Thursday, 10 February 2011

Tim Flannery - Climate Commissioner - OH REALLY?

 Release from Des Moore - Founding Director of the Institute of Private Enterprise.

The Gillard government is proceeding with the discussions of the committee established to examine how to introduce a carbon price and it has now also established a Climate Commission, with the extraordinary appointment of  Tim Flannery as “climate commissioner”, to “sell” the supposed virtues. In short, Australia is proceeding on the basis that the “science is settled” and we are even told (according to The Age, 3 Feb) by Climate Change Minister Combet that a carbon price would boost Australia’s economic competitiveness! 

By contrast, it seems likely that the changed political situation in the United States will lead to further consideration of the science in Congress. Indeed in recent days the tired old science consensus claim has been revived by 18 scientists writing to Congress asking  that this occur. Their letter (see here) runs the consensus line that “everyone of the leading national scientific academies worldwide have concluded that human activity is changing the climate” and that “no research results have produced any evidence that challenges the overall scientific understanding of what is happening to our planet’s climate and why”. The G18 asserts therefore that climate deniers should “not be given scientific weight equal to the comprehensive, peer-reviewed research presented by the vast majority of climate scientists”. The signatories include 8 members of the National Academy of Sciences and Michael Mann and Kevin Trenberth (who are not members).

Unsurprisingly, the Science and Environmental Policy Project (whose President is Professor Fred Singer) has responded with a letter to Congress (details here) rejecting the “scares” promulgated in the G18 letter (which include “rising sea levels and storm surges”, some regions to be “increasingly vulnerable to drought” and others need to “prepare for massive flooding”) and pointing out that there are many scientific studies that reject the consensus claim. In this letter, which is signed by 36 scientists (including two members of the National Academy of Sciences, Richard Lindzen and Will Happer), reference is made to inter alia 678 scientific studies quoted in a report that “offers a point-by- point rebuttal of all the claims” by the G18, “citing in every case peer-reviewed scientific research on the actual effects of climate change during the past several decades”.    Claims of scientific consensus or overwhelming proof are described as “simply not true” but support is given to the GI8 request for Congress to take a fresh look at climate change.

With extraordinary claims being made by Garnaut and Combet (not to mention by the Greens), and little  opportunity for Australian sceptics to rebut those in the media, it is surprising that the Opposition does not seek some form of Parliamentary inquiry/examination. Gillard’s carbon price policy is high on the government’s agenda and yet it appears this will be allowed to happen with scarcely a squeak by the Opposition.

Debunking Peer-Review

Via Marc Morano's Climate Depot (see link in title) we have outstanding Journalist James Delingpole's exposure of the futility of peer review.

James opens his piece with a quote from the Climategate emails. (The alarmists are still trying to say that they are in Cabal code)

“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” Phil Jones to Michael Mann, Climategate emails, July 8th 2004.

Just like their "Hide the decline" stuff, the Climate Cabal Clowns are trying to hide anything that doesn't conform with the falsified CO2 caused AGW.

So, was Newton peer reviewed when an apple fell on his head and he said: It's gravity?

Was Einstein peer reviewed when he said E=MC2?

In both cases that is a NO. So, do we mistrust these scientist because there was no peer review? When Ferenc Miskolczi' paper was published in an Hungarian Science Journal, the Australian Government tried to counter it with "Miskolczi’s paper was not published in a high impact peer-reviewed journal"

Oh really? Not a  high impact peer-reviewed journal? What a load of balderdash from a Government Department. Oh, sorry, that's a government Department's job, isn't it?

Back to James:

With me so far? Good. Now we can move on to an incredibly complicated story which is causing much excitement at Watts Up With That?, Climate Audit and Bishop Hill at the moment. Some are saying its as damning of the “Consensus” as Climategate. It involves two people you’ve probably never heard of – Eric Steig and Ryan O’Donnell.


Well, rather than repeat the whole sorry episode here, the you-scratch-my-back-I'll-scratch-yours system of peer review leaves a lot to be desired. Read the whole story here

Also, we should remember how the Climate CabalCRU fought the Science magazine editors. to suppress any anti AGW papers:

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”

Reply to “The Importance of Science in Addressing Climate Change”

February 8, 2011
To the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate:

In reply to “The Importance of Science in Addressing Climate Change”

On 28 January 2011, eighteen scientists sent a letter to members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate urging them to “take a fresh look at climate change.” Their intent, apparently, was to disparage the views of scientists who disagree with their contention that continued business-as-usual increases in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions produced from the burning of coal, gas, and oil will lead to a host of cataclysmic climate-related problems.

We, the undersigned, totally disagree with them and would like to take this opportunity to briefly state our side of the story.

The eighteen climate alarmists (as we refer to them, not derogatorily, but simply because they view themselves as “sounding the alarm” about so many things climatic) state that the people of the world “need to prepare for massive flooding from the extreme storms of the sort being experienced with increasing frequency,” as well as the “direct health impacts from heat waves” and “climate-sensitive infectious diseases,” among a number of other devastating phenomena. And they say that “no research results have produced any evidence that challenges the overall scientific understanding of what is happening to our planet’s climate,” which is understood to mean their view of what is happening to Earth’s climate.

To these statements, however, we take great exception. It is the eighteen climate alarmists who appear to be unaware of “what is happening to our planet’s climate,” as well as the vast amount of research that has produced that knowledge.

For example, a lengthy review of their claims and others that climate alarmists frequently make can be found on the Web site of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (see http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/prudentpath/prudentpath.php). That report offers a point-by-point rebuttal of all of the claims of the “group of eighteen,” citing in every case peer-reviewed scientific research on the actual effects of climate change during the past several decades.

If the “group of eighteen” pleads ignorance of this information due to its very recent posting, then we call their attention to an even larger and more comprehensive report published in 2009, Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). That document has been posted for more than a year in its entirety at www.nipccreport.org.

These are just two recent compilations of scientific research among many we could cite. Do the 678 scientific studies referenced in the CO2 Science document, or the thousands of studies cited in the NIPCC report, provide real-world evidence (as opposed to theoretical climate model predictions) for global warming-induced increases in the worldwide number and severity of
floods? No. In the global number and severity of droughts? No. In the number and severity of hurricanes and other storms? No.

Do they provide any real-world evidence of Earth’s seas inundating coastal lowlands around the globe? No. Increased human mortality? No. Plant and animal extinctions? No. Declining vegetative productivity? No. More frequent and deadly coral bleaching? No. Marine life dissolving away in acidified oceans? No.

Quite to the contrary, in fact, these reports provide extensive empirical evidence that these things are not happening. And in many of these areas, the referenced papers report finding just the opposite response to global warming, i.e., biosphere-friendly effects of rising temperatures and rising CO2 levels.

In light of the profusion of actual observations of the workings of the real world showing little or no negative effects of the modest warming of the second half of the twentieth century, and indeed growing evidence of positive effects, we find it incomprehensible that the eighteen climate alarmists could suggest something so far removed from the truth as their claim that no research results have produced any evidence that challenges their view of what is happening to Earth’s climate and weather.

But don’t take our word for it. Read the two reports yourselves. And then make up your own minds about the matter. Don’t be intimidated by false claims of “scientific consensus” or “overwhelming proof.” These are not scientific arguments and they are simply not true.

Like the eighteen climate alarmists, we urge you to take a fresh look at climate change. We believe you will find that it is not the horrendous environmental threat they and others have made it out to be, and that they have consistently exaggerated the negative effects of global warming on the U.S. economy, national security, and public health, when such effects may well be small to negligible.

Signed by:

Syun-Ichi Akasofu, University of Alaska 1
Scott Armstrong, University of Pennsylvania
James Barrante, Southern Connecticut State University 1
John Boring, University of Virginia 1
Roger Cohen, American Physical Society Fellow
David Douglass, University of Rochester
Don Easterbrook, Western Washington University 1
Robert Essenhigh, The Ohio State University 1
Neil Frank, Former Director National Hurricane Center
Martin Fricke, Senior Fellow, American Physical Society
Lee Gerhard, University of Kansas 1
Ulrich Gerlach, The Ohio State University
Victor Goldschmidt, Purdue University 1
Guillermo Gonzalez, Grove City College
Laurence Gould, University of Hartford
Bill Gray, Colorado State University 1
Will Happer, Princeton University 2
Howard Hayden, University of Connecticut 1
Craig Idso, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
Sherwood Idso, USDA, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory 1
Richard Keen, University of Colorado 1
Doral Kemper, USDA, Agricultural Research Service 1
Hugh Kendrick, Office of Nuclear Reactor Programs, DOE 1
Edward Krug, University of Illinois 1
Richard Lindzen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 2
Anthony Lupo, University of Missouri
Patrick Michaels, Cato Institute
Donald Nielsen, University of California, Davis 1
Al Pekarek, St. Cloud State University
John Rhoads, Midwestern State University 1
Nicola Scafetta, Duke University
Gary Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study
S. Fred Singer, University of Virginia 1
Roy Spencer, University of Alabama
George Taylor, Past President, American Association of State Climatologists
Frank Tipler, Tulane University
James Wanliss, Presbyterian College
Leonard Weinstein, National Institute of Aerospace Senior Research Fellow
Samuel Werner, University of Missouri 1
Bruce West, American Physical Society Fellow
Thomas Wolfram, University of Missouri 1

1 - Emeritus or Retired
2 - Member of the National Academy of Sciences


Endorsed by:
Rodney Armstrong, Geophysicist
Richard Becherer, University of Connecticut 1
E. Calvin Beisner, The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation
Edwin Berry, Certified Consulting Meteorologist
Joseph Bevelacqua, Bevelacqua Resources
Carmen Catanese, American Physical Society Member
Roy Clark, Ventura Photonics
John Coleman, Meteorologist KUSI TV
Darrell Connelly, Geophysicist
Joseph D'Aleo, Certified Consulting Meteorologist
Terry Donze, Geophysicist 1
Mike Dubrasich, Western Institute for Study of the Environment
John Dunn, American Council on Science and Health of NYC
Dick Flygare, Engineer
Michael Fox, Nuclear industry/scientist
Gordon Fulks, Gordon Fulks and Associates
Steve Goreham, Climate Science Coalition of America
Ken Haapala, Science & Environmental Policy Project
Martin Hertzberg, Bureau of Mines 1
Art Horn, Meteorologist
Keith Idso, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
John Kimberly, Geologist
Jay Lehr, The Heartland Institute
Robert Lerine, Industrial and Defense Research and Engineering 1
Peter Link, Geologist
James Macdonald, Chief Meteorologist for the Travelers Weather Service1
Roger Matson, Society of Independent Professional Earth Scientists
Tony Pann, Meteorologist WBAL TV
Ned Rasor, Consulting Physicist
James Rogers, Geologist 1
Norman Rogers, National Association of Scholars
Rene Rogers, Litton Electron Devices 1
Bruce Schwoegler, MySky Communications, Inc.
Thomas Sheahen, Western Technology Incorporated
James Spann, Chief Meteorologist, ABC 33/40 - Birmingham
Andrew Spurlock, Starfire Engineering and Technologies, Inc.
Leighton Steward, PlantsNeedCO2.org
Soames Summerhays, Summerhays Films, Inc.
Charles Touhill, Consulting Environmental Engineer
David Wojick, Climatechangedebate.org
Bob Zybach, Ecologist

1 - Emeritus or Retired

The Perils of Wind Farms

Windtoons.com
A summary of Wind Farm stories on this blog.

“Nigel Lawson said in the House of Lords at the time:
 “The Bill will go down in history, and future generations will see it, as the most absurd Bill that this House and Parliament has ever had to examine. The weather gods were the first to draw attention to the stupidity of the Climate Fools in Westminster. Weeks of icy weather froze the whole of Britain, wind turbines froze, solar panels were covered in snow, but coal, gas and nuclear power stations running at full power for 24/7 averted calamity. Power lines broke, stopping electric trains - on one line in Scotland the only train running was an old steam train burning coal.

Meanwhile, in the Great Southern Land, it was reported in the Australian that Christine Milne said "with the clearest of brows and the sternest of expressions, that wind and sun are already fully grown viable alternatives to fossil fuel power..."

Does Ms Milne want to ruin Australia’s economy?

Scientific research is being published showing health problems to residents living within 2 km of large wind turbines. Logically I would think this information should cause a re-evaluation of any wind-power farm plans.

Art LindgrenIn the first 10 minutes, our jaws dropped to the ground. Nobody in the area could believe it. They were so loud.”

It leads to higher carbon emissions.

The wind industry has achieved remarkable growth largely due to the claim that it will provide major reductions in carbon dioxide emissions. There's just one problem: It's not true. A slew of recent studies show that wind-generated electricity likely won't result in any reduction in carbon emissions—or that they'll be so small as to be almost meaningless.

Wind Power has been killing birds, bats and doesn`t work for a large percentage of the time.
The Green ideology says it's the answer - It's not.  (Includes Video Presentation)

As reported by Reuters, as the UK Wind Farms move into deeper waters the move into rougher waters, they move into dangerous waters. Rougher waters mean that the transfer of maintenance personnel from ferrying boats to the wind turbines becomes more dangerous.

“You ain’t seen nothing yet” - Says Garnault


“You ain’t seen nothing yet”
Contributed by David Stockwell and Anthony Cox
So says Professor Ross Garnaut, one of many in a conga line of doom and gloom opinions offered about the recent floods and cyclones and indeed anything weather-wise which deviates from a Camelot range of optimum conditions.
Of course anthropogenic global warming [AGW] is to blame and Garnaut’s opinion has hardened since his 2008 report, The Garnaut Climate Change Review. “Extreme climate events have become immediately more intense” he says in the opening paragraph of the recently released update to the report.
The current exceptional climate events are not exceptional; not one. So indeed Professor Garnaut is right: we have seen “nothing yet”, only natural variation and some heroism and good old fashioned Aussie community spirit and good old fashioned Aussie political opportunism.
In his first report Garnaut was quite up front about the lack of scientific evidence for AGW. He had previously stated this concern when he gave the 2008 6th H. W. Ardnt Memorial Lecture, which was a prelude to his first report.
In his lecture Garnaut readily admits the “great uncertainty” surrounding the science and the costs of implementing AGW preventative measures, and even the futility of doing so, when globally, the main players are not doing the same.
Where Garnaut falls in a stupefying heap is on page 7 of his lecture where he invokes Pascal’s wager. Blaise Pascal was a 17th century mathematician and philosopher who was sceptical about the existence of God, but said it was still better to believe in God because the deceit of believing cost you little, and, if God existed, the reward was great. Pascal’s wager was an indictment of the sincerity, or lack thereof, of faith, which could be shown to be reducible to an economic process whereby minimal investment (ie hypocrisy) would guarantee against catastrophe.
On page 17 of this speech Garnaut looks at the ideal insurance approach to AGW, which really is a restatement of Pascal. Garnaut says the remote chance of catastrophe, if AGW is left unchecked, can be prevented for, by comparison, minimal investment.
There are several layers of hypocrisy operating here. The first is that it has been the threat of catastrophe which has been selling AGW since day one; always expressed in dire and apocalyptic imagery. In response to Garnaut’s 2008 report David Stockwell examined two of Garnaut's threats and reported the results in a peer-reviewed journal. The first showed that CSIRO modelling which predicted more and worse droughts was incorrect when compared with actual Bureau of Meteorology data. The second showed the claim that temperature increases were supposedly ahead of IPCC projections was based on incomplete data. This claim was based on a paper by AGW scientist Stephan Rahmstorf. Stockwell showed that when Rahmstorf’s data was brought up to date the temperature trend had not increased. Rahmstorf had used data which had been influenced by the 1998 super El Nino.
In effect Rahmstorf used a natural event to try to prove exceptional threat. Rahmstorf’s erroneous report was referenced 5 times in Garnaut’s 2008 interim report. Garnaut has obviously 'moved on' but still mistakes natural for exceptional, indicating that the upcoming Chapter 6 of the Review will look at the latest threat du jour – the effects of climate change on water resources and sea level rise.
The second level of hypocrisy is the notion of minimal cost. In a 2008 report The International Energy Agency estimated that to prevent CO2 emissions from more than doubling by 2050 will require $47000 Billion, which is 47 times the entire Australian economy’s annual worth; that is today; if the current government brings in its various programs such as the wired NBN and the carbon tax measures the Australian economy won’t be worth a pinch of guano; and don’t forget that $47000 Billion is to stop CO2 from more than doubling; to reduce it to just a doubling will be much more.
In fact Professor Lomborg has costed the Pascal’s Wager approach to AGW. In his book “Cool It” on page 41 Lomborg measures the cost and benefit of doing nothing about AGW compared with various levels of expenditure on AGW. Lomborg’s do nothing option about AGW is a twist on Pascal’s wager. It accepts that AGW is real but not catastrophic. In effect God is real but New Testament. In this scenario God pats you on the back for recognising the evidence for his and AGW’s existence is scant. In AGW terms this means that there are benefits to a warming world which offset the costs. Those benefits exceed the costs by $1 trillion.
The other options in Lomborg’s 'AGW is real' scenario are in expenditure terms the equivalent of Dante’s circles of Hell; with the most extreme option being to keep temperature increases to 1.5C above current levels. That would cost $84 trillion and have AGW mitigation benefits worth $11 trillion.
And these alternatives are based on AGW being real; that the science is settled.
Thirdly, and most profoundly, the science is NOT settled; and it is the continuum of the scientific scenarios which defines the risk and ultimately the worth of Pascal’s wager. Many scientists, such as Lomborg, have shown that there is no worst-case scenario. But it is the doomsday science which prevails, and the question must be asked, does this cease to be science and become a sort of paranoia, a ‘what-if’ psychology which has as much relevance to reality as little green men, or the ‘sky-is-falling’.
Professor Garnaut has just released the first of a flurry of 8 updates to his 2008 report. In the text he acknowledges that “The majority position remains contested by a small number of dissenters with relevant scientific credentials.” But he states in public “There was no area where sceptical views of the science could draw strength from peer-reviewed research released in the past five years.”
This is a bold statement and either the professor is not up to date with his reading or is getting bad advice. Richard Feynman said that when it comes to science, “The exception proves that the rule is wrong. That is the principle of science. If there is an exception to any rule, and it can be proved by observation, that rule is wrong”.
In fact, during 2010 alone there were at least 7 new peer-reviewed papers which were based on observation and which fundamentally contradicted catastrophic AGW. These papers include Lindzen and Choi’s follow-up paper on outgoing long-wave radiation, Spencer and Braswell’s new paper on negative feedback from clouds, Knox and Douglass’s paper on ocean heat content increase [there ain’t any], Miskolczi’s revised paper on the optical depth of the atmosphere, McShane and Wyner’s paper demolishing the centrepiece of AGW science, the Hockey-stick, McKitrick’s paper demolishing another centre-piece of AGW, the Tropical Hot Spot and Koutsoyiannis’s follow-up paper showing the AGW computer models have no predictive skill.
Demolishing sacred cows is science at its best, and these are some of the best in the field. But Garnaut has apparently dismissed them as he goes on his merry way advocating disastrous economic policies for Australia based on no more than Pascal’s thimble and pea trick. People are over this; they have seen what real nature can do and they don’t need experts brow-beating them on a “trust me” basis. When Garnaut says “you ain’t seen nothing yet” he is obviously talking to himself.