Prince Charles Tries to Stamp Out Scientific Debate, Says SPPI

A climate lobby-group founded by Prince Charles to influence opinion in the world’s largest insurance market has tried – and failed – to stifle scientific debate on “global warming” in one of the industry’s foremost academic journals, says SPPI.

ClimateWise, known to skeptical brokers at Lloyds of London as Climate Foolish, was launched by the Prince of Wales in 2007 with the words, “Time is a luxury we do not have and I urge companies both at home and internationally to sign the ClimateWise principles and take the necessary action.”

The ClimateWise principles are “To lead in risk analysis, inform public policymaking, support climate awareness amongst customers, incorporate climate change into investment strategies, reduce businesses’ environmental impact, report and be accountable”.

SPPI’s Lord Monckton and a leading insurance broker, Paul Maynard, jointly wrote a learned paper for the respected Journal of the Chartered Insurance Institute, reviewing the science in detail and concluding that the climate scare is bogus and scientifically unfounded; and that CO2 is harmless and beneficial.

Before the paper was published in the Journal, members of ClimateWise first of all attempted to prevent it from appearing. Then they tried to censor it by removing the central scientific and mathematical argument that the effect of CO2 on temperature is now known to be around one-third to one-seventh of what the UN – and the Prince of Wales – would like us to believe. The co-authors stood firm, however, and successfully insisted that their article be printed in full as originally agreed. Next, ClimateWise supporters successfully lobbied the Journal not to reveal to its readers that the letters to the Editor about the paper had been overwhelming supportive of it.

Lord Monckton expressed concern to ClimateWise about “the engagement of the Prince of Wales in a lobby-group with an avowedly political purpose when the future Monarch is constitutionally constrained to be above politics.” The pressure-group has not responded.

SPPI is pleased to announce the publication of a major original paper by Lord Monckton. “Global warming” – a Debate at Last tells the gripping story of the attempted censorship on the part of the Prince of Wales’ pressure-group, reproduces the Journal climate paper in full, and also reveals an attempt by an IPCC scientist associated with ClimateWise to write a lengthy rebuttal of the paper.

ClimateWise supporters tried to persuade the Journal to publish a letter from the scientist and provide a weblink to the rebuttal without allowing the authors the right of reply. Upon threatened suit for equal standing for Lord Monckton, the Journal decided not to publish either the rebuttal or Lord Monckton’s response. SPPI’s paper reproduces not only the original article but also the IPCC scientist’s rebuttal and Lord Monckton’s response, in full.

Robert Ferguson, SPPI’s president, said: “Historians of the future, trying to answer the question why the world’s political and business elites so credulously fell for the ‘global warming’ scare, may well recognize this paper as significant and revealing. It describes the serial attempts at censorship and suppression of legitimate academic and scientific debate that surrounded the publication of Monckton-Maynard paper in the Journal of the CII.

“Better still,’ continued Ferguson, “this paper is a rare instance of a real scientific debate about the climate. Normally climate catastrophists do not allow themselves to be drawn into debate, usually reciting the wilted mantra that ‘the science is settled and the debate is over.’ This time Dr. Dlugolecki, an IPCC contributor himself, after considerable assistance from what he described in an email to the Journal as ‘top scientists’, has actually debated the science. Monckton’s responses to the IPCC scientist’s argument, paragraph by relentless paragraph, should be appreciated by any serious seeker of understanding.

Says Monckton, “Perhaps Prince Charles would do better finding a new, less political, and more scientifically-credible subject for his campaigning zeal.”

Monckton added, “The Prince, whom we all love dearly, should resign from Climate Foolish for his own benefit.”

The paper can be read here:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/original/_global_warming_a_debate_at_last.html

Contact - Robert Ferguson
www.scienceandpublicpolicy.org
bferguson@sppinstitute.org
Tel. 202-288-5699