Saturday, 14 September 2013

A journalist with a grudge is a mere propagandist (Part 2)

Continued from Part 1.

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

Just for fun, though, let’s have a look at each of Readfearn’s out-of-context parodies of statements by me.

1.Science should only be practised by people who adhere to a religion, preferably of the Christian variety. Yes or no?
Sigh! In context, I said that some climate scientists had acted dishonestly and even
fraudulently; that many more, under peer pressure, had looked the other way; that
science was a moral process; that the duty of the scientist was to be what al-Haytham
beautifully called a “seeker after truth”; that science was indeed a moral process; and
that scientists who were Christians already had a moral outlook, which is why it was
beneficial that scientists should be Christians.
2. The former ABC chairman, Maurice Newman, is “shrimp-like”. Yes or no? 

Oh brother! One had no idea that the Australian parliamentary tradition is one of never passing any form of adverse comment. Newman had failed to stop the ABCrampaging against me or anyone who dared to oppose the 0.3% viewpoint on climate science that it has so long and fervently espoused. I called him a name. Tough titty. 

3. The “expert reviewers” for the IPCC are “appointed” to carry outthat role by someone other than the person himself. Yes or no?

My oh my! The Socialists have never forgiven the IPCC for having appointed me as an expert reviewer. I applied for it, and, having satisfied it of my publication record (which continues to grow) was appointed. My name appears on the IPCC’s register of expert reviewers. My 80 pages of comments are at under “Monckton papers”. Go read it, Graham, and you may learn something.


4. The world’s climate scientists and advocates for action are just trying to “stamp out democracy”. Yes or no?
Well, well! Socialists are often careless with their quantifiers. Two such are
recognized in logic: “There exists” and “All”. I have never said that all climate 
scientist or all advocates and propagandists such as Readfearn himself are trying to“stamp out democracy”. However, it is undeniable that some of the absurdly extreme measures advocated by a very small band of climate scientists and a larger crowd of lobbyists and fanatics such as Readfearn would indeed have the effect of stamping out democracy. James Hansen, for instance, said those who disagreed with him about the climate should be “tried for high crimes against humanity”, for which the penalty is death, and the dead can’t vote. Shortly before my second speaking tour of Australia, a prominent Australian journalist said all climate “deniers” (a nasty word, with overtones of Holocaust denial) should be branded with cattle-irons, and another said they should be gassed. Not a squeak out of Readfearn about those, of course.

5. The cleanest form of energy is “coal”. Yes or no?
Oh, no, not again! What I have said, time and again, is that one needs reliable, base-load energy that will keep the lights on even at night when the wind is not blowing.

Modern, circulating fluidized-bed or pelletized supercritical coal combustion is
highly energy-efficient; and, with fly-ash trapping and flue-gas scrubbing, a modern coal plant is about as clean, per MWh of output, as gas or nuclear power. CO2, Graham, me lad, is not a pollutant but a naturally-occurring trace gas essential to all life on Earth. Coal emits quite a bit more CO2 per MWh than gas, and that makes it twice as good for trees and plants as gas: for CO2 is plant food.  It is not dirty.

6. Lord Monckton is a Nobel Peace Laureate. Yes or no?
And another one! Here, puir wee Graham begins to wander from the climate a little, as well as getting his facts wrong. I have never called myself a “Nobel Peace Laureate”, though Michael Mann, who, like me, contributed to the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, has called himself one without any complaint from Readfearn.

However, after I had given a lecture on climate sensitivity to the Physics Faculty at Rochester University, NY, the Professor of Physics there, Dr. David Douglass, produced a presentation box and gave me a Nobel Prize pin that he had made out of gold he had recovered from a physics experiment 35 years previously. I wear it from time to time in gratitude for his kind recognition of my contribution, which helped to correct an error in the report. What I suspect has happened here is that others – such as those who post up my writings on climate from time to time – may have described me in jest as a “Nobel Peace Laureate”; though I cannot say, since life is short and eternity long, so that I spend very little time reading about myself on the web. 

