Learning Center
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out



  • pg 1
									                    The Climate Change Fiasco
                                       Revision 5.2
    Published research by climate scientists shows the ‘settled’ science is totally flawed.

Executive Summary
The alarming predictions for the future are based on computer modeling. However a 90 page
analysis by German physicists on the reactions in the atmosphere concluded the conditions are
so complex it will be 1000 years before a computer with sufficient power is available to carry
out the simulations. In keeping with this analysis, not one of the models has ever been validated,
that is shown to be capable of making reasonable forecasts. This alone should end the debate on
climate change!

In keeping with this fiasco, the models assume that as the temperature rises due to increased
carbon dioxide (CO2), so too will the moisture content and this magnifies the warming. The
combined effect is an estimated temperature rise of 2 to 4.5 degrees for a doubling of CO2
concentration. This magnification is known as positive feedback. In reality numerous reports
show there is a negative feedback and the global temperature will only increase by about 0.6
degrees and possibly less for a doubling of CO2 concentration.

As CO2 levels rise, more CO2 is absorbed by the oceans and in turn lowers ocean basicity or pH
as the waters move closer to pure water. The only significant problem from a lower pH will be
reduced calcification in marine biota. There is much conflicting evidence on the severity of this
problem. It would appear that if the pH drops to 7.95 or 0.15 units below current levels there
will be minimal harm. Research indicates this level will be reached at a CO2 level of about 600
ppm (parts per million) in the atmosphere compared to current levels of 390 ppm.

This increased CO2 level will theoretically raise global temperatures by about 0.35 degrees but
as global temperatures are still about the same amount above the norm from the warming last
century there should be no further warming.

The Government claims a plausible estimate of sea level rise by 2100 compared to 2000 is 0.5 to
1.0 metre. In reality there is an almost perfect correlation between sea level rise and global mean
temperature. So with no temperature rise there will be no rise in sea levels.

At 600 ppm CO2 there will be 25% extra growth rate in pastures and in the more arid regions of
Australia the growth rate should increase by about 55%. Furthermore due to the reduced
transpiration, plants will require less water allowing for better use of our scarce water resources.
In theory a third of this benefit should have already been achieved.

Considering the foregoing there is no need to introduce any abatement measures for about 40
years and then it should only be necessary to cap future increases so that CO2 levels top out at
600 ppm in about 60 years time.

The loss to our nation from instigating the carbon tax legislation compared to my deferred
scheme will be staggering. Firstly the direct losses of the government’s scheme will be about
$1000 billion compared to my scheme. However if other nations adopt schemes similar to the
government’s 80% reduction by 2050, the cost of permits and in turn the losses will soar as
various bidders compete for the limited number of permits on offer. Furthermore our thermal
coal producing industry will be decimated with the resulting lost production being measured in
multiples of $1000 billion.

The Prime Minister and Messrs. Combet, Oakeshott, Wilkie and Windsor were all given prior
versions of this summary. They all chose to ignore it preferring to legislate a scheme which in
the Prime Minister’s words can never be revoked.
Flawed Science of Climate Change
General comment
Climate Commissioner Will Steffen in his latest assessment entitled ‘The Critical Decade’
(TCD) again makes out that the science of climate change is settled. Nothing could be further
from the truth. The science isn’t a little flawed it is totally and completely flawed. How a
government with all its resources could get it so wrong beggars belief.

To start with, the issue is not climate change but anthropogenic (man made) global warming
(AGW). The debate was cunningly switched by the alarmists from AGW to climate change
when it became evident that the planet was not warming as predicted. The climate has always
changed and will continue to do so regardless of human influence.

Secondly much has been made of the support for the settled science by the overwhelming
majority of climate scientists when it merely reflects the mismatch of funding, some $100 billion
for research into AGW and only $50 million for natural causes.

