“The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
– Club of Rome
Premier environmental think-tank, consultants to the United Nations.
DRIESSEN: Climate alarmism’s 10,000 commandments
EPA fiats threaten the U.S. standard of living
The United States will “do more,” before it’s “too late” to prevent “dangerous” global warming, President Obama told Berliners last week. If Congress won’t act, he will.
Back in Washington, his Environmental Protection Agency is already devising oppressive new rules to control carbon dioxide emissions, by regulating thousands of facilities that use hydrocarbon energy — and ultimately, almost everything Americans make, grow, ship, eat and do.
However, the global-warming “disasters” exist only in computer models and assertions by scientists who are addicted to billions of dollars in government climate-Armageddon grants. Moreover, the “preventative measures” are far worse than the disasters EPA claims to be preventing.
Even the most diehard alarmists have finally recognized that average global temperatures have hardly budged since 1997, even as atmospheric levels of plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide have climbed steadily. For many areas, the past winter was among the coldest in decades. The United States and Britain just recorded one their coldest springs on record, and satellite data show that Earth has actually cooled slightly since 2002.
The frequency and severity of hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and droughts are no different from observed trends and cycles over the past century. Last year set records for the fewest strong tornadoes since 1954 and the number of years with no Category 3 or higher hurricane making U.S. landfall. (The vicious tornadoes of recent weeks underscore how quickly the weather can swing back to normal patterns.) Arctic sea ice is within a few percentage points of “normal” levels for the past 50 years, and the rate of sea-level rise is not accelerating.
These facts contradict computer-model predictions and alarmist claims. Moreover, as Climategate and numerous studies have shown, the “science” behind the EPA’s ruling that carbon dioxide “endangers” human health and welfare is conjectural, manufactured, manipulated and even fraudulent.
EPA is supposed to protect our environment, health and welfare. Instead, it “safeguards” us from exaggerated or illusory risks — by issuing mountains of costly, intrusive regulations that endanger our health, well-being and wildlife far more than any reasonably foreseeable effects from climate change.
This accumulation of anti-hydrocarbon restrictions and penalties is putting the agency in control of nearly every aspect of our lives. Fuel, compliance and business costs will soar. Companies will be forced to outsource work to other countries, reduce workforces, shift people to part-time status or close their doors.
Poor and minority families will be unable to heat and cool their homes properly, pay their rent or mortgage, buy clothing and medicine, take vacations, pay their bills, give to charity, and save for college and retirement.
With 12 million Americans already out of work, and an additional 8 million working multiple low-paying, part-time jobs, the EPA’s global-warming regulations and 1,920 other rules result in unprecedented sleep deprivation, lower economic and educational status, and soaring anxiety and stress. This is likely to lead to greater risk of strokes and heart attacks; higher incidences of depression, alcohol, drug, spousal and child abuse; more suicides; and declining overall life expectancy.
The agency’s new fuel-efficiency standard requiring vehicles to average 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025 will force more people into smaller, lighter, less-safe cars — causing thousands of needless additional serious injuries and deaths every year — in the name of preventing illusory climate and oil- and gas-depletion crises.
Federal regulators use the same phony climate-change and energy-depletion arguments to justify letting wind-turbine operators slaughter millions of birds and bats every year — including bald and golden eagles, hawks, condors and whooping cranes. They continue to subsidize $50-per-gallon biofuels to replace oil and natural gas that the world still has in abundance, thanks to new exploration, drilling and production technologies. As a result, rainforests and other wildlife habitats are being cut down in the name of “renewable” energy.
The EPA and Mr. Obama never consider any of this in calculating the supposed “benefits” of their onerous regulations. They refuse to recognize that their hysterical claims of climate cataclysms are increasingly indefensible. They ignore the damage that their heavy-handed rules impose on our health, welfare and environmental quality.
The agency targets and punishes anyone who violates any of its 10,000 commandments, even inadvertently. Its climate-change actions, however, are not inadvertent — they are deliberate, and their effects are harmful. They will affect virtually all Americans and the entire economy.
Yet these increasingly powerful bureaucrats — who seek and acquire ever-more control over our lives — remain faceless, nameless, unelected and unaccountable. They operate largely behind closed doors, issuing regulations and arranging sweetheart “sue-and-settle” legal actions with radical environmentalist groups to advance ideological agendas, without regard for the impacts on our lives.
We need to save our environment from environmentalists and the EPA, and safeguard our liberties and living standards from the arrogance of powerful politicians and bureaucrats. Achieving this while protecting our lives and environment from real risks is one of the greatest challenges we face.
Paul Driessen is senior policy adviser for the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow and author of “Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death” (Merril Press, 2012).
“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.”
– Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation
Not quite Mr Wirth:
Climate change alarmism has led to a frenzied ‘act NOW think later’ approach to climate policy, where all too often the pain is a lot, lot worse than the gain..
Greedy Africans are starving our cars
by PAUL DRIESSEN on JULY 2, 2013 Print This Post
US politicians and bureaucrats have less compassion and common sense that average Londoner
“You’ve heard of Live Aid? Well, this is Drive Aid,” an ardent young man says, as he approaches London pedestrians. “Greedy people in developing nations are eating huge amounts of food that could easily be turned into biofuel to power our cars. African acreage the size of Belgium is being used for food, and we’re saying it should go to cars here in the UK. Can we have your support?”
Londoners reacted with disbelief and outrage, the ActionAid UK video shows, and refused to sign his mock petition. The amusing stunt drove home a vital point: Biofuel programs are turning food into fuel, converting cropland into fuel production sites, and disrupting food supplies for hungry people worldwide. The misguided programs are having serious environmental consequences, as well.
