Global Climate Change.
King Canute found that trying to stop the ocean tides was a doomed and fruitless exercise. The climate change alarmists are heading for a similar outcome.
The difference however, is that you and me could, in the meantime, be forced via taxes and carbon trading scams to spend billions of dollars to no effect.
Everybody will pay except the few who end up with these dollars in their personal or corporate pockets.
We all need to understand that the reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are just that. Governmental reports, by government appointees. The initial reports have long since been downgraded, and rendered incorrect by bureaucratic tinkering, deliberate omissions, and alterations.
The published reports are politically biased summaries, not robust scientific analysis, designed to fit the beliefs of the Governments involved.
The theory is that if you want to get the outcome widely believed you have to be alarmist.
Remember that in matters of the environment (all since about 1970):
  • The alarmists predicted a forthcoming ice age! Now they are predicting a global warming calamity.
  • The alarmists predicted the demise of forests from acid rain! It did not happen.
  • The alarmists predicted the depletion of the ozone layer from Freon! The main determinate is now known to be natural solar fluctuations.
  • The alarmists reported (1st IPCC report 1990) that temperature rise was “broadly consistent” with the models and predicted that temperatures would rise up to 4.5˚ C if there was a doubling of greenhouse gases. Any temperature rise over this century has now been downgraded to maybe 0.5˚ C.
  • The alarmists reported (2nd IPCC report 1995) that   “…..the balance of evidence suggests a discernable human influence on global climate….” A scientific appraisal discovered that the report had been significantly altered after it was approved by the scientists involved. The ‘evidence’ presented in the conclusion turned out to be completely spurious!
  • The alarmists claimed (3rd IPCC report 2001) that they now had : “new and stronger evidence”’ This included the “hockey stick” graph, which showed a large increase in global warming throughout the 2oth century.
The “hockey stick” graph has now been totally discredited. It was based on faulty analysis that even denied the existence of the Medieval Warm Period (warmer than now) and the recent Little Ice Age!
  • The alarmists are now predicting (4th IPCC report 2007) that average temperatures since the mid 20th century are “very likely” due to human caused greenhouse gases! The now infamous “hockey stick” graph of global temperatures is absent. Again, this summary has been altered since the scientists agreed to its contents.
So the IPCC summaries have got the matter of temperature change all wrong.
Well what about the other matter of hot debate – rising sea levels ?
The prospect of rising sea levels has caused more alarm than any other impact from global warming. Countries will disappear, coastal lowlands will be inundated, economic upheaval etc.
The IPCC predictions on sea level rises up to 2100 make an interesting study.
All figures are centimetres per 100 years.
                        1990               1995               2001               2007
Max                367                 124                  77                    59
Min                  10                      3                  11                    18
The most recent scientific study (Singer 2007) estimates a sea level rise over the next 100 years of between 18 – 20 centimetres
It is clear, that yet again, the alarmists have got it all wrong.
Sea level rises of recent times have averaged about 18 centimetres per 100 years.
Neither temperature rise, or sea level rise are predicted to be outside of the normal, naturally occurring ranges experienced since the advent of humans!
We must wisely use precious resources.
We must work toward an economic and environmentally sustainable lifestyle. We may need to mitigate against naturally occurring changes.
But to adopt an Emissions Trading Scheme is to be hoodwinked into a costly, unnecessary, and unworkable mechanism, that is based only on unproven, untested, and clearly faulted computer based models.
To pass such legislation will be utter folly.
Kevyn D Moore
28 May 2008