Anti-fossil fuel SCC (Social Cost of Carbon) relies on garbage models, ignores carbon benefits and hurts the poor.
By Paul Driessen and Roger Bezdek
“If you could pick just one thing to reduce poverty, by far you would pick energy,” Bill Gates has said. “Access to energy is absolutely fundamental in the struggle against poverty,” World Bank VP Rachel Kyte and Nobel Prize Laureate Dr. Amartya Sen agree.
The UN Development Program also calls energy “central to poverty reduction.” And International Energy Agency Executive Director Dr. Fatih Birol notes that “coal is raising living standards and lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty.” In fact, all fossil fuels are doing so.
Indeed, fossil fuels created the modern world and the housing, transportation, other technologies and living standards so many of us take for granted. They are essential for electricity and life, and over the past 250 years they more than doubled average life expectancy in countries that took advantage of them.
But the Obama Administration and radical environmentalists despise fossil fuels and used every tactic they could devise to eliminate them. One of their most important schemes was the “social cost of carbon.”
[Click the image for PDF version of the flyer.]
Key IPCC quotes
The fifth and latest IPCC assessment report, published in 2013, showed that climate models failed to predict the absence of warming from 1998 and 2012, and that climate scientists have no clear idea of why they failed. (NB. I have added the bolding in the following extracts.)
- “… the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade) … is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade).” [WG I SPM, page 5, section B.1, bullet point 3, and in full Synthesis Report on page SYR-6]
- “… an analysis of the full suite of CMIP5 historical simulations (…) reveals that 111 out of 114 realisations show a GMST trend over 1998–2012 that is higher than the entire HadCRUT4 trend ensemble ….” [WGI contribution, chapter 9, text box 9.2, page 769, and in full Synthesis Report on page SYR-8]
- “There may also be a contribution from forcing inadequacies and, in some models, an overestimate of the response to increasing greenhouse gas and other anthropogenic forcing (dominated by the effects of aerosols).” [WG I SPM, section D.1, page 15, bullet point 2, and full Synthesis Report on page SYR-8]
- “This difference between simulated [i.e. model output] and observed trends could be caused by some combination of (a) internal climate variability, (b) missing or incorrect radiative forcing and (c) model response error“. [WGI contribution, chapter 9, text box 9.2, page 769]
IN MY SIMPLER WORDS …
1 – According to statistical practices the trend in temperature from 1998 to 2012 (the 15 years prior to the report being drafted) falls somewhere between slight warming and slight cooling. In other words there is no certainty that any warming occurred.
2 – Despite claims of the accuracy of climate models most of the model runs (97%) wrongly predicted warming from 1998 to 2012.
3 – The IPCC is admitting that “some models” – we are not told how many, so maybe it’s almost all – exaggerate the influence of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
4 – The models could be wrong for a number of very basic and general reasons; the IPCC really doesn’t know why the models failed.
John McLean, Leading IPCC reviewer.
Napoleon’s Grand Army was defeated in the Battle of the Nations in 1813. The Emperor abdicated and was banished to Elba. But his army was not disarmed and destroyed by the victors – they rested.
Just 2 years later, Napoleon escaped and quickly re-mobilised his army. Only Wellington blocked his path to Brussels, at Waterloo.
After a fierce day of battle, a weary line of redcoats still held the ridge at Waterloo. But Napoleon’s Old Guard had been held in reserve for this decisive moment. Advancing like a spear, three columns wide, “The Invincibles” aimed to pierce the middle of the thin red line.
But a miracle occurred. Withering fire on both sides of the spear from the thin red line sapped their strength – Napoleon’s “Invincible” Old Guard broke and ran.
This was the critical point of that battle (and for the Climate War now). It is at the moment of defeat, with the enemy disorganised and demoralised, that the greatest gains can be made. Too often, however, the weary victors waste this opportunity to pursue and destroy the enemy.
Wellington’s exhausted army was incapable of pursuit, but a miracle occurred – General Blucher arrived at sundown with fresh Prussian troops. The avenging German lancers pursued, captured, disarmed and slaughtered the fleeing French all the way back to Paris. They captured Napoleon. Never again did the Grand Army threaten Europe.
In the global Climate Wars, Trump and Brexit have given us a victory of Waterloo dimensions. But this will be only a temporary setback for the Green Globalists unless they are now ruthlessly disarmed and de-funded. If we rest and relax, we will soon be ground under their green sandals again.
We must immediately deny them funds, tax shelters, manpower and legal support.
Not a cent more for climate conferences – send just one representative whose only power is to “vote no to everything”. Rescind or ignore past climate “agreements”, defund all UN/IPCC activities, remove all green energy subsidies and mandates and halve government funding of the ABC, BBC and all other GreenBC’s.
Subtract all “climate aid” from foreign aid budgets, divert all climate research funding to weather-proofing infrastructure, and replace green propaganda with hard science in education agendas.
