Political Climate
Sep 26, 2011
Why these Bills should be resisted, rejected or repealed

By Viv Forbes, Carbon Sense Coaltion

There is no evidence that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere controls the climate. However there is strong evidence that global temperature controls the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere via the absorption or emission of this soluble gas from the vast oceans.

There is no evidence that the current gentle warm era is unusual or harmful. There have been warmer periods in the past and all have encouraged a profusion of animal and plant life.

In the broad sweep of natural climate change it is clear that life on earth has far more to fear from global cooling than from global warming. It is the ice ages that cause massive extinctions. In the long history of life on earth, global warming has never been a threat to the biosphere.

There is significant evidence that solar cycles have a notable effect on global temperature and rainfall. The sun, the clouds, the oceans, volcanic dust and the winds create our climate with its cycles, seasons, tides, unpredictable variations and occasional extremes. Carbon dioxide exists as a tiny trace of invisible gas in the atmosphere (1 part of CO2 per 2,500 parts of other gases). It exerts a steady, moderating, but very tiny influence on global temperatures.

The effect of a carbon tax on carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will not be measurable. The effect of a carbon tax on the sun, clouds, oceans, volcanoes and winds will be zero. Therefore a carbon tax will have no measurable effect on global climate, even if every country in the world introduced it.

Many of the climate scares, such as loss of corals and rising sea levels, are inventions or exaggerations. Corals have survived for millions of years, have adapted to rising and falling sea levels, and have moved north and south as earth’s temperatures changed. Sea levels have been rising slowly for thousands of years, long before steam engines were invented, and current changes are very gentle and not unusual. In fact recent credible studies show sea levels are gently falling.

It is nonsense to call carbon dioxide a pollutant. It is better called “The Gas of Life” as it provides the major source of food for all plant life which in turn supports all animal life. Current levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are lower than they have been many times in the past and significantly lower than is optimal for all life.

Every molecule of carbon dioxide released by burning coal today was once part of the atmosphere at a time of prolific growth of the huge forests that formed the coal in the first place, millions of years ago. Burning the coal just recycles the natural carbon and other minerals back to the biosphere where the next generation of plants can use them. Coal is as natural and “green” as the forests from which it came.

Mankind does clearly affect his environment with land clearing, cultivation, irrigation, sewerage, garbage, roads, railways, dams and his massive cities of bitumen, concrete, sky scrapers, schools, hospitals, houses and heat generating machines and appliances. The heat from the activities of people and their machines does cause minor but measurable urban heating. Man (and woman) also creates real pollution with smoke, dust and chemical gases, and pollutes waterways and landfill with various waste products. All sensible people want to see a reduction in this real pollution, but carbon dioxide plays no part in it, and a carbon tax will not reduce it.

Carbon dioxide has zero ability to produce heat in itself. It does not burn like carbon, coal or wood it is a harmless and invisible gaseous by-product of burning these fuels. It is not a source of radioactive heat like uranium. All it can do is redirect some of the heat exchanged between the sun and the earth.

Carbon dioxide is generally transparent to most heat and light radiation. However, during the day, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can temporarily interrupt and redirect some of the heat flowing between the sun and the earth (generally keeping the surface cooler than it would have otherwise been). During the night, carbon dioxide again interrupts some of the heat escaping from the surface to space, thus keeping nights warmer than they would have otherwise been. Water vapour has a similar but far greater effect. The net effect on average global temperature is negligible and beneficial to the comfort of life on the surface of the earth.

Earth’s climate is always changing and cycles of heating and cooling have been a regular feature of earth history for as long as geological and historical records exist. To suggest that man is suddenly causing every extreme weather event is just superstitious scare mongering.

To believe that a tax on some Australian businesses which emit carbon dioxide will have the slightest effect on global climate is ludicrous. 

It is obvious that the glib targets for 5-20% cut in carbon dioxide emissions by 2020 (in spite of rising populations) can NEVER be actually achieved without a massive depression of economic activity. A fake reduction may be achieved by forcing Australian companies to pay billions of dollars to foreign carbon sharps for promises to cut their production of carbon dioxide. In most cases, this will NOT result in any reduction in emissions - at best it will produce largely worthless promises to not increase emissions in future. At worst it will be a massive fraud on the Australian taxpayers and consumers. In all cases, it will see a massive transfer of Australian wealth to foreign countries for zero climate benefit.

We are told that most people and businesses will be compensated and thus will not feel any effects from the carbon tax. The whole purpose of the tax is to punish people who use carbon fuels, so they use less of them. If it does not hurt consumers, they will not change their behaviour and the whole thing becomes an exercise in redistributing wealth and enhancing the power of the bureaucracy.

