GREAT DEBATE ON GLOBAL WARMING. HERE THE 2 SIDES
KNOCK,
KNOCK: WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE FOR DANGEROUS HUMAN-CAUSED GLOBAL WARMING?
By
Robert M. Carter. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
& POLICY, VOL. 38 NO. 2, SEPTEMBER 2008
In: http://www.eap-journal.com/archive/v38_i2_03_carter.pdf
-------------
Introduction
by Hugo Adan, Nov 30 2013.
Here a debate on Robert Carter thesis: GLOBAL WARMING: TEN FACTS AND
TEN MYTHS ON CLIMATE CHANGE that I re-published in http://nd-hugoadan.blogspot.com/2013/11/global-warming-ten-facts-and-ten-myths.html
That art o Carter was preceded by the art below KNOCK, KNOCK: WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE FOR DANGEROUS
HUMAN-CAUSED GLOBAL WARMING? We re-publish here only subtitles & conclusions
and then we present two critiques to Bob Carter thesis
----------
KNOCK, KNOCK: WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE FOR DANGEROUS HUMAN-CAUSED
GLOBAL WARMING?
By
Robert M. Carter. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
& POLICY, VOL. 38 NO. 2, SEPTEMBER 2008
In: http://www.eap-journal.com/archive/v38_i2_03_carter.pdf
I.
INTRODUCTION : Before human-caused
global warming can become an economic problem, it first has to be identified by
scientific study as a dangerous hazard for the planet, distinct from natural
climate change.
The IPCC is the United Nations body
whose second chairman, John Houghton, wrote in 1994 that unless we announce
disasters, no one will listen. From that point forward, it was obvious that
IPCC pronouncements needed to be subjected to independent critical analysis; in
fact, the opposite has happened, and increasingly the world’s press and politicians
have come to treat IPCC utterances as if they were scribed in stone by Moses.
This is a reflection, first, of superb marketing by the IPCC and its
supporting cast of influential environmental and scientific organisations; second,
of strong media bias towards alarmist news stories in general, and global
warming political correctness in particular; and, third, of a lack of legislators and senior
bureaucrats possessed of a sound knowledge of even elementary science, coupled
with a similar lack of science appreciation throughout the wider electorate –
our societies thereby becoming vulnerable to what can be termed ‘frisbee
science’, i.e. spin. [it continues..]
II.
CONTEXT: CLIMATE HAS ALWAYS CHANGED, AND ALWAYS WILL The issue of dangerous human-caused global
warming is a complex one. It can be assessed meaningfully only against our
knowledge of natural climate change, which is incomplete and in some regards
even rudimentary. There is no Theory of Climate, in the sense that there is a
Theory of Gravitation or Relativity. Therefore no computer model, let alone the
unvalidated General Circulation Models (GCMs) that are employed, for example,
by the IPCC, can accurately predict future global or regional climate. [it continues..]
III.
WHAT ABOUT THE ALLEGEDLY DANGEROUS 20TH CENTURY
WARMING? Mark Twain reputedly once remarked
‘Climate is what you expect; weather is what you get’.Though it is hard to improve on such
a pithy aphorism, scientists prefer to use definitions thatare quantitatively based. Accordingly,
since the early 20 th century it has been agreed amongstclimatologists that ‘climate’ is
taken to be represented at a particular site by an averaged 30-yr-long span of meteorological data. [it continues..]
IV.
CARBON DIOXIDE, COMPUTER MODELS, AND ALL THAT JAZZ. 1. Cutting Carbon Dioxide Emissions
will cause no Measurable Difference to Future Climate. 2. Computer Models are
not Evidence. 3. Circumstantial Evidence for Climate Change, and the Null
Hypothesis.
V. SCIENCE IS NOT ABOUT
CONSENSUS, NOR AUTHORITY. 1. The
Inadequacy of the IPCC. 2. Alternative Viewpoints to Those of the IPCC.
VI. DISCUSSION. 1. Emissions Trading Legislation. 2. The Precautionary Principle. 3. Prudent Risk Assessment. 4. The Need for a Balanced Policy that Covers
the Real Risks of Climate Change.
VII. CONCLUSIONS. To focus
on the chimera of human-caused greenhouse warming while ignoring the real
threats posed by the natural variability of the climate system itself is
self-delusion on a grand scale.
