Hot Air: Former “alarmist” scientist says Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) based in false science

Via Bruce McQuain:

David Evans is a scientist. He has also worked in the heart of the AGW machine. He consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part-time 2008 to 2010, modeling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. He has six university degrees, including a PhD in Electrical Engineering from Stanford University. The other day he said:

The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro-thin half-truths and misunderstandings. I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic.

And with that he begins a demolition of the theories, premises and methods by which the AGW scare has been foisted on the public.

Goldstein: Stephen Harper treats us like children

Via Lorrie Goldstein:

Now that Prime Minister Stephen Harper has his coveted majority government, it’s time he stopped treating Canadians like children on climate change.

Is it time for some honesty amongst politicians regarding climate change? Somehow, I doubt it.

UN's bogus climate refugee claims

UN: 50 million "climate refugees" by 2010... oops, better make that 2020.

Just another example of what the warmists will do when the facts don't fit the theory: just change the theory and hope nobody notices. And surprisingly, it's not so hard to do with a media that's lazy, compliant, in on the deception or all of the above.

See The UN “disappears” 50 million climate refugees, then botches the disappearing attempt at WUWT.

Detecting the greenhouse effect... or not

IPCC 1990 report Detection of the Greenhouse Effect in the Observations:

"Given our rudimentary understanding of the magnitude and causes of low frequency natural variablity, it is virtually impossible to demonstrate a cause-effect relationship with high confidence from studies of a single variable (However if the global warming becomes sufficiently large, we will eventually be able to claim detection simply because there will be no other explanation)"

Dr. James Hansen in 1988 testimony before the US Senate:

"...the global warming is now large enough that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship to the greenhouse effect."

Anthony Watts has the full story.

Rex Murphy: misery loves company

Gore-Olbermann: never so fruitful a partnership since Gilligan and the Skipper.

The Weather Isn't Getting Weirder

I often hear from otherwise normal, rational, intelligent people how the weather is getting more and more extreme. And that this is proof that we humans have somehow messed up the climate with our carbon emissions. I argue that it isn't so, that the floods, hurricanes, hot spells and even the record cold and snowfalls are not signs of extreme weather brought about by anthropogenic global warming, er climate change. After all, most of the "records" we have been experiencing recently impact only the last 40 or 50 years, a relatively short time span in the historical record and the global climate change business.

That's why it was encouraging to see this study:

The Twentieth Century Reanalysis Project is the latest attempt to find out, using super-computers to generate a dataset of global atmospheric circulation from 1871 to the present.

As it happens, the project's initial findings, published last month, show no evidence of an intensifying weather trend. "In the climate models, the extremes get more extreme as we move into a doubled CO2 world in 100 years," atmospheric scientist Gilbert Compo, one of the researchers on the project, tells me from his office at the University of Colorado, Boulder. "So we were surprised that none of the three major indices of climate variability that we used show a trend of increased circulation going back to 1871."

It is all too easy for climate alarmists to point to recent extremes of weather and cry "we must do something before it's too late". We need to keep in mind that while the weather around the globe can and has been experiencing extremes, this doesn't signify anything out of the historical norm.

What did Cancun accomplish?

The Climate Conference in Cancun, Mexico has wrapped up after a long chilling week. So just what was accomplished at this big conflab? Ronald Bailey has a summary at Reason.com. Here's a snippet:

It would be cynical to call it a bribe, but the Cancun agreements were largely reached because the rich countries continued their vague promises to hand over $100 billion in climate aid annually to poor countries beginning in 2020.

Basically the deal on emissions is that countries will agree to agree on cuts at the next climate change conference in Durban. Big developing country emitters like China and India still refused to agree to any legally binding limits on their emissions. Of course, neither did the developed countries.

[...]

I repeat the highlights of the Cancun Agreements below:

(1) As far as I can tell, the COP has indeed kicked the Cancun down the road by agreeing that they "shall aim to complete" further commitments by rich countries to cut greenhouse gas emissions "as early as possible." They do include the saving phrase "and in time to ensure that there is no gap between the first and second commitment period." Translation: Additional cuts should be agreed to before 2012. The telling words are "shall aim to complete." No real promises here.

