![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|||
![]() |
|
|
Print Dissenting report (PDF 211KB) | < - Report Home < - Chapter 8 : Appendix A - > |
We do not believe the evidence unequivocally supports the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) |
|
1.1 | We dissent from some of the statements made in the report Between a Rock and a Hard Place by the Standing Committee on Science and Innovation on its investigation into the Geosequestration of Carbon Dioxide. |
1.2 | We disagree with the report’s unequivocal support for the hypothesis that global warming is caused by man—so-called anthropogenic global warming (AGW). |
1.3 | We are concerned that the Committee’s report strays well outside its terms of reference. In fact, the committee did not take any evidence relating to anthropogenic global warming. |
1.4 | We do agree with the report’s examination of the various factors relating to the geosequestration of carbon dioxide. Its coverage of the five aspects required in the terms of reference is sound. |
1.5 | We believe that the document is valuable in providing a resource that is detailed and up-to-date on the science, technology and other issues related to carbon dioxide geosequestration in the Australian context. It is as good as any in the public domain. |
![]() |
|
The case for AGW based theoretical models and unproven economic assumptions |
|
1.6 | The science related to anthropogenic global warming is not, despite the assurances of some, settled in the scientific community. |
1.7 | There is a great deal of debate and uncertainty related to this science, yet the Committee’s report, in dealing with those issues, uses one-sided language that does not in any way correspond with the level of uncertainty or the low level of scientific understanding of many of the disciplines involved in global warming research. |
1.8 | Furthermore, the critical area of the fallibility and shortcomings of computer modelling is not mentioned anywhere. These shortcomings are exacerbated by the need to base the theoretical models on assumptions which are in turn generated by complex and also theoretical economic projections. |
![]() |
|
Many eminent scientists say that AGW is far from proven |
|
1.9 | The very first discussion paragraph of Chapter 2 in the report sets the scene in a very unfortunate manner. The evidence that human beings are changing the global climate is certainly not compelling. Many, even within the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) itself, disagree with the claimed consensus view. Remember that it is the IPCC that is the international body to whom the policy makers and AGW fanatics have looked to for direction on this subject. |
1.10 | The following passages report the well founded views of some eminent scientists in fields related to climate change, some of whom have made significant contributions to the IPCC’s investigations. They, with good reason, disagree with the IPCC’s findings in relation to AGW.
|
![]() |
|
Global warming observed on other planets |
|
1.11 | Another problem with the view that it is anthropogenic greenhouse gases that have caused warming is that warming has also been observed on Mars,14 Jupiter,15 Triton,16 Pluto,17 Neptune18 and others. It is the natural property of planets with fluid envelopes to have variability in climate. Thus, at any given time, we may expect about half the planets to be warming. This has nothing to do with human activities. |
![]() |
|
Science relies on testing hypotheses, not consensus |
|
1.12 | The issue of consensus in science is very much misunderstood; unfortunately, in dealing with the issue of anthropogenic global warming, the Committee’s report adds to that misunderstanding. |
1.13 | Science is a discipline which relies on testing hypotheses and exposing flaws, (scientifically known as falsification), not on consensus, in order to further scientific understanding. Scientific fact is not a democracy. Scientific facts are not concerned with what the majority of people or scientists think or do not think. The laws of physics are not subject to the democratic vote of a group of scientists; they cannot be repealed by a popular vote. Albert Einstein, for example, when asked to comment on the book One Hundred Authors Against Einstein which denounced his Theory of Relativity, stated that ‘to defeat relativity one did not need the word of 100 scientists, just one fact’.19 |
1.14 | Many examples exist of erroneous scientific consensus in the history of science:
|
![]() |
|
Committee does not apply scientific method |
|
1.15 | We view it as very disappointing that the Committee on Science and Innovation has put out a report that misunderstands the nature of scientific method. |
