THE IPCC SHOULD BE ABOLISHED

NZCLIMATE TRUTH NEWSLETTER NO 311 

by IPCC Expert Reviewer Vincent Gray

MAY 21st 2013

THE IPCC SHOULD BE ABOLISHED

Ross McKitrick

Ross McKitrick has a recent report entitled

“What is Wrong with the IPCC?  Proposals for a Radical Reform” at http://tinyurl.com/cf6lxyy

The Report has a foreword by John Howard, former Australian Prime Minister.

It is published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, whose Chairman is Lord Lawson, former British Foreign Secretary and whose Directors and Trustees include four other members of the British House of Lords.

McKitrick does an excellent job in explaining the origins and structure of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,

He also provides a damning indictment of its failings.

He makes the following recommendations for its reform:

Recommendation 1: An objective and transparent Lead Author selection procedure.

Recommendation 2: A transparent Contributing Author recruitment process.

Recommendation 3: Appointment of an Editorial Advisory Board and identification of potentially controversial sections.

Recommendation 4: Explicit assignment of both section authorship and reviewer positions.

Recommendation 5: Adoption of an iterative process to achieve a final text under the joint supervision of authors, reviewers and editors.

Recommendation 6: Adoption of a procedure for seeking technical input when necessary from outside the list of authors and reviewers during the assessment process.

Recommendation 7: Due diligence regarding key supporting papers and full disclosure of all data and methods used to produce original IPCC Figures and Tables.

Recommendation 8: Immediate online publication of the full report upon finalization, prior to production of summary.

Recommendation 9: Production of Summary by Ad Hoc group appointed by the Panel based on recommendations from the Editorial Advisory Board.

Recommendation 10: Release of all drafts, review comments, responses and author correspondence records within 3 months of online publication of the full report.

Recommendation 11: That the nations involved in the IPCC Panel begin these reforms at once, and if such a process cannot be initiated then those national governments that seek objective and sound advice on climate change issues should withdraw from the IPCC and

begin the process of creating a new assessment body free of the deficiencies identified herein.

McKitrick is one of the most active lecturers and writers to have exposed the errors of the “greenhouse” theory.

He is part author, with Christopher Essex of “Taken by Storm 2007”, Key Press Books Canada
And part author with Essex and Bjarne Andresen of “Does a Global Temperature Exist” at http://tinyurl.com/37zsms

This paper points out that temperature is an intensive property which means that it only exists for a substance that is in equilibrium. Contrary to the climate models favoured by the IPCC, the climate is constantly varying. The only approach to global temperature measurement, therefore, is to divide the entire system into transient infinitesimal increments of three linear dimensions, plus time, each of which would have a temperature. Such an array could not have a single average because day and night have such different temperature populations that a joint population involving both is heavily skewed, so there are therefore several different and conflicting definitions of an average.

It goes without saying that these measurements cannot currently be made and probably never will be.

It might be remarked that even an acceptable surface temperature in one place is also “elusive” as has been explained by Hansen at
http://tinyurl.com/y8caby6

The “Mean Global Surface Temperature Anomaly Record” (MGSTAR), which is regarded by the IPCC as a legitimate guide to Global Temperature, falls far short of being a scientific or mathematically acceptable guide to global temperature trends. If this fact were to be accepted by the IPCC most of its arguments would collapse.

Ross McKitrick has devoted much attention to displaying some of the the defects of this record.

Together with Pat Michaels at http://tinyurl.com/av88cm4 he showed the record was influenced by socioeconomic changes. 

Together with Steve McIntyre he carried out a long fight at http://tinyurl.com/ahmmr over the so-called “Hockey Stick” graph which joined past proxy temperatures to the MGSTAR. They showed that there were statistical irregularities in the use of the proxy temperatures, which, it should be said deviate even more sharply from conceivable scientific justification than the MGSTAR itself.

The MGSTAR is based on

• Temperature measurements from a constantly changing set of unrepresentative samples of the earth’s surface.
• It assumes that an average of a daily maximum and minimum temperature can be considered to be a genuine average.
• The conditions of measurement and their control are not standardised.
• The measurements are subjected to a set of averaging procedures for which no plausible estimates of accuracy are supplied.
• Single annual figures in the record are assumed to be constants.
• “Trends” of less than one degree Celsius over one hundred years are assumed to represent disastrous warming when any rational estimates of uncertainty would  greatly exceed this amount.

