President's Report 2007

Peter Walsh

During the last 12 months our group has sponsored two important and, I believe, successful events.

First, the February launch in Canberra of Ray Evans' pamphlet, Nine Facts about Climate Change. Following Sir Arvi Parbo's excellent launching speech, Martin Ferguson MP, Member for Batman and Denis Jensen MP, Member for Tangney, made useful contributions to the discussion. I thank them both. At the subsequent dinner, Prof. Chris de Freitas delivered an objective paper on climate science---serious science, unlike the self-serving junk science dished up by the IPCC.

In June we sponsored, at the Victoria Hotel, Melbourne, an evening/day workshop featuring an impressive list of Australian and overseas scholars.

To a layman like myself, and with one exception, the huge volume of evidence cannot be adequately understood or digested. The exception is one item referred to at the February pamphlet launch.

Denis Jensen MP, previously a nuclear physicist by profession, told us that satellite temperature sensing by NASA found that the planet Mars warmed during the 20th Century by about 0.5° Celsius, identical to the most likely level of warming on Earth and some other planets and satellites.

I do not understand the NASA technology, nor am I aware of any attempts to contradict or discredit NASA findings. If this is correct, it demolishes the Kyoto hypothesis that almost all of the modest increase in Earth's temperature during the 20th Century is caused by 'greenhouse' 'gasses' (especially CO2) produced by Man's profligate burning of fossil fuel.

That hypothesis cannot be reconciled with temperature changes on Earth, even in historical time.

Early in the first millennium the Romans were growing wine grapes in Northern England. For centuries during the late first and early second millennium, Vikings were growing cereal crops in now snow and ice-covered Greenland. Temperatures must have been substantially higher then than now.

Carbon dioxide is a 'greenhouse' gas without which Earth would be cooler. But each unit of CO2 added to the atmosphere has less impact than the unit before it.

The Kyoto hypothesis is probably a hoax. Why, then, has it been uncritically accepted? There are, I believe, many and diverse reasons:

1. Moral vanity of the chattering class.

2. An ill-informed and unprofessional media.

3. Politicians seeking seats on bandwagons.

4. Secular religious zealots who believe man must be punished for raping the earth.

5. Rent seeking---demanding captive markets of 15% for uncompetitive 'clean' 'green' energy. Self interest disguised as public interest.

6. Secular religious zealots---who like the religious zealots of old who burned and broke the Copernican heretics who denied the orthodoxy that Earth was the centre around which all heavenly bodies revolved---are authoritarians by nature. Note Clive Hamilton's recent call for an International Court to be established to bring to trial and to punish the 'denialists' who refuse to endorse the Kyoto creed.

7. Most Kyoto zealots seem to believe renewable energy could replace fossil energy and according to the fringe dwellers it is even suitable for base load power. The latter is a lie. The former is perhaps technically feasible, provided we are willing to massively cut energy consumption by increasing prices and willing to accept a standard of living comparable to that prevailing in the Middle Ages.

I doubt that any politician is silly enough to endorse that. They propose mandatory reductions in fossil energy consumption instead.

The boldest target, endorsed by the man who could be PM, is a 60% reduction by 2050. The discount rate for such long term goals, or promises, should be very high. Without any doubt it would entail a catastrophic fall in living standards.

Moreover, even if it did happen, it is likely that atmospheric CO2 levels would continue to rise. According to the zealots and rent-seekers, even present levels of CO2 are cooking the planet.

It is asserted by many, and assumed by some, that carbon trading will be a lucrative growth industry; one that will cancel the economic costs of emission limits. That also is nonsense but it would, theoretically, reduce to some extent the net losses, provided we naively assume an effective and honest carbon market will evolve. That is self-delusory nonsense. Carpetbaggers already talk about 'carbon farming', ie getting paid to take arable land out of production and sell the carbon credits. Like the notorious Management Investment Schemes, this will deliver benefits to the promoters not the participants. A vast costly and ineffective bureaucracy will be needed to measure and audit the 'trade'. If we must pursue this silly idea, a carbon tax is a much better option.

The innate dishonesty of Kyoto scare-mongering has already debauched public institutions. The CSIRO, which once had a well-earned reputation for sound science and extension activities, is one casualty. Six years ago it published a booklet designed to prop up predetermined conclusions. For example, it asserted 'nobody now denies atmospheric CO2 has increased'. MIT Professor Richard Lindzen's laconic reply was 'nobody ever has'.

Finally, the Australian of the Year Award and the recently announced Nobel Peace Prize. Both have been debauched. Tim Flannery was awarded the first; Al Gore the second. Flannery is a crank. Gore, who flies around the world in his private jet and in one of his Tennessee Macmansions uses twenty times the energy of the average American home, is a charlatan and a hypocrite.

In spite of the weight of evidence against it, the Kyoto hoax has been adopted by the Media in general and, predictably, revered by an ABC which broadcasts Senator Brown's views three or four times a week. Intimated by the propaganda barrage, both Government and Opposition are fellow travellers.

We sceptics currently are losing the propaganda battle. But politicians have often underestimated the commonsense of ordinary Australians. It won't happen quickly but, ultimately, commonsense will prevail.

According to Kyoto catastrophists, 'Greenhouse' gasses cause droughts and flooding rains; more frequent and destructive cyclones; extremes of temperature both hot and cold; plagues and pestilence. Nasty diseases like malaria will spread from the tropics to areas that now are temperate. Actually, malaria, once common in Northern Europe, has been controlled by insecticides. It would be less common in Third World tropical countries today if First World activists, many of them global warming catastrophists, had not banned DDT.

They have recklessly and dishonestly overplayed their hand.

Arguably the most important activity undertaken by the Lavoisier Group is the maintenance of our website. We continue to publish important pieces which either impact upon the climate change debate or inform our membership and the wider public about the progression of that debate. Our monthly hit rate is now between 15,000 and 30,000 hits and this increase has required us to pay more for the service which our webmaster provides.

Our webmaster, Chris Ulyatt, has provided us with a level of service which is efficient, extremely economical, and extends well beyond a normal commercial relationship. We are very grateful to Chris for that.

Below is a table giving the monthly hit rate from Nov 2004 until this month (Oct 2007).

Attached to this report is the general summary for July 2007, which shows that 5.8 Gbytes was downloaded from the website. That is a huge download and is a source of great satisfaction, albeit at extra expense.

* This figure was for the first week of March only. The system crashed on about March 8 and it is estimated we had over 30,000 hits for that month.
** This is for the first two weeks of October.

In conclusion, I thank you for your support over the last twelve months and hope you will continue with that support in this important endeavour.

Peter Walsh
President