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.

Across the States: California

A California Superior Court ruling this week is likely to delay the start of the State’s cap-and-trade energy-rationing scheme. The lawsuit, which was brought by environmental groups, alleged that the California Air Resources Board violated the Environmental Quality Act because it failed to consider other, more environmentally stringent climate policies than cap-and-trade. As a result of the ruling, CARB will have to consider other options, which is likely to push back the starting date of California’s energy-rationing scheme, which was supposed to start on January 1 2012.

The lawsuit is further evidence that it is impossible to placate environmental special interests. For them, even energy rationing is insufficient to fight the supposed problem of global warming. This litigation is similar to environmentalist opposition to solar power, due to the fact that it might harm a tortoise, or opposition to hydropower, because it might hurt fish. In fact, there is only one policy that would win over the environmentalist community: deindustrialization.

Senate Looks Ready to Vote on EPA Pre-Emption Amendment

The Senate now appears headed for a floor vote next week on S. 482, which Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell introduced on 15th March as an amendment to the Small Business Innovation Research and Technology Transfer Programs Re-Authorization Act, S. 493.  S. 482, the Energy Tax Prevention Act, was introduced by Senator James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.) and is identical to H. R. 910, which the House plans to vote on as a free-standing bill next month.  McConnell’s amendment would block EPA from using the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions until authorized by Congress.

Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) postponed a vote on the amendment last week when it became clear that it might come close to the 60 votes required for passage.  First, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) introduced his bill to delay EPA regulations for two years as an amendment.  When that seemed to gain little support, Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) introduced an amendment that would codify EPA regulations into law but permanently exempt from regulation smaller stationary sources that emit less than 75,000 tons per year.

The idea behind the Baucus amendment is that it peels off opposition from small businesses, farmers, and ranchers.  The American Farm Bureau Federation sent a strong letter to the Senate supporting Inhofe’s bill and McConnell’s amendment and opposing Baucus’s amendment.  The Farm Bureau points out that farmers and ranchers will still have to pay more for energy and fertilizer even if they are not directly regulated.

It looks like Reid is now thinking about having votes on all three amendments.  McConnell appears to have more than 50 votes for his amendment, but not the 60 required for passage, since the amendment is not germane to the bill and is thus subject to a point of order.  On the other hand, Reid may succeed in getting nearly all the Democrats to vote for the Baucus amendment.  So it could end up with close to 50 votes as well.

House Vote on EPA Pre-Emption Bill Put Off until Early April

The House of Representatives has tentatively scheduled floor debate on H. R. 910, the Energy Tax Prevention Act, for the week of 4th April.  Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton’s (R-Mich.) bill would block EPA from using the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions until authorized by Congress to do so.  I think that the schedule could easily slip so that the bill doesn’t come to the floor until the week of 11th April, but the House’s Republican majority leadership still seems committed to getting final passage before leaving for the Holy Week and Easter recess, which begins on the 18th.

Environmental pressure groups are running radio and television ads in some districts, most notably in Chairman Upton’s district.  I discuss the American Lung Association’s shameless billboards in a post on GlobalWarming.org.

Two former EPA Administrators in Republican administrations, William D. Ruckelshaus and Christie Todd Whitman, published an embarrassingly inane and self-serving op-ed in the Washington Post today, headlined “Undoing 40 years of green gains?” Ruckelshaus and Whitman write, “Today the agency Richard Nixon created ... is under siege.  They have that backwards.  Americans are under siege by EPA.

Press Release

Washington, D.C. - A member of the Project 21 black leadership network is criticizing the American Lung Association for the misleading nature of its billboard campaign denouncing Rep. Fred Upton.

Upton has introduced legislation, the “Energy Tax Prevention Act,” that bars the Environmental Protection Agency from imposing costly and job-killing carbon dioxide regulations without congressional approval.

The billboards say, “Rep. Fred Upton, protect our kids’ health. Don’t weaken the Clean Air Act.” The billboards feature a photo of a girl wearing a mask to assist her breathing.

Upton’s legislation would not weaken the pollution-control elements of the Clean Air Act, but prevent the EPA from regulating carbon dioxide, which is not a pollutant.  Carbon dioxide regulations have nothing to do with our childrens’ ability to breathe.

“It’s outrageous that a charity purportedly dedicated to health issues is exploiting children to protect the EPA’s power grab,” said Project 21 full-time fellow Deneen Borelli. “The American Lung Association of Michigan’s action against Congressman Upton puts the group’s reputation at risk of becoming known as just another liberal front group trying to manipulate public opinion through fear and deception.”

One billboard is situated directly opposite Upton’s Kalamazoo office.

After the Democratic majority in the Senate declined to adopt a “cap-and-trade” emissions bill in the last congressional session, President Barack Obama ordered the EPA to begin regulating greenhouse gases. He did so under the authority of a 2007 U.S. Supreme Court ruling determining that, although Congress did not state so explicitly at the time (and did not consider carbon dioxide a pollutant at the time), Congress intended for the EPA to have this authority under the Clean Air Act. Upton’s bill specifies that Congress will retain this lawmaking authority for the legislative branch.

“It’s up to Congress to write the laws, and there is little enthusiasm among elected leaders to regulate our nation’s energy industry so that prices will skyrocket,” added Project 21’s Borelli. “The biggest health risks will be derived from the economic consequences of EPA’s regulation greenhouse gas emissions. When families end of paying more and more for power, they will have less to spend on medical care, education and savings.”

A 2010 report by Management Information Services estimated EPA regulation of carbon dioxide could destroy 2.5 million jobs by 2030 and lower the average American household income by $1,200 a year. And, while emissions regulation is expected to increase energy prices, a new study by the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity found that lower-to-middle-class families are already paying much more for energy than they did just a decade ago—a 12 percent to 20 percent increase of after-tax income, for example, for a family earning less than $50,000 a year.

“Transferring regulatory authority back to elected lawmakers merely stops a radical agenda at the EPA that will raise energy prices. Carbon dioxide is what we exhale—it doesn’t cause cancer or acid rain,” said Borelli. “This is not the American Lung Association’s fight, and their intervention—in light of receiving EPA funding—also questions the intent.”

According to the EPA’s online Grant Awards Database, the American Lung Association of Michigan received $78,000 from the EPA over the past decade. Grants to the Association and its affiliates during that time total over $20 million.

Project 21, a leading voice of black conservatives since 1992, is sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research .

Alan Siddons adds this:

Buteyko Breathing Technique

The Buteyko (pronounced bew-tay-ko) Breathing Technique was developed by Russian-born researcher Konstantin Pavlovich Buteyko. It consists of shallow-breathing exercises designed to help people with asthma breathe easier.

The Buteyko Breathing Technique is based on the premise that raising blood levels of carbon dioxide through shallow breathing can help people with asthma. Carbon dioxide is believed to dilate the smooth muscles of the airways.

See also this New York Times article, A Breathing Technique Offers Help for People With Asthma. 

If this technique is effective, and indeed it appears to be, it’d be quite an irony for CO2-phobaholics like the American Lung Association.