A 90 page analysis by German physicists on the reactions in the atmosphere concluded that there
is no scientific basis for the atmospheric greenhouse effect as it fails to comply with the laws of

Furthermore the conditions in the atmosphere are so complex that the equations they formulated
to simulate the conditions are unsolvable. Even if the equations were simplified it would be, in
the author’s words, 1000 years before a computer with sufficient power was available to carry
out the simulations. Other researchers concur with the inability of models to simulate the
complex reactions not just in the atmosphere but also the interaction with the oceans and clouds.
In keeping with these analyses, not one of the models has ever been validated, that is shown to
be capable of forecasting to a known level of accuracy all circumstances for which the model
may be used for. Finally some of the basic inputs are flawed.

Needless to say the current models which are used to determine the alarming predictions
are totally and utterly useless and any such predictions they make can be ignored. An
example is the Department’s Incoming Government Brief, Strategic Brief, September 2010
which states “climate models project that reduced rainfall is likely over most of Australia in the
future.” How wrong they were!

The fact that the world is now prepared to waste away trillions of dollars based on the
predictions of these models shows just how absurd this whole situation is.

Temperature Rises
In keeping with this fiasco, the models assume that as the temperature rises due to increased
carbon dioxide (CO2), so too will the moisture content and this magnifies the warming. The
combined effect is an estimated temperature rise of 2 to 4.5 degrees for a doubling of CO2
concentration. This magnification is known as positive feedback.

This positive feedback is not supported by satellite and radiosonde measurements which show
no build up of water vapour as temperature rises. In reality there is a negative feedback and
the global temperature will only increase by about 0.6 degrees for a doubling of CO2

The 0.6 degree figure is based on numerous reports that studied changes in outgoing radiation,
ocean warming, significant temperature changes, the effect of volcanoes, variation in
clouds and water vapor or solar irradiance. Studies covered both the short term and the long
term effects.

Furthermore in the tropics, where most of the energy is transferred, there is a much greater
negative feedback effectively acting as a thermostat to limit temperature change.

Further evidence of negative feedback includes:
   (a) temperature measurements in the atmosphere show there is no hot spot when there must
        be if there is positive feedback,
   (b) the climate recovers quickly after volcanic eruptions,
   (c) there has been insufficient heat build up in the climate system over the last decade for
        there to be a positive feedback,
   (d) satellite data over recent years show an increase in out going radiation when greenhouse
        theory predicts less.

This 0.6 degree figure may well be an over estimation as one computer model simulating CO2
behavior predicts only a 0.3 degree rise for a doubling of CO2. Also a research paper found if
the effect of aerosols was accounted for the temperature rise would be halved. Other research
shows there are a number of biological processes that are enhanced by a rise in CO2 levels and
in turn provide cooling forces of an equivalent magnitude to the warming by CO2. Due to these
effects the author puts the increase at 0.4 degrees or even less for a doubling of CO2.

Ocean Acidification
This is another scary prediction made by AGW alarmists. In reality there will be no production
of acid at any time in the future, absolutely none. There will however be a small reduction in the
basicity of sea water moving it closer to pure water.

The only significant problem from a lower pH will be reduced calcification in marine biota.
There is much conflicting evidence on the severity of this problem. It would appear that if the
pH drops to 7.95 or 0.15 units below current levels there will be minimal harm.

Polar oceans and their residing biota will be the most at risk. Research shows coral on the Great
Barrier Reef should not be affected because coral continue to grow at a pH of 7.9. Furthermore
recent research shows cells in the coral raise the pH inside the coral by 0.5 in daylight and 0.2 in
darkness. One would expect coral would grow mainly in the daylight hours when photosynthesis
takes place so this pH buffer will provide substantial protection from falling pH.

CO2 Sources and Sinks
Figure 12 of TCD shows a near balance of sources and sinks for CO2 inferring we have an
accurate knowledge of the subject and in turn we can make reasonable predictions for the future.
This can be compared to figure 7.3 in the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)
2007 report that shows a total movement of CO2 around the biosphere in excess of 200 GtC/a
(Giga tonnes of Carbon per year) with an uncertainty of more than plus or minus 20% or an
uncertainty of more than 40GtC/a. This can be compared with CO2 emissions from burning of
fossil fuels of just 8GtC/a. With this level of uncertainty it is not possible to make any
meaningful predictions of future CO2 levels at any future time using mass balances of CO2.

The IPCC also maintains there has been a steady build up in CO2 concentration since pre-
industrial times. This is also false in that during 1940 CO2 levels measured at Giessen, Germany
were equal and higher than they are today and peaked at 550 ppm (parts per million) compared
to today’s figure of 390 ppm. This occurred following a number of years of rising ocean
temperatures similar to recent times. This CO2 build up could be due to extra out-gassing of
CO2 from the oceans due to the reduced solubility of CO2 in warmer waters. A similar situation
could have occurred in recent decades and a reversing of this effect could occur in the coming

The CO2 build up over the last 100 years could also be due to a reduction in the phytoplankton
population in the oceans, a substantial sink for CO2. One researcher estimates the population fell
over 60% during the last century. This fall is disputed by other researchers, but if correct, it
would be doubly significant because besides acting as a CO2 sink, phytoplankton release
dimethyl sulphide that escapes to the atmosphere and assists with cloud formation. So a
reduction would mean less clouds and warmer weather.

Research shows that with the doubling of CO2 there will be around 25% more CO2 taken up by
plants during photosynthesis but little if any of this extra uptake will be released during dark
hours’ transpiration. Also the production of CO2 from the decay of waste biomass will also be
less. This will provide a substantial extra sink for CO2.

The IPCC predicts that temperatures will rise by around 2 degrees in the years to come causing
ocean temperatures to also rise. This will result in extra out gassing of CO2 in the tropics and
less CO2 uptake in the cooler polar waters. Without this temperature increase these effects will
not occur.

The combined effect of these features will provide a substantial extra carbon sink and should
keep CO2 levels below those projected by Steffen or the IPCC.

For a number of decades about half the anthropogenic emissions have been taken up by carbon
sinks. Research shows that, contrary to TCD (p18), the overall efficiency of these sinks is not
declining. Thus future levels of CO2 can best be estimated by assuming this percentage uptake
remains constant.

It should also be noted that the IPCC maintains it will take 50-200 years for the extra CO2
produced to be dissipated. However the average of 36 research reports estimate the time at only
5.4 years and one researcher maintains the extra CO2 will be taken up within one year. The
significance of this is that should any abatement measures be put in place they will have an
effect in a much shorter time than the IPCC predicts.

Maximum CO2 Levels
The maximum CO2 levels will be governed not by unacceptable increases in temperature but by
the need to prevent the ocean pH falling below 7.95. One authoritative text shows this level will
be reached with an atmospheric CO2 level of about 600 ppm. Another researcher measured the
pH at 7.75 in an enclosure with an atmosphere containing 900 ppm CO2. Assuming a linear
relationship this also equates to a pH of 7.95 at about 600 ppm.

There has been a surprisingly consistent annual increase in CO2 over the last 50 years with the
annual increase rising nearly three fold to the current increase of about 2ppm/year. Extrapolating
this mathematical sequence forward for 40 years will result in an annual increase of about
5ppm/year at this time. On this basis the total CO2 level would rise by about 140ppm to 530ppm
in 40 years time. This suggests that an abatement scheme instigated in 40 years time capping
CO2 emissions at the then levels and allowing say 10 years for the scheme to become fully
effective should result in the long term emissions staying under 600ppm.
Limiting CO2 to 600ppm will theoretically raise global temperatures by about 0.35 degrees but
as global temperatures are still about the same amount above the norm from the warming last
century there should be no further warming.

Sea Level Rises
TCD, p23 (page 23), claims a plausible estimate of sea level rise by 2100 compared to 2000 is
0.5 to 1.0m and he even referred to a possible increase of two metres. To substantiate this claim
he said in the period 1993-2009 the rise had accelerated to 3.2mm/year. In reality satellite
measurements are starting to show falling sea levels. Furthermore the European satellite,
Envisat, plots sea level changes in near real time and in recent months these levels have fallen
down to those back in 2006. Research shows there is almost a perfect correlation (greater than
0.99) between sea level rise and global mean temperature measured in timescales of decades.
These falls show the oceans are cooling contradicting TCD’s claim, (p6) that they continue to
warm. It is also in keeping with a cooling planet.

As there will be no global temperature rise if we limit CO2 to 600 ppm, there will be no rise in
current sea levels, absolutely none.

Rural Benefits
The increasing photosynthesis rate from increasing CO2 levels to 600 ppm will be profoundly
important to rural Australia. Not only should there be an average 25% extra growth rate in
pastures and other plants but in the more arid regions of Australia the growth rate should
increase by about 55%. Furthermore due to the reduced transpiration, plants will require less
water allowing for better use of our scarce water resources. In theory about a third of these gains
should have already materialized with the build up of CO2 to date.

This growth enhancement could be of paramount importance in the decades to come especially
if world food production falls due to the predicted cooling climate. The problem will be even
more acute when one considers the ever increasing world population.

The Alterative Science
Natural Causes of Global Warming
The global temperature rose 0.55 degrees during the 1900’s and 0.75 degrees between 1900 and
2010. If CO2 was not the sole cause of this global warming then what was the cause?

A combination of isotope, sunspot and thermometer measurements indicate the sun has been in a
highly active state for most of the last century and at a level last reached 4000 years ago. This
increased activity released extra energy that caused the elevated temperatures in recent decades
plus it put extra energy into the climate system that will be released in subsequent years or
decades as warmer weather. The sun’s total effect has caused a temperature increase of 0.3-0.4
degrees over the last 100 years.

At least one experienced climate scientist does not discount that the whole of the warming last
century was due solely to natural climate cycles. Another has quantified this potential variation
at 0.4 degrees. Furthermore there is evidence that the temperature changes last century mirrored
the known climate oscillations in particular the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Thus natural climate
variation was probably a significant component of last century’s warming.

Another significant factor was that up until 1990 there was a build up of pollution aerosols that
prevented some of the sun’s rays from reaching the earth’s surface and in the process caused
lower temperatures prior to 1990. This situation was substantially reversed between 1990 and
2000 and in the process global temperatures rose because of this.

The final component to the global warming was the other anthropogenic effects, the build up of
CO2 and other supposed greenhouse gases, residual aerosols, etc. These added about 0.3 degrees
to the global warming over the last century.

Earth is Cooling
Theoretically, cooling of the climate system commenced in about 2004 due to a decline in the
sun’s activity. This cooling should continue for at least the next 10 years due to the very
subdued current solar cycle as illustrated by NASA having already downgraded their predictions
three times. This cooling is only just starting to become evident with temperatures starting to
trend down.

Three papers that have just been presented indicate the next solar cycle starting in about 10 years
time will be even more subdued. If the researchers are correct we will have weather for a few
decades similar to the very cold Maunder Minimum that occurred during the 1600’s. Previously
published papers concur with this prediction.

Proof Solar Radiation is the Cause of Warming
Section 1.2 of The Critical Decade states “there is no creditable evidence that changes in
incoming solar radiation can be the cause of the current warming trend”. Here is the evidence.

In 1993 research showed that since the Maunder Minimum, the sun’s irradiation, i.e. sunshine,
had increased 5W/m2 (5 watts per square metre). This amount posed a hindrance to CO2 being
considered as the major cause of global warming. Fortuitously for AGW supporters, new
research was produced in 2005 showing the change was only 1 W/m2. This figure was used to
determine the sun’s contribution to global warming for the period 1750 to 2005, known as
radiative forcing, of just 0.12 W/m2 or about 7% of the claimed CO2 effect. The IPCC’s 2007
Report and others more recently accept this figure as the total effect of the variation in the
energy released from the sun.

However, a study of the heat build up in the oceans indicates that the sun’s effect was about 14
times this 0.12W/m2 figure for just the last 50 years when about 70% of the temperature
increase occurred. Furthermore a recent paper by Swiss scientists shows the irradiance is 6 times
greater than the 2005 revision.

As well the sun has an indirect effect on our climate in that its magnetic field, which increases
more or less in unison with irradiance, can reduce the flow of incoming cosmic rays. These rays
aid the formation of clouds. So an increase in the sun’s activity results in less clouds and higher
temperatures thus magnifying the effect of increased irradiance. The ultra violet portion of the
irradiance spectrum varies considerably more than the whole spectrum and this further magnifies
any changes.

Calculations based on satellite observations suggest that the total (direct + indirect) solar effect
is at least 3.5 times stronger than that due to changing solar irradiance alone.

Taken together the sun’s true effect is probably around 15-20 times the 0.12 W/m2 figure. This
is sufficient in combination with natural long term changes in the climate system and
anthropogenic effects to account for the observed global warming over the last 100 years.

The solar effect must be of this order to account for the warming that took place from the Little
Ice Age in the 1600’s back to normal pre-industrial conditions, something the IPCC and TCD
failed to consider.

Causes of Climate Change
Finally there is no evidence, to my knowledge, that shows CO2 directly or indirectly causes
climate change. There is however a wealth of research showing that the climate is affected by
the sun, the bigger planets, the moon and galactic cosmic rays.

Reliability of Assertions Made
The foregoing assertions are drawn from research papers in peer-reviewed journals or internet
sites of scientists well qualified in their respective disciplines. Needless to say few if any of the
reports used to support this summary have been considered in TCD of Will Steffen.

Available Report
A report containing the sources of the assertions outlined above and further supporting
information can be made available on the payment of an agreed fee.

I am a graduate engineer and a large portion of the science of climate change is based on
standard scientific principles which I learnt during my engineering education. I thus maintain I
have sufficient knowledge to evaluate and choose the most relevant research papers.

It should also be noted while there are many experts in the various niches that collectively make
up climate change there are none to my knowledge who would consider themselves expert on
the whole spectrum. Thus one must fall back onto someone with a broad scientific knowledge to
bring together individual reports and mould them into a total package.

To my knowledge there is no comparable report to this one as it contains so much relevant
detail, covers all the important issues and packages them into a single model. Furthermore most
of the issues have been quantified so reasonable predictions can be made. It is also sufficiently
succinct that anyone with an interest could be expected to read it.

Bias against the Alternative Science
Corruption of the Public Service
Over recent decades we have seen the public service change from a service giving fearless, frank
and unbiased advice to the minister to a highly politicized service that all too often just provides
ministers with advice they want to hear.

A FOI search showed that not one of the department’s officers read significant submissions
about the alternative science to AGW let alone informed the minister of such submissions. As an
example Messrs. Carter, Evans, Franks, Kininmonth and Moore, four of the nations top climate
scientists and one of its top economists submitted a 102 page analysis on climate change but it
went unread and was merely filed away. This situation alone is untenable.

Also the Incoming Government Brief, Strategic Brief, September 2010 only refers to AGW with
no mention of the alternative science, which is global warming due to natural causes.

Biased Commissioners
Minister Combet appointed two of the most extreme AGW alarmists as Commissioners in Tim
Flannery and Will Steffen.

Tim Flannery recently stated “if the world as a whole cut all emissions tomorrow the average
temperature of the planet is not going to drop in several hundred years, perhaps as much as 1000
years”. When Dr. Flannery made this statement the global lower atmospheric temperature was
0.7 degrees lower than 12 months before or nearly equal to the warming over the last 100 years.
May be Dr. Flannery meant several hundred days!

In an interview with the Age on the 5th June 2010, Will Steffen stated “that the world was
warming, dramatically, chiefly as a consequence of the greenhouse emissions pumped into the
atmosphere by human endeavour, should be accepted with the same confidence as the
laws of gravity and relativity. It’s a no-brainer.” In light of the foregoing I will leave it up to the
reader to assess the soundness of his judgment.

General Bias
The IPCC was set up in 1988 to protect the global climate for present and future generations of
mankind. A specific concern was the continued growth in atmospheric concentrations of
“greenhouse” gases which could produce global warming with an eventual rise in sea levels. As
a result no funding has been made available to anyone who wanted to show this was not true or
that warming was due to natural causes. Some $100 billion has been spent on this supposed
cause and only about $50 million on the alternatives. Needless to say, an absurd bias has

This bias now encompasses everything to do with the industry. Main stream peer review
journals are extremely reluctant to publish countering technology, some if not most use biased
referees who can cull out significant papers and if the paper is significant there is a tirade of
abuse that is not leveled at consensus papers.

Few in the industry are prepared to voice an alternative view in case their funding is curtailed.
Others realize if natural causes become accepted their standing in the community will be
jeopardized, their supposed know how will be worthless and their remunerations reduced.
Needless to say they fight feverishly to denigrate natural causes as the cause of global warming.

A respected climate scientist who opposes the consensus had this to say just before his very
significant paper was published six weeks ago. “Given the history of the IPCC gatekeepers in
trying to kill journal papers that don’t agree with their politically-skewed interpretations of
science, I hope you will forgive me holding off from giving the name of the journal until it is
actually published.” The author’s concern was well-founded as the Editor in Chief has now
‘resigned’ over the publishing of this paper.

This conduct must be stifled as the imposition of a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme
will effectively destroy our nation’s competitive advantage from our abundant coal reserves
which give us cheap electricity and $50 billion per annum of coal exports. This destruction
could have been anticipated back in 1988 when the IPCC was formed and it is disturbing that no
Australian government since this time attempted to counter the absurd mandate the IPCC has. It
also shows an appalling inability to assess technology.

Over Population
The real problem is that the human population has become excessive, yet no effort is being made
to curtail it. Predictions indicate the world’s population will rise by another two billion over the
next 50 years further accentuating the problem. This excessive population accentuates
deforestation and the combustion of fossil fuels. Furthermore it requires a never ending increase
in food production which will become harder to achieve if the predicted falling temperatures

A world wide program should be instigated to give all women of a fertile age free contraceptives
to guard against unwanted pregnancies. Contraceptive implants are highly reliable, long lasting
and of low cost so such a plan should be viable. If families are limited to two children then there
should be no population increase.

Think Smarter
There has been commentary in the media recently that we need to increase our productivity.
Considering the wastage outlined above by not properly evaluating technology one must ask
what other examples are there? The gains from thinking smarter could be enormous.

The Way Forward
This whole debate has turned into an absolute farce. One thing is for certain, that is the
science of anthropogenic global warming is not settled. To proceed with a carbon tax when
this science is clearly flawed is utterly absurd.

For the next 40 years the world should continue research into finding ways to reduce its
emissions and put in place viable new technology and improve the science of climate changes.

In particular research should focus on:
        1. Alternative cycles in nuclear fission reactors. In particular ways to reduce uranium use
        which in current reactors is only 1% of the uranium in the uranium concentrate and
        cycles that produce waste with a much shorter half life.
        2. Nuclear fission reactors in the hope a break through will result in this becoming a
        dominant source of power in 50-100 years.
        3. Energy from hot rock because of the massive amount of energy stored in these
        4. Solar energy because of the substantial improvement made in this technology over the
        last 25 years. If repeated in the coming 25 years solar could become competitive with
        other major sources of energy.
        5. Energy saving technology especially more fuel efficient motor vehicles.

As research in general provides significant gains it is reasonable to expect the world will make
significant gains in the above technology in the coming years and trim its emissions. Also more
precise theory of climate change will be to hand allowing for more precise predictions for the

In about 40 years time emission trading schemes/carbon taxes can be instigated to cap the total
emissions so CO2 levels top out at 600 ppm in about 60 years time. The schemes adopted should
not require any reduction in emissions. Considering the likely CO2 sinks at this level, the world
will need to limit CO2 emissions from the use of fossil fuels to around two to three times current
The government should immediately repeal the Carbon Tax legislation and legislate the
    1. For the next 15 years industry may construct plant with no CO2 abatement requirements.
    2. Such plant once constructed will not be required to install any CO2 abatement equipment
       or be subject to a carbon tax, ETS or like penalty for the 40 years following construction.
    3. In order to satisfy AGW alarmists, the science of global warming will be reassessed in
       10 years time and if there is still no reasonable chance of temperatures rising above the
       desired one degree rise or other environmental damage, the 15 year moratorium in item 1
       will be increase for a further 10 years.
    4. The process in item 3 will be repeated every 10 years in order to firm up the science and
       determine when it is necessary to commence abating CO2 emissions.

Such legislation would allow the nation to gain the full benefit of our vast coal resource and the
increased productivity of our rural industries. It should be noted this legislation would only
apply to new investments. If it became apparent that abatement measures were necessary then it
could be imposed on the existing plants which will make up the majority of emitters for many
years to come.

The Australian government should now work with the US government, who have expressed
concern about the IPCC, to wind up the IPCC and form a totally new entity to carry out future
research primarily to do with the natural causes of climate change to make up for the dearth of
such research over the previous decades. As the US government is a major source of funding it
should demand the major scientific journals which are predominantly US ones eliminate their
bias in selecting and the way they peer review prospective research papers.

The Australian government should also move in the United Nations that a world wide program
be instigated to give all women of a fertile age free contraceptives as outlined before.

Effect of the Carbon Tax
Terry McCrann in the Herald Sun on August 26, 2011 put the cost of permits for 94 million
tonnes of CO2 purchased overseas between 2020 and 2050 at $650 million. As well there will be
the cost of cutting our emissions by 58 million tonnes. If one places a cost of these cuts at the
same price as the permits there will be an extra $400 million in costs. Then there will be the
extra costs of permits after 2050 compared to my scheme on a never ending basis. The total loss
will be measured in trillions of dollars.

The proposed legislation is aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 80% in 2050.
Professor Blandy in the Australian on August 4th, 2011 noted that if all nations adopted similar
abatement measures requiring permits that the price of permits could rise to debilitating levels as
every nation strove to meet their requirements.

Furthermore if the world adopts such abatement schemes it will destroy Australia’s thermal coal
production industry resulting in lost revenue of multiples of trillions of dollars due to the
combined effects of substantially reduced demand and substantially lower prices.

Also an 80% reduction in emissions could force the iron and steel industry to adopt new
production techniques that don’t require high valued metallurgical coal for the production of pig
iron the raw material for steel production and in turn decimate this industry too.

The total loss to our nation from the Carbon Tax legislation compared to my scheme will be
measured in multiples of trillion of dollars. Losses of Trillions of dollars just because the
Gillard Government refused to consider the alternative science.

Circulation of the Summary
I first gave an earlier version of this summary to Minister Combet in March with a follow up
letter in May and a revised version in July. I also sent to the Prime Minister the summary in July.
Copies were also sent to Messrs. Oakeshott, Wilkie and Windsor on three occasions. All chose
to ignore my work preferring to pass legislation which the prime minister states can never be
revoked even though the alternative science had never been considered and the nation will
sustain a loss in the trillions of dollars.

If ordinary citizens acted this way, they would be convicted of criminal negligence and sent to
jail but politicians have immunity from such a law. This shows we need a Corruption
Commission that can prosecute any one from the Prime Minister down.

Terry F. Croft
22nd October 2011

                                                “Don’t worry about the
                                                 world coming to an end
                                                 today. – It’s already
                                                 tomorrow in Australia”.

                                                          Charles Schulz

CC, Rev5.2, The Climate Change Fiasco, 221011


To top