By Dr John Happs

I’m often asked:
“Why do so many people still believe that we are facing a climate crisis?”

And:

“Why is so much money being spent on reducing carbon dioxide emissions when many other factors control climate change?”

My answers to these questions rest with the following facts:

1. The general public has little understanding of science and do not appreciate the complexity of climate science. Few understand that climate alarmism is essentially driven by politics and financial opportunism.
2. Media reporters (there are few investigative journalists) are always looking for alarmist headlines. Unfortunately, the public largely obtains its (dis)information about climate change through newspapers, radio and television.
3. Politicians are always “sniffing the breeze” to see which way public sentiment about climate change is going. If the public is alarmed, they can reassure us that they can save us from climate Armageddon. This usually entails the wasting of vast amounts of taxpayer’s money.

Since its inception in 1988 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has followed the directive it was given by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). This stated explicitly that the IPCC’s brief is to:

“Assess the scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change.” (My emphasis) (UNFCCC, 2020)

Should the IPCC find no evidence for human-induced climate change there would be no reason for the IPCC to continue, so we can understand the efforts that have been made over the years for those on the IPCC gravy-train to secure a link between human carbon dioxide emissions and climate change.

Not surprisingly, the IPCC could find no evidence for human-induced climate change because there is none so. . . .

Read More:
https://papundits.wordpress.com/2021/08/23/the-suns-influence-on-climate-and-why-the-evidence-is-ignored-by-the-ipcc/

By Robert Lyman

In this PowerPoint presentation, I have tried to answer a question about climate policy that is too rarely asked in Canada. How much does it cost? Only those with a profound ignorance of economics, or a contempt for it, would say that the answer to this question is unimportant. The central economic fact of life is that there are always more things that we want and need than we can afford; when we fail to understand what our choices cost, we indirectly deprive ourselves of things that may be far more important to our overall wellbeing.

Read the article at: https://blog.friendsofscience.org/2020/03/20/prosperity-foregone-a-summary/

The article includes the following video and links to the downloadable presentation:

The Bushfire Front Inc has produced a submission to the Federal government in relation to their inquiry into the impact of fire regimes on biodiversity in Australia.

The paper the government attached to the call for submissions was terrible. If this represents the level of impartial scholarship and understanding of bushfire science in the Commonwealth public service, then the country is in a worse position than I thought.

Please feel free to circulate this submission as you see fit. We regard it as a public document.

Roger Underwood
Chair, The Bushfire Front Inc

Submission document: https://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/bushfire-front-submission.pdf [PDF, 170 kB]

By David Brennan

I attended the IPA’s book launch of Climate Change The Facts 2020 at Sunshine Beach last week.

Jennifer Marohasy, the editor, came up with the following quotation which was new to me:

Better a question that cannot be answered than an answer that cannot be questioned.

Attributed to Richard Feynman, American theoretical physicist (1918-88), but may not be an entirely original thought by him.

It does rather sum up the state of contemporary climate science, does it not?

If you would like to buy a copy of Climate Change The Facts 2020 go here:
https://climatechangethefacts.org.au/

David Brennan

“As things now stand, the advocates representing the establishment climate science story broadcast (usually with color diagrams) the predictions of climate models as if they were the results of experiments – actual evidence. Alongside these multi-colored multi-century model-simulated time series come stories, anecdotes, and photos – such as the iconic stranded polar bear – dramatically illustrating climate change today. On this rhetorical strategy, the models are to be taken on faith, and the stories and photos as evidence of the models’ truth. Policy carrying potential costs in the trillions of dollars ought not to be based on stories and photos confirming faith in models, but rather on precise and replicable testing of the models’ predictions against solid observational data.”

Jason Scott Johnson of the University of Pennsylvania Law School for the Institute for Law and Economics, a Joint Research Center of the Law School with the Wharton School of Economics. Report: http://www.probeinternational.org/UPennCross.pdf [PDF, 399KB]

“We can do without coal, and we can do without coal seam gas…”

Bob Brown, Leader of the Greens, Australia, on ABC 29 June 2010, audio
link on http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/201006/s2939707.htm

Mark Lawson

The Federal Government may have dumped (technically deferred) one nutty green scheme (emissions trading) but an equally nutty scheme remains in place – requiring electricity distributors to buy green electricity.

This scheme is nutty because no one has shown that green electricity supplied to an operating power network actually reduces emissions. The government, various green lobby groups and the mass of voters have simply assumed that it does. There are doubts about efficiency losses due to the whole network having to be retailored to accommodate renewables. And more doubts over just how much additional backup generator capacity will be required for intermittent power sources. These doubts are either ignored or dismissed as “myths”.

…

The Australian government has dived head-first into renewables with both eyes shut, and with the general approval of the voters, who mostly have no idea of what they have approved or how much it will cost. The government should drop the whole renewable energy scheme as too complicated and expensive and unlikely to save much carbon.

The full article: blowing-away-money.pdf [PDF: KB]

Mark Lawson is a senior journalist with The Australian Financial Review. He has written: “A Guide to Climate Change Lunacy – bad forecasting, terrible solutions”.
Connor Court – $29.95. http://www.connorcourt.com/ or book stores.

Personally I look at the stupid notion of Blackout Night, in honour of the planet.

We left our caves, our sod houses of the past to enjoy modern homes. I enjoy the thought that if I’m sick and require an operation the hospital has electricity 24 hours per day, seven days per week so that the surgeon and his team can fix me or my loved ones. I enjoy the thought that at 7pm at night I can turn on a television and watch it, in the comfort of my single family dwelling home. I enjoy the thought that if I want a beverage I can go to my frost free fridge and grab a beer. I enjoy the thought that my employer has electricity and indoor plumbing so that I can defecate in the safety of my closed off cubicle.

These modern fools of Mother Earth and modern Environmentalism want to return to the yesteryears of cave dwelling pre-human existence. All I’ve ever read about pre-modern living, and that’s not all too long ago, just 100 years ago. Most men died before the age of 50 years. Children died by the thousands because of infections, and poor health quality. You were considered old when you were over 40!

Turning out the Lights glorifies stupidity, and glamorizes the progressive liberal mentality about the so called “global village”. You know what, its one village I don’t want to belong too. I’ll take living in a single dwelling home, with electricity, and my beer fridge powered by coal fired plants with modern precipitators and scrubbers installed in the gas path cleaning up the grime.

Today’s environmentalist aren’t cleaning up the stacks – they’re socialists who can’t get elected at the ballot box but are hell bent to destroy our western society so that we fit into their social activist world of stupidity and failure.

Less1leg
Niagara, Canada

Published originally at:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/site/comments/blackout-night/

This paper provides a factual and objective view of the reality of the effects of some of the world’s greatest oil spills. It particularly deals with the geography of the region in which the spill occurred, the climatic effects on the spill, the probable volume oil spilled, the cleanup actions that followed and the long-term environmental effects.

As an introduction, Part 1 of the paper deals with some of the commonly held beliefs that the world is about to run out of fossil fuels, that oil spills and leaks are universally ‘environmental catastrophes’ and challenges the long term view that the effects are persistent and adverse to the environment. The seemingly endless alarmism that follows each spill is highlighted and the reader is asked to read the remainder of the paper with an open mind, comparing the predictions of doom with the evidence revealed by the reality of hindsight.

It is concluded that the effects of the relatively few spills that have occurred have been exceptionally exaggerated for political purposes by both politicians and environmental activists. Both these alarmist cliques loudly report claims in every case that go far beyond the actual effect of the spill itself. Some of the unfortunate claims by scientists are also exposed as political activism unrelated to scientific method.

Finally the paper provides a ‘prophesy’ (based on the history of previous spills) as to the long-term results and effects of the recent BP Macondo Well blowout in the Gulf of Mexico that commenced on 20th April 2010 and was capped on 29th July 2010, 100 days later.

The author writes under a pseudonym to protect his privacy. However any comments or corrections will be passed onto him. He has experience and contacts in this field and is skilled at extracting and documenting facts.

The report is presented in six parts, with subsequent parts appearing over time:

Part 1: A Summary of Oil Chemistry and the Environmental Effects of Oil.
Available as PDF, 73KB: http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/oil-spills-1.pdf

Part 2: The World’s Largest Oil Spill – The Gulf War, Kuwait, 1991. The spill, the prophets of doom and the reality that unfolded.
Available as PDF, 596KB: http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/oil-spills-2.pdf

Part 3: The Exxon Valdez Spill, Alaska. A small spill with huge publicity and extensive cleanup activity, much of which probably made things worse.
Available as PDF, 561KB: http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/oil-spills-3.pdf

Part 4: The Ixtoc I Well Blowout, Gulf of Mexico, 1979. Despite forecasts of disaster for the environment, within five years the effects of this huge spill were undetectable. In fact the fisheries recovered quickly because they were relieved of fishing pressure, and locals swapped low paying fishing jobs for high paying cleanup or oil industry jobs. As in all spills, the biggest loser was the well owner.
Available as PDF, 88KB: http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/oil-spills-4.pdf

Part 5: The BP Macondo Well Blowout, Gulf of Mexico, 2010. This may be the second largest man made oil spill in history, and at times the slick covered 6,500 sq km. However about 74% of the oil lost evaporated, dissolved, bio-degraded, or was burned, skimmed or captured. Just 5 days after the leak was plugged, the US government agreed that the oil was no longer a problem. Once more the damage was forecast to be catastrophic, once more it was not. The Gulf of Mexico copes with natural leaks of this size every year. The real costs were political and losses by BP shareholders.

Available as PDF, 133KB: http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/oil-spills-5.pdf

Part 6: Conclusions & Comments. In 2009, President Obama’s Chief of Staff, Rohm Emanuel said: “Never let a serious crisis go to waste… it’s an opportunity to do things you couldn’t do before.” The recent oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was a marvellous crisis used by the Obama administration and extreme environmentalists to weaken Big Oil, demonise carbon fuels, and drive the so-called “clean fuel” agenda. Foreign oil producers and the green energy promoters are the beneficiaries. Innocent local businesses and BP were the victims, both of the oil spill but more so of the government actions designed to benefit from the crisis.

Available as PDF, 1200KB: http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/oil-spills-6.pdf

Note: This 6 part article can be printed from the 6 PDFs and then bound into one indexed report.

UPDATE 9 April 2013:

Those who wish to check the accuracy of the forecasts in these articles should check this reference:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22075182

Oil is a natural product and the oceans have been coping with it for millennia.

Author’s Profile

The author retired from the Australian Army as a Lieutenant Colonel in 1986. He served in various postings in Australia, Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia and Papua New Guinea. He is a frequent contributor of book reviews, short stories and the occasional article to several journals. He works internationally as a self-employed project manager and project management trainer and consultant.

He has worked part-time for 9 years in the oil and gas industries in the Middle East (Dubai, Qatar, Kuwait and Abu Dhabi) and in North and Central America, and has made it his business to question the experts. Everything he quotes is on the web (except where it is stated as an opinion.)

The Carbon Sense Coalition today called for an end to deceptive advertising regarding Global Warming Policies.

The Chairman of “Carbon Sense”, Mr Viv Forbes, said that those calling for a “Price on Carbon” should speak the truth and call it a “Tax on the Production of Carbon Dioxide”.

“Similarly the CPRS (Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme) had nothing to do with pollution but everything to do with imposing taxes and rationing on economic activity.”

Forbes explained:

“The new green mantra chants: “We need a price on carbon”.

“Carbon is the most useful substance on earth and there is already a price on every product containing carbon – coal and oil, bread and butter, beef and bacon, oil and ethanol, beer and whisky, coffee and tea, cotton and wool, diesel and fire wood, methane and carbon dioxide, petrol and rubber – all are carbon products with an established market price.

“Those who chatter about “a price on carbon” are hiding their real aim which is to reduce human activity by taxing the release of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. The Office of Fair Trading should be investigating this deceptive election advertising.

“If this tax attempted to cover all releases of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere it would indeed be “A Monster New Tax”.

“Every man and beast, every car and train, every ship and plane, every cement plant and blast furnace, every power station using coal, oil or gas, every wood stove and gas barbeque, every swamp and termite nest – all emit carbon dioxide and thus recycle carbon. Carbon feeds, powers and clothes our world. Any attempt to stop that is suicidal.

“Every producer of carbon products is already taxed – income tax and payroll tax, royalties and resource rent tax, excise and levies, permits and quotas.

“Another carbon tax would just add to the costs of everything, increase poverty, bloat the bureaucracy and send more jobs to China. The only people promoting more taxes on carbon are the anti-growth crowd and the vested interests in the alternate energy promoters.

“We didn’t want the deceitfully labelled Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, and we don’t want a new tax labelled “A Price on Carbon”.

Viv Forbes
Chairman, The Carbon Sense Coalition

For a brief report by Ray Evans on the unholy alliance of “Baptists and Bootleggers” supporting more taxes on carbon see: http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/07/the-price-of-carbon

PDF version of this article: http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/carbon-price-means-tax.pdf [PDF, 62 KB]