Your suggestion that warmer worldwide weather has caused net loss of life, particularly among the world’s fast-declining population of poor people, is fashionable but misplaced.
The Editor, The Lancet
Sir,
Your notion of a “climate crisis” (editorial "Climate and COVID-19: converging crises," December 2; click here for the PDF), though fashionable among the classe politique, is misplaced. That notion sprang from an elementary error of physics perpetrated in the 1980s by climate scientists who had borrowed feedback formulism from control theory, another branch of physics, without quite understanding it. Interdisciplinary compartmentalization delayed its identification until now.
After correcting the error, anthropogenic global warming will be only one-third of current midrange projections, well within natural variability and net-beneficial to life and health. CO2 fertilization (for CO2 is plant food) has assisted in steadily increasing crop yields – this year’s global harvest has set yet another record – and in improving drought resistance (Hao et al., 2014) and greening the planet.
Your suggestion that warmer worldwide weather has caused net loss of life, particularly among the world’s fast-declining population of poor people, is fashionable but misplaced. Cold is a bigger killer than warmth. Research conducted three years ago for the European Commission found that, for this reason, even if there were 5.4 C° global warming from 2020-2080, there would be 100,000 more Europeans than with no warming at all.
However, now that nearly all major banks – citing “global warming” as their pretext – refuse to lend to developing countries for coal-fired electricity, a billion people lack the capacity to turn on a 60 W lightbulb for just four hours a day (the International Energy Agency’s scarcely generous definition of “access to electricity”). According to the WHO, 4 million annually die of particulate pollution from smoke in cooking fires because they lack domestic electrical power and, for the same lack, 500,000 women die in childbirth. These are just two of the many causes of death from lack of access to electricity that kill tens of millions annually. The chief reason why so many cannot turn on a light is not global warming but misconceived policies intended to address what is in reality a non-problem.
More than 90% of all new greenhouse-gas emissions (BP Annual Review of Energy, 2019) are in nations exempt from the Paris agreement, which, after correction of the error of physics, is in any event supererogatory. You have said China must do more, but China – though it has its own space programme and continues to occupy Tibet by military force – is exempt from Paris on the ground that it is a “developing country”. It is not required to forswear its sins of emission.
Your advocacy of “low-carbon diets” is fashionable but misplaced. Like it or not, we have evolved over 2 million years to eat meat, which can provide all necessary energy, nutrients and vitamins. Yet ill-informed official guidelines on both sides of the Atlantic recommend low-fat, high-carbohydrate diets. Those recommendations have demonstrably been the chief cause of the surge in obesity and diabetes in both the UK and the USA. They were abandoned by court order a decade ago in Sweden at the instance of a brave doctor whom the medical authorities had attempted to prosecute because she cured all her diabetes patients by ignoring the guidelines and recommending a high-fat, low-carb diet.
Your advocacy of “renewable” energy is fashionable but misplaced. Using 14th-century technology to address a 21st-century non-problem would be silly enough in itself. What is worse, however, is that “renewables” have not only quadrupled the price of electricity but have also added to CO2 emissions. The chief reason for this apparent paradox is that the more windmills and solar panels are connected to the grid the more grossly-inefficient, CO2-emitting spinning reserve must be maintained in the often vain hope of preventing blackouts when the wind stops or the night falls.
With respect, The Lancet should study more science and economics, however unfashionable, and peddle less totalitarian politics, however fashionable and profitable – and deadly.
With all good wishes,
Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
Supporting documents:
"Climate of Error: The grave error of physics that created a climate 'emergency'"; Alex Henney, Christopher Monckton of Brenchley (2020).
"The 2020 report of The Lancet - Countdown on health and climate change: Responding to converging crises," The Lancet, December 2, 2020.
Christopher Monckton is actually an easy target for me.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.desmog.com/christopher-monckton/
According to George Monbiot at The Guardian, Monckton “has a degree in classics and a diploma in journalism and, as far as I can tell, no further qualifications
While Monckton’s educational background is in journalism, he has been credited by many think tanks as an expert in the field of global warming. [4]
2011
Monckton led a Tea Party crowd in a call-and-response: “Global warming is? “Bullshit!” “Obama cannot hear you. Global warming is?” “bullshit.” “That’s bettah.”
https://skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Monckton_Myths.htm
ReplyDeleteClimate Myth
"the rate of increase in sea level has not changed since satellites first began measuring it reliably in 1993"
What the Science Says
9 January 2011 (Source)
The claim sea level isn’t rising is based on blatantly doctored graphs contradicted by observations.
