Monckton fires back point-by-point rebuttal at warmist critics of new peer-reviewed study: ‘Shoddy, rent-a-quote ‘scientists’

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Lord Monckton

Lord Mon­ck­ton

Mon­ck­ton: ‘A cli­mate sci­ence paper by Dr Willie Soon, Pro­fes­sor David Legates, Matt Brig­gs and me, just pub­lished in the Sci­ence Bul­letin of the Chi­nese Acad­e­my of Sci­ences, the Orient’s equiv­a­lent of Nature demon­strates that the bil­lion-dol­lar cli­mate mod­els that have so prof­itably pre­dict­ed Ther­maged­don are hope­less­ly wrong.’

With­in hours a blog fund­ed by the wealthy but mys­te­ri­ous “Euro­pean Cli­mate Foun­da­tion” had gath­ered instant rent-a-quotes from half a dozen soi-dis­ant cli­mate “sci­en­tists” sav­age­ly but anti-sci­en­tif­i­cal­ly attack­ing our paper. The pro­pa­gan­da piece was mis­lead­ing­ly, laugh­ably called “Factcheck”. Each of the “sci­en­tists” who were quot­ed made untrue asser­tions.’

Spe­cial to Cli­mate Depot

Named and shamed: the shod­dy, rent-a-quote “sci­en­tists”

By Christo­pher Mon­ck­ton of Brench­ley

IT IS time to be angry at the intel­lec­tu­al bank­rupt­cy of cli­mate “sci­ence” today. We should also be fear­ful of the UN’s grue­some plan, aid­ed and abet­ted by min­is­ters and bureau­crats world­wide, to estab­lish a glob­al cli­mate “gov­ern­ment” by an irrev­o­ca­ble treaty in Paris this Decem­ber on the basis of what is now known to be dodgy and even fraud­u­lent sci­ence.

No such treaty is need­ed. A cli­mate sci­ence paper by Dr Willie Soon, Pro­fes­sor David Legates, Matt Brig­gs and me, just pub­lished in the Sci­ence Bul­letinof the Chi­nese Acad­e­my of Sci­ences, the Orient’s equiv­a­lent of Nature (at, click on “Cur­rent Issue” to find our paper) demon­strates that the bil­lion-dol­lar cli­mate mod­els that have so prof­itably pre­dict­ed Ther­maged­don are hope­less­ly wrong.

Instead of 3, 5 or even 10 Cº of glob­al warm­ing in response to our dou­bling the CO2 in the air, there will be 1 Cº and per­haps less even than that. What “cli­mate cri­sis”?

On Jan­u­ary 22, Vic­to­ria Wool­las­ton report­ed our results at, the web­site of the Lon­don Dai­ly Mail, under the head­ing Is cli­mate change real­ly that dan­ger­ous? Pre­dic­tions are ‘very great­ly exag­ger­at­ed’, claims study.

What hap­pened next demon­strates the sor­ry state to which cli­mas­trol­o­gy has sunk.

With­in hours a blog fund­ed by the wealthy but mys­te­ri­ous “Euro­pean Cli­mate Foun­da­tion” had gath­ered instant rent-a-quotes from half a dozen soi-dis­ant cli­mate “sci­en­tists” sav­age­ly but anti-sci­en­tif­i­cal­ly attack­ing our paper.

The pro­pa­gan­da piece was mis­lead­ing­ly, laugh­ably called “Factcheck”. Each of the “sci­en­tists” who were quot­ed made untrue asser­tions. Sev­er­al of these crea­tures can be proven not to have read our paper before shoot­ing their unsci­en­tif­ic mouths off.

The “Factcheck” gets its facts wrong from the get-go. It says our paper had claimed that the major errors made by the huge com­put­er mod­els, each of which gob­bles as much elec­tric­i­ty as a small town, occur because the mod­els are com­plex.

No. We said the mod­els were wrong because they were using a rogue equa­tion bor­rowed from elec­tron­ic cir­cuit­ry and bolt­ed on to the cli­mate, where it does not fit. That equa­tion, and that alone, leads the mod­el­ers erro­neous­ly to triple the small and harm­less 1 Cº glob­al warm­ing we should expect from a dou­bling of CO2 in the air.

From there, the pro­pa­gan­da piece went sci­en­tif­i­cal­ly down­hill. I now name and shame the shod­dy, rentaquote “sci­en­tists”, and I demand their dis­missal.

Pro­fes­sor Richard Allan, a weath­er­man at Read­ing Uni­ver­si­ty, said obser­va­tions con­firmed that water vapour strong­ly ampli­fies the small direct warm­ing from CO2.

The truth: some do, some don’t. For instance, the Inter­na­tion­al Satel­lite Cloud Cli­ma­tol­ogy Project shows the water vapour con­tent of the atmos­phere as sta­ble except in the cli­mate-cru­cial mid-tro­pos­phere, where it has actu­al­ly been declin­ing for 30 years. That is the very oppo­site of what Pro­fes­sor Allan claims. The world has warmed by 0.5 Cº over the peri­od, but the ISCCP record, at any rate, shows no more water vapour than before. The Pro­fes­sor should not have cher­ry-picked his facts.namemonckton1-300x168





Pro­fes­sor Reto Knut­ti of the Swiss Fed­er­al Insti­tute of Tech­nol­o­gy said we were wrong to study tem­per­a­ture change over the past 810,000 years because the cli­mate was dif­fer­ent when whole con­ti­nents were cov­ered by snow and ice.

The truth: four times in the past 810,000 years there were inter­glacial warm peri­ods just like today (three of them were actu­al­ly warmer). We had point­ed out, cor­rect­ly, that the range of aver­age glob­al tem­per­a­tures in all that time, from ice­ball to hot­house and back, was lit­tle more than 3 Cº either side of the long-run aver­age – about the same as the range of tem­per­a­tures you set on your home heat­ing ther­mo­stat. That is why we said cli­mate feed­backs had to be very small.namemonckton2-300x168





Pro­fes­sor Knut­ti went on to say we had ignored the warm­ing of the oceans.

The truth: that is how we know he had not even read our paper before rush­ing to attack it. Far from ignor­ing the oceans, we had added a lengthy appen­dix on ocean “warm­ing”. We said the Chi­nese Acad­e­my of Sci­ences had round­ly debunked the “ocean notion” that heat hid­ing in the oceans is the rea­son why satel­lites defy the UN’s pre­dic­tions and show no glob­al warm­ing for up to 18 years 3 months.


The ocean notion had in fact been put for­ward by a sin­gle small group of cli­mate “sci­en­tists” writ­ing each of four papers under dif­fer­ent lead authors’ names. In that way, when – as is usu­al – oth­er sci­en­tists men­tion the papers cit­ing only the lead author’s name, it appears that four dif­fer­ent groups are advanc­ing the ocean notion when in fact there is just one.

In the cli­mate jour­nals, we also found and report­ed at least two dozen oth­er mutu­al­ly incom­pat­i­ble excus­es for the fail­ure of the world to warm at even half the cen­tral, busi­ness-as-usu­al rate the UN’s cli­mate pan­el had pre­dict­ed in its first mul­ti-thou­sand-page report in 1990.

The like­li­est of those rea­sons why the mod­els have exag­ger­at­ed warm­ing is that the prof­i­teers of doom had pre­dict­ed far too much glob­al warm­ing in the first place.

Pro­fes­sor Myles Allen, an earth sci­en­tist at Oxford, said the oceans had warmed “sub­stan­tial­ly” since 1970, though we had said they had not.

The truth: one of the most extreme esti­mates of ocean warm­ing is that of the US Nation­al Oceano­graph­ic and Atmos­pher­ic Admin­is­tra­tion, which mea­sures the warm­ing but then art­ful­ly con­verts it into Zetta­joules of ocean heat con­tent. Then it sounds like a lot.

The trend on one of the most extreme indi­ca­tors of glob­al ocean warm­ing, the NOAA dataset, shows 260 Zetta­joules of growth in ocean heat con­tent since 1970.  Con­vert­ing it back to tem­per­a­ture, in recent decades the ocean has been warm­ing at a rate equiv­a­lent to just 0.2 Cº per cen­tu­ry.


There are 650 mil­lion km3 of ocean. Each cubic meter weighs 1.033 tonnes. There are 4,186,800 Joules per tonne per Kelvin. Then:

260 ZJ increase in ohc                           260,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 J

To raise                                                   650,000,000,000,000,000 m3

x 1.033 te m–3                                          671,450,000,000,000,000 te

x 4,186,800 J te–1 K–1             2,811,226,860,000,000,000,000,000 J K–1

These fig­ures rep­re­sent an ocean warm­ing of just 0.0925 K in 45 years. That is equiv­a­lent to only one-fifti­eth of a Cel­sius degree per decade, or a fifth of a degree per cen­tu­ry. Besides, each of the 3500 ARGO bathyther­mo­graph buoys mea­sur­ing ocean tem­per­a­tures has to cov­er almost 200,000 cubic kilo­me­tres of sea­wa­ter. How reli­able are those ocean tem­per­a­ture mea­sure­ments real­ly like­ly to be?

Pro­fes­sor Allen went on to say we should not have com­pared long-term pre­dic­tions by the UN with medi­um-term warm­ing since 1990.

The truth: We com­pared the UN’s busi­ness-as-usu­al medi­um-term pre­dic­tions from 1990–2025, adjust­ed to 2014, with real-world, mea­sured medi­um-term warm­ing over the past 25 years. The UN had pre­dict­ed twice the warm­ing that has occurred. We com­pared apples with apples. The graph would cer­tain­ly not have passed peer review oth­er­wise. It showed that the world has warmed in the quar­ter-cen­tu­ry since 1990 at half the rate then pre­dict­ed by the UN with “sub­stan­tial con­fi­dence”.

namemonckton10 (2)

Pro­fes­sor Allen also said we had used satel­lites, which mea­sured the air above the ground and not sur­face mea­sure­ments: the two were “sim­ply not relat­ed”.

The truth: at a cli­mate con­fer­ence I orga­nized at Cam­bridge in 2011, Pro­fes­sor Jones of UEA showed a graph of warm­ing since the UN’s first report in 1990. His own sur­face tem­per­a­ture record showed much the same trend as the satel­lite data over the peri­od. I have updat­ed it. The aver­age of the two satel­lite datasets shows 0.34 Cº warm­ing since 1990. Pro­fes­sor Jones’ sur­face dataset shows – wait for it – 0.36 Cº. The triv­ial dif­fer­ence: one-fifti­eth of a Cel­sius degree in those 25 years.



Pro­fes­sor Piers Forster, a cli­mas­trol­o­gist at Leeds Uni­ver­si­ty, said we had “cher­ry-picked num­bers”.

The truth: That is how we knew he had not read our paper before attack­ing it. He pro­vid­ed not a sin­gle item of evi­dence, sci­en­tif­ic or oth­er, that we had cher­ry-picked any num­ber. Our paper had in fact dis­cussed each val­ue we used.

Most of the num­bers had come from offi­cial sources, as he would have known if he had tak­en the sci­en­tif­ic pre­cau­tion of actu­al­ly read­ing what we had writ­ten.

Pro­fes­sor Forster went on to chal­lenge our asser­tion that mod­ellers’ cur­rent cen­tral pre­dic­tion of glob­al warm­ing was far too big because they had not tak­en account of a new, low­er feed­back esti­mate from the UN’s cli­mate pan­el. He said the pan­el had “not iden­ti­fied or quan­ti­fied sig­nif­i­cant changes in feed­back esti­mates”.

The truth: That is how we know the Pro­fes­d­sor had not even read either our paper or the UN cli­mate panel’s lat­est report, for which I was an expert review­er, before attack­ing us. For we showed a dia­gram from the UN’s report that cut the pre­vi­ous feed­back esti­mate from 2 to 1.5 Watts per square meter per Cº, requir­ing the UN’s warm­ing esti­mate to be cut from 3.2 to 2.2 Cº.


How­ev­er, the UN had instead refused to make any cen­tral esti­mate of how much warm­ing a CO2 dou­bling would cause – even though that is the main pur­pose of its reports. Plain­ly it did not want to admit that all its pre­vi­ous cen­tral esti­mates of glob­al warm­ing had been very sub­stan­tial exag­ger­a­tions.

Dr Jan Perl­witz, a NASA mod­eller, said our mod­el was not new.

The truth: our mod­el, unlike any oth­er sim­ple mod­el, includ­ed sev­er­al “array vari­ables” allow­ing very sophis­ti­cat­ed esti­mates to be made very sim­ply. For instance, the dif­fer­ent tem­per­a­ture feed­backs – influ­ences that hap­pen because there has been a direct warm­ing and either ampli­fy or atten­u­ate it – oper­ate over dif­fer­ent timescales, so that the rate of warm­ing may well change from decade to decade or cen­tu­ry to cen­tu­ry. Our mod­el used the out­put of a sim­ple mod­el by Dr Ger­ard Roe, a pupil of the for­mi­da­ble Pro­fes­sor Richard Lindzen of MIT, and incor­po­rat­ed it into a table of data that could be fed into the mod­el.


Also, in a sin­gle dense­ly-argued paper, we had for the first time enabled any physics under­grad with a pock­et cal­cu­la­tor to make respectable esti­mates of future man­made glob­al warm­ing. Nev­er before had any­one let the day­light in on the mag­ic. Here is the cen­tral equa­tion of our mod­el:

Dr Perl­witz also said we had not cit­ed pre­vi­ous author­i­ties for one of the equa­tions in our mod­el.

The truth: that is how we know Dr Perl­witz had not even read our paper before attack­ing it. He has since had to row back on his alle­ga­tion, for he had not real­ized we had indeed attrib­uted the rel­e­vant equa­tion to a sys­tems engi­neer in the 1940s, and we had also acknowl­edged the UN, which had men­tioned it in one of its reports.

Dr Perl­witz then con­tra­dict­ed him­self, say­ing that the inap­plic­a­ble equa­tion was not used in the cli­mate mod­els any­way. Here is that equa­tion, which belongs in elec­tron­ic cir­cuits but is not suit­able if it is assumed, as the UN assumes, that tem­per­a­ture feed­backs are strong­ly net-pos­i­tive:

moncktonnamed20 (2)

The truth: two papers by James Hansen, one of which was actu­al­ly cit­ed by Dr Perl­witz in his com­ments for the pro­pa­gan­da piece, specif­i­cal­ly refer to the use of the equa­tion, or of the sys­tem gain it deter­mines, in NASA’s cli­mate mod­els. But the equa­tion is not suit­able to the cli­mate because it does not cor­rect­ly rep­re­sent the fact that tem­per­a­ture change, unlike chang­ing volt­age in a cir­cuit, restores equi­lib­ri­um after a radia­tive imbal­ance. Also, it says that if feed­backs become great enough they will dri­ve tem­per­a­ture down, but that can­not hap­pen in the real cli­mate.


If this equa­tion applies to the cli­mate, it does so only where tem­per­a­ture feed­back is small. Then glob­al warm­ing can­not exceed 1.3 Cº per CO2 dou­bling, and it might well be as lit­tle as 0.4 Cº.

Dr Perl­witz then makes a sim­i­lar point to Dr Knutti’s about our inter­pre­ta­tion of the mere 7 Cº range of glob­al tem­per­a­tures from ice ages to hot­house Earths and back over the past 810,000 years. He says that the influ­ence of orbital vari­a­tions on the amount of radi­a­tion reach­ing the Earth was less than 0.5 Watts per square meter.

The truth: the UN’s cli­mate pan­el says the man­made increase in radi­a­tion since the Indus­tri­al Rev­o­lu­tion is 2.3 Watts per square meter – almost five times the forc­ing that Dr Perl­witz says was enough to cause 7 Cº warm­ing dur­ing each of the past four inter­glacial warm peri­ods. Yet the warm­ing since 1750 has been only 0.9 Cº. If Dr Knut­ti is right, the warm­ing since 1750 should have been 32 Cº, or 36 times what has actu­al­ly been observed.