(2) The shared vision says that the parties set the goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions "so as to hold the increase in global average temperature below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels...." The parties will think about trying to hold average temperature increase to 1.5 later after further scientific review in 2015.

(3) The shared vision drops the earlier text that would have required that the world cut greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent and that developed countries cut their emissions by 80-95 percent by 2050. Instead, the parties will "work towards identifying a global goal for substantially reducing global emissions by 2050" and consider it at the next meeting in Durban.

(4) The shared vision also drops the proposal that global greenhouse gases should peak by 2015.

(5) The text also sets up a process for creating a system for accounting and monitoring of greenhouse gas emissions from developed countries. As far as I can tell from reading the rather opaque text, the U.S. has not been roped into a process that leads to legally binding emissions reduction commitments.

(6) China, India and other emerging countries also have not been roped into legally binding commitments, but if they take mitigation actions that are supported by outside money, those activities will be subject to some kind of international auditing. On the other, the world will have take their words for their domestically funded activities.

(7) The text also says that the parties decide to establish a Green Climate Fund under the authority of the Conference of the Parties with a board of directors consisting of 24 members, half of whom will be from rich countries and half from poor countries. The devloped country parties commit to "mobilizing jointly USD 100 billion per year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries."

Not much commitment to reducing carbon emissions there, but that $100,000,000,000 per year ain't no chump change!

And that's what it's always been about.

Update #1: JoNova has a roundup of the media response and says it was all about the PR:

After the awful post-Climategate-and-Copenhagen year, more than anything else, the Big Scare Campaign needed a PR win. And in that sense Cancun was a major victory. Nobody agreed to anything legally binding, Kyoto was not extended, and all they achieved amounted to nothing more than an extension of the yearly junkets, and the promise that the gravy train is not dead yet. But the headlines will warm the hearts of all on Team-Scare-Us. The most important thing for the side that’s losing friends, faith and face, was to regain momentum. They’re trying to stop the death spiral.

Update #2: From the Christian Science Monitor:

To prevent the talks from collapsing, the language had to accommodate the developing countries that are clinging to Kyoto as well as a Japan that wants very little to do with it any longer. Observers described the language as “weak” without a direct call for countries to pledge reductions in the second commitment period. [...]

“Anything that is said about a legally binding outcome in the future must make it very clear that that is a legally binding outcome that would apply to at least all the major countries including China, India, Brazil, and so forth,” says Todd Stern, the US special climate envoy.

The Wall Street Journal:

World leaders at a climate-change conference in Cancun, Mexico, made clear that addressing the issue will be all about money, agreeing that rich countries would spend potentially trillions of dollars to help poor countries develop on a greener path.

But the diplomats postponed hashing out which rich countries would pay how much, and exactly what the poor countries would have to do to get the checks.

The two-week United Nations climate conference in the resort city of Cancun underscored that future global efforts to address climate change will likely depend more on economic incentives than on environmental mandates.

From Reuters:

(Reuters) - Global carbon markets will struggle after the deal reached at annual U.N. climate talks did little to ensure mandatory emissions caps would be extended next year.

The Gore Effect hits Cancun

The Gore Effect: wherever Al Gore goes, so does record cold weather. I don't know if the Goreacle is in Cancun, but there are enough warmists and climate change activists gathered there at the UN conference to trigger an impressive example of the Gore Effect. From Anthony Watts:

The irony, it burns. Do you think maybe Gaia is trying to send the U.N. and the delegates a message? One record low was funny, three in a row was hilarious, a new record low for the month of December was ROFL, but now six straight days of record lows during the U.N. COP16 Global Warming conference? That’s galactically inconvenient. The whole month so far has averaged below normal

Lord Monckton on the New World Order

Update: Joanne Nova: "The power hungry tyrants learnt from Copenhagen. They realized that they have a far better chance of success by underselling the expectations and sliding in long impenetrable documents in front of underling bureaucrats. The UN wants nothing less than 1.5% of our GDP."

