In response to Sir Nicholas Stern’s cost/benefit analysis of dealing with climate change, Christopher Monckton, former adviser to Margaret Thatcher and journalist, has published an article (a second will be published next week) and what looks like a very long, researched and documented paper [pdf] explaining why the “consensus” regarding global warming is not correct. Here is a summary of his argument:
All ten of the propositions listed below must be proven true if the climate-change “consensus” is to be proven true. The first article considers the first six of the listed propositions and draws the conclusions shown. The second article will consider the remaining four propositions.
- That the debate is over and all credible climate scientists are agreed. False
- That temperature has risen above millennial variability and is exceptional. Very unlikely
- That changes in solar irradiance are an insignificant forcing mechanism. False
- That the last century’s increases in temperature are correctly measured. Unlikely
- That greenhouse-gas increase is the main forcing agent of temperature. Not proven
- That temperature will rise far enough to do more harm than good. Very unlikely
- That continuing greenhouse-gas emissions will be very harmful to life. Unlikely
- That proposed carbon-emission limits would make a definite difference. Very unlikely
- That the environmental benefits of remediation will be cost-effective. Very unlikely
- That taking precautions, just in case, would be the responsible course. False
While I tend to disbelieve the general “consensus” that our world is warming at exceptional rates, sea levels will rise twenty feet, and we’re all going to die in 50 years because we didn’t ratify Kyoto, I do think it’s generally good stewardship to try not to pollute and to take responsibility for the pollution that we put into the air, water and land.
Anyhow, read the article, and let us know if you share Monckton’s skepticism, or if you are unpersuaded by his analysis.