In a very long open letter to John McCain, detailing why global warming theory is a bunch of rubbish that would hobble western economies, the Viscount Monckton of Brenchley explains the folly of promising to make policy decisions based on it.
Monckton believes the concept of manmade global warming is a controversy created by “the need of the international left for a new flag to rally round” following the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, and has written extensively about it. Many have noted that since the fall of the USSR the left has migrated to environmental causes as an opportunity to exert their influence on world economies. Unfortunately, they seem to be enjoying great success.
London had first October snow in 70 years two days ago, while Parliament debated (and passed) a climate bill to combat global warming. Amid all the support Member of Parliament Rob Marris, a member of Greenpeace, pointed out that it was a piece of political showboating doomed to failure.
The following is a brief excerpt from Monckton’s letter to McCain (emphasis added):
You also need to know that the values for climate sensitivity in the computer models – in short, the central estimates of how much the world’s temperature will increase in response to a given rise in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere – are not outputs from the models, but inputs to them. The computers are being told to assume high climate sensitivity. [Akasofu, 2008]
Let me summarize the irremediably shaky basis for the UN’s alarmist case. It is not based on physical theory. It is not based on real-world observation. It is based on computer modeling, in which – astonishingly – the models are told at the outset the values for the very quantity (temperature response to increased carbon dioxide concentration) that they are expected to find.
Now you will appreciate how ridiculous it is, to any competent mathematician, to hear the IPCC claiming that it is “90% certain” that most of the observed warming during the 50 years before the warming stopped in 1998 is anthropogenic. For a start, a 90% confidence level is not a recognized statistical interval: 95% confidence, or two standard deviations, is a recognized interval, but that would be even more absurd than trying to claim 90% confidence for a proposition that depends absolutely for its validity upon parameters that cannot be measured and can only be guessed: and a proposition that is demonstrated to be false with each successive year during which no further “global warming” takes place.
That last sentence refers to the fact (as opposed to computer models) that while manmade CO2 levels continue to rise, the earth stopped warming ten years ago and is now in a cooling cycle forecast to last another 20 to 30 years or more. The climate is always in flux, controlled by cycles of the sun, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and other acts of nature. (Not to mention the effect of urbanization and the urban heat island effect. Temperature readings have been taken at the same locations over the years while cities have grown up around the weather stations.)
Man puffs his ego in thinking his influence is greater than that of the sun. Some influence, yes, but not what we are being led to believe.
One other observation – where’s the letter from the Viscount to Barack Obama?