vervish14 and Steward and Kocaefe” (see Table 2).

      # # #

      Still crickets re R744?

    • Huub Bakker on 14/04/2013 at 7:25 pm said:

      What constantly astounds me in all of this it the fanatical resistance from so many people to check things out for themselves. “I tried Googling him” and got a whole bunch of stuff that other people said about him. I have an aversion to letting other people do my thinking for me. Am I so strange on this planet?

      I do have the education and experience, however, to feel confident in questioning the claims of authority. If said authority can’t explain to me why what they say is true then they’re talking BS or they don’t know what they’re talking about. And I include a good many of my academic colleagues in that category.

      It’s not just understanding the technical aspects of a debate, it’s also being able to see what is relevant to the argument and what is not. Critical Thinking is a good university paper to take if you have the opportunity.

    • realityrulesok on 14/04/2013 at 10:36 pm said:

      Sorry, guys, I think you’re just talking amongst yourselves, but I love the one about the US military having to worry about their funding… very droll.

      As for me, I’ve found a Yale course on iTunes called “Atmosphere, Ocean and Environmental Change” that looks like the real deal.

      As for critical reasoning on climate change, here’s something else I’ve found that might be of interest to anyone who doesn’t buy the paranoid conspiracy cop-out:


      See ya later.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 15/04/2013 at 10:13 am said:

      The “Big Picture” being made up of little pictures. Like this one:-


      You can’t get away from the failed enhanced GHG forcing hypothesis even with 10 yr smoothing now.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 15/04/2013 at 11:42 am said:

      Also ‘A Big Picture Look At “Earth’s Temperature” – “The Pause” Update’


    • realityrulesok on 15/04/2013 at 1:03 pm said:

      Thank you, RC, you have now demonstrated to my satisfaction that you have no coherent grasp of the subject, and I can happily spend my time elsewhere.

      I would, however, recommend that you follow Mr. Treadgold’s cogent and well-meant advice above. Good luck.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 15/04/2013 at 1:11 pm said:

      The “subject” being: pause, hiatus, stasis, standstill, slow down, etc?

      Or some other subject?

    • Magoo on 15/04/2013 at 2:08 pm said:

      There was this gem from scepticalscience.conjob that might interest you realityrulesok:


      According to scepticalscience.conjob there’s been no statistically significant warming for between 16-23 yrs. The GISS temperature record (that shows shortest pause in warming – 16yrs), from 1997 to 2013 the +/- figure for natural variation is 0.099C/decade which is greater than the 0.081C trend. In other words the warming falls within the error margins for natural variation and are insignificant as a result. The results for the NOAA, Hadcrut 3, Hadcrut 4, BEST, RSS, and UAH all show no significant warming from between 16-23 years.

      Considering that climate scientists say that the warming before 1980 was natural, that leaves just 17 years of warming attributable to AGW (1980-1997) followed by 16-23 years of no warming. No tropospheric hot spot = no positive feedback from water vapour = no amplification of the minuscule warming attributable to CO2, therefore no AGW. The NCDC says that 15 yrs of no warming proves the models false – how long has it been now …. 16 or 23 yrs? Take your pick.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 15/04/2013 at 4:00 pm said:

      >”Considering that climate scientists say that the warming before 1980 was natural, that leaves just 17 years of warming attributable to AGW (1980-1997) followed by 16-23 years of no warming”

      In the case of RSS:-

      “…that leaves just [10] years of warming attributable to AGW (1980-199[0]) followed by […] 23 years of no warming”

    • Magoo on 15/04/2013 at 11:27 pm said:

      Sorry, I meant to write 17 yrs ‘maximum’ warming. It’s especially funny when you consider the pro AGW crowd are always harping on about a trend needing to be 30 yrs long to be justifiable. Hahahaha!

    • Richard C (NZ) on 16/04/2013 at 11:58 am said:

      Yes Magoo, especially funny and deliciously ironic. Both of which being my reason for deferral to RSS and not because RSS is ideal for a cherry-picked case as opposed to GISTEMP for example. But let me explain.

      Frank Wentz is founder of RSS and Carl Mears works there on the RSS temperature series. Both names, you will note, appear in the authorship list of the following FAQ along with a few other prominent names aligned to human attribution of climate change (e.g. Stott and Wehner):-

      Answers to frequently-asked questions for “Incorporating Model Quality Information in Climate Change Detection and Attribution Studies”

      Ben Santer, Karl Taylor, Peter Gleckler, Celine Bonfils, Tim Barnett, Dave Pierce, Tom Wigley, Carl Mears, Frank Wentz, Wolfgang Brüggemann, Nathan Gillett, Steve Klein, Susan Solomon, Peter Stott, and Mike Wehner (from 2009)


      Quoting the footnote:-

      “Finally, we note that the observed increase in water vapor provides independent evidence of the reality of warming of the lower atmosphere. The observed water vapor increase since 1988 is consistent with pronounced warming of the surface and lower atmosphere, but fundamentally inconsistent with claims (still made by some die-hard skeptics) that the lower atmosphere has cooled over recent decades.”

      Benjamin D. Santer
      Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
      Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

      # # #

      “reality of warming of the lower atmosphere” and “pronounced warming of the surface” – have they thrown out their own RSS over the last 23 years in order to state this”

      But the most delicious irony is that Benjamin D. Santer, Frank Wentz, Carl Mears and the other names on the FAQ insist records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature”. Quoting Santer et al (2011):-

      “Because of the pronounced effect of interannual noise on decadal trends, a multimodel ensemble of anthropogenically-forced simulations displays many 10-year periods with little warming. A single decade of observational TLT data is therefore inadequate for identifying a slowly evolving anthropogenic warming signal. Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature.”

      ‘Separating signal and noise in atmospheric temperature changes: The importance of timescale’

      1. B. D. Santer1,
      2. C. Mears2,
      3. C. Doutriaux1,
      4. P. Caldwell1,
      5. P. J. Gleckler1,
      6. T. M. L. Wigley3,
      7. S. Solomon4,
      8. N. P. Gillett5,
      9. D. Ivanova1,
      10. T. R. Karl6,
      11. J. R. Lanzante7,
      12. G. A. Meehl3,
      13. P. A. Stott8,
      14. K. E. Taylor1,
      15. P. W. Thorne6,
      16. M. F. Wehner9,
      17. F. J. Wentz2

      Article first published online: 18 NOV 2011


      Same names again plus some additions. But how do they (including Wentz and Mears from RSS) reconcile that statement with the undetectable human effects over the last 23 years of the RSS temperature series and not discount human effect over that period accordingly?

      I’m going with Santer et al and RSS for the most recent 23 years of statistically insignificant and all but undetectable warming sans measurable human effects vs the prior 10 years of (apparently) human caused rapid warming, but just for the delicious irony and chuckles – no other ulterior motives of course.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 16/04/2013 at 12:10 pm said:

      Missed the edit cutoff, Should be:-

      “reality of warming of the lower atmosphere” and “pronounced warming of the surface” – that was 2009 but four years later they have a problem unless they throw out RSS leaving GISTEMP say with 19 years of statistically insignificant warming – still a problem.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 16/04/2013 at 12:27 pm said:

      Still wrong. Should be:-

      “reality of warming of the lower atmosphere” and “pronounced warming of the surface” – that was 2009 but four years later they have a problem unless they throw out RSS leaving GISTEMP say with [17] years of statistically insignificant warming – still a problem.

      UAH is at 19 years, well, according to Skeptical Science and the definitions and equations of the methods section of Foster and Rahmstorf, 2011) anyway

  15. Alexander K on 16/04/2013 at 11:43 am said:

    Responders such as RROK are a comedy gift, with their constant casting of aspersions which have no relevance to the topic being discussed and their use of silly ad homs allied with their habit of earnestly quoting sources such as Sceptical Science all add up to rendering their arguments ridiculous.
    Arguing with such people is not recommended on the basis that those who express or defend their faith are not operating from a basis rooted in empirical science or upon a logical foundation.

  16. Andy on 16/04/2013 at 7:15 pm said:

    The Southland Times has produced a satirical piece on Monckton and AGW


    Such rapier wit will no doubt keep the warmists amused for days

  17. Going to see Lord Monkton tomorrow night in Wgtn. Don’t know enough about the science side- but he’s entertaining and funny so who cares?

    • That’s great JJ, I hope you enjoy the show.

      Climate change is great for a giggle

    • realityrulesok on 17/04/2013 at 3:40 am said:

      In the bad old days, Andy, the antics of the mentally ill, at hell-holes like Bedlam, provided free entertainment for members of the public.

      Of course, we’re much more civilised these days; we can pay to sit in an air-conditioned theatre and watch Christopher Monckton perform a similar role.

      Great for a giggle, but you do have to feel sorry for the guy, and his ever-so-earnest supporters who haven’t got the joke yet.

    • I’m glad that you find climate change so amusing RROK
      As I said, it is good for a giggle

      When the old people are freezing to death because they can’t pay their bills, and the snow lays thick around the country, and the windmills are not turning, you and your smug, sneering “liberal” friends can have a really good chortle at how superior and knowledgeable you are, with your spray-on leftist “thoughts” and politically correct opinions that you all agree with

    • RRO, This is an example not only of your failure to contribute to the discussion, although you do occasionally contribute, but also your penchant for outrageous insults that are less appreciated than you might imagine.

      You’ve been banned as “robbittybobbitty” and “tsl” and you can be banned again under any nom-de-plume you like. Play the game.

  18. David on 17/04/2013 at 7:52 am said:

    I love the irony of someone who uses the nom de plume “realityrulesok” giving us links to Skeptical science!
    That’s funny. Only the clueless would believe John Cook.

    • realityrulesok on 17/04/2013 at 10:12 am said:

      Indeed, David. Why on Earth would someone choose to believe actual scientists, when you can, instead, listen to the ravings of a pathological liar with a degree in classics and journalism?

      FYI, here are the contributors to SkS:


      and here is Monckton’s rap sheet, Nazis, AIDs and all:


      Absolutely no contest, as I’m sure you’ll agree.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 17/04/2013 at 10:27 am said:

      >”Why on Earth would someone choose to believe actual scientists”

      Why indeed RRO when the news headlines today are these:-

      ‘Climate scientists struggle to explain warming slowdown’

      (Reuters) – Scientists are struggling to explain a slowdown in climate change that has exposed gaps in their understanding and defies a rise in global greenhouse gas emissions.


      You might like to scan through the comments too – the “actual scientists” are taking a beating:-


    • Andy on 17/04/2013 at 10:37 am said:

      Absolutely no contest I agree. SkS endorses junk science like Lewandowski and Cooks papers about recursive conspiracy ideation that would not have even got passed as an undergrad assignment in my day.

      My brief excursions into SKS revealed yet another Eco fascist emporium that drones on about deniers and such like where my comments were snipped and mangled

    • Richard C (NZ) on 17/04/2013 at 11:03 am said:

      >”…where my comments were snipped and mangled”

      RRO being a newby here is no doubt unaware of the ‘Skeptical Science’ page where he can view an example of said mangling but of my comments in this case:-


      Then there’s Shub’s postings on same……..

      All adds up to a group that is acquiring a reputation for nefarious treatment of inconvenient issues.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 17/04/2013 at 11:40 am said:

      >”FYI, here are the contributors to SkS:”

      As Huub Bakker points out, it’s not a weight-of-numbers or argument-from-authority issue by while we’re linking to contributor lists here’s A Selection of Member Biographies from Principia Scientific International (Slayers):-


      SkS have some ground to make up in the “contest” wouldn’t you say RRO?

    • realityrulesok on 17/04/2013 at 11:58 am said:

      Thank you, RC, for making my day; what a hilarious site PSI is – it is a joke, right?

    • Richard C (NZ) on 17/04/2013 at 12:30 pm said:

      >”it is a joke, right?”

      No joke RRO, the joke of the moment is the climate scientists struggling to explain the “pause”, “hiatus”, “standstill”, etc.

      No such puzzlement on the side of those well versed in cyclicity or the highly questionable IPCC RF methodology and that includes a good many at PSI – an organization that you probably didn’t know existed but will have influence above and beyond just the blogosphere from now on RRO. An influence that I’m sure you will only really be able to combat by spamming denigratory comments around blog threads; totally ineffectual but might make you feel better.

      PSI’s latest developments:-

      ‘Principia Scientific International Makes Changes at the Top’

      PSI’s new Chairman is Imperial College’s John Sanderson (photo, center). John is the immediate past president of the Royal College of Science Association, a physicist by training and an experienced and skilled administrator. John wishes to be more than just a figurehead as he helps guide our maverick organization forward as a credible alternative to established yet politicized science associations. John will focus on extending PSI’s reach, not only further into academia, but elsewhere where a truly independent voice on scientific issues needs to be heard.

      Two new vice Chairmen: John Elliston & Pierre Latour

      With PSI’s growing worldwide membership two new important positions have been created to cope with the demands of such diversity. Serving as Vice Chair (North) will be Dr. Pierre R. Latour, an internationally respected Chemical Engineer of few peers. Dr. Latour’s alma mater, Purdue University’s School of Chemical Engineering, has honored him with their Outstanding Chemical Engineer Award making him one of only 116 of the school’s 9,000 alumni to be so recognized. Pierre has published 68 papers, holds one U.S. patent, and was also Control magazine’s Engineer of the Year in 1999.

      Since joining us in 2011 Dr. Latour has taken a lead in shaping PSI’s policy on the applied sciences and engineering and he now assumes responsibility for guiding our development in North America and Europe.

      John N.W. Elliston, a chemical geologist by training will be serving as Vice Chair (South) where he will have an open brief to expand PSI’s network of business and academic contacts throughout Australasia. In a long and successful career as manager, director and full time researcher John first distinguished himself at Peko-Wallsend Limited before engaging on a series of research contracts at CRA Exploration Pty. Limited. He has prepared 103 scientific papers and reports and is holder of the Order of Australia for his services to the Australian mining industry


      Bet you thought Monckton was the only sceptic target in the public arena that you had to slap down RRO. Now you got a whole lot more on your hands, and an organization with appointments to North America/Europe and South divisions no less.

    • Hi Richard and friends,

      I have just posed this comment on the blog of the “Slayers”/PSI blogging group’s “recruitment Officer” Terry Jackson( “Principia Scientific International unveils a new leadership team” – http://scientificqa.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/principia-scientific-international.html?showComment=1367790036071#c19418316955322955).

      It relates to your comments about the blogging groups “restructuring” following the long-expected complete dissociation of its previous “Chairman” Tim Ball.

      QUOTE: ..

      Hi Terry,

      Who are you guys trying to kid? I had an interesting chat with John Sanderson and the saying ” all that glitters is not gold” springs to mind.

      More on that in section 3.1 of “SpotlightON – PSI and PSI Acumen Ltd” (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/spotlighton-principia-scientific.html).


      Best regards, Pete Ridley (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/)

    • Hi realityrulesok,

      You are spot on with your April 17, 2013 comment about blogging group PSI. They certainly are a joke. To find out why just have a read of my article “SpotlightON _PSI and PSI Acumen Ltd” (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/spotlighton-principia-scientific.html).

      The surprising thing is that so many apparently intelligent individuals have become members. there’s one born every minute!

      Best regards, Pete Ridley ” (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/)

    • Richard C (NZ) on 06/05/2013 at 1:52 pm said:

      >”The surprising thing is that so many apparently intelligent individuals have become members”

      But the same cannot be said for the AGW “consensus”?

      It should come as no surprise that non-luke-warm AGW sceptics (i.e. those not subscribing to the views of Monckton, Spencer, or similar, and not accepting IPCC methodology) gravitate to somewhere in order for the actual AGW-sceptical POV and basis of it to be disseminated having been otherwise shut out of public discourse (let alone scientific consideration) where the luke-warm POV supposedly represents ALL AGW sceptics – it certainly does not.

      However dodgy you consider the structure of PSI to be Pete (and as much as you besmirch it), it is the growing number of intelligent individuals and their argument (that varies individual-to-individual, better or worse) that will be heard now and in the future. PSI could very well experience ructions but the members, now connected and loosely united by semi-common POV – will still have gained the critical mass and knowledge base required to make their POV heard whatever happens to PSI.

      >”They certainly are a joke”

      I think that assessment might be a little premature Pete – remember the standstill? April UAH anomaly just out (ENSO-neutral conditions): +0.10 °C.



      Back in July 2012 the figures were:-

      UAH MSU 7-2012: +0.28 °C. Rank: 5/34. Average last 12 months: 0.18 °C. [about the same as 2002/3]

      AGW appears to be AWOL so how exactly does that make PSI a “joke”?

    • Richard C (NZ) on 17/04/2013 at 7:29 pm said:

      Another emerging organization for you to denigrate RRO:-

      The Right Climate Stuff.com [The Right Climate Stuff (TCRS) research team]

      Apollo Era NASA Retirees publish new report.
      The science is not settled!!

      We are gathering together a group of highly educated and experienced scientists & engineers from various disciplines to take on the challenge of evaluating the narratives of both the advocates of AGW and also the skeptics of AGW. A great effort will be made to understand and objectively reconcile the differences by detailed discussions of the conflicting elements of the narratives. We are being successful in our attempt to include members of the study group from both sides of the AGW argument, and we believe this is important to study all appropriate inputs and viewpoints.

      Because the United States and some other nations have prematurely accepted the AGW advocates points of view and conclusions as correct, a large amount of manpower and money is being spent on an attempt to ameliorate the supposed rise in global temperature. And, also because of the colossal impact on national economies needed to make significant climate changes (if this were possible,) we believe it is critical to be certain of the reality of the conclusions on this subject. During the course of the study, reports will be provided for peer review as well as for information to the general public. In fact, we are referencing a number of studies and presentations in our List of Studies & Reports. When we have preliminary reports that are used for studies within the group, these will be password protected until they have reached a mature state.

      This study is very difficult because of the extremely complex nature of the physical and chemical interactions between the sun and earth that effect our climate. However, we are encouraged because a number of the members of the study group were successful in using scientific discipline to resolve unusual problems involved in the national effort of early manned spaceflight to achieve the goals of the Apollo Lunar Exploration Program. The motto of the Mission Flight Controllers:

      “Achievement through Excellence”

      And the motto of the Mission Evaluation Room engineers who supported Flight Operations:

      “In God we trust, all others bring data”

      These were not words that guided us during Apollo, but more importantly, words that defined how we did our work. This is what made us proud to be called “Astronauts,” and “Rocket Scientists.” We will attempt to adhere to these attitudes in order to achieve the goals of this study group.


    • Richard C (NZ) on 17/04/2013 at 11:58 am said:

      Now they’re posting student’s essays (quoting SKS):-

      This article was written by a student in the Science Communication program at the University of Western Australia.

      ‘It’s getting hotter – despite cooling from cosmic rays’


      “Hotter” apparently being a euphemism for cooler:-


  19. Alexander K on 18/04/2013 at 10:46 am said:

    I realise this is OT, but Dr Darko Butina, retired scientist, has just made a 2-part submission to WUWT that finishes with a couple of brilliant comments re climate and data:
    ‘All knowledge is in instrumental data that can validated and none in calculated data that can be validated only by yet another calculation.’
    The submission is well worth a careful read, whatever one’s views on the vagaries of climate and weather.
    Also OT, but to the best of my knowledge John Cook of Skeptical Science and Prof Lewandowski’s associate is a cartoonist; if he is a scientist he does some strange things with that discipline.

  20. Simon on 19/04/2013 at 9:41 am said:

    Monckton was a hoot on Radio New Zealand last night. He doesn’t seem to understand the concept of residence time and confuses CO2 with CH4.

    • Magoo on 19/04/2013 at 11:42 am said:

      There’s a lot of confusion regarding AGW. Some people think it’s still warming after 16-23 of flatline temperatures, others still think AGW is possible with no positive feedback from atmospheric water vapour, and some think the models are still valid even though 15 yrs of no warming invalidates them and it hasn’t warmed of at least 16 yrs now. Some people even think that when the temperatures get colder it’s really a sign that it’s getting warmer – now that really IS funny, ‘The colder weather is proof of global warming’.

      Really, some people will believe anything they’re told, even when empirical evidence from multiple sources contradicts their beliefs. Best not point it out though lest the high priests of global warming call an inquisition, and their brainless minions resort to character assassination against the blasphemers who point to the holes in their religion of faith.

      It looks like Gavin Schmidt might be jumping from the sinking ship now as well, but I suppose that’s what happens when the position held become untenable. Maybe it had something to do with Hansen getting the boot (I mean retiring) from NASA:


    • Andy on 19/04/2013 at 11:47 am said:

      It didn’t sound like a hoot to me. He spoke most sense about nuclear power. Thanks for the link though

    • Simon on 19/04/2013 at 2:15 pm said:

      I agreed with quite a bit that he said on the relative economics of different sources of energy. His knowledge of the science though is surprisingly flimsy considering that he lectures and writes on the stuff. Either that or he is being deliberately disingenious, I’m not sure which.

    • Andy on 19/04/2013 at 7:42 pm said:

      I suppose this is what they call a Gish Gallop.
      There were a lot of points that needed discussion or challenging, and the interviewer didn’t have the time or nous to do so. Monckton does spend a lot of time congratulating himself which I find a bit cringeworthy.

      If they’d taken a few points and discussed them in more detail it might have been a more interesting interview.

  21. val majkus on 20/04/2013 at 7:11 pm said:

    does anyone know if Richard ever received an Ombudsman’s decision on the issues in this post https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2011/02/niwas-review-what-are-they-hiding/
    If so, is there a further post on the decision
    I’ve been trying to contact Richard without success

  22. Ron on 24/04/2013 at 1:18 pm said:

    Following last night’s talk in Dunedin, it is good to see the ODT reporting CM’s rebuttal of Prof Hunter’s views. Maybe it would not have done so if the Herald/VUW had not been challenged.


    In winding up the evening, Jock Allison observed it was a pity so few staff or students attended, given the supposed purpose of a university and their chance to challenge CM’s presentation and ask questions after the talk. [Sir Alan Mark did raise the issue of ocean “acidification” however].

  23. Magoo on 26/04/2013 at 10:28 am said:


  24. Richard C (NZ) on 04/05/2013 at 5:19 pm said:

    Lord Monckton’s Appeal to Authority Backfires in Greenhouse Gas Debate

    Written by John O’Sullivan

    Having spent a few days pondering Lord Monckton’s reply to John O’Sullivan’s open letter the senior scientists of Principia Scientific International concluded that the sum of his argument is nothing other than an appeal to authority – a debating stratagem his lordship denounces when used by our mutual opponents, the climate alarmists. In addition, closer scrutiny of Monckton’s references show them to be decidedly shaky. Indeed, with Monckton doing little more than glibly deferring to Fourier, Tyndall, Arrhenius and Callender, in lieu of any actual scientific rebuttal, there is very little substance offered up for debate.

    […point-by-point rebuttal…]


    Taking Lord Monckton’s appeal to authority as our cue, the above rebuttal shows that his belief in the greenhouse gas “theory” is premised on misunderstandings, misrepresentations and half truths. We learn that contrary to what his lordship asserts Manabe&Wetherald conceded CO2 causes cooling; Fourier admitted a greenhouse effect only exists where there’s no convection (impossible in Earth’s turbulent atmosphere); Tyndall admitted CO2 was the feeblest absorber of radiant heat and that “greenhouse gas” humidity reduces temperature extremes; Arrhenius has been widely misrepresented as well as refuted by the experiments of Knut Ångström, while Callender made the schoolboy error of thinking that correlation proves causation – it doesn’t.

    As all true skeptics know full well, it was that “correlations proves causation” fallacy that first triggered the man-global warming alarm when temperatures rose between 1975-1998 in line with a rise in CO2 levels. But as we since learned (and validated by 400,000 years of Vostok ice core data) rises in CO2 levels mostly follow rises in temperature, as now confirmed again by a new paper in Nature Climate Change. [7]

    As such they cannot be inferred as the cause of climate change because they are really an inconsequential symptom. Once his lordship and others understand these facts we will all be closer to wider climate sanity and truer to empirical science.

    Finally, a supplemental detailed scientific rebuttal of Lord Monckton’s modern day greenhouse gas authority, Professor Roy Spencer, will be published in due course to accompany this reply. Some of such errors have already been pointed out to Roy.


    • Richard C (NZ) on 06/05/2013 at 2:20 pm said:

      A statement on behalf of Lord Monckton

      Written by Lord Monckton

      One John O’Sullivan has spent several weeks attempting to overcome his shock at the number of elementary errors of fact that he had made in replying to Lord Monckton’s response to an open letter from him asserting, with characteristic scientific illiteracy, that there is no greenhouse effect. The reply that O’Sullivan has now cobbled together intellectually dishonest, and characteristically so.

      O’Sullivan says Lord Monckton had been “appealing to the authority” of various scientists he had listed. On the contrary, His Lordship had done no more than to demonstrate the characteristic factual inaccuracy of the statement in O’Sullivan’s original open letter to His Lordship that “not until 1981, when NASA’s James Hansen angled for the political stage, were scientists seriously considering CO2’s impact on climate.”

      As O’Sullivan now accepts, that assertion was indeed factually inaccurate. Many scientists before Hansen had seriously considered the impact of CO2, of whom Lord Monckton had simply listed just a few. Here is what His Lordship actually wrote (O’Sullivan’s reply, with characteristic dishonesty, omits the first sentence of what Lord Monckton wrote so as to imply that His Lordship was appealing to the authority of the listed scientists rather than merely correcting O’Sullivan’s factual error):

      […point-by-point rebuttal…]

      Unanswered points from Lord Monckton’s original letter of reply

      O’Sullivan is silent upon Lord Monckton’s direct refutation of his inaccurate assertions that His Lordship had “styled” himself “‘science adviser’ to Margaret Thatcher; that Lord Monckton had written a speech for her in 1988 when he had left her service in 1986 and the speech is known to have been written by another; that CO2 does not warm the atmosphere at all; that the ‘hot spot’ in the mid-troposphere is a symptom of greenhouse-gas-driven warming only; that remarks in fact made by Al Gore were made by His Lordship; that blackbodies such as the Earth cannot simultaneously possess albedo; that the effect of CO2 is masked by that of water vapor at all altitudes; etc., etc.

      His Lordship is entitled to assume that, on all these points, O’Sullivan is now better informed, if not necessarily wiser.

      In sum, O’Sullivan’s reply to Lord Monckton was characteristically, belligerently wrong on every material point; he was unable to reply to the great majority of Lord Monckton’s previous points; and his entire letter was predicated on the characteristically intellectually dishonest misstatement of the context in which Lord Monckton had listed some of the scientists who had studied or discussed the impact of CO2 before Hansen (1981), and on the deliberate and dishonest suppression of the vital sentence in Lord Monckton’s reply that established the innocent context of Lord Monckton’s remarks.


      ‘Unanswered Points’ Answered below:

      By John O’Sullivan

      (a swift reply to Monckton’s strawman point immediately above – a more detailed rebuttal on the science is being drafted by PSI senior scientists)

      Above, Lord Monckton labours the strawman inference that I claimed he was directly involved in Thatcher’s 1988 speech to the RS. I stated no such thing. But I did infer he helped guide Thatcher towards that end by my statement that “you helped your boss, Prime Minister Thatcher spin the CO2 alarm. “

      This is proven by Monckton’s own admission he was in Downing St. promoting the “CO2 causes warming” claim until 1986 as he admits “For four years I advised the Prime Minister on various policy matters, including science. “

      If anyone is in any doubt that his lordship sought to trumpet his influence about climate issues in Downing St. check his cited interview with the Guardian that he told, “”it was I who – on the prime minister’s behalf – kept a weather eye on the official science advisers to the government, from the chief scientific adviser downward.”

      The Guardian story I cited in my first open letter reveals, “Viscount Monckton also modestly notes that he was responsible for bringing in “the first computer they had ever seen in Downing Street”, on which he “did the first elementary radiative-transfer calculations that indicated climate scientists were right to say some ‘global warming’ would arise as CO2 concentration continued to climb”. “

      Splitting hairs, m’lord?

      As with Al Gore’s claim to have “invented the Internet” we see his lordship similarly modest about his achievements shaming others who have sought to cast doubt on his great scientific insight and genius. Indeed the Guardian continues:

      “On page 640 of her 1993 autobiography Margaret Thatcher: The Downing Street Years, the former prime minister describes how she grappled with the issue of climate change, referring only to “George Guise, who advised me on science in the policy unit”. Indeed, given Monckton’s purportedly crucial role, it seems to be heartless ingratitude from the Iron Lady that she does not find room to mention him anywhere in the 914-page volume on her years as prime minister. “

      But, your lordship, if you wish to assert you were the voice of reason at Thatcher’s side for those years while others around her were sounding climate alarm please provide evidence (e.g. any publication by you) prior to, or around 1988, where you make it plain you are skeptical and Thatcher was wrong to sound the alarm in her 1988 speech.

      If you fail to provide such proof we are thus fairly entitled to infer, as per your other Downing St. claims, that they should be taken with a grain of salt.

      So, which is, Chris – luminary or liar?


  25. Hi folks,

    Perhaps you’d like to take a look at my article “SpotlightON – Lord Christopher Monckton v PSI Acumen Ltd” (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/spotlighton-lord-christopher-monckton-v.html).

    For those of you who aren’t up to speed with activities within the “Slayers”/PSI blogging group you may find of interest my updated article “SpotlightON – PSI and PSI Acumen Ltd” (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/spotlighton-principia-scientific.html).

    It covers the latest shenanigans that are going on there, including the take-over of the group by a new company PSI Acumen Ltd. owned by no less that John O’Sullivan, the subsequent departure of “Chairman” Tim Ball and the hasty withdrawal from any involvement in PSI Acumen Ltd. of its original major shareholder, USA businessman Walter James O’Brien after only a few weeks – wise man. It also covers the associated “restructuring” of the blogging group.


    Best regards, Pete Ridley

    • Richard C (NZ) on 06/05/2013 at 12:57 pm said:

      >”Perhaps you’d like to take a look at my article “SpotlightON – Lord Christopher Monckton v PSI Acumen Ltd” ”

      Took a look, saw this:-

      3.18 PSI Member Bryan Leyland
      On 26th November 2012 “ .. Fast-growing maverick science body, Principia Scientific International .. ” announced that “ .. Today renowned climate expert Hans Jelbring and Bryan Leyland, spokesman on energy and economic matters for the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (NZCSC) each announce themselves among dozens of new faces in the PSI team .. ” (http://principia-scientific.org/supportnews/latest-news/71-the-courts-hans-jelbring-and-the-kiwis-bring-joy-for-greenhouse-gas-deniers.html – see also Section 4.1, Appendix A Note 12/Note 20 and http://hot-topic.co.nz/leyland-joins-the-uber-cranks-signs-up-with-serial-liar-osullivans-vanity-science-group/).

      The PSI membership promotional page presents a biography of PSI Member ” .. Bryan Leyland .. is a .. Consulting Engineer specializing in large and small hydropower and many other aspects of electricity generation and power systems .. Bryan is also spokesman on energy and economic matters for the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (NZCSC) .. holds a Master of Science (Power System Design), was a Fellow of the Institution of Electrical Engineers .. is a Fellow of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers .. Fellow of the Institution of Professional Engineers, New Zealand .. has also written more than 100 papers on power systems, hydropower development, rural electrification, co-generation, power system protection, and the safety of large dams .. ” (http://principia-scientific.org/about/why-psi-is-a-private-assoc.html).


      # # #

      That Hot Topic link to “leyland-joins-the-uber-cranks-signs-up-with-serial-liar-osullivans-vanity-science-group” was a nice touch.

      You’re a man on a mission aren’t you Pete?

    • “Uber crank” conjures up a brand of hi tech German bicycle accessories to me.

  26. Monckton just posted this link on Facebook


    Interview with him on Dunedin’s channel 9

  27. Hi Richard,

    Thanks for responding to my comments but I respectfully suggest that you have not really bothered to do any kind of worthwhile “due diligence” on the founding members of the ”Slayers”/PSI blogging group. Had you done so you might not be so eager to accept the claims coming out of the group on face value.

    I only happened across this thread of yours yesterday while searching for recent comments involving Lord Monckton and John O’Sullivan. It is a coincidence that Val Majkus, someone for whom I have enormous respect, commented here on 20th April (https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2013/04/lord-monckton-complains-to-vuw/#comment-192266). Val is (or was) a real lawyer who is highly regarded and I have no disagreement with “There are a great many honourable and decent lawyers – Val Majkus is one” (http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2013/02/there-are-a-great-many-honourable-and-decent-lawyers-val-majkus-is-one.html).

    I had frequent exchanges involving Val during 2009 on the forum of CACC-sceptic Australian Senator Steve Fielding who had the courage to take on Kevin Rudd’s Climate Change Minister Penny W(r)ong.

    On 9 February 2011 long before becoming the “Slayers”/PSI blogging group’s “recruitment officer” Terry Jackson started an article with “ .. American lawyer John O`Sullivan .. ” (http://scientificqa.blogspot.co.uk/2011/02/bbc-pension-funds-and-biasedman-made.html). Terry is not the only person to have been misled into thinking that the “Slayers” group’s “owner” and PSI’s “CEO and Legal Consultant” was a qualified lawyer. Back in Feb. 2010 I had come to the same mistaken conclusion.

    I commented along those lines on an article by the BBC’s Richard Black about those Climategate whitewash enquiries. I started and ended my comment with “ .. Relating to the ongoing Science & Technology Committee enquiry into the UEA CRU’s climate science activities is an interesting article on lawyer John O’Sullivan’s blog …. NB: John O’Sullivan is a legal advocate and writer who for several years has litigated against government corruption and conspiracy cases in both the US and Britain .. ” (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/02/forget_the_norfolk_polices_cri.html).

    In my opinion that mistaken impression was anything but unintentional.

    On 5th April 2010 Val said to a small group of us who were commenting on Senator Fielding’s forum “ .. Hi all; we should do something about this and maybe get John OSullivan and at least one other person I know involved .. ” (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/psi-due-diligence-20102011-selected-e.html). On 27th April Val had connected us with John O’Sullivan and his loyal follower Malcolm Roberts as John built up his team of “Slayers”.

    It took me all of 8 months and a careful due diligence exercise to realise the basics of what was going on and further due diligence since has filled in much of the detail. That is what is made available on my Global Political Shenanigans blog but you appear to have only chosen to take note of a tiny part of it. You quoted from “SpotlightON – PSI and PSI Acumen Ltd” only that bit from “ .. 3.18 PSI Member Bryan Leyland .. ” but chose to ignore all of the rest. How about a comment on Section 4.0 “Over-ambitious and questionable Membership Claims”.

    I start off that section with QUOTE: .. On 15th March 2013 the PSI Home-page was making the proud claim that ” .. Our numbers are increasing rapidly (already 200+) and include a Nobel Prize nominee, a former President of a Royal Scientific Society, two former NASA experts who worked on the Apollo space program and US Bureau of Mines top engineers .. ” (http://principia-scientific.org/). As for many claims emanating from PSI, closer scrutiny is warranted .. ”.

    You say that “ .. However dodgy you consider the structure of PSI to be .. and as much as you besmirch it .. it is the growing number of intelligent individuals and their argument .. that will be heard now and in the future. PSI .. will still have gained the critical mass and knowledge base required to make their POV heard whatever happens to PSI.”. In my opinion the activities of several of the founding members of the “Slayers”/PSI blogging group undermines the efforts of CACC-sceptics rather than enhancing them.

    May I respectfully suggest that you change that word “besmirched” to “shed light on”. My spotlight has been focussed on the skeletons in the “Slayers” cupboards in order to reveal facts and based upon those facts I form reasonable opinions. Others might like to look at those same facts and form their own reasonable opinions.

    I repeat what realityrulesok said “They are a joke”. I think that your own assessment of PSI might be a little premature Richard.

    Best regards, Pete Ridley (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/)

    • Richard C (NZ) on 07/05/2013 at 1:14 am said:

      >”My spotlight has been focussed on the skeletons in the “Slayers” cupboards”

      I’m not concerned with internal PSI ructions Pete, others here might be mildly interested. That will work out without my attention. But I do get their articles by email and have read a wide selection of their papers so I certainly keep an eye on PSI developments, what they produce, who they’re taking issue with, who the respective identities are, and what their respective arguments are and the basis of them.

