Punch-Drunk on Co2...Dizzy from Spin: Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming Sustainable Hypothesis or Unsustainable Hoax?

By Peter Sullivan

Prior to the 2009 Copenhagen climate conference, it became evident that no discernible global warming had occurred since 1998, despite a significant increase in carbon dioxide emissions. Consequently, the catastrophic man-made global warming hypothesis of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was conveniently rebranded as climate change.

This book allows readers, with little or no understanding of the issues behind the climate change debate, to obtain an appreciation as to why so much doubt and suspicion has been cast over the IPCC and its gold standard climate science (IPCC Fourth Assessment Report) often referred to as the settled science backed by a consensus of scientists.

This book reveals that what the public has been led to believe about man-made global warming alarmism, and about the IPCC, often is misleading or just plain wrong, and that the IPCCs climate alarmism is not actually backed by science but rather by shonky predictions from unreliable computer models. It also makes it evident that man-made global warming alarmism has been driven largely by politics and environmentalism using any means possible to justify action to halt catastrophic man-made global warming (climate change) warming that has not, in fact, been happening.

This book will leave the reader better informed about the IPCC and its climate alarmism, and about carbon dioxide, the temperature data, climate model predictions and misleading claims, as well as about the efforts of sceptics in revealing why the hypothesis of the IPCC, and its alarmist claims, are not valid.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Xlibris AU
• Release date: Jun 15, 2013
• ISBN: 9781483614311

Peter Sullivan

Peter Sullivan is an Australian chartered accountant, a licensed auditor, forensic accountant and investigator. After fifteen years as a partner in a chartered accountancy practice, he retired from the firm to reduce his workload and concentrate on other interests. Professional skepticism and common sense are part of his ‘professional DNA’, aspects that also seem relevant to the subject matter of this book.

Book preview

Punch-Drunk on CO2 . . .

Dizzy from Spin

_____________

Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming Sustainable Hypothesis or Unsustainable Hoax?

Peter Sullivan

Copyright © 2013 by Peter Sullivan.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the copyright owner.

Rev. date: 07/09/2013

To order additional copies of this book, contact:

Xlibris Corporation

1-800-618-969

www.Xlibris.com.au

[e-mail]

503442

CONTENTS

Preface

Abbreviations

Chapter 1: The Greatest Moral Challenge

Chapter 2: Reporting on Climate

Chapter 3: Carbon Dioxide

Chapter 4: Temperature

Chapter 5: Living in a Greenhouse

Chapter 6: Climate Models

Chapter 7: Consensus Science

Chapter 8: Propaganda Is the Order of the Day

Chapter 9: A Time for Reflection

Chapter 10: Truth Must Prevail

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

PREFACE

Who would have thought that the subject of anthropogenic global warming and climate change could create so much controversy and division amongst the world’s scientists, politicians, economists, and others who have a vested interest in the issue? Just how did it come to this?

At the very heart of the matter is a basic supposition that carbon dioxide emitted from human activity is causing catastrophic global warming and is driving climate change. There are many who claim that ‘the science is settled’ regarding climate change, and unless action is urgently taken to halt climate change, the world will reach a ‘tipping point’ whereupon extreme climatic events will have catastrophic consequences for the world over the coming decades. Others argue that this is simply alarmist nonsense. But who is right? And is there really a serious problem?

Many members of the public have not had an opportunity to study this climate change issue in any depth, if at all. They are simply not in a position to know who is right and who is wrong about catastrophic man-made global warming and climate change. They do not know if a problem really does exist with the earth’s climate, and so it is only reasonable to expect such people to place their trust in the ‘official climate science’ assessed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is presented by the IPCC in a series of periodic assessment reports. The IPCC is the organisation that was set up specifically for this purpose. The IPCC is promoted as the world’s peak scientific body, and its reports are frequently referred to as the ‘gold standard in climate science’.

My interest in the global warming issue began some years ago. But it was not until former US vice-president, Al Gore, started drawing attention to the issue of catastrophic man-made global warming, with his film, An Inconvenient Truth, that I began paying greater attention to the issue. I soon became aware of an enormous disagreement between (a) proponents of dangerous anthropogenic global warming (described as ‘alarmists’ or ‘warmists’) who demanded urgent action to tackle climate change, and (b) those holding an opposing view (described as ‘sceptics’ or ‘deniers’) who claimed there was nothing unprecedented about today’s weather and climate, and that no evidence existed of a ‘climate emergency’.

How could this be? How could the so-called climate science, which is supposedly ‘settled’, give rise to such opposing views? Could there be something wrong with the science? Could there be other fundamental problems? I wanted to know what was at the heart of the disagreement between alarmists and sceptics. I wanted to know more about the impending global warming threat and whether it was real. There were many issues about which I wanted to find out. So I embarked upon a journey of discovery, which opened my eyes and formed the basis of this book. I am an auditor, a Chartered Accountant, by profession. Like Al Gore, I am not a scientist. I simply wanted to get a better understanding of the issues. I also felt it necessary to apply common sense in trying to assess the underlying issues of the climate debate. I wanted to know about the quality and reliability of the information on global warming and climate change that is in the public domain.

The general public has a right to expect that information released into the public domain by organisations (particularly by corporations, governments, and government agencies) is accurate and reliable, and is not misleading or deceptive in any way. The public also has a right to expect that those ultimately responsible for information released into the public domain have acted with utmost integrity and in accordance with certain pre-established standards. The public also has a right to expect that those responsible for releasing information into the public domain are held accountable for that information if it is found, in any way, to be intentionally false, misleading, or deceptive.

I approached the topic of global warming and climate change with the assumption that the IPCC is the primary authority for the climate science relied upon by governments in formulating climate change policies. I assumed that the information released by the IPCC is of the highest standard and is balanced, accurate, reliable, objective, and free of bias. I assumed the IPCC’s reports are not misleading or deceptive, and that they truly represented a fair and reasonable assessment of the climate science, which is backed by a majority of the world’s expert scientists. I assumed the IPCC is represented by highly respected and appropriately qualified individuals, who are above reproach, and who act with the best of intentions, without hidden agendas or ulterior motives.

I also approached the topic of global warming and climate change with the assumption that the ‘alarmists/warmists’ have valid reasons for their concerns and claims about global warming and climate change, and the future of the planet, in line with the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report of 2007. However, I also assumed that ‘sceptics/deniers’ have valid reasons for taking a different point of view to ‘alarmists/warmists’ and that their views ought also to be considered. After all, scepticism has always been essential to achieving good science and has been at the heart of the scientific method. Dismissing the opinions of those who do not conform to some form of consensus opinion has no place in science. Besides, history demonstrates that it only takes one scientist to prove all the others wrong.

And so, after delving into various issues impacting on the climate change topic, this book came to be written. I leave it to readers to form their own opinions on the climate science of dangerous man-made global warming and climate change, and what’s most likely considered to be correct or incorrect. I recognize that people will believe what they want to believe. But when people are provided with evidence that is sufficiently persuasive, if not conclusive, then sometimes they may be prepared to change their minds. I have simply considered various issues, and uncovered some surprising revelations—revelations that indicate that sometimes, what is considered to be true might actually not be true at all. Yes, since the Little Ice Age, global warming has occurred. But could the recent warming really be largely due to human activity? And is it really possible that humans are now the key driver of climate change?

It is hoped that this book can help readers who have a limited knowledge of the climate change controversy to better understand some of the issues at the heart of the debate about catastrophic man-made global warming, commonly referred to as climate change.

Peter Sullivan

We often hear lamentations that the coal stored up in the earth is wasted by the present generation without any thought of the future, and we are terrified by the awful destruction of life and property which has followed the volcanic eruptions of our days. We may find a kind of consolation in the consideration that here, as in every other case, there is good mixed with the evil. By the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates, especially as regards the colder regions of the earth, ages when the earth will bring forth much more abundant crops than at present, for the benefit of rapidly propagating mankind.

Svante Arrhenius

Director of the Physio-Chemical Nobel Institute, Stockholm

An Extract From

Worlds in the Making: The Evolution of the Universe

Chapter II—Celestial Bodies as Abodes of Organisms (Page 63)

(Published March, 1908 by Harper and Brothers)

ABBREVIATIONS

CHAPTER 1

The Greatest Moral Challenge

Climate and weather

Most people have a general understanding of climate and that it is associated with location. Hence, people might refer to a Mediterranean type climate, or a tropical climate, or an equatorial climate, and so forth. Within various general locations around the world, it is also appreciated that the climate can be quite different in specific areas. For example, Kenya sits on the equator, yet when travelling from the coastal city of Mombasa to the interior uplands of the country, and then on to the Northern Frontier District, it becomes blatantly obvious that in different regions of Kenya, the climate is different. When travelling through Kenya, it also becomes obvious that altitude has an influence on climate. Around the world, people also appreciate that ‘time of year’ influences climatic conditions. For example, Germany can expect a climate with four seasons in a year, while tropical Darwin, Australia, can expect a pleasant ‘dry season’ followed by a hot and humid ‘wet season’ each year. Such is the nature of climate, as people might generally understand it.

Most people also have a general understanding of weather. Weather is what every location in the world experiences every day. The weather can change frequently, and in some places it often can change significantly during a day. Weather is what meteorologists try to tell us we are going to experience but often get it wrong. The use of sophisticated technology has improved short-term weather forecasting, but nevertheless, few people would trust a weather forecast beyond a few days. Weather is one of the most common topics of conversation. People around the world understand the type of weather they can generally expect at different times of the year. They know that over the years, weather patterns do change, resulting in periods when, for example, it may seem cooler or hotter than ‘normal’, or wetter or drier than ‘normal’. In addition, there can be occasions when significant weather events inevitably affect certain locations around the world. Such is weather… always changing, always in the news, and always being monitored by meteorologists who continually strive to correctly predict it.

In contrast to weather, it is fair to say that most people simply accept climate for what it is, and how it has always been, something not worth worrying about. After all, it is quite certain that tropical Jamaica will never have a British-type climate just as Britain will never have a tropical climate. That is the reality. In effect, climate has rarely been an issue, unlike weather. But having said that, it is apparent that over recent years the level of interest in climate has risen to the point where it has become the subject of much debate and controversy. The world has received a ‘warning’ that apparently there is a serious problem with Earth’s climate, it is changing at an alarming rate, it is changing for the worse, and it is changing because of human activity. If nothing is done immediately to slow down or halt climate change, it will result in doom and gloom for the future of our planet. This is the message people have been given.

Warning of dangers posed by global warming

The warning of a pending climate change disaster has, for several years, come from an organisation called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC has been alerting the world to this global warming issue by way of a series of assessment reports it has issued over the years. The most notorious report, the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), was issued in 2007. Although government bureaucrats, politicians, economists, and scientists around the world may have been aware of the message of the IPCC, the general public at large certainly was not. This situation drastically changed, however, due to one man and a film—former US Vice-President, Al Gore, and a 2006 documentary film titled ‘An Inconvenient Truth’¹. The film was a 90-minute version of Al Gore’s modest ‘travelling global warming slide-show’. In the film, Gore presents a variety of types of evidence and illustrations of the causes, manifestations, and impacts of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the subsequent change to global temperatures. After presenting a compelling case, Gore concludes on an optimistic note by providing practical ways in which ordinary people can take personal responsibility to lessen the global warming problem. The film itself states that there is no scientific doubt about the fact of an increasing adverse human-influence on global warming.

Between the work of the IPCC, and the efforts of Al Gore, it is fair to say that from around 2006-2007, the general public finally started listening to, and embracing, the message about the concerns over the alleged dangerous man-made global warming. Al Gore’s message in his film was underpinned by his observation that ‘when there is more carbon dioxide, the temperature gets warmer’. The message was simple. And the message that subsequently evolved was simple—‘The science is settled… it’s time for action… global warming is no longer a political issue but rather, the biggest moral challenge facing our civilization today’. It seemed beyond doubt that carbon dioxide emitted from human activity was causing catastrophic global warming and driving climate change. This powerful message seemed to finally galvanise public support for action against catastrophic man-made global warming and the dangers it posed. Ultimate praise and recognition were bestowed upon the IPCC and Al Gore. An Inconvenient Truth won the Academy Award for Best Documentary. Al Gore and the IPCC jointly won the Nobel Peace Prize 2007² ‘for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change’. More importantly, the world’s politicians felt compelled to take real action by way of the Kyoto Protocol 2008-2012, and beyond that, it was hoped by way of a comprehensive agreement amongst nations that was to be finalised at a climate conference in Copenhagen in December 2009, to be known as the Copenhagen Accord.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

What is the IPCC? A November 2010 brochure⁴ titled ‘Understanding Climate Change: 22 years of IPCC Assessment’ is available from the website of the IPCC, which provides the following basic information about the IPCC:

•   What is unique about the IPCC?

•   Who’s who in the IPCC?

•   How the IPCC reports are prepared

•   The establishment of the IPCC

•   The UN General Assembly mandate for the IPCC’s work in1988

•   The history of the IPCC through its reports

•   1990—First Assessment Report (FAR) and initiation of negotiations for a framework convention on climate change

•   1995—Second Assessment Report (SAR)

•   2001—Third Assessment Report (TAR)

•   2007—Fourth Assessment Report (AR4)

•   2013-14—Fifth Assessment Report (AR5)

•   IPCC Special Reports, Technical Papers and Methodology Reports

•   22 years of assessment—22 years of progression

•   2007 Nobel Peace Prize

The following statements (bold print emphasised by this author) can be found at the IPCC’s website³:

The IPCC is a scientific body. It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical, and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change. It does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters.

Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis. Review is an essential part of the IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment of current information. IPCC aims to reflect a range of views and expertise. The Secretariat coordinates all the IPCC work and liaises with Governments. It is supported by WMO and UNEP and hosted at WMO headquarters in Geneva.

Because of its scientific and intergovernmental nature, the IPCC embodies a unique opportunity to provide rigorous and balanced scientific information to decision makers. By endorsing the IPCC reports, governments acknowledge the authority of their scientific content. The work of the organization is therefore policy-relevant and yet policy-neutral, never policy-prescriptive.

The IPCC is a leading international body for the assessment of climate change. It was established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). It was set up to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts. The UN General Assembly endorsed the action by WMO and UNEP in jointly establishing the IPCC.

The initial task for the IPCC as outlined in the UN General Assembly Resolution 43/53 of 6 December 1988 was to prepare a comprehensive review and recommendations with respect to the state of knowledge of the science of climate change; social and economic impact of climate change, possible response strategies and elements for inclusion in a possible future international convention on climate.

The scientific evidence brought up by the first IPCC Assessment Report of 1990 unveiled the importance of climate change as a topic deserving a political platform among countries to tackle its consequences. It therefore played a decisive role in leading to the creation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the key international treaty to reduce global warming and cope with the consequences of climate change.

Since then the IPCC has delivered on a regular basis the most comprehensive scientific reports about climate change produced worldwide, the Assessment Reports. It also continued to respond to the need of the UNFCCC for information on scientific technical matters through Special Reports, Technical Papers, and Methodology Reports. Methodologies and guidelines were prepared to help Parties under the UNFCCC preparing their national greenhouse gas inventories.

The IPCC Second Assessment Report of 1995 provided key input in the way to the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. The Third Assessment Report came out in 2001 and the Fourth in the course of 2007. ‘Climate Change 2007’, clearly brought to the attention of the world the scientific understanding of the present changes in our climate and led the organization to be honored with the Nobel Peace Prize at the end of that same year.

Along with Comprehensive Assessment Reports, the IPCC has produced several Special Reports on various topics of growing interest, and many other papers and contributions to the advancements of the climate change science.

The participation of the scientific community in the work of the IPCC has been growing greatly, both in terms of authors and contributors involved in the writing and the reviewing of the reports and of geographic distribution and topics covered by the reports.

Fourth Assessment Report (AR4)

The ultimate message of the IPCC, after years of assessing the science, is expressed in its 2007 Summary for Policymakers (SPM) in its Synthesis Report based on the assessment carried out by the three Working Groups of the IPCC and which provides an integrated view of climate change as the final part of its Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). The following points extracted from the SPM⁵ represent the main findings:

1.   Observed changes in climate and their effects

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.

Observational evidence from all continents and most oceans shows that many natural systems are being affected by regional climate changes, particularly temperature increases.

There is medium confidence that other effects of regional climate change on natural and human environments are emerging, although many are difficult to discern due to adaptation and non-climatic drivers.

2.   Causes of change

Global GHG emissions due to human activities have grown since pre-industrial times, with an increase of 70% between 1970 and 2004.

Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O) have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values determined from ice cores spanning many thousands of years.

Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations. It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctica).

Advances since the TAR show that discernible human influences extend beyond average temperature to other aspects of climate.

Anthropogenic warming over the last three decades has likely had a discernible influence at the global scale on observed changes in many physical and biological systems.

3.   Projected climate change and its impacts

There is high agreement and much evidence that with current climate change mitigation policies and related sustainable development practices, global GHG emissions will continue to grow over the next few decades.

Continued GHG emissions at or above current rates would cause further warming and induce many changes in the global climate system during the 21st century that would very likely be larger than those observed during the 20th century.

There is now higher confidence than in the TAR in projected patterns of warming and other regional-scale features, including changes in wind patterns, precipitation and some aspects of extremes and sea ice.

Studies since the TAR have enabled more systematic understanding of the timing and magnitude of impacts related to differing amounts and rates of climate change.

Altered frequencies and intensities of extreme weather, together with sea level rise, are expected to have mostly adverse effects on natural and human systems.

Anthropogenic warming and sea level rise would continue for centuries due to the time scales associated with climate processes and feedbacks, even if GHG concentrations were to be stabilised.

Anthropogenic warming could lead to some impacts that are abrupt or irreversible, depending upon the rate and magnitude of the climate change.

4.   Adaptation and mitigation options

A wide array of adaptation options is available, but more extensive adaptation than is currently occurring is required to reduce vulnerability to climate change. There are barriers, limits, and costs, which are not fully understood.

Adaptive capacity is intimately connected to social and economic development but is unevenly distributed across and within societies.

Both bottom-up and top-down studies indicate that there is high agreement and much evidence of substantial economic potential for the mitigation of global GHG emissions over the coming decades that could offset the projected growth of global emissions or reduce emissions below current levels. While top-down and bottom-up studies are in line at the global level, there are considerable differences at the sectoral level.

A wide variety of policies and instruments are available to governments to create the incentives for mitigation action. Their applicability depends on national circumstances and sectoral context.

Many options for reducing global GHG emissions through international cooperation exist. There is high agreement and much evidence that notable achievements of the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol are the establishment of a global response to climate change, stimulation of an array of national policies, and the creation of an international carbon market and new institutional mechanisms that may provide the foundation for future mitigation efforts. Progress has also been made in addressing adaptation within the UNFCCC and additional international initiatives have been suggested.

In several sectors, climate response options can be implemented to realise synergies and avoid conflicts with other dimensions of sustainable development. Decisions about macroeconomic and other non-climate policies can significantly affect emissions, adaptive capacity, and vulnerability.

5.   The long-term perspective

Determining what constitutes ‘dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system’ in relation to Article 2 of the UNFCCC involves value judgements. Science can support informed decisions on this issue, including by providing criteria for judging which vulnerabilities might be labelled ‘key’.

The five ‘reasons for concern’ identified in the TAR remain a viable framework to consider key vulnerabilities. These ‘reasons’ are assessed here to be stronger than in the TAR. Many risks are identified with higher confidence. Some risks are projected to be larger or to occur at lower increases in temperature. Understanding about the relationship between impacts (the basis for ‘reasons for concern’ in the TAR) and vulnerability (that includes the ability to adapt to impacts) has improved.

There is high confidence that neither adaptation nor mitigation alone can avoid all climate change impacts; however, they can complement each other and together can significantly reduce the risks of climate change.

Many impacts can be reduced, delayed or avoided by mitigation. Mitigation efforts and investments over the next two to three decades will have a large impact on opportunities to achieve lower stabilisation levels. Delayed emission reductions significantly constrain the opportunities to achieve lower stabilisation levels and increase the risk of more severe climate change impacts.

There is high agreement and much evidence that all stabilisation levels assessed can be achieved by deployment of a portfolio of technologies that are either currently available or expected to be commercialised in coming decades, assuming appropriate and effective incentives are in place for their development, acquisition, deployment and diffusion of technologies and addressing related barriers.

The macro-economic costs of mitigation generally rise with the stringency of the stabilisation target. For specific countries and sectors, costs vary considerably from the global average.

Responding to climate change involves an iterative risk management process that includes both adaptation and mitigation and takes into account climate change damages, co-benefits, sustainability, equity and attitudes to risk.

Kyoto Protocol

The Kyoto Protocol was an international agreement linked to UNFCCC⁶, which was adopted in Kyoto, Japan, on 11 December 1997 and which entered into force on 16 February 2005. The detailed rules for the implementation of the Protocol were adopted at the Conference of the Parties (COP 7) in Marrakesh in 2001, and were called the ‘Marrakesh Accords’. The major feature of the Kyoto Protocol was that it set binding targets for 37 industrialised countries and the European community for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. These amount to an average of five per cent against 1990 levels over the five-year period 2008-2012. The major distinction between the Protocol and the previous Convention that applied was that while the Convention encouraged industrialised countries to stabilise GHG emissions, the Protocol committed them to do so. Under the Kyoto Protocol, countries had to meet their targets primarily through national measures. However, it offered countries an additional means of meeting their targets by way of three market-based mechanisms, namely

•   emissions trading—known as ‘the carbon market’,

•   clean development mechanism (CDM), and

•   joint implementation (JI).

The mechanisms were to help stimulate ‘green investment’ and help countries meet their emission targets in a cost-effective way. It was on this basis that some countries began taking action on ‘climate change’. For example, the European Union introduced an emissions trading scheme and began investing in various forms of renewable energy such as solar and wind technology. The British government went one stage further by introducing its Climate Change Act 2008 to ensure all six Kyoto greenhouse gases would be at least 80% lower by 2050 than the 1990 baseline. Australia introduced a ‘price on carbon’ (a carbon tax) commencing 1 July 2012.

Copenhagen Accord

The United Nations Climate Change Conference 2009 (COP 15) was held in Copenhagen in December 2009. It was hoped that COP 15 would result in a binding agreement amongst countries to replace the Kyoto Protocol with the Copenhagen Accord. The conference, however, ended in failure, leaving much uncertainty about the future once the Kyoto Protocol expired. Why did Copenhagen fail? On 9 December 2009, The Guardian newspaper outlined the problem in its article by John Vidal titled ‘Copenhagen conference in disarray‘⁷ indicating that developing countries had reacted furiously to leaked documents that showed world leaders, in the following week, would be asked to sign an agreement that handed more power to rich countries, thereby sidelining the UN’s role in all future climate change negotiations. It appeared that there was great unease about what was being proposed, a few examples of which are as follows:

•   To force developing countries to agree to specific emission cuts and measures that were not part of the original UN agreement.

•   To divide poor countries further by creating a new category of developing countries called ‘the most vulnerable’.

•   To weaken the UN’s role in handling climate finance.

•   To not allow poor countries to emit more than 1.44 tonnes of carbon per person by 2050, while allowing rich countries to emit 2.67 tonnes.

Needless to say, developing countries were furious over what was being promoted by rich countries without their (the developing countries) knowledge, and without discussion in the negotiations. It was seen as being done in secret with a clear intention of getting US President Barack Obama and the leaders of other rich countries to muscle through such an agreement when they arrived in Copenhagen the following week. Such an agreement effectively would have spelt the end of the UN process. Needless to say, and as everyone now knows, the following week of COP15 saw high-profile politicians attending the conference, giving moving speeches, only to result in the conference descending into chaos, and ultimately failing to deliver a satisfactory deal to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

After all the hype, the Copenhagen Accord⁸ only turned out to be aspirational, non-binding, vague on key points, and lacking the ambition needed to avoid what were believed to be, at the time, unacceptable risks of a severely destabilised climate. The once touted ‘most important meeting to save the world’, which had ridden a crest of a ‘global warming alarmism’ wave, leading up to December 2009, ended in bitter disappointment as a consequence of the political posturing, leaked texts, procedural conundrums that stalled substantive negotiation, and accusations of incompetent leadership of the conference.

How much is all this costing to tackle dangerous man-made global warming?

The important field of climate research, and attempts to tackle global warming, has been costing an enormous amount of money. How much has the UN spent on climate change? How much have various countries around the world spent on this issue? Whatever the total figure might be it would certainly amount to many billions of US dollars, if the US alone is anything to go by. According to Climate Research News⁹, in 1989, the first specific US climate-related agency was created with an annual budget of $134 million. In various forms, the funding had leapt to over $7 billion per annum in 2009. Based on government reports, it was estimated that the US had spent over $79 billion on climate-related areas between 1989 and 2009, including $32 billion for climate research and $36 billion for development of climate-related technologies. On top of the $7 billion in 2009, an additional funding for carbon sequestration experiments alone amounted to $3.4 billion as per the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The concern about such vast amounts of money being spent in this way was that after spending over $30 billion on pure science research alone, not one single piece of empirical evidence could be produced that demonstrated man-made carbon dioxide had a significant effect on the global climate. A number of scientists in the US began expressing concern that it had reached a point where, unless a scientist’s proposed climate study in some way supported anthropogenic global warming, that scientist stood little chance of obtaining research funding. In effect, the large chunk of climate research funding was being directed towards studies that related to global warming.

Across Europe, implementing green policies to reduce carbon dioxide emissions has involved expending vast amounts of taxpayers’ money by countries like Spain, Britain, Germany, and Netherlands. In Asia, Japan also was playing its role. Extracts from an article in The Japan Times¹⁰ (15 February 2011) titled ‘Trillions for Biomass Projects Fruitless’ highlighted the following:

None of the government’s 214 biomass promotion projects—with public funding coming to ¥6.55 trillion—over the past six years has produced effective results in the struggle against global warming, according to an official report released Tuesday.

The Administrative Evaluation Bureau found in a study of biomass projects through March 2009 that the cumulative budget totaled about ¥6.55 trillion.

It is simply inexplicable that ¥6.55 trillion (approximately US$80 billion) could be spent by the Japanese government over six years on projects to counteract global warming, with the ultimate result being nil. There is no doubt the projects were full of good intentions, to show that Japan was doing its bit to combat global warming. But where was the value for money? That such an enormous amount of money could effectively be wasted is not just inexplicable it is inexcusable and bordering on insanity. How did this situation arise whereby so many countries began spending obscene amounts of money in pursuit of tackling global warming which, traditionally, was always considered to be under the control of Mother Nature?

A major deception about man-made global warming?

The Summary for Policymakers (SPM) of the Second Assessment Report 1995 (AR2) included the statement ‘The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.’ This statement began appearing in the media and before long was being quoted by others, including politicians. The source of this statement seemed to be the concluding paragraph in AR2’s Chapter 8 (page 439) that stated the following (bold emphasis is by this author):

The body of statistical evidence in Chapter 8, when examined in the context of our physical understanding of the climate system, now points towards a discernible human influence on global climate. Our ability to quantify the magnitude of the effect is currently limited by uncertainties in key factors, including the magnitude and patterns of longer-term natural variability and the evolving patterns of forcing by (and response to) greenhouse gases and aerosols.

The lead author of Chapter 8 was Dr Ben Santer, a scientist who was working for the US government’s Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. When the report was published, it was noted by some of the scientific contributors, who had signed-off on the working group’s chapters the previous year, that the words endorsing anthropogenic global warming were not in the draft they had formally approved. It was alleged that Santer had subsequently added the words. In addition, it was claimed that Santer also deleted a number of key statements from the original agreed text—statements that had raised serious doubts over any human contribution to global warming. Passages that were claimed to have been deleted from the approved draft included the following:

None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.

No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes.

Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced.

When will an anthropogenic effect on climate be identified? It is not surprising that the best answer to this question is ‘We do not know’.

Much controversy arose over these deletions and changes. Allegations of wrongdoing were strongly denied by the IPCC and others. However, an editorial from the international science journal Nature (13 June 1996) (as outlined in Congregator.Net¹¹) confirmed the following:

A crucial chapter of the IPCC’s report was altered between the time of its formal acceptance and its printing.

Whether in accord with IPCC rules or not—still a hotly debated matter—‘there is some evidence that the revision process did result in a subtle shift… that… tended to favour arguments that aligned with the report’s broad conclusions’. (Critics of the IPCC would have used much stronger words.) The editorial further admits that ‘phrases that might have been (mis)interpreted as undermining these conclusions have disappeared’.

‘IPCC officials’, quoted (but not named) by Nature, claim that the reason for the revisions to the chapter was ‘to ensure that it conformed to a policymakers’ summary of the full report…’ Their claim begs the obvious question: Should not a summary conform to the underlying scientific report rather than vice versa?

Whatever the truth of the matter, it is actually irrelevant because the real truth is that AR2 did not provide any empirical evidence to support the claim, ‘The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.’ Not one peer-reviewed study was cited in AR2 that provided the empirical evidence of anthropogenic global warming. In short, the SPM statement was based on a lie or, at best, a guess. Guessing, of course, has no place in science. The fact remains that had the original approved text not been altered, there most probably would have been little justification to pursue the global warming issue any further, and there would have been no further need for the IPCC. The reality is the IPCC survived the controversy. However, the events surrounding the AR2 controversy did indicate that the IPCC appeared to be using scientists to pursue a political agenda… ‘Should not a summary conform to the underlying scientific report rather than vice versa? The SPM is not actually the work of the scientific contributors and reviewers but is primarily the work of government bureaucrats.

There is no doubt that political concern over CO2 had been raised as far back as the 1960s. For example, a 1969 Whitehouse memorandum (Appendix A) clearly indicated such concern. The Whitehouse Memorandum reflects some interesting comments such as the ones mentioned below:

‘. . . of the carbon dioxide problem.’

‘Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has the effect of a pane of glass in a greenhouse.’

‘. . . but recently man has begun to introduce instability through the burning of fossil fuels.’

‘At the turn of the century several persons raised the question whether this would change the temperature of the atmosphere.’

‘It is now pretty clearly agreed that the CO2 content will rise by 25% by 2000. This could increase the average temperature near the earth’s surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit.’

‘This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet.’

‘. . . this is a subject that the Administration ought to get involved with. It is a natural for NATO. Perhaps the first order of business is to begin a worldwide monitoring system.’

‘The Environmental Pollution Panel… reported at length on the subject in 1965.’

The history behind the IPCC also makes interesting reading and raises suspicions of a hidden agenda by certain influential people in their quest to deal with carbon dioxide in the name of halting global warming. The Eco Fraud—Part 1: A Timeline of International Fraud¹² (August 2010) raised suspicions of such an agenda. Malcolm Roberts prepared the report for the attention of Australia’s Federal Parliamentarians and provided a time line of events relating to the man-made global warming alarmism. In the words of Malcolm Roberts, ‘To gain understanding, clarity and reassurance on climate and climate policy we need to understand the development of climate alarm. Understanding gives freedom—choices for using our inherent care for our natural environment.’ The following extracts from the report make interesting reading:

1947—Teenaged Maurice Strong (future Canadian oil billionaire) working temporarily in a junior UN position shrewdly, strategically recognises the infant UN’s potential power. CBC (2004)

__________________

1971—Maurice Strong by now a successful young oil entrepreneur and company President is recognised as a well-connected, clever networker and strategic thinker passionate about acquiring wealth and power. He reportedly foresaw using the emerging environmental movement to create and drive political power. Commissions a report on the environment. CBC (2004)

__________________

1972—Maurice Strong, appointed Secretary General of the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (Stockholm Conference). June 1972

__________________

1972—United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) founded