President's Report 2009

Peter Walsh

The Kyoto junkies' creed is that rising levels of atmospheric CO2 caused by burning fossil fuels will, unless this is reversed very quickly, lead to runaway global warming which inter alia will destroy the Great Barrier Reef and threaten life on Earth. They proclaim this doctrine to be a scientific certainty.

The fact that the planet has known much higher levels of CO2, twice in historical time and at least eight times in geological time blows away all the scientific certainty and is therefore ignored. Nobody knows for certain what caused previous warming events, but it certainly had nothing to do with burning fossil fuels. And the two historical events during the Roman and Medieval periods were accompanied by a warmer and wetter world and higher levels of human welfare, is rigorously ignored by climate catastrophists, and their media cheer squads, and by the self serving IPCC. It is almost beyond belief that this repudiation of real science and evidence has been uncritically swallowed by the self proclaimed 'Intellectual Elite'.

A prominent journalist previously regarded as balanced and competent published in August an opinion piece which said:

"Turnbull is under assault from Labor as well as the climate change ideological right wing because he spearheads a national centrist stance that backs an emissions trading scheme and wants to make a contest over models, not over climate change belief". (The Australian August 12 2009).

Paul Kelly did however make, accidentally perhaps, a very important point: The Kyoto junkies wallow in belief but ignore factual evidence. Until they change any national Government should spurn their disastrous advice.

The veneer of the Enlightenment is very thin and fragile.

In the late 1980s Global Warming became a favourite topic for the 'chattering classes' who recognised it as a viable excuse for sabotaging the economy.

'Global Warming' has since morphed into 'Climate Change'. Why? Because the Earth has been cooling for nearly 10 years. The emphasis therefore was moved by opponents of economic growth to Climate Change which, because it is more nebulous, offered more opportunities for activists to peddle their junk science and terrify the masses.

Led by the ABC the media obliged and brainwashed the people to the extent that anyone who questions the Junk Science is branded a 'denialist', the moral equivalent of those who deny Hitler's Holocaust. Climate change activist Clive Hamilton of the Australia Institute has demanded these denialists be charged and put on trial. Hamilton is no fan of liberal democracy.

I confess to being a denialist from the beginning, not because I have any scientific expertise, but because the Vikings grew cereal crops in Greenland for several centuries. The climate then had to be much warmer than it has been since about 1500AD. In geological time there have been at least eight or more warm periods none of which were caused by burning fossil fuels and boosting the CO2 in the atmosphere.

Climate change zealots become denialists by claiming the Medieval Warm Period was an aberration confined to the North Atlantic. As usual, no evidence is produced to prop up their claims. Any evidence which contradicts their global warming---sorry climate change---hypothesis is ignored.

These 'denialists' dominate the International Panel on Climate Change---the IPCC.

Twenty years ago a very senior Australian Public Servant had been, during his career, Secretary of two core Departments, and also served overseas and had also been exposed to the mindset of the (mostly) Third World careerists attached to various Agencies of the United Nations.

His assessment was that most people who work in UN Agencies are seduced by the UN First World lifestyle which their own Third World countries cannot afford. They become defenders of all the United Nations sub-branches and agencies, whether they are functional or dysfunctional, corrupt or clean. (And in keeping with the all stick together culture, the IPCC chief came from a Third World country).

The IPCC record is disgraceful, even by UN standards. It habitually concocts evidence to prop up its predetermined conclusions.

A few examples:

The Mann 'hockey stick' graph sloped gently downwards for nine hundred years but rose sharply at the beginning of the 20th Century, a dramatic change which was attributed to increasing CO2 emissions. The authors of this graph refused to hand over the data behind their conclusions until forced to by the US Congress. When the data was subjected to expert scrutiny it was shown that the hockey stick was a fraud. The computer programmes which produced the hockey stick result produced the same hockey stick when supplied with random numbers. When this was revealed the fraudulent graph eventually disappeared from all IPC publications. No explanation or apology was provided.

In recent years the global warmers have repeatedly claimed that atmospheric CO2 was approaching a catastrophic 'tipping point' leading to 'runaway' greenhouse gases which would destroy the planet as we know it. That is not just a barefaced lie, it stands truth on its head. Every additional unit of CO2 has less impact than every previous unit, because it is measured on a logarithmic scale.

The IPCC has adopted the practice of listing among the scientists who support the IPCC's conclusions, scientists who are strongly opposed to those conclusions. Perhaps the most scandalous was the case of Dr Paul Reiter, one of the world's leading experts on tropical diseases and malaria in particular. The IPCC claimed that increasing global temperatures would increase the incidence of malaria and other mosquito-driven diseases. Reiter, in commenting on these claims prior to publication, pointed out that these claims were nonsensical and should not be made. The IPCC ignored his criticisms and went ahead with its claims, but at the same time listed Paul Reiter as one of the authorities supporting them. Reiter demanded that the IPCC delete his name from their list of authorities. They ignored him. Only when he threatened legal action did they finally delete his name.

Much the same treatment was meted out to Dr Chris Landsea, a leading American expert on cyclones and hurricanes. Part of the IPCC storyline is that global warming has led to increasing hurricane activity and loss of property. The re--insurance industry has bought this story and has become an active rent-seeker in the global warming cart. There is no connection between hurricanes and CO2 concentrations, none; but Dr Landsea also had to threaten legal action to get his name removed.

The IPCC and its cheer squad debauches language in a manner of the pigs in George Orwell's Animal Farm. The pigs were the smartest and most self serving of all the animals. Sheep were the most stupid. In the early days of Animal Farm the evil pig Napoleon taught the sheep to baa aha ha out 'two legs good, four legs bettaah haa'. When the pigs decided to wear dinner suits and walk on their hind legs, Napoleon taught the sheep to baa ha haa out 'four legs good, two legs bet aar ha'.

The Rudd Government's spin doctors have picked up the technique, labelling the Government's planned (and disastrous if it is implemented) Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. Thus, carbon dioxide, a trace gas without which there would be no life on Earth, morphs into a 'pollutant'.

The Kyoto junkies, as part of their brainwashing programme, assert that renewable energy, solar and wind, are suitable for base load power. That is another bare faced lie because the Sun shines far less than 50% of the time, and the wind does not always blow. The only reliable alternative for base load power is nuclear. It will be more expensive, but it would do the job. And of course a motley collection of ignorant zealots will demand that nuclear power be banned entirely, and gutless politicians will probably comply.

Al Gore, champion charlatan of 'global warming' and 'climate change' will probably approve. He lives in two or three MacMansions which require a huge volume of electricity to supply the air conditioners. He also flies around the globe in his private jet aircraft. He offers no apology for the self indulgent consumption of energy. He claims he offsets it all by buying 'carbon credits'.

About five centuries ago assorted Popes sold 'indulgences' to the wealthy and powerful. This allowed them to live in perpetual sin without endangering their immortal souls. To the best of my knowledge, those who say climate change is the greatest moral issue of the twenty-first century have not censured Gore for his profligate waste of fossil fuels or his self serving humbuggery. If I was a religious man, I would thank God in my prayers for ensuring Gore failed to get the Presidency.

It is almost beyond 'reasonable doubt' that the Kyoto hypothesis is a hoax, for which the Rudd Government and Turnbull Opposition have fallen. They do not acknowledge either that in historical time Vikings grew cereal crops in Greenland or that the geological history records many prolonged warm and cold periods when atmospheric CO2 was much higher than it is now.

In a rational world the response would be to wait for at least another decade to see whether the present global cooling period continues.

That however would prevent our 'Dear Leader' and others from fulfilling their adolescent fantasies---saving the plant by reducing carbon emissions by 25 per cent by 2020 and by 60 per cent by late 2050. The mechanism for doing this is a Carbon Emissions Trading Scheme.

That is the worst possible option, because such schemes cannot be honestly audited.

That is why they appeal in Australia to the same sort of spivs who set up the present global recession---the Freddy Macs, Fannie Mays, and their imitators with their 'securitisation' and fraudulent trading systems which wiped out any equity. Such a Carbon Trading system will make historical frauds like the South Sea Bubble and Tulip Bulb Boom seem benign.

The alternative energy rent seekers are already demanding a captive market for a mandatory renewable energy component plus capital subsidies and operating subsidies.

A tax on carbon is a much simpler and more efficient means of reducing CO2 emissions. It would be paid by a small number of firms, electricity suppliers, petroleum suppliers and aluminium smelters¹ etc who would pass the tax on to their consumers. The number of firms directly paying the tax would be relatively small, administrative cost low, and evasion almost impossible.

Last, but by no means least, it will provide a much better exit strategy when the Kyoto hypothesis is recognised to be the fraud that it is. The tax could simply be abolished. There will be a structural hangover, but mild in comparison with abolishing a deeply entrenched and corrupt Carbon Trading Scheme.

1. Actually they wouldn't pay because aluminium smelters would be exported to Third World countries.