7. The BBC once had an Argentinian service and Lord Monckton usedthis to help the UK win the Falklands war. Yes or no?
Off topic again, and still more obviouslyThe BBC, in case Readfearn is unaware of this, maintains a World Service. On the leader-page of the Daily Telegraph at the time when the fleet sailed to recapture the islands for democracy and freedom, I wrote at the request of the editor an article explaining the reasons in international law why the Falklands are British. The article was drawn to the attention of the Prime Minister. Some of the transmitters available to us were retasked to broadcast messages into Argentina during the Falklands conflict – a practice that is almost as old as radio itself. Among the material that was regularly broadcast throughout the war – though I did not find out about it until afterwards – was my article. Shortly thereafter, I was invited to join the Prime Minister’s policy unit at 10 Downing Street.
8. Some “super-rich” sceptics should be encouraged to buy intomedia organizations so that climate sceptics can get more coverage. Yes or no? 

Now we’re back to climate, though not to climate science, of which Readfearn has remarkably little knowledge. I gave a talk a couple of years ago to the Mannkal Foundation in Perth, WA, in which I said that the inbuilt hard-Left Socialist prejudice in the Australian media was as bad as in the UK or the US; that in the US Fox News was making $2 million a day by broadcasting straight, unbiased news surrounded by centre-Right commentary; and that a centre-Right entrepreneur in Australia setting up a non-Left TV news channel would also make a fortune.

Someone videoed my talk and put it up on the Web. Then a Socialist site picked it up and, nervous of having the hard-Left stranglehold over the electronic media broken, whinged about what I had said. As a result, several months after my talk the video became the most-watched video in Australia on any subject. 

9. The number of people being killed by a misplaced belief in climatechange is, if anything, greater than the number of people killed byHitler. Yes or no?
Hurrah! Readfearn is getting the point at last. Policies have consequences. Expensive policies have expensive consequences. Cruel policies have cruel consequences. Tens of millions die needlessly of starvation and disease every year. The opportunity loss from diverting trillions from where the money could do some good to CO2 mitigation, where it cannot do any good at all, is a real cost. And that cost is measured not only in treasure but in tens of millions of lives. Socialists have been banging on for years about how capitalism kills. The truth, of course, is that Socialism kills far more, and the cruel diversion of funds that has prevented the entirely affordable eradication of infectious diseases in the world’s poorer countries and has hindered them from getting access to the cheap fossil-fuelled electricity we have long enjoyed continues to have consequences as murderous as they are real.
10. President Barack Obama’s birth certificate published on the WhiteHouse website is a fake. Yes or no?
Oh, come off it, Graham! Don’t be a baby. What on Earth has Mr Obama’s mickey-mouse “birth certificate” got to do with global warming policy in Australia? Lawyers acting for a Hawaiian citizen whom the State had denied his right in law to obtain a copy of his deceased sister’s birth certificate approached me in 2012 and invited me to review the evidence collected by a much-decorated Sheriff and his team of  investigators, and to prepare a report on the mathematical probability that, in the light of that evidence, the document on the White House website was genuine. I visited the Sheriff in Arizona, went to Hawaii, and submitted my report in the form of an affidavit, which was duly lodged with the court. With the client’s permission, the affidavit was published, whereupon a Professor of Mathematics came forward ex proprio motu and provided a further affidavit to the effect that the method I had used and the conclusion I had reached were legitimate and proportionate. My conclusion was that the document on the White House website was indeed a poor forgery that bore signs of having been fabricated in very great haste.
11.The chances of President Obama being born in the United Statesare “nobetter than 1 in 62.5 quadrillion”. Yes or no?
Way off the point again, Graham! As far as I know, Dennis Jensen has not made any pronouncement on Mr Obama’s birth certificate, and his endorsement of my remarks on climate change cannot be presumed to be an endorsement of my researches into Mr Obama’s birth certificate. Unlike me, Dennis Jensen has not reviewed the evidence, and nor – for that matter – have you, Graham, old sport.
12. Hospital staff who perform abortions are “butchers”. Yes or no? 
Once again, way off the point. Dennis Jensen’s endorsement of my stance on the climate, which has so far proven closer to reality than that of Mr. Readfearn, was manifestly not intended to extend to endorsement of all my views on everything else.

I declare an interest: I am Catholic – practising but not perfect. But why do we not ask Graham Readfearn, whether he has sympathy with the little child, killed in its mother’s womb without an anaesthetic, whose short autobiography I give below?

A short autobiography

The Hippocratic Oath is graven in Greek and English on astone pillar outside the University of Toronto Medical SchoolDoctors no longer take that Oath, for it condemnabortion 
In silent, sad, unheeded admonition
The graven finger stands. They pass it by.
It speaks his tongue, his ancient erudition; 
It speaks their tongue, yet now they pass it by. 

“None will I harm. I will not kill a child” –
They spake his wisdom: now they speak it not,
And I was killed, before I ever smiled.
In pain I died. These healers had forgot
My soul could mourn, my body sense, my end.
I must forgive their heartlessness perverse;
I must believe that they did not intend
To try the patience of the Universe:
The Lord of Life did not mean this – not He  
Who said, “Let little children come to Me!”! 
13. Young climate change campaigners are like “Hitler Youth”. Yes or No?
That old chestnut again! What has this got to do with climate science, or with Dennis
Jensen’s endorsement of my opinions on climate science? Nothing, that’s what. At
Copenhagen, I was at a meeting when 50 preppy thugs paid for by profiteers of doom
marched in, grabbed the microphone, menaced anyone who tried to resist them and
broke up the meeting. My lovely wife and I were sitting next to a German in his 80s
who had been in Copenhagen at the time of the Nazi occupation. He burst into tears
and said that the last time anyone had broken up a meeting like that in Copenhagen
had been when the Hitler Youth had done so. He was horrified to see it happening
again. I told the story on German television that night. The yapping yuppies whined
to me next morning, and filmed my unsympathetic response. I told them that if they
behaved like the Hitler Youth than that is what Id call them. They filmed the
exchange and put it up on YouTube, where several hundred comments ran 11 to 1 in
my favour. Bought-and-paid-for hard-Left totalitarian Socialist activists should in
future take great care to distinguish themselves from, and not act in the same brutal
fashion as, the hard-Left totalitarian activists of the Hitler Youth and the National
Socialist Workers’ Party of Germany.

14.  Professor Ross Garnaut’s views on climate change are “fascist”. Yes or No?
Another piece of ancient history out of context. In a thoughtful address to Zionists in
California some years ago, I had shown the ideological roots of the Green movement
by citing Hitler’s Mein Kampf, marked with a swastika. I then gave several further
quotes from hard-Left climate scientists. There was also a quote from Professor
Garnaut. I did not say that his views were fascist, but I did say that he had expressed
“a fascist opinion”. Readfearn, as malevolently desperate then as now to claw back
something from his earlier crushing defeat in debate at my hands, broadcast my
remark – ripped out of context and distorted in his usual repellent fashion – without
the slightest regard for the feelings of Professor Garnaut, who found himself shouted
about on both sides of the Despatch-Box in Canberra.Readfearn never apologized to 
Professor Garnaut for the hurt he caused him by unreasonably exploiting my remark
out of its context. But I apologized to the Professor, without reserve.
15. Climate change scientists should be prosecuted and locked up. Yes or No?
The last time I looked at Australia’s statutes, I did not see that there was one law for
climate scientists and one for everyone else. Climate scientists who perpetrate
scientific frauds to gain status and profit by giving governments the specious
justifications for the totalitarian intervention too many despots crave are not, and in
my opinion should not be, immune from prosecution. The Attorney General of
Virginia has already opened an investigation into the conduct of scientists who had
abolished the medieval warm period by using methods that were, to put it mildly,
questionable, and his investigation is under the Fraud Against Taxpayers Act 2000. I
have said that, given the sullen, irredentist prejudice displayed by the hard Left on
the climate question in the teeth of the mounting evidence that their belief system is
wrong, the quickest way to bring the climate nonsense to an end is to prosecute not
“climate change scientists” in general, as Readfearn has with characteristic
inaccuracy and inattention to quantifiers suggested, but one or two of the worst
offenders. couple of convictions for making up or tampering with or withholding or
destroying data or results would lift the academic peer-pressure on scientists to
conform to what they have been told is the “scientific” consensus but is in reality a
political consensus on the hard Left – a consensus which is now rapidly collapsing in
the face of the ever-more-serious failure of the “consensus” computer predictions.
16. NASA blew up their own emissions-monitoring satellite. Yes or No?
What on earth can Readfearn be talking about here? And, even then, what does it
have to do with Dennis Jensen endorsing my views on climate science? I recall once
saying what a pity it was that a $280 million NASA satellite that would have had the
capacity to reveal whether Lindzen & Choi (2009, 2011) were right about equilibrium
climate sensitivity being below 1 Cº per CO2 doubling had not made it into orbit. I
had pointed out that it would indeed have been very expensive for NASA, now a
climate monitoring agency, if the satellite hashown what I expected it to show. But
what I said fell a long way short of asserting that NASA had blown it up.

