The Lancet CommissionsHealth and climate change: policy responses to protect public health
|(L) Dr Wes Allen and his publisher Bob Brinsmead|
The 2015 Lancet Commission on Health and Climate Change, comprising 45 international multidisciplinary academics (29 PhD’s and one MD) headed by Nick Watts (MA), released its freely available report online on 23 June. Its laudable intention (stated on page 1) was “to map out the impacts of climate change, and the necessary policy responses, in order to ensure the highest attainable standards of health for populations worldwide.” The UCL-Lancet Commission on Managing the Health Effects of Climate Change had published a report prior to the Copenhagen Climate Summit of 2009; and this report is timed to precede the Paris Convention beginning 30 November.
An Editorial in Australian Doctor by Jo Hartley on 3 July 2015 alerted me to this Lancet report, which is already making quite an impression on medical editors, authors, colleges, Doctors for the Environment Australia (DEA) and other organisations. The reader may be wondering why a full-time GP would want to critique this Lancet Commissions report. Having a keen interest in health promotion since the 1970s,1, 2 in experimental science since the 1980s,3, 4 evidence-based medicine since the 1990s and climate science since the early 2000s,5 I downloaded and examined this report. I found it to contain useful information and worthwhile suggestions, but also enough problems to warrant a critique.
I have observed two polarised positions on climate change: those who think it is real but entirely natural, who label dissenters as ‘warmists’ or ‘lukewarmers’; and those who think it is entirely anthropogenic and dangerous, who predict catastrophe unless we decarbonise, who classify dissenters as ‘deniers’, and who lay claim to a 97% scientific consensus (Cook et al 2013).6 A more specific and comprehensive survey of over
1,800 international climate-related scientists in 2012, published by Verheggen et al (2014)7 and later analysed in detail (April 2015),8 reveals much more uncertainty and disagreement. I identify with the less vocal middle ground where scientific objectivity is valued more highly than advocacy for a cause.
When earlier critiquing The Weather Makers and Slaying the Sky Dragon, publications representing both extremes, I found them wanting in scientific rigor: both made unwarranted assumptions and exaggerated statements; and both cherry-picked data, ignored inconvenient evidence and minimised uncertainties. I will leave the reader to judge the 2015 Lancet Commission on Health and Climate Change in that regard. It is certainly not free from confirmation bias – and neither am I.
I take sole responsibility for preparing and publishing this critique; I have received no funding or influence from any source; and I have no conflict of interest other than some Rio Tinto and SILEX shares, held since 1999 in a self- managed super fund and now comprising less than 0.4% of the assets in that fund. As a frugal vegetarian who often cycles to work and elsewhere, I happen to have a modest carbon footprint but no illusions about thereby saving the planet.
Quotations from the Lancet report are hereafter in bold red.
The direct effects of climate change include increased heat stress, floods, drought, and increased frequency of intense storms, with the indirect threatening population health through adverse changes in air pollution, the spread of disease vectors, food insecurity and under-nutrition, displacement, and mental ill health.” (p.1)
What are the facts? Firstly regarding increased heat stress, The Lancet itself had just published a comprehensive study by Gasparrini et al (May 2015),9 reported in Science Daily, which found that cold weather is still twenty times more lethal than hot weather. Secondly, this same Lancet report admits on page 4 that there is no evidence whatsoever for linking intense storms to anthropogenic climate change. Indeed, it cites four studies showing no link. Greenhouse gases reduce temperature differentials across latitudes, day/night and summer/winter, thereby reducing the pressure gradients that drive storms. Studies on stalagmites in a Chillagoe cave in North Queensland indicate that the most intense cyclones occurred during the Little Ice Age (1400 – 1800 CE):
|Strength Index of Tropical Cyclone Events in North Qld (1226-2003) Adapted from Nott et al 2007 10|
Thirdly, as also later noted in this Lancet report, the WHO states that Air pollution from burning wood and dung in homes deprived of cheap electricity kills more than four million people annually.
Fourthly, global food production increased by 62.8% from 1980 to 2003, during which atmospheric CO2 increased by 11.2%, fertiliser use increased by 27.5% and land use barely increased at all.11 Doubling the atmospheric carbon dioxide increases the photosynthesis and crop yield of C3 plants (e.g. wheat, rice, soy beans) by 30-60%, but not C4 plants (e.g. maize, millet, sugar cane). Horticulturalists often increase it to 1,000ppm in greenhouses to boost crop production and use less water, lost from fewer leaf stomata. As plants become more drought-resistant, deserts shrink. The Sahel is greening and the global terrestrial biomass is increasing despite deforestation. If the real greens (living leaves) could communicate, they would be horrified to hear their primary nutrient being called a pollutant. Tree-rings narrowed and many (C3) plants struggled to survive at pre-industrial levels (280ppm). We have been able to feed a growing global population largely because we have taken nitrogen out of the air and put it in the soil and carbon out of the ground and put it in the air. Food production is likely to further increase in a warmer, wetter world.
Finally, there are many failed predictions of displacement due to climate change. In 2004, Tim Flannery wrote: “By 2010-20, with water supplies and energy reserves strained, Australia and the US would focus increasingly on border protection to keep out the migrating hordes from Asia and the Caribbean. The European Union (to keep out those homeless Scandinavians, among others) or driven to collapse and chaos by internal squabbling . . .” (The Weather Makers p.191). The UN prediction in 2005 that there would be 50 millions climate refugees by 2010 became such an embarrassment that it was removed from the UN website. Time has shown it is not climate change that we need to fear or fight so much as racial and religious tensions, inequality, injustice, tyranny and corruption. The best way to help nations cope with climate change and sea level rise is to help them prosper through free trade and cheap energy. Holland is a prime example.
Although the starting date for the 20C rise is not stated here, it is later identified as preindustrial, during the Little Ice Age. Even from the present, however, another 20C will not be catastrophic. The Eemian (the previous interglacial) was probably several degrees warmer than now;12 arctic ice all but disappeared in summer;13 forests grew in what is now arctic tundra, the northern tree-line being over 600 km farther north than now;14 and hippopotami swam in the Rhine and the Thames.15 Variations in Earth's orbital parameters - obliquity and precession (Berger, 1978) produced the Holocene Thermal Maximum (~6,000BCE) which was also warmer than now, by up to 70C in northern Russia for several millennia;16 Scandinavian tree-lines reached altitudes up to 300 meters higher than at present;17 and Arctic summers were probably ice-free.18
The peer-reviewed literature contains fourteen papers on the likely impacts, on GDP and human welfare, of temperatures higher than now – by 10C (2 studies), by 2.50C (10 studies) and 30C (2 studies). What these studies show is that the optimal temperature is actually about 10C higher than now. This would result in a 2% increase in GDP. Not until temperature rises above 2.30C would GDP drop below today’s level:
|Source: Tol 2010,5 derived from UN data|
While scientists generally concur that human activities are contributing to climate change, there is no consensus on how much difference we are making or how much warmer it might be by 2100. The Lancet’s 2.6-4.80C is based on climate model projections. How reliable are these?
CLIMATE SENSITIVITY – the elephant in the roomClimate-sensitivity is mentioned only once in this report – in Panel 3 on page 15 – and never defined or quantified. The temperature response to increasing atmospheric CO2 is not linear but roughly logarithmic, which means that (without feedbacks) each doubling of CO2 results in about 10C increase in temperature. Positive feedbacks have been thought to increase this to 1.50C – 4.50C with a best estimate of 30C. The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) narrowed the range of this equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) to 2.0 – 4.50C. When later observation-based studies19, 20, 21 indicated a best estimate ECS of between 1.50C and 20C, the IPCC’s AR5 (published in 2014) reduced the lower estimate range back to 1.50C but declined to provide a best estimate. Lewis and Curry have since provided their best estimate ECS of 1.640C and a transient climate sensitivity (TCS) of 1.330C. This remains controversial.
The Keeling Curve of atmospheric CO2 level increased almost linearly at ~1.6ppm/yr from 1976 to 2000, and then almost linearly this century at ~2ppm/yr. If it continues to accelerate at this rate, it would increase by ~80% this century; a TCS of 1.330C would thus produce just over 10C of warming this century; and an ECS of 1.640C would result in another 0.30C of warming next century if there was no further increase in atmospheric CO2.
The temperature response so far this century is almost zero. Indeed, the RSS satellite data shows no warming of the lower troposphere since 1997, and a slight cooling since 2002. The warming rate of the
20C per decade:
The latest UAH satellite data shows a warming trend of just 0.1140C per decade since measurements began in 1979 and no warming of the lower troposphere since 1998:
Satellites use microwave sounding units (MSUs) to detect microwave radiation from oxygen molecules in the lower troposphere, the recorded changes being converted to temperature anomalies. These
Proposed reasons for this warming pause or ‘hiatus’ remain controversial, but the most likely explanations are:
A quieter sun (diminished solar cycle 24)23 following a century of heightened activity:
The 400-year sunspot record is the longest continuously
recorded daily measurement made in science.
Ocean oscillations24 and heat transfer:
Pacific and Atlantic Oscillations vs. USA Temperature, 1905-2000. Source: D’Aleo, 2007.
It is thought that trade winds increase during negative oscillations thus increasing ocean overturning, i.e. up- welling of cool water in the eastern Pacific.
Positive ocean oscillations help to explain global temperature surges (1850-1880, 1910-1940 & 1976- 2002) with negative oscillations producing plateaus or temperature declines, e.g. from 1941 to 1975 despite increasing industrial activity and atmospheric CO2:
On 24 June 1974, Time magazine warned of a new ice age and, on 28 April 1975, Newsweek’s leading article titled A Cooling World forecast floods, droughts and catastrophic famines. The late Stephen Schneider attributed that cooling to aerosols emitted from fossil fuels.25 He wrote: “Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of utmost importance: the survival of ourselves, our children, our species.”26 Dr Schneider then told Discover magazine in 1989:
On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method . . . which means that we must include all the doubts . . . On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have.
Emulating Schneider, this Lancet Commission offers up ‘high-end emissions projection scenarios’; but how reliable are those climate model projections? Both individually and collectively, they increasingly exceed 21st century observations:
UN AGENDA: With the 15-year term of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol coming to an end, the UN had high hopes for the 2009 Copenhagen Summit, but the preceding Climategate emails27, 28 revealed something rotten, and Denmark turned bitterly cold, so it was a dismal failure. Annual climate conventions since then have been little more than talk fests. There are now renewed hopes for the 2015 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) in Paris in December. The official UN website states:
The stakes are high: the aim is to reach, for the first time, a universal legally binding agreement that will enable us to combat climate change effectively and boost the transition towards resilient, low-carbon societies and economies. To achieve this, the future agreement must focus equally on mitigation – that is, efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in order to limit global warming to below 2C – and societies’ adaptation to existing climate changes. . . . Another key objective of the COP21 is the mobilisation of $100 billion per year by developed countries, from public and private sources, from 2020. This commitment, made in Copenhagen, should enable developing countries to combat climate change whilst promoting fair and sustainable development. Some of these funds will pass through the Green Climate Fund, which has received initial capital of $10.2 billion . . .With Paris in mind, scientists at our Australian BOM and in the U.S. began ‘correcting’ raw temperature data, enhancing recent warming to match the models! On 4 June 2015, the NOAA website confidently proclaimed “there has been no slow down”:
A new study published online today [4 June 2015] in the journalSciencefinds that the rate of global warming during the last 15 years has been as fast as or faster than that seen during the latter half of the 20th Century. The study refutes the notion that there has been a slowdown or "hiatus" in the rate of global warming in recent years.
The study is the work of a team of scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Centers for Environmental Information* (NCEI) using the latest global surface temperature data.
Note that the warming trend from 1910 to 1940 was at least as steep as NOAA’s later Trend.
Endorsing the UN agenda, “The Commission recommends that over the next 5 years, governments:
Invest in climate change and public health research, monitoring, and surveillance to ensure a better
understanding of the adaptation needs and the potential health co-benefits of climate mitigation . . .
Scale-up financing for climate resilient health systems world-wide. Donor countries have a responsibility
to support measures which reduce the impacts of climate change on human wellbeing and support
adaptation. This must enable the strengthening of health systems in low-income and middle-income
countries, and reduce the environmental impact of health care. [Could this mean putting the environment
ahead of people? saving fewer lives?]
Protect cardiovascular and respiratory health by ensuring a rapid phase out of coal from the global energy
mix. Many of the 2200 coal-fired plants currently proposed for construction globally will damage health
unless replaced with cleaner energy alternatives. As part of the transition to renewable energy, there will
be a cautious transitional role for natural gas. The phase out of coal is proposed as part of an early and
decisive policy package which targets air pollution from the transport, agriculture, and energy sectors, and
aims to reduce the health burden of particulate matter (especially PM2.5) and shortlived climate
pollutants, thus yielding immediate gains for society. [Scrubbers/precipitators on modern coal-fired power
plants can remove 99% of this. The major source is now traffic exhaust, especially from diesel.]
