Global Warming is Really Just a Risk Mitigation Exercise

There are four broad outcomes depending on whether we act to mitigate climate change, and whether it is as bad (or worse than) what the models predict in terms of temperature increase by 2100 and the associated likely impacts of a +4-8C world environment:

1. We do nothing. Global warming is not a big deal.
2. We do nothing. Global warming is as bad or worse than feared.
3. We act. Global warming is not a big deal.
4. We act. Global warming is as bad or worse than feareded.

Key here is the only "variable" we as humans control is whether we act.  We can (and have) studied the hell out of the science to determine the truth of the second part, but the only choice we face is whether we (collectively as a species & planetary civilization) act decisively enough to significantly reduce emissions versus the status quo emissions track.

What are the consequences of these four paths?

1. Outcome: Ideal.  No economic loss to an economically forced conversion to a carbon free energy system, no major harms from greenhouse gas emissions.
2. Outcome: Catastrophic.  Billions probably die. At the outlier of possibilites, humans actually go extinct. At minimum, huge economic & social impacts, particularly when considering the secondary effects like wars & unrest from water & food shortages.  Millions of people die and millions of species go extinct.
3. Outcome: Ok. Some unnecessary economic loss (Stern put it at 1% of global GDP in that 2005 UK study). Plus side: We move to a renewable (cleaner) energy system. No more oil spills, black lung, flammable fracking tapwater, Asian brown cloud, and the host of non-climate related ills from the fossil energy system.
4. Outcome: Ok. Some economic loss (Stern's 1%) compared to #1, but this is illusionary since if #4 is true then global warming is a big problem and outcome #1 was impossible anyway, so this is also "ideal."  Depending on how well we acted, the various harms of global warming are mitigated to some degree so hurt less (or perhaps not at all).  Same benefits of #3 for moving to a renewable energy system.

So you, as emperor of the world for a day get to make 1 decision, act or don't act on global warming.  Down one path ("don't act" - #1 and #2) you get one good outcome and one very bad one.  Down another path (act) you get two pretty ok outcomes.  As a risk mitigation exercise, the prudent choice is clear.  It's not so different as the choice you make to buy insurance on your home. If nothing ever bad ever happens to your home, that money is wasted!  Yet if it does, you're glad to be covered.

It's not even as if you have to wait for the year 2100 or something, if we act on global warming, enact carbon taxes and do a "Manhattan project" for clean energy, and then uncover strong evidence the climate problem is far less serious than feared, the carbon taxes can be repealed and the clean energy projects shuttered.  The acts we take on climate change are reversible if we really don't like the outcomes.  They're human laws & treaties. The consequences of climate change itself are physics and short of some much much riskier geoengineering projects, there's very little we can do to stop it past a certain point.
 
Am I understating that 1% cost figure to mitigate it?  Sure, maybe.  But we currently spend something like 2.5% of global GDP on military expenditures and few seem to feel this deadweight spending is some kind of global economic disaster choking off human potential.  During WWII and the heights of the Cold War, military spending (particularly in the combatent nations) was well into the double digits.  We have proven our societies can withstand relatively long spurts of much higher economic committment to shared goals without great economic loss.  

Not Impressed with NDP Climate Motion Ploy

Today the NDP's environment critic used an opposition day to have the House of Commons vote on this motion:

“That this House: (a) agree with many Canadians and the International Energy Agency that there is grave concern with the impacts of a 2 degree rise in global average temperatures; (b) condemn the lack of effective action by successive federal governments since 1998 to address emissions and meet our Kyoto commitments; and (c) call on the government to immediately table its federal climate change adaptation plan.”

Unsurprisingly, the Conservatives, Liberals and sole Green Party MP Elizabeth May all voted against this motion.  Obviously the NDP didn't think for a second the Liberals were going to vote for a motion that condemns their own governments between 1998 and 2006 and Elizabeth May has objected on the obvious grounds that the motion only calls on the government to table an "adaptation plan" rather than an action plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The NDP are quick out of the gate with items like this, grouping the Liberals and Conservatives together as is their wont.  I'm not impressed with the whole thing, it's beneath the NDP for one thing and speaking as a voter who could be persuaded to vote NDP instead of Liberal, this does nothing to inform me about actual, meaningful policy differences between the two parties on an issue I care deeply about, climate change.