• 
  McKitrick seems reluctant to reject MGSTAR completely despite these problems and the conclusions of his book and papers with Christopher Essex, which damage the credibility of the entire IPCC system and make “reform” impossible.
  
  PERSISTENT DISHONESTY
  
  The examples of fraud fraud and dubious scientific and mathematical practices by the IPCC given by McKitrick are part of a persistent and continuing pattern of selection, distortion and fabrication throughout the activities of the IPCC which I have documented in the following papers:
  
  The Global Warming Scam 2008. http://tinyurl.com/b356kf3 
  Spinning the Climate 2013. http://tinyurl.com/bf8jnwj
  The Triumph of Doublespeak 2009. http://tinyurl.com/am5uo4w 
  The Greenhouse Revisited 2013. http://tinyurl.com/9wt26hx
  
  The “Evaluation” process carried out by the IPCC uses what it calls “attribution”. “likelihood”, “fingerprints”, and levels of “confidence”, which depend on the unacceotable belief that correlation is evidence of causation They also go to the length of assigning numerical statistical levels of significance which are not based on a population of experimental measurements, but are purely matters of opinion. These are sharp practices bordering on fraud.
  
  I have shown that the IPCC is not an honest independent body but a firmly established political lobby group set up with the task of imposing the global warming theory by any means, controlled by the 195 governments that have signed the Framework Convention on Climate Change.
  
  It needs to be asked why there needs to be a politically motivated organisation to promote a theory of the climate which has not been proved to be correct, despite so much effort, even if it can be “reformed”.
  
  There is already a well established discipline called meteorology which provides all over the world an essential weather forecasting service based on the very latest scientific understanding of the climate. The properties of the so-called greenhouse gases have never proved useful for this task, and current attempts to introduce “long-range” forecasts based on these properties has not been useful. For example, they have failed to predict the repeated cold winters in Britain or droughts in Australia and New Zealand.
  
  CLIMATE CHANGE
  
  The Framework Convention on Climate Change which resulted from the United Nations Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, defined “Climate Change” as

“a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods”

They changed the meaning of the term “climate change” which had previously not involved any particular cause, to one restricted only to its being ”attributed” to direct or indirect human changes in atmospheric composition. This means that they do not have to prove that all changes in climate have this cause.. All they need to do is to get people to use the term “climate change”, and they will suddenly discover that by saying these words they support the IPCC “attribution” whether they know it or not.

There does not need to be any actual evidence. All that is needed is for somebody, such as an IPCC climate scientist, an environmental activist, a politician, or a journalist, to “attribute” it. The “attribution” does not even need to be “direct”. It can be “Indirect” which can be as obscure as they choose it to be.

This device has been an outstanding success. Any “climate change” which is disapproved of, be it a heat wave, cold spell, flood, drought, or hurricane, is today routinely “attributed” to human influence on the atmosphere. Most of the people who use the phrase do not understand that it assumes that “global warming” is actually happening, when the main records which purport to indicate global temperature trends have shown no significant change for 17 years.

This definition of “Climate Change” is part of the Title of all the Reports of the IPCC to make it plain that their purpose is to promote evidence to support it.

They have made only one concession, included as a footnote in several reports
“Climate change in IPCC usage refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as the result of human activity”

This was added purely to permit study of other influences on the climate apart from human activity, but they were not permitted to be involved in *change”, only “variability” and throughout all the reports everything is done to claim that “natural variability| is unimportant.

SUPPRESSING THE SCIENTISTS

From the beginning there have been scientists who disagreed with the theory that increases in greenhouse gases are harmful but everything has been done to prevent their views from appearing in the IPCC Reports. This process is assisted by the successful attempts to influence editors of scientific journals and to capture the “peer review” process (as described in the “Climategate” Emails). Critical comments have been comprehensively rejected and the existence of such activity concealed by secrecy. As a result few critics now bother to comment at all. Some recognised experts have resigned or expressed their opposition to the entire exercise.

Deliberate bias was made clear in Appendix 4, of the First Report (1990) .in an introduction to a list of Reviewers, with the statement:

“The persons named below all contributed to the peer review of the IPCC Working Group I Report. Whilst every attempt was made by the Lead Authors to incorporate their comments, in some cases these formed a minority opinion which could not be reconciled with the larger consensus. Therefore, there may be persons below who still have points of disagreement with areas of the Report.”.

The belief of McKitrick that “delegates from the member states.... “oversee and receive the findings of the assessment working groups” is far from the truth.