Original Post

Via WUWT, here is the report from the Viscount Monckton of Brenchley in Cancun, Mexico, Dec 9th, 2010 titled The Abdication of the West:

I usually add some gentle humor to these reports. Not today. Read this and weep. Notwithstanding the carefully-orchestrated propaganda to the effect that nothing much will be decided at the UN climate conference here in Cancun, the decisions to be made here this week signal nothing less than the abdication of the West. The governing class in what was once proudly known as the Free World is silently, casually letting go of liberty, prosperity, and even democracy itself. No one in the mainstream media will tell you this, not so much because they do not see as because they do not bl**dy care.

The 33-page Note (FCCC/AWGLCA/2010/CRP.2) by the Chairman of the “Ad-Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Co-operative Action under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change”, entitled Possible elements of the outcome, reveals all. Or, rather, it reveals nothing, unless one understands what the complex, obscure jargon means. All UNFCCC documents at the Cancun conference, specifically including Possible elements of the outcome, are drafted with what is called “transparent impenetrability”. The intention is that the documents should not be understood, but that later we shall be told they were in the public domain all the time, so what are we complaining about?

Since the Chairman’s note is very long, I shall summarize the main points:

I found this particularly disturbing.

The world-government Secretariat: In all but name, the UN Convention’s Secretariat will become a world government directly controlling hundreds of global, supranational, regional, national and sub-national bureaucracies. It will receive the vast sum of taxpayers’ money ostensibly paid by the West to the Third World for adaptation to the supposed adverse consequences of imagined (and imaginary) “global warming”.

The rest is here.

Can anyone be Environment minister?

A post at Macleans.ca by Aaron Wherry today entitled The Commons: Anyone can be environment minister described a verbal exchange during Question Period on the latest report from the environmental commissioner. Mr Wherry seems a bit dissatisfied with the answers from Conservative MPs Mark Warawa and Chuck Strahl, who is quoted:

“We welcome the commissioner’s report,” he explained. “We of course are working to address those concerns that were raised. We welcome his suggestions. In fact we are already taking action on preventing and preparing for environmental emergencies, something that he highlighted, strengthening our water monitoring program and investing in climate change adaptation. Those recommendations are welcome and they are consistent with what the government is already doing. [...]

“We are dealing with the Copenhagen accord right now in Cancun to make sure that all major emitters sign on the dotted line,” Mr. Strahl later explained for the benefit of the NDP’s Thomas Mulcair. “There is no use having an accord when the major emitters of the world are not signed on and doing their part. We want all world economies to be part of this program.””

I have included only the above quote from MP Strahl. But if you read the whole article, it becomes apparent that the writer is dissatisfied with the responses. Mr. Wherry is obviously a "believer" and his article seems filled with contempt for not only the responses but the responders.

However, I think that Mr. Strahl's response deserves some study. He says, "In fact we are already taking action on... investing in climate change adaptation". Many would argue that adaptation is a far better response to climate change than an expensive and futile exercise in prevention. Even the UN has admitted that full implementation of the carbon reduction targets in Kyoto would have almost a negligible effect on their climate predictions. So wouldn't the money be better spent on adaptation. Perhaps not an answer that the enviro-marxist crowd wants to hear, but certainly one that's worth persuing.

Mr. Strahl makes another valid point, "There is no use having an accord when the major emitters of the world are not signed on and doing their part." Again, the enviro crowd want Canada to take drastic measures which would surely disadvantage our economy while countries like China, India and the United States who all dwarf us on the emissions scale are bound by no carbon reductions targets. Unfortunately Canada is a very small fish in this big pond and while some think it might be nice to "lead the way" and "set an example", such action would have absolutely no impact on the climate.

The whole anthropogenic global warming scheme is a scam. Always has been. Canada got sucked into Kyoto by the Lliberals under Jean Chretien who then proceeded to do absolutely nothing to reduce emissions. Recent events like climategate have helped to expose the fraud of man-made global warming. The lack of warming over the past decade and a half has helped too. So now that the wheels are falling off the whole climate change thing, why should Canada consider doing anything other than adaptation?

To get back to the question that Mr. Wherry didn't ask but inferred, not just anyone can be Environment minister. The job requires someone who can look at the issue of climate change rationally, see it for what it is and develop a response that is appropriate to the "threat" - while at the same time protecting the country's economy and the jobs that depend on it.

Adaptation seems like a pretty good approach to me.

