THE LORD MONCKTON FOUNDATION
See our Charter and Vision (HERE). With your help, encouragement and input, we will bring many projects to fruition and together with you and others, we will make a positive difference in Education, Science, Public Policy and the Media. Our aim is to reverse the trend into a new Authoritarian Dark Age by establishing the Age of Enlightenment 2.0.
We have only recently become a registered Charitable Institution to support the work of Lord Monckton in better educating the public on matters of great importance to our democratic traditions, science based civilisation and civil way of life.
The case for the CAGW hypothesis has only failed models and a so called 'consensus' of 'settled science' going for it. There is no empirical evidence, only models outputs in support of the CAGW hypothesis and now it is clear that the 97% of 'Climate Scientists' were not in support of the CAGW hypothesis as the image below, derived from Legates et el. (2013) demonstrates.
A major project is the distribution of information on the actual average global temperature as measured by satellite versus the temperature projections from the Models.
No global warming for 17 years 8 months
RSS considers the cause of a Pause now half the satellite record long!
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
The RSS satellite lower-troposphere temperature anomaly for March, just in, shows no global warming at all for 17 years 8 months. This remarkable 212-month period, enduring from August 1996 to March 2014, represents half of the entire 423-month satellite record since it began in January 1979.
Figure 1. The remarkable 212-month absence of global warming, notwithstanding a record rate of increase in CO2 concentration. The Pause – the zero least-squares trend on the data for the past 17 years 8 months – now extends to just over half the entire 423-month Remote Sensing Systems satellite record since January 1979.
How much global warming did officialdom predict over the past 17 years 8 months?
“The reasons for the discrepancy between the predicted and observed warming rate are currently under investigation by a number of research groups. Possible reasons include increased oceanic circulation leading to increased subduction of heat into the ocean, higher than normal levels of stratospheric aerosols due to volcanoes during the past decade, incorrect ozone levels used as input to the models, lower than expected solar output during the last few years, or poorly modelled cloud feedback effects. It is possible (or even likely) that a combination of these candidate causes is responsible.”
Just a little honesty there, too. Just one off-the-cuff suggestion (volcanoes, which have not been particularly active globally in the past decade). But no fewer than three possible modelling errors are suggested.
At long last, the Pause is having its effect. The modellers, and those – such as the IPCC – who have until recently placed a naïve and unmathematical faith in them, are rethinking the matter. In the light of the evidence, it is time for politicians to do likewise.
See Lord Monckton's full discussion HERE
Lord Monckton Foundation Temperature Trend Series
See February Series Press Release HERE
How the Global Warming Prediction Index is now compiled
SPECIAL UPDATE HERE
See full Series HERE
Lord Monckton said: "Recent record cold in the United States and flooding in the United Kingdom cannot have been caused by global warming because for almost two decades there has not been any."
RSS dataset shows 17 years & 5 months
The Journal of Pattern Recognition in Physics has been closed down - for doubting the UN IPCC's near-term predictions.
Christopher Monckton writes to Martin Rasmussen of Copernicus Publications suggesting a phoenix may yet rise from the ashes......
".......You must appreciate the gravity of what you have done. You have killed a learned journal in a field only peripherally connected with the climate because you have decided – or you have cravenly obeyed others unknown who have decided – to take a lamentably unscientific and aprioristic stance on the global warming question, a stance so uncompromising that you will not countenance even a single, passing question about whether the IPCC’s previous predictions are likely to prove correct, even though the IPCC has itself now abandoned its former predictions. And you will not – indeed, cannot – offer a single shred of scientific justification for your viewpoint.
Your challenge to a surely temperately-expressed but serious and by no means illegitimate doubt about the IPCC’s near-term predictions is not itself expressed in the usual scientific manner by a reviewed paper or comment responding to the scientific conclusion that – on no stated ground – you purport to dispute, but by a petulant and irresponsible decision to shut the entire journal down.
This decision of yours, taken without the slightest regard for the scientific method or for the usual canons of disciplined enquiry, logical discourse or peer review, is one too many of its kind. It is not acceptable. I do not propose to accept it or to tolerate it.
Let me tell you, therefore, what will happen next.
First, I shall give Copernicus seven days to reconsider its ludicrous decision to abort the journal for a nakedly political reason and without offering anything that even makes a serious pretense at being a scientific justification.
Secondly, if after seven days I shall not have heard from you that the journal is to continue, I shall invite all of the contributors to the special edition to participate with me in a relaunch of Pattern Recognition in Physics, to take effect immediately. If you or Copernicus object to this course of action on copyright or any other grounds, you will no doubt be sure to let me know within the next seven days. Otherwise, you will be presumed to have forfeited all interest in producing the journal and you will leave the journal to me.
I shall invite Professor Mörner to be the lead editor. The journal will be published online and, I hope, may eventually be taken under the wing of one of the scientific publishing houses with which I have connections.
