Friday, 16 March 2012
Drafted and not read.
On the pretext of saving the planet from man-made Global Warming (AGW), the sovereign nations of the earth, came very close to ceding enormous power to some remote UN bureaucrats. The fact that these same governments (on our behalf) had already delegated the 'due diligence' for this signatory coup, to the coup leaders,which seems to have escaped the MSM and our own governments, says something for the lack of évidence based public policy making, world wide.
I was present at the first Climate Commission public hearing in Geelong in Victoria Australia last year. I managed to ask Prof Wil Steffon, "..which particular reputably published, peer reviewed paper, convinced him that human carbon dioxide emissions, was the major cause of any unprecedented, dangerous runnaway global warming?"
He did not answer the question other than offer oblique references to some work done over 100 years ago on the 'greenhouse effect' of CO2.
Last night I watched, with some incredulity, Prof Michael (Hockey Stick) Mann answer some 'tough' (and it seemed to me, agreed and scripted questions from Emma Alderuchi on Lateline ABC Australia); questions in support of the latest Climate Update from the Australian CSIRO/BoM 'maintaining the rage' of Climate Catastraphism.
Distilling this report down to its essentials, it seems we've had significant increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations over thee last 15 years or so. without any detectable increase in average global temperatures....yet somehow they manage to invoke panic in the 'vibe' of this treatise.
So this brings us to our selected discussion for today being a letter from Andrew Roberts of the Galileo Movement to Greg Hunt, the shadow minister with National Australian responsibility for Climate Change Policy. I too, had much correspondence with Greg on this topic and ended with similar observations.""I always look at the evidence. Just this morning I looked at evidence from NASA which showed 150 years of change, just progressive, progressive increases."
See (here) for the extensive and detailed, scientific and politically detailed letter from Malcolm to Greg, which highlights the Australian Labor Government's expensive and soveriegnty destroying (and possibly unconstitutional) folly along with some in the Opposition's complicity in ignoring the science in this AGW scam. This total lack of 'due diligence' by those memerized or corrupted by this misanthropic 'faith' gives us pause....and leads us to wonder how history will view this unscientific 'scam'.
Malcolm to Greg:Your words seem to reveal what I conclude is your deep ignorance, weakness or possible dishonesty. You are highly educated. You are a lawyer. Do you really believe your words would stand in court as evidence that human production of carbon dioxide, CO2 caused Earth’s latest modest global ATMOSPHERIC warming that ended around 1998?"
Friday, 16 March 2012
With the recent release of the Brisbane Floods Inquiry, it is perhaps timely to reflect on some comments made at the time by those who tend towards alarming the public about Global Warming being blamed for and causing everything bad, that Tony Abbott is not.
Lord Monckton wrote this paper discussing Senator Bob Brown's comments at the time.
Tuesday, 13 March 2012
When Lord Monckton published his understanding of what the Copenhagen Treaty really meant in his Minnisota Peroration (see here) insofar as governments around the world agreeing to cede powers to the Climate Change Regulating Class in the form of a world government (or as we have defined the Regulating Class here as the Anointed) he managed to achieve the impossible and foil or at least postpone, a coup as described below. Lord Monckton was highlighting the absence of the word democracy in the Copenhagen Treaty in contravension of the Lord Monckton Foundation's aim to, ".... 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."
Who Are You Going To Believe—The Government Climate Scientists or Your Own Lying Eyes? —and they strongly support the theory. Many people simply cannot get past the fact that nearly all the authority figures believe the theory. To these people the data is simply irrelevant. (see here for full essay)
The climate models are incompatible with the data. You cannot believe both the theory of dangerous manmade global warming and the data, because they cannot both be right.
In science, data trumps theory. If data and theory disagree, as they do here, people of a more scientific bent go with the data and scrap the theory.
But in politics we usually go with authority figures, who in this case are the government climate scientists and the western governments
Wednesday, 07 March 2012
UPDATE - SEE BELOW FOR COMMENT
We will discuss the findings of the Finklestein review shortly. The review has recommendations which many see as creating too big a role for government in 'managing' freedom of speech in Australia (See report here).
The Lord Monckton Foundation sees 'freedom of speech' and sees government as being answerable to the people (and not the other way round) as fundamental as can be seen from this excerpt from our vision/charter, "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." (see full charter here)
In the meantime, you might like to:
a) Review Lord Monckton in action at the National Press Club Luncheon in Canberra in July 2011.
b) Read one of Mark Steyn's illuminating and funny (if it wasn't so serious) articles from the Australian newpaper.
See article 'Using rights to gag free speech' (here)
Anointed Vision obscures reality and incites government to ‘manage’ Free Speech
Gushing Australian Media seeded current threat to Free Speech
Wednesday, 07 March 2012
You will find below over 200 quotes from senior scientists indicating that there is far from a consensus when it comes to climate science and that there is no such thing as 'consensus science'. The great Michael Crighton once said,
"...regard 'consensus science' as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had......Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What are relevant are reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period."
