Demonising Carbon

Published at the request of Viv Forbes:

“Demonising Carbon – a Death Wish?”

 
A statement by Viv Forbes, Chairman of the Carbon Sense Coalition.
9 March 2009
 
The Carbon Sense Coalition today called on all parties in the looming state election to make a clear statement on their policies regarding Emissions Trading and Carbon Taxes.
 
The Chairman of the Carbon Sense Coalition, Mr Viv Forbes, said that politicians in a state so overwhelmingly dependent on carbon energy, carbon food and taxes on carbon products can no longer hide behind hypothetical anti-carbon scare stories based on dubious climate forecasts for 100 years ahead.
 
 “We have a real present emergency with growing fear among investors and shareholders in anything associated with mining, power generation, tourism and farming – the backbone industries of Queensland.”
 
“Much of this fear is generated by an insane campaign to demonise carbon dioxide, the natural atmospheric gas on which all life depends.”
 
“There is growing scientific recognition that carbon dioxide does not control climate – rather the other way around – temperatures rise because of solar influences and those rising temperatures expel carbon dioxide from that great carbon storehouse – the oceans”.
 
“There is also growing recognition that current levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are very low and the gradual increases occurring at present pose no threat to any life on earth. The reverse is true – all life will benefit from more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and the benefits will be increased by the slight warming experienced over the last one hundred years.
 
“We are supposed to panic over carbon dioxide levels of a miniscule 380 parts per million.
 
“Most life, plants and animals, probably developed with CO2 levels of about 1500 ppm – 400% above current levels. This fact is well understood by greenhouse operators who burn gas to increase CO2 levels to at least 1,000 ppm, 260% above current atmospheric levels.
 
“Inside populated buildings, CO2 levels of 3,000 ppm (770% above current levels) have been measured in homes, schools and offices with no ill effects. Even most Health and Safety people consider 5,000 ppm (1,300% above current levels) to be safe. Medical gas given to people with respiratory problems typically contains 50,000 ppm CO2 (13,000% above current levels) and our lung sacs retain about 65,000 ppm (16,800 % above current levels). Not until CO2 levels get to 100,000 ppm (260 times current levels) is there any concern about human health.
 
“All plant life will also benefit from increased carbon dioxide, and much of the extra food produced by the green revolution is the result of the warmer and more carbon-rich atmosphere.
 
“It seems that those who are trying to demonise carbon dioxide have a death wish for Queensland society. To achieve significant cuts in carbon emissions from man’s activities would requires massive destruction of our energy, farming, smelting, cement, transport and tourism industries, together with the jobs and prosperity of the populations that depend on them.
 
“The war against carbon is a war against coal, cattle, concrete, cars, electricity and breathing – who thinks Queensland can survive without these?
 
“It is time for the people of Queensland to be told which parties are supporting or condoning this reckless policy.”
 
————————————————————————————————-
 
 For more information on the importance of carbon dioxide to human health see:
http://carbon-sense.com/
 
————————————————————————————————————————–
 
John Coleman, an experienced meteorologist and founder of the Weather Channel has the last word:
“Global Warming: It is a hoax. It is bad science. It is high-jacking public policy. It is the greatest scam in history”.
Source:
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/38574742.html
 
————————————————————————————————-
 
Viv Forbes
Chairman
The Carbon Sense Coalition
MS 23  Rosewood        Qld      4340
0754 640 533
info@carbon-sense.com                                                          www.carbon-sense.com.
 
 
The Carbon Sense Coalition was formed in Queensland by Australians concerned at the baseless demonisation of carbon dioxide by an unholy alliance of green extremists, vested interests and political and media opportunists. Support for “Carbon Sense” is growing rapidly. The Coalition aims to expose the lack of scientific support for the anti-carbon campaign, and the real and present threat to our industries and jobs if any of the current proposals for Emissions Trading Taxes or Carbon Taxes are enacted.
 

Advertisements

Professor Will Alexander says he has proven AGW is not the main player in climate change

Now you have to admit this story has WOW factor.

I have copied it straight off An Honest Climate Debate’s website. Just click the website name and that will take you there. He has heaps of other very interesting stuff on his website.

The reason I have copied this in full is because the contributor asked for his story to be broadcast as widely as possible. I am helping to oblige his request because I have questions. (Yes, I am sceptical. An occupational hazard!) I am hoping the wide range of readers that drift hrough this website will be kind enough to answer them.

Is he comparing apples with apples? ie change to anthropogenic global warming to change in solar influenced warming?

Do these arguments hold water scientifically?

SOLAR INFLUENCE UNDERESTIMATED

Professor Will Alexander

Professor Will Alexander

By Professor Will Alexander

Via Email, January 26, 2009

Until now the climate alarmists exploited their untouchable status within the shelter of the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. This has come to an end.

Our studies confirm that variations in received solar energy and not atmospheric discharges by burning fossil fuels are far and away the dominant cause of climate variability.

We can demonstrate beyond doubt that reductions in greenhouse gas emissions will not have the slightest effect on South Africa’s climate now or in the future.

Please distribute the attached memo widely.

 

Memo 07/09

Climate change – solar influence underestimated

Monday 26 January 2009

EXTREMELY IMPORTANT

The scientific advisers to the South African Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism have created the impression that climate change is one of the greatest threats to our planet and to our people.

This statement is totally false and misleading.

As shown in this memo, during the past five years the range of received solar energy was 28 units compared with a range of only 1.6 units resulting from human activities.

Reducing undesirable emissions arising from burning fossil fuels will not have any measurable effect on climatic processes.

This conclusion is confirmed by comprehensive studies of our extensive hydro-climatic database during the past 30 years. These studies demonstrated the unequivocal linkage with variations in solar activity and complete lack of evidence of the effects of human activities.

The Minister is urged to appoint an independent, multi-disciplinary commission of enquiry to advise him before he commits South Africa to undertake costly and fruitless measures that can only damage our economy at a time of a global economic recession and rising unemployment.

The Minister is further informed that South Africa has now entered a period when severe subcontinental droughts can be expected. The basis for this prediction has been denied by his advisers.

I must also record that the Minister’s advisers are well aware of our studies but have rejected my frequent suggestions that we meet to discuss our differences on this nationally important issue.

Midrand Summit

The Midrand Summit is only four weeks away. The South African authorities are about to make some irreversible decisions that will affect the future prosperity of our nation and its citizens. There will be no benefits — just penalties.

This might be in order if we were facing a national emergency but we are not. There is no enemy at our gates. The threats are entirely imaginary as this memo demonstrates.

I am reminded of Adolf Hitler’s infamous statement that the bigger the lie the more believable it will be. I also recall Winston Churchill’s rallying cry that we will fight them on the beaches, we will fight them on the landing grounds, —- we will never surrender.

Am I exaggerating? Here is yet another example of a big lie perpetrated by climate alarmists. It goes to the very heart of the issue.

I received several responses to my request for one-page contributions that challenge the underlying science of climate change. I have attached a one-page comment from Fred Bailey in the UK. Here is some background to his comments.

Everybody accepts that solar energy received on earth drives the earth’s climate. It must follow that changes in the received energy will result in corresponding changes in climate. It is also elementary knowledge that the magnitude of the received energy will depend on the earth’s distance from the sun.

The first thing that scientists should do is therefore to determine the magnitude of changes in the earth-to-sun distance and then calculate the corresponding changes in received energy. This is what Fred Bailey did. His results are attached. More details of the methods that he used are provided in his book Textbook of gravity, sunspots and climate. Details of the linkage with the earth’s climate are given in our five-authored, refereed paper Linkages between solar activity, climate predictability and water resource development. (Alexander, Bailey, Bredenkamp, van der Merwe and Willemse, in the Journal of the South African Institution of Civil Engineering, June 2007.)

In the attached note Fred Bailey demonstrates that wattage changes in the range of 30 Wm-2 have been taking place over millions of years. Compare this with the IPCC’s figures below.

The IPCC’s big lie

Climate alarmists have gone to great lengths to discredit the influence of variations in solar activity on climatic variations. They are forced to do this in order to establish their claims of exclusive human causality of undesirable climatic fluctuations. This is how they propagated their big lie. The emphases are mine. Note in particular that the IPCC’s variations are determined from proxy and satellite observations and not direct calculations. Why did they not carry out direct calculations based on the variations in the earth-to-sun distance? The answer is obvious.

IPCC third assessment report, 2001, working group 1, section C6.

Radiative forcing of the climate system due to solar irradiance change is estimated to be 0.3 ± -0.2Wm-2 for the period 1750 to the present. Most of the change is estimated to have occurred during the first half of the 20th century. The fundamental source of all energy in the earth’s climate system is radiation from the sun. Therefore, variation in solar output is a radiative forcing agent. The absolute value of the spectrally integrated total solar irradiance (TSI) incident on the earth is not known to better than about 4Wm-2, but satellite observations since the late 1970s show relative variations over the past two solar 11-year activity cycles of about 0.1%, which is equivalent to a variation in radiative forcing of about 0.2 Wm-2 . Variations over longer periods may have been larger, but the techniques used to reconstruct historical values of TSI from proxy observations (e.g.sunspots) have not been adequately verified.

IPCC fourth assessment report, 2007, working group 1, section 2.2.

There is a very high confidence that the global average net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming, with a radiative forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] Wm-2.

In comparison, changes in solar irradiance since 1750 are estimated to have caused a small radiative forcing of about +0.12 [+0.06 to + 0.30] Wm-2, which is less than half the estimate given in the third assessment report.

Figure 2.4 of the report provides the following radiative forcing components.

Long-lived greenhouse gasses: 2.14

Ozone: 0.30

Stratospheric water vapour: 0.07

Surface albedo: -0.1

Total aerosol: -1.2

Linear contrails: 0.01

Solar irradiance: 0.12

Total net anthropogenic: 1.6

However, Fred Bailey calculated that for the past five years the range was equal to 28 Wm-2 compared with the IPCC’s estimate of the anthropogenic component of 1.6 Wm-2 !

The solar influence is therefore 17.5 times greater than the human influence. No wonder the IPCC cooked the books.

For the past 30 years I have repeatedly demonstrated that there is NO evidence in the hydro-climatological data of human-caused abnormalities against the background of the undeniable evidence of the influence of variations in solar activity.

Midrand Summit

The IPCC’s fourth assessment report will be discussed at the Midrand Summit. It will be very interesting to hear how the presenter treats this problem. Will he quote the overwhelming ignorance of the vast majority of climate alarmists? How will he account for undeniable linkage with the hydroclimatological processes described in our joint paper?

Drought alert

For the past two years I have repeatedly drawn attention to the probable occurrence of severe global droughts from 2009 to 2016. This warning is described in detail in my article The likelihood of a global drought in 2009 – 2016 <click here to read>, published in Civil Engineering in June 2008.

There are already signs of a developing drought in parts of South Africa. Other parts of Africa are in the grip of a drought but confirmation is difficult. Argentina is also currently experiencing a severe drought. The country faces a potential loss of revenue from agricultural production of US$4.4 billion.

My prediction is based on the observed, regular and therefore predictable, periodicity in the hydrometeorological data. The existence of this periodicity is denied by climate alarmists.

Soon it will be far too late to take any action to avoid the consequences, particularly to the rural and farming communities as well as the water supply authorities.

 

[Fred Bailey’s comments are attached.]

(I wish I could figure out how to make the lettering larger in this software – my apologies.)

See – I told you it was interesting.

Now – what do YOU think?

Vote of no confidence for temperature charts – part 2

An obvious argument I forgot in my first post, Vote of no confidence for temperature charts ……….

No GISS measurements over water

The GISS weather stations are located on land. None of these weather stations measure the temperature on 70% of the earth’s surface which is water!

Who is GISS anyway?

GISS is a part of NASA and stands for Goddard Institute for Space Studies. It makes sense that this is a part of NASA. What DOESN’T make sense is why a space agency is using surface mounted weather stations for evidence of climate change.

j_hansenAnother thing of interest about GISS is who the CEO is – Dr James Hansen, author and speaker with an alarmist approach to the climate change/ global warming argument. It is usual for people who are government employees to keep their political opinions to themselves, or at least to comment anonymously so that it cannot be attributed to the government agency they work for. Dr Hansen is a very vocal exception to this rule.

Government employees are meant to be apolitical. They are supposed to do their jobs to the best of their abilities and give impartial advice regardless of who is in Government.

This is his background copied from the official NASA GISS web page:

Research Interests:
As a college student in Iowa, I was attracted to science and research by James Van Allen’s space science program in the physics and astronomy department. Since then, it only took me a decade or so to realize that the most exciting planetary research involves trying to understand the climate change on earth that will result from anthropogenic changes of the atmospheric composition.

One of my research interests is radiative transfer in planetary atmospheres, especially interpreting remote sounding of the earth’s atmosphere and surface from satellites. Such data, appropriately analyzed, may provide one of our most effective ways to monitor and study global change on the earth. The hardest part is trying to influence the nature of the measurements obtained, so that the key information can be obtained.

I am also interested in the development and application of global numerical models for the purpose of understanding current climate trends and projecting humans’ potential impacts on climate. The scientific excitement in comparing theory with data, and developing some understanding of global changes that are occurring, is what makes all the other stuff worth it.

He actually says, in the second paragraph, “The hardest part is trying to influence the nature of the measurements obtained, so that the key information can be obtained.”

To me this sounds like spin for “The hardest part is making the numbers show what I want them to”. Let’s see how long it takes for that sentence in the NASA GISS website to get changed.

Coalition joins the climate change fight – but without an ETS?

The Leader of the Opposition, Malcolm Turnbull, is quoted by The Australian as giving a speech which attacks the Australian Government’s malcolm-turnbullunbalanced focus on an emissions trading scheme as a means of addressing man’s influence on the climate. Instead Mr Turnbull states that a Coalition Government would focus on replacing old technology with new.

“An ETS is not an end to itself,” Mr Turnbull will argue. “It’s only part of the solution – one tool in the climate policy tool box and, in fact, no solution at all without new energy sources and new low-emissions technology.”

“Our Green Carbon Initiative will ensure Australia is able to achieve greater reductions in carbon dioxide than those proposed by Mr Rudd, at relatively low cost and with enormous additional benefits to our own country’s environment.”

Hooray! At least part of the message is getting through to the politicians. Also, thank you to readers who have sent copies of my posts to politicians. Suddenly there is a risk-management focus on the climate change debate….

But Mr Turnbull will assert that action on climate change is not a matter of belief or non-belief in the science but a wise exercise in risk-management.

Clever political move Mr Turnbull. Most Australians ARE concerned with the environment. With our abundance of open space, Australians are probably more environmentally aware than other people.

However, Australians are not convinced that another socialist experiment is in anyone’s best interests. The US sub-prime mortgage market was one such experiment, and that triggered the current global economic crisis.

I posted on a risk management view of an ETS in Australia headed for economic strife, but still wants a an Emissions Trading Scheme?

Personally, I support moves to actually protect our environment and have lower human impact on the world we live in – regardless of whether man-made CO2 is causing global warming. (And I still have stuff to readnsay on that topic too!)

Global financial crisis – what would you do if you were dictator for a day?

New reports today quote Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd as saying the current global financial crisis is due to a culture of greed, and inadequate market supervision. The following is an extract from an AAP report in The Courier Mail:

“A culture of excessive risk taking – a culture of greed – a culture of excess has brought massive economic disruption to global financial markets and the global economy.”

Those markets had been inadequately supervised and the world had to develop warning systems to prevent it all happening again, Mr Rudd said.

In amongst the doom and gloom he promises strength and compassion:

“We will govern with a combination of steely economic management and compassion for those who need support.”

That sounds to me like Social Security payments will increase (not per person though) and frills will be cut. It also sounds like he is talking about greater market regulation and monitoring (auditing). Hmmm – a bit of shutting the gate after the horse has bolted.

Due to the international nature of capital markets and financial trading, this is indeed a global financial crisis. The dominoes are still falling. Some countries will suffer more than others.

Sounds like a time to be creative and think outside the square.

If you were “world benevolent dictator for the day”, what would you decree to turn around this mess?
Photo from freefoto.com

Photo from freefoto.com

Australia headed for economic strife, but still wants an emissions trading scheme?

The Australian economy has held up pretty well against the storm of the global financial crisis, but it appears the financial crisis is starting to bite here too. China’s economy is slowing, which will reduce our exports of resources. It is the resources boom which has insulated Australia from the bulk of the global economic storm so far.

I published this graph in a previous post, How an ETS would create economic chaos to indicate Australia’s recent dependence upon resource mining.

 australian-exports1

Any commercial enterprise with this type of graph of its product mix would have identified this as a commercial risk and acted to mitigate the risk of the main product line going sour for some reason. These actions might include investing in value adding from that product, increasing sales in other existing product lines, not locking in investment in this product line too far in the future, while ensuring that product can be supplied for as long as there is demand for it ……..

Another risk mitigation strategy would be to ensure that the business does not place critical reliance on the cash flow from this one major product. Australia has not made the most of any of these risk mitigating opportunities. Therefore as the demand for our resources slows, we are going to feel a bit of a pinch.

Fortunately this slow down shouldn’t last too long. The world’s financial industry is starting to settle in corrective and remedial action. This will take time to come around, but it will. The upturn will be gradual though, as finance and credit will become available again a bit at a time, not in one wave of a magic wand. In the meantime industry needs to slow activity until the financial markets get back onto firmer ground.

Imagine though if the downturn in industry was imposed for ten years? That is what Australia is facing with the cap, tax and (one day) trade Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. It is our boom and bread and butter industries – mining and agriculture – that will feel the main impacts. Industry will take time to implement the cleaner technologies, once they become technically realistic and cost effective.

Industry invests less in R&D and innovation in a downturn because most efforts and money are spent on ensuring survival. No sense investing heavily in next generation technology if the risk you won’t be around next year is getting uncomfortable.

Also, government invests less in innovation when tax revenue falls. Social security, health, education, policing and security are basic services expected of a government in a developed country. It is the other areas in which there is more flexibility in spending, and that is where the cuts will be made.

Hopefully the policy makers are reviewing their strategy regarding CPRS already.

 

What would you do if you were part of the government policy making team? What risk mitigation strategies and policy changes would you be taking now?

How an ETS would create economic chaos

The news is full of reports of demand for oil dropping and predictions that it will continue to fall during 2009 due to factory closedthe economic crisis, such as in Reuters 16 January 2009. The same economic factors are in play now as would be under a global emissions trading scheme, just the influence would be in a different direction. Do we want an emissions trading scheme which is the trigger for economic calamity?

The current global financial crisis is spreading into an economic crisis which is slowing industrial demand for a number of inputs, including energy which includes oil. Oil prices are dropping dramatically due to decreased demand for oil. The causal relationship in the current economy looks like this:

access to finance/ credit shrinks -> industrial productivity drops -> consumption drops -> price of oil to the producer drops

Imagine a different trigger event to the finance/ credit crisis, such as an emissions trading scheme which taxes consumption of fossil fuels heavily. The causal relationship then would look like this:

massive tax on fossil fuel consumption -> cost of production increases -> demand for products drops -> industrial activity drops -> demand for fossil fuels drops -> price to the producer drops

In this scenario, everyone loses, including government revenue:

  • industrial production drops
  • company tax paid to the government drops
  • unemployment increases
  • taxes paid on wages drop
  • standard of living in the developed world drops
  • carbon emissions drop a little, but not much, because poor people use carbon based fuels for heat and cooking, they can’t afford swanky solar panels on their roof (if they have a roof), they collect wood and burn it
  • clean technology innovation slows because industry can’t afford R&D or upgrades when the economy slows
  • global climate keeps on doing what it was doing anyway because the solar cycle is not influenced by economics

What a great scenario. In the meantime, unemployment increases and gross domestic product decreases. A fall in GDP in two successive quarters is called a recession. A fall in GDP of more than 10% is called a depression. What some countries are experiencing currently is bordering on recession, or is recession.

An enforced emissions trading scheme could trigger a full blown depression – a la 1930’s style. The objective of reducing carbon emissions would be achieved only by default – due to a decline in economic activity