Its actually quite easy to eviscerate Christopher Monckton. I can go on and on about all the false science he has claimed to be an expert on.
Yes it's easy to attack a person, but that is not how science should work. You need to find a good scientific argument to refute the paper that he presents.
ReplyDeleteShould I try to decide that James Hansen, a decorated climate scientist for his acheivements, should be scrutinized for his honesty and integrity in science, it's a tough road to find anything on him.
ReplyDeleteChristopher Monckton on the other hand is an attention hound. Possibly carnival barker might be more appropriate. Monckton has no science credentials.
Anthony Watts is quoting Monckton. WUWT is a very clear climate doubting, (actually denier) website. WUWT gets finding through dark money to put out flase information on climate change. IPPC is very clear more CO2 will bring in harsher conditions on earth to live in.
https://www.desmog.com/christopher-monckton/
In a blog post on climate science denier Andrew Watts’ website ‘Watts Up With That,’ Monckton stated: [140]
“If anything, one is more likely to get phase transitions in the climate object if the weather cools than if it warms. Warmer weather reduces the temperature differentials in the system that lead to violent weather, which is why – contrary to what is generally reported in the Marxstream [sic] media – in recent decades there has been a decline in just about every indicator of severe weather worldwide.”
He added:
“However, there is so much internal variability in the climate that even if it were in our power to hold global temperature fixed, which it is not, phase transitions would occur all the time. They are called ‘weather.’”
There are 8 science papers in this comprehensive review showing that the warming on earth is not natural but man made. The average weather on earth is changing for the warmer. The consequences are very well laid out by the IPPC. Monckton is a speaker at Heartland over the years. Heartland is a clear recipient of fossil fuel money through its whole existence.
https://skepticalscience.com/a-comprehensive-review-of-the-causes-of-global-warming.html
I think you will find it is ANTHONY Watts who runs WattsUpWithThat Website. A most informative site it is too. Lord Monckton has a brilliant mind and has studied the subject for many years. You have continued to attack him, but failed to address the science in his paper.
ReplyDeleteHere is a simple question for you to answer - Why do you think the climate of 1850 to 1900 (when we were emerging from the Little Ice Age) is the ideal one for the Earth?
Your emerging from the little ice age is based in what science? Could it of been natural variation?
ReplyDeletehttps://skepticalscience.com/coming-out-of-little-ice-age-advanced.htm
The main drivers of the Little Ice Age cooling were decreased solar activity and increased volcanic activity. These factors cannot account for the global warming observed over the past 50-100 years. Furthermore, it is physically incorrect to state that the planet is simply "recovering" from the Little Ice Age.
But the point I was making is that the Earth has had a range of temperatures over the past few hundred years and we have to adapt to this. It is not possible to keep the Earth's average surface temperature fixed. It is simply delusional to think we can, as there are so many factors affecting it.
ReplyDeleteIt is not possible to keep the Earth's average surface temperature fixed. It is simply delusional to think we can, as there are so many factors affecting it.
ReplyDeleteWe (humans) by adding co2 to the atmosphere make the earth warmer. We have control over our co2 emissions. That is what we need to change. Are saying we shouldn't go to zero emission of co2? It is definitive in science that our GHGs are the only factor in a warming earth.
Yes we may be a little warmer, but it all depends on how much. There is no reason why a rise of 1.5 degrees C or even 2 degrees C should be a problem. Extreme weather is always going to happen and we simply have to live with it and adapt to mitigate it. Trying to stop CO2 emissions in the developed world will have little effect on world-wide emissions because large nations are not participating in the policy.
ReplyDeleteThis is just the beginning of the difference of just a 1/2 degree. Should you be curious, there are other areas of large differences and some not so much.
ReplyDeletehttps://yaleclimateconnections.org/2021/08/1-5-or-2-degrees-celsius-of-additional-global-warming-does-it-make-a-difference/
Extreme heat
With a 1.5°C increase, extreme hot days in the mid-latitudes will be 3°C hotter (5.4°F) than pre-industrial levels.
With a 2°C increase, extreme hot days in the mid-latitudes will be about 4°C hotter (7.2°F) than pre-industrial levels.
A study on extreme heat published around the same time as the U.N. report projected that about 14% of the world’s population would be exposed to extreme heat waves once every five years if global temperature increases are held to 1.5°C. That percentage would jump up to 37% with a rise of 2°C.