• That human-caused climate change will prove dangerous is under strong
dispute amongst equally well qualified scientific groups. The null hypothesis,
which is yet to be contradicted, is that observed changes in climate or
climate-related phenomena are natural unless and until it can be shown
otherwise. The science of climate change is far from settled. Meanwhile, there
is no compelling evidence that human-caused climate change poses a strong
future danger
• No measurable environmental benefits have resulted from
actions taken under the Kyoto Protocol, nor can they be predicted to result
from carbon dioxide emission restrictions more generally. On the
other hand, the social and economic dis-benefits of governments deploying such
instruments are now reported daily in the media. The available scientific data,
and proved relationships, do not justify the belief that carbon dioxide emission controls can be used
as a means of ‘managing’ or ‘stopping’ future climate change.
• Bowen (2005) has well written: ‘Science is based upon
empiricism – the objective observation of natural phenomena, and the attempt to
encompass them in classifications, models and theories of ever-
expanding scope. This enormously important principle of the
Enlightenment still needs affirming. The
principle is under threat, from those of every religious and political
persuasion and from those of none, who seek to impose their world view upon
scientific enquiry. Science is not more important than morality. But without
empiricism, there can be no science’. The projections (which are not predictions) of
computer modellers that are now almost the
sole basis for IPCC climate alarmism must be assessed against the best
available empirical evidence.
• Climate variation
has always occurred and always will. Citizens are right to be concerned about the possibly damaging effects of both
the warmings and coolings which lie ahead. As with most potential natural
disasters, however, the appropriate action is to have in place reactive response plans to
manage the change when it occurs. Dangerous
climate extremes will not be prevented by reducing human carbon dioxide emissions, but – as they occur – should be
adapted to using similar response strategies to those applied to other
dangerous natural events such as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, tsunami and sea-level change.
• Attempting to ‘stop climate change’, or, in the present
state of our knowledge and technology,
even to modify it, is an arcadian fantasy. The Australian government should defer its
Emissions Trading Scheme bill until the
completion of a thorough and independent judicial review into alleged
human-caused global warming – as assessed against the reality of dangerous
natural climate change.
• Lastly, because we
are far from understanding all the climatic feedback loops concerned, cutting
carbon dioxide emissions is as likely to ‘harm’ as to ‘help’ future climate as
judged against a human viewpoint.
Therefore, application of the principles of ‘do no harm’ and
‘precaution’ implies that the correct climate
policy is one of monitoring climate change as it happens, adapting to any deleterious trends that emerge, and
compensating those who are disadvantaged through no fault of their own
Related
Stories supporting Carter’s Thesis
Exposing
the Global Warming Fraud July 2, 2013
Global
Warming: The BIGGEST LIE Exposed September 21, 2013
Dire
Climate Warnings Not Happening September 30, 2013
The Great Global Warming Swindle
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/swindle/panel.htm
============
REVIEW 1 OF CARTERs THESIS:
CLIMATE: THE COUNTER CONSENSUS. Apr 29, 2011
by Dr James Renwick
Bob Carter book is a
curious read, full of misinformation, straw-man arguments, and
poorly-documented assertions. To become immersed in it, we must
enter the through-the-looking-glass world of the ’independent’ scientist, where
those such as myself are the ones ’…who have dissembled, told half-truths,
cherry-picked their data, fantastically exaggerated, and suppressed the
circulation of better science’ (Prefatory Essay, p. 19). Meanwhile, the ideas
put forward by Prof. Carter are portrayed as representing a balanced appraisal
of the issues. From where I sit, that’s the opposite of reality.
The basic premise of the book is that observed climate
changes are a result of natural variability, with at most a very gentle nudge
from human activity. Carter asserts that future global cooling is at
least as likely as warming. And those whose work suggests that human-induced
climate change is real and is a significant threat have either become
politicised (p. 231), or have been pressured into submission (p. 181). To
support his case, Carter lists many references, relying heavily on his own
publications plus those of Soon, Loehle, McLean, McKitrick et al., and with
extensive reference to the blogosphere — wattsupwiththat.com, co2science.org,
climateaudit.org, etc.
Much of the criticism is directed at the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a body that every few years provides
a synthesis of what’s published in the scientific literature on climate change.
The IPCC report writing is done by volunteer teams of scientists, and every
effort is made to be inclusive, broad-ranging, and authoritative. But in
Carter’s book, the IPCC is portrayed as a slick PR machine designed to push a
political line, resistance to which is professional suicide. Carter claims that
major news organisations, science academies, the Archbishop of Canterbury and
even Prince Charles (!) are involved in the relentless drive to squash
opposition (p 162). Many authors are quoted out of context, in part to portray
the idea that there’s a growing number of brave souls who are starting to see
the light 1.
