Serious inaccuracies in climate encyclical (Christopher Monckton, Pope Francis) UK Vatican

27 Queen Street  Edinburgh 

EH2 1JX

0131- 225 5551  monckton @ mail.com  07814 556423 From: The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

16 June 2015 His Eminence Cardinal Gerhard Müller Prefect, Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith CDF@cfaith.va IN CONFIDENCE Your Eminence,

Serious inaccuracies in the leaked draft of the climate encyclical The encyclical – if the leaked draft is accurate – should be withheld until serious scientific inaccuracies have been corrected and balancing considerations included.

There are references to a “scientific consensus” that there is a sever warming of the climate and that most warming in recent decades was anthropogenic. Yet satellites show no warming of the lower troposphere for 18 years 5 months (University of Alabama at Huntsville) or 18 years 6 months (Remote Sensing Systems Inc.). You may like to consult Dr Roy Spencer (spencer@nsstc.uah.edu), who designed and operates the monitoring satellites. You will find him responsive and helpful.

Also, Legates et al. (2015), a learned paper in Science and Education, of which I was a co-author, revealed that just 41 papers, or 0.3% of 11,944 climate papers published in the 21 years 1991-2011, stated that recent warming was mostly manmade. There is, therefore, no scientific consensus, and – in recent decades – little warming.

Professor Legates (legates@udel.edu) will be ready to assist Your Eminence.

The encyclical says there has been “a steady increase in sea level”. However, the Envisat satellite, during its entire 8-year run of data from 2004-2012, showed sea level rising at a negligible rate equivalent to just 3.2 cm per century. The GRACE gravitational-recovery satellites show sea level falling from 2003-2008, but an artificial and arbitrary adjustment was made so as falsely to suggest sea level was rising (Cazenave et al., 2009):

The “official” sea level record shows sea level rising at a rate equivalent to 30 cm per century, little more than the 18 cm/century in the 20th century: however, intercalibration errors between the various laser-altimetry satellites exceed the total claimed sea-level rise, making this record unreliable. You may like to consult Professor Nils-Axel Mörner, the world’s foremost expert on sea-level rise (morner@pog.nu), who tells me sea level will rise by only 5 plus or minus 15 cm this century. He is charming and will be willing to assist confidentially.

The encyclical also refers to “the melting of polar ice caps”. However, the Antarctic ice cap, by far the larger of the two, shows no warming in 35 years (so, technically, there has been no “global” warming); and in recent months the extent of the sea ice surrounding the continent has exceeded the record by a considerable margin. In the Arctic, the sea ice has declined, but global warming cannot have been the reason, for there has not been any for almost two decades.

Globally, neither the extent nor the trend in sea ice shows any significant change during the entire satellite era. Before that era, no systematic measurements were

2

possible, but written accounts suggest there was less ice in the Arctic in the 1920s and 1930s than there is today.

You may like to consult Dr Cliff Ollier (ollier@uwa.edu.au), who will be delighted to inform you of his researches into the cryosphere.

My own researches published in the reviewed literature have concentrated on the question of what is known as “climate sensitivity”: that is, how much global warming is to be expected for each doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration. A paper by me and three distinguished colleagues, published in the Science Bulletin of the Chinese Academy of Sciences in January 2015, describes a simple climate-sensitivity model indicating that one can expect only 1 Celsius degree of warming per CO2 doubling, not the 3 C° predicted by the “official” general-circulation models.

3

It is fair to point out that our paper has been challenged subsequently, on the ground that we had not verified it against observed temperature change. Indeed, we had not done so: for we constructed the model on the basis of strict physical principles.

However, we have now run five tests of the model, which confirm that on all timescales the measured temperature change falls within the quite narrow range of temperature changes that our model would predict. The same cannot be said of the IPCC’s much-exaggerated predictions, as this diagram shows:

The encyclical also mentions ocean “acidification”: however, the oceans are and must remain pronouncedly alkaline at pH 7.8-8.0, for they are overwhelmingly selfbuffered. Besides, studies near estuaries where strongly acid rainwater runoff with a pH 5.4 (where 7.0 is neutral) enters the ocean show that sea creatures, including calcifying organisms such as corals, are well able to withstand even radical changes in pH. Here, you will find Professor Ian Plimer (ian.plimer@adelaide.edu.au) most knowledgeable and helpful.

The grave scientific errors I have mentioned in the encyclical should be corrected, at least with an indication that there are two sides to this question, and it would also be prudent to mention that attempts have been made to silence critics of the “official” position on climate change. Science cannot advance unless all sides are fairly heard.

Pope Benedict made this point: Pope Francis should make it too.

I am not publicizing this approach to you. No reply is needed. God bless you.

With all good wishes,

James Rowlatt, Clerk, pp. The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

4