Conclusion: spite doesn’t pay, Graham

Readfearn ought to know that his posting, which was pure spite, does not reflect well
upon him or upon the shoddy Socialist cause he and so many like him unthinkingly
but comfortably and profitably espouse.

Governments are increasingly turning to me and others with real expertise in dealing
with the climate question because they see the unreasoning savageryof the relentless
and organized attempts at character assassination to which the likes of Readfearn
subject us, and they realize that (as here) there is either no true science in these
attacks, or, when science is attempted, it is done hilariously badly (see, for instance,
my utter demolition of the hapless “Professor” Abraham’s attempt to deconstruct one

Let us end by doing what Readfearn is incapable of doing: some science. As far as I
know, he has not had any of his absurdities peer-reviewed. However, I have had
several papers published after peer review – including the paper (Legates et al.,
2013), in which my distinguished co-authors and I reveal that the imagined “97.1%
scientific consensus” chanted like a mantra by Readfearn of Borg and the rest ofthe
hive mind of international Socialism is indeed imaginary.

Think 0.3% consensus, Graham. And that means the scare is over. Move along! 

A journalist with a grudge is a mere propagandist (Part 1)

Galileo Movement published an EXCLUSIVE Story on their Facebook page (link)

Graham Readfearn (journalist - sort of), in an attempt to embarrass the incoming Abbott Government's possible new science minister Dennis Jensen MP for being sceptical of AGW wrote the following piece intended to be used by the alarmist army to attack him.

See more at Galileo's Facebook page:-

A journalist with a grudge
is a mere propagandist 
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
A journalist with a grudge is a mere propagandist. Graham Readfearn, described as “a journalist," heavily lost a public debate on the climate against me some years ago and has borne a
steaming grudge ever since. Readfearn is no seeker after truth

He is an unthinking propagandist for the New Religion of Thermageddon TM.

This sad figure, furious at his fellow - Socialists’ recent electoral drubbing, now snipes
futilely at Dennis Jensen, perhaps the most scientifically-qualified member of either
House, and certainly better qualified than the militantly ignorant Readfearn.
Dennis Jensen’s crime, in Readfearn’s eyes, is that “he doesn’t accept the position of the world’s science academies and Australia’s CSIRO that climate change is caused mainly by humans burning fossil fuels and chopping down trees and that this might be bad.”

Stop right there, Graham, baby. Let’s just take a peek at the peer-reviewed literature
on this notion that there is some sort of a scientific consensus that Man can claim credit for most of the 0.7 Cº global warming since 1950.

As Readfearn may know, in May 2013 a comic called Environment Research Letters, which was set up in 2006 precisely to preach the New Religion, published a fairy-tale by five polemical blog rats at Queensland Kindergarten and a clutch of their studenty friends at various real universities.

These children’s story was that 97.1% of abstracts of almost 12,000 scientific papers published worldwide between 1991 and 2012 endorsed the supposed “scientific consensus” that most post-1950 global warming was down to us.

Trouble was, this “once-upon-a-time” fable did not end “happily ever after” for the
Queensland kiddiwinks. 

Legates et al. (2013), in a grown-up, peer-reviewed paper in the long-established Science and Education journal, devastatingly revealed that the Queensland Quixotes themselves had only marked 64 out of 11,944 abstracts as actually saying that most post-1950 warming was manmade.


One realizes you’re arithmetically challenged, Graham, old fruit, so one’s large and able staff have determined that 64 out of 11,944 is not 97.1%. It’s 0.5%.


But Legates et al. went further. They read all 64 abstracts. A third of them –23, in fact – did not say most post-1950 warming was manmade. Only 41 did so. Oops3!

One’s l. and a. s. have done the math for you again, Grazza. The true length and
breadth and width of your imagined “scientific consensus” is not 97.1%. It’s 0.3%.


So, when you say “97% of research papers published in scientific journals agree that
humans are causing climate change”, you’re either using a definition of “scientific
consensus” that is not the same as the paperyou’re citing or exaggerating about


And when you take Dennis Jensen to task for saying “The argument from consensus
is a flawed argument,” it’s Dennis and not you that is correct. 


You see, Grabbikins, real scientists from Thales of Miletus and Aristotle via Abu Ali
Ibn al-Haytham, Galilei and Newton to Huxley, Einstein, Popper and Feynman don’t
consider consensus is science, not even if it’s a consensus of soi-disant “experts” or 
even of “academies” or of grand-sounding “Commonwealth Institutes”. 

