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

This is p.5 of a continuation of a transcription of the voice record at podcast mp3


Viscount Monckton: Isn't it horrifying !!

Leighton Smith: Alright; for Viscount Monckton, Clive, good morning.


Viscount Monckton: Hello Clive,

Clive. Hello Leighton, Good morning Lord Monckton, I'm aware you have lots of people wanting to talk to you, so can I very quickly ask you two questions;

Viscount Monckton: Yes.

Clive. Am I right in thinking that you would say that the recession of glaciers world-wide is basically a sort of (unclear - Ed.) coming out of the last litle Ice Age, and secondly, can I ask you to comment on the given that mankind is to make some sort of amelioration on warming if it exists, if it is at all able to be intervened, that it would be better to look at the effect of methane rather than CO2, thinking of the success ..

Viscount Monckton: Alright, OK, let me deal with both of those very briefly, First of all the glaciers. They began receeding in 1820 in some parts of the world, in 1880 in others. If you take Kilimanjaro, for instance, which Al Gore uses as a Poster Child for Global Warming, that began receeding in 1880, and more than half the ice in that plateau had already gone by 1936 when Hemmingway wrote his book "The Snows of Kilimanjaro", and the rate of loss of course has slowed down since. So we know that the glaciers began receeding long before we could have had any impact on it, so certainly at least some of the recession of the glaciers - not necesarily all of it - is indeed caused by a recovery of solar activity, after the Maunder Minimum between 1645 and 1715. when the sun was at its least active in the 11,400 years since the end of the last Ice Age.
Now, remind me of you second question again

Clive. Methane

Viscount Monckton: That's it. Methane, no you don't need to worry about methane. It's only risen in concentration by 20 parts - sorry - 18 parts per billion in the last 10 years, and that would give you a global warming, if you convert it to - multiply by 23 to give you equivalent CO2 concentration. Would give you a global warming of around 1/450th of a Celcius degree over the 10 years.
Methane is no longer a problem. It was a problem when the Soviet gas pipeline leaked. But Gas-Putin, when he took over, went round with chewing-gum and string and blocked up all the holes in the pipeline because he reasoned that every square cubic metre of gas that farted out of there was a cubic metre he couldn't overcharge Europe for, so he fixed it. And the rapid rise in methane that has effectively stopped in 1999, and it's been very much slower since, and from that we know that cattle, for instance, have virtually nothing whatever to do with it. In fact the largest biogenic source of methane is actually termite ants, so if you want to save the planet from global warming, get rid of all those termites.

Leighton Smith: Glen, Good morning.

Glen: Yeah; Good Morning. I am of the Kunean School, and with a friend of mine who couldn't get funding to study snails unless they studied the effect of climate change on snails, when do you see the paradigm shifting, and the climate science - having the - with the amount of holes that are in it, when do you see it shifting in academia?

Viscount Monckton: As far as academia is concerned there have been two major shifts. One is that there are only a few dozen scientists who have studied the one question that actually matters in this scientific debate about the climate, which is, how much warming we are going to get in response to a doubling of CO2 concentration over the next century. And more and more papers; Linton and Joy 2009 & 2011, Spenser and Bratwell 2010 & 2011; papers like that; Halfridge et al 2009, all of these papers are suggesting maybe ONE Celcius degree of warming for a doubling of CO2 concentration. This is the growing trend among the scientific papers as far as they try to derive climate sensitivity, as it is called, by measurement and observation, rather than by mere modelling, which is not satisfactory as a way of trying to reach the answer.

But the other important thing that's happening is that in the economic peer-reviewed literature, it is near unanimously agreed that it is cheaper to do nothing, than to spend a single cent now, on global warming. We are simply not faced with a sufficiently severe threat to justify any expenditure whatsoever at the moment. And that's the near unanimous view of the peer-reviewed economists. Of course the Government economists from Sterne to Gano use various dodges, tricks, ducks and dives, such as an artificially low intertemporal purator time preference discount rate, to get away with saying that it's going to a be cheaper to do something, than to do nothing, but in fact that's wrong.

Leighton Smith: I'm going to get myself into trouble soon because time is now a major factor. Look, tell me if I'm wrong, my Ganau and Sterne are economists,

Viscount Monckton: Yes

Leighton Smith: they are not climate people at all,

Viscount Monckton: Yes

Leighton Smith: they know less than you by far, but they work off a base or given - they are given - or they accept a theory and statistics that they then interpret into economic formula ...

Viscount Monckton: Let me explain what they did. First of all, they started by assuming as a central case that the amount of global warming we would get will be one and a half times the amount of warming actually taken as a central case by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). They didn't accept the science, they exaggerated it. And of course that science itself was exaggerated before they started. Then what they did was to assume that the damage arising from this exaggerated warming would be exaggerated, even if that warming were right - compared with what would be expected in the economic literature. And then on top of that, they they used artificially low intertemporal discount rates. Sterne used 0.1 percent - the lowest ever used. It should be 5 percent. If you correct for that, then the 5 to 20 percent of World GDP this century that he said it would cost, if we didn't do something about Climate Change. If you use a 5 percent rate, instead of a 0.1 percent rate and you keep all his other exaggerations, then even with those exaggerations the cost of doing nothing falls to between 0.4 and and 1.5 percent of GDP which is 1/40th of the cost of, say, doing Julia Gillard's ETS or New Zealand's ETS, world-wide.

Leighton Smith: One last call; Tim, Morning.

Tim: A quick question. Where or how can I find Arrhenius's second paper, the one that Lord Monckton read out in German. I think it's quite important.

Viscount Monckton: Ah, yes, certainly; it was published in Volume 1 of, sorry - it was - ah yes that's right - Volume 1 Issue 2 of the Journal of the Royal Nobel Institute, and so you should be able to find it quite easily on the Web. If you can't find it, e-mail me, the programme will give you the details later, and I will gladly send it to you.

Tim: Thank you very much indeed; thank you for your presentation this morning Sir.

Viscount Monckton: And thank you so much for your question.

Leighton Smith: I'm going to include, I know this show, I'm going to get into trouble; I'm going to include one more thing; and this is from the original author who was challenging you earlier,

Viscount Monckton: Yes.

Leighton Smith: and asking you questions. One more thing. "The relative importance or unimportance of methane is more to do with the earth's electomagnetic radiation emissions spectrum than the slight increase Monckton referred to".

Viscount Monckton: That is correct because methane has what's called "a global warming potential" between 21 and 23 times that of CO2, molecule for molecule. However, the fact is that if you are only increasing the methane concentration by 20 parts per billion, and you multipy that by 23, as I say, taking the bigger estimate, then you are still only going to get the equivalent of say half of a part per million of CO2 as your warming, and it's a relatively simple calculation from there to work out how much warming that would have caused over the last 10 years. And it is approximately 1/450th of a degree, as I have said.

Leighton Smith: Todd, I await your comment on Viscount Monckton's comment.
At which point I am forced to say; they told me that an hour and a half wouldn't be enough, and they were right. Thank you very much ..

Viscount Monckton: Leighton, it's been a real honour and a pleasure. And a delight, because you are one of the most distinguished broadcasters on this subject, around the world. And it's a huge pleasure to have been here with you.

Leighton Smith: Yeah; I'm one of the few, that's why.
Professor Geoff Austin will discuss with you, Climate Change, tonight. Lecture Hall AF114, A.U.T. Akaranga Campus, at Northcote, at 5:30, Adults $20, and children and students $5, I'll see you there.

Viscount Monckton: Bless you, look forward to that.

Leighton Smith: Newstalk ZB, it's 11;31, we are running behind schedule.



PREVIOUS     The End