Holy Writ

Or

Wholly Rot?by

ChristopherMonckton

SPPI Commentary and Essay series

2

Holy Writ or Wholly Rot?The new religion of "global warming"

Christopher Monckton of Brenchley replies to a True Believer in the CanadianCivil Service.

ear Sir Humphrey - The "Abundance of scientific statements" that youmention as justification of your belief in 'global warming' is no sound orlogical basis for deciding or believing anything. The question is whether

the scientific statements have any rational justification, and whether thosemaking them are in effect making statements that are political rather thanscientific, rent-seeking rather than objective. After all, this is the age of reason (orit was). Therefore, one should not accord to"scientists" the status of infallible high priestsmerely because they mumble a hieraticlanguage with which one is unfamiliar. Thereis clear, compelling evidence that many of themajor conclusions of the IPCC, your newreligion's constantly-changing Holy Book, arebased on evidence that has been fabricated.The "hockey stick" graph that purported toabolish the mediaeval warm period is justone example. So let me try to lure you awayfrom feeble-minded, religious belief in the Church of "Global Warming" and backtowards the use of the faculty of reason.

Let us begin with the "devastation of New Orleans" that you mention. Even theHigh Priests of your Church are entirely clear that individual extreme-weatherevents such as Hurricane Katrina cannot, repeat cannot, be attributed to "globalwarming". Even the Holy Book makes this entirely plain. There was one priest -Emanuel (a good, religious name) - who had suggested there might be a linkbetween "global warming" and hurricanes; but he has recently recanted, at leastto some extent. Very nearly all others in the hierarchy of your Church are clearthat ascribing individual extreme-weather events to "global warming" isimpossible. Why? Well, let's take the question of landfalling Atlantic hurricanessuch as Katrina. The implication of your attribution of Hurricane Katrina to"global warming" is twofold: that "global warming" is happening, and that inconsequence either the frequency or the intensity of tropical weather systemssuch as hurricanes is increasing. Neither of these propositions is true.

Yes, there has been "global warming" for 300 years, since the end of the 60-yearperiod of unusually low solar activity known as the Maunder Minimum (after thecelebrated solar scientist-photographer who studied it). But there has been no netwarming since 1995, and Keenlyside et al, in the theological journal Nature a fewmonths ago, say they do not expect a new record year for global temperaturesuntil 2015 at the earliest. If these theologians are correct, there will have been a

D

There is clear, compellingevidence that many of themajor conclusions of the IPCCare based on evidence thathas been fabricated. The"hockey stick" graph thatpurported to abolish themediaeval warm period isjust one example.

3

20-year period of no net "global warming" even though the presence of the devilSiotu in the ether grows inexorably stronger. And, secondly, the number ofAtlantic hurricanes making landfall has actually fallen throughout the 20thcentury, even as temperatures have risen. Indeed, some theologians have arguedthat warmer weather actually reduces the temperature differential between seaand sky that generates hurricanes, reducing their frequency, and that the extraheat in the coupled ocean-atmosphere system increases wind-shear in tropicalstorms, tending to reduce their intensity. Certainly the frequency of intensetropical cyclones has fallen throughout the 30-year satellite record, even thoughtemperatures have increased compared with 30 years ago. Also, the damage doneby Hurricane Katrina was chiefly caused by the failure of the Democrat-led cityadministration to heed repeated warnings from the Corps of Engineers that thelevees needed to be strengthened.

Next, you mention the recent hurricane damage at Galveston, and you imply thatthis is something new and terrible. Perhaps you would like to do some research ofyour own to verify whether the High Priests of your Church, some of whom haveblamed the Galveston incident on the wrath of the devil Siotu, are likely to betelling the truth. And how, you may ask, may a non-theologian such as yourselfargue theology with your High Priests? Well, the Galveston incident will give youjust one indication of the many ways in which a lay member of the Church of"Global Warming" may verify for himself whether or notthe Great Druids of his religion are speaking the truth fromtheir pulpits in the media. Cast your eye back just over acentury, to 1906, and look up what happened to Galvestonthen. Which was worse - Galveston 2008 or Galveston1906? Next, check the global mean surface temperature in1906: many theology faculties compile surface temperaturedata and make it publicly available to the faithful and toinfidels alike. Was the global mean surface temperaturesignificantly lower or significantly higher in 2008 than in1906? What implications do your two answers have foryour proposition that Galveston 2008 can be attributed to "global warming"?

Next, you mention fires in California. Once again, you can either sit slumped inyour pew, gazing in adoration at the Archdruids as their pious faces flicker acrossyour television screen, or you can do a little research for yourself. It may, forinstance, occur to you to ask whether droughts were worse in the United States inthe second half of the 20th century than they were in the first half. Once again,you may want to check with your local theological faculty to obtain the answer tothis question. Or you may like to pick up a copy of The Grapes of Wrath, by JohnSteinbeck. And you may want to verify whether temperatures in the second halfof the 20th century were warmer than in the first half. Once again, what are theimplications of your two answers for your proposition that "global warming" iscausing forest fires? You could also talk to the Fire Department in California andobtain its data on the causes of forest fires. You might be mightily surprised bythe answers you get.