Encourage a transition to cities that support and promote lifestyles that are healthy for the individual and
for the planet. . . Achieving a decarbonised global economy and securing the public health benefits it
offers is no longer primarily a technical or economic question—it is now a political one [This is scary]
Establish the framework for a strong, predictable, and international carbon pricing mechanism.
Rapidly expand access to renewable energy in low-income and middle-income countries, thus providing reliable electricity for communities and health facilities; unlocking substantial economic gains; andpromoting health equity. . . [Without enormous cost, renewable and reliable are mutually exclusive.]
Support accurate quantification of the avoided burden of disease, reduced health-care costs, and
enhanced economic productivity associated with climate change mitigation. [This is a wild assumption: the
proposed mitigation might add to the burden of disease, increase health-care costs and reduce economic productivity.]
Adopt mechanisms to facilitate collaboration between Ministries of Health and other government
departments . . .
Agree and implement an international agreement that supports countries in transitioning to a lowcarbon
economy. Whilst the negotiations are very complex, their goals are very simple: agree on ambitious and
enforceable global mitigation targets, on adaptation of finance to protect countries’ rights to sustainable
development, and on the policies and mechanisms that enable these measures. [Straight out of the UN]
. . . Responding to climate change could be the greatest global health opportunity of the 21st century.”(p.1-2, emphasis added)
THE PHYSICAL BASISThe greenhouse explanation on page 3 is quite sound, until stating: “The oceans have absorbed the bulk (90% or more) of this energy in recent years and ocean surface temperatures have risen.”
Deeper ocean temperatures may have risen slightly, but 3,300 Argo bathythermograph buoys deployed throughout the world’s oceans late in 2003 showed an initial cooling of sea surface temperatures (SST):
Source: Argo, 2009
Global cooling of 0.630C from the El Niño peak to the La Niña trough during 2007 was the largest annual decline ever recorded, and it was caused by a drop of nearly 3ºC in mean SST. Atmospheric temperature, which reflects SST, has been fairly flat ‘in recent years’.
“Arctic sea ice is disappearing at a rate of up to 50 000 km2 per year, the Antarctic ice sheet is now losing 159 billion tonnes of ice each year, and sea levels are rising inexorably.” (p.3)
No evidence is provided for disappearing Arctic sea ice, which has actually been increasing in recent years:
Antarctic sea ice has been breaking records for several years now. Reporting Climate Science, 3 June 2015, states:
Sea ice extent in Antarctica last month set a new record high for the month of May, according to data from the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC). NSIDC data shows average sea ice extent around Antarctica reached 12.10 million sq. km. in May – some 12 per cent above the long term average for the period 1981-2010 of 10.79 million sq.km. May sea ice extent in Antarctica is growing at a rate of 2.9 per cent per decade, according to NSIDC data.
Antarctic ice sheet loss is almost entirely from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS), not from the much larger East Antarctica. A high geothermal heat flux below the WAIS was recently measured for the first time by Fisher et al (2015).29 Much if not most of the melting may therefore be volcanic rather than anthropogenic.
Sea level rise accelerated after the Little Ice Age ended and again during the 1920s, after which it remained fairly linear or even decelerated slightly, as shown by Ablain et al (2009), Houston and Dean (2011):
Annual mean sea-level data from Bindoff et al. (2007). Red data from Church and White (2006), blue from Holgate and Woodworth (2004) and black from altimeter measurements from Leuliette, Nerem, and Mitchum (2004). Ninety percent confidence error bars shown.
Watson et al (2015) found it to be accelerating again, but by a tiny statistically insignificant amount. Based on flawed model projections, the Lancet report rehearses climate catastrophe:
“Much of past emissions remain [sic] in the atmosphere and will drive continued warming in the future. GHG concentrations in the atmosphere are continuing to rise at a rate that is incompatible with limiting warming to 2°C in the coming 35 years (by 2050), and which exceeds the IPCC’s ‘worst case scenario’.10 We are on track for a global average temperature rise of more than 4°C above pre-industrial temperatures in the next 85 years, at which point global temperature will still be increasing by roughly 0.7°C per decade (due to the lag in reaching equilibrium).”
At the bottom of page 4, it tabulates references supporting anthropogenic heatwaves (14 citations), floods (3 citations), droughts (6) and storms (nil citations). Of the 23 citations, 13 were taken from Herring et al (2014),30 which contains an article by King et al (p.44) acknowledging that: “the risk of extreme heat is extremely likely to be 25 times greater in dry years than in wet years. The heat of 2013 in this region of Australia was thus related strongly to the lack of rainfall.” El Niño events often produce drought in Australia, Dorothea Mackellar’s “land of droughts and flooding rains”, and droughts produce heatwaves.
This is pure alarmist speculation. No ‘tipping points’ into runaway warming from carbon dioxide has ever occurred in Earth’s history, even when atmospheric CO2 was very much higher than now, and an important but poorly publicised fact explains why.
Earth’s outgoing longwave radiation is fully absorbed at the 15μm wavelength by quite low levels of atmospheric CO2; adding more increases absorption only at the margins (which also overlap water vapour absorption bands); so the temperature response diminishes logarithmically as CO2 increases:
Source: MODTRAN calculations (without feedbacks)31
THE HEALTH CO-BENEFITS OF EMISSIONS REDUCTION
“Acting to reduce GHG emissions evidently protects human health from the direct and indirect impacts of climate change. However, it also benefits human health through mechanisms quite independent of those relating to modifying climate risk: so-called health co-benefits of mitigation.26 Reductions in emissions (eg, from burning fossil fuels) reduce air pollution and respiratory disease, whilst safer active transport cuts road traffic accidents and reduces rates of obesity, diabetes, coronary heart disease, and stroke.”(p.5)
Active transport (i.e. cycling) can only cut road traffic accidents if conducted on dedicated (mostly non-existent) cycle-ways. Garrard, Greaves and Ellison (2010) found the relative risk of death per kilometre travelled in Sydney and Melbourne to be between 5 and 19 and the relative risk of serious injury for cyclists in Melbourne is as high as 34.
Burning biomass instead of fossil fuels can increase air pollution, which this report acknowledges to be “a major killer in low-income countries.” Reducing emissions can also render electricity so expensive that it increases fuel- poverty, now impacting one in four Britons, and thus mortality from exposure to cold or heat. Denmark has the lowest emissions in Europe and the most expensive electricity, six times that in India.
“Affordable renewable energy will also have huge benefits for the poorest. WHO found that in 11 sub-Saharan African countries, 26% of health facilities had no energy at all and only 33% of hospitals had what could be called ‘reliable electricity provision’, defined as no outages of more than 2 h in the past week.” (p.5)
|Source: Peter Mitchell, 201032|
This roller coaster shows individual (coloured) and combined (black) power generation.
Climate change so far has seen a dramatic reduction in global poverty. According to the Brookings report, Poverty in Numbers: The Changing State of Global Poverty from 2005 to 2015, we are living in a period of rapid global poverty reduction that is driven by high, sustained economic growth across the developing world due more to globalisation (hand-ups) than aid (hand-outs), and to cheap energy.
We cannot lift developing countries out of poverty by impoverishing the developed countries that buy their goods. South Australia has the nation’s highest use of renewable energy, electricity prices and unemployment rate (8.2%).
Section 1: climate change and exposure to health risksAfter a preamble on the complex and inter-related mechanisms linking climate directly and indirectly to health, and after quoting some alarming predictions from the WHO and IPCC, the Lancet report addresses heatwaves on page 8.
HEATWAVESAfter pointing out the well-established relationship between heatwaves and human morbidity and mortality, the IPCC AR5 is relied on to assert: “There is also now strong evidence that such heat-related mortality is rising as a result of climate change impacts across a range of localities.” This does not apply to developed countries such as the US, where Thomas Moore (1998)33 found mortality to be 13% higher in winter than in summer during the period 1952–1967 and 16% higher during 1985–1990, after a decade or more of global warming, largely due to the increased availability and affordability of air-conditioning.
Despite nearly 10C of effective temperature-humidity increase from 1964 to 1998, Davis et al (2003) 34 found a very significant decline in heat-related mortality in 28 of the largest US cities:
“The incidence of heatwaves has increased in the past few decades, as has the area affected by them.40, 41 The most severe heatwave, measured with the Heat Wave Magnitude Index, was the summer 2010 heatwave in Russia.40 . . . Projections under climate scenarios show that events with the magnitude of the Russian heatwave of 2010 could have become much more common and with high-end climate scenarios could become almost the summer norm for many regions.40”
‘Projections under climate scenarios’ are only as good as the 16 climate models (from the CMIP5 archive) used by Russo et al (2014) (citation #40). Until model projections match observations, they must be taken with a grain of salt. The Heat Wave Magnitude Index (HWMI) was “defined as the maximum magnitude of the heat waves in a year, where heat wave is the period ≥ 3 consecutive days with maximum temperature above the daily threshold for the reference period 1981–2010. The threshold is defined as the 90th percentile of daily maxima, centered on a 31 day window.” Using this, they tabulated record-breaking heat waves:
The frequency of severe heatwaves does appear to be increasing, but the 33-year time frame is short.
Analysing raw Australian BOM data, Geoffrey Sherrington found there were as many 5-6-day heatwaves in Melbourne from 1856 to 1935 as from 1936 to 2013 and they were just as hot or hotter. In 1896, Bourke experienced >1020F for 24 days straight and the thermometer read 1090F at midnight in Brewarrina;
Five of the seven heatwave events occurred during a period of insignificant global warming (2003-2012);
Excluding the exceptional Russian heatwave, there is no increase in affected area over time. Indeed, the area
affected by the two recent US heatwaves is smaller than that of 1980.
Whereas it is stated that: “impacts are unevenly distributed, with greater risks in less developed
countries”, all five of these countries are developed, the US being the most frequently affected.
All seven major heatwaves occurred in temperate regions.
Knappenberger, Michaels and Davis (2001)35 demonstrated this in the different pattern in night-time temperatures across the U.S. during the two 20th century warming periods: 1910-1939 and 1970-1997, top and bottom respectively in the adjacent graph, plotting temperature trends in the coldest and warmest nights from left (#1) to right (#365) respectively.
The earlier warming (top graph), due primarily to solar influences, was fairly evenly distributed across the year in both coldest and warmest nights. After 1970, however, the coldest nights were impacted far more than the warmest ones (bottom graph).
Source: Michaels and Balling Jr, 2009
This is consistent with both greenhouse warming and the rapidly increasing urban heat island (UHI) effect, as found by Watts (2010)36 in the US, by Torok et al (2001)37 in southeast Australia, and by McLean (2010)38 in the average monthly minimum and maximum temperatures in central and suburban Melbourne:
Linking the 2003 European heatwave to anthropogenic warming was challenged by Thomas Chase and colleagues at the University of Colorado and Rasool in France (2006).41 From weather balloon measurements of ‘thickness’ of the atmosphere for the period 1979- 2003, they found that just 2% of the planet (central Europe) experienced thickness-temperature anomalies above 2 standard deviations (SDs) from the norm during the northern summer of 2003 while most of the planet was normal or cooler than normal at the time: Source: Chase et al, 2006.
The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report was quite clear on the cause of this heatwave:
The 2003 heat wave was associated with a very robust and persistent blocking high-pressure system that may be a manifestation of an exceptional northward extension of the Hadley Cell (Black et al., 2004; Fink et al., 2004). ... An exacerbating factor for the temperature extremes was the lack of precipitation in many parts of western and central Europe, leading to much-reduced soil moisture and surface evaporation and evapotranspiration, and thus to a strong positive feedback effect (Beniston and Diaz, 2004).42The Lancet report correctly states: “specific subpopulations such as poor and marginalised groups, people with disabilities, the elderly, women, and young children bearing the greatest burden of risk in all regions.” (p.8)
The impact of socioeconomic, cultural and gender roles are discussed, but not risks associated with prohibiting all oral intake during the month of Ramadan, which sometimes falls in the middle of the northern summer. Fortunately, it began in late October in 2003. The excess mortality during that hot European summer probably exceeded 35,000, most of them elderly and female. Many deaths occurred during the month-long August vacation due to relative lack of care for the isolated and vulnerable. France was the worst affected with 15,000 deaths, nearly 21 per 100,000 population. Based on a study of mortality data over 25 years in 2008, Fouillet et al43 showed the expected mortality should have been less than 17 per 100,000 people. Based on temperature alone, many more died than should have.
After this disaster, the French Directorate General for Health set up a National Heat Wave Plan which included a system for real-time surveillance of health data, compilation of scientific recommendations on the prevention and treatment of heat-related diseases, air-conditioning equipment for hospitals and retirement homes, drawing up of emergency plans for retirement homes, city-scale censuses of the isolated and vulnerable, visits to those people during the alert periods, and a warning system. Specific measures to be implemented during alert periods included intensification of care, visits to isolated and vulnerable people, and repeated preventive message broadcasting by the media. When France experienced another severe heatwave in July 2006, Fouillet calculated nearly 4,400 fewer deaths than expected: less than 8 instead of the expected 11 per 100,000.
HEAT vs. COLDCivilisation took off during the Holocene Climatic Optimum,45 globally warmer than now,46 and flourished during the warmer Minoan, Roman and Medieval periods.47, 48 Famine and disease plagued Europe during the cold Dark Ages and the preindustrial Little Ice Age45 when widespread malaria remained endemic despite bitter winters that froze the River Thames.49 Advancing glaciers bulldozed alpine villages. Expanding Arctic ice drove Danish farmers out of Greenland and the Inuit south almost to Scotland.50 Global rewarming has greatly benefited humanity. Typhoid and tuberculosis declined dramatically during pre-antibiotic 20th century warming.51 Northern winters nevertheless remain far more lethal than summers.52
“Rising mean temperatures mean that the incidence of cold events is likely to diminish. The analysis here focuses on the heat-related element because the health benefits of reductions in cold are not established. Whilst there is an increase in deaths during winter periods in many climates, the mechanisms responsible for this increase are not easily delineated. Most winter-related deaths are cardiovascular, yet the link between temperature and cardiovascular mortality rates is weak. There is a stronger link between respiratory deaths and colder temperatures but these account for a smaller percentage of winter deaths.46
The impact of cold temperatures can be measured considering seasonal means, extreme cold spells, and relative temperature changes. Seasonal means and extreme cold spells (or absolute temperature) have relatively small or ambiguous relationships with numbers of winter deaths, however temperature cooling relative to an area’s average temperature does more clearly correlate with mortality rates.46,47 There may be modest reductions in cold-related deaths; however, these reductions will be largely outweighed at the global scale by heat-related mortality.46 Whilst climate change will have an impact on cold-related deaths, particularly in some countries with milder climates, the overall impact is uncertain.” (p.9, emphasis added)
Such equivocation and uncertainty flies in the face of good evidence. Keatinge et al (2000)53 found that at least five times as many Europeans died from the cold as from heat, whether in northern Helsinki or southern Athens. The largest ever international study of temperature-related deaths, published in The Lancet no less (May 2015)2 found that cold weather still kills twenty times more people than hot weather. An analysis of over 74 million deaths in 384 locations across 13 countries found that about 7.7% of all deaths were related to non-optimal temperatures, ranging from 3% in Thailand, Brazil and Sweden to 11% in China, Japan and Italy. Nearly 7.3% of all deaths were related to cold while only 0.42% related to heat. Moderate cold was responsible for the vast majority of deaths (6.66%) while extreme temperatures were responsible for less than 1% of deaths. Lomborg (2007)54 estimated that excess cold exposure kills around 1.5 million Europeans every year. That’s over forty times more than the 2003 heatwave killed. Bosello, Roson and Tol (2006),55 leading economists who evaluated the future impact of unchecked climate change on global human health, projected 1.4 million fewer deaths annually to 2050 and a lower mortality rate until at least 2200.
“The links between climate change, vector populations and hence malarial range and incidence may become significant in areas where the temperature is currently the limiting factor, possibly increasing the incidence of a disease that causes 660,000 deaths per year.” (p.12)
Gething et al (2010) 56 mapped the dramatic decline in malaria’s endemnicity during a century of warming:
a) Pre-intervention endemicity (approximately 1900) b) Contemporary endemicity for 2007 based on a recent global project to define the limits and
intensity of current P. falciparum transmission.
c) Change in endemicity class between 1900 and
Negative values denote a reduction in endemicity, positive values an increase.
Economist, Indur Goklany (2004)57 points out that whereas a Kyoto-type approach might reduce the total population at risk for malaria by 2.8% in 2080 at a cost of $250 billion per year, the current death toll could be cut in half at an annual cost of about $1.25 billion through a combination of proven measures including spraying with insecticides, window screens, bed nets, better case management, and more comprehensive medical care. Bjorn Lomborg (2008)58 likewise estimated that we could “cut malaria incidence to about half by 2015 for about $3 billion annually – or 2 percent of the cost of Kyoto.”
Brierly (1944)59 analysed deaths from malaria in Mississippi and found a four-fold decline from 1916 to 1937, a period of significant warming. The only significant correlation was with income: when incomes were high, malaria deaths were low and vice versa. Malaria today is essentially a disease of poverty. The best way to beat it is by improving the economy of impoverished malarious countries.60 The impact of climate change on malaria transmission is trivial, but the impact of depriving susceptible nations of cheap energy could be enormous. Tackling climate change by a quixotic war on carbon, instead of a war on poverty and malaria itself, may well prove costly and counterproductive.
“There are equally complex relationships and important climate-related risks associated with dengue fever, cholera and food safety. Dengue fever for example has 390 million recorded infections each year, and the number is rising. . . . Cholera is transmitted through infected water sources and often occurs in association with seasonal algal blooms with outbreaks sometimes experienced following extreme weather events such as hurricanes that result in the mixing of wastewater and drinking water, and in association with El Nino events.72 Such extreme weather events are likely to increase in frequency in the coming decades and waterborne epidemics need to be planned for and monitored carefully.” (p.12):
Combating climate change is by far the most costly and least effective means of controlling tropical diseases. Indeed, it can be a handy scapegoat for government failure. The 1991 cholera outbreak in South America after Peruvian authorities failed to chlorinate water supplies61 was linked to climate change in the prestigious journal Science.62 Dengue afflicted over 4,000 Mexicans in Tampaulipas in 1995 while, just across the border, Texas had only eight non-imported cases. The essential difference was not climate but living standards and sound public health policies.63
Several factors have combined to produce epidemiological conditions in developing countries in the tropics and subtropics that favour viral transmission by the main mosquito vector, Aedes aegypti: rapid population growth, rural- urban migration, inadequate basic urban infrastructure (eg. unreliable water supply leading householders to store water in containers close to homes) and increase in volume of solid waste, such as discarded plastic containers and other abandoned items which provide larval habitats in urban areas. Geographical expansion of the mosquito has been aided by international commercial trade particularly in used tyres which easily accumulate rainwater. Increased air travel and breakdown of vector control measures have also contributed greatly to the global burden of dengue and DHF.There is no basis for linking ‘extreme weather events such as hurricanes’ or El Niño events to greenhouse gases, or for claiming that they ‘are likely to increase in frequency in the coming decades’. An extensive analysis of hurricanes from 1986 to 2005 by Klotzbach (2006)64 revealed “no significant change in global net tropical cyclone activity.”
Regarding “fine particulate air pollution . . . responsible for 7 million additional deaths globally in 2012”, the statement that: “Its effect is amplified by changes in ambient temperature” is unsupported by evidence. Air pollution is decreasing in developed countries with the resources and technologies to combat it, but is now impacting developing countries as per the Environmental Kuznet Curve: “The EKC is a hypothesized relationship between indicators of environmental degradation and income per capita. According to the theory, environmental pollution and degradation increase in the early stages of economic growth, get to a peak point, and reverse in such a way that the environment improves at high income levels.” The best way to reduce global air pollution, therefore, is to enhance economic development in countries where air pollution is still increasing.
“For every degree greater than 30°C, the productivity of maize production in Africa might be reduced by 1% in optimum conditions and 1.7% in drought, with a 95% chance of climate change-related harm to the production of South African maize and wheat in the absence of adaptation.88,89 Sensitivity of crops and livestock to weather variation has a substantial impact on food security in regions that are already food insecure, pushing up food prices and ultimately affecting food availability and affordability to poor populations and contributing to malnutrition.” (p.13)
Focusing on temperature, the Lancet Commission ignores the fertilising effect of carbon dioxide. Ainsworth-Long (2005)65 performed a meta-analysis of 124 papers on 40 species tested at 12 sites in the USA (7), Europe (3), New Zealand and Japan, using free-air CO2 enrichment (FACE) of 8-30m diameter areas surrounded by pipes venting CO2. The actual increases achieved (above the ambient CO2 level at the time of the study) varied from 30.5% (475ppm in 1997 – NZ site) to 68% (600ppm in 1993 – Switzerland site) with a median of 50-55% (550ppm) and an average of 49.2%. The Ainsworth-Long analysis found that sorghum yields were increased by as much as 28% under dry conditions, due to reduced water loss from fewer transpiration stomata. Moreover, light-saturated CO2 uptake (Asat), a measure of photosynthesis, was increased by 19% at temperatures under 250C and by 30% at higher temperatures, indicating much better heat-tolerance under elevated CO2. They also found that elevated CO2 reduced the toxic effects of ozone: “Ozone tended to enhance the response of Asat to elevated [CO2]. . . . On average, plants grown without stress showed a 36% stimulation in Asat, trees in Rhinelander grown under high ozone showed a 59% stimulation.”
“Within this complex relationship between climate and food security, the availability of water for agricultural production is a key parameter. Figure 6 shows very significant changes in exposure to drought-like meteorological conditions over the coming decades. The analysis shows that the population changes (from SSP2) alongside climate change could lead to 1.4 billion additional person drought exposure events per year by the end of the century.” (p.13)
In The Conversation, Bill Laurance of James Cook University points out: “If you want to predict future precipitation for any specific place on Earth, such as Sydney or São Paulo or New York City, go down to your local casino and toss some dice onto the craps table. You’ll have about as much chance of success as do some of our smartest people using our biggest computers.” Such odds didn’t prevent Tim Flannery, author of The Weather Makers and former head of Australia’s Climate Change Commission, from predicting in 2007 that “the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems” and that the nation’s capitals “need desalinated water urgently, possibly in as little as 18 months”. Australia then spent billions of dollars on large desalination plants which are now mothballed. Worse still was the reluctance of operators to release water from the Wivenhoe dam, built primarily for flood- mitigation after the devastating 1974 Brisbane flood, until it reached over 190% of its normal water storage capacity in January 2011 and devastated Brisbane yet again. Predictions can have unforseen costly consequences.
“Increased frequency of floods, storm surges, and hurricanes will have a substantial effect on health. Extreme events have immediate risks, exemplified by more than 6000 fatalities as a result of typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines in late 2013. Floods also have long-term and short-term effects on wellbeing through disease outbreaks, mental health burdens, and dislocation.93 Risks related to water shortages, flood, and other mechanisms involve large populations. Projections suggest, for example, that an additional 50 million people and 30,000 km2 of land could be affected by coastal storm surges in 2100, with attendant risks of direct deaths and of infectious diseases.94,95 Involuntary displacement of populations as a result of extreme events has major public health and policy consequences. In the longer term, flooding affects perceptions of security and safety, and can cause depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder.” (p.13)
Indirectly linking typhoon Haiyan to climate change is disingenuous. The 2013 Atlantic hurricane season was unusually quiet; no major hurricane made landfall for the first time in 45 years; it saw the fewest number of hurricanes since 1982, the first since 1994 when no major hurricane formed, and was one of the weakest hurricane seasons since modern record-keeping began about half a century ago.
As with hurricanes in the developed world, flood casualties have been declining and economic losses increasing. While undoubtedly affecting more people today than fifty years ago, flooding has much more to do with population growth, especially along waterways, altered land use and loss of flood-mitigating wetlands than with CO2 emissions. Bjorn Lomborg put it simply and starkly: “. . . a dollar spent on flood management will reduce flooding 1,300 times better than a dollar spent on Kyoto.” 68
Flooding was much greater in Europe during the Little Ice Age when late thaw ice jams blocked swollen rivers and burst the dykes in the Netherlands.69 The highest flood risk in Germany’s River Werra was in the 1700’s.70 Only two of the 56 major floods affecting Florence since 1177 have occurred since 1844.71 Flooding of the river Vltava in the Czech Republic has also decreased over the last century.72 A global analysis of nearly 200 rivers revealed that flows over the last century were unchanged in the majority, increasing in 27 and decreasing in 31 of them.73 This is also true for a those rivers with observations stretching back much further in time.74 In both the US75 and Europe,76 increased rainfall and river flows has been occurring mainly during the fall, when flows are generally low and flooding less likely, and rarely during spring when flows are high due to snow melt.
Global warming increases evaporation by 5.7% per Kelvin (Wentz et al 2007)38 and therefore precipitation (rainfall); but global precipitation actually declined during the rapid warming of 1975-1998, suggesting more dominant forces. As with droughts, there appears to be a strong (inverse) correlation with ocean oscillations:
Section 2: action for resilience and adaptationThis section is actually quite sound and particularly good on urban design: “Green urban design can reduce obesity and improve mental health through increased physical activity and social connectivity.164 Increased neighbourhood green spaces reduces both morbidity and mortality from many cardiovascular and respiratory diseases and stress-related illnesses.31 Tree canopies have a higher albedo effect than other hard surfaces and can work to reduce the urban heat island effect, lowering heat mortality by 40–99%.185 Whilst resulting in improved public health and community resilience, many of these measures will also act to mitigate climate change.” (p.19)
Water features, gardens (including rooftop) and reflective surfaces help to reduce urban heat. Compared to a white roof, old inefficient black solar panels can cause more warming than any emissions saved. Councils need to plan for the massive disposal/recycling of defunct solar panels over coming decades.
The many thousands of lives saved by the French heatwave national action plan and the Bangladeshi flood warning and disaster plan are described on page 15: “In 2007, cyclone Sidr killed roughly 4000 people in Bangladesh. By comparison, an equivalent storm in 1970 killed 300 000 people.”
“Food insecurity and its health impacts play out at the local level, but have clear links to drivers and changes at the national and international level. The compounded impacts of climate change and ocean acidification will affect both agricultural production and fisheries, including food availability and prices.” (p.16)
The impact of ocean acidification (i.e. reduced alkalinity) remains uncertain. An analysis by Australian marine scientists, Christopher Cornwall and Catriona Hurd, of 465 published studies from 1993 to 2014 of the impact of simulated future seawater was recently published in ICES Journal of Marine Science. They found that most reports of such laboratory experiments either used inappropriate methods or did not report their methods properly.
Misguided mitigation measures may also impact food availability and prices due to the growing competition for agricultural land and water for the production of biofuels. Whereas 90% of the U.S. corn crop went into food for people and livestock in 2000, 40% of the 2013 corn crop went into biofuel, saving zero emissions!
The main problem with this section is not what it says, but what it doesn’t. While focusing on adaptation to global warming, it overlooks the possibility of future global cooling. On 23 June 2015, the same day this Lancet Commission was released, Nature Communications published a paper by Ineson et al,77 stating:
The past few decades have been characterized by a period of relatively high solar activity. However, the recent prolonged solar minimum and subsequent weak solar cycle 24 have led to suggestions that the grand solar maximum may be at an end1. Using past variations of solar activity measured by cosmogenic isotope abundance changes, analogue forecasts for possible future solar output have been calculated. An 8% chance of a return to Maunder Minimum-like conditions within the next 40 years was estimated in 2010 (ref. 2). The decline in solar activity has continued, to the time of writing, and is faster than any other such decline in the 9,300 years covered by the cosmogenic isotope data1. If this recent rate of decline is added to the analysis, the 8% probability estimate is now raised to between 15 and 20%.
In colder climates, living in a comfortably heated home is commonly viewed as protective for human health, and the World Health Organization recommends a minimum temperature of 210C in living rooms, and 180C in all other rooms (WHO, 2007). In the United Kingdom, households that are unable to maintain these standards of thermal comfort and safety are described as living in fuel poverty. Fuel poverty is measured using a complex algorithm, BREDEM-12. This calculates the cost of heating a home and takes into account household income, the current cost of heating fuel, and the energy efficiency of the house. Households which require 10% or more of their income to attain WHO standards are rated as being in fuel poverty (Sefton and Chesshire, 2005). Since relatively few UK households can afford to spend such a substantial proportion of their income on domestic heating, a large percentage of fuel-poor people live in homes that are persistently cold and damp (Liddell,2008). Living for long periods of time in such cold and damp conditions . . . is thought to generate significant health risks. . .
Based on the BREDEM-12 method, 12% of households in England were fuel poor in 2006, 21% in Wales, 24% in Scotland, and 34% in Northern Ireland (NIHE, 2008). At the last estimate, and using the OECDs definition of affordable warmth, 6% of homes in France lacked affordable warmth, 7% in Ireland, 11% in Italy, and 15% in Belgium (EU-SILC, 2005). This makes fuel poverty a common challenge throughout the Northern Hemisphere . . .
Broadly speaking, significantly more deaths occur during winter (e.g. Healy, 2003). Cold indoor temperatures are strongly implicated in this effect, in that risks are especially great for residents of poorly insulated homes (Wilkinson et al., 2007). This helps account for countries such as Italy and Greece having significantly higher excess winter mortality rates than do more northerly countries such as Finland and Sweden (Barnett et al., 2005); although the latter group have colder winters, they also have better standards of domestic insulation and lower rates of fuel poverty (Healy, 2004). Cold- related deaths occur mostly through changes in blood pressure and blood chemistry during cold weather, which in turn increase the risk of catastrophic cardio- or cerebro-vascular events such as strokes, myocardial infarctions or pulmonary embolisms (Crawford et al., 2003). The immune system is also suppressed, increasing the risk of infections (Howieson and Hogan, 2005). . .
More recently, studies have begun to examine the enduring and potentially cumulative health effects that might be associated with living in cold conditions. These include increased risk of influenza, pneumonia, asthma, arthritis, and accidents at home (WHO, 2007). . . the three groups deemed most vulnerable to the effects of fuel poverty . . . are people over 60 years old, people living with disability or long-term illness, and families with children.
Section 3: transition to a low-carbon energy infrastructure“Any significant deployment to meet demanding CO2 targets will require the reduction of costs of mitigation options, carbon pricing, improvement in the research and development process and the implementation of policies and regulations to act as enabling mechanisms, as well as recognition of the strong near-term and long- term co-benefits to health. . . we have the tools needed to achieve emission targets to avoid catastrophic climate change.” (p.20, emphasis added)
‘Carbon pricing’ and ‘emission targets’ have been touted to remedy ‘catastrophic climate change’ ever since Kyoto. At best, Kyoto might prevent just 0.170C of warming this century.78 Kevin Rudd signed the Kyoto Protocol soon after becoming Australia’s PM, but when oil rocketed to nearly $150 a barrel in June 2008, he told Network Ten: "OPEC needs to open the production lines to a greater extent, increase global oil supply . . . The G8 provides an opportunity to apply the blowtorch to the OPEC organisation and it's time that happened." So much for a price signal! In 2008, Lawrence Solomon, environmentalist and campaigner to save the world’s rainforests, warned:
Kyoto is not an insurance policy. Just the opposite, it is the single, greatest threat today to the global environment, because it makes carbon into a currency. Carbon is the element upon which all living things are built. With carbon a kind of currency – which is what all carbon taxes and carbon trading and similar schemes do – all ecosystems suddenly have a commercial value that makes them subject to manipulation for gain. This is not some abstract theoretical concern. We are already seeing environmental havoc from the new economic order that Kyoto has spawned. . . .Figure 10 on page 23 of the Lancet report shows that 10% of global energy comes from burning biomass, 2% from hydro and just 1% from other renewables – wind and solar. The report acknowledges: “Maintaining power supply based on intermittent electricity sources such as wind power is a complex system integration problem.208 Practical solutions will involve combinations of energy stores (hydroelectric, thermochemical), demand-side management, and the harnessing of geographical diversity with respect to demand and supply. . . Moving energy-intensive industries offshore (most of which remain fossil-fuel powered) allows for territorial emissions to fall, but at the cost of increased emissions elsewhere. . . Access to energy is a key enabler of economic development and social wellbeing. . . The global increased use of energy per capita is highly related to considerable improvements in quality of life across much of the world. The majority of this energy use is derived from fossil-fuel use, but mainly coal. Coal’s wide availability and economic attractiveness has made it the fuel of choice for use in power generation. . . . However, the time when fuel switching could decarbonise the global economy sufficiently quickly to avoid dangerous climate change has almost certainly passed.” (p.22-23, emphasis added)
The first big Kyoto calamity is the threat to the world’s forests, especially the old-growth forests, which do not soak up carbon from the atmosphere. These have become favourites of corrupt Third World governments. By seizing the forests, cutting them down, and converting them to carbon-intensive plantations, governments and their cronies have been cashing in on carbon credits. . . Look at the Plantar carbon sequestration project in Brazil’s Minas Gerais . . . run by the World Bank’s Carbon Finance Unit – is converting 23,100 hectares of natural forest to eucalyptus tree plantations to produce wood for charcoal to replace coal for pig iron production. . . . 79
After stating: “It is also important to recognise that for an energy source to be renewable, it must satisfy a low- carbon requirement, and consider the use of scarce resources such as copper, silicon, and rare earth metals” (p.20) this report champions the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) which outline four targets for 2030: “ensuring universal access to affordable, sustainable, reliable energy services; doubling the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix; doubling the global rate of improvement in energy efficiency; phasing out fossil-fuel production and consumption subsidies that encourage wasteful use, while ensuring secure affordable energy for the poor.” (p.22)
How affordable and reliable is wind and solar? What will doubling it to 2% of global energy achieve? Is it possible to double hydro (to 4%) or burning biomass (to 20%)? How environmentally friendly are they? North American forests are being converted to pellets (5.7 million tons a year) to feed biomass power plants in Europe and the UK, producing more CO2 emissions and air-pollution than burning coal. Noisy wind turbines blight the landscape, denude scenic ridges and access roadways, and kill millions of bats and birds annually. They also require the mining and production of fossil-fuel-derived materials: roughly three tonnes of copper, seven tonnes of fibreglass, 400 tonnes of concrete, 120 tonnes of steel, and 400kg of rare earth minerals per megawatt capacity. In 2012, wind turbines for the U.S. alone consumed 2,500 tons of neodymium and dysprosium, the mining of which contaminated north China lakes with more radioactive waste than produced by the entire U.S. nuclear industry that year, producing 5.7 times as much power as the U.S. wind industry. Tropical rainforests are being destroyed to grow palm oil and sugarcane for biofuels. Huge hydro-dams are now devastating the Amazon and many river systems in China. Green madness is ruining the planet it pretends to be saving! Meanwhile, forests have regrown around the cities of Europe and North America since the motor vehicle replaced the horse and fertilised them with carbon dioxide. The only reliable alternative to fossil fuels is nuclear power, proposed by the UK and China (pages 27-28 of the Lancet report), but not by Germany, which is decommissioning its nuclear power plants since Fukushima, and hence going soft on coal.
Air pollution is mentioned 28 times and particulates 8 times in this Lancet report, mostly in relation to coal, but there is not a single mention of the scrubbers/precipitators in modern coal-fired power stations that remove 99% of the fly ash, 97% of the SO2 and most of the NOx. The ‘smoke’ often depicted coming from their chimneys is actually steam. Improving energy efficiency is mentioned numerous times in the Lancet report but nowhere in relation to coal-fired power stations, which can now be built with an efficiency approaching 50%. Carbon (CO2) capture and storage (CCS) is presently technologically possible but prohibitively expensive. Two new ultra-clean coal (UCC) technologies are under development to fuel large marine engines, greatly reducing both cost and pollution; ships could again be coal- powered.
I agree entirely with the measures (outlined on page 24) to improve energy efficiency in the home, transport and industry, provided lives are not put at risk in doing so – e.g. the Australian pink bats fiasco. As a keen cyclist, I also endorse active transport, provided the roads/cycle-ways are made safer. I have no problem with phasing out fossil fuel subsidies, provided all energy subsidies are phased out. It is ludicrous that I can receive 60c per KWh for solar energy on one home and less than 6c per KWh on the home next door.
In August 2015, Principal Economics released a report which found that Australia’s renewable energy sector received subsidies (including feed in tariffs) worth $2.8 billion in 2013-14, adding 3-9% to the average household bill and up to 20% for some industrial users. The telling tabulated results were presented graphically by Brendon Pearson:
New technologies must stand on their own two feet in a free market. This is precisely what the UN wants to dismantle: in February 2015, the Executive Secretary of the UNFCC, Christiana Figueres said: “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history.” The Lancet Commission is right behind that political objective with a climate-action rationale, and is aware of the dire consequences: “All would require an unprecedented global commitment to change, and none appears easy. To stabilise CO2-equivalent concentrations in the range 450–650 ppm (consistent with 2–4°C of warming) will require the global emission rate to fall by between 3–6% per year, a rate that so far has only been associated with major social upheaval and economic crisis.” (p.26)
Canadian businessman, Maurice Strong organised the 1972 UN conference in Stockholm, at which the UN Environment Program (UNEP) was proposed and subsequently headed by Strong. He also arranged and chaired the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, where climate change became anthropogenic. In 1990, Strong said: “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse?” 80
“Low-carbon technologies inappropriately deployed can hurt the economic and social development of developing countries. The increased use of expensive low-carbon energy sources could delay essential structural changes and slow down the construction of much needed infrastructure. Higher energy prices can affect economic growth and exacerbate poverty and inequality. However, abstaining from mitigation technologies in developing countries carries the risk of lock-in into a high-carbon-intensity economy.244 In order to avoid such unintended consequences, a balanced strategy focusing on both human development and climate mitigation in developing countries is needed.” (p.29) In other words, developing countries have to do what no country before them has done –develop while shackled by costly mitigation. Itconcludes:”helpingthose(likeIndia)stillwithhugechallengesto lift hundreds of millions of people out of extreme poverty, will require international assistance.’ (p.30) What are the most effective and cost-effective means of international assistance?
Section 4: financial and economic action“The question of what is optimum in economic terms (GDP or welfare per head) for a given level of carbon emissions and discount rate requires the computation of an optimal time path. What is optimum today (without regard for the future) will not be optimal if the future is to be taken into account. And of course the relation between low prevention costs now means very high treatment costs later, compared with high prevention costs now means lower treatment costs later will be subject to very great uncertainty. Higher uncertainty may mean that high prevention costs would be wasted. On the other hand, with higher uncertainty comes the increased probability that high prevention costs are not high enough. However, whatever the answers to these questions, models reviewed in the IPCC’s Working Group III Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) indicate with sufficient certainty that more needs to be spent earlier rather than later if even a moderate value is given to the intermediate and long term future.” (p.30)
Implementing precautionary action, whether against climate change or specific diseases (e.g. vaccination, food- fortification, circumcision etc) requires a careful objective consideration of potential risks, benefits and cost- benefit/harm analyses. Precautionary climate action therefore depends on accurate climate models, socio-economic and health models etc. If the climate models are biased, every model based on them will be biased. If they overestimate climate sensitivity, the economic models will overestimate warming harms and climate-action benefits. The outcome is even more problematic if the economic models, which failed to predict the GFC, are also biased towards a cost-benefit for climate action. The recent bias against fossil fuels and warming once thought desirable add further complexity and uncertainty to conclusions about health, welfare and precautionary action. The ‘computation of an optimal time path’ might be worthy goal, but is still a very long way from a present reality.
Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, every generation has been wealthier than the one before, a trend that looks set to continue. Future generations are therefore likely to be more affluent than the present one and better able to afford any necessary adaptation or mitigation measures, unless hamstrung by catastrophic climate change on one hand or a crippling decarbonising debt on the other. The question is whether our current climate and economic models are up to the task. An early study by economists, Nordhaus and Boyer (updated in 2005) found that Kyoto would cost the world nearly US$6 trillion and provide just over $1 trillion in benefits this century:
Costs and benefits of the original Kyoto Protocol as estimated in the RICE-2001 model (with full Annex I trading) for the major regions. Costs are production costs (measured negatively), benefits are the environmental benefits of reduced climate change, and net benefits are the difference between costs and benefits. All figures are relative to the no- control baseline. Estimates are converted to 2005 using the ratio of world PPP GDP in 2005 to estimated world GDP in 1990.
Source: The underlying model is described in William Nordhaus and Joseph Boyer, Warming the World: Economic Models of Global Warming, MIT Press, 2000, Chapter 8. Input data are revised to reflect changes since 1999.
“The health and related economic benefits of adaptation
There are significant research gaps regarding the scientific evaluation of the health benefits of climate change adaptation due to its highly diffuse and context-specific nature, with only scattered quantitative or semi- quantitative studies on the health costs and benefits of adaptation options.245 Monetising these costs and benefits is an even more difficult task. However, the studies that do exist present a strong message. Seven of the eight studies on the effectiveness of heatwave early warning systems reported fewer deaths after the systems were implemented. . . A Climate Forecast Applications Network developed in the USA had successfully forecast three major floods in 2007 and 2008 in Bangladesh 10 days in advance, allowing farmers to harvest crops, shelter animals, store clean water, and secure food before the event.” (p.31)
This highlights the importance of adaptation to climate, whether natural or anthropogenic. After finding it difficult to monetise adaptation costs and benefits, this report proceeds to monetise mitigation benefits with certainty:
“The health and related economic benefits of mitigation
The OECD estimates the cost of ambient air pollution in terms of the value of lives lost and ill health in OECD countries, plus India and China, to be more than $3.5 trillion annually (about 5% gross world product [GWP]), with India and China combined accounting for 54% of this total. . . The European Commission has estimated that in the EU alone, reduced air pollution from policies to mitigate climate change could deliver benefits valued at €38 billion a year by 2050 through reduced mortality. From a broader perspective, the European Commission estimates that moving to a low-carbon economy could reduce the control costs of non-CO2 air pollutants by €50 billion by 2050. . . In the USA, Thompson and colleagues estimate that human health benefits associated with air quality improvements driven by CO2 mitigation policies can offset the cost of the policies by up to ten times.“
This has nothing to do with CO2 and everything to do with real air pollution. Exactly the same outcome could be achieved by replacing coal with gas. Europe has ample shale gas, which could drastically reduce ‘the EU’s dependence on foreign fossil fuels’ (p.34) if exploited, as in the UK where it is now being fast-tracked. Burning biomass is more polluting than coal, which can be made much cleaner at lower cost than conversion to low-carbon alternatives. Intermittent wind and photovoltaic solar are unreliable, providing zero power on still evenings. Even thermal solar with heat storage won’t work in northern European winters. Powerful green lobbies pushing climate alarm (e.g. Greenpeace, WWF, DEA) also oppose nuclear power, hydro-dams and fracking, which leaves deindustrialisation as the only alternative. As Matt Ridley points out in The Wall Street Journal (14 August 2015), nuclear power is probably the safest energy source: “Nuclear power causes fewer deaths per unit of energy generated than even wind and solar power. Compared with fossil fuels, nuclear power has prevented 1.84 million more deaths than it caused, according to a study by two NASA researchers.”
On page 32, the Lancet report claims that climate-change mitigation will reduce fuel poverty through increased energy efficiency; but it can also increase fuel poverty by increasing the cost of energy. I agree with the reiterated benefits of increasing active transport (e.g. walking and cycling), but changes in urban design and transport policies need not be driven by climate mitigation. The reported health benefits in India ‘from a 50% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050’ could also be achieved by implementing modern clean coal technology. Air pollution should be tackled head on, not via climate-mitigation ideology.
Investment required for mitigation and adaptationWe are informed on page 33 that the International Energy Agency estimates that keeping the global temperature rise below 20C will require an additional investment in the energy system of $36 trillion by 2050, “roughly $1 trillion per year”; and the World Bank estimates the annual global cost of adaptation on such a 20C trajectory to total $70-100 billion by 2050. In other words, mitigation is around 500 times more costly than adaptation. In light of the enormous uncertainties in climate science, and climate models in particular, we have to ask whether $1 trillion a year could be better spent on adaptation and proven preventive measures.
Macroeconomic implications of mitigation and adaptationThe macroeconomic impacts of climate change
“Attempts to estimate the marginal social cost of CO2 emissions in the absence of mitigation or adaptation measures have produced an extremely wide range of results, spanning at least three orders of magnitude.” (p. 33)
Such (thousand-fold) differences illustrate the enormous uncertainties involved. After relying on the IPCC’s AR5 to indicate a 2% loss in GDP if global temperatures reach 2.50C above Little Ice Age ‘preindustrial levels’, the Lancet report relies on the 2006 Stern Review: “A world of unabated GHG emissions, what might be called a business-as- usual pathway (in which a global mean temperature increase is likely to far exceed 2.5°C, and in which many of the kinds of impacts in the last row and column of table 3 are likely to be experienced) could produce costs equivalent to reducing annual GDP by 5–20% now, and forever, compared with a world with no climate change . .” (p. 33) Sir Nicolas Stern assured us that strong action against global warming would cost only 1% of GDP – a no- brainer cost: benefit ratio of better than 1:5, the very opposite of Nordhaus’ 5:1 ratio. Stern turns a bad deal into a sure bet by enormously inflating both the damages from climate change and the benefits of action, and by vastly discounting the costs of action, which he considered to be nil after 2050. Needless to say, his review was rapidly demolished by both scientists and economists.82, 83, 84, 85 Richard Toll, on whose work Stern heavily relied, condemned it as deeply flawed, based on shaky science and worst case scenarios.86 And William Nordhaus appropriately labelled it a ‘political document’.87 None of that prevented the Lancet Commissions from milking alarmism from it while covering their back with an obscure statement about “a low discount rate, the validity of which has been questioned.”
“The macroeconomic impacts of responding to climate change
The theoretical microeconomics position on the balance to be struck between mitigation and adaptation is clear — there should be investment in mitigation up to the point where the marginal cost of further investment is higher than the marginal cost of adaptation plus that of remaining climate damages. In practice, the robust identification of this point is impossible, because of the uncertainty of the costs concerned and how they will develop over time, the difficulties of valuing non-market costs, and the lack of consensus over the appropriate discount rate for such costs, when they are incurred over long and varied time periods.” (p. 33-34) Note that the authors acknowledge much uncertainty about costs (economic models) but no uncertainty about the climate models!
I totally agree with the statement: “Investments in energy efficiency measures and technologies are often cost effective at prevailing energy prices, and there is substantial evidence that opportunities for such investments are considerable. Such investments will themselves tend to increase GDP. Investments in low-carbon energy that are redirected from fossil fuel investments will, where the low-carbon energy is more expensive than fossil fuels and leaving out considerations of avoided climate change and co-benefits, tend to reduce GDP.” (p.34)
There is a fundamental problem with the Lancet report’s next statement: “However, if fossil fuel prices increase from their currently relatively low levels and remain volatile, and the capital costs of renewables (especially solar and wind) continue to fall, then at some point renewable electricity may become economically preferable to fossil-fuel derived power, irrespective of other factors.” Being inherently intermittent and unreliable, solar and wind require fossil-fuel back up (usually gas power) unless hydro power is available, and expensive infrastructure to manage fluctuations. When the sun shines and the wind blows strongly, there is surplus power which wholesalers buy at discounted rates; but when the wind stops blowing, wind turbines actually use power and the required back- up fossil fuel power becomes more expensive. The more solar and wind power fed into the grid, the cheaper they become and the more expensive the gas power becomes. Until economical energy storage is available, we will be dependent on fossil fuel power to back up unreliable renewables.
Under ‘Possible Sources of Finance’ on page 34, this report looks longingly at the $6.7 trillion held in sovereign wealth funds and the $75.9 trillion held in private institutional funds (in 2013) and laments the fact that only 0.1% is invested in low-carbon energy infrastructure projects. It endorses the aims of the UNFCC’s Green Climate Fund (GCF) “to raise $100 billion of new and additional funding per annum from industrialised nations, by 2020 . . . to support mitigation and adaptation pathways in developing countries” and wants official development assistance (ODA) to be lifted from 0.29% of donor countries’ combined gross national income (GNI) to 0.7% of GNI, mobilising another $174.7 billion. I am all for providing low-interest loans to people in developing countries, but not for dictating how it should be spent – i.e. buying solar panels or wind turbines from large multinationals. Why not spend $100 billion a year on tackling poverty, polluted water supplies and tropical diseases – is there no vested interest in that? Opportunity International and other NGOs providing microfinance to create industry and employment in developing countries are vigorously opposed by Green merchants of fear.
Standards and engagement – making ‘smarter choices’ for ‘cost-effective energy efficiency’ etc;
Markets and prices – pressuring producers ‘to deliver cleaner products and processes’;
Strategic investment in low-carbon innovation and infrastructure.
a prominent example of which is the landlord–tenant problem, when the interests of the landlord and tenants are misaligned. The problem arises because, whilst the installation of energy efficiency measures would benefit the energy bill-paying tenant, savings do not accrue to the landlord who therefore has no incentive to bear the cost of installing such measures. Instead, standards can require their installation, or other measures to induce the same effect.” Regulation was not needed for me to install LED lighting, solar panels and solar hot water on rental homes and give tenants the benefits, but most landlords forced to do this would pass the cost on in higher rent. Only affluent societies can afford the highest standards of efficiency.
“Markets and prices The Stern Review called the market externality of GHG emissions in the global economy ‘the greatest and widest- ranging market failure ever seen’. Carbon pricing is the economist’s preferred means to address this externality. Such pricing may be achieved through national or regional explicit carbon taxes or cap-and-trade emissions trading systems (ETS), which are increasingly present around the world. A carbon tax sets the carbon price directly, but not the level of abatement, whilst an ETS sets the level of abatement, but the price derives from the carbon market. Regardless of the pricing mechanism, market actors may be expected to factor the existing and expected carbon price into short-term operational and long-term investment decisions.” (p.36)
History might one day record the trading of essential plant food (as a pollutant) to be the greatest market mistake ever made. Rather than a corruptible cap-and-trade policy, Nordhaus argued for a modest carbon tax as being more transparent and easier to administer at the national level and “estimated carbon taxes to stabilize atmospheric CO2 at twice the pre-industrial level (550 parts per million) to be $8 per ton of carbon in 2010.” Another leading climate economist, Richard Toll (2005),89 reviewed all 103 estimates in the literature at the time and concluded that the carbon cost was unlikely to be more than $14 a tonne and likely to be much smaller than that, perhaps as low as $2. A global macroeconomic model estimated the global cost of taxing carbon at $1 per tonne to be over $11 billion, and at $30 per tonne to be almost $7 trillion.90
“As of June 2014, around 40 national and over 20 subnational jurisdictions were engaged in carbon pricing of varied scope and instrument design, covering about 12% of annual global GHG emissions (the Australian ETS was discontinued in July 2014).” It was a carbon tax, not an ETS. “The largest ETS is the European ETS, established in 2005, and capping more than 40% of annual GHG emissions from power generation and energy-intensive and emission-intensive heavy industry across the EU-28 (plus Norway, Iceland, and Lichtenstein).” (p.36)
Cap and trade impacted Europe’s manufacturing and added to its economic woes, especially in Spain which did not have reunified Germany’s spare carbon credits or France’s nuclear power. The European carbon price has been in terminal decline since 2008, thanks to a surplus of over 2bn allowances, and is unlikely to recover before 2021:
The Lancet report argues for the removal of fossil fuel subsidies, both for producers (~$100 billion pa) and consumers (~$400 billion pa), the latter being “principally applied in developing countries”, because “an estimated 80% of such subsidies actually benefit the wealthiest 40% of the population”, but acknowledges that “the introduction of carbon pricing and the removal of fossil fuel subsidies may be regressive, as the poorest in society spend a greater proportion of their disposable income on energy” so they should be compensated. Solar subsidies also benefit those wealthy enough to install solar systems while disadvantaging poor homeowners and tenants paying higher tariffs. Since all goods and most services contain a carbon component, often proportional to cost, a GST or VAT is a de facto carbon tax – big spenders pay the most but the poor are hit relatively harder. Rather than reducing inequalities in developing countries by promoting small private enterprise and tackling corruption, this left- wing report promotes “the expansion of social security” (p.36).
“Strategic investment Whilst a price on carbon is a key component for mitigation, it is technologically agnostic and mainly encourages the adoption of mature low-carbon technologies. To encourage deployment, improvement and cost-reduction of less mature technologies, direct investment is also required. Although various options exist, Feed-in tariffs (FiTs), used in the electricity sector to provide a guaranteed rate of return to low-carbon generators, have been the most effective policy instrument used for this purpose, and have been responsible for a significant majority of installed global renewable power capacity (appendix 6).” (p.37)
There is no long-term ‘guaranteed rate of return’ nor should there be in a free market economy. Bloomberg reported (19 June 2010): “Spain’s government will cut the revenue of most existing solar-power plants by 30 percent, a move that may bankrupt hundreds of companies.” On 22 June 2015, the Daily Express announced the axing of subsidies for 250 wind farms in the UK. The Lancet report recommends joint public and private research into new low-carbon technologies, comparable to that for the development of new drugs; but ideologically-driven governments can waste a lot of taxpayer funds going up dry gullies, as did the previous Queensland Labor government on research into CSS. Under the heading of Institutional reform and support, this report appropriately emphasises the need for good governance in private and public sectors (p.37-38).
Section 5: delivering a healthy low-carbon future“Central to this Commission’s work is the question of whether human societies can deliver a healthy, low-carbon future. . . . The evidence to date of humanity’s ability to respond effectively is not encouraging. . . This section analyses the politics of climate change and provides suggestions for action.” (p.38) It briefly traces the political history leading to the IPCC in 1988, to UNFCCC in 1992 and to the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, “built mainly on designs proposed by the USA under President Clinton” but never ratified by the USA. It then points out “the fact that developing countries were not subject to any such specific commitments weakened the Protocol’s short-term impact and undermined its political viability.” It also meant that manufacturing and processing emissions were simply exported to China and other emerging economies. “Through the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), many developing countries came forward with new projects that generated cheap emission reductions (that could then be sold on to industrialised countries), and by most accounts contributed to the establishment of renewable energy industries and other low-carbon technologies. . . . The UNFCCC also provides a crucial ingredient of transparency.” (p.39)
Simulations suggest that tens of billions of dollars of permits may be available for export from Russia under the Kyoto Protocol. A Russian scientist recently reported that people in Moscow were already considering how to profit from the “privatization” of the Russian carbon emissions permits. . . . Some recent cases were described by Ruth Greenspan Bell:92We are told about calls for a bottom-up approach instead, and about “the summit in Copenhagen in 2009, which collapsed in acrimony save for two pages of unofficial outline text . . . The so-called Copenhagen Accord” which produced little more than “a promise to raise $100 billion per year of international finance by 2020 to help developing countries deal with climate change. . . [and] called on countries to declare domestically-generated voluntary pledges of what they might deliver.” This was then “ratified in 2010 by the Cancun Agreements, of domestic aspirations . . .” We have since seen grandstanding and breast beating. With Paris just a year away, there was: “a joint US–China agreement of 2014, in which the US Administration pledged to reduce its emissions by 26– 28% below 2005 levels by 2025, and China offered to cap its emissions growth by 2030, or sooner if possible.”
PSEG Fossil LLC, the biggest player in [New Jersey's emissions trading system], apparently had not installed necessary pollution controls or obtained proper permits. . . a Pasadena broker cheated several firms who paid for emissions credits that were never delivered. . . A similar example from the United Kingdom was reported . . . in an account of a government-sponsored auction in which participating companies bid by offering greenhouse gas reductions. An independent review by Environmental Data Services noted strong grounds to suspect that at least half of the claimed emissions reductions were not real, and blamed the inaccuracies on shortcomings in the Department of Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs regulatory controls and “poorly thought through rules.”If emissions finagling takes place in countries with relatively solid legal systems like the United States and the United Kingdom, it would be foolish to overlook the likelihood of emissions cheating in Russia, Ukraine, and many developing countries. Such cheating will probably be pandemic in an emissions-trading system that involves large sums of money. There are very poor intrinsic incentives for honesty in a cap-and-trade system. The purchasing unit gets a permit whether or not any true reductions take place by the selling unit. Emissions evasion has even worse incentives than tax evasion. Unlike the emissions-permit case, the recipient of the tax wants the payer to dispense the funds just as much as the taxpayer dislikes dispensing the funds. Tax cheating is a zero-sum game for the two parties, while emissions evasion is a positive sum game for the two parties. If tax evasion in the U.S. is in the order of 10 or 20 percent of taxes due, is there reason to believe that emissions evasion in Ukraine or Romania would be substantially less?
Australia, with a small population scattered over a vast area and a per capita emission rate comparable to the U.S. (illustrated on page 22 of the Lancet report) was recently criticised for making a similar commitment; but it produces just 1.11% of global emissions. The difference in atmospheric CO2 and temperature by 2100 between reducing our emissions by 26% or 50% would be imperceptible; but the economic difference could be over $600 billion. Commenting on this in The Conversation on 11 August 2015, Michael Harris points out:
If we assume the economy stays that size from now until 2030, and the A$633 b impact is deducted in equal increments each year, it adds up to a loss of around 3% of total economic activity each year. . .Using the Treasury’s 1.2% growth rate forecast for GDP with a particular target, compared to 1.4% growth as the reference case . . . I calculated that the reduction in cumulative GDP, expressed in present value terms, was less than 2%. . . .The Lancet Commission laments the “scale of the gap between science and action: if viewed in terms of per capita emissions, it means that the USA is planning to come down somewhat below 15 tCO2 per capita, whilst China wants headroom to reach potentially 10 tCO2 per capita by 2030, before declining. This is a far cry from the scientific goals – a 2°C limit implies the need for a global average close to 2 tCO2 per capita by mid-century.” The global average was just one ton per capita in 2007, and 2 tCO2 per capita is where the Dominican Republic, Uruguay and Brazil are today. The Lancet report also laments the fact that “the engagement of industrialised countries is weakening compared with in the 1990s and early 2000s, with major emitters, such as Canada, Japan, Russia and, of course, the USA, now operating only under the Copenhagen Accord and Cancun Agreements, whose targets are voluntary and not subject to common metrics.” (p.40)
Even in the best such exercises, results are contingent upon (i) model design, (ii) the assumptions fed in, and (iii) the scenarios analysed. . . . Model projections are not forecasts. Over long time frames, Treasury notes “assumptions necessarily become more speculative.”
• Uncertainty and complexity. The climate is naturally variable and the science that has identified dangerous, anthropogenic climate change to a very high level of probability is complex. This leaves considerable room for public ignorance or misunderstanding of the nature and severity of the issue. Moreover, climate scientists can be ineffective at communicating the issue to the public.Climate science is certainly uncertain and complex. The ‘very high level of probability’ that anthropogenic climate change is ‘dangerous’ has nothing to do with statistical probability and everything to do with opinions, assumptions and agreements between a relatively small group of scientists pushing an alarmist bandwagon. That group has been very active, aggressive and effective in communicating the issue to the public; and also in opposing, ridiculing, sidelining and sacking scientists who publicly express scepticism.94 Matt Ridley (2015)95 writes:
The distinguished Swedish meteorologist Lennart Bengtsson was so frightened for his own family and his health after he announced last year that he was joining the advisory board of the Global Warming Policy Foundation the he withdrew, saying, “It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy.”
The astrophysicist Willie Soon was falsely accused by a Greenpeace activist of failing to disclose conflicts of interest to an academic journal, an accusation widely repeated by mainstream media. . . .
Even more shocking has been the bullying lynch mob assembled this year by alarmists to prevent the University of Western Australia, erstwhile employers of the serially debunked conspiracy theorist Stephen Lewandowski, giving a job to the economist Bjorn Lomborg. The grounds were that Lomborg is a “denier”. But he’s not. He does not challenge the science at all. He challenges on economic grounds some climate change policies . . . His approach has been repeatedly vindicated over many years in many different topics, by many of the world’s leading economists. Yet there was barely a squeak of protest from the academic establishment at the way he was howled down and defamed for having the temerity to try to set up a research group at the university.
• Climate change is psychologically distant along four dimensions — temporal, social, geographical, and degree of uncertainty — whereas people tend to connect more easily with issues that are close in time, space and social group, and about which there is little uncertainty. These dimensions interact with each other, all tending to dampen concern and willingness to act.The main problem has been that most climate projections and predictions have been so far into the future that they are unfalsifiable; and predictions of immanent events have been wrong – e.g. 50 million climate refugees by 2010, Arctic summers ice-free by 2013, Himalayan glaciers gone by 2035, no dam-filling rains again etc. False prophecies corrode credibility.
• There is enormous lock-in to current economic patterns.296 Fossil-fuel use is at the heart of the industrial economy, often operating through long-lived infrastructure (eg, roads, buildings, and power plants) and enabling valued dimensions of modern lifestyles (eg, travel and temperature control in buildings). It is no exaggeration to say that human societies are addicted to fossil fuels, or at least the services they provide. Providing these valued services through alternative, lower-carbon means requires systemic change over a long period.This report gives no credit to fossil-fuel’s enormous benefits to humanity over the past few centuries. With his thousands of servants, King Louis XIV of France could not enjoy the same comforts, variety of food, entertainment, travel, education, health care or lifespan as the average Australian today. Why should we not be ‘addicted’ to those benefits! We left the Stone Age, Bronze Age and Iron Age when we found something better; and we will leave the fossil fuel age behind when technology finds something better. Climate alarmists want to pre-empt that, even if it means de-industrialising and going backwards in almost every way.
• These three factors can all come together in a fourth: the active promotion of misinformation, motivated by either ideology or vested economic interests. Here, parallels can be drawn between public health efforts to reduce tobacco consumption (appendix 8). It is estimated that US industry spent close to $500 million in its successful campaign against the 2010 House of Representatives proposal to cap US emissions. A major study of the Climate Change Counter Movement in the USA identifies funding of around $900 million annually.297This is both disingenuous and hypocritical: only a small percentage of the $900 million funding of the 91 think tanks and organisations identified by Robert Brulle (2014)96 (297) is devoted to climate; and climate alarmism is also big business. Academic institutions have become addicted to climate-funding. Billions of dollars are spent annually on climate-related research, with a strong bias against benign findings – fear fuels funding. Emeritus Professor Garth Paltridge,, an atmospheric physicist and Chief Research Scientist with the CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research before becoming Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies and CEO of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, observed in 2009:
It is more or less standard procedure to label as biased those scientists who are sceptical of the dangers of global warming because of their status as knowing stooges of the energy industry. This is at least an admission of the belief by global warming advocates that scientists as a class are in fact quite capable of having their judgment corrupted by political and monetary interest. That being so, the mistrust of sceptics is a peculiarly lopsided assessment. The potential for bias towards the politically correct, and massively government supported side of the greenhouse debate is the greater by order of magnitude. 97In Climate Change: The Facts 2014, Paltridge writes:
We have at least to consider the possibility that the scientific establishment behind the global warming issue has been drawn into the trap of seriously overstating the climate problem – or, what is much the same thing, of seriously understating the uncertainties associated with the climate problem – in its effort to promote the cause. It is a particularly nasty trap in the context of science, because it risks destroying, perhaps for centuries to come, the unique and hard-won reputation for honesty which is the basis for society’s respect for scientific endeavour.Harold (Hal) Lewis, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, co-founder and former Chairman of JASON, former member of USAF Scientific Advisory Board and Chairman of the American Physical Society (APS) study on Nuclear Reactor Safety wrote the following letter of resignation on 6 October 2010 to the president of the APS:
When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood.... As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time...
How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.
It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.98
There is enormous pressure for climate scientists to conform to the so-called consensus. This pressure comes not only from politicians, but from federal funding agencies, universities and professional societies, and scientists themselves who are green activists and advocates. Reinforcing this consensus are strong monetary, reputational, and authority interests. The closing of minds on the climate change issue is a tragedy for both science and society.Since the disgraceful sacking of Climate Research editor Chris de Freitas for publishing the Soon & Baliunas paper in 2003, science journals have favoured alarmist papers, even fundamentally flawed ones.99 The wider media makes mileage out of alarming news; national broadcasters (e.g. the BBC and ABC) being active promoters of climate catastrophe demanding urgent climate action. The alternative energy industry is also big business for Bosch, General Electric, Hitachi, Mitsubishi, Siemens and other manufacturers of wind turbines, solar panels and nuclear power plants. Then there are the bankers drooling over the prospect of carbon-trading trillions; NGOs (e.g. Greenpeace, WWF etc) milking millions from fearful donors; politicians exploiting fear to win elections; and the UN itself exploiting international funding for the UNFCCC, the IPCC, annual talk fests in places like Bali, Cancun, Durban and Paris, and now wanting to play Robin Hood with $100 billion a year. The pressure on the public purse is enormous: “A large-scale shift to such technologies will require very large investments over a prolonged period of time. This shift in financial flows will need to be incentivised, in the early periods at least, by strong, consistent, and credible public policies, and a change in financial structures.” (p.40)
“Public opinion and behaviour Ultimately, effective actions by local and national governments, and by businesses, are unsustainable without supportive public opinion. Public support for stronger action on climate change is a necessary, albeit far from sufficient, factor, and is essential if behavioural change is to contribute to solving the problem. In this respect, the evidence is somewhat mixed. Cross-national studies, such as the 2013 survey presented in figure 18, suggest that most people view climate change as a threat, although with some significant variation within regions.” (p.41)
This Lancet report is all about pushing that public opinion. The variations illustrated in figure 18 on page 42 are quite interesting. In Europe, the perception of a major threat from climate change is highest in Greece (86%) followed by Spain (65%) and Italy (64%) – all economic basket cases; and lowest in the Czech Republic (34%) and Poland (45%) – former Communist countries. In March 2010, Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic and author of Blue Planet in Green Shackles told a Florida gathering:
In 1989, communism collapsed and we were finally free. To my great surprise, the environmentalist doctrine was still alive and even flourishing in its new incarnation called global warming doctrine. In 1992, the Rio Earth Summit endorsed the doctrine of global warming and climate change as a leading ideology of our times. I expected that the ideology of the free world would be based on freedom, parliamentary democracy and market economy – concepts that were absolutely crucial for us in the former communist countries in the moment of our radical and revolutionary transition from communism to free society. Life under communism made us extremely sensitive, if not oversensitive to all possible symptoms of violation and erosion of our freedom. That is the reason why I feel endangered now. The subtitle of the above mentioned book asks “What is endangered: Climate or Freedom?” My answer is resolute: climate is ok, what is under threat is freedom.After pointing out that it is not knowledge deficit but emotion that is central to motivating people to change their lifestyles, this report states: “So-called fear appeals only work if accompanied by equally strong messages about how to address the problem.312 Representations of climate change as inexorably heading for catastrophe close off the possibility that individual and collective action can make a difference.” (p.43)
“Second, climate change is best represented in ways that anchor it in positive emotions, 313 by framing action in ways that connect with people’s core values and identities. Examples include framing climate change as: an ethical and intergenerational issue; about safeguarding ancestral lands and the sanctity of the natural world;”
What is ethical about leaving our descendants unemployed and hopelessly in debt (e.g. Greece, Spain) to assuage our own anxieties? What is so sacred about ‘ancestral lands’ – is not most land ancestral? And what is sacrosanct about ‘the natural world’ with its volcanoes, earthquakes, tsunamis, tornadoes, lightning strikes, noxious weeds, deadly nightshades, box jellyfish, malaria, cholera, Ebola, HIV/AIDS etc? Are not doctors in the business of combating much in ‘the natural world’? This so-called sanctity only reinforces perceptions of a quasi-religious green ideology basis for climate action. The report continues: “or an appreciation of the global injustice of anthropogenic climate change driven by rich countries but paid for by poorer ones.107, 314“ This oft-repeated over-generalisation is not supported by the second citation: “Indigenous Australians’ knowledge of weather and climate.”100 Australia is hardly one of the ‘poorer ones’.
We see more fear-mongering hyperbole on page 43: “Precautionary adaptation is clearly inadequate and prevailing patterns of energy production and consumption are still driving the world towards a dangerous climatic future.” Having diagnosed the malady and its aetiology, and issued a grim prognosis, the Lancet report provides the remedy: “To be truly effective, any future agreement will thus need not only to agree goals and aspirations, but also identify what is necessary at the international and national levels to achieve them. This may also require a mechanism, such as a feedback loop, that will motivate increased national ambitions over time.”
Section 6: bringing the health voice to climate changeThe Lancet report lists ways in which the health agenda might help the response to climate change:
Positive lessons for international cooperation and negotiation – by WHO for example;
Encouraging political lessons from surmounting past denialism – e.g. tobacco lobby, HIV/AIDS;
Harnessing the health impacts of climate change as added motivation – the human component;
Highlighting the health co-benefits of adaptation and mitigation measures – e.g. less air pollution;
Analogies in health responses to complex problems – prevention (mitigation) and treatment (adaptation).
The shale gas revolution in the U.S. has not only driven down energy prices but also U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.101 Broderick and Anderson point out, however, that this has resulted in cheaper coal of which the U.S. is now exporting more, especially to Europe and Asia. If environmentalists want to kill the coal industry, they should promote a shale gas revolution in Europe and elsewhere. Or could that jeopardise anti-fracking funding?
“The crux of the matter is that stabilising the atmosphere at any level ultimately requires reducing net emissions to zero. A healthy patient cannot continue with indefinitely rising levels of a toxin in the blood; even nutrients essential to a healthy body (like salt) can become damaging if not stabilised. The climate-change analogy is obvious and focuses global attention on the need to stabilise atmospheric concentrations, which in climate terms, means getting net emissions (that is, emissions minus removals by forests, oceans, and other sinks) to zero. On most scientific indicators, it means getting to zero during the second half of this century. A unifying goal, therefore, may be a commitment to achieve zero emissions” (p.45).
“Countdown to 2030: Global Health and Climate Action If we are to minimise the health impacts of climate change, we must monitor and hold governments accountable for progress and action on emissions reduction and adaptation. One might argue that action on climate change is already effectively addressed by the IPCC, World Bank, UNFCCC, WHO, and the G20. We believe, however, that the health dimension of the climate change crisis has been neglected. There are four reasons why an independent accountability and review process is warranted:
The size of the health threat from climate change is on a scale quite different from localised epidemics or
specific diseases. . .
There is a widespread lack of awareness of climate change as a health issue.191
Several independent accountability groups have brought energy, new ideas and advocacy to other global
health issues. . .
Perhaps the paramount reason for an independent review is the authority of health professional voices
with policy makers and communities. Doctors and nurses may be trusted more than environmentalists. They also bring experience of collating evidence and conducting advocacy to cut deaths as a result of tobacco, road traffic accidents, infectious disease, and lifestyle-related non-communicable diseases.
The health dimension of climate change has not been neglected by either the IPCC or the WHO. With a growing climate industry already straining the public purse, do we need yet another ‘climate action coalition’? Might the alarmism of this Lancet Commissions report serve its intended purpose better than either science or humanity?
In summary, this Lancet Commissions 2015 Report:
- Assumes climate change is entirely anthropogenic; links it to increased frequency of intense storms despite contrary evidence and to floods and droughts with undue certainty;
- Accepts climate model’s emission scenarios and temperature projections as reliable predictions;
- Portrays all fossil fuel emissions, including CO2, as dangerous while ignoring their benefits to humanity;
- Focuses on the hazards of global warming while downplaying its benefits;
- Portrays renewable energy as reliable and affordable for developing countries;
- Promotes expensive mitigation measures over proven preventive measures in combating tropical diseases;
- Overestimates the benefits of mitigation and underestimates its overall costs;
- Employs hyperbole, fear tactics and quasi-religious notions of the sanctity of the natural world to recruit support for urgent climate action while hypocritically attributing climate inaction to vested interests;
- Seeks to further strain the public purse by creating yet another climate action coalition.
1 Allen DW 1977: The role of physical activity in the control of obesity. Med J Aust, 2: 434-438.
2 Allen DW 1979: Preventive Medicine in General Practice, Australian Family Physician. 1118-1133.
3 Allen DW 1988: Transdermal tobacco extract reduced reported cigarette consumption. Med J Aust. 149;6:342.
4 Dr Allen, one of 10 members of the Chamberlain Innocence Committee presenting new forensic evidence to the Morling inquiry, later performed novel blood spatter work which resulted in reopening the case of Alexander McLeod-Lindsay, convicted in 1965 for the attempted murder of his Sydney wife, exonerated at the Loveday Inquiry in 1990.
5 Allen DW 2011: The Weather Makers Re-examined, Irenic Publications, Duranbah NSW.
6 John Cook et al. 2013: Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
7 Verheggen B, Strengers B, Cook J, van Dorland R, Vringer K, Peters J, Visser H, and Meyer L. 2014: Scientists’ Views about Attribution of Global Warming. DOI: 10.1021/es501998e. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es501998e
8 Strengers B, Verheggen, B and Vringer, K. 10 April 2015: CLIMATE SCIENCE SURVEY Questions and Responses, PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.
9 Gasparrini A et al. 2015: Mortality risk attributable to high and low ambient temperature: a multicountry observational study. The Lancet, DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)62114-0
10 Nott J et al. 2007: Greater frequency variability of landfalling tropical cyclones at centennial compared to seasonal and decadal scales. Earth and Planetary Science Letters. 255; 367-72.
11 Curtin T 2009: Climate change and food production. Energy and Environment. 20;7: 1099-1116
12 Kukla GJ 2000: The last interglacial. Science 287: 987-988.
13 Brigham-Grette J and Hopkins DM 1995: Emergent marine record and paleoclimate of the last interglaciation along the Northwest Alaskan Coast. Quaternary Research, 43:159–173.
14 Lozhkin AV and Anderson PM 1995: The last interglaciation in Northeast Siberia. Quaternary Research, 43:47–158.
15 van Kolfschoten T 2000: The Eemian mammal fauna of central Europe. Netherlands Journal of Geosciences 79 (2/3): 269–281. http://www.njgonline.nl/publish/articles/000099/article.pdf.
16 McBean, G. et al, 2005: Arctic Climate: Past and Present, Chapter2, p. 51. http://www.acia.uaf.edu/PDFs/ACIA_Science_Chapters_Final/ACIA_Ch02_Final.pdf
17 Barnekow L and Sandgren P 2001: Palaeoclimate and tree-line changes during the Holocene based on pollen and plant macrofossil records from six lakes at different altitudes in northern Sweden. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology, 117:109–118.
18 Stranne C, Jacobsson M, Björk G. 2014: Arctic Ocean perennial sea ice breakdown during the Early Holocene Insolation Maximum, Quaternary Science Reviews; 92: 123-132 doi:10.1016/j.quascirev.2013.10.022
19 Aldrin M, Holden M, Guttorp P, Skeie RB, Myhre G, Berntsen TK 2012: Bayesian estimation of climate sensitivity based on a simple climate model fitted to observations of hemispheric temperatures and global ocean heat content. Environmetrics 23:253-271
20 Lewis N 2013: An objective Bayesian, improved approach for applying optimal fingerprint techniques to estimate climate sensitivity. J Clim 26:7414-7429
21 Otto A, Otto FEL, Boucher O, Church J, Hegerl G, Forster PM, Gillett NP, Gregory J, Johnson GC, Knutti R, Lewis N, Lohmann U, Marotzke J, Myhre G, Shindell D, Stevens B, Allen MR. 2013: Energy budget constraints on climate response. Nature Geosci 6:415–416 22 Curtin, T. 2009: Climate change and food production. Energy and Environment. 20;7: 1099-1116
23 Stauning P. 2014: Reduced Solar Activity Disguises Global Temperature Rise, Atmospheric and Climate Sciences, Vol. 4 No. 1, 2014, pp. 60-63. doi: 10.4236/acs.2014.41008.
24 Lu J, Hu A and Zeng Z. 2014: On the possible interaction between internal climate variability and forced climate change. Geophysical Research Letters, 2962-70. DOI: 10.1002/2014GL059908
25 Schneider S and Rasool S 1971: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols - Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate. Science, 173; 138-141
26 Foreword to Ponte L 1975: The Cooling: Has the next ice age already begun? Can we survive it? Prentice Hall.
27 Mosher S and Fuller TW 2010: Climategate: The CRUTAPE Letters, Lexington, KY.
- 28 These revealed a close-knit international clique (the Team) colluding to fudge figures, hide data or destroy it, hijack debate and scientific journals, boycott those they couldn't, bully reviewers and editors to block contrary papers, oust any deemed to be sceptics, denigrate sceptical scientists, rejoice over their demise, contrive a consensus and manipulate the media to maximise alarm and research funding. They even rewrote history. The second 1995 IPCC report had portrayed a Medieval Warm Period globally warmer than the present. The third IPCC report in 2001, however, replaced this with a ‘hockey-stick’ curve which Mike Mann et al had published, first in Nature and later in GRL. At CRU, Keith Briffa had been working on his own hockey-stick curve. When shown to IPCC lead authors meeting in Tanzania in September 1999, they thought the temperature decline from 1961 in his tree-ring proxies ‘diluted the message’; so the CRU computer program was modified: “These will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures . . . Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline.” In November 1999, Phil Jones wrote to Mann, Bradley and Hughes: “I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline.” Whereas Dr William McBride, famous for his 1961 letter in The Lancet on Thalidomide, was struck off the medical register in 1993 for deliberately manipulating data on Debendox, the Climategate scientists have been protected and promoted.
- 29 Fisher AT et al. 2015: High geothermal heat flux measured below the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. Science Advances, 1:e1500093
- 30 Herring S, Hoerling M, Peterson T, Stott P. Explaining extreme events of 2013 from a climate perspective. Bull Am Meteor Soc 2014; 95: S1–96.
- 31 Climate models factor in strong positive feedbacks, mainly from increased atmospheric water vapour, the dominant greenhouse gas; but increased evaporation cools the surface, convection transports the latent heat high into the troposphere where it is radiated to space, the water vapour absorbs longwave solar radiation and condenses into clouds which reflect solar radiation. Weather balloons and satellites have failed to find the tropospheric hot spot predicted by climate models: Douglass DH et al. 2007: A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions. International Journal of Climatology: DOI. 10.1002/joc.1651.
- 32 Mitchell, P. 2010: The role of wind power in saving the planet. Australian Environment Foundation Conference, 16 October, Brisbane.
- 33 Moore TG 1998: Climate of Fear, Cato Institute: Washington DC p.83,34 Davis RE et al. 2003: Changing heat-related mortality in the United States. Environmental Health Perspectives 14;1,712-18
- 35 Knappenberger PC, Michaels PE and Davis RE 2001: The nature of observed climate changes across the United States during the 20th century. Climate Research. 17; 45-53.
- 36 Watts A 2010: New Compendium Paper on Surface Temperature Records. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/26/new- paper-on-surface-temperature-records/
- 37 Torok S et al 2001: Urban heat island features of southeast Australian towns. Aust. Met. Mag. 50 (2001) 1-13, online at http://reg.bom.gov.au/amoj/docs/2001/torok.pdf.
- 38 McLean J 2010: We have been conned: An independent review of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Science and Public Policy Institute, August 18.
- 39 Balling R C Jr. and Idso SB 1989: Historical temperature trends in the United States and the effect of urban population growth. Journal of Geophysical Research 94 (3): 359-63.
- 40 Hung T et al. 2006: Assessment with satellite data of the urban heat island effects in Asian mega cities. International Journal of Applied earth Observation and Geoinformation. 8;11:34-48.
41 Chase T N, Wolter K, Pielke RA Sr. & Rasool I 2006: Was the 2003 European summer heat wave unusual in a global context? Geophysical Research Letters. 33(5) doi:10.1029/2006GL027470
42 IPCC 2007: 4AR WGI Box 3.6, Chapter 3 "Observations: Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change"
43 Fouillet A et al. 2008: Has the impact of heat waves on mortality changed in France since the European heat wave of summer 2003? A study of the 2006 heat wave. International Journal of Epidemiology 2008;37:309–317 doi:10.1093/ije/dym253
44 Goklany, I. 2007: Deaths and death rates due to extreme weather events. Civil Society Report on Climate Change. International Policy Network.
45 Lamb HH 1988: Weather, Climate and Human Affairs: A Book of Essays and Other Papers. London and New York: Routledge.
46 Cuffey KM and Marshall SJ 2000: Substantial contribution to seal level rise during the last interglacial from the Greenland ice sheet. Nature 404: 591-594
47 Villalba R 1994: Tree-ring and Glacial Evidence for the Mediaeval Warm Epoch and the Little Ice Age in Southern South America. Climate Change 26:183-197
48 Grudd H 2008: Tornetrask tree-ring with and density AD 500-2004: A test of climatic sensitivity and a new 1,500-year reconstruction. Climate Dynamics doi 10.1007/s00382-007-0358-2, pp. 1-17.
49 Rocco, F. 2003: The Miraculous Fever-Tree. p.96, Harper Collins, London
50 Plimer, I. 2009: Heaven+Earth: Global warming: the missing science. Connor Court, Vic. P.81.
51 Gordon, D. 1976: Health, Sickness and Society. p.185 University of Queensland Press, St Lucia
52 Moore, T G. 1998: Climate of Fear, p.83, Cato Institute: Washington DC
53 Keatinge WR et al. 2000: Heat related Mortality in Warm and Cold Regions of Europe: Observational Study. British Medical Journal, 321(7262):670-73.
54 Lomborg B 2007: Cool It. Knopf, Borozoi Books, USA p17
55 Bosello F, Roson R, & Tol RSJ 2006:. Economy-wide Estimates of the Implications of Climate Change: Human Health. Ecological Economics, 58(3), 579-91.
56 Gething PW, Smith DL, Patil AP, Tatem AJ, Snow RW, Hay SI 2010: Climate change and the global malaria recession. Nature 465: 342–345 doi:10.1038/nature09098
57 Goklany I 2004: Climate Change and Malaria. Science 306: 57, http://members.cox.net/igoklany/.
58 Lomborg, B. 2008: Cool It. Alfred Knopf, N.Y., p. 100.
59 Brierly WB 1944: Malaria and socio-economic conditions in Mississippi. Social Forces, 23;1: 451-59.
60 Tol R 2010: The impact of climate change and its policy implications. In Moran and Roskam: Climate Chage: The Facts. IPA, Melbourne, 68-77.
61 Anderson, Christopher 1991: Cholera Epidemic Traced to Risk Miscalculation. Nature 354: 255
62 Colwell Rita. 1996: Global Climate and Infectious Disease: The Cholera Paradigm. Science 274:2025-31
63 Moore TG 1998: Climate of Fear, Cato Institute: Washington DC p.78,
64 Klotzbach PJ 2006: Trends in global tropical cyclone activity over the past 20 years (1986-2005). Geophysical research Letters.33;L010805,doi:10.1029/2006GL025881.
65 Ainsworth EA and Long SP 2005: What have we learned from fifteen years of free-air CO2 enrichment FACE? A meta-analytic review of the responses of photosynthesis, canopy properties and plant production to rising CO2. New Phytologist 165:351-72. 66 Kiem, A. S., Franks, S. W. and Kuczera, G. 2003: Multi-decadal variability of flood risk. Geophysical Research Letters, Vol.. 30, NO. 2, 1035, doi:10.1029/2002GL015992
67 Verdon, D. C. and Franks, S. W. 2006: Long-term behaviour of ENSO: Interactions with the PDO over the past 400 years inferred from paleoclimate records. Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 33, L06712, doi:10.1029/2005GL025052
68 Lomborg, B. 2007: Cool It. Knopf, Borozoi Books, USA p.83
69 Demaree, G. R. 2006: The catastrophic floods of February 1784 in and around Belgium – A Little Ice Age event of frost, snow, river ice and floods. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 51(5); 878-98.
70 Mudelsee, M. et al 2006: Trends in flood risk of the river Wierra (Germany) over the last 500 years. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 51(5); 818-33
71 Mitchell, J. K. 2003: European river floods in a changing world. Risk Analysis, 23(3);567-74.
72 Yiou, R. et al 2006: Statistical analysis of floods in Bohemia (Czech Republic) since 1825. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 51(5); 930-45
73 Kundzewicz, Z. W. et al 2005: Trend detection in rivwer flow series: 1. Annual maximum flow. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 50(5); 797-810.
74 Svensson, C., Kundzewicz, Z. W. and Maurer, T. 2005: Trend detection in rivwer flow series: 1. Annual maximum flow. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 50(5); 811-24. Doi:10.1623/hysj.2005.50.5.811
75 Small, D., Islam, S., & Vogel, R. M. 2006: Trends in precipitation and streamflow in the Eastern US: Paradox or perception? Geophysical Research Letters, 33 (3).
76 Mudelsee, M. et al 2003: No upward trends in the occurrence of extreme floods in Central Europe. Nature, 425(6954);166-69. 77 Ineson S et al. 2015: Regional climate impacts of a possible future grand solar minimum. Nature Communications, doi:10.1038/ncomm8535
78 Wigley, T. M. L. 1998: The Kyoto Protocol: CO2, CH4 and climate implications. Geophysical Research Letters, 25;13:2285-88.
79 Solomon, L. 2008: The Deniers. Richard Vigilante Books, USA. P. 210-11.
80 Wood, D. 1990: Interview with M. Strong. West Magazine (Alberta, Canada) May.
81 Lomborg, B. (2007) Cool It. Knopf, Borozoi Books, USA p. 44 and p. 162. See also http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com
82 Carter, R. M., de Freitas, C. R., Goklany, J. M., Holland, D. and lindzen, R. S. 2006: The Stern Review: A dual critique, part I: The science. World Economics, 7; 4: 167-198.
83 Byatt, I. et al. 2006: The Stern Review: A dual critique, part II: Economic aspects. World Economics, 7; 4: 199-232.
84 Tol, R. S. J. and Yohe, G. W. 2006: A Review of the Stern Review. World Economics, 7; 4:233-250.
85 Weitzman, M. L. 2007: A Review of the Stern Review on the economics of climate change. Journal of Economic Literature, XLV (3): 703-24.
86 Tol, R.S. J. 2006: The Stern Review of the Economics of Climate Change: A Comment. Economic and Social Research Institute, Hamburg, Vrje, and Carnegie Mellon universities. (http://www.fnu.zmaw.de/fileadmin/fnu-files/reports/sternreview.pdf).
87 Nordhaus, W. D. 2006: The Stern review on the economics of climate change. Retrieved from http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/SternReviewD2.pdf
88 Grubb M. Planetary economics: energy, climate change and the three domains of sustainable development. London: Routledge, 2014.
89 Tol, R. S. J. 2005: The marginal damage costs of carbon dioxide emissions: An assessment of the uncertainties. Energy Policy, 33; 16: 2064-74.
90 Lomborg, B. 2007: Cool It. Knopf, Borozoi Books, USA p.29-31
91 Nordhaus, W. D. 2005: Life after Kyoto: Alternative approaches to global warming policies. Prepared for the Annual Meetings of the American Economic Association, Boston, Massachusetts. http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/kyoto_long_2005.pdf
92 Bell, R. G.:Climate Change Monitoring: International Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading, http://www.emissierechten.nl/climate_change__monitoring_inter.htm.
93 Hulme M. 2009: Why we disagree about climate change: understanding controversy, inaction and opportunity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
94 Michaels PJ and Balling RC 2009: Climate of Extremes, Cato Institute, Washington DC. Preface.
95 Ridley M. 2015: What the Climate Wars have done to Science. Quadrant, June 2015; 517, Vol LIX; 6: 10-17.
96 Brulle R. 2014: Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of US climate change counter-movement organizations. Climate Change 122: 681–94.
97 Paltridge, G. 2009: The Climate Caper: Facts and Fallacies of Global Warming. Quarter Books Limited, London. P.95-96. 98Delingpole,J.2010(9Oct):Telegraph,UK. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100058265/us-physics-professor-global- warming-is-the-greatest-and-most-successful-pseudoscientific-fraud-i-have-seen-in-my-long-life/
99 The following paper illustrates common false assumptions (that correlation proves causation and that history can be reversed) to conclude that: “Therefore, our results imply that to avoid significantly elevated sea level in the long term, atmospheric CO2 should be reduced to levels similar to those of preindustrial times”: Foster G and Rohling E. 2013: Relationship between sea level and climate forcing by CO2 on geological timescales, PNAS, January 22 (1209-14).
100 Green D, Billy J, Tapim A. 2010: Indigenous Australians’ knowledge of weather and climate. Climate Change 100: 337–54.
101 Broderick J and Anderson K. 2012: Has US Shale Gas Reduced CO2 Emissions? Tyndall Manchester Climate Change Research