Climate Sceptics Newsletter - March 21st 2011

 Gillard's Hot Air Claims

“I ask who I’d rather have on my side: Alan Jones, Piers Akerman and Andrew Bolt,” the Prime Minister said, “or the CSIRO, the Australian Academy of Science, the Bureau of Meteorology, NASA, the US National Atmospheric Administration, and every reputable climate scientist in the world.” 

But now I’ll ask: Would you want on your side a woman so dishonest as to claim she’s backed by “every reputable climate scientist in the world”? 

In fact, the reputable climate scientists who’d say Gillard is wrong on global warming include Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Professor Henrik Svensmark, head of Denmark’s Centre for Sun-Climate Research; and John Christy, Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. Among many. 

But that isn’t all that Gillard got wrong in her speech on Wednesday to muster support for her tax, which won’t actually cut the world’s temperature by anything anyone could measure. 

Here are a few more of her many falsehoods and exaggerations, and they raise another question: if the case for her tax is so strong, why tell such porkies? 

Gillard’s claim:“We must embrace ... a decision to cut carbon pollution.” 

False: This isn’t a decision to cut carbon but carbon dioxide, which isn’t a pollutant but essential for plant growth. 

Gillard’s claim:“Protecting jobs is always our first commitment.” 

Red herring: We all agree the climate changes. Always has. Always will. 

Gillard’s claim:“It is caused by human activity.” 

Misleading: There is huge debate about how much man’s gases change the climate. By a little? A lot? Is it bad? Or good? No reputable scientist would say man causes all the change detected. 

Gillard’s claim:“Global temperatures have risen 0.7 degrees Celsius over the past century and continue to rise.” 

False: It is true the temperature rose by 0.7 degrees, but it is false or simplistic to insist it continues to rise. The temperature, by most of the five main measures, has plateaued since 2001. 

Gillard’s claim:“Globally, 2010 was the equal warmest year on record.” 

Cherry-picking: In fact, most of the main data sets disagree. 

Gillard’s claim:“That warming ... will change our lives in real and practical ways. More extreme bushfire conditions and droughts.

 Falling crop yields .... Bleaching of our coral reefs.” 

Alarmist: In fact, Australia’s rainfall has risen, and increased CO2 is likely to improve crop yields, as a wheat trial by Victoria’s Department of Primary Industry found. There is more evidence that coral recovers well from bleaching. 

Gillard’s claim:“Increased cyclone intensity.” 

Dubious: This is disputed among cyclone experts, and the total energy of all cyclones has in fact been falling.

Gillard’s claim:“The need to act is greater than ever.” 

False: The need for us to act is less, because our biggest competitors won’t. It is now clear China and India will not cut their emissions, there will be no international deal to cut emissions, and the US has ruled out moving to its own national emissions trading scheme. 

Gillard’s claim:“Inaction will cost jobs.” 

False: Making our coal-fired power more expensive robs our industry of a competitive advantage and increases costs for all businesses using electricity. To do this, when our major competitors won’t, just makes the job losses worse.

Gillard’s claim:“Our nation is well equipped to make the transition.

 We have an abundance of natural resources like wind, natural gas, solar and geothermal.” 

Misleading: The question isn’t whether we have wind, solar and geothermal resources, but the technology

 to harness them to

 Gillard’s claim:“Action on climate change means creating new jobs for the future . .. . It means re-skilling workers for the future ...

 Today’s workers will find themselves in different industries ... “ 

Admission: Aha. So this will cost jobs. 

Gillard’s claim:“We will see new job opportunities in clean energy generation.” 

Dangerously misleading: Investing in green power costs jobs by dragging dollars from more productive projects, 

as has been documented in 

Gillard’s claim:“China is closing environmentally damaging, unsafe and economically inefficient small coal-fired generators at the rate of one every one or two weeks and replacing them with larger plants that are economically and environmentally much more efficient. They are putting up wind turbines .... “ 

Deeply misleading: China is opening up to two new coal-fired plants every week, and its carbon dioxide emissions are expected to double by 2030. 

Gillard’s claim:“All funds raised by a carbon price will go to assisting households, helping business transition and programs to tackle climate change.” 

Is that a promise, too?: Gillard’s global warming adviser, Professor Ross Garnaut, on Thursday recommended that nearly $6 billion a year of the cash raised by this tax be used for a huge income redistribution from the richer to the poor. 

Judge for yourself. Can a Prime Minister who gets so much wrong really be trusted with your economy?