1.16 | For example, section 2.2 of the Committee’s report mentions the IPCC Summary for Policymakers that there is a >90% certainty that human beings have affected the climate. The problem with this statement is that this ignores the fundamental fact that this figure is not the result of some detailed statistical or any other analysis. |
1.17 | It is based on, yet again, simply a consensus opinion arrived at by IPCC bureaucrats. This pseudo-quantitative figure is in the bureaucratic summary for policymakers, not in the actual technical reports, and has no material basis or justification in measured fact. |
![]() |
|
Evidence does not support AGW |
|
1.18 | This report on geosequestration also gives a false impression of the importance of carbon dioxide on the greenhouse effect. All of the gases mentioned in section 2.5 are minor contributors to greenhouse. Between 75%-95% of the greenhouse effect is the result of water vapour and cloud. The understanding of the influence of the latter is low, by the IPCC’s own admission. |
1.19 | Doubling CO2 will only increase the natural greenhouse effect less than 2%. This would produce warming of the order of 1 degree Celsius in the absence of negative feedbacks which are the norm in sustainable physical systems. To be sure, current model projections do depend on positive feedbacks from the ill-understood clouds and water vapour (primarily above 6km).21 |
1.20 | Section 2.27 of the Committee’s report relies heavily on the IPCC’s third assessment report (TAR). The statements made in the Committee’s report, summarised from the IPCC TAR Summary for Policymakers do not in any way address any of the complexities relating to the science underpinning these statements—they are simply bald statements made in an attempt to support the position taken on AGW in this report.
|
Table Graph showing the variability of aggregate rainfall in Australia ![]() |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
Audit Process |
|
1.21 | The admissions and uncertainties quoted in this dissenting report demonstrate the clear need for better methods of auditing the science used for climate change policy advice. |
1.22 | In a recent discussion over the Stern report, Carter et al.36 and Holland et al.37 pointed out that the peer review process, on which the IPCC so heavily relies, is flawed. Ensuring the quality of advice on climate change also requires a comprehensive audit of the information on climate risk that is currently being used by governments to set public policy. |
1.23 | It is a matter of public record that some scientists have withdrawn from the IPCC process because of dissatisfaction with its probity and methods. Valuable though it might be for IPCC to continue to provide summaries of the science of climate change, it is simply not credible to see the IPCC as an adequate audit body. |
![]() |
|
Uncertainty in IPCC Summary for Policymaker’s predictions based on computer models, and the use of unqualified “celebrities” |
|
1.24 | The references to anthropogenic climate change in this report do not in any way reflect the uncertainty in the science associated with climate change science, nor do they reflect the significant debate on the issue in the scientific community, including significant debate in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Indeed, if one paragraph clearly illustrates the one sided nature of this report, it is paragraph 5.59. Here, we have a captain of industry (Rupert Murdoch), who, by his own admission is not a scientist, quoted regarding his view on anthropogenic global warming and the need to take action: I am no scientist but … I do know how to assess a risk. Climate change poses clear catastrophic threats. We may not agree on the extent, but we certainly can’t afford the risk of inaction |
1.25 | This exemplifies the more general problem that most of the public statements that promote the dangerous human warming scare are made from a position of ignorance—by political leaders, press commentators and celebrities who share the characteristics of lack of scientific training and lack of an ability to differentiate between sound science and computer-based scaremongering. |
1.26 | On the issue of computer models used to predict (or project, the IPCC uses the terms interchangeably) future climate, Kevin Trenberth, coordinating lead author of IPCC 4th Assessment Report, WG1 Chapter 3, has made staggering admissions about the weaknesses inherent in the modelling process in the Nature Climate Change blogsite (a longer quote is to be found in Appendix 1):38 …in fact, since the last report it is also often stated that the science is settled or done and now is the time for action. |
![]() |
|
Conclusion |
|
1.27 | Climate change is a natural phenomenon that has always been with us, and always will be. Whether human activities are disturbing the climate in dangerous ways has yet to be proven. It is for this reason that we strongly disagree with the absolute statements and position taken in this review regarding AGW. We have taken no evidence regarding the science of AGW, yet a strong position has been taken regarding this. On the other hand, statements made about the cost competitiveness of renewable energy sources have been taken out of the report, despite the fact that evidence was taken on this. |
1.28 | We therefore conclude this dissenting opinion by appending a long quote from Carter et al (Appendix 2).39 |
![]() |
|
Acknowledgements |
|
We wish to thank the following people for reviewing the scientific accuracy of this report:
Dr Dennis Jensen MP, Hon Jackie Kelly MP, Hon Danna Vale MP, |
|
![]() |
|
Appendix 1 |
|
‘I have often seen references to predictions of future climate by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), presumably through the IPCC assessments. In fact, since the last report it is also often stated that the science is settled or done and now is the time for action. |
|
![]() |
|
Appendix 2 |
|
‘Climate changes naturally all the time. Human activities have an effect on the local climate, for example in the vicinity of cities (warming) or near large areas of changed land usage (warming or cooling, depending upon the changed albedo). Logically, therefore, humans must have an effect on global climate also. This notwithstanding, a distinct human signal has not yet been identified within the variations of the natural climate system, to the degree that we cannot even be certain whether the global human signal is one of warming or cooling. Though it is true that many scientists anticipate that human warming is the more likely, no strong evidence exists that any such warming would be dangerous. |
1 | http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20050623/40748412.html, accessed 23 August 2007. Back |
2 | http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html, accessed 23 August 2007. Back |
3 | V. Gray, Temperature trends in the lower atmosphere, Energy and Environment Vol. 17, no. 5, pp 707-14, 2006. Back |
4 | V. Gray, Temperature trends in the lower atmosphere, Energy and Environment Vol. 17, no. 5, pp 707-14, 2006. Back |
5 | Martin Durkin (director), The Great Global Warming Swindle [Documentary], United Kingdom: WAGtv Ltd. for Channel 4, aired 8 March 2007. Back |
6 | R. Lindzen, U.S. Scientists report doesn’t support the Kyoto Treaty, National Post, 16 June 2001. Back |
7 | C.R. de Freitas, Are observed changes in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere really dangerous?, bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology, vol. 50, no. 2 (June 2002), p. 300. Back |
8 | M. Manning, Report on IPCC Working Group II 6th Plenary Session, Geneva, 13-16 February 2001. Back |
9 | http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-09-01/paul.htm, accessed 23 August 2007. Back |
10 | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensusm, accessed 23 August 2007. Back |
11 | http://www.tsaugust.org/Scientists%20Open%20Letter.htm, accessed 23 August 2007. Back |
12 | IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group 1: The physical basis of climate change Technical Summary, p. 32. Back |
13 | H. Svensmark, J. O. P. Pedersen, N. D. Marsh, M. B. Enghoff, and U. I. Uggerhoj, Experimental evidence for the role of ions in particle nucleation under atmospheric conditions, Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences DOI:10.1098/rspa.2006.1773, 2006. Back |
14 | http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1660; accessed 23 August 2007; http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html, accessed 23 August 2007. Back |
15 | http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_jr.html, accessed 23 August 2007. Back |
16 | http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/19980526052143data_trunc_sys.shtml; accessed 23 August 2007; http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1998/triton.html, accessed 23 August 2007; J. L. Elliot, et al “global Warming on triton”, Nature Vol. 393, p765-767, 25 June 1998. Back |
17 | http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html, accessed 23 August 2007. Back |
18 | H. B. Hammell and G. W. Lockwood, Suggestive correlations between the brightness of Neptune, solar variability, and Earth's temperature, GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 34, L08203, doi:10.1029/2006GL028764, 2007. Back |
19 | http://www.britannica.com/nobelprize/article-256586, accessed 23 August 2007. Back |
20 | http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/04/cooler_heads_needed_on_warming.html, accessed 23 August 2007. Back |
21 | R. S. Lindzen, Private Communication, July 2007. Back |
22 | H. J. Zwally, M. B. Giovinetto, J. Li, H. G. Cornejo, M. A. Beckley, A. C. Brenner, J. L. Saba, and D. Yi, 2005; Mass changes of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets and shelves and contributions to sea-level rise: 1992-2002, Journal of Glaciology 51, pp. 509-527; R. B. Alley, P. U. Clark, P. Huybrechts, and I. Joughin, 2005. Ice-sheet and sea-level changes. Science 310, pp. 456-460. Back |
23 | D. J. Wingham, A. Shepherd, A. Muir, and G. J. Marshall, Mass balance of the Antarctic ice sheet, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 364, pp. 1627-35, 2006; D. H. Bromwich, Z. Guo, L. Bai, and Q. S. Chen, Modeled Antarctic precipitation. Part I: Spatial and temporal variability, Journal of Climate 17, pp. 427-47, 2004; W. J. Van de Berg, M.R. van den Broeke, C. H. Reijmer, and E. van Meijgaard, Reassessment of the Antarctic surface mass balance using calibrated output of a regional atmospheric climate model, Journal of Geophysical Research 111: 10.1029/2005JD006495, 2006. Back |
24 | G. Kaser, D. R. Hardy, T. Molg, R. S. Bradley, and T. M. Hyera, Modern glacier retreat on Kilimanjaro as evidence of climate change: Observations and facts, International Journal of Climatology 24, pp. 329-39, 2004. Back |
25 | R. J. Braithwaite, and Y. Zhang, Relationships between interannual variability of glacier mass balance and climate, Journal of Glaciology 45, pp. 456-462, 2000. Back |
26 | http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_09/, accessed 23 August 2007; S. Jevrejeva, A. Grinsted, J. C. Moore, and S. Holgate, Nonlinear trends and multiyear cycles in sea level records, Journal of Geophysical Research 111: 10.1029/2005JC003229, 2006; J. A. Church, N. J. White, R. Coleman, K. Lambert, and J. X. Mitrovica, Estimates of the regional distribution of sea level rise over the 1950-2000 period, Journal of Climate 17, pp. 2609-25, 2004; S. J. Holgate, On the decadal rates of sea level change during the twentieth century, Geophysical Research Letters 34: 10.1029/2006GL028492, 2007. Back |
27 | V. Gouretski and K. P. Koltermann, How much is the ocean really warming?, Geophysical Research Letters 34: 10.1029/2006GL027834, 2007. Back |
28 | http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/timeseries.cgi, accessed 23 August 2007. Back |
29 | Intense droughts blamed for Mayan collapse, New Scientist, 13 March 2003, http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3502, accessed 23 August 2007. Back |
30 | The Stern Review, a Dual Critique, World Economics, Vol 7, No. 4, October-December 2006; http://www.fnu.zmaw.de/fileadmin/fnu-files/reports/sternreview.pdf, accessed 23 August 2007; W. Nordhaus, The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, 2006 <http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/SternReviewD2.pdf>, accessed 23 August 2007; R. Tol and G. Yohe, A review of the Stern Review, World economics, 7 (4), Oct.-Dec. 2006. Back |
31 | www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/695/8C/OXONIA_Oxford_31012006.pdf, accessed 23 August 2007. Back |
32 | House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs, Second Report of Session 2005-06, The Economics of Climate Change. Back |
33 | IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group 1: The physical basis of climate change, Chapter 3, p. 242. Back |
34 | C. Idso, A science-based rebuttal to the testimony of Al Gore before the United States Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, p. 4, May 2007. Back |
35 | C. R. de Freitas, Private Communication, July 2007. Back |
36 | The Stern Review, a Dual Critique, World Economics, Vol 7, No. 4, October-December 2006. Back |
37 | D. Holland et al., Response to Simmonds and Steffen, Revised Draft Response to World Economics, 27 June 2007. Back |
38 | http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/06/predictions_of_climate.html, accessed 23 August 2007. Back |
39 | R. Carter, et al., Response to comments on Part 1 The Science of the Dual Critique of the Stern Review, World Economics in press. Back |
40 | http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/06/predictions_of_climate.html, accessed 23 August 2007. Back |
41 | M. Indur and Goklany, A Climate Policy for the Short and Medium Term: Stabilization or Adaptation?, Energy & Environment 16, pp. 667-680, 2005. Back |
42 | R. Carter, et al., Response to comments on Part 1 The Science of the Dual Critique of the Stern Review, World Economics in press. Back |
Print Dissenting report (PDF 211KB) | < - Report Home < - Chapter 8 : Appendix A - > |