For one thing, Dr Perl­witz has failed to take into account the changes in CO2 con­cen­tra­tion between ice ages and inter­glacial warm peri­ods, which add a fur­ther 2.4 Watts per square meter of radi­a­tion to the sys­tem. And it is still not known for cer­tain what caused the warm peri­ods in the first place. Plain­ly there was more than 0.5 Watts per square meter of forc­ing at work.

Dr Perl­witz goes on to say we should not have set an upper lim­it of 0.1 on the closed-loop gain in the cli­mat­ic feed­back cir­cuit. He thinks this val­ue, which he quotes us as say­ing was “the max­i­mum val­ue allowed by process engi­neers design­ing elec­tron­ic cir­cuits”, is too low. He says: “There is no log­ic here, what­so­ev­er, unless there is some meta­phys­i­cal belief behind this of the kind that there was a chief process engi­neer of every­thing who wouldn’t allow pos­i­tive feed­backs in the cli­mate sys­tem either.”

The truth: Dr Perl­witz is guilty of one of the old­est and shod­di­est tricks in the book: incom­plete quo­ta­tion. What our paper had said was this:

… a regime of tem­per­a­ture sta­bil­i­ty is rep­re­sent­ed by g∞ ≤ +0.1, the max­i­mum val­ue allowed by process engi­neers design­ing elec­tron­ic cir­cuits intend­ed not to oscil­late under any oper­at­ing con­di­tions.”

Unac­count­ably, Dr Perl­witz some­how failed to include in his quo­ta­tion the words in bold type. He also omit­ted to men­tion our expla­na­tion that fol­lowed:

Of course, oth­er assump­tions might be made: how­ev­er, in a near-per­fect­ly ther­mo­sta­t­ic sys­tem net-neg­a­tive feed­back is plau­si­ble, indi­cat­ing that the cli­mate – far from ampli­fy­ing any tem­per­a­ture changes caused by a direct forc­ing – damp­ens them instead. Indeed, this damp­ing should be expect­ed, since tem­per­a­ture change is not mere­ly a bare out­put, as volt­age change is in an elec­tron­ic cir­cuit: tem­per­a­ture change is also the instru­ment of self-equi­li­bra­tion in the sys­tem, since radia­tive bal­ance fol­low­ing a forc­ing is restored by the preva­lence of a high­er tem­per­a­ture.”

Indeed, there is a grow­ing body of papers in the peer-reviewed lit­er­a­ture (see, for instance, Lindzen & Choi, 2009, 2011; Spencer & Braswell, 2010, 2011), whose authors, by a vari­ety of meth­ods, find tem­per­a­ture feed­backs net-neg­a­tive, so that glob­al warm­ing can­not be much more than 1 Cº per CO2 dou­bling. Indeed, these two papers were among a dozen such papers ref­er­enced in our paper. From these con­sid­er­a­tions it may be deduced that Dr Perlwitz’s alle­ga­tion that we had posit­ed “intel­li­gent design” as our rea­son for find­ing tem­per­a­ture feed­backs net-neg­a­tive is false and with­out foun­da­tion.

Dr Perl­witz goes on to say we had made “claims” that com­plex mod­els had “very much over­stat­ed glob­al warm­ing”, and that we had tried to sub­stan­ti­ate this asser­tion with “mere­ly a few graph­ics that are shown as sup­posed evi­dence”.

The truth: Our first graph com­pared the UN’s busi­ness-as-usu­al range of glob­al-tem­per­a­ture pre­dic­tions from its 1990 First Assess­ment Report and the observed tem­per­a­ture record since that date. The UN had pre­dict­ed 0.7 to 1.5 Cº of glob­al warm­ing from 1990–2025: best esti­mate 1 Cº. How­ev­er, the straight-line real-world warm­ing trend is cur­rent­ly half the UN’s cen­tral pre­dic­tion, and is vis­i­bly well below even the low­er end of the UN’s range. The mod­els had clear­ly “very much over­stat­ed glob­al warm­ing”. The graph is pre­cise­ly plot­ted. The trend-line was cal­cu­lat­ed with a stan­dard sta­tis­ti­cal for­mu­la, the least-squares lin­ear-regres­sion trend.

namemonckton10 (2)

Even the IPCC real­izes its mod­els have been run­ning hot, as our sec­ond graph shows. Between the first and fifth Assess­ment Reports, it has all but halved its pre­dic­tions.


Dr Perl­witz said the mod­els that made the pre­dic­tions in the UN’s 1990 report were not as sophis­ti­cat­ed as those of today, and that we should have allowed for that.

The truth: The UN’s pan­el should have allowed for that. Instead, its 1990 report said:

… we have sub­stan­tial con­fi­dence that mod­els can pre­dict at least the broad-scale fea­tures of cli­mate change.”

It was on the basis of that “sub­stan­tial con­fi­dence” that we were told the sci­ence was “set­tled”. Now that our dev­as­tat­ing graphs have shown the UN’s mod­els had failed and the sci­ence was self-evi­dent­ly not set­tled, Dr Perl­witz says we can­not blame the UN because its mod­els were too sim­ple. The fact is that its cli­mate pan­el should not have expressed “sub­stan­tial” or any “con­fi­dence” in pre­dic­tions made by mod­els that it ought to have known were inad­e­quate.

Dr Perl­witz said that in our graph com­par­ing the UN’s pre­dic­tions with observed real­i­ty we had “only select­ed the sce­nario with the strongest forc­ing (Sce­nario A)”. Sce­nario B, he said had come clos­er to what had hap­pened in the real world.

The truth: We select­ed Sce­nario A because, though Dr Perl­witz some­how failed to make this clear, the UN’s cli­mate pan­el had described sce­nario A, not sce­nario B, as its “busi­ness-as-usu­al” pre­dic­tion.

Dr Perl­witz said that in anoth­er com­par­i­son of sev­er­al mod­els’ pre­dic­tions with real-world warm­ing we had used only Sce­nario A from James Hansen’s tes­ti­mo­ny to the US Con­gress in 1988.


The truth: Though Dr Perl­witz some­how failed to say so, Dr Hansen, in his tes­ti­mo­ny to the U.S. Sen­ate in 1988, had said that Sce­nario A was his busi­ness-as-usu­al case.

Dr Perl­witz crit­i­cized us for using 63 years of ter­res­tri­al tem­per­a­ture mea­sure­ments as a basis for pro­ject­ing observed trends into the future.

The truth: Glob­al tem­per­a­ture fol­lows an approx­i­mate­ly 60-year nat­ur­al cycle caused by what are known as the “ocean oscil­la­tions”, with approx­i­mate­ly 30 years of warm­ing fol­lowed by 30 years of cool­ing. Our 63-year peri­od was thus approx­i­mate­ly a full nat­ur­al cycle. Why does this mat­ter? The U.N.’s pro­jec­tions not only in 1990 but in sub­se­quent Assess­ment Reports were based on the warm­ing peri­od of the ocean-oscil­la­tion cycle from 1976 to the turn of the mil­len­ni­um. That is why they were exag­ger­at­ed and over­shot so dis­as­trous­ly. Our use of the full cycle length was designed to avoid this prob­lem and remove a well-known, major, nat­u­ral­ly-occur­ring sig­nal that might mask or dis­tort the (prob­a­bly small) con­tri­bu­tion from Man.


Dr Perl­witz said we had com­pared satel­lite data for the region of the air just above the ground with data mea­sured by ther­mome­ters at the sur­face. The two, he said, were too dif­fer­ent,

The truth: Pro­fes­sor Allen had already trot­ted out this par­tic­u­lar talk­ing-point. In fact, the aver­age of the two satel­lite datasets shows 0.34 Cº warm­ing since 1990, while Pro­fes­sor Jones’ sur­face dataset shows 0.36 Cº, a dif­fer­ence of just one-fifti­eth of a Cel­sius degree in 25 years between the sur­face and the air  just above it.

Dr Perl­witz said we had only used one of the two satel­lite datasets.

The truth: our graph com­par­ing the warm­ing pre­dict­ed by the UN’s cli­mate pan­el in 1990 with the real-world warm­ing mea­sured by satel­lites is plain­ly and clear­ly labelled to show that we used the mean of the tem­per­a­ture mea­sure­ments from the two satel­lite datasets – Remote Sens­ing Sys­tems, Inc. (RSS), and the Uni­ver­si­ty of Alaba­ma at Huntsville (UAH).

Dr Gavin Schmidt, direc­tor of NASA’s God­dard Insti­tute for Space Stud­ies, has now weighed in to say that our paper is “com­plete trash”. Yet Dr Perl­witz said it was “not new”.

The truth: One might infer from these two respons­es, tak­en togeth­er, that the pre-exist­ing mod­els are non­sense. But the truth is that Dr Schmidt is mere­ly guilty of yah-boo – not, per­haps, an adult sci­en­tif­ic response from one in his exalt­ed posi­tion. Cer­tain­ly Dr Schmidt has not pro­vid­ed any rea­son­ing.

Dr Schmidt said we had “arbi­trar­i­ly restrict­ed” the para­me­ters in our mod­el and had then declared all oth­er mod­els wrong.

The truth: We had pro­vid­ed rea­sons for our choice of every para­me­ter val­ue we used. Near­ly all of our para­me­ter val­ues were from stan­dard cli­mate mod­el­ling – includ­ing Dr Schmidt’s own mod­el. And we had not declared all oth­er mod­els wrong, except to the extent that their pre­dic­tions to date have proven exag­ger­at­ed. We had said of the cen­tral equa­tion in our mod­el: “It is not, of course, intend­ed to replace the far more com­plex gen­er­al-cir­cu­la­tion mod­els: rather, it is intend­ed to illu­mi­nate them.

Con­clu­sion: the cli­mate fraud will not cease till some­one is pros­e­cut­ed

In the cor­po­rate world, economies with the truth on the sys­tem­at­ic and ruth­less scale evi­dent in the untruth­ful com­ments of the half-dozen “sci­en­tists” we have named and shamed here would be severe­ly dealt with.

The crafty mis­rep­re­sen­ta­tions, the out­right false­hoods, the art­ful mis­quo­ta­tions and delib­er­ate­ly incom­plete quo­ta­tions, the unproven asser­tions, the readi­ness to crit­i­cize a paper that sev­er­al of these crea­tures can be proven not to have read, the claims to knowl­edge they do not pos­sess: these and mul­ti­ple oth­er instances of gross mis­con­duct would not be tol­er­at­ed out­side the ivy-cov­ered walls of acad­eme.

These anti-sci­en­tists, these per­pe­tra­tors who have got­ten the facts so relent­less­ly and often delib­er­ate­ly wrong, must expect to raise a sus­pi­cion in some minds that they had mis­be­haved either for some polit­i­cal objec­tive or for the sake of main­tain­ing a prof­itable income-stream from the gov­ern­ments they have pan­icked, or both.

The cost of the cli­mate fraud to tax­pay­ers runs to the tens of bil­lions a year. It is the biggest fraud in his­to­ry. So far, the fraud­sters have proven untouch­able. The pub­lic author­i­ties, even when con­front­ed with the plainest of evi­dence, have care­ful­ly looked the oth­er way.

It is not for us to say whether the “sci­en­tists” whose untruths we have exposed here were fools or knaves or both. We report: you decide. But allow­ing the UN to estab­lish an unelect­ed, unac­count­able, all-pow­er­ful glob­al cli­mate tyran­ny at Paris this Decem­ber on the basis of “sci­ence” as shod­dy and unprin­ci­pled as this would be a cost­ly and – as our peer-reviewed paper at has defin­i­tive­ly estab­lished – entire­ly unnec­es­sary mis­take.