In two major new Science and Public Policy (SPPI) papers, Lord Monckton, a former advisor to Margaret Thatcher as UK Prime Minister, startlingly but definitively demonstrates that the distinctive fingerprint of human greenhouse warming predicted by the UN’s computer models is absent from real-world observations, and that the reputed scientific “consensus” on “global warming” is likewise non-existent.
Greenhouse warming? What greenhouse warming? concludes that the absence of the unique signature of manmade greenhouse warming in 50 years of atmospheric temperature records implies a temperature increase – from doubling atmospheric CO2 concentration – of less than one-third of the UN’s central estimate:
Consensus? What consensus? reveals that when David Miliband, as UK Environment Minister, told an April 2007 Vatican conference that global warming science was settled he was met with cries of “Rubbish!”, a word which applies to similar claims of “consensus” by Al Gore, Robert Kennedy, Jr., and others.
An inaccurate and now-outdated single-page comment in Science in 2004, the basis for claims of “consensus”, wrongly stated that not one of 928 papers on “global climate change” disagreed with the “consensus”. Monckton brings the analysis up to date, quoting numerous learned papers challenging climate alarmism and revealing that just one of 539 recent papers calls climate change potentially “catastrophic”. He also shows that only a few dozen scientists, not 2,500, explicitly approved the UN’s finding that we are to blame for recent warming; and that several scientific bodies disagree with the “consensus”.
Robert Ferguson, SPPI president, said: “In these excellent papers, Christopher Monckton presents his powerful case ad rem, not ad hominem – he addresses the facts, but does not attack the person. He is refreshingly different from other public figures who are apparently incapable of debating the science. Al Gore is still dodging Lord Monckton’s open invitation to public debate, preferring to cower behind theMaginot Line of a ‘consensus’ which, if it ever existed, is now in tatters.”