The “Summary for Policymakers” that is at the beginning of all Reports is dictated, line by line to the “Drafting Authors” of each Report. It represents the “consensus” opinion of these delegates and should not be interpreted as the opinion of the Drafting authors or of any of the other authors.

Everything is done by these delegates to eliminate from the Reports any opinion which questions the Greenhouse “theory”

They had trouble in enforcement right from the beginning. The First Report (1990) was unashamed propaganda for the climate models for the first 6 Chapters, with actual observations left to Chapter 7

At the beginning they said:

“The size of the warming is broadly consistent with the predictions of climate
models, but it is also of the same magnitude as natural climate variability”

Readers had to wait to Chapter 7 to find that the models were not “broadly consistent” with
the claimed warming,

But they were still being allowed to say that “The size of the warming.....is also of the
same magnitude as natural climate variability”

This was the only Report prepared to make “predictions” which, it turned out in the text to be exclusively based on the subjective opinions of “experts”. Later Reports admitted that this did not provide a basis for “predictions”, so they only supplied “projections” which were “evaluated” by the same procedure, the subjective opinion of “experts” without any scientifically acceptable evidence.

In the Second Report (1995) the original Working Group I report was approved by the IPCC in December, 1995. The Final Draft had been circulated only to Government Departments, but I was allowed to see it, at the time, by David Wratt

The Report contained a number of opinions that questioned whether the greenhouse theory was proven. One example was the following

"Finally we come to the most difficult question of all: 'When will the detection and unambiguous attribution of human-induced climate change occur ?. In the light of the very large signal and noise uncertainties discussed in this Chapter, it is not surprising that the best answer to this question is 'We do not know'”.

The government delegates and their scientific supporters decided that all opinions which did not support the view that greenhouse gases are the exclusive cause of “climate change” must be ruthlessly eliminated. They hired Ben Santer to alter all dissenting opinions. The above statement was then changed to

"Finally we come to the difficult question of when the detection and attribution of human-induced climate change is likely to occur. The answer to this question must be subjective, particularly in the light of the very large signal and noise uncertainties discussed in this Chapter”

To which they then added this new material

"However, evidence from the patterned-based studies reported on here suggests that an initial step has now been taken in the direction of attribution, since correspondences between observations and model predictions in response to combined changes in greenhouse gases and anthropogenic sulphate aerosols:

• have now been seen both at the surface and in the vertical structure of the atmosphere;
• have been found in terms of complex spatial patterns rather than changes in the global mean alone;
• show an overall increase over the last 20 to 50 years;
• are significantly different from our best model-based estimates of the correspondence expected due to natural internal climatic variability.

• Furthermore, although quantitative attribution studies have not explicitly considered solar and volcanic effects, our best information indicates that the observed patterns of vertical temperature change are not consistent with the responses expected for these forcings.
  The body of statistical evidence in Chapter 8, when examined in the context of our physical understanding of the climate system, now points toward a discernible human influence on global climate. Our ability to quantify the magnitude of this effect is currently limited by uncertainties in key factors, including the magnitude and pattern of longer-term natural variability and the time-evolving patterns of forcing by (and response to) greenhouse gases and aerosols” 
  
  This still admits that they have no proof, only the subjective opinions of their “experts”
  The many other changes that were made are listed in my “Spinning the Climate” at . 
  http://tinyurl.com/bf8jnwj
  
  VALIDATION
  
  There was another fundamental change in the Second Report which must have disturbed the promoters. The First Report had a Chapter headed “Validation of Climate Models”. A Similar Chapter appeared in the First Draft. I commented that since no climate model had ever been validated the title was incorrect. To my surprise, in the Second Draft, they changed the words “Validation” and “Validate” to “Evaluation” and “Evaluate”, no less than 50 times. All subsequent Reports “evaluated” the model results but did not “validate” them.
  
  ”Validation” is the term used by computer engineers to describe the rigorous testing procedure that must be carried out before a computer model can be used to make future predictions. It would require an ability to predict past behaviour satisfactorily, but it must also involve evidence that the model can predict future behaviour over all the conditions that the model is used, to an acceptable accuracy. The IPCC have never made such an exercise and only in the Fifth Report drafts has there been any discussion of how it might be done. This means that the models are currently unsuitable for future prediction.
  
  They say of their scenarios
  
  “Scenarios are not predictions of the future and should not be used as such”.
  and "Since scenarios deal with the future they cannot be compared with observations"
  
  

They do not give similar advice about the model calculations, but since the final model result is a combination of the model calculation plus a range of scenarios they are effectively telling us to ignore their own opiniions on their “likelihood” of happening.

