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

This is p.2 of a continuation of a transcription of the voice record at podcast mp3

file m1.htm ended with "And that was the figure which the IPCC picked up, when in 1988 it was founded, and in 1990 it produced its first assessment 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 we will expect to get once the climate has settled down after a doubling of CO2 concentration. "

To continue ....

Viscount Monckton: So then, the IPCC began producing successive reports; there was a second big one in 1995, and in that one, as in the first one, the scientists - there was several hundred of them who compiled it - said they couldn't find any evidence of any human effect on global temperature.

Leighton Smith: So in 1995, in the IPCC report;

Viscount Monckton: that's it, they said - and they said it five times; they said "when will an anthropogenic (that means man-made) effect on global temperature be identified". It is not surprising they went on to say - and I am quoting exactly here - "we do not know". They said that, or words equivalent to that, five times. But, the bureaucrats had a fit; they were hoping they could go around to Bali and places like this, at tax-payers expense which all the lead authors of the IPCC are, having an absolutely lovely time, running huge Climate Change departments etc; if, actually, we are not having an impact that anyone can find on the climate. So, when the bureaucrats received this report from the scientists, they called in one scientist Ben Santer, of Norwich Livermore Laboratory - on this programme we will name names - and he re-wrote it; and he re-wrote it single-handed, and he made two hundred changes to the report, so that he could remove all five of the statements in different parts of the report "that we don't know when we will find a human influence on climate", they are certainly not there now, and he replaced it with a single sentence to the effect that a human influence on the climate is now discernable. That has been the so-called consensus of opinion ever since, and it is worth remembering that it is a
consensus of   just   one   man . OK.

Leighton Smith: When did it become politicised?

Viscount Monckton: Well, by then, of course, it was politicised. It was very very clear by the 1995 report, that all the bets were off; this was no longer a scientific process, if it ever had been. Because science is NOT done by consensus, it is not done by vast international committees sitting down and saying "Let's decide among ourselves by vote what goes on. And if I may continue the history a little ...

Leighton Smith: Please ...

Viscount Monckton: OK. We then went on to the 2001 IPCC report, and that one was the one where they published a graph, and again I'd better name names - by Michael Mann and Bradley and Hughes - which had been published originally in the journal Nature, (which has become a huge cheer-leader for the extremist position on global warming) and this particular paper abolished the Medieval Warm Period, which had been shown loud and clear and large in a diagramme in the 1990 FIRST report (which was relatively honest), and they abolished the Medieval Warm Period, and they did so because - and here I name names again - it was Dr Ken Overpeck - who was an IPCC scientist, in 1995, had written to an honest scientist, and said (not realising he wasn't part of the plot), "We have to abolish, we have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period". Now, he said this in an e-mail. (See Ed.) And so by 2001, that's what they did. They wiped it out. They wiped out the Little Ice Age as well - when the Thames in London and the Hudson in New York froze over every winter. They've never done so since. All that was abolished from history. Rather like the Communists; air-brushing people out of photographs, rewriting history to take them out. They took out the Medieval Warm Period which was warmer than the present all over the world; we know this from papers by very nearly a thousand scientists over the last 20 or 25 years.

Publishing papers about various parts of the world, using what are called proxies, for the biggest terrestrial temperatures which we now measure using thermometers. But; they ignored all that, they used what they call Bristle-cone Pine - cut a Bristle-cone pine down and you can see its tree rings. Their idea was that if the tree rings were wider in a particular year - you can literally tell which tree ring belongs to which year - that would mean Global Warming because Bristle-cone pines; which was their chief source of data - trying to reconstruct temperatures before we had thermometers and all the rest of it; they said, with these Bristle-cone pines, right we are going to use these, BUT, Bristle-cone pine tree rings will also widen in a particular year if you get more rainfall, and, crucially, if you get more CO2 in the atmosphere. Because of CO2 fertilisation - because CO2 is not a pollutant, it is where the carbon in the tree trunks comes from. It doesn't come from the soil, it comes from the CO2 in the air; people don't realise this. If you want to green the paddocks, you add it. Anyway, they used the Bristle-cone pine proxies, and then the ones that gave them the shape they wanted - no Medieval Warm Period, no Little Ice-Age - and then a huge up-tick in the 20th century (naturally caused by us) they gave those three hundred and ninety (390) times as much weight in that model that drew this graph, than the ones that didn't give them the shape they wanted.

(See Ross McKitrick APEC Study Group, Australia What is the Hockey Stick Debate About? April 4, 2005
McKitrick Ed.)

Then they used a program which always drew this hockey-stick shape - with no real change in temperatures for a thousand years then a huge up-tick that they said was caused by us, in the 20th century. They had a computer program that didn't - that even if you put random red noise ( a particular kind of mathematical random data) into this algorithm, this program, I should say, then you would get this hockey-stick shape, even if you weren't using any real data.

Even that - even all these three or four fiddles - didn't succeed in abolishing the Medieval Warm Period. So then, they cut off all the data that they had been using from all these different tree rings from 19 - from 1500, going backwards from that, and they replaced these data with numbers of their own that they simply made up, and only then could they make the Medieval Warm Period disappear.

Leighton Smith: After the break I want to ask you about "what's in it for them for them to do this".

Viscount Monckton: We will indeed.

Leighton Smith: I want to ask you about the "Gore effect", and then I want to talk with you about a whole lot more. And we will take calls as well. It's 28 after 10, on NewstalkZB

Leighton Smith: NewstalkZB, 24 to 11. Viscount Monckton until 11:30. And we'll take some calls, although it has been suggested that - don't worry about calls, just let him talk. In one of my e-mails; tell Danny, he has the answer, then off, Look, I made mention during the break " Blue Planet in Green Shackles: What Is Endangered: Climate or Freedom?" by Vaclav Klaus of the Czech Republic; you also will be publishing, next year, I gather?

Viscount Monckton: That's right, yes. My book is going to be called "Climate of Freedom". And it's going to suggest that what's really going on here has nothing to do with the climate. There isn't a problem with the climate; that instead what is happening is that the usual suspects, the people who would have been in the past instinctual fascists and communists - the difference between the two is being that fascists are openly anti-democratic and communists pretend to be democratic but they're not - these people have now decided to gather around this supposedly environmental cause for the sake of shutting down the West.

Leighton Smith: But there are some who genuinely believe ... Viscount Monckton: This we must always accept. Because if you haven't had any kind of scientific background or training and you are told endlessly that there is a consensus, which I can assure there isn't, on the major question of how much warming we are going to get, or you are told - Oh - the fact is that because the science is settled we must now act, you - on a complex question like this you must act earlier. Quoting Professor Salby, a very eminent man, a proper scientist, "of course the science isn't settled".
And, I shouldn't really be saying this, but I think that he is working on a ground-breaking paper which is going to blow an enormous hole in the official theory. I can't give details yet because he's not ready, but but it's very exciting. So all of this is going on. So I'm going to be covering (?) and saying not just "here's a little bit of very simple science, here's a little bit of very simple economics", but here also is a bit of rather tiresome politics that we are facing. Nothing less than not only the end of the West, but the end of the Age of Enlightenment and Reason in which rationality prevailed and decisions were taken for sensible scientific reasons. We've now got the attempt by the usual suspects, the totalitarians, to try and politicise the science itself and use this politicisation as a way of destroying not only the freedom of the Press, but the Age of Reason and Enlightenment itself, driving humanity back into a Dark Age the like of which we haven't seen since the Roman Empire fell.

Leighton Smith: You have one more historical paragraph to conclude I think.

Viscount Monckton: Yes, that's right, we were looking at the history of the various IPCC documents.