My response to Monckton’s conspiracy theory

As we’ve been discussing, my invitation to debate Lord Monckton was withdrawn before I could make a decision on it. But, for those interested, my column in yesterday’s Fin presents my thoughts on Monckton’s key claim: that the scientific literature on climate change is a gigantic fraud, cooked up in the service of a conspiracy to inaugurate a communist world government at Copenhagen.

A tepid conspiracy

Australia is currently enjoying a visit from Lord Christopher Monckton, a former education adviser to Margaret Thatcher, who is here to warn us that the climate change negotiations are a plot to destroy the global economy and impose a communist world government. The plot, according to Monckton is led by President Obama and supported by Kevin Rudd, who are, it seems, communists who ‘piled into the environmental movement after the fall of the Berlin Wall’. 

In an interview with Alex Jones, host of the conspiracy-theoretic radio/TV show Prison Planet, Monckton attributed the plot to a ‘“deliberate desire to control population by killing people in large numbers deliberately if necessary”. His co-speaker, Ian Plimer, assented to similar views on the same program.

It might be thought that such views should be enough to consign Monckton to the lunatic fringe. But his conspiracy theory has received enthusiastic endorsement from large sections of the media including such prominent commentators as Andrew Bolt and Janet Albrechtsen (though Albrechtsen later backed away a little).

And Monckton doesn’t lack political support. Opposition Senate Leader Nick Minchin echoed his views a couple of months ago, saying ‘”For the extreme Left [global warming] provides the opportunity to do what they’ve always wanted to do, to sort of deindustrialise the Western world … you know the collapse of communism was a disaster for the Left, and … they embraced environmentalism as their new religion. ’

The Lavoisier Group, founded by former Labor Finance Minister Peter Walsh asserted that the Kyoto Protocol represented the greatest threat to Australia’s sovereignty since that posed by Japan in 1942. 

It is, then, necessary to make a serious assessment of the claim that Kevin Rudd, Barack Obama and the United Nations are engaged in a communist conspiracy to destroy the global economy and seize world power, as asserted by Monckton, Minchin, Walsh and others.   

One problem with the theory is that the chosen instrument, a carbon tax or emissions trading scheme, seems grossly inadequate to the task of destroying the economy. Even without the massive exemptions loaded in to the Rudd government’s CPRS, an emissions trading scheme with full auctioning might be expected to raise about $10 billion a year, or 1 per cent of GDP over the next decade. By comparison, the GST raises over $40 billion. No credible economist suggest that the economic impact will be more than marginal.

Even if the world can manage a comprehensive agreement to reduce carbon emissions to near-zero levels by 2050, the best estimates suggest that the economic effect will be to reduce the level of GDP by a few per cent. 

An even more puzzling aspect of conspiracy-theoretic claims is that part-time nature of the conspiracy. Most of the time conservatives like Bolt and Minchin treat Rudd as an ordinary political opponents, attacking him for being indecisive and more concerned with spin than substance. 

But if Rudd is engaged in a conspiracy to destroy the global economy and institute a communist world government, surely this fact should drive any analysis of his economic policy, health care and so on. Full-time conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones are at least consistent. In the same program as his interview with Plimer, Jones explained how the Obama Administration’s apparently modest health care reforms are actually a genocidal plot.

It is tempting to dismiss all this as overblown hyperbole. But the continuous attacks on the United Nations and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change only make sense if the whole scientific consensus on climate change is the product of a fraudulent conspiracy. This claim has been made repeatedly, most notably with the recent discovery of a couple of erroneous or poorly-source claims in the 1600 page IPCC report released in 2007.

Finally, there is a particular problem for Lord Monckton, given his past career. According to the film The Great Global Warming Swindle, the climate change conspiracy began with a British politician who said, as early as 1990, 

I want to pay tribute to the important work which the United Nations has done to advance our understanding of climate change, and in particular the risks of global warming .. The (first) IPCC report is a remarkable achievement … the need for more research should not be an excuse for delaying much needed action now. There is already a clear case for precautionary action at an international level.

The name of this climate arch-conspirator? Margaret Thatcher.