Canada joins in to reject extension of Kyoto

With climate negotiations wasting away in Margaritaville, er Cancun, the AP is reporting that Canada has taken a stand against extending the disastrous carbon emissions targets of the Kyoto Accord.

CANCUN, Mexico - Canada has reportedly aligned itself with Russia and Japan to block the extension of the Kyoto Protocol beyond 2012.

U.N. climate chief Christiana Figueres says Canada is one of three countries among the 36 signatories that's opposed to extending their emission targets under the pact.

Bravo, Mr. Harper. Bravo.

Update: More from Le Devoir via Norman Spector:

“Yesterday, Canada stirred a veritable commotion [in Cancun] by aligning itself with Japan to block the extension of the Kyoto protocol beyond 2012 – an extension that would see a new period of obligatory reductions in greenhouse gases agreed to by the 36 parties to the treaty.

It was the chair of the conference herself, Christiana Figueres, who confirmed the identity of the three countries opposed to extending Kyoto beyond 2012. She spelled out that Russia, the final country to have ratified Kyoto – thereby giving it international binding legal effect – had joined with Japan and Canada to form what from now will be known as the ‘Group of Three.’”

It sounds like Canada has (finally) decided to do the right thing about Kyoto. I'll be watching for more on this in upcoming days. I'm sure that PM Stephen Harper is going to get a roasting in the liberal news media here. But I'm just as sure that he has calculated the backlash and is ready for it.

Wasting away in Margaritaville

To say that Rex Murphy has a way with words is to say that Michelangelo was pretty good with a paint brush. Rex offers his thoughts on the big climate party in Cancun.

Perhaps they know that this show of theirs is on its last legs, the jig is up, the great game is over. After the unsuccessful 2009 Copenhagen conference, they had to have realized that even Al Gore and all Al Gores’ grim little men would never be able to put the whole rickety, tendentious machine back together again. After Copenhagen, and especially after Climategate, even the true believers must have lost heart. Witness this year’s confabulation. Notice who’s not there?

Right. The world's leaders are conspicuously absent from this latest warmist gathering. The shine is off the apple. And this group of self-serving elites is becoming more and more irrelevant.

With my apologies to Jimmy Buffett:

Wasting away again in Margaritaville
Searching for a transfer of wealth
Some people claim that there's a carbon to blame
But I know... it's nobody's fault

Senator Jim Inhofe

on Copenhagen, Cancun and the death of Cap & Trade.


h/t: Captain Ed

As if we needed proof...

UN moonbattery confirmed.

Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, invoked the ancient jaguar goddess Ixchel in her opening statement to delegates gathered in Cancun, Mexico, noting that Ixchel was not only goddess of the moon, but also "the goddess of reason, creativity and weaving. May she inspire you -- because today, you are gathered in Cancun to weave together the elements of a solid response to climate change, using both reason and creativity as your tools."

While these UN elites cavort in sunny Cancun, a couple feet of global warming gets dumped on Buffalo, NY.


Oh wait! It appears that we're freezing because of global warming!

Burying the Kyoto Accord once and for all

The Kyoto Accord has been on life support for a while now. Warmists who were hoping for some form of resuscitation at the big climate conflab in Mexico this week must surely be disappointed by this news:

Talks threatened with breakdown after forthright Japanese refusal to extend Kyoto emissions commitments.

The delicately balanced global climate talks in Cancún suffered a serious setback last night when Japan categorically stated its opposition to extending the Kyoto protocol – the binding international treaty that commits most of the world's richest countries to making emission cuts.

Given that Japan was the birthplace of this disaster, it seems only fitting that the Japanese should be the ones to drive the silver stake through it's heart.

h/t: WUWT

Putting the brakes on the EPA

From the Politico, Jerry Lewis pledges to strip funds for climate rules.

Specifically, Lewis said he wants to target EPA’s “ongoing arbitrary interpretation of the Clean Air Act” to begin regulating greenhouse gases in January. He said he will refuse to support federal funding to regulate greenhouse gases in the 112th Congress “unless Congress passes bipartisan energy legislation specifically providing the authority to do so.”