Thirdly, the first editorial in the relaunched journal will perforce have to address the reasons why Copernicus decided to try (unsuccessfully, as you will by now have realized) to kill the journal. You will come in for some justifiably severe personal criticism in this editorial, for on any view you have not behaved as a senior executive of a reputable scientific publishing house should have behaved. You have taken a corrupt, anti-scientific decision, inferentially because you believed (or perhaps were menaced into believing) that if you did not toe the Party Line on the climate you would be financially or socially disadvantaged.
Fourthly, as the editorial and the press release relaunching the journal will have to point out, you have also, through ignorance, put yourself outside the emerging mainstream of climate science. For, as far as global warming is concerned, that mainstream is now flowing in a far less catastrophist direction than ever before. As you have seen above, even the IPCC, after many strongly-worded representations from expert reviewers such as me, has been forced to abandon its former naïve and imprudent faith in the expensive computer models that have so relentlessly failed to predict global temperature with sufficient conservatism since the 1980s ....."
See Blog HERE
See Lord Monckton Letter in full HERE
As a follow up to these milestones, Lord Monckton wrote the following:
From: The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, Edinburgh, Scotland
To: The Ethicist, New York Times
Mr. Ethicist, - Al-Haytham, founder of the scientific method, said the scientist does not place his faith in any mere consensus, however venerable and widespread. Aristotle  said that reliance upon a consensus even of experts is doubly fallacious. Newton, Huxley, Einstein and Popper agreed. There is a scientific consensus that consensus is not scientific. There has been no global warming at all for 17 years 3 months . The consensus did not predict that . A recent paper  analyzing 11,944 scientific papers on climate marked only 64, or 0.5%, as endorsing the climate consensus. Major uncertainties persist in climate science  and economics . How ethical is it, then, for a newspaper to refuse to publish any letters counter to a consensus that has been proven not to exist; that, even if it did exist, is not the way science is done; that, even if science were done by consensus, has been proven wrong even on the central question how fast the world will warm; and that, even if the problem were as real and as costly as the consensus and the newspaper profit by asking us to believe, demands political solutions many times costlier than the imagined (and now imaginary) problem?
 Sophistical Refutations, c. 350 B.C.
 Least-squares linear-regression trend on Remote Sensing Systems, 2013, Monthly Global Mean Surface Temperature Anomalies, December
 IPCC (1990) predicted 0.35 [0.20, 0.50] K global warming per decade to 2020. IPCC (2013) predicted 0.23 [0.13, 0.33] K global warming per decade to 2050. Since September 1996, no global warming has been observed. At no time since 1750 has either of the two central estimates of warming occurred.
 Legates et al., 2013, on agnotology and climate science, Education and Science.
 See e.g. IPCC, 2001, para. 18.104.22.168.
 Monckton of Brenchley, 2013, Is CO2 mitigation cost-effective?, 45th Annual Proceedings of the Seminars on Planetary Emergencies, Erice, Sicily, and CERN, Geneva, August.
In Australia the Climate Commision was disbanded by the new Abbott Government and has morphed into the Climate Council.
This has not stopped them making unsupported claims about the environment.
As a plain English service to science and truth by the Lord Monckton Foundation to the Public See HERE
We are concerned to improve things with a focus on four major program areas:
Media & Communications
The Lord Monckton Foundation will use its best endeavours to develop, promote and support better Education; encourage the active pursuit of empirical Science whilst fighting the range of 'Post Normal', 'Consensus' and 'Settled' activities purporting to be or masquerading as Science (particularly in, but not confined to, ‘climate science’); provide a forum, tools and resources for evidence based Public Policy formulation, critique and deployment; establish Media and Communications resources, activities and strategies designed to ensure more rigorous questioning and critique of those fashionable and powerful ideas and policies which can so easily take root, unimpaired as they currently are, by open debate, rational assessment, proper due diligence or any understanding of consequences (intended or otherwise).
For some information on Lord Monckton himself, see here.
Sponsors & Donations Information:
For your security and for our security, the bank requires some identifying information. Click HERE to make a donation.
You can cancel this Account Information at any time. Please follow the prompts to Create an Account. We have found that the best way to keep you and the Bank and the Lord Monckton Foundation SAFE is for you to set up an Account (as an Account and thus the information can be cancelled at any time). In addition, you can use this Account to obtain benefits knowing that the Lord Monckton Foundation will not pass this information on to any other party (See also our Privacy, Confidential Information and Data Security Policy at the bottom of this page).
PLEASE NOTE, EVEN AT THIS EARLY STAGE YOU CAN GET AN ACCOUNT; DONATE; VISIT & COMMENT ON OUR BLOG; EMAIL US, JOIN OUR MAILING LIST, AND/OR SIGN THE GUEST BOOK BELOW.
Disclaimer for the Lord Monckton Foundation website:
Material on this site:
Photos and material on this site are used for educational and research purposes and are sourced from media outlets and the internet. If you are the copyright owner of any material used on this site and you object to its use, and such use falls outside the fair use provisions in ss. 40 - 42 of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), please email email@example.com, and it will be removed.