It is false to claim that Australia lags the world in waging war on carbon. The Kyoto Protocol is dead. Only western Europe and New Zealand are moving with us on this suicidal path - they lead the energy lemmings. Perhaps New Zealand hopes to cope without too much pain by using more of their abundant hydro and geothermal energy while most European countries have access to significant hydro, nuclear or geothermal energy.

Australia has NONE of these non-carbon energy sources ready to start producing electricity. Nuclear is feasible but politically unacceptable. It would take a decade at least to get political and regulatory approval, and probably as long again for construction, so nuclear is not really in our energy equation. And unlike Iceland and New Zealand, Australia has no easy geothermal sites if we find any, it will be decades before it could make significant contributions to the electricity grid. We do produce hydro power, but the chances of getting the Greens to approve a dam anywhere, let alone in more mountainous country with gradients suitable for hydro power, is very low. Moreover, our best hydro sites are either already developed, or are sterilised in heritage areas and national parks.

Therefore Australia’s current and future energy needs depend solely on coal and gas, the very fuels that Bob Brown’s green extremists want to tax, regulate and litigate to death. It is an act of national economic suicide to attempt to destroy our ability to generate low cost energy.

The computerised climate models so beloved by the UN IPCC and the CSIRO have never made successful predictions and there is no reason to believe they will ever mimic the complexity of factors affecting climate at any point.

Even if the warming projections from the scare forecasters were accepted, the minor changes in temperature envisaged are small compared to the actual daily and annual variations in temperature experienced at any point on earth. The difference in average temperature between Brisbane and Sydney or Melbourne is more than the worst global warming scares. The temperature change that occurs while we eat breakfast is probably greater than any global warming that could be caused by doubling carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The idea that laughably small temperature changes will somehow do untold damage to life on earth is ludicrous.

It is obvious that there is no consensus on the science supporting the alarmist climate models. A very large and growing group of scientists with relevant knowledge or experience is actively challenging the alarmist models. They will not go away.

Wind and solar energy can never provide reliable electric power at a cost the consumers can afford or Australian businesses can use in a competitive world. They provide unreliable and intermittent power, at a high cost, and also need massive investment in backup carbon-based power facilities and new transmission lines.

All spending on carbon geo-sequestration should cease. This is an enormously costly program to do something that is unnecessary and which will waste much of our precious energy resources and community savings.

Our fleets of cars, tractors, trucks, trains, ships, dozers and aircraft are not going to run on sunbeams and sea breezes they need coal, diesel, petrol or gas to keep moving. If they stop moving, our cities will starve in a few days.

Subsidising and mandating the use of ethanol produced from food crops is a foolish policy with no benefits for the climate or the environment.

The suggestion that emissions from farm livestock are net additions of carbon to the atmosphere is just plain wrong. Every atom of carbon emitted by livestock (in carbon dioxide or methane) is taken from the grass and grains the animal eats, which in turn is taken from the atmosphere by growing plants using photosynthesis and energy from the sun. Methane that returns to the atmosphere soon oxidises back to carbon dioxide which is then taken up by plants. It is a perpetual carbon cycle that has been going on since life began. Earth survived emissions from the vast mobs of ancient auroch cattle which roamed Europe, the bison and antelopes of the American grassland, the wild herds of grazing animals which roamed free over all the African plains, and the kangaroos and bushfires which regularly harvested the Australian grasslands.

In the carbon cycle, trees are just like animals - temporary storehouses for carbon. They are not some special stand-alone life form to be worshipped unconditionally and subsidised thoughtlessly. Every molecule of carbon dioxide that is “captured” when the tree is growing creates the leaves, bark and wood and is stored there. While growing, the tree will shed bark, leaves and branches. These will fall to the ground and decompose, releasing the carbon to the soil, to bacteria or back to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. Eventually, the tree itself will die or be used for timber structures. Eventually all of the tree will rot or be burnt and every carbon atom that was taken from the atmosphere will be end up back in the atmosphere. The same cyclic process occurs for all plant life, including food crops, grasses and algae. All that varies is the time for the complete cycle to occur.

The criticism that Australia leads the world in per capita emissions of carbon dioxide is a silly conclusion from nonsense calculations. Australians are very large suppliers of coal, minerals, food and fibre to consumers all over the world. We utilise large equipment fleets and have a massive transport network to move this food, fibre, energy and minerals to our own capitals and to world consumers. Those consumers should be the ones responsible for the emissions generated by a handful of productive Australians to produce our flood of raw materials. Moreover our grasslands, rivers, oceans and soils are net absorbers of carbon dioxide. A fair and more complete calculation would probably show that Australia is a net absorber of carbon dioxide.

There is no justification for Australia to seek the role of the Pied Piper leading a diminishing band of climate lemmings over the cliffs of alarm onto the hard rocks of reality far below. The Europeans will rue the day they spent their savings on energy chimeras.

Sep 21, 2011
Submission to the Inquiry into Carbon Tax Pricing Mechanisms

Joanne Nova: Dr David Evans lays out four crucial pieces of evidence, and calls for a debate with Prof Andrew Pitman. But the evidence is so unarguably strong for skeptics, we know that the name-calling-team-who-want-our-money will do anything to avoid a public debate. If the evidence is “overwhelming” why are they so unwilling to explain it?  - Jo

Dr David Evans

Global warming has become a scam. Let me explain how it works.

It has superficial plausibility. Yes, global warming is occurring. Yes, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and levels are rising. And yes, every molecule of carbon dioxide we emit causes some global warming.

Many non-scientists think that proves the case, but it doesn’t. In particular, it doesn’t rule out the possibility that carbon dioxide is merely a minor or insignificant player, and that something else is the main cause of global warming.

Here’s a clue: the world has been in a warming trend since 1680, the depth of the Little Ice Age. It has warmed steadily since then, at half a degree per century. Within the trend there is a pattern of 25 - 30 years of warming followed by 25 - 30 years of mild cooling. We just finished a warming period that started in 1975, so chances are we’ll have mild cooling for the next couple of decades. But there were no SUV’s in 1680. Human emissions of CO2 were miniscule before 1850, nearly all come after WWII, and a quarter since 1998. Yet the warming trend was as strong in the 1700s and 1800s as it was in the 1900s.

The theory of man-made global warming doesn’t stand up to even casual scrutiny. It requires believers to ignore or deny overwhelming evidence that it is bunk. The believers have to be schooled by massive propaganda not to notice certain things, and to ignore and revile anyone who points out those things.

There is in fact no empirical evidence that global warming is mainly man-made. If there was, we would have heard all about it. Tens of billions of dollars has been spent looking for it.

Climate scientists readily concede that there is no direct evidence that global warming is caused by our carbon dioxide. Instead, they say that our knowledge of how the climate works is embodied in their climate models, and the climate models say that global warming is man-made.

Models are logically equivalent to someone punching in numbers and doing sums on a calculator - models are calculations, not evidence. The problem is that the models contain many guesses and assumptions about how things work, and some of them are wrong.

Here are four bits of evidence that the climate models are fundamentally flawed

First, they have a track record of greatly exaggerating temperature increases. The global warming scare was started by James Hansen in his presentation to the US Congress in 1988, and comparing his predictions then to what actually occurred, the actual temperature rises are about a third of what he predicted. Remember, they have been saying the “science is settled” since the early 80’s, and the models now are essentially the same as they were then.

Furthermore, Hansen’s models predicted the temperature rise if human carbon dioxide emissions were cut back drastically starting in 1988, such that by year 2000 the atmospheric carbon dioxide level was not rising at all. But in reality, the temperature did not even rise that much. Which proves that the climate models don’t have a clue about the effect of carbon dioxide on world temperature.

Enlarged. Hansen 1988 Climate Model Predictions

Second, the climate models predict the oceans should be warming. We’ve only been measuring ocean temperature properly since 2003, using the ARGO system. In ARGO, a buoy duck dives down to 2000m, slowly ascends and reads the temperatures on the way, then radios the result back by satellite to HQ. Three thousand ARGO buoys patrol the oceans constantly. They say that the ocean temperature since 2003 has been basically flat. Again, reality is very different to the climate models.

Enlarged. ARGO buoys measure the heat content of the top 700m of the world’s oceans.

Third, the climate models predict a particular pattern of atmospheric warming during periods of global warming. In particular, the most prominent change they predict is a warming in the tropics about 10 km up, the so-called “hotspot”. But we have been measuring atmospheric temperatures by weather balloons since the 1960s, and millions of weather balloons say there was no such hotspot during the last warming from 1975 to 2001. The hotspot is integral to their theory, because it would be evidence of the extra evaporation and thickening of the water vapor blanket that produces two thirds of the warming in the climate models - the carbon dioxide itself produces only one third of the projected warming, but is amplified in the models by water vapor. But in reality there is no hotspot, so there is no amplification, which is why the climate models have exaggerated temperature increases.

The Climate models predict a hot spot that is entirely missing from radiosonde results.

Source of data: US Climate Change Science Program, 2006, part E of Figure 5.7, on page 116. Comes from millions of radiosondes (weather balloons) from the 1960s on. There is no other data for this period, and we cannot collect more data on atmospheric warming during global warming until global warming resumes. This is the only data there is.

Source of model pattern: Any climate model, for example, IPCC Assessment Report 4, 2007, Chapter 9, page 675.

Explanation: The hotspot in the models is due to a thickening of the water vapor blanket during global warming, as more water evaporates and the blanket of warm moist air displaces cold dry air above. This thickening causes 2/3 of the warming in the models. But in reality there is no hotspot, so the models exaggerate temperature increases by at least a factor of 3.

(By the way this became known by the mid-1990s, so the theory of man-made global warming should have been abandoned then, but there was too much money, bureaucracy, ideology, bank trading profits, and renewables action for the gravy train to be shut down.)


Fourth, satellites have measured the outgoing radiation from the earth and found that the earth gives off more heat when the surface is warmer, and less heat in months when the earth’s surface is cooler. Who could have guessed? But the climate models say the opposite, that the Earth gives off less heat when the surface is warmer, because they trap heat too aggressively (positive feedback). Again, the climate models are violently at odds with reality.

Enlarged. Outgoing radiation from earth (vertical) against sea surface temperature (horizontal), as measured by the ERBE satellite (upper left) and as “predicted” by 11 climate models (the other graphs). Source: Lindzen and Choi 2009, Geophysical Research Letters Vol. 36

Those are four independent pieces of evidence that the climate models are fundamentally flawed. Anyone one of them, by itself, disproves the theory of man-made global warming. There are also other, more complex, pieces of evidence. Remember, there is no direct evidence that man causes global warming, so if the climate models are wrong then so is the theory.

Now let me explain how they prevent the scam from being revealed

The trick is that they never put any alarmist climate scientist in a position where they have to answer to a knowledgeable critic.

To defend their theory in public, the alarmist climate scientists typically send out people like Tim Flannery or Tony Jones who know next to nothing about how climate models work. Then, when confronted with evidence, these believers immediately just say “but the climate scientists say”. They argue from authority. It has the same structure as the celebrated argument between Galileo and the Pope - evidence on one side, and massive political and religious authority on the other. Note that the Pope had “scientists” on his side too, in fact the overwhelming majority, and they were “the consensus”. It’s easy to manufacture a consensus with that much money and power.

Alarmist climate scientists do make public appearances, but never in a situation where they come under sustained questioning or criticism from anyone who understands models. They have avoided any real debate in public for decades - these alarmists have never been held accountable, they’ve never had to answer to people who knew the problems with their theory. They have never faced an audit, an inquiry, a Royal Commission, or even a hostile interview - yet they get paid megabucks and presume to tell the rest of us how to live our lives.

The alarmist government climate scientists say they only respond to what is in the peer-reviewed journals. But that cover was memorably blown in the ClimateGate scandal of 2009, which revealed in their own words that they rig the journals to prevent publication of anything critical. That’s why they go on and on about peer-review - it’s their mechanism for keeping out criticism.

The climate scientists and their believer acolytes, by the way, are more than happy to argue with unknowledgeable critics - critics who know something is wrong, but don’t quite have the background or understanding of the models to know where the weaknesses are in the alarmist case. The climate scientists delight in being more knowledgeable and all “scientific” against uninformed criticism, because it makes them feel like real scientists instead of charlatans, and is great PR for their cause.

There is something very religious and medieval about all of this. Galileo’s case led to the Enlightenment, in which evidence came to triumph over political authority. In enlightened society, people do not have to believe something just because some political or religious authority say it is so - the evidence determines what is considered true.

But on climate, our society is reversing the Enlightenment, slipping back towards the middle ages. Sure we have smart phones, but our means of determining truth has reverted to political authorities and their pet scientists declaring what is true, denying the evidence, and reviling the unbelievers.

It gets worse. Not only we reversing the values of the Enlightenment, we are de-industrializing. These scam artists, led by those technological buffoons the Greens, want us to close down our cheap and reliable sources of power and go back to using unreliable and intermittent windmills. Like in the middle ages, we would be at the mercy of the breeze, using muscle power where possible. These people pride themselves on being “progressive”, which, like everything else on this topic, is a fully sick parody of the truth.

This corruption has to end. We have repeatedly called for a Royal Commission into the science before taking action, but were of course ignored.

So now I am calling for a debate

Professor Andy Pitman is the leading climate scientist in Australia. Andy has about 20 PhD students working for him, has had millions of dollars of researching funding, and holds lots of prestigious positions in the climate establishment. He recently refused to debate William Kininmonth and me, in the usual dismissive way I won’t debate people who don’t believe in gravity”. Kininmonth was head of Australia’s National Climate Centre for 12 years, and spent 38 years at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology.

So Andy, come and debate us. Your side says the evidence for man-made global warming is overwhelming, so it should be easy for you. What’s the problem? The Australian taxpayer looks after you extremely well, so the least you should have to do is explain yourself once in a while.

The government and the ALP might find such a debate very interesting . As I said in The Australian newspaper in 2008:

“What is going to happen over the next decade as global temperatures continue not to rise? The Labor Government is about to deliberately wreck the economy in order to reduce carbon emissions. If the reasons later turn out to be bogus, the electorate is not going to re-elect a Labor government for a long time. When it comes to light that the carbon scare was known to be bogus in 2008, the ALP is going to be regarded as criminally negligent or ideologically stupid for not having seen through it.”

Sep 20, 2011
Oceans Are Now “Hiding” The Effects of Someone Driving an SUV Instead of a Volt

Update: See a post by Roger Pielke Sr. who has long advocated ocean heat content as a better measure of global thermal state than a surface observation based construction, challenging the claims of NCAR and Trenberth on the deep oceans hiding the heat here.

“A final comment on this paper, if heat really is deposited deep into the ocean (i.e. Joules of heat) it will dispersed through the ocean at these depths and unlikely to be transferred back to the surface on short time periods, but only leak back upwards if at all. The deep ocean would be a long-term damper of global warming, that has not been adequately discussed in the climate science community.”


Oceans are Hiding the Effects of Someone Driving an SUV instead of a VoltSee, the reason that the world is not burning to cinders from slightly above 350ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere...it’s about 387ppm now, a level certainly never seen in the history of the Earth. Doom!...is because those mean oceans are hiding the effects

New analysis led by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) suggests that the relative slowdown in global air temperature rises during the past decade may have been caused in part by the planet’s deep oceans.

Scientists from NCAR and the Bureau of Meteorology in Australia claim that the oceans at times may absorb enough heat to flatten the rate of global warming for periods of as long as a decade even in the midst of longer-term warming.

You see? Anthropogenic global warming is still happening, but is being hidden by a natural process....wait, a natural process is hiding it? Could it possibly be that natural processes have caused the vast majority of perceived warming since the end of the last cool period, the Little Ice Age?

The study, based on computer simulations of global climate, points to ocean layers deeper than 1,000 feet (300 meters) as the main location of the “missing heat” during periods such as the past decade when global air temperatures showed little trend. The findings also suggest that several more intervals like this can be expected over the next century, even as the trend toward overall warming continues.

Uh huh. Computer simulations. How about some hard data?

NCAR’s Gerald Meehl, lead author of the study said: “We will see global warming go through hiatus periods in the future. However, these periods would likely last only about a decade or so, and warming would then resume. This study illustrates one reason why global temperatures do not simply rise in a straight line.
See? It’s so easy: they’ve found a way to say globull warming is real, it’s Mankind’s fault, it’s just that the oceans are hiding the effects. This way, they can continue pushing their cult (and getting research grants).

To track where the heat was going, Meehl and colleagues used a powerful software tool known as the Community Climate System Model, which was developed by scientists at NCAR and the Department of Energy with colleagues at other organizations. Using the model’s ability to portray complex interactions between the atmosphere, land, oceans, and sea ice, they performed five simulations of global temperatures.

The simulations, which were based on projections of future greenhouse gas emissions from human activities, indicated that temperatures would rise by several degrees during this century. But each simulation also showed periods in which temperatures would stabilize for about a decade before climbing again. For example, one simulation showed the global average rising by about 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit (1.4 degrees Celsius) between 2000 and 2100, but with two decade-long hiatus periods during the century.

So, no actual hard data? No measurements of the deep oceans to see if this is actually happening? You know, I love playing 1st person shooters, but, I am under no illusion that they make me a badass warrior capable of wiping out thousands of enemies a day. I’d actually have to go out and train in the real world. The “science” of climate change seems to always ignore the real world.

This study is simply a follow up to the one by Kevin “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at this moment and it is a travesty that we can’t” Trenberth that attempted to say that the warming was playing Where’s Waldo and hiding from us. Because it must be hiding! It couldn’t possibly be that decades of alarmist hysteria was based on a false notion (stamps foot)!


Page 182 of 637 pages « First  <  180 181 182 183 184 >  Last »