More Considerations on Climate Change

Discussions about global warming are far from over, and there remains no unanimity on the issue. Indeed, given that there is not even a clear consensus that the planet is warming, most enviro-activists now speak about climate change instead.

This is a good way to hedge your bets: whether the world is getting hotter or colder, it is still changing. But even if there is in fact climate change one must still ask whether it is just a natural, cyclical occurrence, or if it is affected somehow by human activities. What role, if any, does anthropic activity play in general, and man-made carbon emissions play in particular, on climate change?

These are the sorts of questions scientists are trying to answer, and they are far from united in answering them. But the scientific questions are just one important set of questions which must be asked and answered. Obviously 100 per cent unanimity is not required here, but some sort of consensus is needed, and it seems that consensus is not yet present.

Another vital set of questions centres on economic issues. If government action of some sort is required, what will be the economic costs and benefits? Who will pay, who will benefit, who will lose out, and what goods and harms will need to be traded off? Both the economic and the scientific issues will require much careful homework before any precipitous and drastic government action is undertaken.

These two focuses – the scientific and the economic – have both been carefully discussed in some recent opinion pieces. They are worth highlighting here. Some of the scientific issues were thrashed out by David Evans, who for six years worked on carbon accounting and modeling for the Australian Greenhouse Office.

He is one of a number of experts who has had a change of mind over the scientific evidence involved: “When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects. The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.”

However, Evans was willing to follow the evidence where it leads: “But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, ‘When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?’”

Evans then presents some of the evidence that we now have. Here are a few of the facts he offers: “There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming.”

And even the warming appears to have stalled: “The satellites that measure the world’s temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980). Land-based temperature readings are corrupted by the ‘urban heat island’ effect: urban areas encroaching on thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the thermometer, due to vegetation changes, concrete, cars, houses. Satellite data is the only temperature data we can trust, but it only goes back to 1979. NASA reports only land-based data, and reports a modest warming trend and recent cooling. The other three global temperature records use a mix of satellite and land measurements, or satellite only, and they all show no warming since 2001 and a recent cooling.”

After presenting other facts about global warming, Evans offers this summation: “So far that debate has just consisted of a simple sleight of hand: show evidence of global warming, and while the audience is stunned at the implications, simply assert that it is due to carbon emissions. In the minds of the audience, the evidence that global warming has occurred becomes conflated with the alleged cause, and the audience hasn’t noticed that the cause was merely asserted, not proved.”

And there will be huge economic costs to pay for carbon reduction schemes: “The Labor Government is about to deliberately wreck the economy in order to reduce carbon emissions. . . . The onus should be on those who want to change things to provide evidence for why the changes are necessary. The Australian public is eventually going to have to be told the evidence anyway, so it might as well be told before wrecking the economy.”

Indeed, the economic costs will impact all of us. The Federal Government is warning about sharp rises to the cost of living which we will all have to bear. But as Janet Daley reminds us, the poor will really be the ones to suffer. Writing in the UK Daily Telegraph, she warns that efforts to combat global warming will have a direct – and negative – bearing on poverty relief measures:

“There are two prevailing fashions dominating the political scene, whose aims and effects are in direct contradiction with one another. But that does not prevent virtually all of the political parties in the Western democracies from attempting to embrace both at the same time. They are global warming and the mission to eradicate poverty. What scarcely any leader seems prepared to admit (although they are all coming bang up against the reality of it) is that the objectives and tactics involved in forwarding the cause of preventing global warming are inimical to the cause of fighting poverty on a national and an international level.”

She explains, “There is not just a question of how actual environmental legislation is likely to affect the daily lives of poorer people (making their cars, fuel, home heating and food cost more) but of the apparent disregard for what they would regard as national priorities: when you are jobless and the rising cost of transport makes it inconceivable for you to travel to look for work; when the cost of decent food is climbing out of your reach, and your household energy bills are unaffordable, you are unlikely to see the contentious arguments for long-term climate change as the most urgent item on the political agenda.”

“Who is likely to be hardest hit by higher charges for throwing away large amounts of rubbish or using more water? The young (high-earning) professional who eats in restaurants and sends his laundry out? Or the poorer family with children, who rarely go out, bathe their children every night and use their washing machine every day?”

But it is not just the poor in wealthy countries who will suffer most; the poor nations among the global community will also feel the most pain: “Global warming is a worry that can be indulged by the richer sections of the populations of the richer countries. Never mind Glasgow East, there is a damned good reason why the governments of India and China, whose populations are only just discovering the joys of economic growth and the mass prosperity that it brings, should be unhelpful when their rich, self-regarding counterparts try to drag them into agreements which would trap them in the endemic poverty they have endured for generations.”

Daley concludes, “Green taxes almost always take the form of extra charges which take no account of income – whether it is vehicle excise duty or water metering – and that means that they affect the poor much more than the rich. Special compensation schemes in which the very poor get some relief simply create another poverty trap in which any improvement in earnings means a loss of benefit: the last thing we need in a country already overly dependent on benefits.”

As these two experts rightly remind us, some very hard questions need to be asked about both the science and economics of climate change action. Rushing headlong into drastic action plans before good answers are forthcoming will simply be a recipe for disaster.

www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,24036736-17803,00.html
www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/07/14/do1401.xml

[1424 words]

7 Replies to “More Considerations on Climate Change”

  1. Bill, when Penny Wong (Climate Change Minister) addressed the National Press Club (16 July, 08) she didn’t mention Global Warming but repeatedly mentioned ‘Climate Change’.

    Global warming has topped out, as you illustrated.

    Claims by Professor Garnaut that, “Thousands of Australians will die each year and agricultural production will be devastated ……. 4000 extra people could die in Queensland each year if ….”, touch on hysteria.

    In the early 1970’s Professor Paul Erlich predicted enormous disasted for the world and millions of deaths, not from warming, but freezing temperatures and declines in foods and essential elements – even more hysteria.

    The Murray River has been dry before, particularly before white man built weirs and conserved water. The disaster predicted now, didn’t occur – a clear example that the present hysteria has no real basis.

    Pat Healy

  2. The David Evans article was superb. Let’s hope it is the ‘tipping point’ that brings some badly needed reason and reality into the global-warming debate at least in this country.

    Ewan McDonald.

  3. Bill, I have posted my views on “climate change” on my website, as follows: http://www.adamthwaite.com.au/html/g-warming.html
    Some of the material is the same as I posted on this site a couple of weeks ago, but there is some new material as well. What is of interest in the intervening time is the number of former “believers” who have publicly jumped ship, notably David Evans, formerly of Australia Greenhouse Office, writing in the Australian on July 18th. See
    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html
    A very interesting read, but only one of a growing multitude of qualified scientists who are abandoning the whole notion. The task for the Liberals now is to make a clear alternative and bite the bullet: side with the global warming sceptics. First, they must get rid of Malcolm Turnbull.

    As you will see on my website, I am sick and tired of the media showing footage of factory chimneys whenever global warming comes up, or carbon credit schemes and so on. These factory chimneys are releasing STEAM, for crying out loud! CO2 is invisible: odourless and colourless! Whatever has happened to basic science in our high schools!? I learned this in Form 1 (Year 7), along with the composition of the atmosphere, or which CO2 is a mere 0.03%, which value has not changed appreciably in the 50 years since.

    Murray Adamthwaite

  4. If one is not already a global warming sceptic try following the Money trail. Firstly with Al Gore buying his carbon credits from himself and his own company General Investment Management (GIM). The check up on Maurice Strong architect of Kyoto on the Board of America’s only carbon credit exchange – Chicago Climate exchange. Next folow Richard Sandor its Chairman and President. He was named in 2002 by Time Magazine as Hero of the Planet and again in 2007 Father of Carbon Trading. Try http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.05/trends.html
    Neil E. Ryan

  5. Murray, I looked at your website – well done. I’ve also noticed the misuse of power station cooling towers to illustrate global-warming alarmist media articles. I even once saw one that had a picture not of a coal fired power station but of a nuclear power station which of course emits no CO2 whatsoever!

    Ewan McDonald.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: