Climate Correction

Exaggeration or just wrong? 

A friend alerted me to an article that appeared in The Telegraph published in the UK this week. The article by Professor Fritz Vahrenholt, who is one of the fathers of Germany's environmental movement, is based on his presentation to the 3rd Global Warming Policy Foundation Annual Lecture at the Royal Society in London, UK.

In the article Vahrenholt essentially recants his belief that the burning of fossil fuels and the resulting release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is the primary driver of global warming/climate change. Of course that is the theory espoused by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and numerous environmentalists around the world.
In the article here, Vahrenholt uses historical data which shows that dramatic shifts in climate occurred in the absence of carbon dioxide fluctuations (no kidding) which Vahrenholt now attributes to the Sun. Imagine that? Here is a quote from the article:

"Based on climate reconstructions from North Atlantic deep-sea sediment cores, Professor Gerard Bond discovered that the millennial-scale climate cycles ran largely parallel to solar cycles, including the Eddy Cycle which is – guess what – 1,000 years long. So it is really the Sun that shaped the temperature roller-coaster of the past 10,000 years."

Vahrenholt goes on to say:

"... the IPCC's current climate models cannot explain the climate history of the past 10,000 years. But if these models fail so dramatically in the past, how can they help to predict the future?"

Indeed. 

Vahrenholt even suggests that a model proposed by Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark (which has received very little public exposure) might be promising. I pointed out this hypothesis about a year ago here and here.

Given all of this and the data that shows there is a lack of correlation of temperature rise with CO2 increase Vahrenholt says:

"In the UK and Germany, (and I will add McGuinty's Ontario too) for example, power-station closures and huge expenditure for backup of volatile wind or solar energy or harmful ethanol production will raise energy prices massively and even threaten power cuts: the economic cost will be crippling, all driven by fear." .....and that there is no need for "....the massive (energy) poverty currently planned."

So what's going on here, is this the beginning of the end of the carbon dioxide theory, or should I say hypothesis of climate change? Vahrenholt seems to hedge, he thinks its time for "rational decarbonizing," whatever that means. He has too many friends in the system to just flush them away, so he calls for more research (keeps his friends happy) and all the usual central planning but with a greater variety of energy sources including fossil fuels.

Vahrenholt is no libertarian, but he does deserve credit for speaking out against the current orthodoxy.

 

Political Favouritism and CBC Radio Current Events

My previous post was about the Rio+20 Conference which was promoted on CBC Radio's Quirks and Quarks June 16, 2012.

I admit to being a long time listener to this program, way back to the days when David Suzuki was the host. The program often carries good science content, and interviews with people not usually heard on radio or TV for that matter. I listen because I have an interest in science, real science.

Over the years, most of the hosts, like Suzuki, have presented heavily biased stories on sustainable development, green energy infrastructure, and anthropogenic global warming etc. I say biased because each of those issues has become highly politicized, to the point where its difficult to separate the science story from the politics associated with it. The June 16th story is a perfect example.

In 1992 during the original Rio Conference, Elizabeth May was an environmental lawyer working on behalf of the Canadian delegation and the Mulroney government of the day. On June 16th as Leader of the Green Party and a sitting MP in Canada's House of Commons, May was allowed to speak on Quirks and Quarks (here is the podcast - she is the first 20 minutes or so).

If you listen to the podcast you will no doubt be able to detect her bias against the current Harper government and her advocacy for Rio+20.

I'm certainly not a friend of the Harper government, but there is an issue of fairness here. The CBC is heavily funded ($1.2 billion) by taxpayers, so why is she allowed to speak on public radio on a political issue without any corresponding representation from another political party or better an expert that holds an opinion different for Ms. May?

Furthermore, she speaks about anthropogenic global warming(AGW)/climate change as if it were a foregone conclusion. A theory so widely accepted as to be gospel truth. This irks me about CBC too. The fact is, AGW is at best an hypothesis and one that seems to be inadequate as an explanation for any perceived climate change.

Finally I will add , that this incident does not surprise me at all, but I think redress is warranted.

Rio+20 - Rio '92 Revisited - Global (guilt trip) Agenda

"We are at an historic turning point, communism has collapsed, the entire world conceives of itself as a global civilization, and the community of nations can now envision the possibility of a global agenda. But the only organizing principle for this global agenda is the effort to save the earth's environment. This must be the new central principle giving coherence to our efforts to work together. And the Earth's Summit is the designated time and place for this new agreement to congeal. This is a turning point we must break through to a new way of thinking about our relationship to the earth. We are not entitled to exploit it with impunity with no concern for the integrity of the ecological system. Its just unforgivable if we allow the selfish impulses of the short term considerations of this moment to win out over the wisdom and the mandate of history to act."

That is a direct quote from the then former American Senator Al Gore as he was interviewed on the CBC Radio Show Quirks and Quarks in 1992 before the Rio Earth Summit twenty years ago this past week (you may hear the quote if you listen to the podcast here).

Its pretty clear to me what he was thinking, here was a chance for governments around the world to join together and defeat the newest boogie-man. Now that the cold-war was over and the evil empire was defeated, it was time to turn to the real enemy, and it was us, you and me. What better way to defeat "us" than by forming a supra-governmental organization under the auspices of the United Nations, that benevolent protector of all that is right and good with the world?

The Rio Earth Summit was an historic attempt to grab power, without a shot being fired anywhere. The governments and citizens of earth were about to have a massive guilt trip dumped onto them by the self-appointed protectors of the planet. The global organizing agenda, as Gore put it, is clear: "We are not entitled to exploit it (Earth) with impunity with no concern for the integrity of the ecological system." How dare we lowly humans aspire to live in comfort at the expense of any planetary resources? What could we be thinking? Woe to us for disturbing the habitat of the three-spined stickleback, the Northern Spotted Owl or the Frankston spider orchid, in a selfish attempt to provide food and shelter to mere humans. "Its just unforgivable if we allow the selfish impulses of the short term considerations," like harvesting logs for building or eating perhaps. How dare we?

The Rio Summit in 1992 promoted sustainable developement. I have nothing against that concept in general, it's eminently sensible. Owners who would destroy their very means of earning a living are just plain stupid. So, overfishing or over harvesting a renewable resource, just makes no sense. Notice the key word "owners," when ownership is not assigned or left to the commons, thats when the trouble begins. Today my interpretation of "sustainable" in the current enviro-babble includes ideas like, stagnant, no-growth, heavily regulated, uncompetitive, subsidized and top down. Nothing to do with ownership and more to do with the favourite new buzzword "stewardship," which comes complete with the guilt trip and none of the benefits of ownership. 

Rio's successors have morphed into conferences against climate change, as if we humans controlled climate, more powerful than the Sun are we. A succession of meetings and treaties over the years backed by questionable data, produced by self-serving researchers, under the direction of the IPCC has made everyone guilty of tromping their filthy carbon footprints on everything. We are guilty of using fire for heat, light and to drive our machines. We are guilty of contravening the questionable hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). By merely breathing, we, you and I, add to the carbon burden of the planet's atmosphere, adding, by the way the one essential gas of photosynthesis, carbon dioxide, from which all earthly organic food originates. Do you aspire to a low ecological footprint? Then the poverty of Sierra Leone is for you (see the graph above), or if you want to be in the green zone of sustainability and human welfare, then the wealth and freedom of Cuba beckons.

Rio+20 convenes this week, committed to continue the fraud of sustainable development. While all the major leaders of the world were in Rio twenty years ago, none are coming to Rio+20, things have changed. Much to the chagrin of enviro-statists like George Monbiot who warns that its "make-or-break" time. So deluded are he and his colleagues, that they fail to grasp that the no-growth scenario is coming fast, as nation states crumble under massive debt-loads and unfundable liabilities, and depressed economies become the norm. Be careful what you wish for George.

The only good news is that people are slightly more skeptical about AGW, and the ability of governments to solve anything. One can only hope.            

Changing the culture: Plastic bags are bad, repeat.

It was the proverbial good news/bad news story out of Toronto City council on June 6th, 2012.

GOOD NEWS: The 44 council members voted to remove the silly 5 cent per plastic bag fee that the previous administration had foisted on retail stores and citizens. The original purpose of the fee was to socially engineer the behavior of Torontonians, away from using so-called "single use" plastic bags toward multiple use bags. It worked, B.F. Skinner would have been proud. But the bag tax, as it came to be known, was a sore point for many. Toronto's Mayor made removal of the bag tax an issue, that he championed, and city council granted his wish. The fee will be removed July 1st, 2012. 

BAD NEWS: But shortly after that win, a motion from a councillor to ban all plastic bags from retail stores passed in a close vote. The ban takes effect on Jan. 1st, 2013, though some believe it will be challenged in court. I hope so.

Arguments for and mostly against the bag ban have raged ever since in the local and even national media. But of course most of the arguments revolved around the environmental issue, unnecessary solid waste, evil plastic, people will get accustomed to the using recyclable bags, blah, blah, blah. Why plastic bags? Why subject this extremely useful item to this type of ridicule? Surely there are far worse environmental menaces lurking in people's garbage? Maybe the household waste of citizens should be searched too? Think of the new jobs created, garbage police, waste watchers. 

Such a search would be an invasion of privacy you say? Of course it would. So why is it that elected officials are concerned with the way people carry home their groceries? Isn't that really a private matter too, between the buyer and seller? That's the real issue, why is a municipal government involved in this? Obviously the City councillors have too much time on their hands, sitting around dreaming up new rules to justify their own existence.

The bags of course have many uses, both visible and invisible. First, they are a courtesy afforded by the retailer silently saying to the customer, "Thanks for coming to my store, please use these bags to convenience your trip home and by the way help give our store some cheap advertising." That is the invisible positive message implied by every buy-sell transaction where a bag is given freely. Perhaps Toronto council likes chasing away business to the surrounding towns? Perhaps Toronto council hopes those surrounding towns will also foolishly adopt this stupid rule too? It boggles the mind.

The visible uses of plastic bags are so numerous, I won't attempt to enumerate them. Suffice to say that everyone I know, has a bag of plastic bags in a closet somewhere in their home. As cheap and flimsy as these bags seem to be, they have multiple lives and everyone knows it. Plastic garbage bags will still be used, and more will need to be purchased if this ban succeeds, and dog owners will need to buy special bags. And of course there is the uniquely Canadian penchant to bagged milk, will that be banned too? Let's all go back to reusable glass, can't wait. 

As I have already suggested, the bags are not really at issue here. What is at issue is a prevailing attitude that people can be controlled to serve the collective good; a "good" that is determined by the wisdom a few through the coercive power of government. What is the proper function of government? That is the issue. Is government there to modify human behaviour - change the culture - or to allow humans to interact freely in a non-coercive environment? I vote for the latter.

Los Angeles also banned bags, displaying the power of mindless celebrity do-gooders. Here is how ReasonTV treated that story.