Excellent article, Brian. Give the guy a go and let him make an idiot of himself. And who's the VC of UWA to "distance" himself? Monckton isn't appearing at UWA.

Monckton hasn't quite got it right.

The consensus says "we caused climate change" for the simple reason that it takes time for a majority to come to grips with the "New Theory." But the correct new theory is NOT Monckton's theory.

Some people probably still think that the sun's solar radiation is the Earth's main source of energy. It is not. Its gravity is, with further minor contributions from all the planets, Jupiter, Saturn and Venus having the greatest effect. If we only had solar insolation to warm the Earth the facts are that the Earth would probably be below 30 degrees K (ie about -243 deg.C). The fact that it is about 290 degrees above absolute zero is at least 90% due to the sun's gravity having caused friction in the core, thus heat which, over millions of years, has reached close to the surface where equilibrium is established with the much lower amounts of (heat) energy from solar insolation that has penetrated some little distance. Hence temperatures in the deepest mines (roughly 4,000 metres down) are quite liveable. But, knowing that the mine temperatures are what they are, how then could the liquid core have got so hot? The heat could not have come from solar insolation. It has to have come from changes in potential energy causing huge currents in the liquid core, and thus huge friction.

Now, there is also a magnetic field (agreed?) and that is also generated in the core basically by gravitational energy. That field immediately surrounds the Earth. It affects temperature when it reacts with ions in the atmosphere, so, if the field varies the temperature varies almost instantly. And the field will vary when the gravitational force varies. And the gravitational force will vary when the distances from the sun, Jupiter, Saturn, Venus etc vary. The distance from Jupiter varies by about 60% and its eccentricity CAUSES temperature cycles of about 900 to 1000 years: warm around late 12th century, cool 17th century, warmest again around 2200 - yes we're getting there, but less than 1 degree warmer than at present.

Temperatures have been level, or slightly declining since 2003 (see NASA chart up to 23 June 2011: http://earth-climate.com/2003-2011.jpg ) so why is it so? The reason relates to the other planets, the most important being Saturn which CAUSES cycles of 59.6 years and also much longer cycles like Jupiter. Both its 59.6 year cycle and longer cycle were at maxima around the year 2000. The "60 year" cycle is now starting to head slowly downwards counteracting the increasing 900 to 1000 year cycle. There was also a 39 month cycle which peaked in the Southern hemisphere in October 2010. So it too is heading down now and we should see slightly lower temperatures 2012 than in 2010. The 60 year cycle will be at a minimum around 2028 and a maximum in 2058. So from 2029 to 2058 will be similar to the steep rises we had 1970 to 1999 which caused all the needless concern. And, if you are young enough to live beyond 2058 you'll see a level temperatures until about 2070 then declining until 2088.

For more detail and linked supporting papers see my site http://earth-climate.com which is based on many hundreds of hours of unbiased, open-minded research coupled with my own knowledge of Physics and statistics. Meanwhile I suggest you all study the material therein and come to grips with the fact that, now that temperatures have levelled out for about eight years, the trend is obviously not as steep as it was from 1970 to 1999.

The huge advantage of understanding the cyclical nature of climate is the ability to anticipate and plan for increases and decreases in ocean levels and to quantify these - and to set at peace the minds of millions of people who are worried by incorrect IPCC projections. And of course to save money that may otherwise be wasted. I am not against green energy, but it is hard to fly commercial aircraft with such. Just don't worry about that "11 tonnes of CO2 per passenger" that's being pumped into the atmosphere. It wasn't happening in the 12th century, but temperatures were just as warm then - because of the cycles.

Empirical evidence supports the new cycle theory.

Empirical evidence does not support the old theory.

Discuss the evidence on my site with physicists who understand gravity and statisticians who understand trends. They are your experts and anyone who has done a degree in Physics and a couple of years of Statistics (as I have) will have adequate knowledge to understand the science.

Above all, be open-minded to new research and concepts - even before they are peer-reviewed. The evidence is strong enough to stop the panic and the useless introduction of carbon taxes. Calm down everyone. Stop raving on about peer reviewed stuff and majority opinions.

Science is science. The world is not flat, nor are temperature trends linear - the only linear trend is the build up of harmless, surplus CO2 which has no extra photons to capture - no extra warming it can contribute.

If you care to visit http://earth-climate.com you'll learn why adding extra CO2 has no further effect on temperatures. You'll also learn that the IPCC completely disregarded the component of temperature contributed by gravitational energy. And you'll learn that temperatures have not risen since 2003 despite increasing CO2 levels. So why will they increase in the next 10 years? They won't until about 2027 or 2028. Then they will increase for 30 years (as in 1970 to 2000.) It's all in the stars.

To say, when the force of the sun's gravity accelerates the Earth (F = ma) including its atmosphere, that no heat is generated would be as absurd as saying that when the moon circles the Earth no energy is transmitted to the oceans. Now wouldn't it?

The issue is whether the amount of heat generated VARIES.

It wouldn't if there were no planets and the Earth's orbit was perfectly circular and the Earth didn't spin. Now would it?

And when the variations that were observed in temperatures between 1880 and June 2011 can be FULLY explained by such variations in gravity (from the sun and planets) and when NO ADDITIONAL VARIATION correlates with CO2 levels it reduces the IPCC arguments to totally unscientific garbage. There is far more CO2 up there than is needed to convert all the available photons. Their "science" was based on laboratory experiments which did have enough photons - in the lab that was - hardly a real-life emulation!

It's so obvious you wonder how the IPCC missed it.