159 thoughts on “My response to Monckton’s conspiracy theory

    I would like RUDD our EMPLOYEE to stop spending our money on global warming as we are still developing our great nation and would be left in the dust
    1)We wouldn’t even see a significant difference to the climate even after spending $billions of TAX PAYERS DOLLARS
    2)The manufacturing and transport of mandated products like insulation and solar etc. produce huge short term pollution and wasn’t even added in to the IPCC calculator
    3)The ETS Would make the average Australia’s cost of just living $1100 a year more which we don,t have
    4) Copenhagen was a complete waste of time and cost $1.8 MILLION just to send the party over there
    5)As our manufacturing costs go up due to the ETS more Australian jobs will go overseas and the co2 levels would still be produced but in someone else’s back yard like China.
    etc. etc. etc.

  2. @Matthew


    Your screed is noted and added to the many others pleading for the right to eat the future and thus deny it to others.

    You are enttiled to be indifferent to the life chances of people you haven’t met and will probably never meet, but we humans describe such people as sociopaths.

  3. @Matthew
    1) Only if you assume no-one else does anything. Which they won’t, if the West doesn’t do the right thing and lead the way, including us.
    2) “Huge”? I doubt it. Do you have any figures, or are you too busy using Caps Lock?
    3) Again, I’d like to see the figures that led you to arrive at that number. Though, as a matter of principle, we have to pay more because we’re currently running up an environmental tab that will come due.
    4) Copenhagen achieved little, but wasn’t a complete waste of time. Like you, I disapprove of the unnecessary expense the government went to, but complaining about less than $2 million is petty.
    5) Not if we get a global agreement.


  4. There is now an international tournament into who can find the most absurd source for the IPCC “peer group” reviewed information. One was the himalayan glaciers based on a casual conversation, then we went to the amazon rainforest and then to the Australian Great Barrier Reef disapeaing. All based on nothing but assertions by advocates. The best one so far is that Antarctica is increasingly vulnerable because tour groups are emphasising that people shoudl clean their equipment before disembarking from tour ships. Quite right but how does that support the cult of global warming? And who is prepared to reduce their standard of living, certainly not the Indians nor the Chinese. So Australians will cook the same as everyone else but feeling self justiified?

  5. @John Coochey

    That post was boring.

    How about you posting some more new weird conspiracy theories about ‘the cult of global warming’?

    You fellows are so imaginative. There must be new ones we haven’t heard before?

  6. @Matthew
    Back in the 1980s exactly the same claim was made then: “Wait until 2000 to see if temperatures are going up.”, or words to that effect. Well, we waited and in 2000 the first of the “It is cooling.” claims started, and then the “It’s been cooling since 1998.” claim, and so on. Meanwhile, we added around 2 billion people to the mix and did nada. Well, the decade just ended was the hottest yet, and no doubt some new kind of claim like “The last solar cycle was a hot one.” or some such cr*p to use Tony Abbott’s favourite word.

  7. In a way (ie a clutching at straws kind of way) it is interesting that Coochey shows a fertile imagination for conspiracy but a complete lack of imagination for ideas about ‘quality of life’ / ‘standard of living’

  8. @nanks
    Nanks and Don- I admire you batting away to educate those less fortunate than yourselves in here. You both ought to be given special needs teaching excellence awards.

  9. A constant anomaly means temps not increasing. The problem with the chart is that it starts in 1998

    Supposing global temperature followed the function:

    T = 0.02 * (t-1998) + 0.25 * cosine(pi*0.1(t-1998))

    Then even though there would be long term warming (2 degrees per century), there would be cooling over particular periods of 10 or even more years.

    Short term global temperature variations follow a much more complicated pattern than the cosine, of course, but the principle remains the same. Ten or even greater number of years of cooling does not mean there is no long term warming and to determine if there is long term warming we MUST use a longer period than ten years.

  10. to determine if there is long term warming we MUST use a longer period than ten years.

    That said, we already have longer periods than 10 years, e.g. thirty years or a hundred years during which the increase in forcing from GHGs substantially exceeded the total increase from all other sources. No need to wait for yet more data. We already have more than enough.

