Always fake the weather by lindash


Always fake the weather

More Info

 Always fake the weather
 Adam Mallik

                                                     their efforts were particularly directed to find-
 C    limate change, given all the trappings,
      has become the fastest growing religion.
 It has ‘the book’, — the IPCC reports. No
                                                     ing, even inventing, climate change, the data
                                                     not withstanding. They found the study of
 one has to read it, let alone understand it; one    climate system complex and ‘the multiple
 has to just believe it as the ‘priests’ say. Its    interactions that determine its behaviour
 prophets of gloom and doom abound. The              imposed limitations (on their) ability to
 end is neigh! Climate is changing. Air will         understand fully the future course of Earth’s
                                                     global climate.’3 Yet they put all their faith
 burn, and you will breathe fire. Sea is rising,
                                                     in simulated climate models, which are
 and it will drown you. Believe, and you will
                                                     hyperbolically out of step with observed and
 achieve salvation, Moksha, Nirvana, rapture
                                                     measured data.
 up to heaven, entrance to the Garden of Eden
                                                         Those pushing the climate change barrow
 and embraces from virgins.                          very well know about the doubts; Ross
     No wonder evangelists are jumping on            Garnaut has admitted it, yet, he would push
 the bandwagon in droves; climate change             ahead, in case … Pascal’s wager, a matter of
 ‘coalitions’ are growing like mushrooms in          faith, has triumphantly returned. Kevin Rudd
 the suburbia, and they held an impressive           warned about ‘extreme capitalism’ (read
 demonstration last November across cities           ‘rogue’); coming on the heel of global finan-
                                                                                                          These represent
 and towns. A few, if at all, would think read-
 ing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
                                                     cial meltdown, ‘extreme science’ such as emis-      the 21st century
                                                     sion trading, etc would only knock harder
 Change (IPCC) reports could be a good idea.         blows on industry, trade and commerce, why              equivalent of
 Fewer even would bother checking the con-           industry is so vehemently opposed to it.
 nection between atmospheric carbon dioxide          Suddenly, carbon emission trading is popular,             hellfire and
 (CO2) and climate change, or can tell climate       not only at home; governments around the
 from weather. Wearing ignorance as a badge          globe are going for it. Why? Because it would
                                                                                                              brimstone to
 of honour seems to be the 21st century
 zeitgeist. Only faith can induce such a mass
                                                     bring revenue, just like the Alco-pops, no           bring down the
                                                     matter its professed purpose is served or
 delusion.                                           not. Advocates of emission trading very well           ignorant and
     The language too mimics ‘the book’, with        know it will not curb or reduce emission but
 multilayered meanings that only the believers       could send many poor nations broke. Who               the gullible …
 would comprehend. At the very outset, it            cares? Has our PM ever uttered a word about
 said, it documented key findings and uncer-         stopping land clearance that goes unabated in
 tainties,1 but we, nevertheless, took climate       his State?
 change as given, a certainty, as the language           Climate Change 2007, Synthesis Report
 implied.                                            (IPCC Fourth Assessment Report) did not
     The IPCC was created, apparently at no-         define climate, but began with a definition of
 body’s asking, to provide an objective source       climate change, ‘… changes in the state of the
 of information and a scientific understanding       climate that can be identified (e.g. using
 of climate change to whoever may be inter-          statistical tests) by changes in the variability
 ested, and to promote an understanding of           of its properties, and that persists for an
 human-induced climate change. IPCC did              extended period, typically decades or longer’.
 neither conduct any basic research nor moni-            This is a cleverly worded and ambiguous
 tored climate related data or parameters;2, 3 its   definition set out to sustain its equally
 members researched published papers by              dubious and questionable findings. It implied
 scientists of various disciplines related to        climate has ‘properties’ that define it. ‘Prop-
 meteorology and environmental sciences in           erties’ in climatological terms are called
 order to find evidence of climate change. The       ‘elements’ and ‘factors’ of climate. ‘Elements’
 concept of ‘climate change’ did not result          characterise climate types, while ‘factors’
 from their study; it was presupposed, and           define local variation within a climate type.