Climate science is seen as ’consensus science’ and so by
definition is not science at all. The
IPCC is again painted as the major villain. Actually, there’s an overwhelming
weight of evidence in the literature that supports the reality of human-induced
climate change. This could be described as a consensus, which could then be
criticised for being a consensus, if scientific agreement is seen as a bad
thing. Galileo is held up as proof that consensus is meaningless — one man
turned the consensus of his time on its head. Since Galileo’s time, a general consensus
has developed that he was right, because a mountain of observational evidence
and theory has built up to back his findings. That adds weight to Galileo’s
ideas, rather than detracting from them. There are the occasional Galileos
(e.g. Milankovitch, Arrhenius), but most scientific advance is incremental,
carried out by large teams who communicate widely, guided by the observational
evidence to hand.
The book begins with an overview of the geological context,
covering orbital forcing, Milankovitch cycles, abrupt events, and the Holocene.
The existence of large natural variations in the past is used to argue that
present-day variability is nothing unusual, and that there’s no evidence that
human activity is having a significant effect today. The crucial point left out
is that the major influence changing the climate today is the increased
atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, a result of human activity.
That is true regardless of climate history and the existence of other natural
forcings. The tight coupling between carbon dioxide and global temperature is
undisputed and is documented through the ice ages and beyond. The basic
radiation physics has not changed.
Because we need that geological ’long view’, the instrumental
record is seen as woefully inadequate (Chapter 2). Moreover, because
it is standard meteorological practice to define climate ’normals’ as 30-year
averages, we are told there is only one new climate observation every 30 years,
hence the complete instrumental record is only 5 points long!
Chapter 3 covers climate sensitivity and greenhouse gases.
Here, CO2 is portrayed as a benign gas with a limited role in the radiation
balance. The bulk of the literature on this subject is ignored, in
favour of work by Ernst Beck2 and Chris deFreitas. Climate sensitivity is
portrayed as low, and uncertainty very high. I wish this were so, but the vast
majority of research over recent decades (ignored here) says the opposite.
Chapter 4 discusses the oceans. Again we are told that there’s no cause for
concern, that sea level rise is all natural (and certainly not accelerating),
and anyway, according to Carter the oceans are now cooling (p. 121). Ocean
acidification (described as a deliberately ’emotional’ expression) is portrayed
as a non-issue. Again, the reality of the situation, and the vast majority of
the literature on this topic, is not discussed.
Climate models are roundly rubbished in Chapter 5, being
described later as ’playstation games.’ Supporting
evidence comes from Soon, McKitrick, Essex et al., again ignoring 99.9% of the
scientific literature, and the long list of climate modelling achievements.
There are many inconsistencies throughout this book, such as the statement on
page 121 that models incorrectly project increasing ocean heat content, while
observations show no warming for the last five years. After dismissing 150
years of instrumental observations in Chapter 2, we are given one sixth of one
data point to imply (erroneously) that models are wrong.
Chapter 6 claims to show that evidence of (human-induced)
climate change is either fraudulent, or exaggerated, or actually the result of
natural variability. Amongst many other things, Carter claims that
the Great Barrier Reef and its waters are in the same state they were in the 1700s
— supported by reference to one of his own papers. That claim ignores
well-documented declining water quality from runoff, loss of coastal wetlands,
overfishing, invasive species, acidification…
[If the author had a genuine case to make [...] he would be the toast of
the science community everywhere [...] a modern-day Galileo.]
Chapter 7 suggests that most of the climate science community has been
corrupted by the vast sums of money on offer (certainly not my experience), or
intimidated by science academies and others.
We’re told that even the US National Academy of Sciences has been ’infiltrated
by environmental activist scientists’ (p 167). Chapter 8 implies that
’independent scientists’ such as the author are deliberately shut out of public
meetings on climate change. If the author had a genuine case to make, and could
demonstrate that the threat of human-induced climate change is not real, he
would certainly get entry to public forums. In fact, he would be the toast of
the science community everywhere, having overturned thousands of person-years
of research effort —- a modern-day Galileo.
Chapter 9 discusses the IPCC at some length.
The strength of the IPCC reports is the breadth of research that is surveyed,
literally tens of thousands of papers are referenced and woven into the biggest
of big pictures on climate change. Carter’s contention that a small
politically-motivated clique runs things is just not the case. As Carter notes,
peer-review is not perfect, but I, and most in the science community, recognise
that it’s a very good start. Yes, mistakes are made, but no document is
error-free, and the number of identified errors is remarkably small for the
3000 pages of text and figures in the IPCC 4th Assessment Report. Similarly, a
small number of scientists have expressed dissatisfaction with the IPCC
process. Yet, the more notable thing to my mind is the huge number who have not
expressed any disquiet and who are genuinely keen to contribute.