  11. Ken :
    I think that casting climate change debate (though not the scientific basis for the existence of a serious manmade change to the world we live in) as Left versus Right has some legitimacy;

    I think that casting the debate in these terms is quite dangerous. As we have seen in many debates and right-wing blogs, people who regard global warmng as a left-wing concoction, and see themselves as from the right are naturally inclined to embrace the contrarian view. The right are convinced or dissuaded not by the evidence or argument, but by the conclusion, and evidence is sought that matches theor own ideologically-driven stance. How many people would not be able to follow Mann et al, and McIntyre’s mathematical arguments on methodology but embrace one side or the other purely based on their conclusions.

    This is not the way to do science. I think that if you are to take a stance on these complex issues, you must at least understand the arguments.

  12. Mr Rudd’s ponzi scheme.
    Mr Rudd and all ALP Politicians take note. We have a multi-cultural well balanced mix at present. We do not need or want more. I and my wife are pensioners. To cope with your false worries about pensions in the future, I have a suggestion for you to put to the public.
    Ask the Australian public if they would rather see a population of 40 million OR would they be willing to KEEP PAYING MEDICARE when they are pensioners. I would! This would remove any stress for the workforce to pay more to support the oncoming rise in pensioners.
    . We pensioners can adjust without overcrowding our nation.
    One bottle of wine less per week and we can pay Medicare on our pension just like normal workers. We do not require 6 lane highways. We do not want ‘the high life’, we want peace and quiet.
    Butt out of our lives Pollies, especially ALP.
    You will cop it at the next election.

  13. Since this is about Pr Q’s response to Monckton’s conspiracy theory, I thought I might tempt people to read this article about Monckton in the Age. Here is a snippet:

    His interests stretch beyond climate change. He makes the extraordinary claim, one that he admits sounds ”bonkers”, that he has also manufactured a cure to a long-term illness that attacked his endocrine system and patented the cure in conjunction with a British surgeon.</P

    Though stressing it was in its early stages, he said the drug had had positive results treating HIV and multiple sclerosis. ”It also has been used to cure cases of colds, flu,” he said.

    Lord Monckton’s stump speech is built around attacks on the science underpinning man-made climate change and the scientists and those that believe them. Though not a climate scientist, he said he had uncovered flaws through his understanding of mathematics – ”the language of science”.

    He described government attempts to tackle climate change as ”a plot by the rich against the poor” that would ”kill 5 billion, 6 billion people”.

  14. This debate is GIGANTIC. Unfortunately, it is very late in coming. Our Politicians are the last people to see it. Their noses are facing their navels. We do not want 10 million immigrants of any nationality unbalancing Australian life.
    The world is in a state of FLUX.
    The POPULATION debate is coming! In 50 years world population has TRIPLED.
    People =Factories=Pollution=Global warming=Degradation of Environmental Balance=Stress on all living things.
    Moving people around the World is NOT A SOLUTION.
    Global warming debate is here, but NOBODY connected the dots.
    Spreading people around the World is no solution at all.
    Populations must be reduced.

  15. How do you argue against such a polymath as this Monckton guy? Pack up and go home I say 😛

    Let’s face it – Monckton is so far on the fringes of reality that it is truly amazing he keeps getting away with it – and with the loot for spouting this craziness.

  16. My GAWD! (Nature). So many of you are “lured” intellectuals. So easily distracted from the real issue to display your ‘intellects.’

  17. The climate change religion is coming to an end. Accept it and move on. We have been lied to by the IPCC and the alarmists.

  18. @Donald Oats

    [Monckton] described government attempts to tackle climate change as ”a plot by the rich against the poor” that would ”kill 5 billion, 6 billion people”.

    Given that he is both amongst the world’s rich people and an explicit supporter of their interests, why would this trouble him, even if true?

    Isn’t one of the other claims about rich people just the reverse … that they plan an ever increasing number of people to ensure that their property values continue appreciating. (see Dick Smith for example).

    So it turns out, according to the conspiracy nutters, that the rich of the world both want to radically reduce population and increase it at the same time.

    It seems to have occurred to few of the louder voices on the right that the rich might not have a coherent and uniform set of ideas and interests in population, less still that it might be completely unconnected with debates about climate change.

