As NewsBusters previously reported, there is a climate change skeptics conference going on in Canberra, Australia. One of the function’s organizers is the influential Lavoisier Group whose co-founder Ray Evans has written a fascinating publication on this subject that the media and global warming alarmists would hate for Americans to read.
Simply called “Nine Facts About Climate Change,” this piece carefully outlined the major issues concerning the anthropogenic global warming debate while countering claims by the alarmists including former Vice President Al Gore.
Evans wonderfully categorized the problem at hand in his introduction (emphasis mine throughout):
In January 2006 I wrote a pamphlet entitled Nine Lies about Global Warming in which I sought to summarise for the lay reader the state of the debate about increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, and the widespread predictions of catastrophic global warming which would ensue as a consequence of man’s use of fossil fuels. Despite the inherent scientific implausibility of these predictions, and the complete lack of empirical evidence to support them, a number of current political leaders and former leaders, notably UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, former US Vice President Al Gore and Australian Labor Leader Kim Beazley, have embraced these predictions. The Environmentalist movement throughout the West has united behind global warming as its primary campaign ambition, and the political power of the Environmentalist movement has generated very large expenditures as a consequence.
Evans’ introduction continued:
The science debate is at the heart of the global warming campaign. On one side of that debate we have those prominent scientists who preach the gospel of anthropogenic (man-made) carbon dioxide-generated global warming. Without exception, their careers have been made in the shadowy world where science and politics intersect; a world described by the once celebrated but now forgotten novelist of the 1950s, CP Snow. Lord May and Sir David King in the UK, and James Hansen in the US, are outstanding examples of the genre. On the other side of the debate is a long and growing list of scientists whose careers have been built on successful research into the extraordinarily complex physics and chemistry of the earth’s atmosphere and oceans, and the influence which the Sun has on the earth’s climate. The most recent example of devastating critique of the anthropogenist carbon dioxide school comes from William Gray, the doyen of American hurricane scientists.
After his introduction, Evans elaborated on the following nine facts:
- (1) Climate change is a constant. The Vostok Ice Cores show five brief interglacial periods from 415,000 years ago to the present. The Greenland Ice Cores reveal a Minoan Warm Period 1450–1300 BC, a Roman Warm Period 250–0 BC, the Mediaeval Warm Period 800–1100AD, the Little Ice Age and the late 20th Century Warm Period 1900–2010 AD.
- (2) Carbon dioxide is necessary for all life on earth and increasing atmospheric concentrations are beneficial to plant growth, particularly in arid conditions. Because the radiation properties of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are already saturated, increasing atmospheric concentrations beyond current levels will have no discernible effect on global temperatures.
- (3) The twentieth century was almost as warm as the centuries of the Mediaeval Warm Period, an era of great achievement in European civilisation. The recent warm period, 1976–2000, appears to have come to an end and astro-physicistswho study sunspot behaviour predict that the next 25–50 years could be a coolperiod similar to the Dalton Minimum of the 1790s-1820s.
- (4) The evidence linking anthropogenic (man-made) carbon dioxide emissions and current warming is limited to a correlation which holds only for the period 1976 to 2000. Attempts to construct an holistic theory in which atmospheric carbon dioxide controls the radiation balance of the earth, and thus determines average global temperatures, have failed.
- (5) The anthropogenists claim that the overwhelming majority of scientists are agreed on the anthropogenic carbon dioxide theory of climate control; that the science is settled and the debate is over; and that scientific sceptics are in the pay of the fossil fuel industries and their arguments are thus fatally compromised.
- (6) These claims are an expression of hope, not of reality. Anthropogenists such as former US Vice President Al Gore blame anthropogenic emissions of CO2 for high temperatures, droughts, melting polar ice caps, rising sea levels and retreating glaciers, and a decline in the polar bear population.
- (7) They also blame anthropogenic CO2 for blizzards, unseasonable snow, freezing weather generally and for hurricanes, cyclones and other extreme weather events. There is no evidence at all to justify these assertions. Increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide will have negligible impact on the earth’s radiation balance and will promote plant growth everywhere. There is no need to sequester CO2 in the ground or to subsidise nuclear or other non-carbon based methods of energy production.
- (8) ‘Tropical’ diseases such as malaria and dengue fever are not related to temperature but to poverty, lack of sanitation and the absence of mosquito control practices.
- (9) The decarbonisation of the world’s economy would, if attempted, cause huge economic dislocation. Any democratic government which seriously sought to fulfil decarbonisation commitments would lose office. Shutting down coal-fired power stations and replacing them with renewable energy sources such as windmills or solar panels will cause unemployment and economic deprivation.
Those that are interested in the details should read the entire piece.
As a comical aside, an article about this conference in the Australian publication The Age deliciously reported (emphasis mine throughout, please forgive the vulgarity):
In an interview with The Age last month, Mr Evans acknowledged that last September's visit by former US vice-president Al Gore to promote his Oscar-winning global-warming documentary An Inconvenient Truth had helped generate a lot of publicity on climate change.
But he described Mr Gore's film as "bullshit from beginning to end".
"The science from the anthropology point of view has collapsed. The carbon-dioxide link is increasingly recognised as irrelevant," Mr Evans said.
I love it. Evans then touched on a side of this debate that speaks for America just as it does Australia:
"But the Government's frightened.
"Cabinet, from what I understand, is by and large still sceptical of climate change, but it is scared of the drought and worried about how Labor will make use of it."
Disturbingly similar to the political situation in the U.S. where the left is clearly using this issue to frighten the masses, wouldn’t you agree?
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.



















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Yeah the MSM better ignore th
February 28, 2007 - 20:01 ET by HumanEventsYeah the MSM better ignore this or they will incur the wrath of the wooden indian. To Algore, providing balance would be bias on the part of the media. (Hmmm, but his 1992 ghostwritten "book" was called "Earth in the Balance". Perhaps Al considers his own book "Balance as bias"?)
Good to see more substance, facts, evidence, empirical data, and details on "global warming". And those are five things the left despise.
Funny how they hate open and honest debates. Reminds me of all the phony pro-abortion ladies from groups like NARAL and the National Organization for (Liberal) Women who would go on shows like Phil Donahue and Larry King and refuse to even make eye contact with a pro-lifer who had facts and details. They would simply look at lap dog media figures like Phil and speak their pro abortion talking points.
Yeah. How is it that the &quo
February 28, 2007 - 20:18 ET by QueenMumYeah. How is it that the "pro-choicers" continue to ignore the science that proves that a fetus is a human being?
To my knowledge
February 28, 2007 - 20:12 ET by Gary HallTo my knowledge, one will find the absolutely worst infestations (swarms in which you can hardly breathe) of mosquitoes in the higher and much colder alpine bog regions. Alaska, Siberia and a certain high altitude swamp, a couple days hike north of Tuolumne Meadows in Yosimite park come to mind.
woooooo-wooooooo-woooooo with
February 28, 2007 - 20:18 ET by nicksmith112woooooo-wooooooo-woooooo with all that reading NS.
All I need to know about "Global Warming" is the record number of hurricanes forecast by the best scientists and meteorologists the Demo-flip-floppers have on the payroll.
It was to be the mother of all hurricane seasons wasn't it...lol.
Ocean temperatures, not atm
February 28, 2007 - 20:22 ET by DyneOcean temperatures, not atmospheric temperatures, are the main fuel for hurricanes. And the events that influence said temperatures the most are El Nino and La Nina. I'd wager that studies will show a much stronger correlation between those two phenonena and hurricane frequency/intensity than with GW.
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is to try to please everyone." - Bill Cosby
Hate to burst your bubble, bu
February 28, 2007 - 20:27 ET by NL207Hate to burst your bubble, but El Nino and La Nina don't have squat to do with Hurricanes, or Cyclones either.
Ah, so I was wrong. There
February 28, 2007 - 20:38 ET by DyneWell, I may be wrong. And if I am, I am, but I'd like to cite this article as my main reference.
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is to try to please everyone." - Bill Cosby
But ... those currents MAY
February 28, 2007 - 20:42 ET by NL207But ... those currents MAY have something to do with Typhoons. I'd have to do some research to see if anyone has been able to demonstrate any correlation between the two. The operative point: Hurricanes are the Atlantic Basin version of those storms. El Nino and La Nina are Pacific Basin currents.
And your reference is saying that the traditional appearance of La Nina after an El Nino usually coincides with a nasty storm season and succesive winter. There's lots of data supporting that connection. But Atlantic Hurricanes still cannot draw much energy from pacific waters!
"But the Government's fr
February 28, 2007 - 20:32 ET by Desperado"But the Government's frightened"
The Dem talking points say that the reason they voted for the Iraq war was because Bush frightened them with lies. Yet, here we are bombarded with lies and if anyone brings up facts, they are discredited like Juanita Brodarick.
I hate to think ANY government would make broad sweeping policy changes based on any kind of alarmism. I do not want my government leaders to be making emotional decisions.
Noel, aside from all the 'carbon' based theories...
February 28, 2007 - 20:35 ET by acaiguanaNoel, aside from all the 'carbon' based theories, I listened to a guy on the Rush Program today who studies precipitation. His theory is that the Earth has a natural Air Conditioning, Heating system through the rain cycle.
Now, he says other scientists also study this topic. He further says that none of the models take this factor into account. He's a grounded scientist who also says, "I could be wrong. I think I'm right."
To go a step further in this post (can't let it die huh?) I'd like to say that the models cannot be accurate. Again I say the variables are either too complex to be modeled or even unknown.
Now, they keep changing the models to compensate for errors as they are exposed and that's good. But they can't seem to admit publically that all of their modeling stuff is basically mental masturbation. When one starts making assumptions or rationalizing away entire data sets (either because they don't exist, or more likely are terrible data junk piles) then we are in the realm of junk science.
When (as a system theorist) one takes every issue and factors it down to a binary decision, one might as well flip a coin on man-made Global Warming.
Unfortunately, flipping a coin would destroy the probability function as it should be applied to this stuff.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
ACA, unless your coin is weig
February 28, 2007 - 21:06 ET by slaphappyACA, unless your coin is weighted.
Another question, as we move closer and closer to the ultimate global farce with carbon credits and green lives. What would the impact be on our globe if all the sudden ( non-natural global evolution ) we do produce a man made un-indigenous climate. Scientist believe that we must put the globe back to some certain levels. What is this level?... And as you said, the variables involved are beyond comprehension. I guess what I'm asking, is, as we evolve and the earth evolves with us, what would happen if globally we indoctrinated the EX-vice presidents path..... "Don't mess with mother nature" comes to mind............
US Congress- When it´s all said and done. More was said than done.
Well, I reject the man-made stuff right away.
February 28, 2007 - 21:16 ET by acaiguanaWell, I reject the man-made stuff right away.
So, that leaves the unimaginable to deal with. For example, I believe all the hysteria and the proposed solutions if implemented would only result in large scale famine; serious dislocation of economic efficiencies; less stability in the Middle East (particularly when we quit buying their oil); and serious political upheavals in the US as a result of having our sovereignty diluted and finally destroyed by the UN or some similar body of idiots.
Does that pretty much cover my scenario of disaster over the man-made Global Warming thingy?
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
Aca,I totally agree with yo
March 1, 2007 - 08:47 ET by steviep831Aca,
I totally agree with you. GW hysteria has the potential to sink this great country and others. I do; however, believe that energy is an evolving entity. Human kind's grasp of energy has evolved throughout the ages, starting with the mastering of fire and its culmination can not be predicted by any of us. Energy sources like what some would call "greener" fuels should be evolutionary steps, we as a species should continue to take. Not because our planet is in jeopardy of a catastrophic end, but because research into these resources can help us achieve something that right now we can only dream of; cheap energy for everyone. It's been said here before that the wealthiest nations are the cleanest and the healthiest. I believe that cheap energy could elevate poorer country's playing field so that those countries can begin to prosper and be contributing partners in our world.
My wife and I are looking into getting a bigger car... an SUV really. And I really like the new Chevy Tahoe with the flex fuel engine. The salesman asked if I believed in global warming and if that's why I was interested, and I proudly told him no. The reason I like this car is that it's innovation and unless we support innovation our world remains static.
Using computer models to pred
February 28, 2007 - 21:09 ET by ghotifunUsing computer models to predict climate change is too static an endeavor. There is little to no room for variables that occur ramdomly in nature.
As an example, last week I posted quickly on the climate change induced by the comet or asteroid strike near the Yucatan Penninsula. There just isn't a computer data variability that can be accurately inputted for that scenario. Likewise with volcanic eruptions. Both events, though not very probable in the short-run, have tremendous influences on climate.
And neither are anthropogenic
The greatest difficulty I have in believing any of the theory of AGW is our relative inability to accurately "see" what has happened in the distant past (say beyond 5,000 years). Thusfar, all the experiments I have seen to attempt to "see" that far back are themselves steeped with too many variables to make any factual claim, much less support theory.
As Noel mentioned last week in regards to the 0.6 degree temperature rise in one hundred years, accuracy of reporting instruments and the number of sites reporting those measurements leaves much to be desired.
If the earth's temperature is rising, could this rise be in reference to the mini-ice age that ended within a couple of generations prior to the industrial revolution. If so, then the more important question is, "What caused the cooling?"
ghotifun - the use of computer models is in itself arrogance...
February 28, 2007 - 21:30 ET by acaiguanaghotifun - the use of computer models is in itself arrogance...
of the first order of magnitude.
Then it is compounded by assuming that people automatically will say, "Oh, gee a computer."
And.
"Oh gee a model."
Give me a break.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
aca...Computer models can fal
February 28, 2007 - 21:52 ET by Clear thinkeraca...
Computer models can fall for the old adage "garbage-in garbage-out" even when it comes to GW info.
The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.
While that is true about computers, it is more complicated.
February 28, 2007 - 22:01 ET by acaiguanaWhile that is true about computers, it is more complicated.
See my 10,000 words of diatribe on the whole issue on this site.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
aca...I totally understand.Th
February 28, 2007 - 22:06 ET by Clear thinkeraca...
I totally understand.
The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.
the variables are either too
February 28, 2007 - 23:28 ET by dahliatraversthe variables are either too complex to be modeled or even unknown
Exactly. Even assuming we have all relevant data to plug into the model.
Now, they keep changing the m
March 1, 2007 - 11:37 ET by taznarExactly. Computer models are a powerful tool for research -pointing out what we don't know vs. what we think we know. As a professor of mine often said, "You only learn something when the model breaks -and they always break." Models have been very useful in learning more about climate. The problem is when you take a research tool and try to use it to make predictions about the future. That is not what these models are even designed to do.
I'll raise you to an even 1
February 28, 2007 - 21:24 ET by sarcasmoI'll raise you to an even 10.
"Mars warming data."
JMR
Global Warming
February 28, 2007 - 21:34 ET by pbthinkerThe Age is pretty good reading. I used to subscribe to it, on-line, and enjoyed reading it. It's certainly no conservative, or liberal, paper but, for the most part seems like a good news organization. It doesn't surprise me that they printed what they did about Gore's little film. Too bad the United States has little media capable of presenting the facts on global warming.
It's not that the media are
February 28, 2007 - 22:39 ET by radiofitz34It's not that the media are not capable of presenting facts. It's just that they have decided to avoid certain facts. For instance how climate change over the centuries is a normal thing. We need to recognize that this media push for global warming is an exercise in a humanistic form of religious zealous activity.
Frightening the masses into f
February 28, 2007 - 23:37 ET by MidAmericaFrightening the masses into following an ambitious 'leader' is as old as history.
Evans is a former Australian
March 1, 2007 - 08:07 ET byEvans is a former Australian mining exectutive, not that that invalidates his arguments, but geez, how about some scientists at least?
"Because the radiation properties of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are already saturated, increasing atmospheric concentrations beyond current levels will have no discernible effect on global temperatures."
Where do you find these people? We've known that CO2 absorbs IR at different atmospheric pressures since the 60s. It is not saturated at all.
"The recent warm period, 1976–2000, appears to have come to an end"
11 of the last 12 years are the warmest ever recorded and the warming period is "at an end" You trust people that say such obviously stupid things?
I could go on. What's the point? This guy is against AGW so anything he says you'll believe without even bothering to check. Sad really.
Al Gore under his reinventing
March 1, 2007 - 08:42 ET by danboAl Gore under his reinventing government transfers navy oil reserves to a company his family owns lots of stock in. Over the protest of native americans. Even has the indians protesting the trasnfer arrested.
Where do you find this guy.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
throaty, my bold - I just haven't had enough coffee.
March 1, 2007 - 08:59 ET by acaiguanathroaty, my bold - I just haven't had enough coffee. So therefore, ergo, and hence, I'm actually going to respond to you. Oh well...
Throatwobbler: "Evans is a former Australian mining exectutive, not that that invalidates his arguments, but geez, how about some scientists at least?
"Because the radiation properties of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are already saturated, increasing atmospheric concentrations beyond current levels will have no discernible effect on global temperatures."
Where do you find these people? We've known that CO2 absorbs IR at different atmospheric pressures since the 60s. It is not saturated at all."
Where do we find these people? The same hole that we 'found' Al Gore hiding in after his disasterous loss of his home State, Tennessee in 2000, which cost him the Presidential Election.
Hope that clears everything all up for ya throaty.
You can now go back to whatever it is you do when you aren't showing off your brain here.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
Nice argument.
March 2, 2007 - 08:36 ET byNice argument.
Read it again throatwobbler, and take a science class
March 1, 2007 - 09:37 ET by SportPoliticsRead it again throatwobbler, and take a science class.
The man tried to tell you that warming effects of co2 in the atmosphere reach a peak at which point further saturation in parts per million of co2 produces negligible increases in that said effect.
You went into an insane loopy response that claimed co2 is a warming gas and that we've known it causes warming at various atmopspheric pressures since the 60's. Of course the earth's atmosphere, unless it suddenly becomes thicker or thinner remains at it's relative ppsi pressure at the various heighths above the surface of the as always.
It appears to me your grasp of what the gentleman was attempting to relate to you, was totally lost - by YOU.
He never claimed that co2 has zero effect, you fool. He claimed that past a certain saturation level (ppm that has already been reached), increases in concentration make no discernable increase in heat trapping interactions, in our earth's atmosphere.
There is a SCIENTIFIC REASON for that. Why are all you liberals so stupid ?
Saturation points and throaty's brain on acid.
March 1, 2007 - 09:50 ET by acaiguanaSaturation points and throaty's brain on acid.
Sports, what happened was Throaty took this acid trip see; and someone said the 'saturation point' hadn't been reached. So, he took some more; then someone said that once the saturation point had been reached (and it had) taking more acid would do no harm. So he took even more.
He's never come back.
:-)
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
On being a burnout
March 1, 2007 - 23:45 ET by UnsaneSo, you are saying that guiltwobbler is a burnout?
:-)
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
The point is that CO2s effect
March 2, 2007 - 08:45 ET byThe point is that CO2s effect is not at a maximum in our atmosphere. He is wrong. You are wrong. Unless you have a source for this rewriting of physics?
The point is that CO2s effect
March 2, 2007 - 08:51 ET byThe point is that CO2s effect is not at a maximum in our atmosphere. He is wrong. You are wrong. Unless you have a source for this rewriting of physics?
"11 of the last 12 years
March 1, 2007 - 10:21 ET by NL207"11 of the last 12 years are the warmest ever recorded..." What utter drivel. Man has ben measuring temperatures with some accuracy for about 150 years. What has been directly measured with modern instruments is a grain of sand on the beach.
Let's take a broader view of this subject: Let's look at the Vostok ice core data. The most recent thermal maxima has yet to reach the warmth of ANY of the previous 4, has it not? Notice that within THIS thermal maxima, it has been warmer than now twice in the last few thousand years. The CO2 story in that record is much the same, is it not?
Would you like to look at climatic reconstructions over the last 65 million years? You will like these even less. To quote Richard S. Lindzen: "The current temperature variations are not outside the experience of recent geologic history".
Wobbler, you and the rest of the AGW panderers are a polyglot collection of closet socialsts cherry picking their data to support a despicable scare campaign and are simply not believable.
Let me type slowly so you can
March 2, 2007 - 09:02 ET byLet me type slowly so you can understand..Evans claims the warming trend is at an end. 11 of the last 12 years are the warmest ever recorded, therefore Evans is full of it--lying or stupid.
"The CO2 story in that record is much the same, is it not?"
Same as what? Now? Absolutely not.
I like how you match Lindzen's "recent" with 65 million years ago.
Way to miss the point though.
Um, TW, um maybe you need to
March 2, 2007 - 15:40 ET by dscottUm, TW, um maybe you need to look at that graph again from the Hadley Centre, the folks who give the info to the IPCC, the trend is downward from 1998... It doesn't matter about 11 or a 100, after the peak it's all downhill. According to CO2 forcing theory this shouldn't be happening for the last 8 years...
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
It occurs to me that alGore i
March 1, 2007 - 11:25 ET by QueenMumIt occurs to me that alGore is simply using the same tactic that he accuses Pres. Bush of using. "He preyed on our fears!!!!" ;)
Sorry, Al. 9/11 was much more convincing than your Academy Award winning science fiction movie.
Queen...I agree. Reality is m
March 1, 2007 - 11:58 ET by Clear thinkerQueen...
I agree. Reality is much more convincing than fiction.
The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.
I love that the dissenters ar
March 1, 2007 - 14:41 ET by Iron LadyI love that the dissenters are finally speaking, probably because they hear these statements that "all scientists agree..." and realize they need to speak up. As someone who specialized in coding and working with modelling programs in science, I have two other points:
1) Not only do most variables have to be guesstimated and thus might be wrong, even if all were correct, the models are suspect. Numerical analysis techniques have to be used to estimate the new values, and those new values have to be used to estimate the next group of new values.... By the time we loop through to far in the future, there is almost no possibility of the answers being correct. Most N.A. techniques are only good for small time period jumps.
Strangely enough, when we have tried the short time periods - where we compare what actually happens, they are notoriously wrong. Remember the hurricane predictions? The rule in N.A. is that if they are wrong over a short time span, they can NOT be used for longer periods.
2) Saying someone works for an energy company or an oil company makes one disqualified from speaking is ridiculous. That is like saying a doctor who works with a hospital can't comment on medical issues, or that a pharmicist who works at a pharmacy can't comment on prescription drug issues.
Where do they think those of us with advanced science degrees get jobs, anyway? Only a few get jobs with universities, after all.