Viscount Monckton talking with Leighton Smith of NewsTalk ZB, New Zealand. 4 August 2011.   

This is a transcription of the voice record at podcast mp3

Se also A presentation by Viscount Monckton and Paul Maynard here 3.7 MB pdf

Leighton Smith: NewsTalk ZB, It's 11 after 10; Number's 0800 80 1080, the FAX is 0800 003299,
e-mail is and you can text on 9292.

When it was announced that Viscount Monckton was going to visit New Zealand there were feelers put out as is usual, for platforms, or for televisions, radio shows, newspapers, for meetings, for people who were interested to - you know - take him on board.

I've been privileged, shall we say, during the week, to have much correspondence - it has gone backwards and forwards, been bandied about, between various media organisations and the people involved in bringing Viscount Monckton to New Zealand. What I have to say is this ...

The cowardice of the media in this country is appalling. It is disgraceful. You should all go and hang your heads in shame; hang up your shingles, give up on the media that you so - I presume - proudly represent, or think you do; because you're not. You're incompetent. You are useless, and I make no bones about this, that applies to producers, the reporters, the people who, I'd have to describe as "living in fantasia", (to borrow the phrase), and are just plain ignorant.

Now, I mention Professor Murray Selby, the Chair of Climate at Macquarie University, who has worked at leading research institutions including the US National Centre for Atmosphere Research, Princeton University, the University of Colorado. The author of a book due out this year called "Fundamentals of Atmospheric Physics and the Physics of Atmosphere and Climate". The only reason that I mention him above any other - like Bob Carter for instance - Professor Bob Carter, is that Murray Selby came out of nowhere, today, as far as I am concerned. He gave a speech in Sydney a couple of days ago, in which he used the - in which he said "anyone who thinks the science of this complex thing is settled, is in fantasia".

Now, I don't care, particularly, if you believe in man-made global warming, or not. That part of it is irrelevant to me.

What I do care about, is that people get sucked in and believe that the science is settled. Because too many interested parties, people on the public pit, and others, tell you so.
And then the media ignores those who counter them. Now, keep in mind this: it wasn't the independent scientists of those who are fighting this battle, who made this war. It is a war. As somebody uses the quote, it is a war for your mind. It is not only a war for your mind, it is a war for your dollar. Through tax. And a war for your future and your freedom. (Comment undecipherable)

The fantasia that these people live in has them locked in, and seemingly unable to escape. This morning we shall endeavour to assist them, with Viscount Christopher Monckton, after the break.

Leighton Smith: Newstalk ZB, it is 17 after 10. I have spoken with Viscount Monckton before, um ... we have spoken with him at least once before, it could have been twice, I don't remember - it doesn't matter.

I want to quote to you something that Owen McShane has sent me a short time ago. He said that I have just posted this on Kiwi Blog in response to a chorus of Greens saying that "he is not a scientist, and therefore a proper scientist will not debate with him".

Owen says "I do not know the current definition of a scientist , but Monckton is a mathematician, and a mathematician with specific expertise in modelling. He was also Science Policy Advisor to Maggie Thatcher's government where his job was to review the quality of science being put to Cabinet as a basis for policy. The IPCC theories are based on models, and so as an expert on mathematical modelling, Monckton is qualified to debate the topic. He may not be an atmospheric scientist, but then the atmospheric scientists are not experts in modelling. The models are really basic.
Sceptics are often called "flat-earthers". The irony is that the IPCC models assume a flat earth.

Viscount Monckton, Good Morning.

Viscount Monckton: Well Leighton, it is lovely to be with you and to meet you for the first time, and to be in New Zealand for the first time.

Leighton Smith: And I may say you are most welcome; others might say otherwise; but - we'll leave that to them. I want to start at the very beginning with you, if you wouldn't mind. I want you to regale us with the history of how man-made Global warming - anthropogenic Global Warming, first came into being, and how it got traction.

Viscount Monckton: Alright, let's go back a couple of hundred years to Fourier, (See Fourier's bio - and - some of his maths ) who first posited that certain kinds of gaseous molecules, which are known as "hetero-atomic molecules" , could react with outgoing long-wave radiation and cause warming of the atmosphere.
Now, this was experimentally demonstrated by John Tyndall, at the Royal Institution in London, in 1859, and you can still see his apparatus, to this day. And it is very easy to replicate his experiment, where you can put CO2 into a chamber that previously had an atmosphere without it, and you will see that light doesn't go through it so easily, you can tell therefore that some warming will result. So the theory that greenhouse gases do cause warming is extremely well and long established, and no true scientist would seek to argue against that because it is amply demonstrated and easily replicable by simple experiment. Now then, Svante Arrhenius, (See in Wikipedia Ed. - also 1896 ) in 1896, produced a paper, published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society, which suggested that, for a doubling of the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, there would be a warming of somewhere between 4 and 8 Celcius. His guess was 5 Celcius, That is the paper which is quoted at us time and time again, by the usual suspects. However, in 1906, ** ten years later, having come across the fundamental equation of radio ( exact word still to come) transfer - it wasn't available to him before - it had been available but he hadn't come across it - he was able to recalculate in a much more simple way, and he divided his previous estimate by three. And he said

" In ähnlicher Weise berechne ich, dass eine Verminderung des Kohlensäuregehalts zur Hälfte oder eine Zunahme desselben auf den doppelten Betrag Temperaturänderungen von -1,5° C bzw + 1,6° C entspreken wurde."

( page 4, paragraph 3) and (see the Wikipedia paper above - Ed.)
(** Svante Arrhenius, 1906, Die vermutliche Ursache der Klimaschwankungen, Meddelanden från K. Vetenskapsakademiens Nobelinstitut, Vol 1 No 2, pages 1:10), and for his first paper on this topic .

Leighton Smith: That tells me you have a good memory, but ..

Viscount Monckton: Now, he wrote it in German, and that's why - and I did it in German deliberately - not to show how clever I am, but to show that because it was in German, most of the scientists who read only English papers, never came across it. And that's still a problem today.
When I came across it, I was absolutely fascinated. What he's saying, Leighton, is that if you halve or double CO2, then you will get a decrease, or an increase, respectively, of minus 1.5 or plus 1.6 Celcius, NOT 4 to 8 Celcius.

So he revised his own estimates, but the usual suspects, to this day, will tend only to quote the 1896 paper, with the figure which he himself later came to regard as wildly exaggerated.

So, then there were experiments by Callender in 1938, confirming that there was such a thing as a greenhouse effect; then, by the early 70's where global cooling was the thing that everybody was publishing scientific papers on, and there were headlines in Time Magazine, saying, you know, the Big Freeze, and that was the scare story of that time.
Then, a couple of papers came out, which suggested respectively, that the amount of warming from a doubling of CO2, would be either 2 Celcius, one of them said, or 4 Celcius, the other. The average of the two was 3 Celcius from the two papers, and that's where the figure of 3 Celcius for a doubling of CO2 concentration comes from.

And that was the figure which the IPCC picked up, when in 1988 it was founded, and in 1990 it produced its first assesment report. And by that time there was still only a handful of papers in the literature which tried to determine climate sensitivity, as it was called, which is how much global warming will we expect to get once the climate has settled down after a doubling of CO2 concentration.