  19. For goodness sake! Hot-Cold-Wet-Dry, what the hell difference does it make?
    More than a third of species assessed in a major international biodiversity study are threatened with extinction, scientists have warned.
    These included 21% of all known mammals, 30% of amphibians, 70% of plants and 35% of invertebrates.
    At what point will society truly respond to this growing crisis?
    Says Professor Jonathan Baillie,
    Zoological Society of London.
    This is caused entirely by the increase in Human Population!
    It cannot go on. Spreading people around the world is NOT the answer.
    Neither is the argument: more people are needed to finance seniors. We seniors must learn to manage with less. It will balance out in two generations.

  20. I’m not sure why you or we even bother with the likes of Monkton, Pilmer etc, everything I’ve seen and heard is they over inflate their own credentials on the topic, unresearched or fake claims about the science, avoid and duck honest debate about their own positions. The speakers circuit must be lucrative and many a fool deserving to be fleeced of their own money if they attend. My appologies to those commenting here that have attended their spruiking of industry financed dribble.

    JQ you are far to smart to frustrate yourself. Besides in their minds you would only be labelled as a enviro- nazi communist. If ever there was such a thing. To be championing such things as a democratic mixed economy surely you left of the right and sure are communist in the neo-liberal conservative minds.

  21. 1% or a few per cent never sounds like much until you add “of GDP” after it…

    Hardly a trivial amount. A quarter of all GST collected. I’m not sure why this is used to demonstrate how small the amount is – I think it does the opposite. All this for a 5% reduction in emissions of a country that truly is trivial in terms of global emissions anyway.

  22. @Concerned taxpayer
    You might be on to something – Australia is pretty special, why shouldn’t we be given a free pass? The third world is poor anyway and they can just build walls to keep the sea from rising like the did in the Neatherlands where as our economy is built on speculation and tax minisation schemes it’s a finely balanced house of cards and the slightest call on GDP will bring the whole thing tumbling down. I’m concerned too.

  23. @Michael

    Indeed Michael. If one were to relieve of obligations everyone adding less than or equal to Australia to CO2 then we would have only 14 countries reducing emissions. Arguably they should be relieved of eveything Australia and the others have been first. It being unfair to penalise countries with lower per capita emissions (especially those who aren’t as rich as us) and we omit China and India and a host of others. We count the EU as separate countries and most of them get off on one ground or another. In the end, the only country that has to take action is the US and it decides, reasonably enough that it can’t make a difference on its own.

    Really the argument for exceptionalism is simply a way of doing an end run around one’s obligations. Can’t you let me off miss? is an argument I hear three times each day at school and the answer always is that the integrity of the rules is that they apply to everyone, no matter who they are. The deniers know this and so they think they can whiteant the system to death.

    It’s true that 1% of GDP is not a trivial amount. If all of us had an even share of GDP it would be 1% of the wealth of each of us. Of course, we don’t. Something like 80% of Australia’s wealth is controlled by the top 20% so 80% of that 1% is borne by them and the rest of us get to divvy up the other 20%.

    In compensation of course we get cleaner air, cleaner water, better cities, lower longterm energy costs — in short, over time we (or our descendants) are mostly effectively better off, and it is possible we will avoid the worst of climate change. “Concerned taxpayer” seems uninterested in that.

  24. @Fran Barlow

    Thanks for going so far as acknowledging that a percentage of GDP (if that is all it would amount to), is not a trivial amount. Does the divvying up increase the trivialness of the number..

    If we are talking about trivialness, lets think about how much cleaner the air would actually be with such a small change in emissions, how ‘better’ would our cities really be with 1% less GDP and 5% cleaner air, how much cleaner will the water really be (we will probably be drinking our own sewerage soon anyway), how much better off will our dependants really be with 1% less GDP to pay for their parents aged care?

  25. @Concerned taxpayer

    Thanks for going so far as acknowledging that a percentage of GDP (if that is all it would amount to), is not a trivial amount. Does the divvying up increase the trivialness of the number?

    From the perspective of all of the individuals, obviously yes. I could possibly buy my house for $750k. That’s a huge number. Debt service over 25 years might be 50k per annum. Still a big number but not as big. Nearly $1000 per week. Still a big number, but not as big. If I share it with three other people, $250 per week, so smaller still.

    For the record, I rent …

    If we are talking about trivialness, lets think about how much cleaner the air would actually be with such a small change in emissions …

    Quite a bit cleaner actually, because the measures we’d have to take to meet that goal in practice would involve retiring plants that output not only CO2, but hundreds of other toxic substances as well, including, for example, mercury, SO2, lead and so forth. If fewer liquid fuel powered kilometres were driven then the combined exhaust of our urban vehicles would sharply decline, and that would substantially improve urban air quality, reduce deterioration of building from car exhaust and so forth.

    how much cleaner will the water really be (we will probably be drinking our own sewerage soon anyway)

    Well I dare not speak for you but I will certainly not be trying to drink the water carrying infrastructure — it’s far too lumpy and not very refeshing — nor will it drink sewage either. I’d be happy to drink water drawn from sewage however, provided it was no worse than the potable standard we have now.

    how much better off will our dependants really be with 1% less GDP to pay for their parents aged care?

    Impossible to say because there are too many variables. If we are all healthier, maybe they won’t need as much aged care. Maybe we will be fit to work a little longer. Maybe we will be organised in ways that lower the cost of living so we will have a greater proportion left over in actual disposable income, most of the time.

    It’s quite possible that our wealth will incerease whatever happens to GDP because what we have given up was purely notional GDP — wasteful expenditure on sitting in traffic, recovering from illness and buying accoutrements we don’t actually need.

  26. Bear in mind that GDP is likely to double over the relevant period, so the comparison is between 200 per cent of our current GDP and 198 per cent.

  27. @tunneleye
    So you’re one of the “I’ve got mine bugger the rest of them crowd” Have you ever stopped to think what the aborigines might have thought when your ancestors first landed. Maybe a more constructive approach might be to lobby for greater foreign aid with an emphasis toward empowering women and their rights as regards reproduction.

  28. Monckton has apparently been paid $20k + expenses to spew this garbage. He produce a graph of temperatures since 2001 in a YouTube clip of one of his Australian shows that he claims is “statistically significant”. He doesn’t say whose data he used but I checked this with HadCRUT3 and NASA GISStemp (he cites right wing propaganda site but they have no obvious temperature data). I used monthly data rather than annual since he did that too (though monthly data is risky to use in analysis because you should really smooth it to allow for very big short-term swings). The GISStemp trend is not statistically significant over that period. The HadCRUT3 trend is but with a downward slope of -0.024C per century (not the massive downward trend he claims), and I have my doubts that if you correct for experimental error that this trend is really significant. (GISS has an error bar of 0.1C on their data; I doubt CRU would claim more precision). He also claims the “DDT ban” is in effect genocidal. Also daft spin. DDT use declined because of a range of concerns including that it was becoming less effective as insects developed resistance.

    Much of what he (and his Libs admirers) say is straight out of the La Rouchite play book. Scary stuff.

  29. @Concerned taxpayer
    Fran, how much did the massive rise in recent years in the oil price reduce worldwide GDP? No economist I’ve talked to links the global financial crisis with the rapid rise in oil prices (other than that the GFC probably contributed to pulling them off the trend to $150+).

    Industry acolytes can be expected to inflate massively the costs to the rest of the economy of a cost to themselves. One of the more absurd claims of the cost of dealing with the ozone hole amounted to enough money to give everyone on the planet a new refrigerator. The reality is that an industry adapts to the cost environment in which it finds itself. If it has to find efficiencies in other areas to contain the effect of a cost rise, it will do so. The missing part of the equation is that we need to ensure that the effects of making polluting more expensive include moving to cleaner energy sources: it is not good enough if we make energy more expensive and industry adapts by finding ways to absorb the cost without either reducing energy use, or shifting to cleaner sources.

  30. ‘One problem with the theory is that the chosen instrument, a carbon tax or emissions trading scheme, seems grossly inadequate to the task of destroying the economy. Even without the massive exemptions loaded in to the Rudd government’s CPRS, an emissions trading scheme with full auctioning might be expected to raise about $10 billion a year, or 1 per cent of GDP over the next decade. By comparison, the GST raises over $40 billion. No credible economist suggest that the economic impact will be more than marginal.’

