Monday, 22 March 2010

Richard Glover's Pixelated view of the IPCC AR4

First it was Agmates Christine Milne preaching to ABC employees to disobey their employer.

"The Australian Greens today urged ABC journalists to ignore the anti-science nonsense peddled by the Chair of their board and instead increase their strong coverage of climate change."

Now it appears that ABC Broadcaster and SMH columnist Richard Glover has taken her advice to ignore his employer.

Unfortunately, Richard makes some mistakes. His first mistake is only four words into the article. The four words: "Do climate-change sceptics..." Richard, all sceptics accept that climate changes. I think you mean Anthropogenic Global warming Sceptics.

Richard, you also say we sceptics have an obsession with 1998. No, Richard. That was due to the ENSO. Years that should be looked at are:
The Minoan Warm Period (1450-1300 BC) with temperatures much warmer than today:
The Roman Warm period (250BC-450 AD) when temperatures were 2-6º warmer than today;
The Medievil Warm Period (900-1300 AD) when temperatures were at least 2º warmer than today.

Wikipedia states:- "In the last 4,000 years, there have been three distinct periods of "global warming" - the Minoan Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period, and the Medieval Warm Period. All of these periods saw temperatures higher than anything we have yet experienced during the current warming period. Yet humans prospered during these times. We have written accounts of the Roman and Medieval Warm periods proving this to be the case. Crop yields were higher, death rates were lower, animals and plants that humans depended on were more plentiful. Though no written accounts have survived from the Minoan Warm Period, archaeological evidence indicates that this period was also unusually prosperous for humans around the world."

If we start the graphs from any of these, the trend line is down. However, Richard, as Wiki says above, a few degrees warmer is not bad but beneficial.

Now here's where you really fall over Richard. You say: "Point three is the way they search out errors in very large documents and then claim one error renders the whole document false."

Oh Dear, Richard, you mention google. Google "Mistakes IPCC AR4.
Besides, the grossly incorrect Himalayan glacier melt report produced from gossip, you will find, inter alia, incorrect reports about North African Crop Production; Incorrect claims about proportion of the Netherlands below sea level; incorrect Antarctic Sea Ice trends,; falsity of Amazon Forests depletion...etc etc
The London Times: "UN to review errors made by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change"

One error, Richard? Do your own research. So many more than one!

So take way your falsehood/;

Don't perpetuate the lies.

Examine the deception

Rub that butter from your eyes!

Please examine what does trouble you

Find the truth of AGW.

Perhaps the next Dag's Dictionary should included:

AGW -ABC's Great Wrongdoing

Friday, 19 March 2010

Why Cap & Trade Could Cause the Next GFC

Why Cap & Trade Could Cause the Next GFC

Andy Semple writes how a cap and trade emissions trading scheme could cause another financial crisis.

The European experience with Cap & Trade strongly urges caution. The Washington Post on February 16, 2009, described it as "Exhibit A" of what not to do on climate, and for good reason. Our Senate would be wise to take a close look at Europe's track record on the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, and the Emissions Trading Scheme they adopted in 2005.

The EU’s emissions targets were set too high, and too many pollution allowances were given away to industry. The value of a carbon credit on the market plummeted – it collapsed in price from €33 to just €0.20 per tonne. Companies made windfall profits by charging customers more for energy while selling allowances they didn't need. The Europeans have also not had much success at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, emissions covered by the EU’s ETS rose 3.6% in the UK in the first year, and rose by 0.8% across the EU as a whole. So much for the capping emissions!

Despite the lofty rhetoric from many European nations about setting even more stringent standards in the future, we are also seeing signs of fracturing in their Cap & Trade coalition. From German automakers to Italian steelmakers, to nations that still rely on coal for a substantial percentage of their electric generation, discussions about exclusions and delays and handouts are now very much a part of the debate in every European Union meeting on climate change. The Russian cut-off of the natural gas supply to Europe was also a reminder of the geopolitical risks of discouraging domestic coal under Cap & Trade.

There are also examples of fraud and unfairness in the EU process. Given the similar politics here - where big businesses have successfully lobbied for free allocations far more effectively than the little guys (consumers, small businesses, and farmers etc...) - it is highly likely that such inequities would occur in Australia as well.

Remember, Cap & Trade isn’t a free market mechanism. It is a Government engineered scheme that cloaks itself as being market driven. When Government’s lazy bureaucratic hand becomes involved, it is no longer a free market driven system. A free market driven system would be best illustrated by the trading activities on the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX) or on the Sydney Futures Exchange (SFE).

You see, unlike real markets, where you have real underlying assets (such as Gold, Oil or BHP shares), Cap & Trade’s only underlying asset is simply created out of thin air by a Government decree (you should be starting to see the risks here). So, to kick off Cap & Trade, the Government makes a law that stipulates that the initial price of Carbon is say $20 per tonne, and thus a new asset class is born – Carbon. The market doesn’t set the price, the Government does. The government also sets the contract specifications, not the free market. So, the Government sets the initial price, the contract specifications, and now runs “the market” - as you will not see Carbon trading done via the ASX or the SFE. I would hardly call this a free market mechanism. Cap & Trade is nothing more than a Clayton’s “market driven” scheme.

The Free Market is replaced by the State. It’s Central Planning at its worst.

Whilst the Government’s CPRS isn’t a threat to the world economy, you can clearly see that if a Global Cap & Trade scheme was in place it would be a clear and present danger should the newly created Carbon asset class ever collapse. Again, no one thought the US housing market would collapse, but it did, and the same could well happen with a Carbon Market. It’s estimated that the global Carbon Market could be worth well over $3 trillion a year by 2020, or twice as much as the Oil Market. This isn’t small beer, and its collapse would have devastating consequences to the global economy. The US subprime crisis, which sparked the GFC, cost the global economy $7.7 trillion dollars. It would appear that no lessons have been learnt from the subprime catastrophe.

At least the US housing market is real, it’s a tangible asset, but the Cap & Trade Carbon Market is an intangible asset - and if it crashes it won’t be worth the permit paper it is printed on.

So what could possibly crash the carbon market? Any sensible approach to global warming has to centre on technological innovation as it applies to energy production and use. Breakthroughs such as ways to produce energy economically with little or no carbon dioxide emissions, or improvements in energy efficiency all make good sense, irrespective of global warming.

Innovation is what we really want. We know from history and experience that free economies innovate better than centrally planned ones. You only need to look at Apple Inc’s incredible success over the last five years. Through innovation they have brought the ipod, the iphone, and now the ipad to the marketplace. The shareholders who believed in Apple’s innovative vision have been handsomely rewarded. Apple’s five year return is 398.32%

But Cap & Trade introduces a significant element of central planning, and thus stifles innovation. We also know that strong economies innovate better than weak ones, but Cap & Trade weakens economies. Perhaps most importantly, stable economies innovate better than unstable ones, especially for something like energy where the investments often run into the billions of dollars, and the payoffs play out over decades. Cap & Trade adds a significant element of instability, which we have already witnessed in Europe, with wild swings in the price of carbon, and energy companies becoming less interested in long-term investment and more interested in the short-term trading of the system.

What would happen, for example, if someone invented Nuclear Fusion? Sure, you may say, that’s way off in fairy land, and it could be decades before the technology is invented, let alone perfected. That is true, but if it was invented the whole Carbon Market would collapse due to fossil fuels becoming obsolete virtually overnight. But why wait? Currently nuclear fission (nuclear power) is the only technology available that is capable of providing emission free energy on a scale required to significantly reduce carbon emissions. Just like Apple Inc re-invented the Walkman with the ipod, there have been significant advances in Nuclear Fusion Technology.

In conclusion, the economic realities of Cap & Trade are becoming very clear in Europe. How can the Rudd Government be trusted to manage a complex Cap & Trade scheme here in Australia when they can’t even manage the current home insulation rebate programme!

If we adopt a similar approach in Australia, expect considerable economic pain for minimal (or even no) environmental gain.

Andy is the founder and Managing Director of Stockbroking firm ANDIKA and the co-founder and Managing Director of boutique Funds Manager Xcelerator Capital Limited. He blogs regularly at and you can read his full article here.

Monday, 8 March 2010

David Karoly, You are wrong, again

On Radio Australia, Professor David Karoly in an interview with Di Bain:

DI BAIN: How does the person who isn't adept in the science know what figures to trust, especially after the recent IPCC errors and the climate change email scandal last year?

DAVID KAROLY: As far as I'm aware, there is only one error of substance in the IPCC assessments which was a mistake and has been admitted to in terms of the timing for the Asian glaciers, or Himalayan glaciers to disappear.

Note that the Interviewer is aware of more than one error. Perhaps she had read the World Climate Report:
Another IPCC Error: Antarctic Sea Ice Increase Underestimated by 50%

Several errors have been recently uncovered in the 4th Assessment Report (AR4) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). These include problems with Himalayan glaciers, African agriculture, Amazon rainforests, Dutch geography, and attribution of damages from extreme weather events. More seem to turn up daily. Most of these errors stem from the IPCC’s reliance on non-peer reviewed sources.

Or perhaps Di Bain had read the UK Telegraph:

New errors in IPCC climate change report

But this paper has discovered a series of new flaws in it including:

* The publication of inaccurate data on the potential of wave power to produce electricity around the world, which was wrongly attributed to the website of a commercial wave-energy company.

* Claims based on information in press releases and newsletters.

* New examples of statements based on student dissertations, two of which were unpublished.

* More claims which were based on reports produced by environmental pressure groups.


A new poll has revealed that public belief in climate change is weakening.The panel’s controversial chair, Rajendra Pachauri, pictured right, is facing pressure to resign over the affair.

Rajendra Pachauri, in 2007 insisted that the quality of the science "is absolutely first rate. You know there may be someone who knows a lot about glaciers. We will get him to write something on glaciers and send it to the writing team.
and then goes on to mention peer-reviewed - "The IPCC doesn't do any research itself. We only develop our assessments on the basis of peer-reviewed literature."

Again in 2008 he insisted that the IPCC process was based on peer-reviewed.

"People can have confidence in the IPCC's conclusions," he said."Given that it is all on the basis of peer-reviewed literature. I'm not sure there is any better process that anyone could have followed."

Roger Pielke Jr explains that movement of the IPCC away from peer-review on his blog:

Research by No Frakking Consensus

Sunday, 7 March 2010

Dubious Defender of the Scientific Faith

Christopher Booker in the UK Telegraph writes that some of US's top "warmists" are planning a counter-attack on the “climate sceptics."

“We’re not in a gentlepersons’ debate, we’re in a street fight against well-funded, merciless enemies who play by entirely different rules,” says Paul Ehrlich of Stanford University.

As treasurer of the Australian Climate Sceptics party, I can only wish that we were well funded. When we look at funds for the warmists, Jo Nova says, in her reply to the Clive Hamilton Drum items, that the US alone has spent US$79 billion in the past 20 years.

The $79 billion figure does not include money from other western governments, private industry, and is not adjusted for inflation. In other words, it could be…a lot bigger.

Today we can also read of the afforementioned Paul Ehrlich.

Failed "Scientist" Paul Ehrlich Among AGW Alarmists Swiping at Skeptics

Paul Ehrlich is the quintessential “Intellectual Moron” as author Daniel Flynn calls it. Since he came on the national scene in 1968 with the book The Population Bomb, Ehrlich has been wrong on virtually everything has predicted about the future state of the world. He’s the Bernie Madoff of science. If he were a mutual fund investment banker, he would have been fired by his employer, have a bounty on his head by every one of his unfortunate clients, and probably his own jail cell.

Thursday, 4 March 2010

Grandfather or Godfather Hansen Here

Fran Kelly says that the Emissions Trading Scheme is "looking like a political dead duck in Australia and America." in a story headed: "The grandfather of climate science."

On the other hand, The SMH and the Age call him the Godfather of Climate Science.

He is quoted as saying: "If we had a democracy where decisions were based on the public's best interest, then that would be taken up in a heartbeat,'' Dr Hansen said in Melbourne yesterday. ''Neither of the major parties gets it - or they don't want to get it." Actually, if we had a democracy where decisions were based on the public's best interest, then we would close all our Climate Change offices and stop wasting money. (see below)

Australian Climate Madness calls him a "Homer Simpson lookalike.."

Call him what you will, as the AGW "science" is crumbling, he will still be spreading his warming doom and gloom story as he travels around Australia.

Meanwhile, Bob Carter was gagged by the ABC when, after their invitation, he presented a reply to the drivel of Clive Hamilton.So Bob presented his piece to Quadrant.
Bob reports that worldwide spending on global warming alarmism and "related research and greenhouse bureaucracy of more than US$10 billion annually."

Professor Carter's article ends:

As Senator Fielding’s four scientific advisors – all of whom are experienced and independent climate scientists – have recommended in their due diligence report (item 7) on the advice being provided to Climate Minister Wong by her department:

Parliament should defer consideration of the CPRS bill and institute a fully independent Royal Commission of enquiry into the evidence for and against a dangerous human influence on climate. We add ..... that the scientific community is now so polarised on the controversial issue of dangerous global warming that proper due diligence on the matter can only be achieved where competent scientific witnesses are cross-examined under oath and under strict rules of evidence”.

Wednesday, 3 March 2010

"Weekend at Bernies" phase for man made Global warming

Letter to the editor

"Weekend at Bernies" phase for man made Global warming

Sir / Madam,
The way the theory of man made global warming is still being believed by many is similar to the movie "Weekend at Bernies" This is where a corpse is carted around and people react to the dead body as if it were alive.
Funnily enough green groups and governments are still saying the theory of Man made global warming idea is alive, but there are now three reasons it is dead and it will stink more and more in the future.

1) No scientist has verifiable evidence that CO2 causes dangerous Global warming. (If I am incorrect my opponents just need to quote the scientist and the paper - but of course there is none.)

2) Many IPCC scientists and employees are being exposed in corrupting the climate science effects by making hugely exaggerated claims - direct evidence the theory is a sham.

3) Ex-NASA Scientist (Dr Ference Miskolczi) has calculated the Greenhouse effect and these calculations demonstrates CO2 cannot cause Dangerous Global warming.
His 2004 peer reviewed paper has not been refuted and is supported by several other publications (e.g. Kiehl & Ramanathan 2006)

The climate sceptics TV and Radio ads for the SA election mention Miskolczi's work and that we in SA have been conned and are wasting millions of dollars on a NON EXISTANT problem. A vote for the Climate Sceptics will help bury the exaggerated theory. We stand for "Truth before Politics" and we are centrist independent thinkers on all issues. If elected, we will be the sharp thinkers challenging legislation that reduces people rights or is not based on the best science or is not properly thought through.

Nathan Ashby
SA MLC Candidate for the Climate Sceptics