Garth Paltridge was a chief research scientist with the CSIRO’s division of atmospheric research before becoming the director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies and chief executive of the Antarctic Co-operative Research Centre. His latest sceptical contribution to the debate on the dangers of carbon dioxide is a book, endearingly titled The Climate Caper.

Paltridge gives a crisp summary of the physics and economics of climate change, but I want to focus here on his account of the new green religion. “Perhaps the most interesting question in all this business is how it can be that the scientific community has become so over-the-top in support of its own propaganda about the seriousness and certainty of upcoming drastic climate change. Scientists after all are supposed to be unbiased in their assessment of a problem and are expected to tell it as it is. Over the centuries they have built up the capital of their reputation on just that supposition. And for the last couple of decades they have put that capital very publicly on the line in support of a cause which, to say the least, is overhung by an enormous amount of doubt. So how is it that the rest of the scientific community, uncomfortable as it is with both the science of global warming and the way its politics is being played, continues to let the reputation of science in general be put at considerable risk because of the way the dangers of climate change are being vastly oversold?”

Part of the answer lies in the way institutions find ways to silence their employees. Paltridge himself was involved in setting up the Antarctic research centre in the early 90s with the CSIRO. As he recalls: “I made the error at the time of mentioning in a media interview—reported extensively in The Australian on a slow Easter Sunday—that there were still lots of doubts about the disaster potential of global warming. Suffice it to say that within a couple of days it was made clear to me from the highest levels of CSIRO that, should I make such public comments again, then it would pull out of the process of forming the new centre.” The CSIRO, it turned out, was in the process of trying to extract many millions of dollars for further climate research at the time.

Almost the only scientists at liberty to speak their minds are retirees, such as William Kininmonth and Paltridge himself. He gives an example, Brian Tucker, a former chief of CSIRO’s Atmospheric Research Division. Tucker was “a specialist in numerical climate modelling and therefore knew better than most where the bodies are buried in the climate change game. He kept remarkably quiet about his worries on the matter. Then he retired, and for four or five years thereafter was the bane of the global warming establishment because of his very public stance against many of its sacred cows.” Eventually he was marginalised by being described as “one of the usual suspects, who was now out of date and in any event was probably on the payroll of industry”.

Another eye-opener is the story of how a committee of the Australian Academy of Science was dissuaded from its plans to respond to the Garnaut Report. Paltridge says: “While the committee was aware of all the ‘ifs’ and ‘buts’ of 100-year prediction of rainfall, it was aware too of the delicacy of saying so in an Academy response. But if indeed there is something of the order of a 50-50 chance that the forecasts supplied to Garnaut were nonsense, then it seems reasonable that the fact should be made known in plain English ...” Academy members met Garnaut and “rumour has it that sometime during the meeting Professor Garnaut became very sympathetic to the need for vast new resources to address the need for basic research ... In the end it seems that the idea of a response to the Garnaut Report was dropped altogether.”

Eventually the academy came out with a statement of priorities for climate research, which contained a brief reference to the fact that the rainfall projections Garnaut relied on were problematical, but most of the public were none the wiser.

Paltridge says that behind the climate change debate there are two basic truths seldom articulated. “The first is that the scientists pushing the seriousness of global warming are perfectly well aware of the great uncertainty attached to their cause. The difficulty for them is to ensure that the lip service paid to uncertainty is enough to convince governments of the need to continue research funding, but is not enough to cast real doubt on the case for action. The paths of public comment and official advice on the matter have to be trodden very carefully. The second basic truth is that there is a belief among scientific ‘global warmers’ that they are an under-funded minority among a sea of wicked sceptics who are extensively funded by industry and close to Satan. The difficulty for them is to maintain a belief in their own minority status while insisting in public that the sceptics, at least among the ranks of the scientifically literate, are very few.”

The Royal Society did its own reputation a disservice by sending a letter to Exxon-Mobil oil corporation declaring an anathema on dissident climate research. It said: “To be still producing information that misleads people about climate change is unhelpful. The next IPCC report should give the people the final push they need to take action and we can’t have people trying to undermine it.”

Paltridge says: “The staggering thing is that the society, which in other circumstances would be the first to defend the cause of free inquiry ... seemed not to be able to hear what it was saying.” Read full story here.

You couldn’t make it up even if you tried:

One day Energy Secretary Ed Milliband sets out his proposed expansion of the U.K.’s wind power-led alternative energy revolution; the next day, Vestas, the U.K.’s largest wind turbine manufacturer, shuts down a big part of its British operations citing “low demand” and public opposition to onshore wind farms.

Just bad luck or bad PR? Not quite. Simply another blatant example of the ongoing “disconnect” over energy between those suffering from WTS (Wishful Thinker Syndrome) and the hydrocarbon-fueled present and future energy realities.

In 2006, Germany’s Angela Merkel was hailed as the “Green Chancellor” for promising to rid her country of coal and nuclear power in its bid to give a clean energy “world lead.” Three years on and Merkel’s government actively supports the construction of a new generation of 26 coal-fired power plants as well as keeping Germany’s nuclear power stations open. In addition she wants special protection for German heavy industry via free cap-and-trade permits. A powerful German industry, the need to remain competitive and a desire to work with the lights on all combined to help Ms. Merkel “reconnect.”

In 2008, Italy, to everyone’s surprise, reversed its decades-long “no nuclear power stations” policy in the interest of its power needs. And Italy’s Prime Minister, Silvio Berlusconi, along with leaders from Austria, Poland and a rolling bandwagon of other countries, also now demands protection for its heavy industry when it comes time to handing out free cap-and-trade permits.

Across in the U.K., the government has been wriggling out of its “clean energy” commitments for years as the country inches toward building an urgently needed new generation of coal-fired power plants. To help critics swallow the bitter pill of yet more coal usage, the U.K. government is subsidizing “clean coal” technology strategies via CCS (carbon capture sequestration). But adding $1 billion to the cost of each plant for a hugely speculative unproven technology has already created a politically paralyzing impasse in the U.K. energy strategy.

The specter of the U.K. facing “South African-style power cuts” and being plunged into “Third World darkness” now looms. Hence the U.K.’s grand wind power plan. Unfortunately, last December, the British Wind Energy Association was forced to scale down its calculation of harmful CO2 emissions “displaced” from 860 to 430 grams for every kilowatt hour of electricity produced.

In fact, with fewer than 2,400 wind turbines in operation across Britain currently, the U.K. would still require a further 100,000 to meet its targets. Plenty of scope for massive wind turbine growth, we might think. So why the Vestas pullout?

Not that Eurocrats are easily deflated by wind power facts on the ground. Speaking at a key European wind power conference in March 2009, EU Energy Commissioner Andris Piebalgs claimed:

“Wind energy can replace a large proportion of the polluting and finite fuels we currently rely on. It makes good sense to invest in indigenous sources of power, which hedge against unpredictable fossil fuel prices and in which Europe has a real competitive advantage.” He added: “Wind energy is Europe’s contribution to peace, progress and prosperity.”

Mr. Piebalgs’ claims entirely epitomize the energy disconnect. As University of Toronto law professor Michael J. Trebilcock has shown, wind power is a complete disaster with the much-vaunted “Danish green energy miracle” turning out to be a well-worn myth in an industry that would blow out tomorrow without ongoing and massive public subsidy. And all this is for an energy source that will, in the next few decades, provide only a tiny amount of the world’s power.

“Capitalism and consumerism have brought the world to the brink of economic and environmental collapse,” the U.K.’s Prince of Wales ruminates, adding that “the age of convenience is over.” As international columnist Mark Steyn comments, “The Prince then got in his limo and was driven to his other palace.”

Today, the Obama White House is recycling all the same European political energy rhetoric so familiar to Europeans. Yet, the U.S. has its own instructive case study. One day billionaire T. Boone Pickens has a Grand Wind Plan for Texas, with further plans to forest the nation with turbines “from Canada to Mexico.” The next, T. Boone drops his wind plan in favor of .. . a hydrocarbon (natural gas) solution instead.

As we have seen, however, national leaders will ultimately refuse to impoverish their industries even to “save the planet.” The still-"disconnected" flower-power generation and its idealistic offspring would do well to grasp that the energy future is not green. It is hydrocarbon, and will continue to be for another century at least. Perhaps it’s just that we have yet to learn a language they’ll understand? Maybe we should run the energy stats past them one more time, make a peace V-sign and (gently) ask: “Reconnected yet, man?”

Economides is editor-in-chief and Glover is Europe associate editor of the Energy Tribune.

Climate Depot’s Editor’s Note: The Washington Post’s Andrew Freedman has his hands full. After declaring on September 1, 2009, that “increasing climate change skepticism among the public is troubling” because “it flies in the face of most of the scientific evidence,” Freedman now faces a fellow Washington Post “Capital Weather Gang” member—Meteorologist Matt Rogers - who is openly rebelling from Freedman’s stated climate views. Just days after Freedman’s public feud with Climate Depot over climate science, the Washington Post’s Rogers declared his strong climate skepticism on the paper’s
“Capital Weather Gang” site on September 10, 2009, titled “A Skeptical Take on Global Warming.”

Freedman had attacked Climate Depot as being “anti-science and anti-science journalism.” But after two lengthy rebuttals from Climate Depot, Freedman threw in the towel and refused to defend his climate views any further. Freedman appears so afraid of defending his global warming assertions, that he declined a TV news show’s offer to a one-on-one debate with Climate Depot’s executive editor (me, Marc Morano). Freedman refused to debate on Clean Skies TV, even though I instantly agreed to the debate offer. Freedman instead demanded to appear on the TV show separately on a completely different day than my appearance. (Sadly, most --but not all—global warming fear promoters duck scientific debates. See: Morano debates former Clinton Official Romm - April 6, 2009)

Freedman had written that he is so convinced of the alleged “consensus” about man-made global warming fears that he declared not acting to prevent a climate catastrophe “would be a stunning act of defiance against the climate science community that has firmly concluded that mankind is disrupting the climate system.” [See: 1) Shock: Wash. Post Blames Obama For Failure of Global Warming Movement! President’s ‘mistakes may cost the planet dearly’ - September 1, 2009 2) - Wash. Post Fires Back: Accuses Climate Depot of having ‘an anti-science and anti-science journalism agenda!‘—Climate Depot Responds - September 2, 2009 - 3) World-Wide Reaction to Climate Depot’s Public Climate Clash with the Washington Post - September 4, 2009 ] But it now appears that instead of attacking Climate Depot for its reporting on the latest climate science, Freedman will be forced to respond to his own “Weather Gang” team members. End Editor’s Note.]

Wash. Post’s Own Meteorologist Counters Paper’s Claims! ‘I wince when hearing...science is ‘settled’—Climate ‘hysteria’ may be ‘another bubble waiting to burst’ - September 10, 2009

Washington Post Meteorologist Matt Rogers, co-founder of the Commodity Weather Group, LLC, and previously Director of Weather for MDA EarthSat Weather, referenced Freedman’s recent assertions about the man-made global warming issue being “settled.” “I respect Andrew Freedman and his beliefs. We have had a number of discussions both publicly and privately regarding our differing viewpoints, and he has been nothing but respectful and professional,” Rogers wrote on September 10, 2009.

Key Excerpts from Washington Post Meteorologist Matt Rogers: There are numerous reasons why I question the consensus view on human-induced climate change covered extensively on this blog by Andrew Freedman. [...] Several times during debates individuals have told me I should not question the “settled science” due to the moral imperative of “saving the planet”. As with a religious debate, I’m told that my disagreement means I do not “care enough” and even if correct, I should not question the science. This frightens me. [...] My belief is that they are over-estimating anthropogenic (human) forcing influences and under-estimating natural variability (like the current cold-phase Pacific Decadal Oscillation and solar cycles) [...] To be blunt, the computer models that policy-makers are using to make key decisions failed to collectively inform us of the flat global land-sea temperatures seen in the 2000s. [...] The argument that the air we currently exhale is a bona fide pollutant due to potential impacts on climate change flummoxes me. CO2 is also plant food. [...] As a meteorologist, verification is very important for guiding my work and improving future forecasts. The verification for global warming is struggling. Three of four major datasets that track global estimates show 1998 as the warmest year on record with temperatures flat or falling since then. Even climate change researchers now admit that global temperature has been flat since that peak. [...] The coincident timing of major solar minimums with cooler global temperatures (such as during the Little Ice Age) suggests that maybe the sun is underestimated as a component for influencing climate. [...] Indeed, recent research has suggested the solar factor is underestimated (here and here). Perhaps one day, we’ll have a different version of James Carville’s famous political quote...something like “It’s the sun, stupid!” [...] Does climate change hysteria represent another bubble waiting to burst? From the perspective of the alarmism and the saturation of the message, the answer could be yes. [...] I believe that predictions of human-caused climate change will continue to be overdone, and we’ll discover that natural factors are equally and sometimes even more important.

To read Washington Post “Capital Weather Gang” Meteorologist Matt Roger’s complete 10 point essay on why he rejects man-made climate fears. Go here.

Good for you Matt. There is at least one member with climate sense on the gang after all.

Martin Hertzberg 2009, “Earth’s radiative equilibrium in the solar irradiance”, Energy & Environment v.20 no.1&2, pp.85-96 (Special double-issue: Natural drivers of weather and climate, 278p.)

“Many interacting regions, both homogeneous and heterogeneous, are involved in the complex radiative balance. Unverified models do not realistically represent that balance, and it would be absurd to base public policy decisions on them.

“… the controlling factor in determining the average temperature of the Earth is its absorptivity to emissivity ratio.

Even for those portions of Earth that are not covered with clouds, the assumption that the ocean surface, land surfaces, or ice and snow cover would all have blackbody emissivities of unity, is unreasonable.

It is certainly true that in the absence of an atmosphere, temperatures would drop drastically at night as the darkened portions of Earth lost infrared energy by radiation to Space; however, with all the incoming solar radiation being concentrated on the daytime half of the surface, daytime temperatures would rise as drastically as the night time temperatures would fall.

If the near-surface air temperature is not representative, is it realistically possible to measure the average temperature of the entire mass of absorbing and emitting entities with sufficient accuracy to make a meaningful comparison between the data and the predictions?

How high in altitude should one go in the atmosphere to include it all?

Similarly, how deep in the liquid fluid of the oceans should one go in order to include the mass below the ocean surface that influences the heat and mass transport processes near the ocean surface and in the atmosphere above it?”

“… looking at the problem in depth, it may be more realistic to conclude that its resolution may be unattainable given our limited understanding of the complex processes involved, and the lack of data available for the current thermodynamic state of those entities.

The heat and mass transport from that enormous ocean reservoir to the atmosphere are the dominant factors in determining temperatures and weather conditions over the entire globe.

It is implausible to expect that small changes in the concentration of any minor atmospheric constituent such as carbon dioxide, can significantly influence that radiative equilibrium.

Further quotes by this accomplished research scientist:

“In 1994 I tried to get an analysis of the then prevalent state of climate science published in Nature and Science, but they weren’t interested. I even sent a copy of it with a long letter to Burt Bolin, who was then chair of the IPCC. He replied to the effect that who was I to challenge the decades of work of so many distinguished scientists. He also argued that I was being disrespectful by referring to the some of the theories of the global warming advocates as “catechisms”.  After studying the issue more carefully and reading the well researched papers of the skeptics/realists, I now think that the AGW arguments do not deserve to be referred to as either “theories” or “catechisms”. In reality, they are elaborate hoaxes.”

“I tried explaining to [those] Senators that in order for them to accept the Gore-IPCC-Hansen theory as valid, they will first have to repeal the Second Law of Thermodynamics!”

Compiled by Hans Schreuder, 7 September 2009

See larger image here.

See larger table here.

See larger image here.

August 2009 saw a modest fall in the global average tropospheric temperature anomaly, from +0.41 deg. C in July to +0.23 deg. C in August. The tropical and Northern Hemispheric troposphere remain quite warm, but the Southern Hemisphere cooled by over 0.4 deg. C in the last month.

NOTE: For those who are monitoring the daily progress of global-average temperatures here, we are still working on switching from NOAA-15 to Aqua AMSU, which will provide more accurate tracking on a daily basis. We will be including both our lower troposphere (LT) and mid-tropospheric (MT) pre-processing of the data. We will also be adding global sea surface temperature anomalies from the AMSR-E instrument on board the NASA Aqua satellite.

Global Oceanic Climate Update for August 2009

This is the first of what might turn into a series of monthly updates of some maritime climate parameters monitored by the AMSR-E instrument on NASA’s Aqua satellite. All monthly statistics have been computed by me from daily global gridpoint data produced and archived by Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) under the direction of Frank Wentz, a member of our U.S. AMSR-E Science Team. Since Aqua was launched in 2002, the data are available only since June, 2002. A description of how these products were derived, and where they reside, is provided here.

There are 5 “ocean products”: sea surface temperature [SST]; near-surface wind speed; vertically-integrated water vapor; vertically integrated cloud water; and rain rate. I will present time series of monthly anomalies averaged over the global, ice-free oceans (56 deg. N to 56 deg. S latitude), and separately for the deep tropics (20 deg. N to 20 deg. S latitude). ‘Anomalies’ are departures from the average seasonal cycles in those parameters, which will be recomputed as each new month of data is added.

See larger image here

How these different variables change relative to each other is illustrated in the following lag-correlation plot of SST versus the other variables. “PDO” is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation Index, while “SOI” is the Southern Oscillation Index (negative for El Nino, positive for La Nina). A discussion of these curves is provided later, below.

DISCUSSION

Using the 20N-20S lag correlation plot as an example, you can see that total integrated water vapor is highly correlated with SST, which in turn is highly correlated with El Nino conditions (negative SOI values). Also note that sea surface temperature tends to peak after months of anomalously low wind conditions, then falls as wind speeds increase. Cloud water and rain rates increase as SST increases, reaching a maximum 1 to 3 months after the SST peaked. Read more on tropical SST analyses here.

The following is the monthly USH global plot versus the ESRL CO2.

See larger image here