Why, then, can’t politicians, bureaucrats and environmentalists display the common sense exhibited by London’s citizenry? Why did President Obama tell Africans (many of whom are malnourished) in July 2009 that they should refrain from using “dirty” fossil fuels and use their “bountiful” biofuel and other renewable energy resources, instead? When will Congress pull the plug on Renewable Fuel Standards?
Ethanol and other biofuels might have made some sense when Congress passed the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and established mandates (or “standards”) requiring that refiners and consumer purchase large quantities of ethanol and other biofuels. Back then, despite growing evidence to the contrary, many people thought we were running out of oil and gas, and believed manmade global warming threatened the planet. But this is not 2005. Those rationales are no longer persuasive.
The hydraulic fracturing revolution has obliterated the Club of Rome “peak oil” notion that we are rapidly exhausting the world’s petroleum. Climategate and other IPCC scandals demonstrated that the “science” behind climate cataclysm claims is conjectural, manipulated and even fraudulent. And actual observations of temperatures, storms, droughts, sea levels and Arctic ice have refused to cooperate with computer models and Hansen-Gore-EPA-IPCC disaster scenarios.
In fact, biofuels and Renewable Fuel Standards cannot be justified on any grounds.
The United States is using 40 million acres of cropland (Iowa plus New Jersey) and 45% of its corn crop to produce 14 billion gallons of ethanol annually. This amount of corn could feed some 570 million people, out of the 1.2 billion who still struggle to survive on $1.25 per day.
This corn-centric agriculture is displacing wheat and other crops, dramatically increasing grain and food prices, and keeping land under cultivation that would otherwise be returned to wildlife habitat. It requires millions of pounds of insecticides, billions of pounds of fertilizer, vast amounts of petroleum-based energy, and billions of gallons of water – to produce a fuel that gets one-third less mileage per gallon than gasoline and achieves no overall reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
Ethanol mandates have caused US corn prices to rocket from $1.96 per average bushel in 2005 to as much as $7.50 in autumn 2012 and $6.68 in June 2013. Corn growers and ethanol makers get rich. However, soaring corn prices mean beef, pork, poultry, egg and fish producers pay more for corn-based feed; grocery manufacturers pay more for corn, meat, fish and corn syrup; families pay more for everything on their dinner table; and starving Africans go hungry because aid agencies cannot buy as much food.
By 2022, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (amending the 2005 law) requires 15 billion gallons of corn-based ethanol and 21 billion gallons of cellulosic and other non-corn-based biofuels. That will monumentally worsen all these problems.
Equally insane, the Environmental Protection Agency’s draft rule for 2013 required that refiners purchase 14 million gallons of cellulosic biofuels. There’s a teensy problem: the fuel doesn’t exist. A mere 4,900 gallons were produced in March, and zero the other months. So companies are forced to buy fantasy fuel, fined big bucks if they do not, and punished if they get conned intobuying fraudulent “renewable fuel credits” from “socially responsible” companies like Clean Green Fuel, Absolute Fuels and Green Diesel.
Ethanol collects water, which can result in engine stalls. It corrodes plastic, rubber and soft metal parts. Pre-2001 car engines, parts and systems may not be able to handle E15 fuel blends (15% ethanol, 85% gasoline), adversely affecting engine, fuel pump and sensor durability. Older cars, motorcycles and boats fueled with E15 could conk out in dangerously inopportune places; at the very least they could require costly engine repairs. Lawn mowers and other gasoline-powered equipment are equally susceptible.
On a global scale, the biofuels frenzy is diverting millions of acres of farmland from food crops, converting millions of acres of rainforest and other wildlife habitat into farmland, and employing billions of gallons of water, to produce corn, jatropha, palm oil and other crops for use in producing politically correct biodiesel and other biofuels.
To top off this seemingly inexhaustible list of policy idiocies, all this ethanol and other biofuel could easily be replaced with newly abundant oil and gas supplies. Amazing new seismic, deepwater, deep drilling, hydraulic fracturing and other technologies have led to discoveries of huge new reserves of oil and natural gas – and enabled companies to extract far more petroleum from reservoirs once thought to have been depleted.
That means we can now get vastly more energy from far less land; with far fewer impacts on environmental quality, biodiversity and endangered species; and with none of the nasty effects on food supplies, food prices and world hunger that biofuel lunacy entails.
We could do that – if radical greens in the Obama Administration, United Nations and eco pressure groups would end their ideological opposition to leasing, drilling, fracking, Outer Continental Shelf and Arctic National Wildlife Refuge development, Canadian oil sands, the Keystone pipeline and countless other projects. We could do so, if they would stop behaving like environmentalist Bull Connors, arrogantly blocking the doors to human and civil rights progress.
This colossal global biofuels industry exists only because resource depletion and climate Armageddon ideologies do not die easily – and because politicians lavish government mandates and billions of dollars in taxpayer and consumer subsidies on firms that have persuasive lobbyists and reliable track records for channeling millions of those dollars back to the politicians who keep the racket going.
The ActionAid UK video has lent some good British gallows humor to a serious issue. As another well-known Brit might say, it is time rein in a global SPECTRE that has wreaked too much human and environmental havoc.
To get that long overdue effort underway, Congress needs to amend the 2005 Energy Policy Act, eliminate the Renewable Fuel Standards and end the taxpayer subsidies.
A few thousand farmers and ethanol makers will undoubtedly feel some pain. A few hundred politicians will have less money in their reelection coffers. However, countless wild creatures will breathe much easier in their newly safe natural habitats – and millions of families will enjoy a new birth of freedom, a new wave of economic opportunity, and welcome relief from hunger and malnutrition.
Courtesy: Conservative Action Alerts
“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…
climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
bring about justice and equality in the world.”
– Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment
Thursday, July 11, 2013
Just the facts ma’amThe Weather Channel’s case for global warming courtesy of the climate clowns at climate central and the ‘comedy’? company formerly known as TWC/WSI/Wunderground now under the tailfeathers of MSNBC. Jack Webb in the old show Dragnet had among his memorable saying “Just the fact ma’am”. Thats what we will do. The alarmists ignore the inconvenient facts and instead call to authority – the bogus 97% consensus.
Seriously, you may have heard that The Weather Channel/WSI/Wunderground/Weather Central all under the NBC Universal umbrella and are teaming with Climate Central (remember Heidi Cullen) will be promoting global warming alarmist and hyping every weather event as if we never had a heat wave, cold wave, snowstorm, hurricane, forest fire, tornado outbreak before the greenhouse theory was adopted by environmentalists and politicians and, who spent $100B to bribe scientists to support their theory and for useful idiots in the media like those at the NBC Universal family to carry the water which they gladly do, never questioning them like good journalists used to do.
Climate Central and Heidi Cullen, formerly with TWC is feeding her tall tales to TV broadcasters on WSI and Weather Central systems for daily graphics that the TV mets can use to indoctrinate the audience, I thought I would once a week provide some other facts they would like to ignore.
You see they are feeling pressure with the stories, largely ignored by the mainstream media that warming has stopped and frustrated by public apathy (rank global warming actions 21st out of 21 in terms of priority for government (down 2% to 28%)
First temperatures have stopped warming in all the data bases going back as far as 1997. All are showing a cooling since 2002 even as CO2 continues to rise. This is true even though CO2 has continued to rise. This happened before from the 1940s to late 1970s during the post war boom.
This is in sharp contrast to what the climate models have predicted.
One of the strongest signature of greenhouse theory in all the climate model is a hot spot in the tropics peaking at higher levels. That is not seen in either the weather balloons and satellite data.
Tropical oceans are supposed to be warming too. But with excellent buoy data across the Pacific to monitor ENSO, we see no warming back to 1979 down to 300 meters in the tropical ocean (130E to 80W).
An article published today in Nature laments the dismal failure of climate models to predict climate a mere 5 years into the future, much less a century from now:
“The dramatic warming predicted after 2008 has yet to arrive.” “It’s fair to say that the real world warmed even less than our forecast suggested,” [modeller] Smith says. “We don’t really understand at the moment why that is.”
“Although I have nothing against this endeavour as a research opportunity, the papers so far have mostly served as a ‘disproof of concept’,” says Gavin Schmidt. Schmidt says that these efforts are “a little misguided”. He argues that it is difficult to attribute success or failure to any particular parameter because the inherent unpredictability of weather and climate is built into both the Earth system and the models. “It doesn’t suggest any solutions,” he says. “Because the climate does not usually change drastically from one year to the next, the model is bound to start off predicting conditions that are close to reality. But that effect quickly wears off as the real climate evolves. If this is the source of the models’ accuracy, that advantage fades quickly after a few years.”
“Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, says that it could be a decade or more before this research really begins to pay off in terms of predictive power, and even then climate scientists will be limited in what they can say about the future.” Once again, modelers attempt to explain away their failures due to the dubious excuse of Trenberth’s “missing heat” sinking undetected to the bottom of the ocean.
There was a lot of buzz with the hot summer last year when ocean temperatures reinforced ridging over the drought stricken central producing a heat ridge and very warm weather in March and July.
But as Dr. John Christy showed in Senate testimony last summer, no state all-time records were set and the 1930s still dominates.
As for individual station records, there are many coop and stations with short history, which would add to the number of highest ever. John Christy also showed, if you focus only on stations with 80+ years of record that went back to the hot 1930s and 1950s, last year was just a blip.
The 1930s was suppressed in the altered global data sets by adjustments made in the 2000s. They did not adjust records, just monthly and annual averages. The records show the true trend better than the computed global average surface temperature.
Back in 1934 the US data was as depicted below with an interesting factual comment from James Hansen. Note how 1998 was 0.3C (0.5F) cooler than 1934.
This presented a dilemma for the global warming community because the US lacking of warming was in sharp contrast with the global. The secret was the US had an adjustment for Urban Heat Island in the US that was not done for the global.
Around 2007, NOAA removed the UHI adjustment for US data so that a warming could be shown. Notice how this brought 1998 up to the level of 1998.
Dr. Edward Long had shown the difference between true rural and urban temperatures for the lower 48 states.
Brian Stone of Georgia Tech in 2009 found “Across the U.S. as a whole, approximately 50 percent of the warming that has occurred since 1950 is due to land use changes…rather than to the emission of greenhouse gases.” Most large U.S. cities, including Atlanta, are warming at more than twice the rate of the planet as a whole…”
We will talk about the UHI and bad siting contamination, no trends in extremes (except winter hemispheric snows) and the other theory failures in upcoming posts. We will show how natural factors can explain all the decadal and longer term changes and the changing frequency of the various extremes.
The two events that ‘appear’ to agree with prediction are increased Atlantic Basin hurricanes and decreasing arctic ice. But these are due to natural factors – as Joe Bastardi and I have written over the years, the hurricanes are increasing in line with forecasts in 1995 by Bill Gray when the warm AMO mode returned. When the AMO was positive before from the 1930s to 1960 we had 8 major east coast landfalls. Also the warm AMO and PDO are what drive arctic ice changes and arctic temperatures as IARC UAF has shown and I have published in 2012. We will discuss that too.
“I believe it is appropriate to have an ‘over-representation’ of the facts
on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience.”
– Al Gore,
Climate Change activist
by John Happs
July 13, 2013
In 2006, the movie An Inconvenient Truth (AIT) was released along with Al Gore’s book on “the planetary emergency of global warming.” Both movie and book received widespread attention and acclaim. Politicians, environmentalists and elements of the media quickly embraced the global warming creed’s doomsday message to promote agendas such as taxing carbon dioxide, slowing economic growth, de-industrialisation and so-called green energy.
Whilst the media was quick to advertise the alarmism of AIT, it gave scant attention to the later events of October, 2007, when Chief Justice Michael Burton in London’s High Court identified many claims promoted in AIT as having been made in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration.” Expert scientific adviser Professor Bob Carter provided evidence on behalf of Stewart Dimmock, the school governor who objected to AIT’s propaganda being distributed throughout the UK schools systems.
Chief Justice Burton pointed out that the “apocalyptic vision” promoted in AIT was politically partisan, not an impartial analysis of the science of climate change. Although Burton ruled that the movie could be shown in UK schools, he added that it must be accompanied by a cautionary statement about the political/ideological nature of the movie. If this did not occur, then screening the movie would contravene an Act of Parliament (section 406 of the Education Act 1996) designed to prohibit the political indoctrination of school children.
Justice Burton identified nine AIT claims which he readily identified as inaccurate. These were:
1. Gore claimed that we can expect a sea level rise of up to 6 metres by the melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland ice sheets. He implied that this would be in the near future and would displace large numbers of people from locations such as Manhattan, the Netherlands and Bangladesh.
TRUTH: Greenland ice cores show that the medieval, Roman, Minoan, Egyptian and other periods were warmer than current temperatures in Greenland. Gore’s assertion is easily refuted. Justice Burton found no evidence to support Gore’s claim.
2. Gore claimed that low-lying Pacific Islands are being inundated as a result of anthropogenic global warming with island populations being evacuated to New Zealand.
TRUTH: There is no evidence of sea level rise over the last 50 years and no evidence that Pacific Islands are under any threat.Gore’s assertion is easily refuted. Justice Burton found no evidence to support Gore’s claim.
3. Gore claimed that anthropogenic global warming could shut down the thermohaline circulation and move Europe into a new ice age.
TRUTH: There is no evidence of any weakening of the thermohaline circulation. Gore’s assertion is easily refuted. Justice Burton found no evidence to support Gore’s claim.
4. Gore displayed graphs showing rising levels of carbon dioxide and increases in global temperature, with the implication that carbon dioxide levels drive global temperature.
TRUTH: Changes in global temperature precede changes in carbon dioxide levels. Gore’s assertion is easily refuted. Justice Burton found no evidence to support Gore’s claim.
5. Gore claimed that anthropogenic global warming is responsible for snowmelt on Africa’s Mount Kilimanjaro.
TRUTH: In fact melting of the Furtwangler Glacier at the summit of the mountain began more than 125 years ago and temperatures at the summit never rise above freezing point. Gore’s assertion is easily refuted. Justice Burton found no evidence to support Gore’s claim.
6. Gore claimed that Africa’s lake Chad had dried up as a result of global warming.
TRUTH: In fact the lake has been dry on numerous occasions in the past (8500 BC, 5500 BC, 1000 BC and 100 BC) due to over-extraction and changing agricultural practices. Gore’s assertion is easily refuted. Justice Burton found no evidence to support Gore’s claim.
7. Gore claimed that Hurricane Katrina which devastated New Orleans in 2005 resulted from global warming.
TRUTH: Katrina was downgraded to category 3 when it made a direct hit on the levees, which failed as engineers predicted they would. Gore made no mention of the Category 4 Galveston hurricane that struck the Texas coast in 1900, or the Category 4 Palm Beach, Florida, of 1928. Gore’s assertion is easily refuted. Justice Burton found no evidence to support Gore’s claim.
8. Gore claimed that polar bears were dying because they had to swim long distances to find ice, which was said to be disappearing due to global warming.
TRUTH: It is not unusual for Arctic sea ice to disappear over time and, despite continued hunting, polar bear numbers have grown from around 5,000 in the 1950’s to more than 25,000 today – the largest number since records began. Gore’s assertion is easily refuted. Justice Burton found no evidence to support Gore’s claim.
9. Gore claimed that coral reefs are being bleached because of global warming.
Strong El Nino events will lead to coral bleaching but there is no evidence to show that global warming would have long-term negative impacts on coral reefs. Gore’s assertion is easily refuted. Justice Burton found no evidence to support Gore’s claim.
It could be argued that Chief Justice Burton was far too generous in his criticisms of AIT, since many more of Gore’s errors can be identified and just as easily refuted. These include statements such as:
- 100 ppm of carbon dioxide leads to the difference between a nice day and having a mile of ice above your head;
- ice melt leads to the sun heating the Arctic Ocean;
- the Arctic is heating faster than the rest of the planet;
- a record number of typhoons impacted Japan in 2004;
- carbon dioxide is pollution; atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide will exceed 600 ppm by 2050;
- in 2003, global warming caused the European heat wave and killed 35,000 people.
Gore also asserted, without evidence, that
- global warming is producing stronger hurricanes;
- insurance claims are increasing due to more extreme weather events;
- flooding in Mumbai is increasing;
- severe tornadoes are becoming more frequent;
- the Greenland Ice Sheet is becoming unstable;
- Himalayan glacial meltwater is declining;
- Peruvian glaciers are disappearing;
- Mountain glaciers are disappearing around the world;
- The Sahara Desert is drying;
- The West Antarctic ice sheet is becoming unstable;
- Antarctic ice shelves are breaking up;
- Mosquitoes are reaching higher altitudes;
- Many tropical diseases are increasing, with West Nile virus spreading throughout the USA.