I am all for the NDP finding ways to inform Canadians about important distinctions between themselves and the other left-of-centre parties so that when 2015 comes around they can fight for the largest share of that ~65% of the public that won't vote Conservative, but this doesn't seem helpful to that end.  It doesn't tell me any actual salient difference between the Greens, NDP and Liberals on the climate issue.    That both other parties have such obvious outs to vote against this motion makes it ineffective as a tool to prove that the NDP line on either the Greens or Liberals is accurate (the usual line being that both are effectively conservative parties and not true progressive institutions).

Lest I be accused of concern trolling, I'll say I really would like to know if Justin Trudeau would take meaningful action on the climate if elected in 2015.  I fear he won't, and would like it if the NDP finds ways to force him to take significant policy stands that allay or confirm that fear.  Asking him to have his party condemn the Chretien and Martin governments (much as they deserve condemnation on this file) isn't going to do that.  Ethics of the thing aside, if Trudeau had somehow had his party support this motion, the news coverage would be all about the meta-story of the Liberals voting to condemn their own past governments, not about the climate issue.

Maybe I'm not the target audience and this will be very effective at, well, tricking, less politically aware voters who have the environment as a top-of-mind issue and don't read past the headlines.  But it doesn't work on me, and strikes me as the stereotypical form of holier-than-thou progressivism that the NDP is often criticized for.   It's not the biggest deal in the world, just some petty political positioning and attack-ad fodder, but even describing it that way is to repeat that the NDP should be better than this.

Why Argue With Climate Change Deniers?

Recently on Twitter I engaged first the execrable Ezra Levant who had retweeted some obvious climate change denialist trolling to #cdnpoli (apparently the fact that it is cold at the coldest place on Earth in March is somehow proof that climate change is a lie) and later another persistent climate denier going off their current favourite talking point about how climate change has supposedly stopped for X years (X can be various things, but typically 14 or 15 years).  Two different climate realists asked why I even bother replying to these people, as it is clear that I'm not going to persuade hardened climate change denier ideologues just by posting the real science that they're so busy trying to confuse people about.

And they're not wrong: In the first case the person who had originally provided the oh-so-useful information about Antarctica being cold took quite ill to my calling it out as denialism (he has since deleted his sputtering rage-tweets), and proceeded to block me (Ezra Levant of course didn't reply).  The second played a frequent denialist tactic of changing the subject and refusing to ever get pinned down on their now revealed erroneous claims.  Classic textbook sophistry for anyone trying to muddle a debate.

So why even debate these people?  Is it just "someone-wrong-on-the-internet" egoism?

No, it has to do with my theory of change about Global Warming and understanding that the debate isn't about the direct participants, but about the passive audience.

Climate Beliefs Are Not Binary

The most important thing to realize is that a person's beliefs about climate change are not black or white.  You are not forced to choose between Al Gore and Christopher Monckton "extremes."  I had long understood there were a range of beliefs and recently came across (via Bill Moyers) some good empirical work by a Yale professor named Antohny Leiserowitz who leads a project on communicating climate science devised a taxonomy of six groups based on opinion research of Americans.  Here's what they found with the percentages as of fall 2012 (my chart using their categories):

The hardened human induced climate change denying activists I'm debating are of course in the 8% segment at the top.  It is of course very doubtful anything is going to move them from "dismissive" to "alarmed."  But what about the other 92% of the people?  Where are they?  They can easily move between "doubtful" and "disengaged" or from "concerned" to "cautious" depending on the news and information they receive.  Which category they're in has important public policy impacts on our ability to get government to act decisively on addressing the climate crisis.  For example here's a few of their findings on the beliefs of these subgroups:

• In five of the six segments, larger proportions prefer to reduce, rather than increase fossil fuel use; only the Dismissive prefer to increase the nation’s use of fossil fuels.
• In every segment except the Dismissive, half or more favor the elimination of subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, and oppose the elimination of subsidies to renewable energy companies.
• Majorities of the Alarmed, Concerned and Cautious – comprising 70 percent of the U.S. population – say the U.S. should reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, regardless of what other nations do.

There are many other interesting break-downs like this where particular ameliorative policies that would at least slow the harm of our current climate trajectory become tolerated or even supported at supermajority levels within the United States, probably the nation subject to the worst climate denial propaganda and the least amount of accurate climate science interpretation.  We don't have to get to 100% in the alarmed group to get things done here, moving a few percentage of people from disengaged to cautious can make a difference in how they react to say, a carbon pricing policy proposal or the building of a giant new pipeline to more efficiently burn the world's second dirtiest oil (US DOE).  

Moderates Are Usually The Least Informed

All of this is concurrent with other political science research which shows that "moderates" on issues tend to be the least informed and engaged, so as a heuristic in the absence of well thought out opinions on the subject they opt for some kind of "middle of the road" approach.  These people, particularly in the middle two categories are persuadable.  If all they see when they're browsing twitter or other media is climate denier propaganda, they are more apt to gravitate up the scale above.  If they see climate denialism being aggressively and persuasively rebutted, they will at least go no higher and may drop down a category or two. 

Now there are still other problems to solve in acting on climate change, particularly in the US where hardened minority opinion groups have a death grip ability to veto policy they don't like via the preposterous US Senate, but we certainly aren't going to get action without more people in the alarmed and concerned categories where people are most apt to actually ask their government to take action.  The cautious and disengaged will generally go along with whatever, so moving the doubtful into those categories also serves to weaken the opposition to action.   In Canada, I am fairly convinced that during the 2008 Federal Election, the Conservative ad smear blitz against Stephane Dion's carbon tax proposal was quite effective in mobilizing the disengaged and doubtful into joining with the dismissive in heartily opposing any possible action on the climate that could have any cost for themselves.  You can probably get most people in the "disengaged" category to tell pollsters they think the world is warming and humans are the cause, but that's not enough to let them tolerate risk to their pocketbooks in the societal response.  

This is why we in the alarmed group must keep up the fight.  Who else will?  Even moving the concerned into alarmed is of value because it increases the critical mass of people demanding change.  You don't have to persuade the unpersuadable and irrational, but recognize that leaving them to shout unanswered will lead some to think they must be right since we're all so quiet about their egregious nonsense.

A Manhattan Project For the Climate

We need a Manhattan Project for the climate.  That is a large, government led, well funded research and development effort to build technologies, techniques and policies that get global emissions at or below sustainable levels within 20 years.

Large government led programs have long proven to be an effective way for humanity to solve major problems and achieve otherwise unreachable goals.  We were worried the Nazis were going to build atomic weapons, and if they had got there first World War 2 would have ended very differently with far more loss of life, so we dedicated the resources, scientists and effort needed to get it done.  The US and USSR decided each separately that conquering space travel first was an important societal goal and both dedicated the resources needed to "win" - the USSR first put a man in orbit, the USA caught up to be the first to the moon.  Given what we know about the horrendous inefficiency and corruption of the Soviet system, their achievements are even more remarkable.  The Soyuz rocket remains the world's only means to get humans above low orbit.

Even now we can look at absurdly impoverished kleptocratic North Korea, not able to adequately feed its population and yet able to sustain nuclear and missile programs that have made the country an intercontinental nuclear power within 20 years, despite major sanctions and dedicated efforts of major world powers to stop them.  Their leaders decided these things were important and were able to have them done despite huge obstacles that wouldn't exist in a climate project.

In fact many of the most lasting or amazing achievements of human history have been government led projects:

• Panama Canal
• Suez Canal
• Pyramids (both Egypt and central Americas)
• The Great Wall of China
• The Roman Coliseum
• Eradication of Smallpox
• Humans in space
• Humans on the moon
• International Space Station
• Exploration of the Solar System
• Global positioning system
• The Internet
• The Parthenon
• Cross continental rail roads
• The Large Hadron Collider

This doesn't mean everything government does is great (The Great Wall didn't really work very well from what I understand of the history but it is still a remarkable feat of engineering) but it does show that when vital societal interests are recognized, a government led mega project is very likely to succeed at achieving its objectives.  Whether those objectives are sensible is a different question, but solving the climate crisis is clearly a worthwhile goal.

It is time we recognize solving climate change as a vital interest to humanity and act through our most effective collective means, government, to address it at the level of urgency and focus it requires.  It doesn't mean everyone working on the problem needs to be a government employee, but that government is prepared to identify the problems needing solutions and fund major research that has promise of solving those problems.  We need energy systems that don't add greenhouse gases and massive increases in energy efficiency.  We need means to deploy these things widely and see them adopted worldwide.  We probably need means to speed up the absorption of carbon from the atmosphere, and prepare for the possibility that the Siberian permafrost will all melt.  Most of these things are not inherently profitable and no private actors will make significant attempts to address them. They represent a colossal tragedy of the commons, which can only be addressed collectively.

In the neoliberal era we are tempted to scoff at this, and insist that private research and efforts will be sufficient, or maybe government can help with tax credits or other nonsense.  We don't have time for that.  Those policies only nudge.  We need a push.  Whatever it costs, for however long it takes.  That was the mentality that allowed the Allies to win World War 2.  That's what is required today.

Why China Should Not Go First on Climate Change

It may actually be the climate denialists' favourite refrain (particularly in Canada), that since China is now the world leader on carbon emissions, it has the moral obligation to lead on emissions reduction and countries like Canada can sit back until China or India have taken action.

It is true that at 9.7 billion tonnes of CO2 emitted (2011), China is the current world leader, but China's "leadership" in this area only began in 2006.  Anthropogenic Global Warming is not just about this year's emissions or last year's, but the cumulative amount of carbon in the atmosphere.  China was a very poor country for most of the 20th Century, it's just absurd and specious to try and blame them for this problem that took most of a century to create.  From Time For Change, (using data from the World Resources Institute) we have the cumulative emissions for the largest emission countries from 1900 to 2002.  I have totaled their figures (in red) and added percentages of that total (in black) to get a sense of who is really responsible for the existing pool of carbon in the atmosphere:

Some points that jump out at me:

• Canada is the 10th highest emitter.  If your list of countries that need to act on climate change doesn't cover the top 10, what kind of methodology could you use to arrive at that?  Maybe Iceland or New Zealand could claim their emissions are too small in the grand scheme to matter, but 2.5% of all historical emissions makes us a heavy hitter.  
• The disparity between Canada's 0.5% of global population and our 2.5% of cumulative emissions is even starker than our disparity between population and yearly emissions.  We're five times more to blame for this problem than the average human anywhere else on the world.
• 2.5% of anything is substantial. No one scoffing at 2.5% would happily give up 2.5% of their income, or be displeased with a 2.5% raise.  
• Italy, a far larger economy and population is far below Canadian emissions.  Italy is a developed "rich" world country, whose citizens like driving cars, eating meat and flying to exotic vacation spots.  Clearly, Canada can do a lot better, even with our long cold winters.
• Japan has remarkably low historical emissions given that it was the #2 economy in the world for several decades before China took that spot.
• The US is clearly the biggest culprit here, and though this chart only goes to 2002, the US remained the biggest polluter for 4 more years after this, and the 6 years since 2006 will not have closed the gap for China by very much.  Maybe China is now responsible for 15% of cumulative global emissions but that would still make the US more than two times the amount of emissions.
• Australia, a country with a similar resource dependent economy, similar population and wealth has yet only caused half the total emissions of Canada.  That has not stopped them from implementing a carbon tax.  
• 15 of the top 20 countries are in Europe or the OECD (the usual list of "rich" or "developed" countries).  8 of the top 10 emitters are developed countries.

This position that others should do the work, go first and no action is possible until China or India jump on board is clearly morally and pragmatically ludicrous.  We caused most of this mess, obviously others were going to want to get in on the party while the going was good.  We have the obligation to end this thing for ourselves, and then we will have credibility to demand action from the developing world (and far improved ability to help them, since we'll already have developed the technology and policies to do it).  

Finally every country or jurisdiction that takes action on reducing GHG emissions is making it easier for everyone else to act, by learning lessons, working out policy kinks and proving critical mass to alternative energy or efficiency technologies.  

Chrisopher Monckton, Climate Skeptic Hero

This post provides the sources of a series of claims I am making over Twitter.  My main points are two:

1) Christopher Monckton is the leading climate "skeptic" and is held in extremely high regard by climate skeptics.

2) Monckton is singularly unreliable, dishonest, deceitful, preposterous and possibly some kind of compulsive liar or outright sociopath.  If he were some kind of fringe figure in the climate skeptic movement, this might not matter, but given #1, it says a great deal about the credibility of the whole movement that they cannot seem to find anyone more credible and trustworthy to be their leading voice.

This started yesterday when a climate ostrich posted a link to "10 Killer Questions" that Monckton poses to what he calls "climate extremists."  I googled the title of the post and found:

Who is this person who so-called climate skeptics find so enthralling that so many of them repost his every utterance?  Here's the statements I make over twitter, and my sources:

Eg. In 2010, US House Republicans asked Monckton to testify to a congressional commitee as an expert witness. Their only witness. #cdnpoli

First up, Monckton has a BA in Classics and an MA in Journalism. No science formal education. #cdnpoli

Monckton repeatedly falsely claims to be a member of UK House of Lords. The Clerk of that body wrote an open letter denying this. #cdnpoli

Monckton claims to have been Margaret Thatcher's chief science advisor. Members of Thatcher's cabinet have mocked this. #cdnpoli

Monckton did advise Thatcher, but on domestic policy. His thing: privatizing housing, l8r called a failure by a Con party leader #cdnpoli

If Monckton did advise Thatcher on science, she ignored him because she accepted global warming was real and helped found IPCC. #cdnpoli

Thatcher's autobiography never mentions him. She had many advisors, Monckton was not inner circle. #cdnpoli

Monckton chickened out of a debate at Anthony Watts' site (skeptic central) on climate science with Peter Hadfield. #cdnpoli

Monckton is a "birther", claiming Barack Obama's birth certificate is fake. #cdnpoli

Monckton claims repeatedly to have invented a drug that cures HIV, MS, Malaria, Grave's disease, the Flu and the Common cold. #cdnpoli

Re: Nobel prizes, Monckton claims to have one too. Called on it, says he was joking, but still claims it in skeptic venues. #cdnpoli

Monckton accused NASA of purposely crashing a climate satellite to suppress data undermining climate science #cdnpoli

Monckton says he advised Thatcher to use biological weapons against the Argintinians in the Falklands war. #cdnpoli

Monckton further claims, without evidence, that Thatcher actually did use biological weapons. #cdnpoli

Monckton infamously argued in 1987 that people with AIDS should be interned for life in camps. #cdnpoli

Monckton also argued that the governments should institute mandatory monthly tests for HIV/AIDS for everyone. #cdnpoli

Despite his own fascism and advocacy of WMDs, Monckton delights in calling climate realists things like "Hitler Youth."  #cdnpoli

Monckton travels around with his bizarro skeptic version of Gore's slideshow. A climatologist tore it apart in detail: http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/ #cdnpoli

Monckton tried to have that scientist fired. #cdnpoli

I expect climate deniers would be inclined to reply with something about Al Gore, his big houses, plane flying or the money he makes from his green business interests.  Ok.  I have previously compared Gore and Monckton's relative credibility and even if you think Gore is an unworthy spokesperson for climate reality and action, he is nowhere near Monckton's league of duplicity and farce.

Is Peter Kent Trying to Move Harper on Climate Change?

This starts with a tangent:  I've been trying to understand why the World Bank's climate report is big news.  It's just a rehash of long available science.  The World Bank is not my idea of some kind of recalcitrant climate denial shop, but obviously they have some reason to be concerned since the prospect of a global economic dark age is probably not part of their neoliberal dream.  Near as I can figure, the report is "news" because it might indicate the global elite are starting to take Climate Change seriously.  Up until now, I could only figure that the non-denialist global elites (say, like Bill Gates) were just ignoring climate change because they figured it was inevitable and they would likely be able to profit from it anyway, so they weren't much concerned with a couple hundred million people dying. 

But maybe they're realizing that climate change will be even worse than that.  Even they might actually suffer harmful effects.  So naturally I wondered if the World Bank report had anything to do with the timing of these surprisingly realistic remarks by Peter Kent, Canada's federal environment minister:

Federal Environment Minister Peter Kent thinks recent extreme weather events are forcing politicians in both Canada and the U.S. to focus on the issue of climate change, and that includes members of his Conservative government's cabinet.

[...]

"You don't have to convince me that climate change is a very real and present danger and we need to address it."

Ok, I'm not going to applaud simple admission of reality to the discourse, but it turns out Peter Kent may have been acting as something of a voice of sanity at Harper's cabinet and caucus tables:

A series of letters signed by Kent have revealed he has faced many questions from colleagues in recent months about whether Canada needs to take action to reduce consumption of fossil fuels such as coal and gasoline that produce heat-trapping pollution and other toxic emissions in the atmosphere.

But in each of the letters, released through access to information legislation, Kent defended scientific evidence, while dismissing myths such as a suggestion from one Conservative that volcanoes were a major contributor to global warming.

“Even major volcanic eruptions emit only a very small fraction of carbon dioxide compared to annual human emissions,” Kent wrote in a Sept. 6, 2011 letter to one colleague that noted volcanic ash can cause short-term cooling in the atmosphere, lasting up to three years.

Obviously I'm reading tea leaves here, and this is the Environment minister who pulled Canada out of Kyoto, but this is better than having the MP who asked the volcano question as Environment minister.  That piece also quotes Green Party leader and sole MP Elizabeth May who raises a pertinent issue:

 “The biggest worry I have is (regarding) the member of his caucus who doesn’t understand climate science [...] is [...] the prime minister. That’s the biggest worry I have, because I cannot find any evidence that the prime minister of Canada has ever had a briefing on climate science from any of the prominent climate scientists in Canada, in or outside of government.”

Is Kent trying to move the system from within?  I doubt it will work, but who knows.  Conservatives seem to place primary value on the source of any information as a means of verifying whether it is true.  Having the Conservative Federal environment minister tell his colleagues that "no, volcanoes aren't causing it..." and so forth probably has better odds of at least persuading them.  They won't listen to the likes of egghead grant sucking climatologists, but they might listen to one of their own.

Gore Versus Monckton

In a recent post on climate deniers, one showed up in the comments.  I made a comment about Monckton's status as a leader of the climate denier movement, and how any group that would take him seriously cannot be taken seriously.  In reply, the anonymous denier threw a comment about Al Gore at me.  It occurred to me that the two have more in common than merely being the most prominent spokespeople for their viewpoints, but that Monckton is actually a kind of bizarro-Al Gore, a goatee universe evil version of him.  Usually, climate realists shy away from embracing Gore since he's not an actual climate scientist, and of course he's a politician with plenty of legitimate baggage, but really, if deniers want a side by side comparison, I'm game, let's play:

Christopher Monckton	Albert Gore Jr.
(source: Wiki Commons)	(source: Wiki Commons)
Legislative Experience:
None.  Repeated claims to be a member of the upper chamber of the UK legislature.  The Clerk of the House of Lords published an open letter stating explicitly he is not and never was. Defeated four times in running for election to the House of Lords, receiving zero votes each time (he didn’t even vote for himself!). Ran for election to the Scottish Parliament, not elected.	Actually was a member of the upper chamber of the US legislature, the Senate.  Elected by the voters of Tennessee, twice.  Also elected to the US House of Representatives numerous times.
Executive Branch Experience:
Member of Margaret Thatcher’s policy advisory team.  Claims to have advised the PM on science and climate change.  Thatcher’s autobiography never mentions him, and names someone else as her science advisor.  Thatcher’s Environment minister calls him a “bag carrier” and the idea that he advised Thatcher on climate policy “laughable.”	Twice elected Vice-President of the United States with President Bill Clinton.  Noted for his especially strong relationship with Clinton, described as his “indisputable chief advisor.”  Described by Clinton as “the most powerful Vice-President in history.”  Promoted information technology extensively in the Executive branch, and across the US economy. Won the 2000 Presidential election popular vote, lost in the Electoral College.
Policy Effects on Head of Government:
Margaret Thatcher famously surprised the UN with a 1989 speech calling for action on climate change.  Thatcher, with an actual science education evidently did not take Monckton’s dubiously claimed advice on the subject. Thatcher’s government did implement Monckton’s social housing privatization ideas, which now even prominent UK Conservatives regard as having failed.	At Gore's urging, Bill Clinton signed the domestically unpopular Kyoto treaty even though ratification in the Senate was impossible.  While the US did not implement Kyoto, it did achieve full ratification and remains the only formalized global greenhouse gas emissions reduction treaty.
Education:
B.A. , M.A. in Classics from Cambridge Diploma in Journalism studies from University College, Cardiff.	B.A. in Government from Harvard. Studied Law (incomplete, left to run for Congress)
Remarkable claims:
Curing Grave’s Disease Also claims the treatment is effective against influenza, Multiple Sclerosis and Herpes. No evidence of these claims has ever been supplied. Accused NASA of crashing a weather satellite on purpose so to suppress data that would refute climate science. Is apparently an Obama-born-in-Hawaii denier too.	“I took the initiative in creating the Internet” He did say the words once in an interview, but clearly was speaking about the multiple legislative efforts he started, supported and lobbied to fund research, investment into multiple areas of information technology.  Newt Gingrich admits of all members of Congress Gore “most systemically” worked to support the technology that would become the internet.  A multitude of internet pioneers credit Gore explicitly for his legislative advocacy and he has won awards relating to the work.  The 1991 “Gore Bill” was credited by Netscape founder Marc Andreessen for creating the first browser, Mosaic. It's really more of a gaffe  than a ridiculous claim.
Beyond the Pale:
Called for forced life internment of AIDS patients in 1987 in a published article.  Article also advocated mandatory monthly AIDS blood tests for the entire population of UK.  Has defended the article in recent years.    Claims to have suggested to Thatcher that she employ biological weapons against Argentine forces in the Falklands war, and that she did so.  No evidence of UK use of biological weapons in that conflict has ever emerged.	There’s nothing really remotely like this on Gore’s record.   On these two topics, Gore co-sponsored a 1990 bill to fund health care for AIDS patients.  The Clinton administration oversaw the ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention in 1997.
Political Ideology:
Too right wing for the Conservatives, left the party for the anti-EU, anti-immigration UK Independence party, and briefly served as Deputy-Leader.	Self described “raging moderate.”  A Democrat elected in Tennessee, Gore took numerous moderate and even conservative positions on multiple issues.  As Vice-President he led a major bureaucracy reduction effort within government.  His solutions to climate change are market centric and supportive of businesses finding ways to profit creating and selling the technology needed to transform the energy system.  One of 10 Democrats to vote for the 1991 Gulf War.  Picked noted hawkish conservative Democrat Senator Joe Lieberman as his running mate.
Climate Science Credentials:
It’s difficult to find any actual source of claims calling him an “expert.”  Member of the Christian cult “The Family” Senator James Inhofe does list Monckton as a “climate researcher” doubting the consensus (the report is billed as containing 700 doubting “scientists”).   Monckton has no peer reviewed published papers.  Still, he is employed as a climate science “expert” or “advisor” by numerous Climate sceptic think-tanks and has been invited to testify by Republican majority committees as an “expert” witness a number of times.  I suppose by now he’s become an expert of some sort by virtue of playing one for this long, but the original source of this “expertise” seems to be his out-of-nowhere 2007 rebuttal movie to Gore’s  2005 “An Inconvenient Truth”, titled “Apocalypse? No!” – which apparently makes such a splash I can’t find it on IMDB and never heard of it before seeing it listed in his UK Independence Party profile.	Studied under one of the first scientists to study anthropogenic climate change, Roger Revelle while at University.  Held the first congressional hearing on Global Warming in 1976.  Long history of government advocacy and policy in climate science.  Gore makes no claim to any scientific expertise but has a long public track record of detailed policy involvement on the issue. Would go on to make the most popular and successful documentary on climate change,  the Oscar winning, “An Inconvenient Truth” based on his self-devised multi-media climate science presentation.  Gore would also be awarded the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize (along with the IPCC) in relation to his work to promote public understanding of the climate crisis.
Accuracy:
It’s difficult to summarize the rampant litany of egregious false claims, lies, mistakes, mischaracterizations and logical fallacies that characterizes all of Monckton’s work on climate change.   But perhaps the best is this excruciatingly detailed fisking of Monckton’s bizarro-Gore slideshow by engineer/scientist Prof. John Abraham at reputable private school, the University of St. Thomas (Minnesota).  Monckton was so incensed by Abraham’s work that he had a little tantrum and even threatened to initiate academic misconduct procedures against Abraham.	An Inconvenient Truth was actually tested in a UK court due to its inclusion in school curricula.  The Judge eventually found 9 errors, but still ruled the movie was “broadly accurate” and “substantially founded on scientific research.”  He ruled the movie could be shown to school children as long as additional material noting the nine errors was distributed with it.  Aside from one UK Judge, in general, actual climate scientists were generally impressed with the accuracy and currency of the science in the movie.
Major Criticisms:
Aside from a quasi-fascist plan for dealing with infectious disease and making up ridiculous things like curing multiple diseases without any scientific background, a complete lack of credibility and repeatedly twisting, distorting or misquoting the climate science he is responding to, none worth mentioning here.	Gore’s biggest crime is apparently that he doesn’t practice what he doesn’t preach. He lives in a big house and flies in planes, which apparently makes him a hypocrite because climate sceptics imagine that in advocating for action on climate, one must move to a cave, eat kelp and travel only by low-emission donkey.     Thing is, Gore says no such things.  His solutions to climate change are market centric, with some kind of price on carbon, and some neoliberal subsidies for clean energy.   None of this requires individual personal zero emission living. He also pays carbon offsets for his flights, his homes are outfitted for efficiency and he opts for more expensive green energy to power them.  Meaning Gore already voluntarily pays a carbon price even without the laws he advocates that would compel him to.  Where is the hypocrisy? He’s also frequently accused of seeking to profit from the climate issue which is a bizarre companion to the frequent denier claims that global warming is an excuse for global socialism.  Gore has put his money where his mouth is, and this is a bad thing?

The main point here is not that Gore is super-perfect and should be canonized, he's a politician, there's plenty to criticize in his public service record, but on the climate issue, he has a long track record of leadership and sincerity.  Monckton is in my opinion a shameless huckster who jumped into the issue around 2006 and was welcomed by the denier movement because they really have no one more credible to carry their message.  If deniers want to compare the two, I'm fine with that.  It's an indirect way to assess the sincerity of each movement, but it does bear out.  If there was a more credible climate denier, she or he would already be in Monckton's shoes.  The AIDS thing alone should disqualify him from ever being taken seriously by anyone on anything, but for deniers it is any internment camp proponent in the storm.