Friday, 30 March 2012
When is a 'Conspiracy Theory' a CONSPIRACY?
You will recall that the Lord Monckton Foundation Charter and Vision asks the following questions:
"...Has the nation had its day? Is the globalization of governance really a public good? Can democracy survive it? Should not the use of the ballot-box be extended? Should not every supranational and global institution of governance be elected? The Foundation exists to illuminate questions such as these, and to inspire devotion to the cause of Western civilization, true reason, sound science, universal liberty and worldwide democracy in the hearts of all men of goodwill. Let freedom ring!"
Implicit in these questions is the impact of the evidence that the more remote any elite anointed 'regulating class' is from the people, the less interest they have in the people and their issues. Can anyone seriously suggest that a UN global government and bureaucracy based in Brussels or Beijing or New York; an elite group loyal only to global 'groupthink' and concerned primarily and predominantly with maintaining power, as big government inevitably is, will care for the good citizens of towns in the mid-west of the US; villages of the Palar River Region of Tamil Nadu in India; the challenges of water rights in Victoria, Australia and so on?
The elite anointed 'regulating class' look forward to this UN inspired Brave New World (here)
Don't forget that the UN at Copenhagen attempted a global coup on the pretext of saving the planet - see Lord Monckton's Minnesota Peroration (here). Where this has been discussed at all in the media, it has been presented as a 'conspiracy theory' by Lord Monckton and others, with the implication that it is somehow a whacky baseless notion dreamed up by some paranoid climate sceptics.
This particular post has been prompted by some interesting presentations by the Green Senator for Tasmania and leader of the Greens Party in the Australian Federal Parliament, Dr Bob Brown (Note: Bob Brown has resigned as leader since this blog was posted). The background to this is that the Greens have been seen to be acting in favour of the interests of international organisations such as the UN IPCC and against the economic and sovereign interests of Australia and Australians.
Senator Brown made an interesting speech at the Greens National conference (here). Unfortunately, many in the Greens seem to say one thing and mean another. For example Clive Hamilton, the Greens Party candidate for the high profile seat of Higgins, despite maintaining that he never suggested suspending democracy to 'save the planet', definitely seems to do so in an article he wrote himself to promote his book (here).
Senator Brown has gone on to say that we need a world government (here) and expresses an interest in democracy despite repeated efforts to stifle debate on Climate science and economics and any criticism of the Greens by those whom he describes as 'the hate media'. His efforts in media management have led to the proposal from a government enquiry he demanded and got, to establish a government funded media regulator (here).
We are not convinced that big government is either worthy and/or susceptible to democratic control, and unfortunately the Greens want BIG Government and on a GRAND GLOBAL SCALE.
If you point out that there are groups and organisations and indeed bureaucracies (e.g. UN IPCC) around the world seriously attempting to bring on a Global Government (and actually achieving this by stealth in some fora), then you will be labelled a 'conspiracy theorist'.
Monday, 26 March 2012
Last year over 5,000 Australian's responded to a Parliamentary Joint Select Committee on Australia’s Clean Energy Future Legislation's call for submissions in September, 2011. Within the very short timeframe of one week, these people and organisations managed to draft, write and submit to the committee on this complex topic.
Unfortunately, the Labor-and-Greens-Alliance-dominated committee decided that there were too many submissions against the legislation and so they decided to 're-categorize' these 'negative' submissions as 'correspondence'.
Similarly, Dr Jensen, about the only member in the parliament qualified to comment on the science, found he was not allowed to table reputably published, peer reviewed science on the specific topic of climate change, in the Parliament during the debate on (see here) the Clean Energy Future Legislation.
In addition, Australia's Chief Scientist, Professor Chubb was allowed to give testimony before this Joint Select Committee on Australia’s Clean Energy Future Legislation, on the 26th September, 2011 (unlike over 5,000 other Australians who had their submissions 'reclassified') without offering any empirical science in support of his case as demonstrated by Dr John Happs' demolition of Professor Chubb's efforts (here). If Dr Happs had been able to present alongside Professor Chubb, it would have been interesting to hear the Committee's response.
One has to ask oneself, "What could the Labor Green government be affraid of? Free speech in the Parliament; the science; or the truth perhaps?"
So we have the Australian Parliament and the government funded ABC (here) both deciding that the people's right to hear opposing views or even to question the 'consensus view' is somehow 'inappropriate' and therefore, decide it is not going to happen.
Monday, 26 March 2012
In Australia, right now, we have the Federal Government considering the Finkelstein Report and we have efforts to enforce a form of 'political correctness' through various tribunals and court actions and we can get a glimpse of how this same zeitgeist is happening around the western world through Mark Steyn's observations here.
Following Lord Monckton's observation, we observe what the tax payer funded public broadcaster, 'THE ABC' does with the taxes extracted from the Australian people to broadcast in news reports and comment; propaganda/acceptable information/post modern science/the views of the anointed regulating classes (?) on the pretext of balance, science and journalistic ethics for investigative skepticism.
Lord Monckton has observed the following:
"At the end of the day, the central question is this. Which side in this scientific debate is most likely to be right and true?
Much turns upon the answer to this central question. If there is in fact no “climate crisis”, then the world is about to spend not billions but trillions on a Sisyphean attempt to find non-solutions to a non-problem. Every cent spent on the non-problem of “global warming” is a cent not spent on the world’s real environmental problems, not the least of which is the abject and needless poverty in which far too many are condemned to struggle.
Also, the repeated and often furtive attempts by powerfully-placed true-believers to stifle, suppress, and silence debate – attempts which were repeatedly made in the present case – raise serious questions about the degree to which the freedom of speech on which the West once prided itself still survives.
Without freedom of speech, and without the academic freedom of thought that is its handmaid, there is a clear and present danger that the West will drift silently and miserably from the Age of Reason and Enlightenment into a new Dark Age."
Lord Monckton September 28, 2009
Andrew Bolt –, Monday, March, 26, 2012, (11:14am)
It is now official ABC policy not to question the global warming theory, even though the world hasn’t warmed in a decade and scientists are in dispute. The ABC’s Audience and Consumer Affairs branch writes in response to a complaint:
Given the overwhelming majority of the world’s scientists agree that AGW is real and needs to be addressed and the overwhelming majority of the world’s government’s and the UN acknowledge the reality of AGW and the need to address it, the ABC pursues a balance that follows the weight of evidence on this issue. The ABC’s coverage of this issue has well and truly moved on from the debate as to whether or not AGW is real.
What was it that former ABC Media Watch host David Marr once said? Oh, yes:
The natural culture of journalism is a kind of vaguely soft left inquiry, sceptical of authority. I mean, that’s just the world out of which journalists come. If they don’t come out of this world, they really can’t be reporters. I mean, if you are not sceptical of authority – find another job. You know, just find another job.
Everying Marr wrote there is true. Except for just two words: “soft left”. By Marr’s own defnition, the ABC’s email proves the stoft-left ABC has betrayed journalism.
It is now evangelising for a neo-religious movement.
(Thanks to reader Tony.)
A true democracy needs entities like, "The Lord Monckton Foundation (which) shall conduct research, publish papers, educate students and the public and take every measure that may be necessary to restore the primacy and use of reason in science and public policy worldwide, especially insofar as they may bear upon the rights of the people fairly and fully to be informed, openly and freely to debate, and secretly by ballot to decide who shall govern them, what laws they shall live by and what imposts they shall endure."
Thursday, 22 March 2012
Anthony Watts has posted on Testimony of The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley to the California State Assembly on 21st March 2012.
See post (here)
Wednesday, 21 March 2012
Clive Palmer's only mistake was to specify a particular source of conspiracy against the interests of Australia and Australians.
It is naive in the extreme to believe that there are no individuals, groups, philosophies and even countries plotting to do Australia damage. Operating perhaps, on their own disturbed meme, ideology, belief system or religion, it is certain that some are keen to act against our economic and security interests to the detriment of the Commonwealth of Australia and Australians in favour of their own or foreign interests.
In other words, if there are enemies within or external threats, conspiring to harm our interests, freedoms and way of life, then our government should act to reduce that threat. If there are forces at work funded by external parties or agencies 'conspiring' to damage a major export industry upon which our government depends for economic stability, then Clive Palmer (or anyone else) who, based on some evidence he has come across, suspects such a conspiracy, and brings it to our attention, should be applauded as a patriot, rather than pilloried as a buffoon by Ministers of the Crown.
Who has a clearer loyalty to our constitution and country and greater insight into the evil intent of some global players? Clive Palmer, who understands how a foreign government or global corporation or hedge fund manager may attack our national interest (as has been done in the past by the USSR, China, George Soros and others); or a naive government acting on nothing but a complete lack of business experience, governed only by the 'best of intentions' to destroy our 'carbon' economy, export our manufacturing jobs and divert future minerals investment to new more hospitable mining boom locations (like Africa).
The media reports of Clive Palmer's thoughts on this matter have been sketchy at best and malevolent at worst, and so I can't say what has prompted Mr Palmer to form this particular 'conspiracy' view. However, as this is the government that was perfectly prepared to hand numerous sovereign Australian powers to an unelected foreign UN 'government' at Copenhagen (and indeed has quietly and surreptitiously ceded much at Cancun since); if this government is suggesting Mr Palmer is a foolish 'conspiracy theorist' acting on a baseless view, that there is evil in the world, then a government claiming disinterest in entertaining any 'conspiracy theories' whilst quietly conspiring against the interests of the Australian people though the unconstitutional use of foreign affairs powers, is clearly unfit to protect the interests of the Commonwealth and its people.
Wednesday, 21 March 2012
....and another man with a different view (a heretic). You might not agree with everything he says, but he has every right to say it, and people need to refute his evidence (as he highlights everyone's flaws and 'confirmation bias) rather than shoot the messenger. In his speech (link below) he concludes,
".........I’ve spent a lot of time on climate, but it could have been dietary fat, or nature and nurture. My argument is that like religion, science as an institution is and always has been plagued by the temptations of confirmation bias. With alarming ease it morphs into pseudoscience even – perhaps especially – in the hands of elite experts and especially when predicting the future and when there’s lavish funding at stake. It needs heretics."
Matt Ridley's presentation (here)
Wednesday, 21 March 2012
A few months ago, Mrs Gina Rinehart decided to write an article for Australian Resources and Investment. She laid out the climate science as she understood it. Apparently the journal decided to edit out the climate science, without indication of its absence to readers and without explanation to Mrs Rinehart.
I will let Jo Nova in her excellent coverage of this story take it from (here)
Tuesday, 20 March 2012
The Debate is yet to be. Lord Monckton almost found one in 2009.
Despite much resistance, Lord Monckton has persisted in his efforts to initiate an open and free debate on the causes and extent of Climate Change (the relative impact of natural or human causes; the nature and extent of so called unprecedented, dangerous and runnaway global warming; the scientific value of models uncalibrated with observations and evidence from the natural world).
An earlier attempt to discuss things freely in debate is still instructive and illustrates the difficulties some have with a view well founded evidence which conflicts with their scientifically unsupported 'world view'.
See (here) for the debate generated by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley and Paul Maynard with Dr. Andrew Dlugolecki, a contributor to the UN’s climate reports.
Monday, 19 March 2012
The nature of debate, especially drawing on the power of the authority of political office is still used to damage genuine scientists and ordinary people simply asking for evidence. This has never reached anything like 'openly and freely to debate'.
The following letter from Lord Monckton to Prime Minister Rudd simply highlights many of the techniques and slurs that continue to this day.
See Lord Monckton's letter to Prime Minster Rudd (here)
Saturday, 17 March 2012
Monckton of Brenchley says:
I’m most grateful to Justin Pulliam for having been so thoughtful and helpful a guide during the East Coast leg of my current speaking tour of the US and Canada. For once the environmentalist faction stumbled into a real debate, and I am most grateful to Anthony Watts for putting this revealing account of it on the record in his influential blog, which now carries more weight than most “mainstream” news media, and a great deal more information.
Some commenters have had difficulty in getting access to the video of my lecture at Union College. Professor Larry Gould of Hartford University, with his characteristic thoroughness, has posted up the fuller version of the lecture that I had the honor to give at his university in the presence of its president, Walter Harrison. Larry has helpfully included all the slides in the right places. The link is:
One commenter has asked why, since I oppose the notion of doing science by consensus, I said in my talk that it was “generally accepted” that 1.2 Kelvin of global warming will be likely to occur in response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration, where there are no feedbacks or the feedbacks are net-zero.
The relevant slide shows how the IPCC calculates this 1.2 K. One multiplies the IPCC’s radiative forcing from a doubling of CO2 (5.35 ln 2 = 3.71 W/m2: Myhre et al., 1998) by the Planck climate-sensitivity parameter (0.31 K/W/m2: IPCC, 2007, p. 631 fn.), and increases the result by approximately one-sixth to allow for latitudinal variations in temperature at the characteristic-emission altitude. It is worth noting that neither of the two relevant quantities can be measured directly. Both are guesses, and both may be exaggerations.
Professor Chris Essex of the University of Western Ontario performed some of the earliest spectral-line-by-spectral-line calculations to determine the form of the CO2 radiative forcing. Though he is willing to confirm that the the equation is indeed logarithmic, so that each additional molecule of CO2 has less forcing effect than its predecessors, he is less sure about the coefficient, which the IPCC has already reduced by 15% (it was 6.3 in the 1990 and 1995 reports). The coefficient, and hence the CO2 radiative forcing, may still be too high, and perhaps substantially so.
There is also doubt about the value of the Planck climate-sensitivity parameter, which also cannot be measured but is crucial because not only the original warming caused by CO2 before feedbacks but also, separately, the feedbacks themselves are dependent upon it. The Moon, which has no atmosphere, is a helpful benchmark, because the mean surface temperature is also the emission temperature. Theory (see NASA’s lunar fact-sheet, for instance) gives 271 K as the mean lunar surface temperature. However, the Diviner mission has established that at the lunar equator, the warmest part of the surface, the mean temperature is just 206 K. This implies that the mean temperature of the entire lunar surface is 193-194 K, a long way below the 271 K given by the use of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation (assuming albedo 0.11 and emissivity 1). If the Earth’s true emission temperature (which occurs somewhere at altitude in the troposphere) is less than the 255 K predicted by theory (assuming an albedo 0.306), then the Planck parameter may well be considerably less than the IPCC’s value, in which event on this ground alone climate sensitivity may be well below its central estimate of 3.26 K per CO2 doubling.
For the sake of brevity, I took the “official” values of the CO2 radiative forcing and of the Planck parameter as correct, and pointed out to the audience that the major debate between the skeptics and the believers centers on the overall feedback gain factor, which – in the IPCC’s implicit central estimate – is 2.81, almost tripling the warming that a CO2 doubling causes before feedbacks are taken into account. It is not possible to measure any individual temperature feedback directly, so the feedback multiplier is based on a (probably exaggerated) guess as to the value of the Planck parameter and (near-certainly very much exaggerated) guesses as to the values of the various temperature feedbacks.
My best estimates (guesses, but perhaps better guesses than those of the IPCC because I have no vested interest in the answers) are that the IPCC exaggerates the CO2 radiative forcing (which cannot be measured) by around 20%; that it exaggerates the Planck parameter (which cannot be measured) by 20%; and that it exaggerates the sum of all unamplified feedbacks (which cannot be measured) threefold, because, as Lindzen and Choi (2009,, 2011) and Spencer and Braswell (2010, 2011) have demonstrated, feedbacks are somewhat net-negative.
If my best guesses are indeed better than those of the IPCC, then climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 concentration is 0.8 K before feedbacks are taken into account and 0.7 K after feedbacks, very much in line with the results of Lindzen & Choi and Spencer & Braswell.
Even if the IPCC is right, it is still cheaper and more cost-effective to spend not a single red cent on global warming for at least 50 years (Nordhaus, 2012) than to take any action today to try to make global warming go away. Given that none of the three parameters whose product is climate sensitivity can be measured, it ought to be self-evident that the value of their product cannot be definitively determined, from which it follows that “the science” cannot possibly be “settled”.
Another commenter has asked why I insist on the use of reason in science and then admit that I believe in a Creator. Many leading scientists, including Professor Antonino Zichichi (president of the World Federation of Scientists) and Lord Kelvin (for whom the scale of absolute temperature is named) have been believers in Christianity. Thanks to Max Planck, it is now demonstrated that the laws of physics did not come into being until a fraction of a nanosecond after the Big Bang, from which it follows that no amount of ingenuity on our part can reveal to us what (or Who) said “Let there be light” and blazed the Universe into glorious existence.
In short, it is scientifically and rigorously proven that the assertion of Christianity that there is a Creator cannot be disproved (and, by the same token, that it cannot be proved either). Therefore, it is permissible for me to say I believe in the truths of the Christian faith, though it would be impermissible for me to say I could prove them to be true. On the other hand, many of the beliefs of the climate extremists can be demonstrated to be false. Their belief system, therefore, is appropriately classified not as a religion (which can neither be proved nor disproved) but as a superstition (which can be and has been disproved).
Finally, one or two commenters have expressed annoyance that I am willing to concede that there is such a thing as the greenhouse effect at all. The reason why I have always conceded this fact is that it is indeed a fact, established by an elegant, readily-replicable and oft-replicated experiment first conducted by an ancestor of one of the commenters here.
The true scientific debate does not center on whether there is a greenhouse effect (there is: get used to it), but on how much warming our enhancement of that effect may cause. My best guess is, “not a lot”. If we expect the climate extremists to be truthful, we ought to do our best to be truthful ourselves, and not to push the scientific argument beyond what measurement and experiment and the application of established theory to the results has plainly and sufficiently demonstrated.
|| Blog, News and Latest Activities
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. It is understood that in most countries, copyright automatically resides with the taker of the photograph or art work, unless rights are formally assigned to another.
Site Mailing List
Sign Guest Book
View Guest Book
"The Lord Monckton Foundation shall conduct research, publish papers, educate students and the public and take every measure that may be necessary to restore the primacy and use of reason in science and public policy worldwide, especially insofar as they may bear upon the rights of the people fairly and fully to be informed, openly and freely to debate, and secretly by ballot to decide who shall govern them, what laws they shall live by and what imposts they shall endure."
The Lord Monckton Foundation
ABN 51 154 843 213 Registered Address: PO Box 371 Balwyn North VIC, Australia 3104
Ph: 03 9878 3333 - Int’l: (+61) 3 9878 3333 - Mobile: 0409 805 425
Postal Address: PO Box 14, Nunawading LPO, Nunawading VIC Australia 3131
See our Privacy, Confidential Information and Data Security Policy (here)