Energy Change for Climate Control
RSS icon Home icon
  • Monckton On His High Court Horse

    Posted on February 1st, 2011 Jo 22 comments

    [ UPDATE : Some of the propagandists of the Climategate non-scandal, an event, you may recall, that involved the purloining and publication of thousands of private e-mails, have complained that I published their private e-mail addresses...Oh, such delicious irony ! ]

    Monckton’s on his High Court horse, doo dah, doo dah…. yes The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, christen-named Christopher has had it with the BBC. Really had it. You can almost visualise cartoon steam exploding from his auricles, imagine a purple brow with veins a-popping.

    And in the process of winging off a torrent of what feel like huffy-puffy blow-your-house-down e-mails, he has managed to send one to me, possibly by mistake, but who knows, really ? I mean, who really knows what is going on in his Viscountnesses’ mind ? Why has he not succumbed to the inevitable and graciously bowed out from the theatre of contention and meekly joined the Glorious House of Scientific Consensus ?

    Let’s repeat it one more time – Climate Change is real and it’s happening now. The mid-range projection for average Global Warming is a rise of around about three degrees Celsius, which will be significant in its impacts on habitats around the world, and at the current three quarters of a degree is already causing major disruptions to rainfall and weather patterns and de-stabilisation of the frozen regions, with knock-on effects for plant and animal life and agriculture, as recognised and evidenced by all the world’s leading science academies.

    Discounting a wide range of possible positive feedbacks, global warming to a first order calculation from basic Physics will be somewhat over one degree Celsius for a doubling of Carbon Dioxide; and then in addition, about the same again for the increased atmospheric water vapour, a direct result of the initial Carbon Dioxide-induced warming.

    Christopher Monckton, is, in my view, wrong to assert that Climate Sensitivity to increasing greenhouse gases is low, when the basic Physics contradicts him.

    =x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

    From: Christopher Monckton (3rd Viscount of Brenchley)
    Sent: 31 January 2011 20:40:47
    Re: BBC 4
    To: Rupert Wyndham
    (R. C. E. Wyndham, ex-Company Secretary, Sage Group);
    John Gahan (Farnham Geological Society, New Forest councillor)
    Cc: John Gahan (Farnham Geological Society, New Forest councillor); Brice Bosnich (Australian National University, Research School of Chemistry); Christopher Booker (Daily Telegraph columnist), James Delingpole (Daily Telegraph columnist), John Christy (University of Alabama in Huntsville), Nigel Lawson (Global Warming Policy Foundation), Paul Reiter (Pasteur Institute), Richard S. Lindzen (MIT), S. Fred Singer (SEPP), Andrew Collins (BBC Radio Times editor), Benny Peiser (Global Warming Policy Foundation), Gabriel (Gabe) Rychert (Climate Realists), Sally Allix, Angela Kelly, jo abbess, Mark Thompson (BBC Director General), Caroline Thompson (BBC), Anthony Bright-Paul (author), Tony Nicholls, Andrew Montford (Bishop Hill weblog), Humphrey Morison, David Bellamy (naturalist, conservationist), Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen (Hull University), Charles Wyndham, Colin Bradshaw (Rowan Studios), Piers Corbyn (Weather Action), Peter Sissons (ex-BBC), Professor Philip Stott, Hans Schreuder (Tech Know), David Evans (Science Speak), Fred Pearce (journalist, The Guardian, New Scientist Magazine), “CWS”, James Naughtie (BBC), John Humphrys (BBC), John Brignell (Number Watch), Kenneth (Ken) Haapala (SEPP), Rodney Leach (Matheson & Co.), “Physics Services”, Melanie Phillips (Daily Mail journalist), Andrew Revkin (New York Times journalist), The Tablet (Catholic newspaper), Andrew Tyrie (UK Parliament), Martin Rees (ex-President, Royal Society), Anthony Watts (Watts Up With That weblog)

    Actually it’s a boorish hatchet job of the traditional BBC kind, but I sued them and made them cut it by half an hour and alter or remove some 16 downright errors and unfairnesses in the programme. Pleasingly, they’re going to have to pay quite a large chunk of the court costs (though I’m going to have to pay some too, because although the Beeb had promised me a right of reply their promise meant nothing either to them or to the High Court). – M of B

    The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

    —–Original Message—–
    From: Rupert Wyndham (R. C. E. Wyndham, ex-Company Secretary, Sage Group)
    To: John Gahan (Farnham Geological Society)
    Cc: John Gahan (Farnham Geological Society, New Forest councillor); Brice Bosnich (Australian National University, Research School of Chemistry); Christopher Booker (Daily Telegraph columnist); James Delingpole (Daily Telegraph columnist); Christopher Monckton (3rd Viscount of Brenchley); John Christy (University of Alabama in Huntsville); Nigel Lawson (Global Warming Policy Foundation); Paul Reiter (Pasteur Institute); Richard S. Lindzen (MIT); S. Fred Singer (SEPP); Andrew Collins (BBC Radio Times editor); Benny Peiser (Global Warming Policy Foundation); Gabriel (Gabe) Rychert (Climate Realists); Sally Allix; Angela Kelly; jo abbess; Mark Thompson (BBC Director General); Caroline Thompson (BBC); Anthony Bright-Paul (author); Tony Nicholls; Andrew Montford (Bishop Hill weblog); Humphrey Morison; David Bellamy (naturalist, conservationist); Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen (Hull University); Charles Wyndham; Colin Bradshaw (Rowan Studios); Piers Corbyn (Weather Action); Peter Sissons (ex-BBC); Professor Philip Stott; Hans Schreuder (Tech Know); David Evans (Science Speak); Fred Pearce (journalist, The Guardian, New Scientist Magazine); “CWS”; James Naughtie (BBC); John Humphrys (BBC); John Brignell (Number Watch); Kenneth (Ken) Haapala (SEPP); Rodney Leach (Matheson & Co.); “Physics Services”; Melanie Phillips (Daily Mail journalist); Andrew Revkin (New York Times journalist); The Tablet (Catholic newspaper); Andrew Tyrie (UK Parliament); Martin Rees (ex-President, Royal Society); Anthony Watts (Watts Up With That weblog)

    Sent: Mon, Jan 31, 2011 4:50 pm
    Subject: BBC 4

    John

    Don’t know if you’ve noticed, but Monckton is the star turn tonight from 2200-2300 hrs. There’s the usual weasel worded lead-in within the pages of the Radio Times as, indeed, there was for last week’s Horizon. It’s also interesting to see the BBC going into contortions not to abandon the party line – note, Horizon for warmistas was at peak time (2100 hrs), but this evening’s ‘off message’ contribution is slotted an hour ahead, when Corporation spin doctors no doubt expect that fewer people will access it, by then very sensibly preferring instead their mug of Horlicks and an electric blanket. The BBC will, of course, laud the exercise as a conspicuous example of its vaunted impartiality.

    It is noteable too that JS in the RT, whoever that turkey may be, states that: “The film’s impossible task is to be rigorous enough to unpick his arguments without giving sceptics the impression that any criticism is just part of the conspiracy.” Climategate in mind, with this as just a Freudian slip? What say you?

    Well, on this subject if not his Petri dishes, you, I and many another could unpick Sir Paul Nurse faster than a puppy could a bog roll.

    With him and his cronies ’tis but a matter of being able to read ‘FRAUD’, writ large in neon lights. In the case of attempting to unpick Monckton, one might just have to undergo the inconvenient preliminary of actually acquiring a little knowledge.

    Anyway, I’ll record it. It’ll not say anything that’s unfamiliar, but it will, nonetheless, do so effectively and well. Plainly, JS is bothered,

    as well he might be, given the evidence of crass ignorance.

    ATB

    R

    =x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

    From: Christopher Monckton
    Sent: 31 January 2011 19:52:46
    To: Hans Schreuder (Tech Know), Rupert Wyndham (R. C. E. Wyndham, ex-Company Secretary, Sage Group), John Gahan (Farnham Geological Society, New Forest councillor)
    Cc: John Gahan (Farnham Geological Society, New Forest councillor), Brice Bosnich (Australian National University, Research School of Chemistry);, Christopher Booker (Daily Telegraph columnist), James Delingpole (Daily Telegraph columnist), John Christy (University of Alabama in Huntsville), Nigel Lawson (Global Warming Policy Foundation), Paul Reiter (Pasteur Institute), Richard S. Lindzen (MIT), S. Fred Singer (SEPP), Andrew Collins (BBC Radio Times editor), Benny Peiser (Global Warming Policy Foundation), Gabriel (Gabe) Rychert (Climate Realists), Sally Allix, Angela Kelly, jo abbess, Mark Thompson (BBC Director General), Caroline Thompson (BBC), Anthony Bright-Paul (author), Tony Nicholls, Andrew Montford (Bishop Hill weblog), Humphrey Morison, David Bellamy (naturalist, conservationist), Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen (Hull University), Charles Wyndham, Colin Bradshaw (Rowan Studios), Piers Corbyn (Weather Action), Peter Sissons (ex-BBC), Professor Philip Stott, David Evans (Science Speak), Fred Pearce \n (Journalist, The Guardian, New Scientist Magazine), “CWS”, James Naughtie (BBC), John Humphrys (BBC), John Brignell (Number Watch), Kenneth (Ken) Haapala (SEPP), Rodney Leach (Matheson & Co.), “Physics Services”, Melanie Phillips (Daily Mail journalist), Andrew Revkin (New York Times journalist), The Tablet (Catholic newspaper), Andrew Tyrie (UK Parliament), Martin Rees (ex-President, Royal Society), Anthony Watts (Watts Up With That weblog)

    There is a greenhouse effect; increases in greenhouse-gas concentrations add to it; CO2 is a greenhouse gas; at the quantum level it mimics the dipole moment of a more complex molecule; accordingly at its characteristic absorption wavelengths a quantum resonance is established in the molecule, radiating heat that would otherwise have passed harmlessly out into space; and, therefore, adding CO2 to the atmosphere, as we are doing, will cause some warming. It is trivially correct to say that the climate object’s only method of losing heat is by radiation to outer space: however, if some of that heat is retained in the atmosphere, radiating here via the quantum resonance in CO2 molecules rather than radiating harmlessly out to space, warming will of course result. I have already set out, in the simplest terms, the half-page of not particularly difficult undergrad physical math that establishes the fact and magnitude of the greenhouse effect in the whole atmosphere. I sent it to Siddons some time ago, but he remains unconvinced by what is proven mathematics.

    The question, therefore, is not whether our adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming, but how much warming will result. This is the central scientific question in the “global warming” debate. Broadly speaking, climate scientists who address that question by measurement and observation tend to favor low climate sensitivity (i.e. not much warming); those who address it by modeling lean toward high climate sensitivity. My own most recent calculations, currently under peer review, suggest lowish climate sensitivity, with the IPCC having perhaps exaggerated it by double (this is a rather more cautious estimate of the exaggeration than that of many climate scientists). Remove even a twofold exaggeration and the climate “problem” vanishes. Where science is proven, one should adhere to it unless there is evidence that the proof is wrong. Like it or not, the fundamental equation of radiative transport, which establishes inter alia that there is a greenhouse effect, is long and definitively proven by reference to Planck’s blackbody law. Nothing from the Slaying the Sky Dragon book provides any serious or credible basis for challenging that proof. Until a serious case is made and submitted for review in the usual way, suggestions to the effect that there is no greenhouse effect are not likely to be taken seriously – and nor should they be.

    The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

    —–Original Message—–
    From: Hans Schreuder (Tech Know)
    To: Rupert Wyndham (R. C. E. Wyndham, ex-Company Secretary, Sage Group); John Gahan (Farnham Geological Society, New Forest councillor)
    Cc: John Gahan (Farnham Geological Society, New Forest councillor); Brice Bosnich (Australian National University, Research School of Chemistry); Christopher Booker (Daily Telegraph columnist); James Delingpole (Daily Telegraph columnist); Christopher Monckton (3rd Viscount of Brenchley); John Christy (University of Alabama in Huntsville); Nigel Lawson (Global Warming Policy Foundation); Paul Reiter (Pasteur Institute); Richard S. Lindzen (MIT); S. Fred Singer (SEPP); Andrew Collins (BBC Radio Times editor); Benny Peiser Benny Peiser (Global Warming Policy Foundation); Gabriel (Gabe) Rychert (Climate Realists); Sally Allix; Angela Kelly; jo abbess; Mark Thompson (BBC Director General); Caroline Thompson (BBC); Anthony Bright-Paul (author); Tony Nicholls; Andrew Montford (Bishop Hill weblog); Humphrey Morison; David Bellamy (naturalist, conservationist); Sonja A Boehmer-Christiansen (Hull University); Charles Wyndham; Colin Bradshaw (Rowan Studios); Piers Corbyn (Weather Action); Peter Sissons (ex-BBC); Professor Philip Stott; David Evans (Science Speak); Fred Pearce (journalist, The Guardian, New Scientist Magazine); “CWS”; James Naughtie (BBC); John Humphrys (BBC); John Brignell (Number Watch); Kenneth (Ken) Haapala (SEPP); Rodney Leach (Matheson & Co.); “Physics Services”; Melanie Phillips (Daily Mail journalist); Andrew Revkin (New York Times journalist); The Tablet (Catholic newspaper); Andrew Tyrie (UK Parliament); Martin Rees (ex-President, Royal Society); Anthony Watts (Watts Up With That weblog)

    Oh Dear!

    Even more luke-warmers will be borne from this man’s incorrect views of reality.

    Has he read the latest papers on the extra cooling that is the only logical effect that can be ascribed to atmospheric carbon dioxide?

    Is he aware yet that his beloved “climate forcing parameter” is a phantasma like phlogiston ever was?

    He has all the formulae but they are meaningless if the computed parameter does not exist in reality.

    When oh when will they learn to add one plus one and make two, not 2.2 or even 3 ….?

    Little wonder than that this man is heralded by the BBC as the “voice of climate scepticism” – it suits them well as his arguments are easy pickings.

    We’ve tried in vain to make him see where he goes wrong. States that the “only debate in town is the degree of warming” when the harsh reality is that no warming at all can come from adding carbon dioxide to our atmosphere.

    Consider just these few words by Alan Siddons:
    Surrounded by a vacuum, the earth has only one means of losing heat: by radiation. Gosh, could it be that radiating CO2 assists that process?
    Ever considered that the vacuum of space has no temperature and is in fact the best possible insulator we could wish for? Earth does not need a blanket to keep it warm, never mind the electric blanket that the beloved “greenhouse effect” is concocted to deliver us.

    Our atmosphere in toto always acts as a cooling mechanism and as a delaying cooling mechanism when the sun doesn’t shine on it.

    We’d be a darn side warmer if we had no “greenhouse gases” to help radiate solar heat away into the vacuum of space.

    Best regards,

    Hans Schreuder
    www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com
    www.slayingtheskydragon.com

    =x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

     

    22 responses to “Monckton On His High Court Horse”

    1. I think it would be a good idea to remove email addresses from this posting.

    2. Hi Jo

      It is really bad form to publish the actual email addresses of all those people.

      By all means include the names, but remove the actual addresses. (there are people both pro and sceptical included)

    3. Jo,
      the big debate about the greenhouse gas effect is currently raging on Judith Curry’s blog. That is where you should look for even better quotes.

    4. Received by e-mail :-

      =x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

      From: Rupert Wyndham
      Sent: 01 February 2011 07:32:57
      To: Anthony Watts

      Anthony

      Yes, Ms Abbess is a religious fundamentalist of the Nazarene persuasion, which pretty much says all one needs to know about her. As you will recall, she is the harpy who affrighted that paladin of journalistic rigour and flinty integrity, Roger Harabin, into changing (and falsifying) his account of a WMO pronouncement.

      High calibre people, these!

      ATB

      R

      =x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

    5. Received by e-mail :-

      =x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

      From: Hans Schreuder
      Sent: 01 February 2011 08:59:20
      To: jo abbess

      Jo,

      Being a person of high integrity I was dismayed to learn that you feel comfortable in publishing other people’s email addresses without any alterations.

      http://www.joabbess.com/2011/02/01/monckton-on-his-high-court-horse/

      Please tell me why you feel it necessary to publish email exchanges online with all addresses in tact?

      Are you aware of spam bots, these are little programmes that scan web pages ad infinitum to “harvest” email addresses so that spammers can have lists with accurate and up-to-date addresses.

      Reckon you must be; looking at your “About” page I see that you put your own address in altered style, yet other people’s addresses are fair game to you?

      Regards,

      Hans Schreuder

      =x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

    6. Received by e-mail :-

      =x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

      From: Rupert Wyndham
      Sent: 01 February 2011 06:39:41
      To: Christopher Monckton
      Cc: John Gahan, Climate Science Google Group, Brice Bosnich, Christopher Booker, James Delingpole, Christopher Monckton, John Christy, Nigel Lawson, Paul Reiter, Richard S. Lindzen, S. Fred Singer, BBC Radio Times Editor, Benny Peiser, Gabriel (Gabe) Rychert, Sally Allix, Angela Kelly, jo abbess, Mark Thompson (BBC), Caroline Thomson (BBC), Anthony Bright-Paul, Tony Nicholls, Andrew Montford, Humphrey Morison, David Bellamy, Sonja A Boehmer-Christiansen, Charles Wyndham, Colin Bradshaw, Piers Corbyn, Peter Sissons, Philip Stott, Hans Schreuder, David Evans (Science Speak), Fred Pearce, CWS, James Naughtie (BBC), John Humphrys (BBC), John Brignall, Kenneth Haapala, Rodney Leach, Physics Services, Melanie Phillips, Andrew Revkin, The Tablet, Andrew Tyrie (UK Parliament), Masters Secretary Trinity College

      Cambridge, Anthony Watts (Watts Up With That)

      Outrageous – not the BBC, they’re just the cabal of scoundrels that a large segment of their constituency knows them to be. Can you elaborate a bit – what was the rationale of the HC?