Chapters 10 and 11 discuss two things: that we should prepare for
global cooling; and that adapting to regional natural variability and extremes
(what Carter calls ’Plan B’) makes more sense than worrying about climate
change (Carter’s ’Plan A’). The first point is risible, given that the globe continues to warm3,
glaciers continue to melt4 and sea levels continue to rise5. The second point
fits closely with strategies already adopted by many central and local
government agencies in New Zealand and around the world: Plan B is already
under way. At the same time, we need more emphasis on Plan A (climate change
mitigation), if we are to avoid really major changes in climate.
The final chapter covers ’Climategate’.
The book makes the illegal release of e-mails and other material from the
University of East Anglia sound like the death knell for climate science.
Again, that is just not so. All the official inquiries into the matter have
since vindicated Phil Jones and the Climatic Research Unit, find no tampering
with data, and no conspiracy to suppress anything or trick anyone. A huge
amount of time and public money has been wasted looking in to crimes that were
never committed.
In summary, I cannot
recommend this book. Carter’s criticisms of the IPCC and the climate science community are
just not true. The book’s scientific arguments are based upon a very selective
reading of the literature and do not stand up to scrutiny.
For example the Introduction (p
30) cites Perlwitz et al. (2009), noting that they say ’Doubts on the science
of human-induced climate change have been cast by recent cooling.’ We are not
told that the Perlwitz paper also states ’The implication is that the pace of
North American warming is likely to resume in coming years, and that climate is
unlikely embarking upon a prolonged cooling.’ ↩
Check http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/beck-to-the-future/ for a summary of the dubious nature of Beck’s
’research’.
-----------
===================
REVIEW 2 OF CARTERs THESIS:
CLEARING UP THE CLIMATE
DEBATE: Who’s your expert? The difference between peer review and rhetoric. 16
June 2011 By
Prof Ove Hoegh-Guldberg. Director, Global Change Institute at University of
Queensland
http://theconversation.com/whos-your-expert-the-difference-between-peer-review-and-rhetoric-1550 Here only extracts:
This is the fifth part of our series
Clearing up the Climate Debate. To read the other instalments, follow
the links below:
- Part One: Climate change is real: an open letter from the scientific community.
- Part Two: The greenhouse effect is real: here’s why.
- Part Three: Speaking science to climate policy.
- Part Four: Our effect on the earth is real: how we’re geo-engineering the planet
- Part Six: Climate change denial and the abuse of peer review
- Part Seven: When scientists take to the streets it’s time to listen up
- Part Eight: Australia’s contribution matters: why we can’t ignore our climate responsibilities
- Part Nine: A journey into the weird and wacky world of climate change denial
- Part Ten: The chief troupier: the follies of Mr Monckton
- Part Eleven: Rogues or respectable? How climate change sceptics spread doubt and denial
- Part Twelve: Bob Carter’s climate counter-consensus is an alternate reality
- Part Thirteen: The false, the confused and the mendacious: how the media gets it wrong on climate change
Articles
also by This Author
=================
OTHER REVIEWS: REVIEW
3
TAXING
AIR: FACTS AND FALLACIES ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE
By Jay Lehr, Ph.D.. Sep 3, 2013
Here only extracts. Go to the website above to read the full article
CARTER SUMS UP THE CLIMATE CHANGE DILEMMA AS FOLLOWS:
“The past 24 years have seen thousands of scientists expend well over $100 billion in studying the influence that human-related emissions may be having on climate. Given these intensive efforts, the absence of a measurable or unequivocal human imprint in the recent temperature record and the absence of any global warming trend at all over the last 16 years both point to frailty in the dangerous Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis. A reasonable default conclusion is that any human influence on the global climate lies within the noise of natural variability.”
Carter and friends do a great job of explaining how we know about ancient climates, and they describe the proxies scientists use, such as tree rings and chemical indicators, to determine temperatures before man began to record them. They do an even better job of explaining the Milankovitch cycles of 20,000, 41,000, and 100,000 years determined by the movement of planetary bodies in our solar system which create gravitational interactions. They also explode the myths of coral leaching and polar bear declines.
The authors’ complete explanation of the greenhouse warming theory and the truth about greenhouse gases is really outstanding—and it shows that the matter is not as simple as the public is being told. The authors hit hard on a point I make in all my lectures: the more carbon dioxide there is in the atmosphere, the less effective it is at capturing outgoing radiation from the earth, because it works only in a narrow range of the electromagnetic spectrum. Thus there appears to be a natural limit to the greenhouse effect.
Perhaps best of all is the authors’ explanation of the mathematical models used to determine future earth temperatures. These so called General Circulation Models are so reliant on guesses regarding the many variables that affect climate as to be of no real value in planning future policies. They explain it thus:
“Confidence in the projections made by the current generation of deterministic climate models is low because their construction is based on only a short period of climate history, and because they have not been validated on independent data. For the moment, therefore, deterministic Global Circulation Models represent a highly constrained and simplified version of the Earth’s complex and chaotic climate system.”
Their chapter on the gigantic impact of the ocean on climate and carbon dioxide content as compared to the less dense atmosphere is really outstanding. It is followed by a lengthy chapter on Australian climate politics which will be of general interest to some but might be skimmed or skipped by others.
In the final chapters the authors deal beautifully with the fallacies of renewable energy and explain how mankind can prepare for whatever climate changes nature may throw at us.
In summary, this is the very best instructional book I have seen for those seeking a clear understanding of the realities of the earth’s climate and a remedy for the amazing fallacies spread daily by those who wish to make political gains by plying the public with unscientific misinformation.
[NOTE: Printed copies of Taxing Air (A$30 + p&p) can be ordered at TaxingAir.com, and a Kindle version ($7.99) is available from Amazon.]
---------------
Jay Lehr,
Ph.D. (jlehr@heartland.org) is senior fellow and science director of The
Heartland... (read full bio)
--------------
REVIEW 4 ON CARTER THESIS
REVIEW
BY WIKIPEDIA
GLOBAL WARMING CONTROVERSY
Carter is critical of the IPCC and believes statements about dangerous[12] human-caused global warming are unjustified.[13] In 2005, he argued against climate change being "man-made" by asserting that the global average temperature did not increase between 1998 and 2005, while the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased.[14] In 2007, Carter participated in an expert panel discussion after the airing of The Great Global Warming Swindle documentary on ABC.[15][16]
His position on global warming has been criticized by other scientists such as David Karoly,[17] James Renwick[18] and Ove Hoegh-Guldberg.[19]
Carter has published primary research in the field of palaeoclimatology, investigating New Zealand's climate extending back to 3.9 Ma.[20][20][21] He has also published several critiques of anthropogenic global warming in economics journals.[12][22] In 2009, he co-authored a paper in the Journal of Geophysical Research claiming the El Niño-Southern Oscillation can account for most of the global temperature variation of the last fifty years.[23] A comment on this paper was published by nine other scientists in the same journal.[24] Carter with co-authors John Mclean and Chris de Freitas submitted a response to this comment but their reply was rejected from pu
Carter appeared as a witness before the 2009 select committee on climate policy of the Parliament of Australia,[27] and testified before the United States Senate [28] on the issue of climate change. He is a contributor and reviewer of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) 2009 report Climate Change Reconsidered, and lead author of the 2011 interim report.[29][30]
In 2012, documents acquired from The Heartland Institute revealed that Carter was paid a monthly fee of $1,667 (USD), "as part of a program to pay 'high-profile individuals who regularly and publicly counter the alarmist [anthropogenic global warming] message'."[31] While Carter did not deny that the payments took place, he declined to discuss the payments.[31] Carter "emphatically denies" any suggestion that his scientific opinion on climate change can be bought or swayed by funding.[32]
============
REVIEW 5 ON CARTER THESIS (here the dirty part of this debate)
SCIENTIST DENIES HE IS MOUTHPIECE OF US
CLIMATE-SCEPTIC THINK TANK By Ben Cubby. February 16, 2012
Here only extracts:
Confidential
documents leaked from inside The Heartland Institute, a wealthy think tank based in Chicago and Washington,
detail strategy and funding for an array of activities designed to spread doubt
about climate change science, paid for by companies that have a financial
interest in continuing to release greenhouse gases without government
interference.
The think tank has now issued
a statement saying the strategy and budget documents had been stolen,
and claiming one of them was faked. Among the
documents that Heartland does not claim to be faked, is a budget showing
payments to selected scientists.
One of the recipients of funding is Professor Bob
Carter of James Cook University, a geologist and marine
researcher who spoke at the "convoys of no confidence" protests
against the carbon price last year alongside the Opposition Leader, Tony
Abbott, and writes columns for News Ltd newspapers.
The documents show
Professor Carter receives a "monthly payment" of $US1667 ($1550) as
part of a program to pay "high-profile individuals who regularly and
publicly counter the alarmist [anthropogenic global warming] message".
Professor Carter did not
deny he was being paid by The Heartland Institute, but would not confirm the
amount, or if the think tank expected anything in return for its money.
"That suggestion is
silly and offensive - a kindergarten level argument," Professor Carter
told the Herald.
==========