  February 2009                                                                                                         51
                     In the Synthesis Report, we get to know their      ocean temperatures, widespread melting of the
                     ‘properties’ only from the introductory flow-      snow and ice and rising average sea level.’ And
                     chart. According to the science of climatology,    it graphically presented 100-year (1906–2006)
                     only the first two ‘properties’ are ‘elementary’   linear trend that shows an average rise of
                     to climate, the other two are neither elemen-      0.74°C. Data from Australian Bureau of Mete-
                     tary nor factorial. There are other ‘elements’     orology, Hadley Centre (UK), and other global
                     of climate not mentioned, or ignored. Histor-      sources all indicate a temperature rise of less
                     ical overview of climate change science4 cited     than 1°C over the last century.5 Clearly, IPCC
                     another ‘factor’, wind, which is ‘elemental’ to    was aware this dismal rise in temperature was
                     climate. Isolated and cursory mention of this      no proof of climate change. So, it presented
                     ‘element’ suggests the IPCC’s conception of        another slightly shifted 100-year (1901–2000)
                     climate is unclear, sketchy at best. They prob-    rise of 0.6°C to claim a warming trend.6 There
                     ably never bothered, as it was ex-agenda.          are more of such laughable statistics. One may
                     Therefore, to substantiate this commentary,        wonder what these tortuous, rather childish,
                     we will begin with a definition of climate and     statistics are for. They are such tiny fluctua-
                     proceed from there to unravel the misconcep-       tions in only one of many climatic elements
                     tions and the resulting confusion.                 that hardly warrant serious investigation, let
                                                                        alone concern. IPCC followed this with
                     Climate and Weather                                decadal statistics of various ‘properties’ to
                                                                        point out trends which means nothing in
                     Encyclopaedia Britannica defined Climate as a      climatological terms. At least three decades’
                     condition of the atmosphere at a particular        average value of an element must be beyond
                     location over a long period; it is the long-term   its standard range to register change. That
‘Global              summation of the atmospheric elements (and         wouldn’t come by, so the ambiguous definition
                     their variation) that, over short periods,         of climate change cited above.
warming’ was         comprises weather. Chambers Science and                 Global sea level rose during 1961–2003
                     Technology Dictionary puts a value for long-       on average 1.8 mm per year, 57% of this since
invented in the      term at 30 years.                                  1993 accounts for thermal expansion of
                         Note the phrase ‘atmospheric elements’,
1980s and            i.e. climate has ‘elements’, the constituent
                                                                        the sea, and 28% from melting ice caps and
                                                                        glaciers. Melting of Arctic sea ice, mountain
overnight many       parts of the climate which are fundamental to      snow cover and glaciers, and decrease in the
                     its conception. These are: temperature, pre-       extent of seasonally frozen ground6 are irrele-
reputed scientists   cipitation (type, frequency and amount),           vant to the question of climate change
                     humidity, wind (speed and direction), air          although global temperature rise may be
advocating a         pressure, cloudiness and visibility. Each          partially responsible. The Department of
glacial return       climate type has a characteristic minimum,         Fisheries and Ocean Research of Canada
                     maximum and average values for each of             attributes the melting of Arctic sea ice to
turned about …       these elements. A climate type would said to       southerly winds and warm ocean currents,
                     have changed only when the values of all           not the global temperature rise, as sea ice is
                     or most of its characteristic elements have        growing in the Antarctic.
                     substantially changed, as summed up from                IPCC mentioned during 1900–2005,
                     records of at least 30 years. If the variations    precipitation increased significantly in eastern
                     are averaged from any shorter periods, or          parts of North and South Americas, northern
                     lie within the normal range of any element,        Europe, northern and central Asia, and
                     it would constitute only a temporal weather        declining precipitation in the Sahel (sic), the
                     variation within the same climate type. In         Mediterranean, southern Africa and parts of
                     addition, the climatic ‘factors’ may cause vari-   southern Asia, but did not present any data.6
                     ations but do not change climate. IPCC has         Without data, it is impossible to assess
                     not shown any such changes in any elements         whether these changes were substantial to
                     of climate to claim any change.                    change the climate or merely seasonal varia-
                         In fact, the debates, as well as the panic,    tions. IPCC must be aware of El Nino and
                     all come from weather variations. The varia-       La Nina effects that cause erratic precipitation
                     tion could sometimes be extreme, but we are        patterns, flash floods and droughts. There are
                     familiar with the phrase ‘vagaries of weather’;    mentions of these in IPCC reports, but not in
                     aren’t we?                                         this context. Without data, these variations
                         The summed up long term data IPCC              are little more than hearsay. That, and innu-
                     presented does not show changes in the             endo, do not change climate.
                     elements to the extent that climate could be            IPCC went on describing observational
                     construed as changing. The Synthesis Report        evidence of increase in tropical cyclone events
                     stated: ‘Warming of the climate system is          in the North Atlantic and ‘some other regions’
                     unequivocal, as is now evident from observa-       since 1970. During the last 50 years, it said: it
                     tions of increases in global average air and       is likely that hot days and nights increased

52                                                                                             Australian Rationalist #82
and cold days and nights decreased, likely          humid at night for that relative to the temper-
that heatwave became more frequent, likely          ature outside it. Think of Darwin, particularly
that heavy precipitation events increased, and      during the summer; day temperature seldom
likely that evidence of extreme high sea level      exceeds 34°C, but it feels like a greenhouse,
increased.6 ‘Likely’ is a scale of assessed prob-   whereas Alice Springs or Meekatharra with
ability of occurrence; it is said to be >66%.       45°C would feel burning hot but not like a
This exercise is like scratching for crumbs in      greenhouse, i.e. not sultry or muggy. Atmos-
absence of real data/evidence on the one hand,      pheric CO2 in these places would be the same,
and desperation to achieve consensus among          but it is the humidity that makes the differ-
workers when science did not speak for itself.      ence. That CO2 makes greenhouses feel hot is
    Researching the works published by              a clever trick. CO2 has its role in global warm-
others obviously would not and clearly did          ing in keeping with its proportion in the
not provide the IPCC with the data that could       atmosphere but it is grossly exaggerated in
lead to any degree of certainty to its presup-      the IPCC reports to the extent as if it is the
posed goal of climate change, but climate           mortal enemy of humanity. It is not.
change is the Holy Grail it must find. Alas, it          CO2 is a life-supporting and life-sustain-
proved so elusive even in the stack of data         ing gas. The two life forms on the Earth, the
gathered and interpreted. Therefore, a con-         animal life and the plant life, depend on this
sensus had to be arrived at among the IPCC          gas through a natural CO2-oxygen cycle.
scientists to sweep the uncertainties under         Animals, including us, breathe in oxygen and
the carpet. The uncertainties were assessed         breathe out CO2, while plants breathe in CO2
qualitatively, quantitatively and on specific       and breathe out oxygen for us to breathe back
outcomes. ‘Uncertainty in specific outcome is       in. If we knew this truth, how could we call
assessed using expert judgement and statisti-       CO2 a toxic gas, or coin a phrase like ‘carbon
cal analysis of a body of evidence’ and ‘likeli-    pollution’? ‘Carbon pollution’ has become a              Nations must
hood ranges are used to express the assessed        popular catch-phrase for our Climate Change
probability of occurrence.’ It ranged from          Minister and a cacophony for the compliant                   think and
virtually certain = >99% to exceptionally uncer-    media.
tain = <1% with degrees of likely in between.7           The very little global warming we noted
                                                                                                         rethink if putting
Good science is about testing theories against      the IPCC data indicated has been attributed         national resources
data, not reaching consensus.8 IPCC may be          to natural and anthropogenic production
well aware their consensus approach has dealt       and concentration of greenhouse gasses and              and wellbeing
a death blow to their entire enterprise as a        aerosols in the atmosphere, their radiative
serious scientific work. That must be outdone       forcing to climate responses and effects, and
                                                                                                                 on the line
by political bull dodging.                          changes in land cover and solar radiation.9             for speculative
                                                         The so-called greenhouse gasses, CO2,
The Atmosphere                                      methane, nitrous oxide and halocarbons with         fear-mongering…
                                                    aerosols absorb infrared radiation and are
We must consider the atmosphere as its short        the cause of atmospheric warming. These
and long term conditions define weather and         together comprise no more than three-
climate, respectively. Also, the atmosphere         hundredth of 1% of the atmosphere. Does
surrounding the Earth made it a greenhouse          absorption of infrared radiation by green-
that made the evolution of life possible, but       house gasses make them hot air? Not at all.
