DENVER – A cost to all, and benefit to none. That was the conclusion offered Wednesday by noted climate skeptic and former adviser to UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, Lord Christopher Monckton.
For more than ninety minutes, Lord Monckton whisked an enrapt audience of approximately fifty in the Old Supreme Court Chambers of the Capitol through a catalog of what he described as a “travesty” of science, including the four Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports that have become the basis for what many observers have called the “consensus” view of climate change.
Lord Monckton began with a detailed analysis of the modeling mechanisms that form the foundation of what he described as the “settled” science that climate skeptics view as lacking credibility.
Based on his investigations, the “predictions are getting worse.” In Lord Monckton’s estimation, much of what is repeated by some scientists, politicians, activists, and even journalists is based entirely on scientific guesswork and modeling, and not on actual observed data.
Lord Monckton pointed directly at former Vice President Al Gore’s documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” as the source for popularizing what he characterized as “dishonest science” drawn by public relations executives and not by scientists.
He quoted Gore’s encouragement of “over-representation” of data or doomsday scenarios that turned a wonky slideshow presentation into a “mawkish, sci-fi, horror-comedy.”
Among the biggest misrepresentations, according to Lord Monckton, were hysterical numbers exaggerating sea level increases and reports claiming that the loss of sea ice causing the rise of the oceans was endangering polar bears.
Lord Monckton argued that, at best, faulty overestimations (sea level rise) and flimsy scientific reports (polar bears) that ignored population recovery and the animal’s natural ability to swim were used by Gore and other proponents of anthropogenic climate change to sow hysteria.
The actual facts in these cases and many others, he said, did not provide a solid scientific foundation for economically crippling regulation and government expansion.
Natural variability, such as Pacific Decadal Oscillation, could explain at least some of the temperature changes since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, said Lord Monckton.
Other factors, such as a cooling and desiccating effect in central Africa, were really responsible for the decline in glacial ice at Mount Kilimanjaro, one of Gore’s more memorable examples of the potentially disastrous effects of global warming. This cooling effect essentially removed moisture from storms reaching Ernest Hemingway’s romantic ice fields, according to Lord Monckton, and began decades before the roughly thirty or so year time frame than Gore claimed had occurred, and more rapidly.
While Colorado’s climate action plans drew Lord Monckton’s disapprobation, as being all cost—so costly there was no estimate of economic cost, he claimed—it was the now infamous “Climategate” emails from East Anglia that drew his ire.
Rather than simple misrepresentation or overzealous extrapolations of data, Lord Monckton referenced the scientists’ own private emails that showed a concerted effort to conceal what the scientists dubbed “censored” data that called into question climate models such as Michael Mann’s infamous “hockey stick” temperature graph.
In their attempts to “hide the decline,” Lord Monckton argued, the scientists had committed the most grievous of errors, and became a shameful scientific “travesty” that would be costly to taxpayers, individual rights, and standard of living world wide.
The IPCC reports themselves were directly manipulated, Lord Monckton contended, and the evidence was easily gleaned simply by looking at the early drafts of the reports versus the final wording that took the media by storm. One of the clearest changes came in 1995, he said, when the final draft offering a hesitant conclusion that “we do not know” if humans were responsible for the observable temperature changes was edited and published to read that there existed a clearly “discernable human influence” on the change in climate.
However, even if all of the various models, graphs, predictions and the subsequent conclusions were, in fact, true, and not the product of misrepresentation or statistical manipulation, Lord Monckton still believes that the efforts to combat climate change would prove futile.
“CO2 mitigation strategies that are inexpensive enough to be affordable will be ineffective. Strategies costly enough to be effective will be unaffordable,” concluded Lord Monckton.
But the question is not just one of dollars and cents. It is a profoundly moral issue.
“Millions died of starvation because of the biofuels scam, because of this dishonest global warming scare. That’s why it matters, that this nonsense should be fought,” said Lord Monckton.
He quoted UN right to food rapporteur, Jean Ziegler, who in 2007 called the diversion of foodstuffs into biofuels as a way of reducing carbon emissions a “crime against humanity.”
Lord Monckton’s visit to the Capitol, hosted by Rep. Wes McKinley (D-Walsh), included a discussion on agriculture.