    What you conveniently neglect to mention are the costs, primarily energy with the scaling down and eventual elimination of the coal-fired powerplants and their replacement with (expensive and hopelessly inefficient) wind and solar, that will have to be borne by the average, poor, working-class person. Why should anyone needlessly pay triple or quadruple the amount for basic necessities such as electrical power if there is so clearly no need? When I say ‘no need’ I am referring to the facts that: a) fossil-fuel generated electricity is cheap, reliable and already in place (unlike the idealistic alternatives that are not really alternatives at all, apart from nuclear), and, b) the very reason for this whole carbon-emissions control fiasco is a belief in an invalid ideological hypothesis dressed as science (i.e. man-made global warming fed by CO2) without which K Rudd and his gang would not be able to impoverish us all.

    ‘Even if the world can manage a comprehensive agreement to reduce carbon emissions to near-zero levels by 2050, the best estimates suggest that the economic effect will be to reduce the level of GDP by a few per cent.’

    ‘Only’ a few percent. Do you know what ‘only a few percent’ translates into? Trillions of dollars, economic collapse and poverty for millions, but, of course, you don’t care about that do you? If by the expression ‘best estimates’ you mean the most optimistic, and not the most accurate, then this would be a catastrophe. What was the worst-case scenario by the way?

    ‘Finally, there is a particular problem for Lord Monckton, given his past career.’
    A person’s ‘past career’ should not be an issue. It is the strength, or weakness, of their argument that should be considered, and nothing else. Even if he were the most dishonest person on the planet, if what he has to say is in any sense scientifically valid, then his claims should be taken seriously, scrutinised, and judged on their own merits. If you have actually seen ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ (which I seriously doubt, judging by the way you have used it to try to discredit Monckton), the reasons for Margaret Thatcher’s support for green ideology are explained in full.

  31. @Peter Too many errors here to count, so I’ll just pick two. Australia’s GDP is currently around 1 trillion, and likely to double to 2 trillion or so by 2050 (depends on population growth).One per cent of 1 trillion is 10 billion, or about $10/person/week for a population of 20 million – we are in capuccino and cake territory here. Before you make a fool of yourself any further, learn some basic arithmetic. And, before you go in for hypocritical claims about working families remember that Rudd’s scheme, unlike Abbott’s compensates low income earners.

    As regards Thatcher, her alleged motive was to promote high-cost nuclear power, which puts her in the same evil league as “Rudd and his gang”, aiming (for no obvious reason) to impoverish us all, bringing about “economic collapse and poverty for millions”.

  32. Everyone is still missing the main point. ” Please explain how Co2 is responsible for driving up the temperature?

    “Co2 is not a pollutant, it is plant food. High levels of Co2 did not cause the temperature to rise in the past and will NOT cause the temperature to rise in the future” If you disagree with this statement, please explain why?

  33. @Jon Frodsham

    You have now completed the test and are fully qualified to stand for Family First in the next election.

    “If you disagree with this statement, please explain why?” Why? Because it is wrong.

    Go away and do some reading and you will find the answer why CO2 has caused temperatures to rise in the past and why CO2 is called a Greenhouse Gas. Even most deniers accept these facts.

  34. @Freelander

    While the invitation by “Jon” to engage in yet another round of the old agnatology dance is utterly unamusing and lame, one thing I do fine bemusing is their ostensible inability to see the obvious flaw in the Co2 is not a pollutant, it is plant food claim or even to anticipate the two screamingly obvious objections.

    When someone pitches that the conclusions range from them being too stupid to be bothered talking to and incorrigibly ignorant into the bargain to them simply wanting to insult us (a.k.a trolling). I suppose they must get enough bites to think it is worth their time, but still …

  35. @jquiggin

    PrQ, Jarrah … caution … I mistyped … it should be agnotology (like agnostic with which it is cognate…)

    I came across this term back in June last year when hearing on newsradio of Robert Proctor of Stanford’s work in this area.

    But yes, it’s very apt.

    Note the participation of the famous Naomi Oreskes in the conference above …

  36. Donald Oates: Is that your lame excuse for an insult, pathetic.

    And Freelander: So That is your answer “Its wrong” Why?