These quotes were kindly put together by the No Carbon Tax Climate Sceptics Party and form an interesting sample of the counter consensus of scientists attempting to practice science.
See quotes here.
Friday, 02 March 2012
THE VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY
SPEAKING TOUR OF US AND CANADA
Thursday 1 March Dinner address to students at University of Connecticut
Friday 2 March Lecture The Climate of Freedom, University of Hartford
Monday 5 March Lecture The Climate of Freedom, Union College, Schenectady
Tuesday 6 March Lecture The Climate of Freedom, University of Syracuse
Thursday, 8 March Lunch address to senior faculty at Princeton University
Lecture The Climate of Freedom, University of Minnesota
Friday, 9 March Dinner address to Minnesota business community
Second week of March Address to the International Free Press Society, Canada
Monday 19 March Lecture The Courtier’s Conundrum, University of Western Ontario
Ø The annual Nerenberg Lecture on Mathematics is the premier
mathematics lecture in Canada
Wednesday 21 March Appearance before the California State Legislature Afternnon debate on the climate, Sacramento, California
Thursday 22 March Address to the business community, Bakersfield, California
Friday 23 March Debate on the climate, Bakersfield, California
Saturday 24 March Dinner address on California Cap and Trade, Los Angeles
Tuesday 10 April Dinner address to the business community, Denver, Colorado
Wednesday 11 April Address to the Colorado State Assembly
Saturday 21 April (TBC) Debate on the UN’s Agenda 21, Sacramento, California
Watch this space for more details!
Lord Monckton is now in the US for a six-week speaking tour of North America, including lectures to the faculty at Princeton and also the major annual mathematics lecture in Canada.
Tuesday, 28 February 2012
Climate change litigation - a two-edged sword
By Anthony Cox and David Stockwell from:
Anthropogenic Global Warming [AGW] litigation has so far largely been by Green groups against industry such as power generators Macquarie Generation and miners such as Xstrata. Generally this Green litigation has struggled and the irony is whatever success they have had may come as a Pyrrhic victory if it not only opens the floodgates for anti-AGW litigation but also creates grounds for specific litigation against Green groups.
For example, Maurice Blackburn lawyer, Elizabeth O'Shea, advocates litigation to block a new brown coal and natural gas power plant using "syngas". Ms O'Shea's case rests not only on the provable fact that both coal and gas release pollutants, but also accepting that AGW is real and that the coal industry contributes disproportionately to it.
Maurice Blackburn's rival in class actions, Slater & Gordon, is considering a class action against the Wivenhoe dam operators, seeking a remedy for the massive damage bill due to the recent Brisbane floods. Much of the analysis of the Wivenhoe dam's involvement in the catastrophic Queensland flood is based on whether the dam operators, SEQwater, followed the "manual" which deals with water release. The manual prescribes 4 levels of water release from W1 to W4 with W4 being the greatest. W4 would only occur when the dam integrity is threatened.
An AGW defence by SEQwater might be used to justify releases not "by the manual". Wivenhoe dam was constructed as a response to the 1974 floods. It was built as a flood mitigator. There is evidence that at the time of the 2010 flood, despite an impending wet season, Wivenhoe was filled to at a 100% supply level because AGW predictions were that water shortages were going to prevail.
If it had not been full it could have performed its intended role as a flood mitigator and reduced or even eliminated the damage to Brisbane City. Whether the water releases were "by the manual" or not would be moot because no releases would have had to be done. Therefore, to succeed in such a claim against the Wivenhoe dam operators, ultimately the taxpayer, Slater and Gordon may argue that the dam was not being used appropriately for its original intended purpose.
Legally, therefore, SEQwater may argue they were acting on expert advice that AGW causes droughts, in which case a full dam was a reasonable precaution and alteration of its original intended purpose and the water releases were the best that could be done. The plaintiff's response could be 2-fold; firstly they could agree that AGW was real but cite where experts say AGW will cause both droughts AND floods, of extreme types; in which case the dam was being used in a way which only dealt with one part of AGW. Alternatively they could argue AGW is problematic and that changing the role of the dam ignored natural factors and the likelihood that another flood similar to 1974 was likely to reoccur.
These are contentions that should make for lively banter at the next meeting of the Entrepreneurial Litigation Association.
Ms O'Shea also relies on the precautionary principle as described in the Victorian Environmental protection Act 1970, Section 1C. Again, in respect of AGW, this section may be moot because while the Section speaks of "a lack of full scientific certainty" not being a bar to preventing environmental degradation, it is not clear scientific certainty for or against AGW rises to the level that would confer standing. Certainly "full scientific certainty" would apply to elements of coal and gas use such as mercury, nitrous and sulphuric oxides and particulates, water contamination and competition with agricultural land use. But none of these pollutants have anything to do with AGW.
