Rex Weyler announced to Patrick Moore that he is about to come out publicly with a critique of Patrick’s new book, Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist. Here are a few excerpts of an interview:

Rex Weyler: Patrick, I’ve had some requests to comment on your book. So far, I’ve avoided critiquing your ideas in public, out of deference for our friendship. You know from our discussions over beer that I disagree with most of your positions, but now that you’re in print, your ideas bear some scrutiny.  As you know, you’re getting plenty of praise from the usual suspects, National Post, Fox News, etc, so you certainly have your backers.

Patrick Moore: My new book, Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist, was debuted in the Vancouver Sun, has been reviewed by the Calgary Herald, featured on many radio talk shows such as Mike Smyth on CKNW, and in the Toronto Star, hardly a bastion of the right. I do regular interviews on National Public Radio in the US and with Bloomberg News. I also take interviews with Fox Business News and the National Post. If you refer only to the conservative outlets that are interested, then you are hardly producing a balanced critique.

RW: When you claim, “global temperature stopped rising 12 to 15 years ago,” you confuse a routine fluctuation with an irrefutable trend. You should know the difference. You must know that trend analysis uses running averages (as with stock prices to gauge a trend) and that fluctuations in either direction do not “stop” a trend. Surely you know that since 1880, global running-average temperature has risen from about 13.7C to 14.6C. You must know the data that shows human-waste gases in the atmosphere as the primary forcing, and the solar force fluctuations at about one-thirtieth of the human greenhouse gas force. Even if you had some evidence that these data should be questioned, the scientific thing to do is to reference the prevailing data in your critique.

PM: I am not even slightly confused. Fluctuations in climate are not “routine”. It is true that there has been an upward trend in global temperature since about 1800 when the Little Ice Age ended. There have been ups and downs along the way. As you know the last upward trend was between 1970-1998. Since then there has been no further rise in temperature, perhaps a slight decline. That is all I said.

Part of the “prevailing data” is that it hasn’t continued to warm over the past decade despite ever-increasing emissions of CO2.

RW: Still to this day, although I’ve asked you half a dozen times, you’ve never sent me your list of climate forcings (w/m2) selected by level of impact. This is so simple and scientific. Why won’t you send it to me?.

PM: That’s because I do not believe the highly complex subject of global climate can be reduced to “w/m2” so I am not interested in that approach. There is nothing simple about climate but there is something simplistic about thinking you can predict the climate by one little formula. Are you saying that you, personally, have determined the precise causes of global warming? Or are you just relying on someone else’s calculations?

Interestingly, James Lovelock, who, as you know, is a strong supporter of nuclear energy, has recently suggested that perhaps the reason we are putting so much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is Gaia’s way of staving off another Ice Age. Again, there is nothing ‘simple’ about any of this, Rex.

RW: You make claims that have been refuted by the people you reference. This may be okay over a beer, but seems reckless in print. You say DDT was “discontinued for use in malaria control by the World Health Organization and USAID.” But surely you know that WHO and USAID representatives have already told George Monbiot that they never stopped using DDT for malaria control. “A Charming Falsehood,” The Guardian. Why would you restate this, knowing that WHO and USAID have refuted it?

PM: I have provided you with a link to the UN media release titled, “Reversing Its Policy, UN Agency Promotes DDT to Combat the Scourge of Malaria,” UN News Center, September 15, 2006.” Here is the link again where the WHO announces that it is reversing its policy to discontinue the use of DDT after nearly 30 years.

And who knows, maybe the WHO and USAID are also trying to cover their tracks. After all it does not look good that health and aid agencies were implicated in the unnecessary deaths of millions of people because they caved into political pressure against DDT in the ‘70s.

Read more here.

EPW Blog and WSJ Editorial

The Environmental Protection Agency debate lands in the Senate this week, amid the makings of a left-right coalition to mitigate the agency’s abuses. Few other votes this year could do more to help the private economy-but only if enough Democrats are willing to buck the White House.

This moment arrived unexpectedly, with Majority Leader Harry Reid opening a small business bill to amendments. Republican leader Mitch McConnell promptly introduced a rider to strip the EPA of the carbon regulation authority that the Obama Administration has given itself. Two weeks ago, Mr. Reid pulled the bill from the floor once it became clear Mr. McConnell might have the 13 Democrats he needs to clear 60.

The votes are now due as soon as tomorrow, and Mr. Reid is trying to attract 41 Democrats with a rival amendment from Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus. The Baucus plan is a political veneer that would exempt some farms and businesses from the EPA maw but at the cost of endorsing everything else. The question for Democrats is whether their loyalties to President Obama and EPA chief Lisa Jackson trump the larger economic good, not to mention constituents already facing far higher energy costs.

The story of how we arrived at this pass begins in 1999, when Clinton EPA chief Carol Browner floated the idea that carbon dioxide could be regulated as a pollutant under the 1970 Clean Air Act and its later amendments. The Bush Administration rejected Ms. Browner’s theory, in part because Congress kept rejecting statutory language to that effect.

Several states and green groups sued, and the question reached the Supreme Court in 2006. With Massachusetts v. EPA, a 5-4 majority broadly rewrote the definition of “pollutant,” but it also narrowly held that “EPA no doubt has significant latitude as to the manner, timing, content, and coordination of its regulations” (our emphasis). In other words, the Court created new powers via judicial invention but left their use to the discretion of the executive branch.

The Obama Administration moved to exploit this power by threatening that the EPA would make a carbon “endangerment finding” if Congress didn’t pass a climate bill. This threat was potent for the simple reason that the Clean Air Act’s intrusive command-and-control systems were never written or meant to address an emission as ubiquitous as carbon dioxide. It’s like trying to perform surgery with a butter knife, and Mr. Obama hoped that the pain would force industry to beg for cap and tax. The EPA went ahead with its endangerment ruling, but cap and trade failed in the Senate last year anyway.

The EPA now claims its carbon regulation is compelled by the Supreme Court, as if Congress can’t change the law, as well as by “science,” as if Congress is a potted plant. Someone even disinterred former Republican EPA Administrators William Ruckelshaus and Christine Todd Whitman to claim in the Washington Post last week that Congress would somehow be voting against “environmental progress.”

But a vote for the McConnell amendment, which would permanently bar the EPA from regulating carbon unless Congress passed new legislation, is justified on democratic prerogatives alone. Whatever one’s views of Massachusetts v. EPA or climate science, no elected representative has ever voted on an EPA plan that has often involved the unilateral redrafting of plain-letter law.

A vote to overrule the EPA is also needed to remove the regulatory uncertainty hanging over the economy. This harm is already apparent in energy, where the EPA is trying to drive coal-fired power out of existence. The core electricity generation that the country needs to meet future demand is not being built, and it won’t be until the EPA is bridled. This same dynamic is also chilling the natural gas boom in the Northeast, and it is making U.S. energy-intensive industries less competitive world-wide.

As the EPA screws tighten, the costs will be passed along to consumers, with the same damage as a tax increase but none of the revenues. Eventually, the EPA plan will appreciably lower the U.S. standard of living. Hardest hit will be the middle-American regions that rely on coal or heavy industry, though the EPA bulldozer will run over small businesses too. The Clean Air Act, once the carbon doomsday machine has been activated, won’t merely apply to “major” sources of emissions like power plants or factories. Its reach will include schools, farms, hospitals, restaurants, basically any large building.

Which brings us to this week’s Senate votes. Democrats to watch will be Sherrod Brown (Ohio), Bob Casey (Pennsylvania), Tim Johnson (South Dakota), Tom Carper (Delaware), Mary Landrieu (Louisiana), Kent Conrad (North Dakota), Amy Klobuchar (Minnesota), Claire McCaskill (Missouri), Jim Webb (Virginia), Ben Nelson (Nebraska), Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow (Michigan) and John Rockefeller and Joe Manchin (West Virginia). All of them have been publicly critical of the EPA, and, not incidentally, most of them face a tough re-election.

The White House and Mr. Reid will offer phony alternatives to keep 41 Democrats in the corral. The Baucus amendment is the classic Beltway trick of trying to provide political cover while not solving the problem. Mr. Rockefeller is sponsoring a two-year delay before the EPA rules take effect, but that will merely defer the problem.

The McConnell amendment is one of the best proposals for growth and job creation to make it onto the Senate docket in years. If Mr. Obama is intent on defending the EPA’s regulatory assault, then the least Senate Democrats can do is force him to defend his choices himself.

By Dr. Bob Carter

Last Friday night, five of Australia’s six Climate Commissioners participated in the Commission’s first public consultation meeting in Geelong. They were Tim Flannery, Will Steffen, Lesley Hughes (all scientists), Roger Beale (environmental policy analyst) and Gerry Hueston (businessman); Commissioner Susannah Elliott (science communication) was not in attendance.

Australia already has an expensive federal Ministry of Climate Change, so why do we also need a new Climate Commission? Good question.

The terms of reference of the Climate Commission are to:

•Explain the science of climate change and the impacts on Australia.

•Report on the progress of international action dealing with climate change.

•Explain the purpose and operation of a carbon price and how it may interact with the Australian economy and communities.

Interestingly, only one of these terms of reference concerns science. Of course, if there is no science problem then by definition there is no economic or political problem. So the inclusion of two economic and political terms of reference indicates that the government’s view is that “the science is settled” - which won’t surprise anyone.

Similarly unsurprising, but nonetheless disappointing, is that all five of the Commissioners who attended the Geelong meeting manifested an alarmist view of global warming and its speculated human cause - industrial carbon dioxide emissions --- rather than presenting as even-handed dispensers of scientific and technical truth.

The scientific background to the Geelong meeting is this. Within the bounds of error, average global temperature hasn’t increased since 1995 (15 years) and temperature has actually been falling slightly since 2001 (10 years). Meanwhile, over the last ten years atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have increased by 5%.

The conclusion is obvious. More carbon dioxide is not causing dangerous warming. Indeed, and despite it being an undoubted greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide emissions are not currently producing any measurable (as opposed to theoretical) warming at all.

There thus being no established scientific problem, about half of what the Climate Commissioners had to say in Geelong (about carbon dioxide taxes and related industry, employment and social issues) can be put aside - for it concerned non-solutions to a non-problem in aid of which has been proposed a non-justifiable new tax.

This leaves as the key issue the matter of what the Commissioners had to say about the scientific evidence for dangerous global warming. Perhaps they were going to share with us some new evidence or insights?

No such luck. What the audience got instead was a mish-mash of misinformation, much of it derived from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and discussion of which signally failed to distinguish between the undoubtedly real problems associated with natural climate change and the hypothetical problems that might or might not result from human-caused warming - should such ever manifest itself.

To begin with, the Commissioners consistent use of the word “carbon” when “carbon dioxide” was meant, and “climate change” when “dangerous global warming caused by human-carbon dioxide emissions” was meant, indicated the degree to which their views are aligned with the Greens’ carefully honed propaganda view of the world. Using this type of prejudicial language in any discussion on global warming is a litmus test for a lack of balance and perspective by the perpetrators.

See here a small selection of some of the other incorrect technical statements, and their implications, that were made by the commissioners.

In his introductory remarks to the Geelong meeting, Commission Chairman Tim Flannery stressed that his commission was independent from government direction, and was “determined not to deliver political spin”. Professor Flannery added that Australia “needs a clear, level-headed debate on the core issues” of the global warming matter.

Using those statements as criteria, how well did the Commission’s performance at Geelong stack up? Readers have probably instantly judged the answer to that question for themselves, but here’s my take.

First, and remembering that THE core issue is the scientific evidence regarding global warming, while Professor Flannery may want a clear debate, some of his commissioners deny that any debate exists, or has for 20 years; collectively, their attitudes also seem aimed at continuing to prevent one. Second, most of the examples of commissioners’ arguments discussed above may not represent “political spin” but they most certainly represent “scientific spin” of the most egregious type.

In essence, Australia’s new Climate Commissioners are simply peddling long discredited arguments about global warming that have been made for 15 years by the IPCC, all of which are carefully crafted to demonize human carbon dioxide emissions. Most of these arguments carry a political overtone, and most are espoused also by Australia’s current government, which makes it a little difficult to see how Professor Flannery is going to be able to exercise his Commission’s claimed independence.

Alarmingly, during all the questions and answers at Geelong, the Commissioners showed no sign of familiarity with the corpus of literature that is critical of the IPCC and of the conclusions of its scientists. And nor do they have amongst their ranks a credentialed independent scientist who could encourage them to focus on empirical evidence rather than computer model outputs, and to distinguish at all times between real natural and speculative human-caused climate-related environmental change.

Science communications expert, Commissioner Susannah Elliott, was not in attendance at the Geelong meeting, but she surely has some work to do with her fellow commissioners to help them lift their game.

The public wants to hear straight answers to straight questions about global warming science, rather than being on the receiving end in a game of climate frisbee-science. Isn’t the former what science communications is all about, and what the Climate Commission was set up for in the first place?

Professor Bob Carter is a geologist, environmental scientist and Emeritus Fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs.