Lord Christopher Monckton was interviewed by Russia Today's Laura Emmett in Rannoch, Scotland, on the growing resistance to the global warming/climate change fraud. Here are excerpts from the 11 minute interview.
RT: On the eve of the Copenhagen summit on greenhouse gases, I'm talking to Lord Christopher Monckton, a renowned climate change skeptic. He's attending Copenhagen, to persuade delegates that the science is faulty.
Lord Monckton, thanks very much for talking to RT today. First of all, you could just explain your general stance on climate change?
CM: The climate has always changed, the climate is changing, the climate will continue to change. Humankind does not have the power to do very much about it, and we would be arrogant to assume that we can.
RT: What evidence do you have that climate change isn't man-made?
CM: The scientific question amounts to this: Are the greenhouse gases that we add to the atmosphere, sufficient in quantity and in global warming potential, to stop outgoing heat energy bouncing in from the Sun, hitting the Earth and then going back out into space again—are they strong enough to stop it, going out into space, so's it stays down here and causes a little bit of warming? Well, we know that they cause a little bit of warming, because the entire atmosphere keeps the planet around 18 or 20 degrees Celsius, warmer than it would be than if we didn't have an atmosphere. So, the greenhouse effect of all the greenhouse gases now existing in the atmosphere, is only 18 or 20 degrees Celsius. It's tiny. So the idea that changing one two-thousandth of the composition of the atmosphere from oxygen to carbon dioxide, as we may do this century if we go on burning fossil fuels as much as we like, will somehow cause a warming of anything up to 6 Celsius degrees, or something like a third of the effect of the entire existing atmosphere, is plainly, nonsense.
RT: Do you think that climate change, as it stands at the moment, is a political fad?
CM: Of course it is! These scares come and go: You may remember the Millennium Bug... This is the biggest scientific fad that's ever got off the ground, but now it has come to an end. It's come to a complete end, because recently, after 20 years of careful measurement, using the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment Satellite, we have been able to determine that the amount of outgoing radiation escaping into space, is almost as great as it always was. The extra greenhouse gases we're adding are making some difference, but very, very small. So we might be looking, over the whole of the next century, at a global warming of, at most, 1, perhaps 1-1/2 Celsius degrees. More likely, just 1/2 Celsius degree, something which is negligible, and generally beneficial. Certainly nothing which requires any policy action, whatsoever, except to have the courage to do nothing.
RT: And if what you say is true, why would the climate change lobby and governments either exaggerate, or totally invent the threat of global warming?
CM: Well, we know that the classe politique and the class scientifique, the great and good, are conspiring together, to make up the evidence. Because, just weeks ago, it was revealed that at the Climate Research center at the University of East Anglia, and among scientists in league with the center, right across the world, data had been blatantly fabricated, to produce the desired result of pretending there was a problem, when there isn't one. And so, this news that data have been fabricated, computer models have been tinkered with, computer code has been tampered with, things have simply been made up, temperature records have been simply created out of nothing—all of this news doesn't come as a surprise to me. Because the people who were named, in those emails, are people on whom I've had my eye for some time. Others I'm in contact with, have been noting the political, and financial connections, between these scientists, and politicians.
And so, it's very clear that what has happened is yet another attempt by the governing class of the world, if you like, to take advantage of the little guy, to conspire against the government, to have another excuse for exaggerated levels of taxation and of regulation, and of interference.
RT: Isn't it a fact that the polar icecap is melting? A hundred years ago, people used to skate on the Thames River; just in the last few weeks, we've had enormous floods in Cumbria: aren't these all evidence that climate change is, in fact, happening?
CM: You notice climate phenomena happening. You say, "Oh well, we don't know why these climate phenomena are happening." We don't even check whether they've happened before, so we'll just say, we'll invent a scare, and we'll say that it's humankind that is causing these changes that to happen. And if I explain it in that way, you can see how absurd that entire line of argument is.
Yes! The North polar icecap lost 27% of the ice that is normally there at the Summer minimum, in 2007, compared with that which we had known was normal from 30 years of satellite observations. But it's grown back by 24%, in the last two years! So that shows the enormous volatility of the Arctic climate. It's famous for it. And the floods in Cumbria: 1,000 year event. But you see, if you take 100 different micro-climates, which exist in Britain, and there are ten different climatic extreme events which could happen in each one, you're going to get a 1,000-year event once a year!
These extreme weather events come around, just as they always have, in any chaotic object, mathematically speaking, you would expect this to happen. It tells us nothing about whether the world is steadily warming. Yes, it has been warming, for 300 years, during 280 of which, we couldn't have had anything to do with it. And the Antarctic icecap is expanding. The sea ice in the Antarctic reached a record extent in 2007, three weeks after the record minimum in the Arctic, it was a record maximum in the Antarctic.
RT: The IPCC has a huge body of seemingly solid scientific evidence behind it, and they say that it's 90% likely that climate change is man-made. How do you refute that?
CM: There is no scientific basis, whatsoever, for saying there is a 90% probability that most of the warming of the last 50 years was caused by humankind—none whatsoever. You could go, for instance, to a paper by [inaudible] just last year, saying that 69% of all the warming in the 50 years was caused by the Sun. I'm not entirely convinced by that argument, either. The fact is we have no means of knowing, what are influences that caused the climate to fluctuate in the short term, upwards or downwards. This is simply beyond our capacity to measure, or analyze. What we do know, and this we can do, by laboratory experiment and by a little bit of elementary mathematics, is determine what the maximum possible effect of adding CO2 to the atmosphere can be, and the answer is: It's very, very, very small.
RT: Even if climate change theory hasn't been entirely put to the test, isn't it better to do something, now, rather than wait for flooding, drought, and temperature rises?
CM: The precautions themselves, let us say, in the shape of replacing one-third of the world's agricultural land, which grew food, with growing biofuels instead—so we were once growing food for people that needed it; now, we grow biofuel for clunkers that don't. Result? A doubling of world food prices, in just over a year! Three-quarters of which was attributed by the World Bank to the biofuels scam, which comes out of the global warming scare. Result? If we have to pay twice as much for our food, it's inconvenient. If you're in a poor country, that difference of 100% in the price of your food is the difference between life and death. There have been major food riots in a dozen regions of the world, hardly reported at all in the West, because they're so busy reported on every little icicle, putatively dribbling in Greenland. And those food riots are happening, because people are dying by the million of starvation, who would not have died at all, had this climate scare not engendered this dash for biofuels.
RT: What do you think will happen to the climate, in say, the next hundred years?
CM: I asked the world's greatest expert on climate, and that is Prof. Richard Lindzen, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology—generally recognized as the man who knows more than anyone else in the world about how the atmosphere will behave; and I said to him, "Dick," I said, "I've been asked to make a bet, on whether it's going to be warmer or cooler in the next 50 years. Can you tell me?" He said, "Yes, I can. It will be either warmer or, the same as today, or cooler. And the chances that it'll be warmer are exactly the same as the chances that it will be cooler."
RT: And you're going to the Copenhagen summit on greenhouse gases. What's your objective there?
CM: My objective at Copenhagen will be to say to the leading delegations, in particular, the Americans, the Canadians, the Japanese, the Australians, the New Zealanders—I shan't bother with Europe, because that is decided by commissars whom we don't elect, can't hold to account, can't remove, and can't persuade; we're no longer a democracy in Western Europe. But I'm going to be talking to the delegations of the democracies, and I'm going to be saying, one by one, very quietly, "First of all, here's the science. It no longer adds up, and everybody knows it no longer adds up, and your voters now know it no longer adds up. We're moving away from that now. And we're moving towards a world in which, once again, the skepticism which is the approach of the scientist, is becoming instinct in the ordinary voter's mind.
RT: Will you be talking to the Russians?
CM: Yes, I will, because, although the present Russian leadership has not always had a very kindly press in Britain, I will tell you this: The Russian democracy as it is now, is 20 times more democratic, than the British democracy has become. Because we now have 90% of our laws made for us, by commissars—that is the official German word for the Commissioners of the European Union, whom we don't elect, can't question, can't remove, and can't replace. They make 90% of the laws of Britain. But you have a Duma, you have a parliament in Russia, which makes 100% of the Russia's law: You are now, a true democracy. God Bless you, for it: Of course, I'll be talking to your delegation, because I will be talking to the delegation of a democratic administration. We no longer have one. I shall not be bothering to talk to the British delegation.