now seems to be causing all the troubles (for       That is because it constitutes such a tiny frac-
the fools). The atmosphere consists of:             tion of the atmosphere. Blaming greenhouse
    Nitrogen (N2)           78.08%                  gasses in general and CO2 in particular for
    Oxygen (O2)             20.94%                  global warming has no scientific basis but has
    Argon (Ar)               0.09%                  a political motive. We come to this later.
    Carbon dioxide (CO2) 0.03%                           The IPCC report told us, during 1970 to
    Those make up 99.24%. Small but vari-           2004, CO2 emission grew by about 80%, from
able amounts of water vapour and traces of          21 to 38 Gigatons (1 Giga = 1,000,000,000).
methane (NH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), halo-           This figure looks terrifying, at least that seems
carbons and some other gasses make up the           to be the intention. The relative data appears
remaining 0.76%.                                    a few paragraphs down the pages thus: CO2
    Water vapour is the main greenhouse gas         in the atmosphere increased from the pre-
because of the relative humidity it affords to      industrial (1750) 280 parts per million (ppm)
the atmosphere. The inside of a greenhouse          to 379 ppm in 2005. During the correspond-
feels hot and humid due to the relative             ing period, methane rose from 1732 parts per
humidity, not for CO2; plants breathe in CO2        billion (ppb) to 1774 ppb, and nitrous oxide
during the day when little of it would be left      from 270 ppb to 319 ppb.9 That is, CO2 rose
there any way. Plants breathe out CO2 at night      from 0.028% to nearly 0.038% of the atmos-
and the greenhouse will still feel hot and          phere. In other words, it rose one-hundredth

 February 2009                                                                                                           53
                  of 1% from 1750 to 2005. 1970–2004 figures         unimaginable success. Let us cite a couple of
                  may imply a faster rise, but the latest output     examples.
                  remains 0.038% of the atmosphere. That 500             ABC TV in 2007 screened Martin Durkin’s
                  ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere or any other          documentary: The Great Global Warming
                  imaginary value would reach the ‘tipping           Swindle, followed by a grilling of Durkin
                  point’ (as if we would get up one fine morn-       by Tony Jones and a panel discussion. The
                  ing to see the climate has changed) has no         climate changers among the panellists cited
                  substance. IPCC has not shown the casual           evidence of climate change one after another
                  relationship between the rises of atmospheric      that were mere variations in weather, but
                  CO2 and global warming despite many of             surprisingly, the climate rationalists (called
                  the small-scale graphic presentations looking      sceptics) among the panellists failed to point
                  like it. Carter presented a similar graph for      out this gross misconception, let alone say
                  methane (ppb), CO2 (ppm) and temperature           that unusual weather conditions now and
                  (°C) from Vostok ice core. Remarkable coin-        then, here and there, do not constitute
                  cidences of timing of variations, however,         climate change.
                  unravelled when seen at a higher resolution            The other example is ABC’s Four Corners
                  showing changes in temperature preceded            programme screened on 4th September 2008.
                  changes in CO2 by about 800 years.10 IPCC          Marian Wilkinson went aboard a Department
                  too made these observations: ‘… the initial        of Fisheries and Ocean Research vessel cum
                  climatic change (glacial-interglacial) pre-        ice breaker across the Arctic. Wilkinson spoke
                  ceded the change in CO2 but was enhanced           to the scientists on board doing their job,
                  by it,11 and ‘Antarctic temperature started to     which was not to watch or assess climate
                  rise centuries before atmospheric CO2 during       change, but she cooked up her own by talking
                  past glacial terminations12, contrary to their     to them, asking questions and feeding words
There are         assertions otherwise.                              into their mouths. One of the scientists, Mark
                      The cause of rise in atmospheric CO2 has       Serreze, thought that in the olden days,
exceptionally     been attributed mainly to fossil fuel use, land-   climate changed due to solar variability and
                  use change contributing a smaller part. Land-      volcanic activity but now it is the greenhouse
good scopes in    use change is a euphemism for tree-felling/        gasses. He linked it to the phenomenal loss of
Australia to      logging/deforestation/land-clearing. It is curi-   sea ice in the Arctic during the last 30 years
                  ous that fossil fuel use is held as the main       and thought it was approaching a tipping
develop solar,    culprit, and more curious that land-use            point. Once it tips over, the change will be
                  change is given a wrap on the knuckle when         exported to other parts of the world, fast.
wind, hydro-,     the Earth has virtually been stripped bare         Wilkinson interjected: that is the weather.
                  of old growth and native forests. It would         Serreze concurred with a heavy nod of his
wave and hot      seem more plausible that the rise in atmos-        head and repeated: that is the weather, yes.
rock energies …   pheric CO2 concentration resulted from the
                  residual CO2 that would have otherwise been
                                                                         Would it be unfair to say both Serreze and
                                                                     Wilkinson are unaware of the distinction
                  absorbed had the trees not been felled, forests    between climate and weather? Mind you, this
                  not logged and lands not cleared of native         programme was promoted thus: if you want
                  vegetation since industrialisation.                to see climate change before your eyes, go to
                      That is clearly not the game plan if           the Arctic. After the cyclone Sidr hit southern
                  we look back to the IPCC progression. Its          Bangladesh, a vice president of the World
                  First Assessment Report (1990) was followed        Bank landed in Dhaka and declared: this is
                  in Rio de Janeiro by the United Nations            climate change on the ground. You may
                  Framework Convention on Climate Change             excuse the bureaucrats and politicians, the
                  (1992/1994); the Second Assessment Report          IPCC scientists do not seem to be any better
                  (1995) followed by the Kyoto Protocol              when we read these: ‘… water vapour is a
                  (1997), followed on by the Third and the           strong greenhouse gas (and) its concentration
                  Fourth assessment reports; Bali conference         in the atmosphere changes in response to
                  (2007); Poznan (2008) and Copenhagen this          changes in surface climate’13… etc. Surface
                  year set to outdo Kyoto. Heavy-handed polit-       climate? What is surface climate? They are in
                  ical agendas have been brought to bear upon        fact talking about surface weather conditions.
                  governments behind the apparently benign           And: ‘Extremes of climate are a key expres-
                  IPCC reports. Political propaganda and adver-      sion of climate variability.’14 What is extreme
                  tising on climate change have successfully         climate referred to here? The answer follows
                  brainwashed and scared ordinary people to          shortly: ‘… types of extreme events including
                  the extent that they are almost ready to stop      heat waves, draughts, heavy precipitation
                  breathing (out) CO2 to save the planet.            and tropical cyclones.’14 These are clearly
                  Natural disasters and extreme weather con-         variations in weather conditions unlikely to
                  ditions have been sold as proof of climate         sustain for 30+ years to qualify to be called
                  change to ignorant and gullible peoples to         climate. We can say there are extreme

54                                                                                         Australian Rationalist #82
climates on the Venus and the Mars, or even        change’ was invented and the IPCC launched
in Antarctica and the Sahara, but that is not      in the 1990s. ‘Ignoramuses’ were shown the
what IPCC scientists are talking about.            vagaries of weather with a finger into their
     The IPCC reports are littered with similar    eyes how climate was changing in front of
weather-climate muddle; it is more often than      them. It gradually caught on. What a master
not that ‘climate’ is substituted for ‘weather’.   stroke that has been!
Is it ignorance? I don’t think so. Its callous,        To the informed, it was always an open
deliberate, and a political agenda that has        secret that the nuclear energy interests (the
incidentally been the most effective weapon        invisible big brothers?) were behind the soft-
to frighten the shit out of everybody around       ening up process, given peoples’ attitude
the globe.                                         towards the nuclear energy fortified with the
     Similarly, coral bleaching and sea en-        knowledge of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Long
croaching to drown some (a few, not all)           Island and Chernobyl. Our former PM let the
Pacific Island nations have sound scientific       cat out of the sack. A well-known ‘climate-
explanations, and these are not global warm-       sceptic’ suddenly became climate-friendly and
ing and sea level rise. But who would listen to    declared nuclear energy as the only ‘clean’
scientific explanations? Not those who have        energy source. He immediately set up a
political axes to grind.                           commission to study the options which
     These represent the 21st century equiva-      during his tenure nominated 17 possible sites
lent of brimstone and hellfire to bring down       nationwide for nuclear power plants. Ironi-
the ignorant and the gullible, the unsure and      cally, Green and conservation movements
the unbeliever, the unconfident and the un-        dismally failed to see the nuclear tiger in
decided to trepidation and to their knees.         ambush behind the climate change hoax; they
‘Projections of rapid climate change with          remain as deluded and seem to remain so
severe consequences are a prophesy,’ said          for ever.
Pittcock, ‘Modern scientific “prophets of              There is no mention of nuclear energy              Its callous,
doom” follow in the tradition of Old Testa-        as the clean option to replace polluting fossil
ment prophets.’15                                  fuels in the IPCC reports; the nations will       deliberate, and
     If we just look back to the Ice Age, both     find their own options. There was likewise,
glacial and interglacial periods in Europe         no mention of any clean nuclear options at
                                                                                                           a political
lasted tens of thousands of years. The changes     Kyoto or at last years Climate Change con-          agenda ... to
from one period to another did not happen          ference at Bali. SBS screened in its Cutting
overnight; changes occurred through tran-          Edge window a documentary The Nuclear                 frighten the
sition periods lasting over centuries. That        Comeback on 15th January 2008. The docu-
means, climate change is not perceivable in        mentary made it amply clear the climate                 shit out of
one’s life time; it has to be deduced from         change propaganda has made nuclear option
meticulously recorded data over a very long        more acceptable across nations. It also
                                                                                                       everybody ...
period that could run into centuries; we           warned about the consequences of the
have noticed the data over immediate past          so-called clean energy in terms of waste
centuries the IPCC worked with show little         disposal.
change and little sign of change, disregarding         It should now be clear why CO2 has
their computer models.                             almost been singled out for global warming
     Make no mistake; if climate changes, as it    and not the destruction of CO2-eating trees
have many times during the geological time,        and forests. Fossil fuel burning produces CO2,
it will change due to natural causes beyond        therefore, this line of approach will unmis-
the capacity of humans; however super-ego          takeably lead to an alternative fuel source, a
they may have grown, to influence it, let alone    clean fuel source, i.e. nuclear.
curb it.
                                                   Phasing out is the way forward
The missing piece of the puzzle
                                                   The IPCC has presented a case of rising
General belief till the 1970s was the Ice Age      atmospheric concentration of greenhouse
may not have ended and we were only in             gasses and aerosols and corresponding rise
an interglacial interlude heading towards          in global warming, but does that indicate
another glacial period. ‘Global warming’ was       climate change? The answer is an emphatic
invented in the 1980s and overnight many           NO! To undo this negativity it undertook
reputed scientists advocating a glacial return     computer modelling and projections of pos-
turned about and began telling if global           sible scenarios for the future that are plainly
warming is not reined in, our blue-green           outrageous. Computers are machines pro-
Earth will soon turn into a burning brown          ducing what they are to create and the data
lump of rock like Venus. They had overplayed       fed in. These models and projections are so
their hands, the scare didn’t catch. ‘Climate      out of step with the data presented and our

 February 2009                                                                                                     55
     knowledge of the past in terms of the natural        well-planned, determined, steady, pragmatic
     science and the geological records that these        steps to phase out our dependence on fossil
     deserve nothing but rejection. Computer              fuels and phase in and establish, once and for
     models cannot predict future climate, they are       all, the clean renewable energy sources. Time
     at best educated guesses. ‘They are exercises        should not be a worry; a hundred years would
     in virtual reality, and not evidence of any type.’   not cause the sky to fall. What’s needed is a
     Other types of computer models predicted a           dogged determination and tenacious steely
     21st century cooling.16 ‘Models are models:          nerves. We have a base of technological
     they are highly simplified versions of reality       know-how that would only enhance and
     and cannot provide evidence of anything.’17          improve as we go along. Other developed
     Nations must think and rethink if putting            nations are also thinking in these terms; this
     national resources and wellbeing on the line         IS the time to think anew. We are better placed
     for speculative fear-mongering with dubious          than many to start it here. Once started, it
     results is worth the effort.                         would spread fast and the process would be
         Emissions are a problem, though. They            accelerated. Once the goal is achieved, we
     pollute the atmosphere with all their con-           could say goodbye to fossil fuels forever. The
     tents: the gasses and the aerosols. While we         bogey of climate change would disappear too.
     argue against a climate change resulting from        We would be selling our technology instead
     these, pollution is causing increasing inci-         of woodchips, coal and LNG, and may be able
     dences of smog, forcing people to wear               to help the resource-poor nations out of their
     masks, and respiratory illnesses. As such, this      predicaments along the way also. Phasing out
     is an atmospheric/environmental pollution            the nuclear energy source would be next.
     and a health issue, not a climate change issue.
     The environmental scientists and respiratory         References
     health experts are to be entrusted to tackle          1. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report; IPCC
     and find solutions to these problems. Emis-              Fourth Assessment Report (FAR).
     sion trading will not solve this or any other         2. About IPCC.
     problems. It will solve nothing.                      3. IPCC FAR Working Group 1 Report ‘The
         Let us be pragmatic; nuclear energy has              Physical Science Basis’ Technical Summary,
     come to stay, like it or not. Many resource-             p.21.
     poor countries may find nuclear the only              4. Ibid, Chapter 1. Historical Overview of Climate
     option when fossil fuels run out. But Australia          Change Science.
                                                           5. Marohasy, Jennifer, Case of the warm and
     stands in a unique position. Emissions trad-
                                                              fuzzy; The Weekend Australian/Inquirer, 23–24
     ing scheme (ETS), carbon capture, carbon
                                                              August, 2008.
     trading, etc are dubious schemes resulting in
                                                           6. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report, IPCC
     money down the drain. Investing this money               Fourth Assessment Report, Chapter 1.
     in tree plantation would be immensely more            7. Ibid, Introduction, p.27.
     rewarding. Reforestation and immediate stop-          8. Aitkin, Don, Good science is not about
     ping land clearance deserve a thousand times             consensus; The Australian, April 9, 2008
     greater priority than ETS, etc. Restoration of           and Carter, R M, The Myth of Dangerous
     the forests destroyed around the globe could             Human-Caused Climate Change; Proceedings
     reverse the trend of global warming from                 of the AusIMM New Leaders’ Conference,
     greenhouse gas concentration in the atmos-               Brisbane,2–3 May, 2007.
     phere without wrecking the economy, the               9. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report, IPCC
     industry and the wellbeing of nations. This              Fourth Assessment Report, Chapter 2.
     has lately been appreciated and there is talk of     10. Carter, R M, The Myth of Dangerous
     plantation of carbon-sink forests.                       Human-Caused Climate Change; Proceedings
         Meanwhile, Australia can rely on coal, oil           of the AusIMM New Leaders Conference,
     and gas resources while these are there, and             Brisbane,2–3 May, 2007.
     save the money to invest heavily in devel-           11. IPCC FAR Working Group 1 Report ‘The
     oping the clean energy sources. There are                Physical Science Basis’, Historical Overview of
                                                              Climate Change Science, p.105.
     exceptionally good scopes in Australia to
                                                          12. Ibid, Palaeoclimate, p.435.
     develop solar, wind, hydro-, wave and hot
                                                          13. Ibid, Technical Summary, p.23.
     rock energies. With advances in these areas          14. Ibid, Technical Summary, p.35.
     to date, prospects of achieving landmark goals       15. Pittcock, A Barrie, Climate Change: Turning up
     are high. Display of ostentatious, headline-             the heat; CSIRO, 2005.
     grabbing, seemingly adrenaline-high collec-          16. Carter, R M, op. cit. pp.64-65.
     tive ADHD syndrome is no substitute for              17. Aitkin, Don, op. cit.

      Adam Mallik is the pen name of a scientist who did a comprehensive course on climatology as
      part of his degree, majored in geology and went on to complete a PhD.

56                                                                                Australian Rationalist #82

To top