WHEN the Abbott Government axed the Climate Commission in 2013, in what was its very first act of government, professional alarmist Tim Flannery and his mates immediately created a Climate Council to keep up their propagandising.
IT wasn’t a hard decision for then PM Abbott to make considering the string of outlandish claims made by Flannery and the Commission…
IN what was to be their final report and parting gift to the Australian taxpayer, the Climate Commission’s 2013 “Critical Decade” report, claimed that there is a one-in-two chance that there will be no humans left on the planet by 2100
This morning Tim Flannery & Co [at the Climate Council] must be tickled pink to see how much adverse publicity they have generated [with their report last week], and not merely in the domestic press. From Pakistan to the Caribbean there are stories today about the slow death of the Great Barrier Reef, the intolerable heat allegedly set to afflict the Red Centre and how big chunks of Hobart will be swallowed by the heat-swollen waters of the Great Southern Ocean.
That there are casualties and collateral damage as a consequence of one organisation’s blinkered determination to promote itself and its allies’ climate cause should not need to be stated…
[T]here were no reassuring words from Queensland Tourism Minister Kate Jones… So how did the tourism minister react to the Climate Council’s codswallop and bleak appraisal of tourism’s future? Why, God help us, she endorsed it!….
That impression that North Queensland (and the Centre and Hobart, too) are not worth a visit would be hard to avoid in light of the Reef-is-dying coverage the Climate Council orchestrated. Below, a collection of international headlines and snippets re-broadcasting word of the Reef’s impending demise:
THIS latest episode of climate alarmism churned out of Flannery’s panic-factory, based solely on the ‘evidence’ of broken and overheated UN IPCC computer models further trashes Australia’s international reputation, directly affecting the crucial tourist industry and the livelihoods of the good people who are employed within it.
AT risk, an estimated 10,000 jobs. How many more are at risk now?
WHO will be made accountable or held responsible for the exaggeration of data and wreckless alarmism? No one, of course. Because again, the worst any climate change alarmist can ever be accused of is an excess of “Save the planet” virtue.
Institutionalised data bias is a handy default for radical-left eco-catastrophists who have a tendency to extract worst-case scenarios from every weather event. | THE AUSTRALIAN
GLOBAL warming alarmists want to change us, they want to change our behaviour, our way of life, our values and preferences. They want to restrict our freedom because they themselves believe they know what is good for us. They are not interested in climate or the environment. They misuse the climate in their goal to restrict our freedom. Therefore, what is in danger is freedom, not the climate.
FORMER head of Deutsche Bank, the ABC and ASX, Maurice Newman, writes another insightful piece in todays Australian maintaining that “it’s not carbon dioxide that threatens us with extinction but blind ideology dressed up as science.”
The inconvenient truth is that catastrophists are wrong
It should come as a great relief to know the freezing temperatures recently experienced in the northern hemisphere do not signal an end to global warming.
Imagine if mankind’s increasingly costly attempts to arrest CO2 emissions were unnecessary. That the misallocation of productive resources, prolonging the misery of the world’s most vulnerable people, was nothing more than a cynical ideological exercise?
Hopefully, those global warming doubters in Florida watching frozen iguanas falling stiff from the trees now know that while they were freezing, according to Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology, little old Penrith in Sydney, Australia, was the warmest spot on the planet, recording its highest temperature ever, having “broken the all-time maximum temperature record for … the Sydney metropolitan area”.
Well, perhaps in all that excitement the bureau can be forgiven for overlooking the fact Penrith Lakes started recording temperatures only in 1995 and for missing a much higher temperature recorded in nearby Richmond in 1939. But they were right. It was hot.
In a hurried piece in Fairfax publications, the Climate Council of Australia’s Will Steffen throws hot water on any misconceptions that may have been drawn from abnormal snowfalls in Britain, Switzerland and Japan, the record-breaking cold snap in Canada and the US, and the expansion of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet.
He says: “Terms like ‘global warming’ and the mental images they trigger can be misleading when people attempt to understand what is happening to the climate. A far better term is ‘climate disruption’, which captures the real nature of the vast array of changes, many of them abrupt and unexpected, that are occurring.” So fire and ice, it’s to be expected.
Of course you won’t be surprised to learn Steffen claims “the climate disruption we are increasingly experiencing is not natural. It is caused by the heat-trapping gases we humans are pouring into the atmosphere primarily by the burning of coal, oil and gas.”
On the day Steffen’s opinion piece appeared, this newspaper republished Matt Ridley’s article in The Times claiming “the Earth is very slowly slipping back into a proper ice age”. This confirms research by Henrik Svensmark, Australia’s David Evans and others, who correlated low solar activity (fewer sunspots) and increased cloud cover (as modulated by cosmic rays), with a cooling climate.
Indeed, last year scientists submitted 120 papers linking historical and modern climate change to variations in solar activity.
Steffen wasn’t among them. He says: “Whole ecosystems are succumbing to (human-induced) climate disruption. In 2016 unusually dry and hot conditions triggered massive fires in Tasmania’s World Heritage forests, while ocean circulation patterns have moved unprecedented underwater heatwaves around the world, driving the tragic coral bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef.’’
Yet the chairman of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Russell Reichelt, dismisses many of the claims that he says “misrepresent the extent and impact of coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef.”
Peter Ridd from James Cook University goes further, saying: “We can no longer trust the scientific organisations like the ARC (Australian Research Council) Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies. The science is coming out not properly checked, tested or replicated, and this is a great shame.”
Steffen’s work could fit this description. He spends much time pushing eco-catastrophism. “Climate disruption” he says “brings growing risks of large-scale migration and conflict as people, particularly the most vulnerable, are forced to deal with increasingly difficult conditions where they live. Some security analysts warn that climate disruption will dwarf terrorism and other conventional threats if present trends continue or worsen.
“Had enough of climate disruption? Then let’s leave our 20th-century thinking behind and get on with the job of rapidly building innovative, clever, carbon-neutral 21st-century societies.”
But Ridley questions the influence of carbon dioxide. He reminds us that: “In 1895 the Swede, Svante Arrhenius, one of the scientists who first championed the greenhouse theory, suggested that the ice retreated because carbon dioxide levels rose, and advanced because they fell. If this was true, then industrial emissions could head off the next ice age. There is indeed a correlation in the ice cores between temperature and carbon dioxide, but inconveniently it is the wrong way round: carbon dioxide follows rather than leads temperature downward when the ice returns.”
But where would manmade global warming “science” be if it relied on just facts? For decades, climate science has been plagued by scandals, deceit and the confessions of whistleblowers.
Penrith’s hyped recording is not new. Scientist and long-time BOM critic Jennifer Marohasy has been calling for an audit and urging Energy and Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg “to inform the World Meteorological Organisation that the temperatures recorded by our bureau are not consistent with calibration, nor any international standard”, and, to “direct the bureau to desist from announcing new record hot days”.
Still, institutionalised data bias is a handy default for radical-left eco-catastrophists who have a tendency to extract worst-case scenarios from every weather event.
But despite their best efforts, in the public’s eyes their story is wearing thin. There have been too many false predictions and unwarranted alarmism. People are wising up to the reality that climate science has become an unfalsifiable ideology and resent having their moral conscience questioned should they disagree.
If Ridley is right and the earth is slowly slipping back into a proper ice age, it will be literally cold comfort, not to mention lethal, to keep passing it off as climate disruption.
To survive such an event, our successors will need a plentiful supply of cheap, reliable energy, impossible given today’s intelligentsia’s religious objection to low-cost fossil and nuclear fuels.
It’s not carbon dioxide that threatens us with extinction but blind ideology dressed up as science.
YET ANOTHER dud-prediction realised from Global Warming Climate Change alarmist extraordinaire, Tim Flannery.
WHEN will he be, literally, put in the dock for crimes against climate/science truths, costing taxpayers literally $Billions in dud-predictions with his insane litany of ideologically driven climate falsehoods?!
Professional alarmist Tim Flannery warned in 2004 that global warming would turn Perth into a “ghost metropolis” and shrivel its farms. Colleague Will Steffen in 2015 forecast 80 years of drought there, just like fellow catastrophists predicted centuries of drought in California. But then ….
Dr Flannery warned of [Sydney] grappling with up to 60 per cent less water… Sydney could glimpse its future by looking at the devastating impact that global warming had already had on Perth…
“I think there is a fair chance Perth will be the 21st century’s first ghost metropolis,” Dr Flannery said. “It’s whole primary production is in dire straits and the eastern states are only 30 years behind.”
AUSTRALIAN of the Year Tim Flannery is sticking by his warning that Perth could become the first ghost metropolis of the 21st century…
“When I said Perth could become the first ghost metropolis, that was true, but the Government acted and got a desalination plant going,” he said…
He said there were no signs that Perth’s once-abundant winter rainfall would return any time soon, and even a small drop in rainfall had huge knock-on effects for the region.
“You get a little drop in rainfall and then plants are under more stress and there is less flow into streams,” he said… “I think that all the prognoses for climate change is that the South-West is going to keep drying out and getting hotter,” he said.
One of the myriad incorrect assertions by climate-change deniers is that scientists who have proven manmade causes for the current global warming ignore periods of warming in the Earth’s past that were not caused by industrial pollution.
Since it’s essentially, and of course ironically, entirely non-scientists who make this claim, the deniers would do well to read a recent UCLA study that indicates California’s current six-year severe drought could be exacerbated enough by global warming to extend the dry period for centuries.
California has now seen more moisture in the last 8 weeks than it typically does in an entire year… San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, and several other cities have recorded one of their wettest Januarys on record and an incredibly wet 8 weeks overall.
“So even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems…” Tim Flannery 2007
Global Warmimg alarmists like, Tim Flannery, assured us that global warming would bring us a “new era” of climate – droughts, famine and pestilence etc etc.
With dams full in South Australia, and in most of eastern Australia, it would appear that the human-induced global warming disaster drought scenario, is yet another failed prediction from the climate hysterical.
The rivers are full, the reservoirs are full, the dams are full, so every drop of rain that falls from the sky is going to be in the river system and has the potential to increase flooding at that local level.
Other than to mention that despite his myriad of alarmist dud-predictions resulting in costly, failed unreliable (green) energy solutions – geothermal, failed windmills, $12 billion of mothballed desal plants, to name a few, the Government funded ABC continues to default to him as their resident climate expert!?
The groupthink, warmist activists over at the ABC, never once questioning or holding him to account for his litany of green failures and dud-predictions, costing taxpayers literally billions upon billions of dollars.
But once again, the worst Flannery and his climate change alarmist cronies can ever be accused of, for failed alarmist predictions resulting in massive taxpayer-dollar waste, is an excess of virtue, in order to “Save the planet”.
There are hot rocks in South Australia that potentially have enough embedded energy in them to run Australia’s economy for the best part of a century. They are not being fully exploited yet but the technology to extract that energy and turn it into electricity is relatively straightforward….
But we’ve totally ignored the technologies that really, I think, have a lot of potential to do the job very cost effectively such as geothermal and solar…
A LINE has been crossed now Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull is telling massive porkies about the Tasmanian floods.
It’s time to declare war on global warming extremists.
I don’t mean war on Turnbull, himself. He’s just parroting popular untruths. No, I mean war on the extremists who feed him his falsehoods — the alarmists, Marxists and other Leftists who have seized control of our universities and punished the few academics who still dare challenge them.
Last week, Turnbull inspected the flood damage in Tasmania and, in just one widely reported comment, said three false or misleading things that hype the global-warming scare.
Tasmanians “have never seen as much water move as quickly as this,” he claimed.
“Certainly, larger and more frequent storms are one of the consequences that the climate models and climate scientists predict from global warming.”
Falsehood one: Tasmania actually suffered worse floods in 1929, when 22 people were killed after 500mm of rain was dumped in just three days over Burnie and Ulverstone.
Falsehood two: Climate experts, in fact, used to claim we’d face droughts, not floods. Climate Council chief Professor Tim Flannery in 2007 famously warned: “Even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems.”
Falsehood three: Most climate scientists haven’t predicted more or larger storms at all.
In fact, in its latest report, the biggest group of climate scientists, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, admitted there was very little confidence in such claims.
In the report’s own words: there was “low confidence in observed trends in small-scale severe weather phenomena such as hail and thunderstorms” and “low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods”.
As for “heavy precipitation” of the kind just seen in Tasmania, the IPCC conceded that in areas “such as southern Australia and western Asia — there is evidence of decreases”.
That’s less heavy rain, not Turnbull’s more.
But as I say, what does Turnbull really know about global warming, other than that it’s fashionable to be an alarmist?
The real problem is this: name one university academic — a single climate scientist, physicist, meteorologist or historian — who publicly pointed out Turnbull was wrong. Most seem only too happy with such fearmongering.
True, there are a few brave sceptics left in academia. But they know the danger of speaking out, now the militant Left is so powerful in our universities and so hostile to debate.
The latest evidence: the threatened sacking of marine scientist Professor Peter Ridd, who has long warned that alarmist scientists were exaggerating the alleged damage done by global warming to the Great Barrier Reef, and getting big grants for it.
Ridd has been censured by James Cook University and threatened with the sack for “failing to act in a collegial way” by exposing this alarmism.
He’d wickedly pointed out that the Centre of Excellence for Coral Studies and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority had published misleading photographs
of coral reefs near Stone Island — one taken in the late 19th century and the other in 1994 — which they’d claimed showed healthy coral had vanished.
As Ridd noted, there was no way of knowing if the photographs were of the same place, and coral cover could vary wildly in the same area. Nor could anyone know why coral seen in the 1800s was gone a century later.
Ridd could also have added that a new survey from the Australian Institute of Marine Science of 12 reefs off Townsville has found coral cover on 11 had recovered since Cyclone Yasi, and seven of the reefs had more coral now than 30 years ago.
But how crazy is his punishment? Since when did querying the claims of a fellow academic amount to a crime against “collegiality”?
This smacks of enforcing group think with threats of dismissal. Don’t universities do debate any more?
In 2013, Professor Bob Carter, the retired head of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at this same James Cook University, was dumped as an adjunct (unpaid) professor for what he believed was his internationally recognised work in exposing global-warming scares.
But even more shocking was the scandalous campaign to ban world-renowned political scientist Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist.
The University of Western Australia and Flinders University had each told the Abbott government they were interested in a grant to host Lomborg’s Copenhagen Consensus think tank, to debate economic policies.
But staff and students at both universities mutinied, attacking Lomborg for having warned that much of the trillions of dollars spent to fight global warming made little difference.
The academics’ union — the National Tertiary Education Union — should have defended an academic’s right to question orthodox thinking.
Instead, it circulated a petition demanding Lomborg be banned for “downgrading the importance to the world of climate change mitigation”.
The UWA caved first to these new witch-hunters, and then the new Turnbull Government canned the planned funding for Lomborg’s centre.
But note this contrast: this same academics’ union that silences warming sceptics will fight to defend Marxists — ideologues who subscribe to a totalitarian creed that inspired the murder of tens of millions of people. Last week, NTEU members even formed a guard of honour for one of their union delegates, avowed Marxist academic Roz Ward, to welcome her back to work at La Trobe University.
The university had suspended Ward after she demanded that our “racist” flag have its Union Jack replaced with the red ensign of socialism, claiming this dragged into disrepute Ward’s taxpayer-funded Safe Schools program, which itself teaches children to think gender is “fluid” and to imagine themselves dating someone of their own sex.
But the university backed down after legal threats and protests from the NTEU, which then issued a press release crowing it had defeated “the Australian Right”, responsible for “screeching sloganeering and fearmongering around action on climate change”.
Now the NTEU is defending yet another Marxist academic and warming alarmist, journalism professor Martin Hirst, sacked by Deakin University after warning a commerce student who challenged his foully abusive tweets: “So are you happy to fail commerce?”
So it’s hardly Turnbull’s fault that he just goes with this warming flow, as set for him by professional alarmists and Marxists embedded in their university fortresses.
Why would he challenge this group think when he’d just get smashed anyway by the ABC — another powerful bastion of group think that refuses to let a single conservative or warming sceptic host any of its main current affairs shows?
You want Turnbull to think for himself on global warming? To take on the Leftist academic establishment and their media goons?
You ask too much. It takes a man or woman of guts and brains to stand up to them, and this country is critically short of such heroes.
No, not a parody. The Climate Council really has invited Australian warmists to spend more than $7500 for a luxury cruise, gassing with Tim Flannery:
As part of this adventure, you will join renowned scientist and former Australian of the Year, Professor Tim Flannery – the Climate Council’s Chief Councillor – on the adventure of a lifetime along the remote Kimberley coast…
Best of all, by taking part in this expedition, you’ll be stepping up to help provide Australians with a vital source of correct and informed information on climate change…
Our custom-built vessel is fully air-conditioned, equipped with a helipad, spa, large en-suited cabins and offers indoor and outdoor alfresco areas …
Plus more gassy extras, none solar-powered:
– Courtesy vehicle to/from your Broome accommodation
– Light aircraft from Broome to Mitchell Plateau
– Return helicopter flight from Mitchell Plateau to Hunter River
Another frequent-flying warmist hypocrite:
Taxpayers have forked out almost $13,000 for South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill, his department’s chief executive and two political staffers to stay in a five-star hotel for the Paris climate change talks in December.
Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” – U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.
“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” – Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
Carbon Dioxide is the gas of life.
In units of volume, CO2’s concentration is typically presented as 400 parts per million (400 ppm). Translated, that’s just 0.04% of Earth’s atmosphere -– the equivalent of 40 cents out of one thousand dollars, or 1.4 inches on a football field. Even atmospheric argon is 23 times more abundant: 9,300 ppm. Moreover, the 400 ppm in 2013 is 120 ppm more than the 280 ppm carbon dioxide level of 1800, and that two-century increase is equivalent to a mere 12 cents out of $1,000, or one half-inch on a football field.
Eliminate carbon dioxide, and terrestrial plants would die, as would lake and ocean phytoplankton, grasses, kelp and other water plants. After that, animal and human life would disappear. Even reducing CO2 levels too much – back to pre-industrial levels, for example – would have terrible consequences.
Australian Senator Bob Day (Family First party) writes a pinnacle essay, speaking beyond the global rhetoric of eco-greenism, getting to the heart of the so called ‘Climate Change’ debate by rationalising and de-politicising the fact that “Now we are committing $2.5bn of taxpayers money to be spent on reducing carbon dioxide to stop so-called global warming while Arctic and Antarctic sea ice is growing. Growing, not shrinking. It’s bizarre! I am dismayed that honest, intelligent people can sit mute and watch this blatant trashing of both science and economics.”
Senator Bob Day writes beautifully on the colourless, odourless, trace gas and plant food that is CO2 (Carbon Dioxide), and it’s insidious relationship to the eco-politicised ‘Climate Change’ debate, via The Spectator :
This year the world will enjoy its greatest grain crop on record. Let me say that again. This year the world will enjoy its greatest grain crop on record. After the world food security crisis of 2007, which saw civil unrest in some countries, it is fantastic to see that in just 7 years we are producing record amounts of food for a growing world population. The US Department of Agriculture recently raised global crop predictions for corn, soy and wheat. Yet the World Bank indicates that over the last 10 reporting years, the percentage of agricultural land worldwide has not changed.
So what is driving this world food production boom?
Carbon dioxide. Plants are thriving on the extra CO2 in the atmosphere. A recent study showed that climate modelers over-estimated the amount of carbon dioxide that would remain in the atmosphere. Lo and behold, they have now discovered that plants are soaking up the additional carbon dioxide and growing more vigorously. Plants and trees and crops will absorb 130 billion tonnes more carbon dioxide this century than expected. It’s called the ‘carbon dioxide fertilisation effect’. This is not just a benefit to food crops – it is a boon to native vegetation, from the ancient forests to desert scrub that environmental activists have been trying to preserve for decades. Then there is the latest science on how the oceans are absorbing carbon dioxide with plankton growing faster than previously thought.
So why is the Abbott government spending billions of dollars to reduce this airborne saviour of vegetation and food crops? I am stunned by the number of politicians who are either ignorant or wilfully misleading the public on this topic. A whole political industry has developed around new arcane language to describe what we have known for centuries about producing food and improving our environment. A whole false economy has developed, fuelled by taxpayer funding through an Emissions Reduction Fund, An Emissions Trading Scheme, Renewable Energy Targets, The Renewable Energy Agency, The Climate Change Authority, Climate Change Departments and more. Greg Hunt and Clive Palmer’s newly passed Bill seeks to subsidise activities because they have so-called ‘co-benefits’ – well, if there are benefits in activities that also arguably help the environment, people should be doing them anyway without massive taxpayer subsidies – just as landfill operators have been doing for years, and I commend them for doing so over – in capturing gas emissions from landfills. Until, of course, the rent seeking, carpet-bagging, bootlegging crony capitalists jumped on the climate change bandwagon to suck money from the taxpayer.
With the carbon tax, families felt and could clearly see for the first time the direct impact on their personal budgets that comes from spending money to reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This latest Emissions Reduction Fund is no different, but by sleight of hand people will be less able to see how their taxes will need to stay higher than they should be in order to pay for this scheme.
Taking money from low-income families and spending it on dodgy activities with a spurious scientific basis punishes the poor, rewards the rent-seekers and churns money in taxes, grants and rebates. Australia cannot afford this Emissions Reduction Fund; particularly during what the government has told us is a ‘budget emergency’.
While many families struggle with the cost of living, while mums and dads struggle to find jobs to make ends meet, the government spends their money appeasing high-income elites enthralled by this latest cause and championed by celebrities, self-promoting ‘experts’ and certain elements of the media.
Rent-seekers, like the wind tower companies and solar panel manufacturers, get paid handsomely and advocates in the climate change industry are living very nicely off the system flying around in private jets irrespective of whether these schemes improve the environment, or human living conditions, or not.
Now we are committing $2.5bn of taxpayers money to be spent on reducing carbon dioxide to stop so-called global warming while Arctic and Antarctic sea ice is growing. Growing, not shrinking. It’s bizarre! I am dismayed that honest, intelligent people can sit mute and watch this blatant trashing of both science and economics.
I have a science background but any high school student can tell you that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. CO2 in the atmosphere is not pollution.Now, I know there are members of parliament who agree with me on all or much of the above but feel they must toe a party line. I am not so constrained, and perhaps I speak for some of them in saying that I will not sit mute and support this nonsense.
Mathias Cormann told the Senate last week, and I quote: ‘Coal is good. Coal is good. It is at the heart of our economic prosperity here in Australia and around the world. It has helped lift living standards for people right across the world. It will continue to help lift living standards around the world.’
If that is so, if intelligent and like-minded people believe in all good conscience that the Coalition’s Emissions Reductions Fund is wrong, then I urge them to speak up, too. Don’t be scientific girlie men!
AUSTRALIAN politics has been more influenced by the climate debate than any other country. Yet Australia is responsible for only 1.5 per cent of global CO2 emissions. Perhaps this speaks of Australia’s extraordinary commitment to the international community. Yet Australia has threatened to hobble its own economy while much larger nations take a pass while making pious pronouncements.
I am sceptical that humans are the main cause of climate change, and that it will be catastrophic in the near future. There is no scientific proof of this hypothesis, yet we are told “the debate is over”, the “science is settled”.
My scepticism begins with the warmists’ certainty they can predict the global climate with a computer model. The entire basis for the doomsday climate change scenario is the hypothesis that increased CO2 due to fossil fuel emissions will heat the Earth to unlivable temperatures.
In fact, the Earth has been warming very gradually for 300 years, since the Little Ice Age ended, long before heavy use of fossil fuels. Prior to the Little Ice Age, during the Medieval Warm Period, Vikings colonised Greenland and Newfoundland, when it was warmer there than today. And during Roman times, it was warmer, long before fossil fuels revolutionised civilisation.
Looking back over millennia, today the Earth is colder, and has a lower level of atmospheric CO2 than during nearly all the history of modern life. The idea that it would be catastrophic if CO2 were to increase and average global temperature were to rise a few degrees is preposterous.
Recently, the IPCC announced for the umpteenth time that we are doomed unless we reduce CO2 emissions to zero. Effectively this means either reducing the population to zero, or going back 10,000 years before humans began clearing forests for agriculture. This proposed cure is worse than adapting to a warmer world, if it comes about.
By its constitution, the IPCC has a hopeless conflict of interest. Its mandate is to consider only the human causes of global warming, not the many natural causes changing the climate for billions of years. We don’t understand the precise workings of the natural causes of climate change any more than we know if humans are part of the cause at present. But if the IPCC did not find that humans were the cause of warming, or if it found that warming would be more positive than negative, there would be no need for the IPCC under its present mandate. To survive, it must find on the side of the apocalypse. Either the IPCC should be reconstituted with a larger membership of UN bodies (it is now a partnership between the World Meteorological Organisation and the UN Environment Program), and its mandate expanded to include all causes of climate change, or it should be dismantled.
Climate change has become a powerful political force for many reasons. First, it is universal; we are told everything on Earth is threatened. Second, it invokes the two most powerful human motivators: fear and guilt. We fear driving our car will kill our grandchildren and feel guilty. Third, a powerful convergence of interests among key elites support the climate “narrative”. Environmentalists spread fear and raise donations; politicians appear to be saving the Earth from doom; the media has a field day with sensation and conflict; science institutions raise billions in grants, create whole new departments, and engage in a feeding frenzy of scary scenarios; business wants to look green, and get huge public subsidies for projects that would otherwise be economic losers, such as large wind farms and solar arrays. Fourth, the Left sees climate change as a perfect means to redistribute wealth from industrial countries to the developing world and the UN bureaucracy.
So we are told CO2 is a “toxic” “pollutant” that must be curtailed when in fact it is a colourless, odourless, tasteless, gas present at 400 parts per million of the global atmosphere and the most important food for life on earth. Without CO2 above 150 parts per million, all plants would die.
Over the past 150 million years, CO2 had been drawn down steadily (by plants) from about 3000 parts per million to about 280 parts per million before the industrial revolution. If this trend had continued, CO2 would have become too low to support life on Earth. Human use of fossil fuels and clearing land for crops have boosted CO2 from its lowest level in the history of the Earth back to 400 parts per million today.
At 400 parts per million, all our food crops, forests, and natural ecosystems are still on a starvation diet for CO2. While one wing of CSIRO promotes the IPCC line, another is demonstrating the positive impact of the small increase in CO2 over the past 50 years due primarily to fossil fuel use — a 10 per cent to 30 per cent increase in plant growth in many regions. Australia is benefiting more than most because its vegetation evolved for dry conditions. Increased CO2 means plants don’t need as much water, so our deserts are lusher.
The optimum level of CO2 for plant growth, given enough water and nutrients, is about 1500 parts per million, nearly four times higher than today. Glasshouse growers inject CO2 to increase yields of 50 to 100 per cent. Farms and forests will be much more productive if CO2 keeps rising.
We have no proof increased CO2 is responsible for the slight warming over the past 300 years. There has been no significant warming for 18 years while we have emitted 25 per cent of all the CO2 ever emitted. Yet we have absolute proof CO2 is vital for life on Earth and plants would like more of it. Which should we emphasise to our children?
The IPCC’s followers have given us a vision of a dying world due to CO2 emissions. I say the Earth would be a lot deader with no CO2 and more of it will be a very positive factor in feeding the world. Let’s celebrate CO2.
Patrick Moore was a co-founder, and leader of Greenpeace for 15 years is now an independent ecologist and environmentalist based in Vancouver, Canada.
The Black Thursday bushfires were a devastating series of fires that swept through Victoria on February 6, 1851. They are considered the largest Australian bushfires in a populous region in recorded history, with approximately 5 million hectares, or a quarter of Victoria, being burnt. Twelve lives were lost, along with one million sheep and thousands of cattle.
The year preceding the fires was exceptionally hot and dry and this trend continued into the summer of 1851. On Black Thursday, a northerly wind set in early and the temperature in Melbourne was reported to have peaked at 47.2 degrees C (117 degrees F) at 11:00am. (Wikipedia)
“The temperature became torrid, and on the morning of the 6th of February 1851, the air which blew down from the north resembled the breath of a furnace. A fierce wind arose, gathering strength and velocity from hour to hour, until about noon it blew with the violence of a tornado. By some inexplicable means it wrapped the whole country in a sheet of flame — fierce, awful, and irresistible.”
In 1851, carbon dioxide levels were around 290 PPM. Today, carbon dioxide pollution levels are around 398 PPM.
Climate change alarmists, like Climate Council’s Tim Flannery and the ABC, claim Australian bush fires are unprecedented and becoming more extreme, thanks to human carbon dioxide pollution emissions.
They tell you this because the ultimate prize of the eco-activist is the control of carbon dioxide. Virtually every human activity, including breathing, releases carbon dioxide. Consequently, greenhouse gases and climate change are of paramount importance to the eco-activist agenda.
With the 2014 Australian summer afoot, the usual band of climate criminals have been jumping on the ‘Global’ warming fear-train, drumming up support for their ailing global warming climate change cause. A cause which mother nature has severely battered in recent months and indeed over the past 16 years.
Tim Flannery’s privately formed “Climate Council” has led the alarmist charge, spewing out the usual catastrophic weather reports, blaming evil human carbon dioxide pollution emissions on any summer induced bush-fire, hot day or heat-wave that unseasonably rolls through Australia in summer.
Global warming sympathetic media outlets, in particular the ABC, regularly cite Flannery’s dire prognostications, whilst omitting valuable climate history. Historical information which tells us that Australian heatwaves are far from ‘unprecedented’. In fact, newspaper reports dating back to the late 1800’s depict heatwaves of at least equal intensity as present day systems. The only difference being, the blistering Australian heatwaves of the 1800’s existed when CO2 was at 280PPM and not today’s 398PPM.
The graph below compares that to the “record heatwave” during the last nine days in Adelaide. The 1858 heatwave averaged 11 degrees warmer, with every day of the heatwave hotter than the corresponding day this year. CO2 was 280 PPM at the time.
Let’s play the Heatwaves PR game. If CO2 had an effect we’d see a significant increase in the rate of global warming over the decades since WWII, the models would work, and climate scientists would be able to predict our climate. Since none of that is true, those with a political agenda have to clutch at noisy but marketable extremes instead. Apparently even a half-true, noisy, non-causal link is good enough for post-modern scientists. Read on…