    My point here stands. The issue is CO2 and nothing else, as that what is going to be taxed. Lets face it CO2 is the issue, everything else is a smoke screen

    As can be plainly seen on the internet there are conflicting views. Example:

    CA?—?(Marketwire – 12/09/09)
    As world leaders began talks on climate change at the United Nations Summit in Copenhagen, Denmark, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released its long-awaited finding declaring carbon dioxide (CO2) a dangerous pollutant that must be regulated.


    CO2 is definitely not a pollutant. It is a friendly trace gas necessary for all life.

    Human-produced CO2 is a miniscule fraction of a percentage of greenhouse gases.

    96.5% of all greenhouse gases emit from the oceans, naturally.

    Without CO2, vegetation dies, herbivores die, you die.

    CO2 levels used to be much higher many times in the past.

    Higher temperatures from the sun result in CO2 levels rising long afterwards.

    Rising CO2 is an effect of global warming, not a cause.

    Global warming and cooling is a natural phenomenon.

    The higher the CO2 levels in the atmosphere, the greener our planet becomes.

    Forests and plant life growth has increased by approx 40% over the last 50 years, thanks to CO2.

    Increasing CO2 yields larger food crops. This is beneficial to a growing population.

    The Earth is not currently warming, it is in fact cooling.

    Temperatures in the past have often been much warmer than today.

    Even if it were to happen, a warmer Earth is far better than a colder one, for all life.

    Many scientists believe we are on the brink of another ice age.

    When the planet warms and cools it is purely due to the sun. Not your car.

    Polar ice is now at record levels and still growing.

    Climate changes happen all the time, and have occurred much faster than anything in modern times.

    There has been no increase in extreme weather. In fact, records show the exact opposite.

  37. By the way I went to see Lord Monckton and Ian Plimer last night in Perth. There were hundreds of people who could not get in, so due to public demand they are putting on another lecture tonight. Gee I thought that AGW sceptics were as your hero Al Gore states, “The ones who still believe that the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona and those who believe the world is flat.” Oh and what about holocaust deniers? You guys should debate the AGW issue with Lord Monckton and Ian Plimer, lol they would tear you guys to shreds.I was surprised that you Mao lovers did not infiltrate the meeting with balloons. Lucky you did not try as I had my pepper spray ready. Any way games up lads, AGW is now just a rearrangement of the deck chairs of the Titanic. We win you loose. Hurrah!

  38. PrQ … I regard “Jon Frodsham” as spamming this site. His last post was a simple unattributed and largely unaltered copy and dump from some ranting hyena’s blogsite.

    This is surely contrary to posting rules, and if it isn’t, it should be. Certainly it has nothing direct to do with Monckton and is simple off-topic plagiarism.

    Thanks for the alert. I’ve deleted the spam post, but left the rest of his absurdities. Frodsham is banned with immediate effect. – JQ

  39. It occurs to me that people like Jon Frodsham, whose stuff reads beautifully as parody yet I’m fairly sure is not, most likely believe that education and learning in themselves can be a conspiracy against The Common Man.

    On the one hand there are guys like Terje who make up for delusionism in some subjects with normally decent character qualities in other areas*. Lack of education in the area of delusion is potentially explanatory. On the other hand there are the ones who know nothing about most things, can’t be taught anything, and who clearly project onto scientists and better schooled people their own character failings of untrustworthiness, venality, dishonesty and so on.

    It’s the “nature conspires against wingnut ideologues” thing. Delusionals like Frobsham and Monckton must believe that it’s possible for scientists to spend decades studying a subject without knowing anything about it, having only the intention of pulling the wool over Jon’s doe-like eyes. Is there a simpler explanation for the cynicism and cluelessness and unwillingness to study before raving?

    I’m not suggesting that mistakes don’t get made – they certainly do! – or that entire fields of science haven’t been wrong about something – they have. What I’m saying is that people who’ve not even studied the subject yet who think the professionals of the field not only have it all wrong but also are only in it for the loot or for political reasons ….. well, they tell us much about themselves don’t they?

    * Terje flunked badly on the hacked personal emails character test, not that he cares or understands

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s