The Right Honorable Christopher Walter Monckton

Good day to everyone all around the world. My name is Christopher Monckton, Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. And I've been asked to give you a brief outline of the reasons why you don't need to worry about rapid, dangerous, man-made global warming. 

The global warming scare is based on predictions of large amounts of global warming caused by our emissions of greenhouse gases. These predictions are exclusively made by giant computer models, which try to simulate the behavior of the climate over the next 100 or even 200 years. 

Now, there's one problem with these models, however well constructed they are, and that is that they depend upon measurements that we take of the various aspects of the climate. In fact, thousands of different aspects of the climate are measured, and these measurements are fed into the models. And so in these models, some of these data uncertainties are very large. 

For instance, there's one such data uncertainty in the fraction of cloud that is 4 Watts per square meter on average up or down every year. We don't know where it exactly is. And that one measurement uncertainty is 100 times larger than the average annual effect of all our emissions and all our activities on the climate. And because of that, if you use a standard technique to propagate that error through a 100 years of climate predictions, then what you find is that the envelope of uncertainty becomes so large that the entire range of predictions made by the models falls within that margin of uncertainty and is therefore no better than guesswork. 

Now, this is a proven result. It's been published and peer-reviewed 2 years ago by Dr Patrick Frank at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Laboratory. He's been there for 20 years. He's a great expert and this was his conclusion. It was peer-reviewed by somebody who is a believer that climate change is a problem. Professor Carl Wunsch who thought that the result was accurate, albeit very embarrassing for climate scientists. And the paper has not been refuted in the 2 years since its publication. And that's very important. If somebody had come along and said: “oh, this is all obvious rubbish”, then there'd be a debate. But no, there is no debate about. This is a very long-established statistical technique known as the propagation of uncertainty analysis, and the propagation goes in what's called quadrature. 

So that means that the climate models, however big, however expensive, however elaborate, however correctly constructed they may be, however faithfully, they might in theory represent the climate. They cannot make any predictions whatsoever that are any better than guesswork. They can tell us nothing and I mean nothing, whatever about how much global warming we may cause. So that is proven result number 1. 

Number 2 is the research by my team, which includes, among others, the former director of the US Climate Change Global Programme, and he's a professor at the University of Delaware. We have a professor of control theory, and the reason why we have him is that climate scientists in 1984 borrowed control theory, the theory of how feedback works in a dynamical system that's a system that changes its state over time. And when they borrowed it, they didn't understand what they borrowed. This is a big problem in the sciences now. 

It's a catastrophic error. At a vital point in their calculations, they forgot that the sun was shining. And so they thought that these feedback responses that they say account for between ¾ and 9/10 of the enormous amount of warming they predict were all coming from the greenhouse gases, when very, very nearly all of these feedback responses were actually coming from the fact that the sun is shining. 

 So we are at the moment putting forward our paper for peer review. It's been in the hands of a leading journal, and we chose a journal whose editor did not believe that there was any credible argument against the official narrative on climate change. So we went to him because if there is an error in what we have done, he will have a vested interest in trying to find it. But so far he's had it for 7 months and has not been able to refute what we've done. 

If the whole world adopted the British policy of net-zero CO2 emissions by as soon as 2050, so in the next 30 years, how much warming would that would otherwise have occurred, not occur if we go net-zero? And the whole world does it … and the whole world isn't going to do it, of course, because China and other countries that are exempt altogether from these requirements.

 So let's suppose there that the whole world actually did this. It won't. But let's pretend, how much warming would we forestall? That is actually quite a simple calculation. And the answer is just 1/8 of a Celsius degree at a cost of 5 quadrillion dollars. So economically speaking, it makes no sense to do anything at all to mitigate global warming because there will be so little of it, because whatever we do makes so little difference to it. 

And they did the same with the Ozone depleting chlorofluorocarbon gases. They overestimated the rate at which those gases deplete the ozone in the upper atmosphere by a factor of 10. This was an enormous error. And that's why the Montreal Protocol, which was intended to stop the emission of these substances, that turns out to have been unnecessary. They could have just left it as it was now. We'd have exactly the same rate of ozone depletion as before. 

So it is important that we realize that the real environmental crisis now is a political one in which political factions have captured the environmental movement. They knew that the way to do that was to exploit perfectly proper feelings for the environment by exaggerating some of the problems, and then persuading us that we should effectively shut down large swathes of our economy. 

And as a result of that, we are now paying 6 times as much for our electricity as we were before. So that needs to be proportionality. When you're dealing with these environmental problems, we must isolate the genuine problems from the bogus ones and then work out what is the true scale of the genuine problems.

 If we approach these problems with the genuine spirit not of seeking to profiteer, not of seeking to advance our own reputations, but our love for those who are our fellow men and therefore are worthy of that love, then and only then, will the civilization continue to advance as happily worldwide. So this principle of love is or ought to be right at the centre whenever we are trying to address what seemed to be the intractable and sometimes catastrophic problems that we appear to face. 

The moment we do this in a spirit of cooperation and of affection and of mutual respect and love, then and only then these problems begin to fade away. They become more manageable. They become more solvable. Instead of having to have hideously complex, legally defined structures that require how we behave towards each other, you can depend much more upon the willingness of people to cooperate with one another once that principle of love has been properly instilled in the way they think. That's why movements such as AllatRa are so valuable. Because you reflect this.