Lord Monckton, Viscount of Brenchley, on "Global Warming"

Politics International Politics
1

This is the first I’ve heard of this gentleman, however he does sound like a person who posses a large pair and is not afraid to use them. Quite knowledgeable as well as outspoken.

Leading off with his challenge to a pair of US Senators to -

[url=http://www.amtdrt.inlumen.com/bin/story?StoryId=CryyGubWbmZuYCdeXnJy]British Lord Stings Senators Rockefeller and Snowe: ‘Uphold Free Speech or Resign’
WASHINGTON, Dec 18, 2006 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ – Lord Monckton, Viscount of Brenchley, has sent an open letter to Senators Rockefeller (D-WV) and Snowe (R-Maine) in response to their recent open letter telling the CEO of ExxonMobil to cease funding climate-skeptic scientists. (ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20061212_monckton.pdf).

Lord Monckton, former policy adviser to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, writes: “You defy every tenet of democracy when you invite ExxonMobil to deny itself the right to provide information to ‘senior elected and appointed government officials’ who disagree with your opinion.”

"Concludes Lord Monckton, “I challenge you to withdraw or resign because your letter is the latest in what appears to be an internationally-coordinated series of maladroit and malevolent attempts to silence the voices of scientists and others who have sound grounds, rooted firmly in the peer- reviewed scientific literature, to question what you would have us believe is the unanimous agreement of scientists worldwide that global warming will lead to what you excitedly but unjustifiably call ‘disastrous’ and ‘calamitous’ consequences.”
SOURCE Center for Science and Public Policy[/url]

Here is the .pdf of his complete letter to the Honorable Senators - quite a smashing document.
ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20061212_monckton.pdf

And another beautifully done comment of Lord Monckton -
[b]Apocalypse Cancelled - Sunday Telegraph 5 November 2006
This is to be followed up on Sunday 12 November 2006 with the final installment.

Included In Lord Monckton’s open letter is very timely response to the blatherings of Al Gore!

[i]"Al Gore, who was Vice-President when the Senate declared 97-0 that it would not ratify any treaty that did not bind fast-growing, heavily-polluting nations such as China, India, Indonesia and Brazil (because without them no action by the West would make any difference) wrote a reply to my article saying that I should not be discussing these matters in the Press. He said I should rely on peer-reviewed research in journals such as Science, Nature and Geophysical Research Letters.

Within 12 hours, I had published a 24-page refutation of his scientifically-inaccurate article, citing more than 60 references in learned journals. Twenty-five of the citations were from the three journals he mentioned."[/i]

Some very pertinent articles that one who has an interest in in the “Global Warming” issue would do well to read and understand.
Coins have 2 sides.

2

[quote=“TainanCowboy”] [url=http://www.amtdrt.inlumen.com/bin/story?StoryId=CryyGubWbmZuYCdeXnJy]British Lord Stings Senators Rockefeller and Snowe: ‘Uphold Free Speech or Resign’
WASHINGTON, Dec 18, 2006 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ – Lord Monckton, Viscount of Brenchley, has sent an open letter to Senators Rockefeller (D-WV) and Snowe (R-Maine) in response to their recent open letter telling the CEO of ExxonMobil to cease funding climate-skeptic scientists. (ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20061212_monckton.pdf). [/quote]

They have scientists that are skeptical of climate. Wow.

Anyway, here they say the senetors are “telling” Exon what to do.

But here they are “inviting” Exxon not to pay “scientists” to provide political leaders with biased science. Science isn’t supposed to be biased generally.

[quote]"Concludes Lord Monckton, “I challenge you to withdraw or resign because your letter is the latest in what appears to be an internationally-coordinated series of maladroit and malevolent attempts to silence the voices of scientists and others who have sound grounds, rooted firmly in the peer- reviewed scientific literature, to question what you would have us believe is the unanimous agreement of scientists worldwide that global warming will lead to what you excitedly but unjustifiably call ‘disastrous’ and ‘calamitous’ consequences.”
SOURCE Center for Science and Public Policy[/url][/quote]

Now we have jumped issues entirely. The results of global warming won’t be be disastrous? Better let the biologists and ecologists know. They’ll be suprised as hell.

[quote]Here is the .pdf of his complete letter to the Honorable Senators - quite a smashing document.
ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20061212_monckton.pdf[/quote]

Yeah I bet.

[quote]Included In Lord Monckton’s open letter is very timely response to the blatherings of Al Gore!

[i]"Al Gore, who was Vice-President when the Senate declared 97-0 that it would not ratify any treaty that did not bind fast-growing, heavily-polluting nations such as China, India, Indonesia and Brazil (because without them no action by the West would make any difference) wrote a reply to my article saying that I should not be discussing these matters in the Press. He said I should rely on peer-reviewed research in journals such as Science, Nature and Geophysical Research Letters.[/quote]

He was probably correct. Those deliberately engaging in misinformation campaigns should be directed to journals whose editors can more easily see through the poor scholarship involved. Otherwise poor sods like me have to waste time arguing bullshit like this lest someone be stupid enough not to see through it themselves. Al Gore was just attempting a public sevice.

What article? No where does this post mention an article by Al Gore.

[

3

Just as quoted. But the full context does require actually reading the information.

4

Isn’t there already a thread about global warming? Does this viscount geezer really merit a thread of his own? I think not.

More reading on this

5

[quote=“Juba”]Isn’t there already a thread about global warming? Does this viscount geezer really merit a thread of his own? I think not.
More reading on this[/quote]Juba -
The linked article does take exception to his comments regarding Iceland. This just further emphasizes the need for considering all input on this issue.Lord Monckton also deals with the troubling aspects of pressure dealt out to those in the scientific community who question the current mania regarding “Global Warming.”
Refreshing to see this side of the issue I would think.

6

how bout this input…

You make reference to the notion that the effects of global might not be disasterous. Do you have a speck of a clue how preposterous that is? All living creatures evolved in response to, among other things, the climate. Introduce major changes to that climate and entire eco-systems and the species dependent on them will die. We see this happening with coral bleaching already and still the gas guzzelers seak an audience. Unbelievable.

7

Just as quoted. But the full context does require actually reading the information.[/quote]

Article? Reply? Article? Reply? Looks like a reply to me.

8

Oh dear. More global warming. Corporations trying to submit articles or information that supports their side of the story. How outrageous! That would be almost as egregious as NGOs who want to raise fears of imminent doom to increase donor funding of their six-figure salaries and generous benefit packages while they busy themselves traveling the world to raise concern about global warming, er climate change, er alternating temperatures. Er? Almost as bad as Al Gore attempting to ride the issue as a political comeback ploy, er? Almost as bad as college professors rambling on about something about which they know little or nothing, er? Quite just as bad as sophomores in college latching onto a cause that gives them opportunities to march in lockstep with their concerned counterparts to care and show their concern, er! Yes. Ridiculous. Laughably ridiculous that such corporations would engage in such ridiculous behavior!

9

[quote=“bob”][quote=“TainanCowboy”][quote=“bob”][quote]Within 12 hours, I had published a 24-page refutation of his scientifically-inaccurate article, citing more than 60 references in learned journals. Twenty-five of the citations were from the three journals he mentioned."[/quote]What article? No where does this post mention an article by Al Gore.[/quote]2nd article cited, page 5, paragraph 4.Just as quoted. But the full context does require actually reading the information.[/quote][quote]"Al Gore, who was Vice-President when the Senate declared 97-0 that it would not ratify any treaty that did not bind fast-growing, heavily-polluting nations such as China, India, Indonesia and Brazil (because without them no action by the West would make any difference) wrote a reply to my article saying that I should not be discussing these matters in the Press. He said I should rely on peer-reviewed research in journals such as Science, Nature and Geophysical Research Letters. [/quote]Article? Reply? Article? Reply? Looks like a reply to me.[/quote]give it up bob. you’re just being tiresome. Got any substantive comments or would something like that spoil your fun?

10

:laughing: Yeah I know fred. Sorry about that. I was feeling a little “dynamic” owing to the abudance of fresh air and other natural wonders.

But seriously though, we have been through this before. We know global warming is happening, we know what is causing it and we know the effects mostly won’t be good. Perhaps a little o the ol lock stepping is exactly what is in order. Auto emmisions are bad. Gas taxes are good. Gas taxes paying for public transit, hey! even better. Be a hero! Ride a bicycle! that sort of thing. If only we could all get on the same page things would be so much easier.

11

Can you give an example of any NGO personality who receives a six-figure salary? Are we talking about United States dollars here, or Japanese yen?

12

Juba:

Haha not in the loop are we? Time to look around at some of the key foundations and UN organizations along with executive directors of major enviornmental NGOs. You might be surprised. I would say $80,000/year is quite at the lower limit. If you had an MBA, you might be able to apply for just such a job. In the meantime, back to the volunteer grunt work for you. Be a shame to ponder where all that money is going though eh? hahaha

13

Ah, yes, that is a six-figure sum - it you count the comma. I repeat my request for an actual example of a six-figure salary, and I’m not talking Turkish lira.

Now that is funny. Do you have my entire curriculum vitae on file?

14

Honestly, dealing with you inexperienced babes in the woods is like taking candy from a baby NOT that I would want to.

[quote]The IRS has announced that it will investigate the executive-compensation packages paid at 2,000 nonprofit organizations and charities. It could do worse than turning its spotlight on the nation’s foremost environmental charities. According to a recent report from Public Interest Watch, some of these organizations pay their top executives handsome salaries that bear comparison to packages in the private sector, where considerably more risk is assumed. Yet not all green charities are the same. The top charities could learn from others in their movement.

The Public Interest Watch report, “Executives at Environmental Charities Go (For The) Green,” carefully analyzes the earnings of top executives at four major environmental organizations — the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Environmental Defense, Inc., Greenpeace Fund, Inc., and the Sierra Club Foundation. The data are culled from the most recent IRS Forms 990 available (2001 or 2002), and are a matter of public record (see for online versions).

According to the report, NRDC employs nine people who each earn over $150,000 each year, including President John Adams, who was paid a whopping $368,342 in 2001. These salaries include deferred contributions to employee-retirement funds, but even without these, eight of the nine still grossed salaries of over $140,000. Together, these nine employees were paid a grand total of $1,753,849 in 2001.

Yet even this figure is dwarfed by the huge amount paid to its principal employees by Environmental Defense, Inc., whose top 13 employees received $2,120,980 in the same year. President Fred Krupp was compensated to the tune of $327,414, while Senior Vice President Diana Josephson and Vice President Marcia Aronoff each grossed over $200,000.

To put this into perspective, consider that Environmental Defense received just over $25,000,000 in individual memberships and contributions in 2002, according to its own annual report. So 8.5 cents of every dollar donated goes to the bank accounts of just these 13 people. Think about it like this: Las Vegas casinos will bank a “house take” of 9 percent from some rolls on a craps table.

Both NRDC and Environmental Defense are charitable organizations with certain restrictions, organized under section 501(c)3 of the internal-revenue code. Public Interest Watch also looked at the finances of the Sierra Club Foundation, the Sierra Club’s 501(c)3 affiliate. Its top five employees earned only $411,670 between them in 2002, with the executive director, John DeCock, earning just under $140,000. As Public Interest Watch says, these compensation packages do not appear to be unreasonable.

Nor is the Sierra Club Foundation unusual. According to its Form 990, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, an organization whose aims and tactics many Americans find objectionable, is at least reasonable in its payment structure. The top five executives there earned only $294,234 in 2001 with the president, Ingrid Newkirk, seemingly leading by example with a gross salary of just over $30,000.

Public Interest Watch also investigated the payments made by Greenpeace Fund, Inc., whose exact status it has questioned in previous reports. This organization, a 501(c)3, exists solely to pass funds along to other Greenpeace organizations, as Public Interest Watch found when it investigated its affairs for 2000. The watchdog concluded that Greenpeace Fund, Inc. was “a shell corporation established for the purpose of enabling tax-deductible contributions from big donors and from foundations to flow illegally to Greenpeace, Inc. and Greenpeace International.” This “shell corporation” paid nine employees $418,022 in 2001, more than the Sierra Club Foundation did to its top officers. Moreover, as Public Interest Watch points out, some of these employees “received additional compensation from Greenpeace itself (Greenpeace, Inc.).”

The whole compensation issue belies the aggressive “grassroots” marketing campaigns that these groups use to drag in the greenbacks. Greenpeace volunteers harass people on street corners with the words, “Have you got a minute for Greenpeace?” which eventually morphs into requests for money. Environmental Defense offers supporters t-shirts if they pass on the e-mail addresses of other likely donors.

As Public Interest Watch Executive Director Lewis Fein commented, “These groups literally beg for donations, giving the impression that they cannot accomplish their mission unless the average citizen pitches in. At the same time
they are quietly paying their executives huge six-figure salaries
.”

As the figures above make clear, not all environmentalist organizations play this game. Those who do, however, deserve much closer scrutiny. The IRS would be right to investigate. Of course, such high salaries can buy high-priced lawyers.

— Iain Murray is a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, where he specializes in the debate over climate change and the use and abuse of science in the political process.[/quote]

nationalreview.com/comment/m … 280843.asp

As to why you are not cashing in on all this environmentalist greed, recall that you are a caring citizen of the Earth just like your fellow Democrats haha But rest assured, given all that money, I have no doubt that their children grow up Republican. hahahahaha is that an ironie double? haha

15

Comments? Perhaps you would prefer a reply? How about an article? Can I command you to do something? Strongly suggest? What is the opposite of rhetorical? Direct? How bout this, oil company profits are soaring so high they can afford to pay scientists to lie about the biggest challenge humanity has ever faced. Oh of course there is this angle to consider, and that angle to ponder a little, and all the while the climate systems that gave rise to every life form on the planet slowly go haywire.

16

No, no, no fred you got it all wrong. Juba and I are actually millionaire philanthropists, all our money is tied up in programs for helping the poor and such, and so while visiting penghu for example a bottle of the 711 cognac is about all we can afford while talking to the lesbians.

17

I find it interesting that of the people that say that global warming is either not happening, or not a problem, the majority are not climate scientists. The small handful of skeptical scientists that are in the climate field (only about 20-25 prominent scientists) do generally agree that the Earth is warming however. They believe that the causes of this are unknown at present, or that it’s natural, and may even be beneficial. Patrick Michaels, probably the worlds best known “global warming skeptic” even suggests that warming will be linear, with a rise of about 0.5deg C in 50 years.

While the vast majority of climate scientists (about 90-95%) believe that global warming will be a problem, the ones that don’t think it will be a problem still agree that some warming is taking place. It’s the causes and the end results they disagree on.

There are plenty out there who think that the whole global warming thing is a load of crap. These people are not scientists in the climatology field. They are economists, anthropolgists, journalists, scientists from unrelated fields etc. Not the people with the expertise. Out of the worlds 120 leading climate scientists, only 2 don’t agree with the statement “human activity is driving global warming”. They do agree that global warming is taking place though.

Also, in 2004, Science magazine conducted a study of all peer-reviewed climate change related papers in had published in the previous decade. Of the 928 peer-reviewed papers, none of them challenged the consensus view, and none of the peer challenges stood up to scrutiny.

Both sides of the debate do come up with some outlandish claims (Al Gore for one). If you want to know where the climate-related scientific community stands on global warming, then read the peer-reviewed journals.

BTW - In interests of full disclosure, I should add that I have a degree in climatology.

18

CFI -
And there are a lot of people who are saying that the “science” used in the promotion of the ‘Global Warming’ issue is incorrect, not substantiated, incomplete or even non-existent in some cases.
Add to this the growing amount of harassment of scientists who have come out urging caution and stronger review of the “pro-global warming” issue and you have a multi-layered case for proceeding with due caution.
Just because a person, scientist or otherwise, questions the truth to “global warming” or the methods used to postulate its occurrence, causation and possible consequences, it should not be regarded as an attack on those who promulgate it as a fact. Scrutiny of methods, data and their interpretation is, I think, part of the scientific process.

19

True, but the people saying this are not in the field of climate science. There are people who say that smoking is not bad for you - do we believe them?

Yes, absolutely, which is why I made mention of the review conducted by the journal “Science” of peer-reviewed articles that found that none of the challenges to global warming stood up to scrutiny. The science that was used to conduct the various climate models (and we’re talking major Cray time to run simulations) was found to be verifiable and repeatable. Of course, they are extrapolating into the future, and that obviously can’t be conclusively proved 100%.

20

I’m less interested in his environmental views than in that really awesome title of nobility.

Waa, I want to be a pooh-bah!