Projects & Resources
Environment
Global Warming
Myths vs. Facts: Global Warming
Lord Christopher Monckton
Lord Christopher Monckton
Lord Monckton: Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. His bio includes receiving a diploma in journalism from the University College, Cardiff. He performed as a policy adviser for Margaret Thatcher. He has spent a great deal of energy lately attempting to establish himself as offering 'scientific' perspectives on human caused global warming. Rebuttal to Lord Monckton's arguments: his perspectives largely contain facts out of context, non sequitur and red herring arguments, as well as straw man constructions that are anything but scientifically sound when examined in context of the relevant science.
Lord Christopher Monckton
Debunking Monckton
Lord Monckton was born into his title. Apparently he has chosen to use his position and risk his reputation by spreading disinformation regarding the science of global warming. His opinions aside, his perspectives on the matter can best be described as naive, ignorant, or at worst fraudulent, or some combination of the three.
As to his title 'Lord' Monckton admits: "I'm afraid I do exploit it quite shamelessly."
His main claim to fame is having worked for Margaret Thatcher as a policy adviser. It seems he was not very good at it though, at least not in the context of global warming. Margaret Thatcher was a very vocal proponent of moving quickly and meaningfully on the challenge of our time, that being 'human caused global warming'.
Main Entry: char·la·tan
1: quack 2
2: one making usually showy pretenses to knowledge or ability : fraud, faker
Main Entry: in·flam·ma·to·ry
1: tending to excite anger, disorder, or tumult : seditious
2: tending to inflame or excite the senses
Inflammatory speeches are the hallmark of Monckton's method. Whether using facts out of context or appeals to emotion, his misrepresentation of fact and his use of 'facts out of context' are clearly visible to the discerning mind.
It turns out that Monckton's main claim to fame contradicts his current position on global warming.
His main claim to fame is having worked for Margaret Thatcher as a policy adviser. It seems he was not very good at it though, at least not in the context of global warming. Margaret Thatcher was a very vocal proponent of moving quickly and meaningfully on the challenge of our time, that being 'human caused global warming'.
Margaret Thatcher
(first world leader to warn of the dangers of global warming)
Margaret Thatcher on 'Global Warming'
"The danger of global warming is as yet unseen, but real enough for us to make changes and sacrifices so that we do not live at the expense of future generations".
"That prospect is a new factor in human affairs. It's comparable in its implications to the discovery of how to split the atom. Indeed its results could be even more far reaching."
"No generation has a freehold on this earth. All we have is a life tenancy with a full repairing lease."
Arguments
Monckton shows that the ERBE data 'proves' that global warming is essentially not happening. He quotes analysis from Richard Lindzen. The problem is that the Lindzen uses outdated data and analysis. Lindzens history is already associated with special interest lobbies and their interests, in alignment, if not direct influence. This give more than enough reason to suspect his analysis and anyone that uses or relies on it.
October, 2009
Lord Monckton has found another way to "shamelessly" take advantage of his inherited title by thrusting himself into the position of being a 'defender of American democracy'. He relies on building straw man arguments while he appeals to the emotions of the American people.
What is he saying now?
World Government; Communism, Global Climate Treaty; Transfer or Redistribution of Wealth; Climate Debt; CO2 less than 1/6 than IPCC estimates (Lindzen). He claims President Obama said during his election campaign that the US Constitution is only a piece of paper (one might think that that would have come up during the election campaign though?). Actually this sounds like a rehash of the rumor that President Bush said the constitution was 'just a piece of paper' in 2005. Monckton has merely replaced the name Bush with Obama. The degree of chicanery in Moncktons remarks remains high.
Essentially, he is making a false argument. Monckton states:
"What they're now going to do is to set up a world government and the word government actually appears in the treaty. But, you heard it hear first, the word election, democracy, vote, or ballot, does not appear anywhere in the 200 pages of the treaty. It's going to be a dictatorship."
and
"What we are talking about is a fledgling world government and because it's not elected, it's essentially a communist world government."
A veritable litany of error and contextual misrepresentation (see spin here & here). First the document he is referring to is a 'draft document'. It is trying to set up governance (administration) for the treaty (and yes, governments will need to be involved in the treaty). Without governance, how can the treaty be enforced (without enforcement, why make a treaty)? Second, it is unlikely it will be signed this year anyway, based on all that we are hearing about how things are going with COP15.
Monckton is making the rounds on CNN, Glenn Beck, etc. He has figured out how to get the spotlight to shine on himself and will hold on to that as long as he can.
Simply put, Monckton, and others that are delaying action, are making money and gaining fame, at the expense of everyone on the planet.
Reality
He claims recent evidence proves sensitivity is lower than estimated. This of course based on the work of Richard Lindzen. Apparently, Lindzen is connected through a string of associations with lobbyists that exist to protect fossil fuel industry profits. We, the people, need to be aware of what it really costs if we do nothing. According to work done at MIT, combined with the Center for Strategic Analysis, the cost is hard to even fathom.
A global treaty is needed to begin to address global warming in a meaningful manner. The majority of studies indicates that climate may be more sensitive that models are prediction. Without a treaty, democracy itself will ultimately fail. History has shown repeatedly, that when resources get scarce, democracy suffers.
If the goal is to protect democracy, then we need to rapidly address global warming mitigation and adaptation issues.
Monckton thinks short-term, in the sense that if he were not inflammatory on the issue, he would not be making money talking about it, and he would not get to appear on national television. We, the people will need to be less emotional about the issue and more realistic. Increased CO2 and other greenhouse gases from industrial sources are affecting the climate. Inaction will ultimately destroy the world economy. How fast? It begins now.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown, October 19, 2009:
...in just 25 years the glaciers in the Himalayas, which provide water for 3/4 of a billion people could disappear entirely. IPCC estimates tell us now, that by 2080, an extra 1.8 billion people, equal to a quarter of the worlds current population, could be living and dying without enough water.
Draft of Treaty: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/awglca7/eng/inf02.pdf
Main Entry: jus·tice
1 a :
the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the
impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited
rewards or punishments b : judge c : the administration of law; especially : the establishment or determination of rights according to the rules of law or equity
2 a : the quality of being just, impartial, or fair b (1) : the principle or ideal of just dealing or right action (2) : conformity to this principle or ideal : righteousness c : the quality of conforming to law
3 : conformity to truth, fact, or reason : correctness
Climate Debt
To not address climate debt is to support the notion that Democracies do not support justice or fairness, which is the foundation, or basis, for democracy itself. America itself was founded on certain principles including justice, liberty, fairness. If we abandon the founding principles of fairness, freedom and justice, on what basis can one claim to be American, or a lover of democracy and freedom, on what principle? Or are we to abandon these principles?
America, and the western world, has emitted or been responsible for the emission of the majority of greenhouse gas emissions. Those that will suffer first, and most, in the beginning, live in countries that have only emitted 8% or less of global emissions. On what basis can those responsible for the largest amount of emissions claim no responsibility for the result of that emission?
Responsibly addressing climate debt is important and at the same time, in doing so it is important to ensure that we are addressing all issues simultaneously. Economic viability of the overall system and that we do not allow such 'payment' to add to the problem of global warming but rather that all solutions bring us closer to mitigating the cause, that of human caused global warming.
This in no way is to say that we can or should shirk responsibility, but that we must quickly address needed solutions as well as the justice issues that present themselves in the world we have now created.
Summary
Monckton is playing to the crowd and he has an audience. He is taking it a bit far though. When his spin of the message goes so far out into unsupportable claims, eventually, his words will be ignored. In the mean time, he knows he has found a spotlight that he can make sure shines on him, so it is doubtful he will let that go easily. He remains inconsiderate of the larger issues, that of responsibility, accountability and moving toward meaningful mitigation and adaptation.
June, 2009
His June, 2009 foray into the debate, addressing a question from Rush Limbaugh, can be found here: on the Science and Public Policy web site (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org).
For the sake of news integrity and redundancy in the event the link is moved or deleted we provide a copy of the linked document here.
Debunking Monckton
As an example of the degree of errors in Lord Moncktons work and analyzed his paper 'Monckton_Reply_to_Rush_on_Chu.pdf' and written a rebuttal.
Click here to Download PDF of RebuttalLe't s take a look at just how irrelevant Lord Monckton's opinion on Global Warming and Climate Change is:
What Monckton says: "What the media aren't telling you about the real climate"
Source: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/05/moncktons-deliberate-manipulation/
What Monckton says: "Sea level has stopped rising: UN wrong again
Note: Moncktons chart is actually stretched horizontally in order to give the impression that the trend he is referring to is visually more flat. It is of course an illusory technique. To think that Lord Monckton is anything close to scientific in his representations is reasonably considered an absurd assumption.
The Real Chart:
Source: http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_noib_global.jpg
When one applies Lord Monckton's methodology to the chart, one can see that sea level rise has stopped many times during it's rise. Again, short term variability is weather, long term trend is climate. Monckton's representations are clearly deceptive.
Not only is sea level continuing to rise, it is beyond the upper bounds of the IPCC estimate, which as pointed out in the January, 2009 Sea Level Rise report, is in line with expected estimates of faster SLR. These indicators are important to pay attention to.
What Monckton says: "Five years' ocean cooling: UN wrong again"
Source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2009/perspectives.html
What Monckton says: "Arctic sea-ice extent: an 8 year record high"
Source: NSIDC
What Monckton Says: "Global sea-ice extent: a regular heartbeat."
Source: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
Facts out of context and just another straw man argument. Monckton shows global sea ice extent (north/south pole combined), which seems stable. Again ice extent is not as relevant as ice mass. This graph actually has no relevance to the point of the argument. We already know that ice extent is diminishing in the Arctic, and increasing in Antarctica, so they 'seem' to cancel each other out. But in reality, the two separate ice extent measurements help confirm global warming.
This is not evident in a combined graph. This is another great example of using facts out of context. Monckton is relying on the visual image which might trick people into thinking he is right.
Perspective: Warming oceans add moisture to the atmosphere and that is, and was, expected to increase ice extent in Antarctica with increased snow due to increased water evaporation due to warmer oceans. Antarctic ice calving has increased and is now said to be contributing about half of the sea level rise in relation to the Greenland ice calving rate.
Generally speaking as of 2009, sea level rise is attributed 25% to Greenland, 25% to Antarctica, and 50% to oceanic thermal expansion (ocean warming).
Note: Antarctica sea ice extent growth observations are literally based on thin ice. As the overall ocean heat content rises the Antarctic sea ice extent will eventually reverse.
What Monckton says: "Hurricane activity is at a 30-year record low"
Source: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=140
Source: http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/hurdatTAB.txt
What Monckton says: "CO2 concentration well below UN predictions"
Source: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/05/moncktons-deliberate-manipulation/
