Some time ago the Hissink File suggested that if anthropogenic global warming were real then a realistic scenario would be to develop nuclear power stations and diminish the use of recreational vehicles (SUV’s) to cut down emissions. (I prefer the term anthropogenic global warming instead of climate change because the former is scientifically testable while the latter isn’t: it is essentially not falsifiable and can be manipulated to explain anything and everything, which is being done of course).
So it has come to pass but for other reasons – while the Commonwealth government has set up a task force to guide policy on the nuclear issue, the unpredictable global market on the other hand modified the use of recreational vehicles by higher oil prices, obviating the need for overt policy to restrict SUV usage favoured by the loony left or adherents of social democracy. (Social democracy is actually an oxymoron since Social is an abbreviation for socialism and this political system was never democratic by any stretch of the imagination).
Who would have predicted high oil prices and the effect such prices would have on vehicles? Yet going nuclear means little for Australia because, like it or not, all of our state governments are run by social democrats still under the thrall of the loony greens so getting permission to build a nuclear power plant will not be forthcoming.
It’s going to have to be coal fired power stations but we did notice a strange new development in the ALP – the discovery that the loony greens want to close down the NSW coal industry as Dennis Shanahan writes in the Oz on Friday 10th November. At last proof that the Greens are barking mad but will that accelerate the move to nuclear energy for Australia? Not likely considering the brown, black, green and red tape to be surmounted. One almost feels that the Green Jihad against the NSW Coal industry is actually a movement to take us back to the caveman days. They want to stop coal mining and they won’t have a bar of nuclear energy.
It is instructive to look at some new developments in the climate change scam.
A recent article in New Scientist pointed out that global carbon dioxide emissions are rising faster than before, according to scientists in Beijing recently. Between 2000 and 2005 emissions grew four times faster than in the preceding 10 years.
And what has happened to the global temperature during that time? Actually nothing much at all as Andrew Bolt shows on his blog.
Clearly a rapidly escalating increase in CO2 over 5 years has not produced the predicted rise in global temperature. If you look closely at the temperature anomalies for 2000 to 2005 one can see a conspicuous decline from 2003 to 2005, which, according to the AGW hypothesis, is not supposed to happen. What is also not supposed to happen is the Antarctic ice cap growing in size but it has been growing since 1992 according to the latest observations.
Now to most physical scientists when observations contradict a theory, the theory has to be considered either incomplete or just plain wrong. Not in the case of climate science – here the theory is assumed correct and if the observed facts fail to measure up, either ad hoc adjustments are made to the theory, or contradictory data are ignored to keep it alive.
Take for example the accepted IPCC wisdom that CO2 levels are at unprecedented levels. Not so according E. Beck, a German biologist, who has documented historical CO2 measurements by chemical methods in the published scientific literature from 1812 onwards. The data show that atmospheric CO2 in Europe varied from 440 ppmv in 1820 dropped to 280 ppmv in 1885, rose to 440 ppmv during the second world war, dropped to 320 ppmv in 1950 and is now rising at some 380 ppmv. None of these data are used in the IPCC analysis but some French chemical data were. However that French data had unusually low CO2 values but when one discovered that those results were obtained from air passed through dilute sulphuric acid, which actually absorbs CO2, one is unsurprised at the low CO2 result, and unsurprised that only this data were used in the IPCC reconstruction of historical CO2 values.
Beck has also shown that the historical CO2 values from chemical analysis closely follow the mean global temperature meaning that it’s temperature driving the CO2 rather than the other way around, and the cause for all this is the sun. Funny that, we are told that it is the other way around. Next thing the Greens will be claiming is that the variation in the sun’s energy output is the result of us burning coal and oil.
Even more interesting is the conspicuous silence in the Global Warming camp over this chemical CO2 data, as if they feel that if no comment is directed at these pesky chemical facts, then they will go away. So it is pretty obvious that if the data fit the theory they are used, and if not are rejected as inaccurate and flawed.
It seems Christopher Monckton has written another damning article in the Sunday Telegraph of 12 November.
Much beloved of the global warming luvvies is the Precautionary principle and Christopher Monckton writes
“Shouldn't we take precautions, just in case? No. The "precautionary principle" kills. Example. DDT: correct solution, limit it in agriculture but allow indoor spraying against malarial mosquitoes. Actual solution: give the inventor a Nobel Prize, then say the chemical is cancerous (it's safe enough to eat) and ban it, especially for indoor spraying. Result, only this year, after 30 million and more have died from malaria, has the WHO agreed to recommend indoor spraying”.
More alarmingly Margaret Beckett, UK Foreign Secretary, “compared climate sceptics to advocates of Islamic terror. Neither, she said, should have access to the media.” And our gentle readers assume that “Social Democrats” are a democratic and tolerant lot. ‘Fraid not. Even our homegrown varieties of social democrats harbour similar thoughts of censorship, if Tim Blair’s blog is any indication.
And Lord Monckton replied to one emailer
“The bureaucratic centralists whom we thought we had defeated in the Second World War, but who have re-emerged in the guise of international bureaucrats, are detectably manipulating the climate-change issue as a means to extend their power and wealth at
the expense of the freedom and wealth of the citizen. In this age-old battle against the unreasonable centralisation of power, the truth is a reliable weapon. Magna est veritas, et praevalebit.”
As Lord Monckton surmises, the IPCC and the timely release of the Stern report is part of a larger game centred in the UN – establishment of world government. Has your lowly scribe lost some of his marbles? No, because when the UN created scheme of “Native Title” was implemented in Australia over a decade ago, I mentioned to some stalwarts of the ALP that Native title was more about diminishing the institution of private property than anything else. My comment was met with studied silence, thereby confirming my suspicion that it was part of a UN driven agenda. Let us not forget gentle reader that there are many who wish to make us subjects of a socialist world government and climate change policy is but the latest means to achieve that goal.
Monckton further writes: “Sir Nicholas Stern's report on climate-change economics says the world must spend 1 per cent of GDP from now on to avert disaster. The current draft of the UN's 2007 report says up to 5 per cent. Sir Nick's team tell me: "We are confident that the UN will publish a range for costs next year in which ours will be centrally placed." So some quiet high-level co-ordination is going on. The oddest thing about Stern's curious report was its timing. Publication of the UN's next major science assessment is only months ahead. Why not wait and base the economics on that?
The UN needed Stern more than he needed the UN. Its 2001 report had numbers more extreme than anyone else's, so sceptics abounded. This time, an international spinfest is shutting off dissent in advance. First, the damage done by the hockey-stick graph had to be repaired, so a series of papers supporting its conclusions quickly appeared, many written by associates of its authors.
Next, the failure of temperature to rise as the UN projected had to be explained. Hence another flurry of learned papers, this time about the "ocean notion" – the maritime heat-sink into which the missing temperature rise might be vanishing.”
Monckton’s last quote above is interesting – for it shows that the IPCC estimate of future temperature rises due to CO2 increasing is in the order of 1.6C to 3.8C when it actually rose 0.6C. Rather than admit its model was wrong, the climate mafia in the IPCC decided that the heat was suddenly absorbed by the oceans – a classic case of the ad hoc adjustment of the theory to make previously discordant facts fit. Junk science it is called.
Henry’s readers should read Christopher Monckton’s two articles as well as his supplementary articles and the summary of the emails and his replies too.
Finally Monckton replies to an emailed question:
“I can also refer you to papers in the learned journals which establish that the “consensus" scientists are becoming concerned at the failure of world temperature to rise anything like as fast as their calculations would project. They are offering mutually-inconsistent and unsatisfactory explanations which are not yet supported (indeed, are contradicted) by observation. They know they have a problem. Now the readers of the Sunday Telegraph know too. - Monckton of Brenchly”.
And as shown above the solution to the problem is to suggest that the oceans are absorbing the extra heat except that other papers are suggesting that the oceans have been cooling. Climate change is a very changeable thing, isn’t it.
Some closing comments:
“There are some ideas so wrong that only a very intelligent person could believe them." —George Orwell
"Consensus discourages dissent... It is the enemy of science, just as it is the triumph of politics. A theory accepted by 99 percent of scientists may be wrong. Committees... that decide which projects shall be funded are inevitably run by scientists who are at peace with the dominant theory. Changing the consensus on climate change will be an arduous task, like turning a supertanker with a broken rudder. ...the competition of theories has been the driving force behind scientific progress. Isolated individuals and private companies have been the most fruitful sources of this advance.”
—paraphrasing Tom Bethell from his book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science