Lewis is hoping to be chair the powerful House Appropriations Committee come January and as such, would have his hands on the purse-strings.

h/t: Captain Ed

"we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy"

Prof. Dr. Ottmar Edenhofer is an economist and Co-Chair of Working Group III of the United Nation's International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He was interviewed recently by Neue Zürcher Zeitung.

But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore...

Emphasis added. English language version above is from the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

Foster: Canada dodges carbon suicide

Peter Foster in the Financial Post:

Mr. Harper has always clearly grasped-- apparently unlike the majority of his international counterparts--that the greatest threat facing humanity is not climate change, but climate-change policy.

Good for Canada's unelected, conservative Senate.

Maxime Bernier

Do you think it's impossible for Canada to produce a political leader who believes in small government, free markets, individual freedoms and is skeptical of the whole man-made global warming hype? I present to you this interview with Former Industry Minister Maxime Bernier (MB) from Conversations from the Frontier Centre for Public Policy (FC) - emphasis added.

FC: Politicians around the world are back pedaling on the topic of global warming. Most of the important countries have postponed plans to bring in carbon taxes and the majority of the public now believes that humans are not the cause of global warming. Why did you choose to express your own skepticism earlier this year contrary to the Canadian political mainstream?

MB: Because I was tired of it and I just wanted to express what I believe in. I am in politics to do that. We must look at all the studies and it’s obvious that there is no scientific consensus on this issue. I just wanted to tell that reality to Quebecers and Canadians. I’m very pleased that there are more and more people who now are skeptical like me. Before investing more money I think we need to know a bit more about the causes and the consequences of climate change.

Not only has Bernier expressed his skepticism about anthropogenic global warming, he's also hinted that he's interested in the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada, post Stephen Harper. He's by no means free of controversy and scandal, but you gotta like what he has to say.

FC: Why did you go into politics?

MB: To promote what I believe in: free markets, less government and more individual freedom. I think that Canadians are responsible people and they don’t need a big government.

and this...

FC: You are skeptical that governments can spend money more efficiently than the average Canadian. Why is that?

MB: It’s just based on the historical data. I think that people know better what is good for them than bureaucrats or politicians in Ottawa. So just leave the money in the pockets of the people. They will save money and they will spend money and we will have more prosperity in our country. I don’t think that taking money from one person to give to another is useful. We need to have some programs. We need to have small government but right now, you are working half the year just to pay taxes to different governments (municipalities, provincial and federal) I think we are paying too much taxes in this country.

I couldn't agree more. Here's a politician who calls 'em the way he sees 'em. What a breath of fresh air this is!

Keep your eye on Maxime Bernier.

h/t: SDA

Spain changing course

Only time will tell if it's enough to save them, but at least it shows that when the political will is there, major changes can be made. From Investors Business Daily, Spain is Escaping the PIIGS:

As Europe fashioned a $1 trillion bailout fund and prepared for the worst, Spain did what no one thought a socialist state could ever do: It cut public-sector workers' salaries 5% and held off their raises for 2011. Pensions were frozen for all but the poorest.

Better still, all the big money-wasting "green" and "alternative energy" projects — which a Spanish university study exposed as job killers — were scrapped. That's right, all the global warming measures put in place because of the "emergency" were dumped.

While climategate exposed the fraud of global warming, it's taking an unprecedented financial crisis to spur action. Even a leftist state when pinched can recognize the uselessness of combating the Mann-made faux emergency called global warming and take steps to put an end to the wasteful spending it demands.

Not surprisingly, markets rallied on this amazing show of will, whose message was that Spain is not Greece.

It's a heartening story to see a nation on the precipice decide to walk back from the cliff instead of jump. Up until now, socialist states from all over — from Venezuela to Greece — have always resorted to blaming others when the money ran out.

It's not going to be easy for Spain, but that's the point. Doing the right thing isn't usually an easy thing to do. There will surely be opposition and turmoil and there's no guarantee that Spain will succeed. But they're heading in the right direction.

Other nations should take a look at Spain's responsible response and ask themselves if they want to follow the example of Greece into the black hole of debt or suck it up and find the balls to take action like Spain. Sooner or later, they will have to.

As they say, "socialism works great until you run out of other people's money".

Meanwhile, in the USA: