Submission to the Garnaut Climate Change Review
By Grant Cameron Lockie
A semi retired audio visual technician
and
Webmaster and webloger of an anti Global Warming site some 10 years old
Abstract.
Cheap power and gas and abundant,
cheap, fuel have brought comfort and prosperity to the masses in the
West and promise it to the Third World.
Their ready availability enabled the growth of huge cities and civilizations where even
the humblest working family can afford a car and modern appliances.
We need to remember that fact before we suddenly make it all very expensive.
Be under no illusions - it is social engineering on a very grand scale.
I will deal with the terms of reference of the Garnault Review in order.
TERMS OF REFERENCE
30 April 2007
To report to the Governments of the eight States and Territories of Australia, and if invited to do so, to
the Prime Minister of Australia, on:
------------------------------------------------
1. The likely effect of human induced climate change on Australia’s economy, environment, and
water resources in the absence of effective national and international efforts to substantially cut
greenhouse gas emissions;
To properly assess "The
likely effect of human induced climate change" requires that we balance
the good effects of the globe warming by a few degrees with the bad
effects of the globe warming by a few degrees - the fact that there are
no such good effects is intellectually bankrupt - there must be some good - it just
cannot be all bad!
Let's move on, however.
AGW - means anthropogenic or human caused global warming.
Economy.
There
is, of course, no way to accurately predict the economy, if there was
economists would keep it to themselves and become very, very rich.
The Stern Review attempted to do so but became a laughing stock in academic circles...
A Cambridge Don - "Reading
the Review gives one the impression that the case has been made for
strong, immediate action in the form of an annual expenditure of about
1 per cent of global GDP. Yet, the conclusion I have reached is that
the strong, immediate action on climate change advocated by the authors
is an implication of their views on intergenerational equity; it is not
driven so much by the new climatic facts the authors have stressed. "
here - http://www.foundation.org.uk/events/pdf/20061108_Dasgupta.pdf.
A Yale professor of economics - "The
Review’s unambiguous conclusions about the need for extreme
immediate action will not survive the substitution of assumptions that
are more consistent with today’s marketplace real interest rates
and savings rates. Hence, the central questions about global-warming
policy – how much, how fast, and how costly – remain open"
here - http://www.econ.yale.edu/~nordhaus/homepage/stern_050307.pdf
Bjorn Lomborg in the Wall Street Journal - "The
review correctly points out that climate change is a real problem, and
that it is caused by human greenhouse-gas emissions. Little else is
right, however, and the report seems hastily put-together, with many
sloppy errors. As an example, the cost of hurricanes in the U.S. is
said to be both 0.13% of U.S. GDP and 10 times that figure."
here - http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009182&mod=RSS_Opinion_Journal&ojrss=frontpage/
Even the BBC - '"Richard
Tol is a professor at both Hamburg and Carnegie Mellon Universities,
and is one of the world's leading environmental economists.
The Stern Review cites his work 63 times; but that does not mean he agrees with it.
"If
a student of mine were to hand in this report as a Masters thesis,
perhaps if I were in a good mood I would give him a 'D' for diligence;
but more likely I would give him an 'F' for fail. "There is a whole
range of very basic economics mistakes that somebody who claims to be a
Professor of Economics simply should not make," he told The
Investigation on BBC Radio 4."'
here - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6295021.stm
Environment.
It is now almost possible to scientifically predict future climate, recent developments in science have proven robust.
Computer Modeling, however, is not one such development.
The CSIRO disclaimer (image opposite) on it's older Climate Change reports has
since been obfuscated to the following disclaimer. (the meaning is the
same, however - computer models are not to be taken seriously)
"Disclaimer:
No responsibility will be accepted by CSIRO or the Bureau of
Meteorology for the accuracy of the projections in or inferred from
this report, or for any person’s reliance on, or interpretations,
deductions, conclusions or actions in reliance on, this report or any
information contained in it."
Then there was this obscure little warning which negated the whole document preceding it.
"Application of climate projections in impact and risk assessments.
Risk
management is an iterative process, where scoping and risk
identification usually takes place before more detailed assessments are
carried out. Care must be exercised when using the projections in any
risk assessment, particularly when selecting climate variables,
determining temporal and/or spatial resolution, and dealing with
uncertainty. Detailed risk assessments generally require purpose-built
climate projections, including time series, or probabilistic
representations of future climate. Various tools have been developed
which represent different methods for enhancing the delivery of climate
information to stakeholders both for education and for risk assessment
and management.Nevertheless, significant challenges remain for
communicating climate risk in ways that can be effectively used in risk
management."
(An example of these new disclaimers can be found here - http://www.climatechangeinaustralia.gov.au/documents/resources/TR_Web_FrontmatterExecSumm.pdf )
In
light of these warnings from our peak scientific body, governments
should be very circumspect before taking predictions based on computer
modeling at all seriously - that means the glossy reports produced by the CSIRO, the IPCC, and the Met. Bureau.
The following developments are, however, very encouraging in predicting climate change.
Satellites.
Satellites have been accurately measuring the Earth's temperature since the late 1970s and trends are emerging.
The satellite data is presented on this NASA website - RSS - http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_description.html
Figure
7. Global, monthly time series of brightness temperature anomaly for
channels TLT. For Channel TLT (Lower Troposphere) the anomaly
time series is dominated by ENSO events and slow tropospheric warming.
The three primary El Niños during the past 20 years are clearly
evident as peaks in the time series occurring during 1982-83, 1987-88,
and 1997-98, with the most recent one being the largest. Cooling events
were caused by the eruptions of El Chichon (1982) and Mt Pinatubo
(1991).
This data has accurately reflected the above mentioned El Nino and volcanic events and is remarkable for three other things.
First, the 1998 spike. Whatever caused it, it raised the averages -
take it out and there is no upward trend at all - and it proves that
there is a negative feedback in the Earth's temperature - when it gets
too hot it automatically cools down again.
Second,
after the 1998 spike the Globe stopped warming - 10 years ago now - and
the Southern Hemisphere is actually back where it was in 1979.
Governments would be well advised to wait until this hiatus in the
satellite record is resolved before any precipitous action as called
for by AGW proponents.
Third, the rise of 0.184oK/decade is trivial - entirely explainable by natural variability - no cause for concern at all.
The
"flatlining" of the global temperature has removed the urgency of
finding AGW solutions and raises concerns that the warming of the Earth
since the "little ice age" has peaked and we are about to enter a
global cooling period again.
The Cosmic Ray Flux.
Water Rescources
The
drought has ended with the usual flooding rain. If the drought was
caused by AGW as claimed, something else is obviously affecting our
climate. Human CO2 output rages on almost exponentially. AGW theory is fundamentally
flawed because it cannot distinguish between human and natural forcings
or "how do we know that wasn't going to happen anyway?!"
AGW has failed us - we need more research on natural climate change - it should be possible now to predict future drought.
The solution that dare not speak its name - DAM - a bipartisan
political approach is needed to neutralize the NIMBYs and the Greenies
and build more water storage.
There is more than enough water in the north of Australia - incentives
to move population north should be obvious to Governments.
One such incentive could be the removal of the federal fuel tax for interstate travel. People will not move because it is taxed.
------------------------------------------------
2. The possible ameliorating effects of international policy reform on climate change, and the
costs and benefits of various international and Australian policy interventions on Australian
economic activity;
International Policy Reform.
Carbon Trading - the following links all refer to how carbon trading has been rorted and corrupted, but worst of all failed.
Carbon Trading has never had any effect on carbon dioxide output - except maybe to increase it.
http://www.carbonpositive.net/viewarticle.aspx?articleID=676
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aeFSX.0e2ga8&refer=home
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/06/18/eacarb18.xml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/file_on_4/6720119.stm
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/4c7709e4-1cea-11dc-9b58-000b5df10621.html
http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,2093816,00.html
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2093835,00.html
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21796335-2,00.html
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/dcdefef6-f350-11db-9845-000b5df10621,dwp_uuid=3c093daa-edc1-11db-8584-000b5df10621.html
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/8d898732-f34f-11db-9845-000b5df10621,dwp_uuid=3c093daa-edc1-11db-8584-000b5df10621.html
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/543110c6-f34b-11db-9845-000b5df10621,dwp_uuid=3c093daa-edc1-11db-8584-000b5df10621.html
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/45b8fc34-f34b-11db-9845-000b5df10621,dwp_uuid=3c093daa-edc1-11db-8584-000b5df10621.htm
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/90def54e-f32b-11db-9845-000b5df10621,dwp_uuid=3c093daa-edc1-11db-8584-000b5df10621.html
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/3c7f4cd8-f33a-11db-9845-000b5df10621,dwp_uuid=3c093daa-edc1-11db-8584-000b5df10621.html
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2d3a68e6-f332-11db-9845-000b5df10621,dwp_uuid=3c093daa-edc1-11db-8584-000b5df10621.html
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/5b7801fe-f34c-11db-9845-000b5df10621,dwp_uuid=3c093daa-edc1-11db-8584-000b5df10621.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1687531.ece
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2337485.ece
http://www.opinioneditorials.com/freedomwriters/rjr._20070913.html
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/44463/story.htm
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2003897259_carbon23.html
http://www.globalwarming.org/node/1152
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC0711/S00060.htm
Carbon taxes would
be more likely to reduce carbon consumption, but Governments MUST
reduce other taxes to compensate - additional taxes are politically
untenable and will likely cause a backlash against the Green cause..
The UK government ran into public outcry when it tried to introduce carbon taxes without reducing other taxes.
Here - http://politics.guardian.co.uk/green/story/0,,2191628,00.html
"A national
road-pricing scheme that would have cost motorists up to £1.30 a
mile is to be shelved, it was claimed today."
-----------------------------------------------
3. The role that Australia can play in the development and implementation of effective
international policies on climate change; and
Climate change - Climate does change - climate has always changed - even in the short term - climate is never static.
Australia can play a role in effective international policies on climate change by demanding the de-politicization of climate science, starting with the immediate disbandment of the UN IPCC.
Australia should fund independent science on the natural effects of the
sun and other "natural forcings" of the planetary climate so that the
world has real, objective, evidence with which we can discern human
from natural causes - "natural forcings" have been dismissed by the
IPCC because it mitigated their alarm and we need to take the science
of Climatology back from them.
-----------------------------------------------
4. In the light of 1 to 3, recommend medium to long-term policy options for Australia, and the time
path for their implementation which, taking the costs and benefits of domestic and international
policies on climate change into account, will produce the best possible outcomes for Australia.
Policy Options
Option 1 - Wait and see what happens with the hiatus in the satellite data - the Globe may cool.
Option 2 - Fund research into "natural forcings" of climate - so we can objectively discern natural from human effects.
Option 3 - Fund research into the good effects of Global Warming so we can make an objective assessment of it.
Option 4
- Fund research into the effects of AGW on extreme weather events. We
do not have any real scientific evidence to back up the claim that AGW
will cause more extreme weather events and governments should not base policy on superstition.
Option 5 - Fund incentives to move north where water is more reliable.
Option 6 - Since there
is obviously now no medium term cause for AGW alarm, Australia should
further develop its shale oil reserves and establish coal liquification
pilot plants or we risk having to buying our own coal back from China
as liquid fuel.
Option 7 - Australia should follow the lead of Europe, Russia and the Governor of California and agree to any consensus on medium and long term carbon targets
because these can simply be ignored until they are not met on the
target date and then a new medium term target can be agreed to, and so
on.
Almost all of Europe, Japan, Canada, and New Zealand have very little
chance of meeting their Kyoto commitments, but that doesn't matter
until the target date of 2012.
Global warming is a hypothetical disaster and can best be dealt with by
hypothetical measures (this also has the advantage of waiting and
seeing if
it is actually a disaster).
-----------------------------------------------
In making these recommendations, the Review will consider policies that: mitigate climate change,
reduce the costs of adjustment to climate change (including through the acceleration of technological
change in supply and use of energy), and reduce any adverse effects of climate change and mitigating
policy responses on Australian incomes.
This Review should take into account the following core factors:
• The regional, sectoral and distributional implications of climate change and policies to mitigate
climate change;
• The economic and strategic opportunities for Australia from playing a leading role in our
region's shift to a more carbon-efficient economy, including the potential for Australia to
become a regional hub for the technologies and industries associated with global movement to
low carbon emissions; and
• The costs and benefits of Australia taking significant action to mitigate climate change ahead of
competitor nations; and
• The weight of scientific opinion that developed countries need to reduce their greenhouse gas
emissions by 60 percent by 2050 against 2000 emission levels, if global greenhouse gas
concentrations in the atmosphere are to be stabilised to between 450 and 550ppm by mid
century.
The weight of scientific opinion.
I plead with you PLEASE that in considering the "weight of scientific opinion".
While it is not surprising that political bodies such as Green NGOs, The IPCC, the media and the Governments that set up this report find the concept of a scientific consensus appealing...
The
concept of a scientific consensus is, however, anathema to the
scientific doctrine and science will not progress if it is forced to
rely on consensus.
"One Hundred Authors Against Einstein" was published in 1931 by the Nazis.
When asked to comment on this denunciation of relativity by so many scientists,
Einstein replied that to defeat relativity one did not need the word of 100 scientists, just one fact.
Later the Nazis were very lucky not to get A-Bombs dropped on them.
I
urge the Garnault Review to remind its commissioning governments that
science thrives on dissension, debate, argument and new discoveries
that overturn the consensus - nations that restrict their science to a
consensus are doomed to reactionary mediocrity in science.
However,
since you have been instructed to consider the "weight of scientific opinion",
I will refer you the the following which will disprove the claimed consensus on AGW alarm.
A recent US Senate report which identifies, in detail, 400 eminent scientists who refute alarmist AGW...
here- http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport
This webpage has the contact details and CV of the most famous and prominent scientists who refute alarmist AGW...
here - http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/expert.cfm
Each of the names on the page above (listed below) has a link to their very impressive positions and qualifications.
Syun-Ichi
Akasofu | Bruce Ames | Dennis Avery | Sallie Baliunas | Tim Ball |
Robert Balling | Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen | Robert Bradley | Randall
Cerveny | Kenneth Chilton | John Christy | Ian Clark | Richard Courtney
| Joseph D'Aleo | Chris de Freitas | Peter Dietze | John Dale Dunn |
Freeman Dyson | Myron Ebell | Robert Essenhigh | Christopher Essex |
Michael Fox | Oliver Frauenfeld | Lee Gerhard | Indur Goklany | Vincent
Gray | William Gray | William Gray | Kenneth Green | Howard Hayden |
Ben Herman | Chris Horner | William Kininmonth | Hans Labohm |
Christopher Landsea | David Legates | Jay Lehr | Marlo Lewis | Henry
Linden | Richard Lindzen | Bjorn Lomborg | Anthony R. Lupo | Ross
McKitrick | Patrick Michaels | Steven Milloy | Lord Christopher Monckton | Iain
Murray | R. Timothy Patterson | Benny Peiser | Alfred Pekarek | Roger
Pielke | Ian Plimer | Eric Posmentier | Joel Schwartz | Frederick Seitz
| Daniel Simmons | S. Fred Singer | Willie Soon | Roy Spencer | Gordon
Swaters | George Taylor | James Taylor | Margo Thorning | G. Cornelis
van Kooten | Anthony Watts | Boris Winterhalter | David Wojick |
Antonino Zichichi |
Then there is The Oregon Petition Project - it goes back to before 2001
and was recirculated again in October 2007 - 19,000, count them,
19,000 American scientists - refute alarmist AGW - here - http://www.oism.org/pproject/
I
see your 2,500 IPCC scientists and raise you 16,500 USA scientists! -
It still doesn't make any difference to the truth does it?
It
is the science that counts - here is a list of significant scientific
papers (in reverse chronological order- latest at the bottom).
Global Warming: Forecasts by Scientists versus Scientific Forecasts
Conclusion.
Climate Change skeptics have responded to the term "denier" with the term "alarmist".
Only time will tell if we are overheating the planet or if we are plunging into the overdue ice age.
Since
cheap power and fuel is the very life blood of our wonderful,
egalitarian, society we should only take medium to long term measures
to reduce carbon consumption and we should take very seriously the one
sensible thing that the Stern Review said in conclusion...
"We must be very clear that this is an international problem and action must be multilateral".
We must
predicate any action on climate change on the whole of the rest of the
world not only setting targets but actually being on track to meeting
them.
I thank you for the opportunity to be heard.
I take the liberty of referring you to my list of all the best anti-alarmist-AGW web sites
here - http://home.austarnet.com.au/yours/Anti_Global_Warming_Links.html
I can support everything in this submission with links and references to where it came from - do contact me if you require that.
Grant Lockie
"Greenhouse Bullcrap"
grantsmail2@hotmail.com
http://home.austarnet.com.au/yours/Greenhouse_Bullcrap.htm
http://home.austarnet.com.au/yours/A%20Blog.html
http://greenhousebullcrap.bigblog.com.au/index.do