The Second Report ceased to claim that it was able to make “predictions”. The model outputs were merely “projections”, dependent on the opinions of “experts” for the plausibility of their assumptions.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST

McKitrick mentions conflict of interest, but he only considers doctrinal conflict of interest, where a difference of opinion is honestly held.

He does not seem to realise that he “Evaluation” process carried out by the IPCC is mad by persons who are financed by one or other body committed to promoting the greenhouse theory so they have a financial interest in providing an evaluation opinion which suits their employers. There is ample evidence that failure to do so leads to discrimination and even dismissal. A number of established experts have resigned from the IPCC because they were unwilling to accept this pressure, often to their financial disadvantage.

RECENT REPORTS

The Third Report (2001) had this statement in Chapter 1

“The fact that the global mean temperature has increased since the late 19th century and that other trends have been observed does not necessarily mean that an anthropogenic effect on the climate has been identified. Climate has always varied on all time-scales, so the observed change may be natural” .

In the Fourth Report (2007) the delegates took their revenge and abolished the First Chapter “The Climate System: An Overview” and replacing it with one called “Historical Overview of Climate Change Science” which was little more than a public relations exercise for their own activities. It notably omitted the 90,000 peer reviewed published papers containing measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide since 1812 compiled by Beck at http://tinyurl.com/2ebtvnj

This Fourth Report was challenged to comply with the Official Information Act by publishing comments by reviewers and the responses to them. Not all of these published papers seem to have survived, but the comments and the responses to the Second Draft of the WGI Report are to be found at the Harvard University archive at http://tinyurl.com/acclvnz

McKitrick claims to be a reviewer of the IPCC but his name is absent from the earlier reports and occurs only in the list supplied with the WG1 AR4 Report. According to John McLean (June 30 2007) he made a total of 37 comments, 11 to Chapter1, 1 to Chapter 2, 10 to Chapter 3, 14 to Chapter 6 and 1 to Chapter 9.

From the same source I made a total of 1878 comments, some on all Chapters with 572 on the vital Chapter 9. I had 16% of the total.

I have commented liberally on all the Reports except the First and I believe that I am the only person to have done so. In all of the Reports there have been only a small number of persons critical of the claims of the reports and no-one who has stuck it out for several Reports

The manipulation of the data and of the literature that was revealed by he “Climategate Emails was carried out from the beginning, is still operating, and is supported and endorsed by the signatories of the FCCC.

McKitrick’s recommendations for reform are a set of proposals for the leopard to change his spots. His belief that the IPCC could become “fair” and operate a genuine scientific debate is futile because most of them know that this would lead to their departure.

Recommendation 12 seems to envisage this but there is no need for an international body to impose one point of view on any branch of science. The IPCC should be abolished

To be practical, its operations are so endemic and pervasive that the best we can hope for is their slow departure as the world responds to repairing the disastrous economic butdens for which they can be held responsible

Vincent R. Gray , M.A.,Ph.D., F.N.Z.I.C.

Climate Consultant
Wellington 6035, New Zealand 

Debt higher than budget figures show - AFR 17/5/2013

 AFR -17th May 2013

Debt higher than budget figures show

Christopher Joye

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you’ve been misled about two key things on Australia’s financial situation.

First, the debt figures touted by the government, its lobbyists and certain sections of the media suffering Stockholm syndrome after the usual press gallery conditioning and a six-hour budget lock-up are totally bogus. The real numbers are much worse.

Second, this budget is not the austere, responsible plan that shores up the Treasurer’s credibility and validates Australia’s commitment to balancing its books through the cycle.

Let’s deal with debt first. Actual or gross debt is a much more transparent measure of how much Australia owes other people than the “net” figures bandied around. For example, the government uses a big chunk of the $85 billion Future Fund, which Treasury says “was established … to accumulate financial assets and … address the Government’s unfunded superannuation liability”, to lower its net debt figure.

This might be reasonable if the government added the “unfunded super liability” to its debts to begin with. But Treasury discloses that “net debt does not include superannuation-related liabilities”.

The government also doesn’t recognise liabilities associated with the free taxpayer guarantee of about $700 billion of bank deposits (they are all “contingent”). If the deposit guarantee was priced, this would not be an issue – but the Treasurer has ignored advice from the Council of Financial Regulators to do so.

All up, the government reduces its gross debt by about $70 billion through an “other investments” line item, including Future Fund assets. If we remove this influence, the low net debt figure of 10.6 per cent of GDP in 2012-13 jumps to about 16 per cent.

Here’s the next debt scam. In contrast to many other nations, Australia has a federated structure where government is divided among Commonwealth, state and local layers.

But when talking about Australia’s government debt, politicians and the media mostly like to assume state and local government does not exist. This is despite the Commonwealth explicitly guaranteeing state government debts during the GFC.

Remarkably, the most commonly cited net debt calculations also exclude the debts of the wholly government-owned companies, like the various state financing entities, Australia Post and the NBN, which are all guaranteed by government.

The latest budget papers do have a table that breaks out net debt by the Commonwealth, state, and government-owned concerns.

And here’s the shock: Australia’s net debt figure is almost twice the 10.6 per cent estimate you’ve been told is so comforting – the real number was around 20 per cent in 2012-13. Importantly, this has exploded off a sub-zero base in 2007 when we had allegedly no net debt.

Excising the influence of the Future Fund and “other investments”, total government net debt rises to roughly 25 per cent (see first chart).

When financial markets consider a company’s riskiness, they focus on the gross level of borrowings relative to assets. We can do the same.

In 2007, the Commonwealth and states owed about $150 billion. These were just the bonds on issue and ignore other borrowings. By December 2012 Commonwealth and state government debt on issue had more than tripled to $500 billion. That’s nearly 35 per cent of GDP and excludes government-guaranteed companies. The true gross debt-to-GDP ratio is probably circa 40 per cent. While that is still relatively low, it is not the ultra-benign image that has been projected.

The second chart shows how Australia’s actual debt-to-GDP ratio has changed since 1990. You can see there’s been a big increase in leverage across the country, back towards levels after the searing 1991 recession. The difference, of course, is that in 1991 the jobless rate hit 11 per cent, in contrast to the 5.9 per cent GFC peak. And whereas the RBA floored its cash rate to 3 per cent in 2009, it averaged 8.5 per cent over 1991 and 1992.

This brings me to the final scam: this budget and its predecessors have significantly elevated Australia’s financial risks and are not the prudent policy settings of prescient seers. The decline in the $A is one sign of this.

The main reason we avoided the worst of the GFC is that we were in the biggest investment and export price boom in 150 years, and most of our trade is with countries – China, Japan, South Korea and India – not directly involved in the crisis.

Unfortunately, the folks running the show have expended Eamon Sullivan-like fiscal and monetary energy on policy that should have been pacing itself like Kieren Perkins.

A related concern is that the supposed commitment to balancing the books through the cycle is not backed by history. Taking government forecasts at face value, Australia will have produced surpluses just 40 per cent of the time since 1980. Even if we look at its performance since 1990, Australia will have delivered surpluses in only 11 of the 25 years to 2014-15.

The big sleeping problem is there is not much ammo left. While our jobless rate has been effectively unchanged for two years and the economy has bumped along close to its trend rate, the government has racked up cumulative budget deficits of about $200 billion. And now the RBA has pre-emptively slashed its cash rate to the lowest level in history.

If Australia suffers a big external shock in the next few years – not my base case – we could be in for a nasty surprise. And while nobody wants to talk about it, you might have to kiss goodbye to the AAA credit rating that keeps our borrowing costs so low.

Talking down Australia’s credit rating is taboo in market economist land because the big banks all rely on it for their own ratings. If the nation gets downgraded, so will they, which will drive up funding costs and undermine their profitability.

Here are two ideas to help lower the risk the budget books are cooked again. First, why not force Treasury to follow the RBA’s lead and publish 70 and 90 per cent upside and downside “confidence intervals” in their GDP forecasts? This would give people a real sense of what could go wrong.
Second, why not have Treasury simply use the RBA’s inflation, GDP, and unemployment rate forecasts, which would give the projections some bona fide independence?

Christopher Joye is an economist and director of YBR Management.

http://www.afr.com/f/free/markets/market_wrap/debt_higher_than_budget_figures_KObS9sKEjTv5WShIW8ojNO

The Green Enemies of Humanity, Science and the Truth

Reproduced from Alan Caruba's Warning Signs (link)

The Green Enemies of Humanity, Science and the Truth

By Alan Caruba

Among the greatest liars on Earth today is the international organization called Friends of the Earth (FOE). It has engaged in the most scurrilous fear-mongering for decades, along with Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, and the World Wildlife Fund, while all the time they pulled in billions in funding.

In May 2012, the Daily Caller noted that “The Congressional Research Service estimates that since 2008 the federal government has spent nearly $70 billion on ‘climate change activities.’” The leading critic in Congress, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) asked at the time, “Which would you rather have? Would you rather spend $4 billion on Air Force base solar panels, or would you rather have 28 new F-22s or 30 F-25s or modernized C-130s?”

“Would you rather have $64.8 billion spent on pointless global warming efforts or would you rather have more funds put toward modernizing our fleet of ships, aircraft and ground vehicles to improve the safety of our troops and help defend the nation against the legitimate threats that we face?’

On May 9^th, I received an email from Friends of the Earth that repeated all the lies we have heard for years. Painting with a very broad brush that completely ignores the fact that the U.S. climate has always had highs and lows of temperature, FOE complained that “Last year the U.S. experienced record-breaking weather all over the country. But, the nightly news programs on ABC, CBS, and NBC barely talked about what was fueling this extreme weather—climate change.”

What FOE failed to mention was a record that was set in 2012-13; as of May, according to the National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration, the U.S. had its longest stretch in recorded history—2,750 days—without a major hurricane landfall. The many claims of “extreme” weather are classic fear-mongering. I might also add that, according to the National Interagency Fire Center, the number of wildfires is at a ten-year low. Glaciers are not melting and seas are not rising, unless a millimeter or two worries you.

“Climate change” is the replacement name for “global warming.”  Climate is measured in centuries. The weather is whatever is happening anywhere in the nation on any given day. Around the world, however, there has been a significant increase in cold weather and many are still waiting for spring to arrive.

Typical of the hyperbole that is representative of the lies we have heard from so-called environmental organizations, FOE fumed that “the nightly news programs at the major broadcast networks have largely ignored what is fueling this extreme weather—climate change.” Citing a Media Matters for America study, FOE noted that “ABC’s nightly news program did only one segment about climate change last year. Meanwhile NBC’s news show did only four and CBS just seven segments to this critical issue.” Perhaps this is because these notably liberal news organizations have concluded it is not a critical issue?

It gets better, FOE was angry, saying “What’s almost worse is that when these networks have covered global warming, they have often treated climate change as a ‘two-sided debate’ rather than what it really is; an issue in which there is overwhelming scientific consensus.” These are people who do not want to have a debate because, based on the facts, they would lose. As for scientific consensus regarding either global warming or climate change, there is NONE. If anything, leading scientists around the world have been debunking global warming now for years. (emphasis added)

One of the leading think tanks in the effort to end the global warming hoax has been The Heartland Institute. It has sponsored several international conferences in which scientists and others have offered papers and addressed the topic. I recommend you subscribe to its national monthly, Environmental & ClimateNews. Its Managing Editor, James M. Taylor, J.D., provides the latest information on the environmental organizations greatest villain, carbon dioxide (CO2).

Two recent dispatches by Taylor noted in one that “Climate models supporting predictions of rapid global warming during the next century have performed miserably predicting global temperatures during the past two decades”, citing a comparison of computer model predictions and real-world temperatures by climate scientist Roy W. Spencer. In another, Taylor noted that “New data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration show atmospheric carbon dioxide levels continue to rise, but global temperatures are not following suit. The new data undercut assertions that atmospheric carbon dioxide is causing a global warming crisis.”

Undismayed by the facts, FOE could only cite the taxpayer-funded PBS News Hour that “devoted 23 segments to covering climate change.” When the President is telling everyone that the climate is the greatest threat to the nation, PBS bureaucrats who know where the money comes from can be depended upon to broadcast his lies.

Ironically, the Wall Street Journal published an opinion by Harrison H. Schmitt and William Happer on the same day the FOE email arrived. It was titled “In Defense of Carbon Dioxide.” Schmitt was an Apollo 17 astronaut and a former U.S. Senator from New Mexico. He is an adjunct professor of engineering at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Happer is a professor of physics at Princeton University and a former director of the office of energy research at the U.S. Department of Energy.

“The cessation of observed global warming for the past decade or so has shown how exaggerated NASA’s and most other computer predictions of human-caused warming have been—and how little correlation warming has with concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide.”

No wonder FOE is upset that even the mainstream media networks no longer want to report on a global warming that does not exist. There’s real science and there’s the fulminations and lies of Friends of the Earth.

© Alan Caruba, 2013

Odds Shorten on Labor's drop of CarbonChoices.

Image: Pickering Post

BRW recently reported (link) that Bill Shorten "has no reason to covet the poisoned chalice that is the Labor leadership" at present but, "after Kevin Rudd, Bill Shorten is the name that most often comes up as the Labor heavyweight most likely to assume the prime ministership from the beleaguered Julia Gillard before the September 14 federal election."

What about post-election?

If Labor loses the election, Rob Burgess in Business Spectator reports that (link)

Most informed commentators think that if Julia Gillard loses the election (note I will continue to use ‘if’ – voters, not journalists, get to decide), Bill Shorten will be the man rebuilding the party.

Burgess  then stresses that the following, although repeated to him as fact, must be treated as speculation.

In essence, some strong proponents of climate change action believe Bill Shorten has begun lobbying members of Caucus to abandon carbon pricing as a Labor policy after the next election.

The argument follows the precedent set by the Coaltion over WorkChoices – though many in the Liberal and National parties believed it was the right policy, they were required to disown it after the 2007 election so as to avoid spending years in the political wilderness. 

After the 2013 election, Labor could be tempted to walk away from its own electoral poison – CarbonChoices, if you will.

The ABC is reporting (link)

......voters could face the prospect of having to return to the polls again next year, with the Coalition reaffirming its threat to call a double dissolution election if Labor blocks legislation to repeal the tax.

However, Bill Shorten as potential post election opposition leader could drop "CarbonChoices" and  a double dissolution would not be needed.

Heat or Eat?

Heat or Eat?

In his budget reply speech (link - pdf), Tony Abbott has renewed his promise to reverse the tax on

The carbon tax will go but no one’s personal tax will go up and no one’s fortnightly pension or benefit wil go down.

He continued:

So with a change of government, your weekly and fortnightly budgets will be under less pressure as electricity prices fall and gas prices fall and the carbon tax no longer cascades through our economy. (emphasis added)

The reversal of the tax on carbon dioxide will help the escalating electricity prices but the Coalition are still supporting the man-made global warming hoax:

• Joe Hockey admitted to Alan Jones (link - mp3) that the coalition will continue subsidising renewables;
• The Liberal still have a costly policy of carbon dioxide mitigation.

So, the carbon price may no longer cascade through the economy but power prices will still be inflated by the subsidies for renewables.

Linda Corbella, writing for the Calgary Herald,  points out:

For a growing number of Europeans, their continent’s global warming policies have forced them to decide whether to heat their homes or buy food. In short they must choose whether to “Heat or Eat,” which was the title of a talk by a British climate policy expert delivered in Calgary Tuesday.

Benny Peiser, of the Global Warming Policy Foundation was that "British climate policy expert."

The green lobby in Europe is so strong that it has pushed EU politicians to oppose virtually every kind of reliable non-renewable energy. The greens oppose nuclear, natural gas and shale gas and only seem to approve of wind and solar power — both of which are not reliable, since the wind doesn’t always blow and the sun doesn’t always shine — and it certainly isn’t “free.” 

The German environment minister warned that Germany’s plan to shut down all of its nuclear plants to shift to renewables will cost citizens one trillion euros. 

“This is the biggest wealth transfer in the history of modern Europe — from the poor to the rich,” explained Peiser, who spoke to a crowd of 200 at the 10th annual Friends of Science luncheon.

Tony Abbott and the Coalition must ensure that Australia doesn't fall into the same "Heat or Eat" trap after September 15th.

carbon dioxide:

Budgets and AGW

Drowning in Debt

by NCTCS Secretary Anthony Cox

Swan has brought down another dreadful budget; dreadful because the debt this government has wracked up is mind-numbing.

At the time of writing the National Debt is just under 273 billion dollars.

When the Howard government left office there was no debt; we were about 40 billion dollars in surplus. Rudd and Gillard have produced a turn-a-round of over 300 billion dollars.

For what?

All of their spending has been wasted; from pink batts to the BER; from the NBN fiasco to staggering amount being spent on the ‘boat people’, there is nothing to show for it; no lasting infrastructure benefit; no change for the benefit of the social structure. And all at a time when receipts are at record highs [from Catallaxy]:

“The money simply isn't coming in like it used to,” Mr Swan said.
Oh really? Who have you been talking to, Wayne?

It takes a special sort of incompetence to achieve this, a record deficit at a time of record income; especially when Swan predicts that his budget will be in surplus by 2016 and relies on the same modelling to predict this as he relied upon to predict a budget surplus this year.

These models are the same as the models used by the AGW science to make its predictions; not ONE AGW prediction has come true; there is no Tropical Hot Spot, the Stratosphere is not cooling, the seas are cooling, there are not more storms and extreme weather occurring, the present climate is not exceptional and heat is not being stored at the bottom of the ocean.

The predictions about temperature are the most egregious; the facts about temperature being manipulated and altered are too numerous to mention and it is a fact now that temperature has not increased for over 17 years. The difference between the official IPCC temperature predictions and what has actually occurred is stark [graph from Jo Nova]:

When both the economic modelling and the AGW modelling are so far removed from reality it is time that the average person and voter takes a stand to remove the government which bases its policies on such modelling.

This government has based its disastrous economic policies on such modelling and its climate policies on similar modelling. The government shows no sign of learning from its mistakes.

They should not be re-elected.

Fix the Budget by Cutting Climate Waste

14^th May 2013

Fix the Budget by Cutting Climate Waste

Media Statement by Viv Forbes

Chairman, The Carbon Sense Coalition.

www.carbon-sense.com

Any quotes taken directly from this statement may be attributed to Mr Forbes

The Carbon Sense Coalition today called on the federal government to reduce the burden of the Climate Industry on all taxpayers and consumers.

The Chairman of Carbon Sense, Mr Viv Forbes, said that the biggest national scandal today was how the whole government apparatus, including the nationalised research and media industries and parts of the opposition, was totally captive to a religious belief that a destructive war on carbon energy will somehow provide benefits to some future generation of Australians by cooling the climate and preventing extreme weather events.

“This is a delusion.”

Quote: 

It was the great Milton Friedman who said “There is only one tax on the people and that is government spending”.

Cutting expenditure, not re-arranging expenditure, must be the total focus of this budget.

And the first candidate for spending cuts must be the totally useless Climate Change Industry.

Every department, program, research grant, travel grant or salary with climate, warming, carbon, sustainability, renewable, sequestration, clean coal, ethanol or IPCC in its title or mission statement should be abolished forthwith together with its staffing. This list must include but not be restricted to:

The Australian Renewable Energy Agency (Arena) and its dependants, saving about $3.2 billion.

The Clean Energy Finance Corporation, saving about $10 billion.

The Emerging Renewables Program, saving about $126 million.

The Clean Technology Innovation Program, saving about $200 million.

Subsidies to Coal-fired electricity generators, saving about $5.5 billion. (This has to be the ultimate madness - the government levies a crippling carbon tax on coal-fired electricity generation to force them to close and then pays huge subsidies to the same generators to delay their closure).

All Climate Change “Research” focussed on carbon dioxide, saving about $300 million.

“Contracts for Closure” - payments to ensure closure of some electricity generators (unbelievable - surely the carbon tax will do this).

The Coal Sector Jobs Package - payments to coal mines to offset the cost of the carbon tax- just abolish the tax.

Coal Sector Assistance Package - Subsidies to some Coal Mines (another stupidity - repaying some of the carbon tax they took in the first place).

Everything funded under the Clean Energy Future Plan.

All renewable energy subsidies.

The Low Emissions Technology Demonstration Fund.

The Ethanol Production Grants Program – a subsidy per litre of ethanol produced.

All climate change officials, lawyers, inspectors and auditors everywhere, maybe 13,000 of them saving, say, $2 billion per year.

The offices of the Climate Commissioner and the Clean Energy Regulator – whatever they cost is wasted money.

The whole Carbon Capture and Storage empire – The National Low Emissions Coal Initiative, the CCS Flagships Program, the National Carbon Dioxide Infrastructure Plan, and the Carbon Capture and Storage Institute.

Support for all the International Climate Forums and Conferences via APEC, CEM, G20, IEA, IEF, IPEEC, IRENA, IPCC and all the travel costs associated with attendance.

All handouts under the Green Precincts Fund - $15M spent to date.

All government advertising, market research, media monitoring, media advisers and logo designers promoting the carbon tax, the Department of Climate Change, smart meters or other climate and green energy initiatives.

Donations to Green Friends such as the Climate Institute, the Australian Conservation Council, Climate Works Australia, Green Cross Australia, and the ACTU - $3 million spent already.

To “balance” all of these reduced expenditures the government must also abolish the carbon tax and all fuel taxes not related directly to public road usage and applied to road construction and maintenance.

Note: The above list probably includes errors, double counting and omissions, but such is the confusion and proliferation of the alphabet soup of what poses as “Climate Policy” that it is doubtful if anyone could prepare an accurate and comprehensive list. The only feasible solution is to start cutting, biggest first. None of them will be missed, except with relief by taxpayers and consumers.

Viv Forbes,

Chairman, The Carbon Sense Coalition