Moreover, there are clear remedies that could be applied to conventional pollutants. The particulate issue can be rectified by covering stockpiles of coal, dampening and more efficient transportation. The toxic trace elements issue could be resolved by the introduction of ultrasuper-critical coal technology. This technology is not only greatly more efficient than all other forms of energy production but because it operates at such high temperatures it eliminates most of the real pollutants such as the oxides and mercury.
Coal companies are making a strategic error here. They should acknowledge and rectify the well-known coal-related pollutants, and argue the lack of merit of AGW theory, instead of hiding behind the chimera of Clean Coal or carbon capture technology [CCS]. The problems of CCS are obviously insurmountable: the energy required to capture the CO2 emissions when the coal is burnt requires about as much energy as the coal produces. Secondly, the final sludge containing the captured CO2 requires a storage space about 30 times the size of the quarry from which the coal was mined. To date CCS has cost the Australian taxpayers and the coal industry about $400 million. The coal industry could have solved the particulate problem and made a start on introducing ultrasuper-critical technology.
The point here is that conventional pollution is justiciable because of its degree of certainty. AGW, because it perhaps lacks sufficient certainty to even satisfy Section 1C, is of dubious legal value.
Unfortunately Ms O'Shea concludes her article in a deluge of the usual emotive symbology which proponents of AGW resort to. The continued use of children as the victims of AGW is particularly regrettable as has been argued here.
Equally regrettable is Ms O'Shea's reference to the 2009 'Black Saturday' bushfires. Along with the 2010 Queensland floods the Black Saturday fires have been the two worst natural disasters Australia has had in recent times. Potential litigants of AGW have claimed these as evidence of damages.
This is wrong in both cases. The 2009 Black Saturday fires were comparable with the 1939 Black Friday fires with both events happening at similar times of the year with similar weather patterns and temperatures. Arguably, if the Urban Heat island effect is considered, Melbourne's record temperature in 2009 would be less than the 1939 temperature.
More people perished in the 2009 event due to more people living in the affected areas and manifest incompetence in the official response to the fires. But green-bans on reduction of undergrowth played a part as various experts argue. This is shown by the case of the Sheahans who were fined nearly $100,000 in 2003 by the Mitchell Shire council for unauthorised land clearing. Yet, after the 2009 fires the Sheahan's house was the only one in the district not burnt to the ground. Clearly, if AGW were to blame for increased fire risk due to increased fuel loads and low humidity, the proponents of green-bans would be even more liable in any class action because their policies prevented reasonable mitigation of those risks.
By including AGW as a basis for litigation and not concentrating on real pollution issues the Green groups are not only opening the floodgates for anti-AGW litigation but presenting themselves as a target for their role in making the effect of AGW worse on the basis that the policy responses to AGW have been inappropriate
Sunday, 26 February 2012
From: American Thinker
February 24, 2012
British Parliament heard devastating testimony overturning the global warming hoax
James Delingpole of The Telegraph reports that the British Parliament heard devastating testimony overturning the global warming hoax from MIT's Richard Lindzen who is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences. Prof. Lindzen sounded the alarm early over the systematic subversion of Climate Sciences in North America and Europe by a cabal centered around Al Gore and the UN's Maurice Strong.
The Telegraph has published Prof. Lindzen's presentation here as the House of Commons undertakes to "Reconsider the Climate Change Act" -- the provisions of which have decimated the British economy. America's hapless Republicans somehow are unable to organize an effective political debate over global warming hysteria that is affecting everything from Solyndra to the Keystone Pipeline-- even though I'm sure Prof. Lindzen is available to testify before Congress. This renewed debate in Parliament represents a significant shift in the balance of power against the eco-fanatics.
Friday, 24 February 2012
Test Initial Draft Blog
Were it not for the founding principles of our western, rational, democratic traditions, where the scientific method and the application of reason and logic and entrepreneurial insight has provided us with the fruits of the most successful civilization in history, we would not have the time, resources and freedoms to ponder our existence.
Under these blessed conditions some still conspire to improve their position in their zero sum game, by playing on people's guilt, vanity and other human weaknesses, by undermining and whiteanting the very foundations of these valuable western tradtions which provide them with the time and resources to play their power games and run their scams.
Consequently, examples abound, where, under the pretext of saving or improving something, and in the determined absence or distortion of the application of reason and logic (and the scientific method), people's emotions are manipulated to their detriment, often with unintended, unforeseen and disastrous consequences.
There are those among us who feel so sure of their Anointed status, who from their 'we know best' vantage point feel compelled beyond reason and even evidence to the contrary to rearrange other people's lives in accordance with their worldview.
The only way these power games and scams can remain in play is where people are not equipped with the tools to recognise the fallacies of logic or absence of evidence; or where people practice a wilful blindness where they accrue some perceived benefit by going along with the dominant meme or zeitgeist.
One such questionable shibboleth is the notion that human carbon dioxide emissions is the 'major cause' of 'unprecedented, dangerous, runnaway global warming' which is now 'worse than we originally thought'.
The Lord Monckton Foundation exists to counter this unquestioning irrational acceptance and shall therefore 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.
|| 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 firstname.lastname@example.org, 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)