The late Michael Crichton, no mean scientist himself, put it best: “If it’s consensus, it
isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus.”

One appreciates that the constituents of the Socialist hive mind hate thinking for them-
selves,  and are largely incapable of doing so. But science and Socialism are clean
different things, Graham, my old son, and this particular attempt by the latter to take
over the former has already failed  abjectly. Time to wake up and smell the coffee.

But Jensen’s capital crime, in Redfearn’s eyes, is that he once said most of my work is
“entirely reasonable”. Jensen had said: “Some of it I don’t agree with, but on the whole 
a lot of what he says is in my view correct.”

Readfearn then takes a dozen assertions of mine, rips them out of context like a good
little propagandist, distorts them just a tad to make them look as silly as possible, and 
then challenges Dennis Jensen to say whether he agrees with the Readfearn version,
asking with tedious repetitiveness, “Yes or No?”

Altogether not a very grown-up carry-on, but very much in the Readfearn tradition of
putting Socialism before everything, and especially before the truth.

Continued in Part 2 - HERE

Beating the IPCC with their own numbers

Topher Field (we know him from his great 50 to 1 project - see here) has written  a companion piece for the American Thinker. (link)

Beating the IPCC with Their Own Numbers

Much noise and fury surrounds the debate over taking action on climate change.  Many parts of the MSM are monolithic in their endorsement of any and every scheme to 'combat climate change' and our pseudo-intellectual elite would make Pavlov proud as they battle to be the most vocal to decry those who "deny" the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory.
But what we don't see much of are cold hard numbers.  Oh we see lots of numbers of the rubbery or nebulous variety, the plucked almost from thin air variety, but very little in the way of actual hard sensible numbers that were arrived at in an actually sensible way.

This is largely of course because such numbers are hard to come by in a field of "science" which deals entirely in the speculative.  Most of the numbers we hear, whether it be a certain amount of warming, or sea level rise, or the north pole being ice free by a certain date, are the product of computer models.  And any computer modeller will acknowledge that such models will tell you anything you want, depending entirely on the numbers you put in to start with.

So does that mean that numbers are useless?  Far from it.  In fact I've recently had the pleasure of taking the IPCCs own numbers and using them to destroy the case for action on climate change.

Allow me to explain.

If you assume the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are right about everything and use only their numbers in the calculation, you will arrive at the conclusion that we should do nothing about climate change!  Yes, you read that right.

In fact, careful modelling (there's that word again) shows that we are 50 times better off waiting and adapting to climate change as it happens (assuming it happens) than we are taking action now, using their numbers!

We know this because we can compare the cost to benefit ratio of the Australian Carbon Reduction Scheme (cost vs. carbon emissions reduced) to the cost of climate change as calculated in the Stern report, which is accepted as authoritative by the IPCC.

I shan't bore you with the details, but the end result is that the Australian Carbon Reduction Scheme would cost 80% of GDP if it were expanded worldwide to the point that global warming were to be halted entirely, (remember we are accepting the IPCCs figures for the purposes of this calculation) but climate change itself will cost between 0 % and 3% of GDP in a 'business as usual' scenario leading to 3ºC of warming this century.  (3º is the IPCCs central estimate, and the Stern Report into Climate Economics which is accepted by the IPCC predicts the 0% - 3% of GDP figure, for that 3º estimate)

It's a ratio of approximately 50 to 1.  It's 50 times more expensive to try and stop climate change than it is to adapt to it as and if it happens.

In other words, even if we give every advantage to the IPCC "consensus" that AGW is theory is correct and unquestioningly accept all their numbers, it still makes no sense at all to be imposing Australian style carbon taxes or European style emissions trading schemes.  It just doesn't add up, even if we strictly use their numbers.

Many people have contributed to this modelling but it was Christopher Monckton who finally pulled it all together and added the finishing economic touches, and then he brought it to me and asked me to share it with the world.

I've made a youtube video called 'the 50 to 1 project' which explains every calculation in a fun and layman friendly way, whilst also providing the sources and introducing some prominent skeptics to the audience at the same time.  The 50 to 1 project was released on monday and has already started to go viral.  You can see that video at  You can also see Christopher Monckton's two page summary of the calculations (including the sources for every number used throughout) on the same website.

The AGW alarmist crowd are good at throwing numbers around.  Here's an opportunity for us to throw their numbers right back in their faces.  Enjoy!