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

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


  1. Australia needs Professor Ross Garnaut and Bob Brown climate alarmist like another Cyclone. I travel quite a bit and we are thought of with affection and well liked, but the prevailing thought is we also love to be big brothered. We are already known around the world as socialist nut jobs because of the tax happy governments we put into power, and this guy and all levels of government makes it worse.
    Australia is up the creek without a paddle with all that is happening and these wackos will probable introduce an - up the creek without a paddle TAX. What the hell do they want Australia to become another North Korea!!!!!
    I'm sick to death of these Eco fascists/socialist!

  2. Well, we had PM Julia say before the last election, "No Carbon (dioxide) Tax." A week after being put into office by clowns like Robert Oakeshott, she said she was going to tax us.

    Was it the former or the latter who is the REAL Joolya?

  3. I seem to have be barred from commenting on the Unleashed site.

    Comment on the Unleashed site:

    Why is the ABC publishing this nonsense?

    Is it because of some misinterpreted notion of "balance"?

    Anthony Green - I really expected better from someone supposedly intelligent such as yourself.

    AND MY REPLY....


    If you want balance, you would allow all comments.

    Anthony Green - my many posts on this and other topics today have disappeared into Cyberspace.

    I will be posting this on the original piece by Stockwell and Cox on the Climate Sceptics blogspot to show the ABC's (and especially Unleashed's) lack of balance.

  4. Dear Geoff, wondering if you are you open to the possibility that anthropogenic global warming is real? What evidence would you consider compelling?

  5. G'day Dan melb,

    All it needs is proof that man-made CO2 emissions are causing runaway global warming. Mind you, if you have that proof, why not post it on denis Rancourt's site and earn yourself $A10,000.

  6. Sceptics, I have a problem with your position, and it relates to the basic physics of how carbon dioxide is thought by the AGW proponents to increase the temperature of the atmosphere.
    It seems to me that if AGW is wrong, then either one of the following must be the case:
    (a) the infrared absorption properties of carbon dioxide (as measured in the laboratory) must be wrong - and you (the sceptics) need to be able to say where they are worng, OR
    (b) the heat that the increased carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere is trapping (if the laboratory measurements of its infrared absorption are correct) is ending up somewhere else than in temperature increases.
    So, sceptics, this my challenge to you: either tell me where the laboratory measurements of carbon dioxides's infrared absorbance are wrong, or tell me where the heat is going.

    ... Farmer Dave

  7. Farmer Dave; CO2 is a photoluminescent gas, which means it absorbs radiation of specific wavelengths; however this process is determined by Beers Law which is like the economic law of diminishing returns: the more you add the less response you get for every extra addition. A good introduction to this effect is here:


    This diminishing return is called saturation and a recent peer reviewed confirmation of it is here:


    What this means is that CO2 has a heating effect but as Archibald explains this effect peaks at low levels of CO2; extra CO2 has less and less heating effect and is just plant food.

  8. Cohenite, while saturation is a real effect, it does not let carbon dioxide off the greenhouse effect hook for two reasons:
    (a) While the carbon dioxide at the bottom of the atmosphere may be saturated at some infra-red wavelengths, this cannot be the case all the way up the atmosphere. The concentrations of all the atmospheric gases decrease with increased height above the earth's surface, so there will be an elevation above which the infra-red absorbance of the carbon dioxide will no longer be saturated. Increasing the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will therefore move this elevation up, thus increasing the vertical path over which the absorption is saturated - leading to more heat staying in the atmosphere and less heat leaving the earth, in other words, increasing the greenhouse effect. This is explained in more detail at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/
    (b) The range of infra-red wavelengths at which current concentrations lead to saturation at the bottom of the atmosphere is not the full infra-red emission spectrum of the earth, as explained at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument-part-ii/

    ... Farmer Dave

  9. Hi FD; the Weart piece, A saturated gassy argument, which you link to at RC has been debunked here:


    As I say Weart and RC and yourself have overlooked the law of diminshing returns, better known as Beers Law.

  10. Hi cohenite: thank you for the reference. I don't agree that it debunked Spencer Weart's argument; in fact, he did not respond to Spencer's main argument - and neither did you.

  11. You'll find your answer here, Farmer Dave.



Post a Comment

All serious comments published after moderation.
Comments should be polite, and respect all views.
No bad language. Spam never makes it!