4

Next, you talk of beetles in your forests destroying natural resources. Here, youcould ask the Druids just a couple of simple questions. What evidence do theyhave, if any, that whichever species of beetle you have in mind has not wroughthavoc in the forests before? And, even if your clergy think that they have evidencethat the beetle-damage is new, what evidence do they have, if any, that thebeetle-damage is greater because of "global warming" than it would otherwisehave been? Of course, you could ask them the wider question what evidence thereis that anthropogenic "global warming", as opposed to solar warming, is thereason for the temperature increases that have occurred over the past 300 years.The more honest parish priests will admit that for 250 of the past 300 years none

of the inferred warming can be attributed tohuman industry. They will also be compelled toconcede, if you press them, that the warming ofthe most recent 50 years has not occurred at arate any greater than that which was observedbefore, so that it is in fact very difficult todiscern any anthropogenic signal at all in thetemperature record.

Next, you talk of people migrating from oneplace to another because in some places waterhas become scarce. Once again, it is easy for alayman, whether a true believer such asyourself or not, to verify whether such

migrations are as a result of "global warming". For instance, you could askwhether there have been changing patterns of drought and flood before in humanhistory. Once you have collected some historical data - most theological facultieshave quite a lot of this available, though you may have to dig a little to get it - youcould compare previous migrations with those of which you now speak. And youcould also ask your local imam whether a theological phenomenon known as theClausius-Clapeyron relation mandates that, as the atmosphere warms, thecarrying-capacity of the space occupied by the atmosphere for water vapordecreases, remains static, or increases near-exponentially. Once you have foundthe answers to these not particularly difficult questions, you may like to spendsome of your devotional time meditating on the question whether, or to whatextent, the changes in patterns of flood and drought that have occurred in thepast give you any confidence that such changes occurring today are either worsethan those in the past or attributable to "global warming", whether caused by theincreasing presence of the devil Siotu in the atmosphere or by the naturalevolution of the climate. During your meditation, you may like to refer to thepassage from the 2001 edition of the Holy Book of the IPCC that describes theclimate as "a complex, non-linear, chaotic object" whose long-term futureevolution cannot reliably be predicted.

For 250 of the past 300years none of the inferredwarming can be attributedto human industry, and thewarming of the most recent50 years has not occurred ata rate any greater than thatwhich was observed before,so that it is in fact verydifficult to discern anyanthropogenic signal at allin the temperature record.

5

If you are willing to reflect a little on the questions I have raised - and, with theexception of the Clausius-Clapeyron relation, I have done my best to avoidanything that might be too technical for a layman to find out for himself - you willperhaps come to realize that there is very little basis in scientific fact for thealarmist, hellfire preaching in which your clergy love to indulge. And you mayeven find your faith in your new religion beginning to weaken a little in the face ofthe truths that you will have unearthed by the not particularly difficult process ofsimply checking those statements of your lamas that you can easily andindependently verify. There are, of course, many environmental problems posedby the astonishing recent success of humankind. If you were concerned, forinstance, about deforestation, or the loss of species whose habitats have beendisplaced by humans, then your concerns would have a good grounding in fact.But, given the abject failure of global temperatures to rise as the Druids hadforecast, it must surely be clear to you that the influence of the devil Siotu onglobal temperatures - your theologians call this "climate sensitivity" - must be agreat deal smaller than your Holy Book asks you to believe.

Finally, you may wonder why I have so scathingly described your pious belief inyour new religion as founded upon blind faith rather than upon the light ofreason. I have drafted this missive in this way so that you can perhaps come tosee for yourself just how baffling it is to the likes of me, who were educated in thelight of TH Huxley's dictum that the first duty of the scientist is skepticism, to seehow easily your hierarchy is able to prey upon your naive credulity. I do nottarget this comment at you alone: there are far too many others who, like you, arein positions of some authority and whose duty to think these things throughlogically is great, and yet who simply fail to ask even the most elementary andblindingly obvious questions before sappily, happily, clappily believing in, andparroting by rote, whatever the current Establishment proposes. I do not knowwhether you merely believe all that you are told by the Druids because otherwise

6

you will find yourself in conflict with other true believers among your colleaguesor, worse, among your superiors. If you are under pressures of this kind, I dosympathize. But if you are free to think for yourself without penalty, may I begyou - in the name of humanity - to give the use of reason a try?

Why "in the name of humanity"? Because, although the noisy preachers from themedia pulpits have found it expedient not to say so, there have been food riots allround the world as the biofuel scam whipped up by the High Priests of yourreligion takes vast tracts of agricultural land out of food production. Millions arenow starving because the price of food has doubled in little more than a year. Aleaked report by the World Bank says that fully three-quarters of that doublinghas occurred as a direct result of the biofuel scam. So your religion is causingmass starvation in faraway countries, and is even causing hardship to the poorestin your own country. Can you, in conscience, look away from the sufferings thatyour beliefs are inflicting upon the poorest and most helpless people in theworld?

- Monckton of Brenchley

Christopher Monckton was policy adviser to Margaret Thatcher as UK Prime Ministerand has lectured on climate at university physics departments and at corporate meetings.

Science and Public Policy InstituteWashington, DC

bferguson@sppinstitute.org

Get Apocalypse? NO!, the fast-paced, fact-packed, feature-length movie that putsAl Gore in his place and the climate scare in perspective, at:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/apocalypseno-dvd.html