Starved of public funding and propaganda, and with constant fire at their flanks with bullets of truth, the “invincible” green army will soon falter and run.
Chase them all the way back to Paris. Give them no rest until their infamous Grab for Global Power called the Paris Climate Treaty is rejected, never to rise again.
Read more, as well as:
- The Delusional War on Warmth
- Big Mining Rejects Carbon Sense
- The Trumpet Blows a Tangled Tune?
Read the full report: http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/no-time-for-resting.pdf [PDF, 137 KB]
Many on the alarmist side of the climate debate seem to struggle to find rational arguments or evidence to support their cause so they usually resort to character assassination or defamation. A common attack on me is “Viv Forbes is just a coal industry stooge.”
This was put to the test recently at the year’s biggest Mining Industry function – the Queensland Resources Council Annual Forum and Lunch. The delegates on stage at the forum included very senior managers from BHP Billiton, Shell, Anglo-American, Peabody and Glencore. The audience was invited to ask questions.
I asked why people who employed many competent geologists, physicists and chemists never questioned the science behind the global warming scare.
NOT ONE INDUSTRY FIGURE ANSWERED, and the compère quickly moved on.
This is how the Courier Mail reported it:
“YOU might say mining industry figure Viv Forbes was the proverbial fly in the ointment at the Queensland Resources Council “state of the sector” forum in Brisbane on Wednesday.
The climate change denier got a cold response from a panel of industry high flyers when he asked why none of them questioned the science behind global warming “hysteria”.
Indeed, there was an awkward silence before the group, including top guns from Glencore and Shell, quickly moved on.
Forbes, who serves on the board of Brisbane-based Stanmore Coal, chairs a group known as the “Carbon Sense Coalition” and backs “Clexit,” an exit from climate treaties.
Just this week he reiterated his call “to defund all CSIRO global warming activities” and slammed “research puppets on the UN man-made global warming agenda”.”
Just for the record, I am no longer a director of Stanmore Coal, and receive zero income from the coal industry. I still hold shares in Stanmore coal, a coking coal producer and exporter.
[Click the image for a larger view, and to read more.]
Here in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, I am truly dismayed by the unbridled hysterical approach to counter “Climate Change” (newspeak for ‘Global Warming’) taken by both of our Provincial and Federal Governments. Coal burning electricity generating stations have been shutdown to reduce CO2 emissions. Our new Liberal Party federal government has ratified The Paris Framework on Climate Change.
My biggest concern and fear comes from the declaration that carbon dioxide is a pollutant to be reduced as much as possible. Given that human beings exhale CO2, it does not take much imagination to conceive that the vast majority of human kind and our myriad activities will be put under some kind of Orwellian control.
Please send me your newsletter. I would like to be better informed about what is happening in our world from your groups perspective about ‘Climate Change caused by human life and activities’ nonsense. This is a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible but totally fallacious idea that somehow is being touted as truth.
The Labor/Green coalition in Australia has declared war on coal, oil and gas and industries that use them. So why is Big Mining not fighting back?
BHP Billiton is a big producer of coal, oil, gas, iron ore, copper, nickel and uranium. Rio Tinto is a big producer of uranium, coal, iron ore, copper and aluminium. Glencore is a big producer of coal, copper, zinc and nickel. And Shell is big in oil, gas and bitumen, manufactures biofuels, and generates peak power with natural gas.
These companies employ competent geologists, physicists and chemists who could tell them that CO2 is not a pollutant, that it is not the primary driver of climate and that climate has been changing since time began. They must know there is no scientific justification for the green war on hydro-carbon fuels – but none of these big miners speak out against this baseless war on their products. Some even waste shareholder funds producing glossy brochures promoting the green agenda – the BHP Billiton document “Climate Change: Portfolio Analysis” reads like it was produced by the Greens.
Big Mining is not that dumb. Their climate “concern” is more motivated by self-interest – they see long-term profits flowing from the silly green agenda. They are also political cowards wanting be loved by guilt-stricken billionaires, business haters from Hollywood and the green mob controlling the ABC/BBC.
Wind and solar power are indeed “free”, but to extract electricity from them is not free – it needs turbines and solar panels, generators and transformers, transmission towers and power lines – all of which boosts demand for metals like steel, copper, zinc, nickel and rare earths.
Moreover, wind and solar are very diffuse power sources and need large areas of land together with webs of access roads and power lines in order to collect significant power. The heavy machinery needed for construction, maintenance and replacements in these green power networks provide ongoing demands for petroleum and mining products. Before one watt of green electricity is generated for consumers, green power has boosted demand for most products of Big Mining.
Permission to use the cartoon is granted providing the source www.carbon-sense.com is mentioned.
To download a tif file of the cartoon (1.6 MM) click:
Green power also needs back-up power ready to swing into action immediately the wind drops (or blows a gale) or clouds, fog, snow, rain, dust or night-time obscure the sun. This is great news for reliable energy suppliers capable of rapid backup, which usually means gas. So Big Gas loves Big Green – it is secretly delighted by the war on coal and the force-feeding of Green energy, as this will cause a boom in gas demand. Lead, nickel, cadmium and lithium miners are also delighted with the soaring demand for energy-storing batteries.
By Bob Brock
Dear Prime Minister
The Paris Climate Agreement.
- You ratified the Paris Climate Agreement on Thursday 10 November 2016 without discussion with the Australian people and without revealing the implications or the cost.
- You did this despite protests from Liberal and LNP Branches in NSW and Queensland.
The Cap and Trade Emissions Trading Scheme.
- Mr Abbott handsomely won the 2013 election by committing to revoke Labor’s Carbon Tax.
- We didn’t know then that Mr Abbott had apparently made an unpublicised deal with Greg Hunt to support a Cap and Trade Emissions Trading Scheme.
- You broke faith with the Australian people by usurping Mr Abbot as leader in September.
- Then, on the last sitting day of Parliament in December 2015, you enacted Greg Hunt’s bill, supported by Labor and the Greens, for “The Emissions Reduction Fund Safeguard”.
- This bill was in effect a Cap and Trade Emissions Trading Scheme, not dissimilar to Ms Gillard’s Clean Energy Act 2011 which the people had previously rejected.
- We only learned of it when we read Alan Kohler’s article in The Australian on May 23, 2016.
- Australia has an ambitious and scientifically unjustifiable target to reduce CO2 emissions by 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2030.
- Subsidies for Renewable Energy are currently running at over $2.8bn a year.
- Estimates of the total cost to Australia of renewable energy are up to $60bn.
- There is a worldwide commercial failure of renewable energy projects,
- There are no foreseeable prospects of affordable bulk energy storage technology,
- There is a TOTAL lack of any scientific evidence justifying the closure of thermal power stations because of their CO2 emissions in favour of renewable energy plants,
- It is essential that we have the lowest cost electrical energy technically available, and
- Mr Trump and the Republicans have said they will wind back President Obama’s Climate Change policies. When they do, you and your policies will be left politically high and dry.
You have not been practicing Open Government Prime Minister, so now please tell us:
1. Why are you ratifying unexplained secretive Climate Change Agreements with the UN?
2. Why did you introduce a Cap and Trade ETS contrary to public expectations?
3. Why are you supporting costly and unreliable renewable energy?
4. What is the cost to Australia of these Climate Change Agreements?
This week’s Newspoll and Mr Trump’s Presidential victory are clear warnings that if you don’t start acting like the leader of a true Right-of-Centre Political Party, we will all have three years of a Labor Government and you will be yet another failed Australian Prime Minister.
Robert J Brock.
By Viv Forbes
Chairman Carbon Sense Coalition
It’s time to defund all CSIRO global warming activities and conferences.
For years now CSIRO and their UN/IPCC puppet-masters have claimed that “climate science is settled”. If so, why are Australian governments still wasting some $150M annually on creating climate scares and producing propaganda for a political war on carbon energy and carbon dioxide?
Australia should cease all government funding for global warming “research” and carbon-centric climate models and leave the honest, useful and difficult business of weather forecasting to the BOM, which should revert to its once-proud name and role as “The Weather Bureau”.
The neurotic focus of Australian politicians and their research puppets on the UN man-made global warming agenda has starved useful research into real factors that do affect global climate. These include cycles and oscillations in solar activity, cosmic rays and clouds, crustal and magmatic movements, volcanic eruptions, and the periodic changes in planetary orbits and axial tilts within the solar system.
Australia is an island surrounded by the vast oceans of the Southern Hemisphere. But CSIRO is mesmerised by atmospheric greenhouse mirages and largely ignores the causes and timing of ENSO oscillations, the amount and locations of submarine volcanism, and the timing, drivers and locations of deep ocean currents and upwellings.
If CSIRO and the government Universities cannot do such basic research in our region their funds should be diverted to the deficit, or applied to weather-proofing our infrastructure.
Next Page »
By Viv Forbes, Albrecht Glatzle and others
Grasslands and arable land cover just 10% of Earth’s surface but (with the oceans) they produce all of our food and fibre. But the productivity and health of our grasslands, farms and livestock are under threat from global warming alarmists and green preservationists.
We are afflicted by climate crazies and methane madness. It is poor public policy that condones restrictions on grazing operations, or taxes on grazing animals, based on disputed theories that claim that bodily emissions from farm animals will cause dangerous global warming.
New Zealand was the first cattle country to propose a “livestock fart tax”. Four hundred farmers then drove 20 tractors to the Parliament in Wellington waving placards and banners saying “STOP THE FART TAX”. The proposal was laughed out of Parliament. But the war on farmers and livestock continues.
Permission is given to reproduce this cartoon providing the source (www.clexit.net) is credited.