      ATB

      R
      =x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

      Original message

      =x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

      On 31 January 2011 20:40, Christopher Monckton wrote:
      Actually it’s a boorish hatchet job of the traditional BBC kind, but I sued them and made them cut it by half an hour and alter or remove some 16 downright errors and unfairnesses in the programme. Pleasingly, they’re going to have to pay quite a large chunk of the court costs (though I’m going to have to pay some too, because although the Beeb had promised me a right of reply their promise meant nothing either to them or to the High Court). – M of B

      The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

      =x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

    7. I think you are in breach of the Data Protection Act. Could you please take down my email address immediately. Thanks.

    8. jo they are still accessible by any nutter with an axe to grind, who can repost them in a machine readable format..

      anyone is still able to send an email to these people..

      you know better than this, keep the names, remove the second part of the address completely…

    9. Uh, peeps, where were you when the email addresses for people at the CRU were posted everywhere and everywhen?

      Or the actual printing with exhortations to spam given out in climate audit for example?

      Keep the email addresses in, Jo. Surely they have nothing to hide..?

    10. “I think you are in breach of the Data Protection Act.”

      Ah, well there are two lines of thought on that.

      You think it is.

      Everyone else thinks it isn’t.

      And you have a woman’s email address, my lord…

    11. Andrew Montford, can we assume then tat you agree with Monckton’s antics?

      Just for the record, are you OK with Morano posting email addresses, on purpose? And look at that Jo has obliged and removed the addresses. Would Morano do that? I think not.

      Christopher needs to be more careful with his email lists. You keep bad company Andrew, but I always suspected that.

    12. “Broadly speaking, climate scientists who address that question by measurement and observation tend to favor low climate sensitivity (i.e. not much warming); those who address it by modeling lean toward high climate sensitivity.”

      Mais non.

      James Hansen: Paleo first, observations second, models last.

    13. Barry,

      “jo they are still accessible by any nutter with an axe to grind, who can repost them in a machine readable format.”

      Errr, just exactly how do you think CRU scientists and Trenberth et al. receive death threats by email? You know the answer…Morano and hackers. Barry and Andrew, post here your emails to Morano demanding that he cease from publishing climate scientists’ emails on his site.

      Now how about you thank Jo for being so charitable and considerate and doing as you demanded.

      Barry and Andrew Montford, also please save us your righteous indignation and hypocrisy. And save your anger for Chris Monckton for being so sloppy.

      Sorry lads, but your dear Lord’s ship is sinking. Are you going to hang on or flee?

    14. Wow, Hans is properly wrong isn’t he. I didn’t realise it was possible to be that wrong and not have your head explode.

      BTW Jo I agree you shouldn’t have posted actual email addresses, and it’s good that you have corrected that. Always take the high road.

    15. I have an even bigger list of e-mail addresses. :)

      – frank

    16. We’d be a darn side warmer if we had no “greenhouse gases” to help radiate solar heat away into the vacuum of space.

      How does the moon cool down?

    17. [...] blogger ecologista, diversamente da Sua Signoria, ma come Ella di fede cattolica. La popolana ha pubblicato lo scambio, e i sudditi senza accesso a Channel 4 possono almeno godersi il dopo-spettacolo. Nei tentativi [...]

    18. [...] sensitivity, along with his denier friends – like the poor inhabitants of the Carteret Islands. Monckton On His High Court Horse @ Jo Abbess Note how Monckton's mail is all "me … me … me …. I did [...]

    19. Some of these so called skeptics have the weirdest ideas:

      “We’d be a darn side warmer if we had no “greenhouse gases” to help radiate solar heat away into the vacuum of space.

      Best regards,

      Hans Schreuder
      http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com
      http://www.slayingtheskydragon.com

      Is this guy for real? Apparently he knows nothing about the lapse rate, the reduction in temperature with altitude, and the measurements of down welling radiation, which definitively prove that the GHG’s are helping to warm the earth.

      In addition to his willful ignorance, he has websites which purvey this kind of disinformation. It is disgusting and pathetic.

    20. Frank, seeing Morano and Lawson Cc’d with fruityjanitor made my day. Priceless, thanks :)

    21. [...] Lawson, Christopher Booker of the Sunday Telegraph and Andrew Montford of the Bishop Hill blog, Monckton is roundly attacked for conceding that carbon dioxide emissions cause some global [...]

    22. David Llewelyn Davies

      What a nonsense this whole subject is?

      The myth of ‘Global Warming’ is as large a confidence trick being played upon British tax-payers and the world at large, as are the stupidities of the European Union and the abysmal ‘Euro’.

    Leave a reply