      I may not agree exactly with everything coming out of PSI but there’s an enormous amount I do subscribe to and I find myself aligned more with them than any other scientific/physics POV mainly because it rings true on investigation. Carl Brehmer’s work for example is technically and educationally very useful and certainly no “joke” as you blandly assert of the whole outfit.

      Time will tell as to who really turns out to be the butt of the climate joke Pete, but at the moment it’s not the Slayers.

    • Hi Richard,

      I’ve enjoyed our earlier exchanges and hadn’t intended commenting further. That was before I reread your comment about John O’Sullivan and his blogging group PSI in your Aug. 2012 article “With friends like these we need no enemies” (https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2012/08/with-friends-like-these-we-need-no-enemies/#comment-109694).

      In it one “Flipper” said QUOTE: .. Neither Mr O’Sullivan nor “his” PSI front has any credibility. In recent months he has tried this rubbish on Monckton and then my good friend Rupert Wyndham. He simply confirmed that he is a fool .. UNQUOTE. Your (moderator’s?) response included “ .. Several people advise us kindly to have nothing to do with John O’Sullivan. My thanks to them, and a warning to John not to take the opportunity to fight it out again in these columns; I won’t publish it .. ”.

      You appear to have a different opinion of PSI but we’ll just have to wait and see about what sort of impact the “Slayers”/PSI blogging group has on CACC policy. You seem to believe what John O’Sullivan claims without verifying anything yourself. I don’t believe a word about there being 200+ PSI members and will only accept that someone is indeed a member if it is confirmed by the individual him/herself. Apart from the factthat John O’ has told lie after lie after lie about himself there have been too many claimed members who have said otherwise.

      There are 20 names of members of the Alpha Institute of Advanced Studies (AIAS) also listed as PSI members on the PSI “biographies” page yet the founding member of AIAS, Dr. Myron Evans has categorically stated to the contrary in public on his own web-site. As I say in Section 4.2 of “SpotlightON – PSI and PSI Acumen Ltd QUOTE: ..

      On 1st November 2012 founder of the Alpha Institute of Advanced Studies Professor Myron Evans and about 22 of his AIAS members were added to PSI’s “Selected Member Biographies” page (http://www.principia-scientific.org/about/why-psi-is-a-private-assoc.html). This followed the announcement that it had been “An Epic Week of Success for PSI .. a membership surge bringing eminent scientists into the fold – including one Nobel Science Prize nominee .. we are now affiliated with the Alpha Institute for Advanced Studies. No less than fourteen of our new members .. with the most notable figure among them being Welshman Professor Myron Evans, a Nobel Science Prize nominee ..” (http://principia-scientific.org/supportnews/latest-news/21-an-epic-week-of-success-for-psi.html).

      The excitement must have been short-lived. Only 6 days later Professor Evans had issued the following statements ” .. AIAS has not Joined PSI Aftet due diligence AIAS has decided not to join PSI .. ” (http://drmyronevans.wordpress.com/2012/11/07/aias-has-not-joined-psi/) and ” .. We did our due diligence and decided not to join PSI but act as observers .. ” ..

      UNQUOTE (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/spotlighton-principia-scientific.html).

      Don’t just accept what I write on my blog – check it out for yourself.

      Best regards, Pete

    • Hi Pete,

      Different Richard. Richard C doesn’t run the blog and didn’t write that post.

      Interesting comments, though, thanks.


    • Hi Richard (Treadgold),

      Sorry about that – I once again thought that it was you commenting when it was Richard Cumming (https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2012/12/im-a-tree-why-not-feed-me/#comment-167862).

      Best regards, Pete Ridley

    • Hi Richard C (NZ),

      Maybe blogging group PSI’s latest “recruit” Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov, Head of Space Research of the Sun Sector at the Pulkovo Observatory, St. Petersburg, Russia has concluded that PSI is just too much of a big joke for his liking.

      After being proudly announced as a new member by PSI’s “Recruitment Officer” on 28th April (http://principia-scientific.org/supportnews/latest-news/179-dr-habibullo-abdussamatov-joins-principia-scientific-international.html) Dr. Abdussamatov advised on 21st May that he had “walked away from the PSI”.

      Terry Jackson has now added to the end of that article “” .. Regrettably Dr. Abdussamatov has now resigned from PSI .. “. No doubt regrettable for PSI but it appears not for Dr. Abdussamatov.

      Despite having “walked away from the PSI” Dr. Abdussamatov’s name remains among PSI’s “member biographies” (http://principia-scientific.org/about/why-psi-is-a-private-assoc.html). It is the same with the members of Dr. Myron Evans’s Alpha Institute of Advanced Studies (AIAS). Dr. Evans made it absolutely clear in Nov. 2012 that AIAS had not joined PSI yet about 20 AIAS members names still appear in that list of “member biographies”. It seems that once a name gets into that list it is very hard to get it removed. Perhaps that is the basis on which PSI claims to have 200+ members.

      What a joke!

      My latest update to “SpotlightON -PSI and PSI ACumen Ltd” discusses this (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/spotlighton-principia-scientific.html).

      Best regards, Pete Ridley

  28. “Victoria rejects Monckton complaint”

    Victoria’s Vice-Chancellor Professor Pat Walsh says an investigation into the complaint, lodged last month against Professor Jonathan Boston, Dr James Renwick and Professor David Frame, has found Viscount Monckton’s allegations were not substantiated.

    Professor Walsh says the investigation was carried out by a senior University professor with expertise in science and in University processes and policy


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation