• Like
  • Save
Global warming facts and fiction
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Global warming facts and fiction

on

  • 546 views

an antidote to global warming alarmism

an antidote to global warming alarmism

Statistics

Views

Total Views
546
Views on SlideShare
546
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
26
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Global warming facts and fiction Global warming facts and fiction Presentation Transcript

    • GLOBAL WARMINGFACTS AND FICTION
    • AL GORES SCIENCE FICTION
    • WHY WE ARE HERE Al Gores film, An Inconvenient Truth , provides most people with their knowledge of global warming . We will look at some of its more egregious errors and misrepresentations , review the basic science of global warming and its climaticand economic implications and the nature of the alleged consensus on these issues
    • WHY AM I HERE ?● Julian Simon The State of Humanity● Bjorn Lomborg The Skeptical Environmentalist● The “accepted wisdom” challenged● Vituperation and ad hominem attacks● Sounds like the Global Warming phenomenon● Did my own research● Developed a point of view● Presented it a number of times for U3A● Merv Simmons asked me to run this programme !
    • WHY ARE YOU HERE ?● Discuss and agree●●● Discuss and disagree●●● Refuse to discuss and abuse
    • HOUSE RULES● Evidence not emotion● Courtesy not rudeness● Listening as well as talking ( NB Tony !)● Discussion not argument● Mutual respect● Humour !
    • WHO AM I ?● 1962 Maths Degree London University● 1962-65 Reactor Physicist - Power Generation● 1965-68 Statistical Engineer - Power Generation● 1968-77 Manager Operational Research - Automotive Industry● 1977-2003 Director - Strategic HR Consulting● 2003- Retired and busier than ever !
    • SESSION ONE OBJECTIVES To review some of the basic facts underlying global warming and its implications to provide us with acommon framework of understanding for future sessions
    • SOME QUOTES● “We must be alert to the danger that public policy could become the captive of a scientific technological elite” President Eisenhower 1961● “Convictions are greater enemies of truth than lies” Friedrich Nietzsche 1844-1900
    • SOME QUOTES● “The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion draws all things else to support and agree with it . And though there be a greater number and weight of instances to be found on the other side , yet these it either neglects or despises , or else by some distinction sets aside and rejects , in order that by this great and pernicious predetermination the authority of its former conclusion may remain inviolable” Sir Francis Bacon 1561- 1626
    • SOME QUOTES● “Today the evidence of an ecological Kristallnacht is as clear as the sound of glass shattering in Berlin” Al Gore 1992● “Humanity is sitting on a ticking time bomb . We have just ten years to avert a catastrophe which will send our planet into epic disruption involving extreme weather , floods , drought , epidemics and killer heat waves” Al Gore 2006
    • CO2 AND TEMPERATURE SOME BASIC FACTS
    • GLOBAL ENERGY BALANCE● Solar radiation powers the climate system● The balance can be changed in three ways by ;● Changing the incoming solar radiation by earth orbital changes or changes in solar emissions● Changing the fraction that is reflected “albedo” by changes in cloud cover , particulates and vegetation● Changing the long wave radiation back to space by greenhouse gas concentrations● All incorporating various forcing components and reinforced/diminished by feedback loops
    • THE INVECTIVE● “This noise wont stop until some of these sceptics are dead”● “We should have war crimes trials for these bastards – some sort of climate Nuremberg”● “Climate change denial now looks as stupid and unacceptable as holocaust denial”● “Every time someone dies from floods in Bangladesh an airline executive should be dragged out of his office and drowned”
    • THE INVECTIVE● “This is not a battle between civilisations but a stand off between the whole of society on the one hand and a fairly small and particularly nasty bunch of murderers and criminals on the other” UK Foreign Secretary 2006
    • CONVENIENT UNTRUTHS
    • An Inconvenient Truth was a masterlyfilm which since 2006 has shaped theperceptions of Global Warming and its impacts for most people . However it is riddled with errors andmisrepresentations . We look in detail at the most significant and media worthy
    • HISTORICAL TEMPERATURES AND CO2
    • ● “The atmosphere is being filled by huge quantities of CO2”● “Here is where the CO2 levels are now – 380 ppm and here – 650 ppm is where they will be in 45 years if we do not act quickly”● “Historical temperatures such as the medieval warm period are tiny compared to the enormous increases in the last 50 years”
    • “Almost all of the mountain glaciers in the world are melting , many quite rapidly”
    • GLACIER DATA● Worldwide 160,000● Inventoried 67,000● Mass balance data 1+ years 200● Mass balance data 5+ years 115● Mass balance data winter/summer 79● Mass balance data 10+ years 4● This lack of data is ; “one of the most important problems for mass balance glaciology “
    • HUMAN IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE
    • CONSENSUS AND DENIERS
    • ● Increase in global temperatures of 0.6 degrees in the last century● Same increase in previous two centuries● Temperature levels and rates of change in line with historic and geological variations● Link to human CO2 emission levels not proven● Glacier , ice cap retreat and sea level rise in line with historic trends and variation● Tornadoes and hurricanes no more frequent or stronger● Rainfall and droughts no more frequent or intense● No linkage between disease incidence or levels of plant and animal extinctions
    • “The truth is that promoting scienceisnt just about providing resources – its about protecting free and openenquiry . Its about ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics.”President Barack Obama December 20 , 2008
    • ● “Truth does not change because it is , or is not , believed by a majority of the people” Giordano Bruno 1548-1600● “Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies” Friedrich Nietzsche 1844-1900● “The pure and simple truth is rarely pure and never simple” Oscar Wilde 1854-1900● “When the facts change I change my mind . What do you do sir ?” John Maynard Keynes 1883-1946
    • THE ENVIRONMENTAL LITANY● Our resources are running out● The air and water are becoming more polluted● Species extinction is out of control● The forests are disappearing● We are running out of food and water● There are too many of us● Economic development is excessive● Global warming is endangering the lives of billions● We are heading for global cataclysm
    • THE AGENDA● “We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse” Maurice Strong , chair of the 1992 Rio Conference and prime architect of the Kyoto Protocol● “We have got to ride the global warming issue . Even if the theory of global warming is wrong , we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy” Timothy Wirth , Undersecretary of State for Global Issues
    • THE AGENDA● “A global warming treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect” Richard Benedick , Deputy Assistant Secretary of State , US state Department● “No matter if the science is all phony , there are still collateral environmental benefits to global warming policies .... Climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world” Christine Stewart,Canadas Environment Minister
    • THE AGENDA● “Global warming is the mother of environmental scares..... It dwarfs all the environmental and safety scares of our time put together . Through its primary antidote of withdrawing carbon from production and consumption it is capable of realizing the environmentalists dream of an egalitarian society based on rejection of economic growth in favour of a smaller population lower on the economic and food chain , consuming a lot less and sharing a much lower level of resources much more equally” Professor Aaron Wildavsky
    • Al Gore , on the basis of one flawed study , claimed that no reputable scientists disputed the existence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and its impacts . His followers assert that there is a consensus on AGW and inaccurately and offensively call those who disagree with them “deniers”a term used with obvious emotional links to those who deny the Holocaust , and/or allege they are in thepockets of and apologists for energy companies
    • ise THE INVECTIVE “The heads of major fossil fuel companies who spread disinformation about global warming should be tried for crimes against humanity and nature” James Hansen 2008
    • THE INVECTIVE● “We should have war crimes trials for these bastards – some sort of climate Nuremberg”● “Climate change denial now looks as stupid and unacceptable as Holocaust denial”
    • THE INVECTIVE “The diagnosis is clear , the science is unequivocal – its completely immoraleven to question now on the basis of what we know , the reports that are out , to question the issue and question whether we need to move forward at a much stronger pace as humankind to address the issues” Gro Harlem Bruntland 2007
    • CONSENSUS AND DENIERS● We look at the results of formal statistical surveys of the views of climatologists● We look at the nature of the so called consensus within the workings of the IPCC● We obtain some understanding of the calibre of some of the high profile “deniers”● We look at the existence of groups of reputable scientists who do not agree with Al Gore and the IPCC
    • THE SURVEYS
    • THE SURVEY● Survey of 500+ climatologists from 27 countries● Conducted by Bray and von Storch , senior German climatologists● Carried out in 1996 and 2003● Only climatologists could answer● Numerical responses on 7 point scale to 99 climate assertions● Grouped into agree , uncertain , disagree categories● Responses to the most significant assertions have been analysed here
    • THE RESULTS● 17 of the 99 question responses were used to give an overall picture● The responses were categorised as● Agree- responses 1 2 3● Uncertain- response 4● Disagree- responses 5 6 7● This analysis can smooth out very skew response distributions
    • GLOBAL WARMING IS ALREADY UNDERWAY● Agree 82.2%● Uncertain 6.4%● Disagree 11.3%
    • HUMAN ACTIVITY IS CAUSING CLIMATE CHANGE● Agree 55.8%● Uncertain 14.2%● Disagree 30%
    • CLIMATE MODELS CAN ACCURATELY PREDICT CLIMATE● Agree 35.1%● Uncertain 18.3%● Disagree 46.6%
    • CLIMATE MODELSACCURATELY VERIFY CLIMATE CONDITIONS● Agree 46.8%● Uncertain 17.6%● Disagree 35.6%
    • CLIMATE MODELS ADEQUATELY DEAL WITH PRECIPITATION● Agree 25.4%● Uncertain 17.1%● Disagree 57.5%
    • CLIMATE MODELS ADEQUATELY DEAL WITH WATER VAPOUR● Agree 40.8%● Uncertain 14.8%● Disagree 44.4%
    • CLIMATE MODELS ADEQUATELY DEAL WITH CLOUDS● Agree 24.1%● Uncertain 14.1%● Disagree 61.8%
    • CLIMATE MODELS ADEQUATELY DEAL WITH SOLAR RADIATION● Agree 65.7%● Uncertain 12.6%● Disagree 21.7%
    • WOULD CLIMATE CHANGE HAVE BENEFICIAL EFFECTS● Agree 69.8%● Uncertain 13.1%● Disagree 17%
    • WOULD CLIMATE CHANGEHAVE DETRIMENTAL EFFECTS● Agree 85.8%● Uncertain 5.5%● Disagree 8.6%
    • CLIMATE CHANGE WILL HAPPEN SUDDENLY● Agree 49.3%● Uncertain 17.3%● Disagree 33.4%
    • SCIENTIFIC UNCERTAINTY HAS BEEN REDUCED IN THE PAST 10 YEARS● Agree 60.3%● Uncertain 9.2%● Disagree 30.5%
    • THE SCIENCE IS SUFFICIENTLY SETTLED THAT THE POLICYMAKERS CAN TAKE OVER● Agree 44.1%● Uncertain 10.2%● Disagree 45.8%
    • DOES THE MEDIA INFLUENCE CLIMATE RESEARCH● Agree 51.1%● Uncertain 12.3%● Disagree 36.5%
    • SCEPTICS RECEIVE TOO MUCH MEDIA ATTENTION● Agree 49.1%● Uncertain 17.2%● Disagree 33.7%
    • THE IPCC REFLECTS SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS● Agree 72.8%● Uncertain 7.5%● Disagree 19.7%
    • THE IPCC
    • ● UN in 1988 took over responsibility on behalf of governments through the IPCC for assessing scientific evidence for the impact of anthropogenic CO2 on climate , likely environmental social and economic impacts and political responses● Does not do scientific research but coordinates and assesses work carried out around the world● Publishes a Technical Report and a Summary for Policy Makers (SPM)● Four reports in 1990 , 1996 , 2001 , 2007
    • ● SPM content driven by politicians and makes exaggerated statements not reflecting the science● SPM is sometimes produced before the Technical Report which is then modified to fit !● IPCC contributors selected/rejected by Governments/IPCC on the basis of conformity with IPCC thinking● Contributor contributions accepted/rejected on the basis of conformance with consensus● Majority of outcomes based on computer models of future scenarios not experimental evidence
    • THE IPCC CONSENSUS
    • IPCC WORKING GROUPS● The IPCC has three working groups with 1250 authors of whom only 20% have had some involvement with climate● WG1 assesses information on causes and forecasts of climate change and has 600 reviewers● WG2 looks at the impacts of climate change● WG3 looks at response strategies and between them WG2& 3 have 1900 reviewers . They assume that the conclusions of WG1 are correct
    • IPCC PROCESSES● IPCC approves outline● Governments and NGOS nominate experts● Bureaux select authors st● Authors prepare 1 draft● Expert review● Authors prepare 2nd draft● Expert and government review● Authors prepare final draft● Final distribution/review of SPM● WG IPCC accepts/approves reports and SPM● Publication of reports
    • PEER REVIEW● Peer reviewed = incontestable● Non peer reviewed = unbelievable● But its not that simple ;● “Peer review is a crude means of discovering the acceptability , not the validity , of a new finding . We portray peer review to the public as a quasi sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller .But we know that the system of peer review is biased , unjust ,unaccountable , incomplete , easily fixed , often insulting , occasionally foolish and frequently wrong”. Richard Horton Editor The Lancet
    • PEER REVIEW● “There seems to be no study too fragmented , no hypothesis too trivial , no literature too biased or too egotistical , no design too warped , no methodology too bungled , no presentation of results too inaccurate , too obscure and too contradictory , no analysis too self serving , no argument too circular , no conclusions too trifling or unjustified and no grammar or syntax too offensive for a paper to end up in print” Drummond Rennie organiser of the International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication
    • THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS● The IPCC gives the impression of 2500 scientists diligently reviewing all its reports● Previously the number and type of peer reviews were not published● With the Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 they were forced by FOI to release this information● The picture that emerges is very different from the public perception
    • THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS● 308 reviewers commented on the penultimate draft● Only 32 reviewers commented on more than three chapters● Only 5 commented on all 11 chapters● The IPCC chapter editors however believed their say was final and theirs was the only correct interpretation● Very often there was little justification for rejection and acceptance only of trivial modifications
    • IPCC AND PEER REVIEW● “I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer review process....More than 15 sections were changed or deleted after the scientists charged with examining this question had accepted the supposedly final text...The following passages are examples of those deleted .”● “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute observed climate changes to.... increases in greenhouse gases”● “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to... man made causes”● Dr Frederick Seitz past President N.A.S
    • THE ATTRIBUTION OF CLIMATE CHANGE● Only 62 of the 308 reviewers commented on this most important chapter● 31 reviewers were part of the IPCC process and 26 were authors of papers in the chapter !● Just 23 individual and 8 government reviewers had no vested interest● Only 5 of the 23 independent reviewers explicitly endorsed the chapter
    • WHAT PEER REVIEW ?● Of the 44 chapters in the latest (2007) IPCC report (AR4) the following peer review percentage applied● 21 59% or less● 4 60-69%● 6 70-79%● 5 80-89%● 8 90-100%
    • SUMMARY FOR POLICY MAKERS● Selectively reports on the science● Published three months before the Technical Report !● Only 51 out of 1250 authors worked on the draft version● The final SPM written at a plenary session primarily of government representatives and representatives of environmental and industrial organisations
    • “ Most institutions demand unqualified faith but the institution of science makes scepticism a virtue” Professor Robert K Merton “Scepticism is the first step towards truth” Denis Diderot 1713-84
    • THE CORRUPTION OF SCIENCE “ When an issue becomes a vital part of a political agenda as is the case with climate ,then the politically desired position becomes a goal rather than a consequence of scientific research . Scientists will then adjust data andeven theory to accommodate politically correct positions ” Professor Richard Lindzen
    • THE CORRUPTION OF SCIENCE“ Penetrating questions often ended without any answer . Comments on the IPCC drafts were rejected without any explanation and attempts to pursue the matter were frustrated indefinitely ... the data collection and scientificmethods employed are unsound . Resistance to all efforts to try and discuss or rectify these problems has convinced me that normal scientific procedures are not only rejected bythe IPCC but that this practice is endemic ,..... I therefore consider that the IPCC isfundamentally corrupt “ Professor Vincent Gray
    • CLIMATEGATE● Series of emails from 1996 to 2009● Concerned with modifying data and analyses to conform with the AGW scenario● Discuss how to discredit and cut out those scientists who disagree● Overall impugn the integrity of IPCC -Temperature data -Temperature analyses -Processes
    • CLIMATEGATE CHARACTERS● Mike Mann (US) - the man behind the infamous Hockey Stick● Keith Briffa (US) - producer of suspect tree ring based temperature analyses● Ben Santer (US) – the man who in 1995 unilaterally stated that there was unambiguous evidence of man made global warming● Phil Jones (UK) – custodian of the UK temperature data and analyses● Tom Wigley – an earlier advocate of AGW who became increasingly disaffected
    • ● Internationally recognised scientists at or near the top of their disciplines● Below is a sample of the most outstanding● The name of each is given together with their speciality● I can give more detail now , if you wish based on the book , The Deniers● They have called into question aspects of global warming where it conflicts with their authoritative knowledge● All have specialised mastery in their own areas , those in bold type are recognised as unique international authorities
    • ● Dr Edward Wegman Statistician● Professor Richard Tol Economist● Dr Christopher Landsea Hurricane meteorologist● Professor Duncan Wingham Polar climatologist● Professor Robert Carter Earth scientist● Professor Richard Lindzen Meteorologist● Dr Vincent Gray Climatologist● Dr Syun Ichi Akasofu Arctic geophysicist● Professor Tom Segalstad Geologist● Professor Nir Shaviv Astrophysicist
    • ● Dr Zbigniew Jaworowski Physicist● Dr David Bromwich Arctic meteorologist● Professor Hendrik Tennekes Meteorologist● Professor Freeman Dyson Physicist● Professor Antonino Zichichi Nuclear physicist● Dr Eigil Friis Christensen Geophysicist● Dr Henrik Svensmark Solar physicist● Professor Sami Solanki Astronomer● Dr Jasper Kirkby Particle physicist● Dr Habibullo Abdussamatov Mathematical physicist
    • ● Dr George Kukla Solar physicist● Professor Rhodes Fairbridge Geologist● Professor William Gray Meteorologist & Geophysicist● Professor Cliff Ollier Geomorphologist● Professor Paul Reiter Entomologist● Dr Claude Allegre Physicist● Professor Reid Bryson Meteorologist● Professor Ian Plimer Geologist● Professor Garth Paltridge Atmospheric physicist
    • ● Professor Howard Hayden Physicist● Professor Patrick Michaels Climatologist● Professor Robert Balling Climatologist● Dr Roy Spencer Climatologist● Professor Fred Singer Physicist
    • GROUPS OF SCIENTISTS DISSENTING FROM THE AGW MANTRA
    • ● Heidelberg Appeal 1992 signed by 4000 scientists● Bali Open Letter 2007 signed by 103 world climate experts to UN Secretary General● Manhattan Declaration 2008 on Climate change with 1,300 endorsers● US Senate Minority Report 2008 signed by 650 international scientists● Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine Project signed by 31,000 scientists , engineers .
    • THE OREGON INSTITUTE DISSENTING STATEMENT“There is no convincing scientific evidence thatthe human release of carbon dioxide , methaneor other greenhouse gases is causing or will , in the foreseeable future , cause catastrophic heating of the Earths atmosphere and disruption of the Earths climate . Moreover there is substantial evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the earth”
    • WEEK THREE SUMMARY● There are significant numbers of scientists , many of international stature , who disagree that human caused CO2 is the prime driver of climate change● The IPCC is driven by political agendas and represents the views of a small number of scientists not a consensus of 2500● The IPCC processes for collecting and analysing data have been corrupted to maintain the AGW story● Those scientists who are sceptical of IPCC claims are attacked personally and professionally
    • FORECASTS , FEARS AND POLICIES
    • THE DOOMSDAY SCENARIO● It is alleged that temperatures are out of control and that a 2 degree increase will give rise to catastrophic , irreversible climate change● Forecasts of the world in 100 years are that there will be huge negative impacts on humanity , in terms of welfare and economics● It is stated that to overcome these there should be immediate massive changes to move from a carbon to a non carbon economy● These changes should be implemented through UN coordinated global bodies with extensive supra national legal powers
    • 1900 - THE UNKNOWN FUTURE● Airports ● Laser● Antennae ● Microwaves● Antibiotics ● Neutron● Atomic bomb ● Nuclear energy● Computer ● Penicillin● DVD ● Radio● Ecosystem ● Robot● Gene ● Video● Internet ● Virus
    • FORECASTS
    • FORECASTING PRINCIPLES● Unaided judgemental forecasts by experts have no value due to complexity , coincidence , feedback and bias● Agreement among experts is weakly related to accuracy● Complex forecasting models harm accuracy because their errors multiply● With even modest uncertainty , model forecast prediction intervals are enormous● When there is uncertainty in forecasting , forecasts should be conservative
    • FORECASTS BY EXPERTS● A 20 year study was carried out of 82,000 forecasts made by groups of experts● Forecasts were of probabilities of outcomes as well as specific outcomes● These were compared with forecasts made by non experts and simple rules● The experts performed no better than non experts or simple rules● There was typically no feedback process by which expert forecasts were compared with outcomes
    • ● “I think there is a world market for maybe five computers” 1943● “There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home” 1977● “Who the hell wants to hear actors talk” 1927● “Drill for oil in the ground . You must be crazy” 1859● “The atom bomb will never go off . I speak as an expert in explosives” 1944● “Stocks have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau” 1929
    • ● “Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value”● “Man will never reach the moon regardless of all future scientific advances”● “Heavier than air flying machines are impossible” 1895● “640k ought to be enough for anybody” 1984● “The horse is here to stay , but the automobile is only a novelty” 1903
    • ● The battle to feed humanity is over . In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death 1968● “The advent of a new ice age scientists say , appears to be guaranteed” 1992● “An environmental holocaust without precedent if we do not stop having babies” 1992● “US life expectancy will drop to 42 years by 1980 due to cancer epidemics and the population will drop to 22.6 million” 1969● “DDT will wipe out nearly 100% of the human population from a cancer epidemic in one generation” 1962
    • GLOBAL CLIMATE MODELS● Mathematical formulae which attempt to forecast future climate based on assumed start conditions and relationships for thousands of variables● Oversimplify poorly understood climate processes and interactions● Same models produce different results● Unable to generate current or historical temperatures , globally or regionally● Based on deficient temperature data● Wrong on every forecast to date
    • CLIMATE FACTOR UNDERSTANDING● High Long lived greenhouse gases● Medium Stratospheric & Tropospheric ozone● Medium to Low Direct Aerosol Cloud Albedo
    • ● Low Cloud Albedo Effect Surface Albedo Persistent Linear Contrails Solar Irradiance Volcanic Aerosols● Very Low Stratospheric Water Vapour Tropospheric Water Vapour Aviation induced Cirrus Cosmic Rays Other Surface Effects
    • GLOBAL CLIMATE MODEL FORECASTS● For such models to give accurate results it is necessary to include , at an appropriate level of detail ;● All relevant factors and weights● Accurate definitions of their interrelationships● How these vary over time● Probability distributions over time● Correct initialization● Means of validating forecasting performance● Few of these exist
    • “Todays scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments and they wander off through equation after equation and eventually build a structure which has norelation to reality” Nikolai Tesla 1934
    • BUT WAIT , THERES MORE● IPCC attempt , in addition to climate , to forecast future population , energy growth , economic development , technological and social development 100 years into the future. However :● Predicted warming three times that observed● Predictions of the nature of warming at the poles , northern and southern hemispheres , atmosphere and oceans all wrong● Reconciliation to actual temperatures through mathematical curve fitting not an understanding of the science
    • IPCC AND FORECASTS● The IPCC says it does not provide forecasts but scenarios or projections● “Scenarios are not predictions of the future and should not be used as such .● Scenarios are neither predictions or forecasts . The possibility that any single emissions path will occur is highly uncertain .● No judgement is offered in this report as to the preference for any of the scenarios and they are not assigned probabilities of occurrence nor must they be interpreted as policy recommendations”
    • IPCC AND FORECASTS● “In climate research and modelling we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non linear chaotic system and therefore that the long term prediction of future climate states is not possible”● In one chapter of the 2007 report however it uses the word forecast or its derivatives 37 times and predict or its derivatives 90 times”● The SPM goes even further to say that “ increase in global temperatures is 90% likely due to increase in anthropogenic CO2”
    • AUDIT OF IPCC FORECASTING METHODOLOGY● Accurate forecasting processes should comply with well established principles of forecasting science , of which 140 have been identified in the forecasting literature● Of the 140 , 127 were considered relevant to climate forecasting as practiced by the IPCC● Only 89 could be rated● There were 60 clear violations● There were 12 apparent violations● There was no evidence that any use of the forecasting literature had been made
    • FEARS
    • “No passion so effectively robs the mindof all of its powers of acting and reasoningas fear” Edmund Burke 1729-97“Nothing in life is to be feared , only to be understood . Now is the time to understand more so that we may fear less” Marie Curie 1867-1934 “Fear is not the natural state of civilisedpeople” Auung San Sui Kyi 1945-
    • ● “Unless we announce disasters , no one will listen” Sir John Houghton 1988● “To capture the public imagination we have to offer up scary scenarios , make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have” Stephen Schneider 1989● “Scientists who want to attract attention and great funding to themselves have to find a way to scare the public” Professor Peter Chylek 2001
    • FEAR STAGES● Initial concerns● Exaggeration of concerns● Development of scary scenarios● The media take sides● Special interest groups jump on board● The precautionary principle is invoked● The politicians have to act● Dissenters are vilified● The facts/consequences become clear● The scare subsides
    • POLICIES
    • POLICY AND FORECASTS● Climate change policies should only be implemented if there are accurate long term forecasts for ;● Mean global temperature in the long term● Effects of any temperature rise on climate● Effects of climatic changes on people , animals and plants● Population levels and distribution● Technological developments● Costs and benefits of feasible alternative policy proposals
    • MITIGATION AND ADAPTATION● Mitigation advocates think that long term forecasts of global warming and its climate and associated impacts are accurate and caused predominantly by anthropogenic CO2● State that the best way to mitigate these impacts is by immediately reducing CO2 levels by changing the economic base of society● Adaptation advocates think that forecasts of human caused global warming and its climate and associated impacts are speculative and caused predominantly by natural causes● State that the best way to adapt to future climate changes and impacts is to monitor and adapt
    • MITIGATION AND ADAPTATION● All of the14 authoritative and independent economic analyses other than Stern & Garnaut show that if AGW is true and mitigation is adopted● The costs far outweigh the benefits● Delaying action is more cost effective than taking precipitate action● If of course the causes of global warming are predominantly natural , then adaptation is the only option
    • STERN/GARNAUT● Take multi century speculative forecasts of climate , technology , economy and society● Adopt worst case scenarios in terms of adverse consequences and human ability to cope with climate change● Adopt methods of valuing outcomes which are at variance with the majority of other experts● Move from highly speculative modelling outcomes to unambiguous and urgent, highly centralised political recommendations
    • THE EXPERTS REVIEW OF STERN● “The Stern Review is very selective in the studies it quotes , invariably seeking only the most pessimistic of them . It can only be dismissed as alarmist and incompetent” Professor Richard Tol● Similar comments from ;● Professor William Nordhaus – Economist Yale● Professor Colin Henderson – Chief economist OECD● Professor Ian Castles – Chief Statistician Australian Government
    • KYOTO PROTOCOL 1997● 10,000 participants , 2,000 from governments , 3,000 media , 5,000 from 200 NGOs● Reductions in CO2 emissions of 5% of 1990 levels by industrialised countries by 2010● No specification how to be achieved● Global emissions trading scheme to be administered by the UN● Estimated cost $716 billion● If all targets met , global temperature reduction by 2050 of 0.05 degree C !
    • KYOTO OUTCOMES● As at 2007 CO2 emissions had increased by 38% and climbing● European emissions trading schemes failed , with CO2 prices dropping from $36/tonne to $0.15 between 2005/7 with a similar drop in the next two years● There is no record of effectiveness of such schemes e.g. for SO2 in the USA● Potential costs of such schemes are likely to be immense with little gain● The main beneficiaries will be financial trading companies and rent seekers
    • COPENHAGEN● A disaster !● Had an underlying agenda of ;● “ A huge reordering of the world economy , likely involving trillions of dollars in wealth transfer , millions of losses and gains , new taxes , industrial relocations , new tariffs and subsidies and complicated payments for greenhouse gas abatement schemes and carbon taxes – all under the supervision and control of an unelected world body”● Rejected by the developing nations principally China and India
    • C.P.R.S● Accepts the scariest climate scenarios and impacts and economic analyses● Targets a 60% reduction in 2000 greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 , not achievable even if all coal fired power stations were converted to nuclear !● Hopes to facilitate this through an Emissions Trading Scheme● Reinforces the Scheme through draconian legislation● Creates alarm through the incorrect use of the words “carbon pollution”
    • CPRS LEGISLATION● Can decide through issue/withholding of permits whether generators can produce or not● Can unilaterally decide on the value of coal based power stations and investments in them● Abolishes the right to silence● Abolishes the right to self incrimination● Reverses the onus of proof from innocent until proved guilty● Sets aside the privacy laws
    • “Emissions regulation offers government anirresistible opportunity to centralize and controlevery aspect of our lives ; on our roads , on our travels , in our workplaces , on our farms , in our forests and our mines and more threateningly in our homes , constructed as they will be compelled to be , of very specific materials and of prescribed sizes . It is not difficult to foresee a diktat as to how many lights we may turn on and when we must turn them off : the great curfew . The new regime has the capacity to make the wartime NationalSecurity Regulations look like a timid exercise of government restraint”Ian Callinan AC QC Justice of the High Court
    • LOW VS HIGH CARBON ECONOMIES !
    • WHY SHOULD WE WORRY ABOUT CLIMATE POLICIES● They pay little regard to the cost effectiveness of schemes for “fighting climate change”● Create opportunities for lobbying and rent seeking● Open up the probability of a range of worrying intrusions on the freedom of people and enterprises● Divert attention and resources away from real , current and more pressing concerns
    • THE REAL WORLD● China and India realise that their major priority is to overcome the worlds major killer – absolute poverty – through economic growth● China has brought 650 million people out of absolute poverty in 40 years -the largest poverty reduction scheme in history● In one year China and India increased their GDP by $750 billion equal to 20 years global development aid● A key feature underpinning this development is the provision of cheap energy
    • ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES
    • THE IMPORTANCE OF ENERGY● Modern civilisation depends on available cheap energy in the form of electricity● The primary source of such energy is currently hydrocarbon based ; gas , oil and coal● Alternatives are potentially Wind Solar Hydro Biofuels Nuclear Geothermal● We look at two of these ; Wind and Nuclear
    • WIND POWER● Highly variable depending on wind speed● Unreliable and outside the control of grid management● Inefficient ; 5000 windmills , covering 100 sq km necessary to replace one 2000 MW coal fired plant● Cannot replace base load generation and needs base load back up to cope with its variability● Does not inevitably reduce alternative fuel use● Does not inevitably reduce emissions and is environmentally damaging● The highest cost option
    • NUCLEAR POWER● It is reliable and can thus provide critical base load power● Higher capital costs● Lower operating costs● Can be easily upgraded● No air pollution-SO2● Zero CO2 emissions !● Nuclear fuel is recyclable● Nuclear power is safe
    • THE SPANISH EXPERIENCE● Renewables subsidised at a cost of $36 billion● 50,000 green jobs at a cost of $500,000 each● Only 1 in 10 were in ongoing operation● Provide less than 10% of Spains electricity● Each green job added $774,000 to consumers bills● 2.2 jobs lost for every green job created● Each green job destroyed between 5.39 to 8.99 jobs per MW installed● Can destabilise electricity grid operation
    • THE NEW RELIGION ?● Sin - the emission of CO2 into the atmosphere by humanity through economic growth● Prophets – the IPCC and media who look into the future and predict dreadful consequences as a result● Repentance - through changing lifestyles at an individual , corporate , country and global level● Truth - “the science is settled”● Heresy – the vilification and silencing of dissenting scientists who do not agree● Salvation – through the stopping of global warming/climate change effects
    • “It is important for assessments in this regard to be carried out prudently in dialogue with experts and people of wisdom uninhibited by ideological pressure to draw hasty conclusions and above all with the aim of reaching agreement on a model of sustainabledevelopment capable of ensuring the well being of all while respecting environmental balances” Pope Benedict XVI
    • AN APPEAL TO REASON“The new religion of global warming...... is a greatstory and a phenomenal best seller . It contains a grain of truth and a mountain of nonsense . And that nonsense could be very damaging indeed . We appear to have entered a new age ofunreason , which threatens to be as economically harmful as it is profoundly disquieting . It is from this above all that we really do need to save the planet” Nigel Lawson An Appeal to Reason