"Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas
and adding more of it will warm the planet. Yes,
absolutely. That is all well proven science, known for
years. Yes, I have no disagreement with any of that.
Disagreement is with how much warming there is. Is it going to be
catastrophic or is it going to be half a degree?"
I have been writing about climate since March 2005, when
only a few decades earlier climate scientists had
been concerned that Earth was entering a new ice age, and sarcastically
American entrepreneurs together
with Arab oil sheiks rose to the
challenge, and popularised the
newly devised automobile. This had the effect of efficiently
carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere, thus producing a "greenhouse
effect" which cancelled the looming
In January 2006
I commented on recent research suggested by my 2005 post, where it
appeared that climate scientists were testing my predictions.
In July 2007
I commented in detail on the duplicity in the various Warmist reviews,
the IPCC, UNFCC, Kyoto and Stern. Stern in particularly I
discovered was not peer reviewed, and was a compilation of extremist
scenarios. The IPCC had major dissenting opinions which were not
included in the final reports.
My current narrative is that the problem is not climate change.
The problem is Government. Government is a cohort of like minded
people that exists to tax and oppress "we the people" for it's own
member's benefit. To make their governing more efficient (i.e.
requiring less police to keep we the people compliant) the cohort has
devised various narratives (e.g. "Democracy", with no emphasis on the
word "representative" which tends to hide it's true dictatorial
nature). These narratives hide the true nature of their
The latest narrative is "Climate Change". This narrative is
designed to legitimize a new tax that people will feel is morally
justified. To develop that
narrative, the cohort has bribed sections of academia, media and
(regulated) big business. (Not small business
entrepreneurs. They are the main victims).
Academics get promoted if they publish, (Such is
the conclusion that can be drawn from Carey Nelson's comments via Elspeth Probyn.)
and if they have a choice, publishing something
alarmist in the public media (ABC, NBN) beats most academic
publications hands down. So the formula for an Academic to get
promoted to Professor:
cartoon explains the "bribery" of academics.
- Have graduate students do a shonky research paper
(or two) on alarmist climate change with your
name heading it,
- Get a few mates to sign off on it (i.e. "Peer review"
it), and then
- Blather it
to the media.
The latest academic rort is to develop a computer model that predicts
some sort of warmist disaster. In computer jargon, they are GIGO
models. (Garbage In, Garbage Out.). Just for example, in
some (most? all?) models more than two thirds of the Greenhouse effect
is assumed to be caused by increased water vapour concentration, which
results from increased evaporation caused by the increase of
atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. (Water vapour is a strong "greenhouse
gas"). The problem? Given the state of current
atmospheric boundary layer predictor formulae, those models would be
unable to make reliable assumptions about wind transport effects which
might modify that water vapour assumption.
Another example of alarmist researchers' duplicity is biased data
selection. McIntyre uncovered the bristlecone pine annular rings
fiasco, where alarmist researchers claimed that wider tree growth
rings were evidence of faster tree growth caused by warming.
McIntyre presented evidence that the wider rings were caused
the tree bark, which caused growth
spurts. In another example of
duplicity, enlarged growth ring widths were "found" in a
"selected" sample of twelve Larch trees. That looked very
persuasive until a fact checker used an expanded sample from the Larch
trees in the same region and found no such evidence. The original
researcher's explanation of how those 12 trees were selected was
Big business relies on "regulation" for survival. For example,
ask your local corner store how much it costs for an accountant each
month to ensure compliance with government regulations.
Big business loves regulation because it kills off the more efficient
competitors. Without regulation, Woolworths and Coles would have
far more difficulty in using "predatory pricing" to crush the plethora
of small business competitors that would arise. Big business
likes the idea of a Carbon Tax. It means more regulation, more
Do not get me wrong. CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) is most certainly a
"greenhouse gas" which means that it acts like the glass of a
greenhouse. It allows the sun's high frequency photons (light
reach earth, but absorbs the low frequency photons heat radiation that
arises when the light
frequency is absorbed and re-radiated in the infra red
spectrum. Without the CO2 blanket, that heat would escape.
So all other things being equal, CO2 should produce global warming.
But referring again to my 2005 blog.
Analysis of the latest
Anthropology digs indicates that the
race has been evolved to it's
present form for around 200,000 years. In that time it has
survived several ice ages, the last of which ended around 20,000 years
ago. A few decades ago climate scientists were
concerned that a new ice age was imminent, and that the ice sheets were
already advancing and would reach the tropics within a few hundred
years, or at most within a couple of
There was a "little ice age" during the 17th-18th Centuries, which
coincided with the "Maunder Minimum"
activity reached historic lows.
Below are recent observations of sunspot activity (copied
website). It can be seen that sunspot cycle
activity (a cycle is about 12 years) has fallen
by about two thirds over the last four cycles.(approximately 50 years)
If we consider the coincidence of low sunspot activity during
the "little ice age" and consider the recent observations of historic
sunspot activity then the recent global weather (renamed from "warming"
to "climate change") must beg the question:
happening, perhaps the CO2 increase
caused by burning fossil fuels has produced a consequent warming
which is actually insulating us from the worst effects of a new "little
But don't expect the government or it's
paid researchers or publicists (NBN) to admit it. Both
researchers and government need your money.
Afterword. After writing the above, I would like to go on record
as favouring a Carbon Tax. Not for the purpose of "saving the
world" by reducing atmospheric CO2 back to 0.028% because no Carbon tax
could do that. I favour it for the purpose of reducing waste, and
reducing unnecessary pollution. There should be a penalty for
putting waste into the atmosphere.
And a CO2 tax need not disadvantage our export industries.
Everybody in business already uses and understands the GST. All
we need do is apply that principal to Carbon taxes. So that at
every stage of production a "CO2" weight is assigned to the
product. At retail level, only Australians pay the tax on
Carbon. We leave it to foreign countries to levy the CO2 tax on
their imports. So as not to disadvantage our local industry, a
carbon tax should also be levied on all of our imports.