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

This is p.3 of a continuation of a transcription of the voice record at podcast mp3

Viscount Monckton: Yes, that's right, we were looking at the history, if you like, of the various IPCC documents. First of all on that 2001 report where they falsely tried to abolish the Medieval Warm period, no less a prosecutor than the Attorney-General for the State of Virginia, Mr Kenneth Cuccinelli, is now conducting, and has been for some months, a criminal investigation into alleged tampering with data and results by the compilers of that paper, under the Fraud Against Taxpayers Act 2000, and he has announced publicly that that is what he is doing. So, already, those who have been producing what is arguably bogus science - of course they haven't gone to trial yet - we can't actually say that they have bent the data - but clearly there are some who think they have, and they are now looking into that.

Now, we come on to the 2007 report very briefly; that, too, had as its major conclusion a result which is manifestly bogus. They have this time taken the instrumental temperatures, that is, the temperatures measured by thermometers all round the world since 1850. And they plotted those, quite correctly as far as I can see, but then they have superimposed on the data, four, least squares linear regression trend lines. One starting 150 years back, then a hundred years back, then fifty years back, then twenty-five years back. And the more recent ones are steeper than the ones before. Now, they are drawing from this circumstance a completely inappropriate conclusion that therefore the rate of Global Warming is itself accelerating, and they use that word. Been accelerating. And that therefore it's our fault. Now, that technique, of using multiple trend lines on a single data-set, and drawing conclusions from the relative slopes of them, is entirely bogus; it's known to be bogus.

I have confonted both of the IPCC Science Chairmen; Dr Petchori, the Railroad Engineer for some reason, with it and he didn't even understand what I was saying - did nothing about it; I also confronted one of your scientists here, whom I shan't name, for once, and asked him to, he's one of the lead authors of this IPCC report - to put this right - and he has now written to me just before I came here, declining to do so, and I have already consulted lawyers about whether that should be reported to the Police as fraud.

Leighton Smith: I want to come back to that, maybe, shortly, but in two minutes, tell me about the Al Gore effect. How much has Al Gore had to do with the progression of this theory.

Viscount Monckton: Al Gore was responsible for, originally, when he was Vice President, giving a lot of air time to James Hansen of NASA, who had been pushing an extremist view of Climate Change, ever since he wrote a rather bad paper in 1981 which effectively set out the method by which the IPCC calculates or determines climate sensitivity like the warming you are going to get. There are very very many problems with that method, but Al Gore wanted the message, he didn't understand the science - he wanted the message. So he got Hansen to testify in front of Congress, on a delberately chosen hot day, in 1988 in June; in fact there hasn't been such a hot day in Washington since I think - a very hot day, and he had the air conditioning tampered with so it was putting in heat instead of cold, so that then got all the Congressmen frightened. And he then of course made his mawkish sci-fi horror movie, which a Judge in London has found is full of scientific errors. And yet, Gore has made no corrections to that.

In Australia where I have just come from they are made to watch this at least twice and sometimes four or five times during their school career; every kid is made to watch this garbage. And so he has had enormously baneful bad influence because he has been able to operate at Government level, and persuade largely scientific illiterate government that they should follow this extremist line.

Leighton Smith: Newstalk ZB, it's 18 to 11. More with Christopher Monckton after the break.
Leighton Smith: OK, if I call for Christopher Monckton after the news at 11, In the interim, I want to discuss a couple of other things with you. Just on the Gore matter, because I short-changed you slightly. He continues, and as I understand it - we've had publicity, he's planning a revival - to indoctrinate America in particular - I think it is some time in August, or it could be September. It's a massive campaign.

Viscount Monckton: It's a re-launch of the dead horse, I think is the best way to put it. Because America has now decided that it's not going to play. Even Obama has said he's not going to countenance a successor to the Kyoto Protocol. And this is really a remarkable change. And the moment when the Republicans changed from saying "Oh, we can't get into this argument, it's all too difficult"; which was their reaction when I went to see them two years ago about it. The moment I knew they'd changed was a couple of years ago.

I went in front of the "Ways and Means Committee" of Congress, at the invitation of the Republicans, to give testimony on this issue. And I showed them - the Republicans, at a little session before-hand, the slides I was going to use at the presentation, one of which was the bogus graph from the 2007 Report - an entirely fraudulent graph - showing the spurious acceleration in global warming when we know that for the last 10 years there hasn't been any. And so, I showed them this graph, and representative John Lindauer who was the Republican leader on the Committee, and he understood; they are so much brighter than legislators elsewhere; he understood at once what the problem was, he said "They CAN'T have done that! ". I said, "They have, and they refuse to correct it". And he turned to the rest of the Committee, and said: "Gentlemen, I think we've heard all we need to know about the science of Climate Change".

He realised that if they were doing that, they clearly didn't have a real case, and from then on the Republicans switched, and said "We are not going to co-operate with the Democrats on this, we don't believe the science, there's too much fraud in it, and - you know - every time we try to get this corrected the other side simply resist and won't do it." . So, a very very important moment in history when the Republicans in America are not playing.

That stopped Cap in Trade going through the Senate, and as a result they haven't done the sort of ETS that you've got here in New Zealand, which is just about to cripple your farming because next year the 2 for 1 swaps will be taken away, and the effective price of the right to emit a ton of carbon dioxide, or the methane equivalent if you've got cattle, is going to double to twenty-five dollars. That is going to destroy farms right across New Zealand. I'm going up to address the farmers of Whangarei, the day after tomorrow on this, and they are very very worried about this, I can tell you. And rightly so. And if this were going to make some difference to the climate I would think "OK, there might be something in it", but (a) it's not going to make the slightest difference whatsoever - you could wipe New Zealand and Australia off the map - and you wouldn't be able to measure with any instruments, any difference to global temperature a hundred years hence ..

Leighton Smith: After the break I have the first of the challengers for you.

Viscount Monckton: Excellent.

Leighton Smith: Newstalk ZB, it is coming up 8 to 11; we'll take any calls that you might have, any questions you might have for Viscount Monckton, after the news at 11. Here's the first challenge; I just want to throw this at you, because somebody has written it to me..
Viscount Monckton: OK. Leighton Smith: And it goes this way; "I also am a global warming sceptic. Climate sceptic. In a simple Googling of Viscount Monckton, it comes up that he knows not of what he speaks. Citing him as a credible source is flawed because (a) he has no training in climatology or related sciences, and (b) he gets most of what he has heard about those sciences spectacularly wrong." Then there is a headline in this e-mail "Why Viscount Christopher Monckton is wrong" by Barton Paul Levinson, written in 2007. I don't know where it comes from. Can you ask your guest to comment on this criticism?

Viscount Monckton: Well, no, of course I can't. Unless someone is specific and says what I've got wrong, then it is very difficult. I mean, this is just "hand-waving". Ths is exactly the way that the extreme left tends to operate; They say "Oh, well. We don't like Lord Monckton because the House of Lords says that he isn't a Lord, and he says he is, and and this is all terrible, and he knows nothing about science" .. Well, Hey, You know; I've lectured at Faculty level in the determination of climate sensitivity, I do it all over the world. I've delivered a talk on this subject - the only layman ever to do so, on a scientific subject - to the world Federation of Scientists' annual conference on Planetary Emergencies, last year. I've just given a Distinguished Visiting Fellows Lecture at the - not a Visiting Fellow; a Visitor's lecture, at the Prague School of Economics, on the Economics of Climate Change. Now, people like that don't invite, to give distinguished talks on this subject, somebody who knows absolutely nothing about it. Now that - these are only very general responses I can give, because unless I'm told what it is I've got wrong, then I can't very well answer it.

Leighton Smith: Well, I want somebody to tell you what they think you've got wrong, after 11. I'm inviting; I want it.

Viscount Monckton: Yes.

Leighton Smith: So, we'll see. There's

26;30 - 13;17