Gore and other alarmists rely on the generally low level of scientific literacy in the public and political communities to promote their unsubstantiated views. In fact, each of the above claims made by Gore can easily be checked in the scientific literature and shown to have little substance. Christopher Monckton has summarized rebuttals for each one.
In An Inconvenient Truth science is discarded and replaced by scaremongering and pseudoscience. Marlo Lewis has demonstrated howAIT is one-sided, misleading, exaggerated, speculative and just bad science. Anyone with even a cursory understanding of climate science would have to agree.
So how did CSIRO climate scientists respond when, in September, 2006, Liz Minchin from The Age invited a number of our “best and brightest” to preview AIT and “rate its scientific merit out of five.” Dr Penny Whetton, CSIRO’s Climate Change Impact and Risk leader, was fulsome in her praise for the Australian scientists who had advanced awareness of greenhouse gases, and she was just as enthusiastic about Gore’s flick. So let’s start off with her reaction to AIT. She said:
“I was really quite moved, and given that this film was about a topic I deal with every day, this says something about how powerfully it communicates its message. Its scientific basis is very sound.”
Rating: 4.75 out of 5
Liz Minchin then asked Dr Kevin Hennessy, Principal Research Scientist, CSIRO Climate Impacts and Risk group who said:
“The only minor quibble I had was that Gore implies that most of the climate trends and recent extreme events are due to human activities. It’s not quite that simple … But easily the best documentary about global warming I’ve seen.”
Rating: 4.5 out of 5
The next reviewer was Dr Kathy McInnes, Senior Research Scientist, CSIRO Climate Impacts and Risk group who said:
“There were bits and pieces that were glossed over … But I was surprised by how accurate the science was overall.”
Rating: 4.5 out of 5
Then came Dr Graeme Pearman, former CSIRO Director of Atmospheric Research. He said:
“By and large, I didn’t feel that the presentation overstated what we can say based on current scientific knowledge.”
Rating: 4 out of 5
When Minchin asked Dr Barrie Pittock, former CSIRO Climate Impact group leader, for his opinion and rating, he expressed entirely satisfied:
“It is technically brilliant, remarkably accurate and up to date, and should be palatable to a wide audience.
Rating: 5 out of 5
Remarkably accurate? Sound scientific basis? Frankly, I found the above responses most embarrassing and I’m left wondering if these CSIRO scientists actually watched the same movie I did. I showed An Inconvenient Truth to some of my university students as an illustration of how climate science can be exaggerated and distorted for political/ideological purposes. Even undergraduate students can recognize alarmist nonsense.
There was no empirical evidence pointing to catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) when Gore’s movie was released in 2006 and there is none today, despite the questionable process and findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Why then is the notion of CAGW still promoted by the CSIRO, and why do its scientists still assign any credibility to the IPCC?
It appears that significant CSIRO funding comes from federal, state and local government agencies, underwriting a policy of pursuing climate issues from a warmist perspective. This has helped fund unvalidated computer-model projections of more frequent droughts, global-temperature increases and sea-level rises, all conveyed with unjustified alarmism.
Atmospheric scientist Dr David Packham, a former principal research scientist with Australia’s CSIRO, made the point:
“I find that I am uncomfortable with the quality of the science being applied to the global warming question … research funding for environmental research in Australia, in my case mercury and wildfires, is almost impossible unless it is part of yet more greenhouse-data gathering. There is also an atmosphere of intimidation if one expresses dissenting views or evidence.”
Atmospheric physicist Professor Garth Paltridge was a chief scientist with the CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research:
“They (CSIRO) have been so successful with their message of greenhouse doom that, should one of them prove tomorrow that it is nonsense, the discovery would have to be suppressed for the sake of the overall reputation of science.”
“The bottom line is that virtually all climate research in Australia is funded from one source – namely, the government department which has the specific task of selling to the public the idea that something drastic and expensive has to be done.”
Former CSIRO Chief Scientist Dr Art Raiche observed:
“We were given very strict, VERY strict guidelines on not publishing anything or publicly discussing any research that could be seen as critical to Government policy. If we did not do it, we would be subject to dismissal.”
A senior CSIRO environmental economist, Dr Clive Spash, resigned after saying his criticism of the emissions trading scheme (ETS) was censored. Spash had been in a dispute over the publication of his paper which criticised carbon trading schemes.
Spash submitted his paper to the UK journal New Political Economy in 2009 but the CSIRO contacted the editors, telling them the paper was being withdrawn because it had not been approved through internal CSIRO processes. Dr Spash said that CSIRO managers maintained they had the right to ban the paper. He resigned after saying his criticism of the emissions trading scheme (ETS) had been censored.
A 2006 ABC Four Corners interview between former CSIRO scientist Dr Graeme Pearman (not an anthropogenic global warming skeptic) and reporter Janine Cohen revealed some interesting insights into CSIRO culture. Here is an extract:
Q. The Federal Government provides the majority of the funding to CSIRO; has that compromised the organisation in recent years?
A. There are times when it does.
Q. How were you pressured not to talk about climate change?
A. Well I was actually told that I couldn’t engage in the group but at that stage it was pretty late and in fact publications had already been prepared and so I was told what I could and couldn’t say publicly.
Q. And what were you told?
A. I was told that I couldn’t ah say anything that indicated that I disagreed with current government policy and I presume that meant Federal Government policy and as I say, I tried to reiterate that in fact the document that we had prepared, any public statement that I made, was a partisan statement and that it did not refer to any particular government.
Q. Did you feel compromised?
A. I was definitely compromised and it was probably only because I was in the latter stages of my career that I could handle, I could see that a young scientist placed in this position in the earlier stage of their career would probably have to roll over.
Q. Were you restricted from talking publicly about emission reductions in general?
A. Yes I was. I think it’s an organisation, it’s a CSIRO that is very afraid um that there may be consequences to their bottom line if they in fact are seen to be interfering with um government policy.
Q. Is there pressure to have only scientific results that deliver economic results?
A. Yes, lots.
Scientists from the CSIRO are involved in the production of IPCC reports as contributors and reviewers. The CSIRO is quick to offer support for the IPCC process and its findings, despite ample evidence showing how both are seriously flawed.
Endorsing and promoting integrity in science should be the goal of anyone practicing or teaching science at any level. Yet we appear to have the blatant politicising of science by vested interest groups such as the CSIRO, the IPCC, various environmental groups and, of course, individuals such as Al Gore.
A relatively small group of individuals has exerted a disproportionate amount of influence to promote alarmism about unsubstantiated catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. Presumably, if the alarmism were to disappear then so might their funding.
Shame on any scientist who places self-interest above the integrity of science.
Dr John Happs has an academic background in the geosciences. He has been a science educator at several universities in Australia and overseas
This is how to interview a warming alarmist ~
Andrew Neil: Now, are you ready for a puzzle? Well, here’s one. Can global warming be happening as expected, when the world has stopped getting hotter? That’s the brain-teaser that’s troubling scientists and which threatens to shatter the consensus over global warming.
Global temperatures have increased by 0.8 degrees Celsius since the industrial revolution. But since the late 1990s, they’ve stalled, despite the fact that emissions of greenhouse gases have continued apace. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere reached 400 parts per million for the first time earlier this year. The pause has led some climate scientists to question whether there could be something wrong with their models. One eminent German professor [Hans von Storch, University of Hamburg] has said: “So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. We’re facing a puzzle…”
The Climate Change Secretary, Ed Davey, has said that this normal expression of scientific uncertainty is no reason to reconsider energy and climate change policies, even though his department says they’re already adding £112 to annual household bills, a number which is set to rise. Speaking last month, he described people who cast doubt on the scientific consensus as “crackpots and conspiracy theorists”, and he warned the press not to give an “uncritical campaigning platform” to people who deny that climate change is man-made.
Ed Davey, Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, joins me now for the Sunday interview.
Andrew Neil: Ed Davey, welcome. In a speech on June 2nd you said that healthy scepticism is part of the scientific process. Then, a couple of weeks later, you described anybody who challenged the climate change consensus as – quote – “crackpots and conspiracy theorists”. So, what is it?
Ed Davey: Well, I do think we should always challenge the science – of course, we should – and there’s a healthy debate amongst climate change scientists. But the vast majority of climate change scientists believe that climate change is happening and that man-made activity is causing it. So it’s a tiny number of people who believe that it’s not happening and that man isn’t responsible for it. And I have to say that I agree with President Obama in his recent speech, when he said we don’t need another meeting of the Flat Earth Society. We need to get on and tackle climate change, and I agree with him.
Andrew Neil: So the scientists who challenge the consensus are “crackpots”.
Ed Davey: No, what I was saying – I was referring to a particular issue there. I do think there’s a – of course, we should have a debate, I’m not against debate. What we’ve seen in the press –
Andrew Neil: You said that newspapers shouldn’t publish their views.
Ed Davey: No, no, I didn’t say that. What I’ve actually said, and I completely stand by that, is that we’ve seen a completely unchallenged view of the climate change deniers. I think we need rather more balance in the debate, particularly when we saw recent analysis on 12,000 scientific papers, and of the scientists who expressed a view – on climate change papers – of the scientists who expressed a view, 97% said that climate change was happening and that it was human-made activities – human activity that caused it.
Andrew Neil: That survey, of course, has been substantially discredited.
Ed Davey: Well, I don’t believe it has –
Andrew Neil: Oh no, it has. Let me tell you – 35% of the abstracts were misclassified, and they were classified to the pro-global warming side. Professor Richard Tol, the expert most quoted approvingly in this report, has disassociated himself from this survey – he said it’s not reliable.
Ed Davey: If you look at –
Andrew Neil: That’s your survey.
Ed Davey: If you look at what the scientists are saying – take the Chief Scientist to the government who’s just stepped down, Sir John Beddington. You and I, through our taxes, pay for these scientists. He said, in his speech as he left, that the evidence was unequivocal, unambiguous. The Chief Scientist in my department, Professor David McKay, is of a similar view. So I have to say, the science is on the side that we need to take action. And let’s just – hang on for a second, let’s just imagine that the huge majority of scientists are wrong. Let’s just say that climate change deniers are right. Do you think it’s sensible that we gamble, that we say “Well, actually, even if most of the scientists say it’s happening, we should ignore them”? I say that we take a cautious approach and just as you, and many others – I hope, all your viewers – insure their houses against the very unlikely chance of fire burning heir house down, I think, given the risks of climate change are much greater, with more more devastating effects, we should – to humankind – we should invest in a little insurance policy to tackle climate change.
Andrew Neil: Right, well, let’s just look at this [shows graph of global temperatures between 1980 and 2012, rising and then levelling off] graph going up here – shows temperatures rising since 1980, it’s a trend. We’ve flattened it out a little bit, just to get rid of the ups and downs – that’s the trend. Then it sudden – it rises and then it suddenly, around 1997, it plateaus and it’s still plateauing. Isn’t that a bit of a puzzle?
Ed Davey: Well, actually no. When you talk to people at the Met Office, at the Hadley Centre, they expect, in their models, that there will be short-term variation in this century, a rather longer-term time series than you’ve shown there. If you took that much longer, you’d find that the beginning of the 20th century there was a plateau, in the 1950s there was a plateau –
Andrew Neil: That’s nothing to do with global warming.
Ed Davey: – so the short – of course, we were emitting –
Andrew Neil: No, the IPCC reports says that the real CO2 emission, rising temperatures, really kicked in after 1980. Now there is no –
Ed Davey: No, I’m afraid you’re wrong –
Andrew Neil: – there is no Met model, there is no Met model that predicted this plateau.
Ed Davey: First of all, you’re completely wrong to suggest that people in the climate change science community think it only started in 1980. That is simply not true. And in terms of the most recent decade, let’s remember – it was the warmest on record. And even if you look at the temperature analysis, that is pretty striking. But I think that’s a very narrow way of looking at climate change science. If you talk to the climate change scientist community, you’ve got to look at things like the temperature of the seas, because that’s surface – land surface temperature. The oceans have continued to warm. And you’ve got to look at sea levels – sea levels have continued to rise.
Andrew Neil: Let me show you this –
Ed Davey: No, no, no, it’s very important we hear the actual science, because you’re not showing the full picture there.
Andrew Neil: Let me show you this –
Ed Davey: If you look at the ice caps – the ice caps are continuing to melt. All that is part of the –
Andrew Neil: We still have a puzzle. [Shows graph comparing temperature rise and CO2 levels between 1980 and 2012, with a widening gap towards the end.] We still have a puzzle, because this is the temperature and here we have superimposed the carbon dioxide, the CO2 going up in quantity. Now, is there not, at least when you look at that, clear at least that there is a possibility – I put it not higher than that – that there is something of a disconnect, now, between CO2 emissions and temperatures.
Ed Davey: If you had a longer time series, most climate change scientists would say that is completely consistent with data we’ve seen previously. And I go back –
Andrew Neil: Climate scientists can’t explain this disconnect, at the moment.
Ed Davey: No, they can, actually. What they are saying –
Andrew Neil: Well, let me put you to – you may react to this, but this is just to amplify the question. [Screen shows a quote from Dr. Doug Smith, Met Office: “It’s fair to say that the world warmed even less than our forecast suggested… We don’t really understand at the moment why that is.”] Dr. Doug Smith, climate scientist at the Met Office: “It’s fair to say that the world warmed even less than our forecast suggested… We don’t really understand at the moment why that is.” So we don’t know why there is a disconnect.
Ed Davey: And I went to the Met Office recently and did a speech at the Met Office, talked to the leading scientists – Doug Smith was there – and what they are saying is: you shouldn’t just look at surface temperature. You should look at the temperature of the oceans. You should look at the level of the sea, which are still rising. You should look at the ice caps, which are still melting. You should look at the increasing frequency of severe weather events. So if you just look at one bit of it, information, which is what you’re doing today, I’m afraid you’re not seeing the full picture.
Andrew Neil: Just sticking with that one bit of information – when this plateau started to develop, and some academics started to write about it in 2006, the people who advise you – so, Phil Jones at the Climate Research Unit, University of East Anglia, in a world centre of climate science – he described the idea of a plateau as nonsense and stupid. The Met Office denied that a plateau was even happening.
Ed Davey: And Andrew, and Andrew – that’s what I, as I said in my Met speech, which you read out a few minutes ago, I think we should have a healthy scepticism within the climate change science. Why? Because climate science is incredibly complicated – it’s new, innovative science. And so no-one, actually, if you talk to the climate change scientists – including the people you mention – none of them actually say we know everything for sure. Of course they don’t – few scientists say they know anything. But the question is: would you be – would you be prepared, would any government be prepared to take a gamble on the future of our planet, when the vast majority of the science shows that climate change is happening.
Andrew Neil: All right. Can – on this plateau, though, you said that simulations show this plateau happening. We could – the Met Office could produce none to show that this plateau could happen. Scientists at the University of Hamburg, which is one of the world’s leading centres, institutes of climate science – they have looked at all the climate models, they’ve run the simulations and they produce a 15-year plateau in only 2% of the simulations. They just don’t happen on the models you depend on. And if I just show you what the professor at the climate institute in Hamburg [Hans von Storch] said: “If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models…”
Ed Davey: Well, very interesting, obviously I’d like to see more of that, but since when you just quoted Dr. Doug Smith at the Met Office, you came to a conclusion which the Met Office wouldn’t have agreed with. I don’t know what the University of Hamburg thinks, whether they think that climate change is clearly not happening or whether – as in that quote, actually, he was saying – we need to look at our models. No-one is suggesting, I’m not suggesting, I don’t think climate change scientists are suggesting that we know our models are completely perfect. That would be nonsense, to suggest that. But given the evidence, not just in temperature rises, which is what you’re focussing on, today – you’re ignoring all the things I’m saying about the rising heat in the oceans, the caps on the – the ice caps, the Arctic and Antarctic, the rising sea levels, the extreme weather events – why are you choosing to ignore that?
Andrew Neil: Because I’m sticking to the temperature, because that is what the computer models are most concentrated on.
Ed Davey: Well, I’m afraid you’re looking at a partial part of the science –
Andrew Neil: I could get into ocean temperatures with you –
Ed Davey: Please do.
Andrew Neil: – and I could point out that the Arctic ice melt did not happen other than normally this year, and last winter grew back. But I want to stick with the temperatures –
Ed Davey: Let’s – can we talk about the ice caps –
Andrew Neil: No, I want to stick with the temperatures.
Ed Davey: – because I’ve got the figures for you, because your figures are very –
Andrew Neil: Professor Storch says that if there’s a 20-year plateau, then we’ll need to have a fundamental re-examination of climate change policy – not to abandon it but to wonder whether we should be doing it so quickly and in the way we’re doing it. Now the Met is now predicting – that’s the Met that denied a plateau was happening – they’re saying that this plateau could now continue to 2017. That would be 20 years. If it’s still plateau in 20 years, will you re-evaluate the situation?
Ed Davey: Well, we re-evaluate our policy all along, but the climate change science – under the fact that the world is warming because of CO2 emissions in the atmosphere – I think is unambiguous. The science is clear, the physics is completely uncontested – if you put carbon emissions in the atmosphere it warms up the world, that is uncontested. What is a debate – and it’s quite a reasonable debate – is how quickly that is happening –
Andrew Neil: That’s right.
Ed Davey: – and looking at all the different aspects of it. But that does not mean that we shouldn’t take action, Not only if you take the insurance argument that I’ve talked about – it’s very – if there’s a risk, surely you insure against it – but also because the things we are doing – making people’s homes warmer through energy efficiency, investing in clean energy that doesn’t pollute – that’s good for people’s health, it also creates jobs. If you go to China – and I’m speaking, actually, later today to the relevant minister from China, about what’s happening there – they’re worried about pollution from coal power stations –
Andrew Neil: Of course.
Ed Davey: – not simply because of climate change but because of air pollution it’s causing. So there are many reasons for taking up policies. Let me finish this point, because one of the great things about the way we’re tackling climate change is a lot of our policies are “no regrets”. If you’ve actually cleaned up the energy, you’ve cleaned up the atmosphere, you’ve absolutely –
Andrew Neil: All right. But your policies are hugely expensive, they’re over £400 billion –
Ed Davey: No they’re not. No they’re not.
Andrew Neil: – in the Climate Change Act, it’s the £400 billion that’s in the Climate Change Act
Ed Davey: Well, I’m happy to talk about the cost.
Andrew Neil: The point I’m trying to get to you is: there are a number of climate scientists out there – they’re not denying that CO2 emissions can increase the temperature. What they’re looking at, again, is whether it leads to such a quick and large rise in temperatures that the IPCC has predicted – that central forecast was 3% for this century. Now if I could just [Ed Davey is trying to respond] – even I get allowed to finish the point, just as you have. Professor Piers Forster, Leeds University, climate change professor: that the higher temperatures now are “unlikely”. Professor of Geosystems at Oxford [Myles Allen]: the higher temperatures’ outlook – “iffy”. Professor Judith Curry, Head of Climate Science at the world-famous Georgia Institute of Technology: “the models are running too hot. Temperatures could stay flat for another decade or two”. Now if, as we originally thought, it’s not working out, my point to you is: don’t you want to step back and reconsider policy?
Ed Davey: If our policies were as expensive as you suggested, we would obviously want to look at them, but – the figure you gave at the top of the programme. You said that our policies are putting £112 on people’s bills. well, let’s look at that.
Andrew Neil: That’s your figure.
Ed Davey: I’m about to – I’ll give you the breakdown of that. The vast majority of that £112 is tackling fuel poverty, making people’s homes warmer. That’s a no-regrets, because it reduces energy bills long-term. That’s what I mean. A lot of the policies we’re doing you should do anyway. Only a small part of that £112 that you mentioned, which you tried to say was the cost of climate change – completely falsely, I have to say – only a small amount is in subsidising renewable and low-carbon energies. That’s why we’re taking a very rational, sensible, moderate approach to this. So it may well be – and I’m not denying it – that the climate change won’t go in the central forecast. If you look at what the models, all the scientists you talked about – they believe you have a range, you have a range of scenarios, just like you do when you forecast inflation or growth.
Andrew Neil: I understand that.
Ed Davey: And the science behind that is actually rather more developed and mature –
Andrew Neil: What I put to you is that there’s a lot of climate scientists are now saying as a result of this pause, that perhaps the lower range is now more likely than the higher range.
Ed Davey: The lower range is still scary.
Andrew Neil: Well – well, let me… If temperatures were to rise by 1 degree Celsius, what would be the consequences for Britain?
Ed Davey: Well, we are seeing some of the consequences, if you talk to the farmers, if you look at the money we’re spending on floods and so on, we can’t absolutely prove that it’s down to climate change, but –
Andrew Neil: You can’t prove it at all.
Ed Davey: – many people think it is. But –
Andrew Neil: What would the consequences, be if you had a –
Ed Davey: – the moment [inaudible] and you can reply –
Andrew Neil: – the central forecast you proceeded on has been – IPCC central forecast of almost 3% rise in temperatures. If it turned out, as some climate scientists are now saying, there is actually going to be 1%, what would be bad for Britain?
Ed Davey: First of all, very few scientists are saying that, so your viewers need to understand that what you’ve talked about there, a 1%, is held by a tiny minority of scientists. The vast majority of scientists, who advertise [sic] us, other countries, American President Obama and others, are worried that we’re not going to hit the 2 degree target which we set, that we said we needed to stay within, where on all the projections that you’re talking about will go above that. Frankly, if we kept to 2 degrees, that would be a real step forward and we would reduce the amount of damage that we would see. So, I have to tell you that if you are a serious government, looking at the science in an objective, neutral way, you would take action. You wouldn’t gamble on our children’s future, on our grandchildren’s future – that would be deeply, deeply irresponsible.
Andrew Neil: Nor would you necessarily rush to spend, as you’re doing, £100 billion on wind power and you would perhaps, if you thought that temperatures were now not going to be as aggressive as the IPCC, you would take time to develop carbon storage, you would take time to develop proper battery storage so that wind power –
Ed Davey: Andrew -…
h/T Andrew Bolt Blog
BBC2 Video Here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23306153