A ong>Messageong> on Climate for Journalists and Politicians
for whom SCIENCE is not their first language
This is about the CARBON TAX— devised by economic pygmies, driven by
idealogy, supported by flawed and hotly disputed science, and providing
NO measureable reduction in emissions and temperature despite the
outlay of billions of dollars. All this, in a country that calls itself ’CLEVER’.
“If liberty means anything at all,
it means the right to tell people
what they do not want to hear”
G M Derrick BSc, PhD (U of Q)
Consultant Geologist March 2011
These following pages are prompted by the ongoing ignorance of basic science that is displayed day to day by
politicians at all levels, and some journalists of the main stream media, (MSM) especially where climate skepticism
and alarmism and most recently the carbon tax are concerned. This phenomenon can be observed in
newspapers, journals, radio and television, and in interviews and speeches given to print, radio and TV outlets.
No one media or political group has a monopoly on this lack of understanding, and nor is the ignorance confined
to the most lowly. It pervades the commentariat in morning television on all commercial and ABC outlets,
and is, I suggest, independent of IQ. Some very intelligent people are capable of making the most asinine statements
on the big issue of global warming and a carbon dioxide tax (CDT), mainly out of political imperatives.
It is clear to all who do not need immediate eye treatment that the media generally, and some groups in particular,
will never allow their doors to be breached by skeptical science arguments. You know who you are.
Politicians as a group are commonly linked to a party policy line, and thus may not be allowed to express their
personal views, but media groups, consisting of a lot of journalists, would be normally expected to cover an issue
impartially and without bias— ‘without fear or favour’, as they say, searching for the truth. But on this issue,
pigs might fly. It may be an ego thing or it may be a policy thing, but media groupthink is now with us all the
time regardless of the evidence. For too long elements in the media have
been happy to accept whatever science or science fiction they have been fed,
without question. The word of the science-challenged favourite media celebrity
is accepted without question, and journalists have their pet sources.
So these pages are for you; get ready for X axes, sunspots and greenhouse
compositions, but do not retreat into your cosy philosophical bunk. There is
important stuff here to be read and understood—it is, after all, the great
moral challenge of our time, more to BE CHALLENGED however by science
INDEPENDENT of the IPCC, and which must pose serious doubt about the
directions we are taking as a country, on the basis of an imperfect, modeldriven
Dr Geoff Derrick March-April 2011
“We’ll all be rooned”. .
So said Australian poet Patrick Hartigan (1878-1952), writing his book of
poems “Around the Boree Log” under the nom-de-plume of John O’Brien. He
was a Catholic priest in the Goulburn and Narrandera districts of NSW, and
one of his best known characters is HANRAHAN, predictor of dire consequences,
from drought to flood and bushfires in never-ending cycles.
And so around the chorus ran
"It's keepin' dry, no doubt." Droughts. .
"We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan,
"Before the year is out."
And every creek a banker ran,
And dams filled overtop;
"We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan,
"If this rain doesn't stop."
Father Hartigan and John O’Brien could not
have known that Hanrahan’s famous phrasing
describing the laconic and resilient nature of Australians
would be taken up by the International Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) some 50 years after his passing.
and fires. .
"There'll be bush-fires for sure, me man,
There will, without a doubt;
We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan,
"Before the year is out."
The IPCC says that unless the world reduces the amount of carbon dioxide
emissions we are all going to be ROONED — the world will heat up
uncontrollably, and we are all going to fry. This scaremongering by the
IPCC is simply an exercise in wishful forecasting and virtual reality based
on flawed computer modelling. As more real world data emerges, the IPCC
forecasts are becoming an exercise in scientific vanity, accompanied by
potential transfer of wealth from rich to poor nations and destructive
transformation of economies — for virtually NO reduction in temperature
or emissions, at an enormous cost measured in trillions of $$.
Let’s start with the basics:
is not a pollutant.
Those who use the term “Carbon
pollution” or “Carbon Tax” are
immediately identified as not having
Science as their first language
PS: Terry McCrann (8.3.11) suggests that on this basis, rain (H 2 O) should be
called ‘hydrogen pollution’; we should also remember that CO 2 itself is 72.71%
OXYGEN, so the alarmists really want a tax on oxygen as well.
However , to be fair . . .
Carbon was part of a smog
and air pollution problem in
the past . . . .
(as particles of soot from inefficient home heaters
and even from the old steam trains of Brisbane up
to the late 1950s. . .)
This can be caused by particulate carbon. .
Old London and (inset) the famous pea-souper
smog of 1952, cleaned up by growth of coal-fired power
stations and efficient ‘scrubbing’ technology in flue stacks
This page resembles carbon dioxide
Carbon is the building block for all life on earth, so
it is irrational & ignorant to call it a pollutant !!
Petroleum (carbon) products power the country
My carbon heart
valve keeps me
And carbon at
great depth and
This is NOT
CARBON is stored in areas like this kauri
forest at Margaret River, WA
How many times can we say it ?
CARBON DIOXIDE CO 2
is NOT a pollutant.
CO 2 gas in the atmosphere sustains all life; it is a
colourless, odourless non-toxic form of carbon, and
without it all plant and animal life cannot survive.
The so-called ‘CARBON TAX’ as
proposed by global warming
alarmists is really code for a
CARBON DIOXIDE TAX, a tax on
one of life’s essentials
What is the guiding principle for
imposition of a ‘CDT ?
The sole premise is that issued by the IPCC, namely that “Dangerous
global warming is caused by human (anthropogenic) carbon dioxide
This doctrine is also described as ‘AGW’, or ‘Anthropogenic Global
Warming’, and is said to be ‘consensus science’, which is oxymoronic.
In 2005, the IPCC decided to change the term ‘global warming’ to
‘climate change’, because science other than that used by IPCC
showed emerging cooling trends in global temperatures.
However, climate is always changing, and has done so from Earth’s
origins 4.5 billion years ago.
The null hypothesis, that global climatic changes observed
today are within natural variation, has yet to be disproved.
In the following pages, we examine this IPCC premise, because
billions of $$$ are proposed to be spent transforming national
economies around the world, for what??
To turn some imaginary world thermostat to lower global tem-
peratures by 2 0 C or more by 2100??
What if the degree of ‘dangerous global warming’ has been
exaggerated? What will be the cost of useless mitigation ?
What if rising CO 2 levels can be shown to be independent of any
increase or decrease in global temperature?
If the latter proposition can be demonstrated, then the whole IPCC
premise becomes invalid. It is already clear from the words of Jill Duggan,
European Community expert on Carbon Markets, that in targeting 20%
reduction of CO 2 emissions by 2020, she has no idea of the cost, nor any
idea of the effect. (News clip 10 March 2011)
Both sides of the argument should agree that
Climate Change is real—it has changed all the time
since this planet was formed 4500 million years ago
These are temperature—time graphs derived from Antarctic Vostok ice cores from 400,000 years ago to almost the present. Temperature
is derived from oxygen isotope measurements of entrapped air bubbles in the ice. Past warming and cooling periods are
clearly indicated. The argument, then, is about whether any warming is dangerous, and whether carbon dioxide is responsible.
This shows Greenland ice-core data, showing temperatures versus time
for 10,000 years. Carbon dioxide levels are superimposed (thin grey lines),
with red line showing overall trend. On this timescale, temperature varies
widely, with no obvious relation to CO2 levels.
Temperature trend, actual
Similar relationships hold for Antarctica
INFORMATION regarding carbon dioxide on our planet. .
Percentage of greenhouse
gas in atmosphere
What are greenhouse gases?
Where does CO2
What is the human share
of the Greenhouse effect?
warming is about
34 o C, of which CO 2
10%, or 3.4 o C., only
some of which may be
due to humans (e.g the
urban heating effect).
CO 2 is a very small proportion of our atmosphere, but some is necessary, together with the more important
water vapour and other minor gases to create sufficient ‘greenhouse’ warmth for our planet to be habitable.
MORE INFORMATION regarding carbon dioxide on our planet.
There is NO CO 2 in this image of the Bayswater power station in NSW. This picture, so beloved by TV programmers
to support a message of dirty coal and CO 2 emissions, is in fact water vapour in cooling towers. Stop it!!
MORE INFORMATION regarding carbon dioxide on our planet.
From: Archibald, D. 2007, Climate Outlook to 2030
Energy and Environment
Doubling of CO2 produces only a fraction
of degree of warming by the greenhouse
effect (SEE RED LINE ON THE y AXIS.
CO2 is increasing steadily in our
atmosphere, at a rate of about 1ppm per
annum; the inset shows how CO2 varies
from summer to winter. In the past, CO2
levels have been much higher e.g.
5000ppm or more, without any evidence
of runaway global warming
This graph is said to be ‘logarithmic”. It shows that 20
ppm of CO2 will produce some degree of warming,
shown as about 1.5 o C in this graph. Note that if one was
to double the CO2 content from 180 to 360ppm, then
temperature rise would be a small fraction of a degree
(see the vertical axis); a doubling of present levels of
CO2 would cause almost no temperature rise. This is an
example of the law of diminishing returns.
So how much of a pollutant is CARBON DIOXIDE?
We drink and enjoy the fizz !! This is just
CO 2 bubbling out as pressure is released
as the cork or ringtop is pulled.
We go camping
with it as dry ice!!
And kids play with it—just like
creating smoke in live theatre !!
And even Julia has a little secret. . .
Shush now comrades; did
you know I have 40,000
ppm of CO 2 in my breath?
The world of industry knows there is nothing to fear from CO 2 . . .
This graphic shows
how much CO 2 is
in our normal
any problems at
all. 1,000 ppm
CO 2 is OPTIMAL !!
Recommended Hygienic Limit
Swedish air quality
At current trends, it will take 4,500 years for CO 2 levels to
reach the hygienic limits noted above, of 5000 ppm.
WE ARE HERE
in 2011 !!
The world goes about it’s business in a range of CO 2 concentrations. . .
Submariners work up
to this level of CO2
See Burt Rutan,
Our present levels of CO 2
AND NOW WE EVEN COOK WITH IT !!
Heston Blumenthal lists carbon
dioxide in the list of ingredients
for many of his signature dishes
at “The Fat Duck” restaurant.
“It is a major pollutant” say the
Lapsang souchong ‘fog’
So carbon dioxide is most definitely NOT a pollutant . .
Ms Gillard, Mr Combet,
All these people declare that CO 2 is a
pollutant. They are speaking with no
respect for, and ignorance of, the science.
American Indians had a name for this.
Mr Oakeshott, Mr Windsor,
Ms Milne 23
By way of a geological interlude, and
before discussing carbon dioxide and
temperature, let me share with you a
geological highlight—the magnificent
ramparts of the Devonian Barrier Reef
in the southern Kimberleys— a great
complex of limestone deposited from
oceans saturated in carbon dioxide, in
no danger from the other scary monster
of the alarmists — ocean acidification !!
This is Nature’s way of dealing with excess CO 2 in the oceans
Carbon is ’fixed’ in our landscape when it forms
great limestone reefs—calcium carbonate forms
from ocean waters containing carbon as carbon
dioxide. These are the Devonian reefs of the Napier
Range in the Kimberley— 400 million years old,
and now displayed in much the same attitude as
modern barrier reefs. This breath-taking view is
towards the northwest.
This beautiful reef complex is cut by Windjana
Gorge (centre of photo), seen below in more detail.
The cliffs are composed of grey limestone representing
the core of the reef, flanked by the steeply
layered limestones in front of the reef, and flatlayered
limestone behind the main reef.
Limestone= calcium carbonate
Reef mound core
Ca CO 3
Here is the carbon, symbol ‘C’
Let us now look at the
relation between time, CO 2
and temperature—this is at
the heart of IPCC alarmism..
It is claimed that dangerous anthropogenic global
warming is caused by the ‘pollutant’ carbon
dioxide. We examine this claim by reference to
some global temperature records
The concept of an average global temperature is
difficult to comprehend—it is something like an
average telephone number. Night-day-summerwinter-equator-north
pole—how do you get an
average temperature of such diverse areas (landocean-country-city)
of our entire globe?
Regardless of the shortcomings, graphs are made of
the ‘global’ data, and climate alarmism is based on
this imperfect data. Early data since 17th C was
thermometer-based; modern data is satellite-based,
but both are used to create these time-Temp graphs.
Because of uncertainty in determining an ‘average global temperature’, a good case
can be made for looking at individual country records less compromised by technical
difficulties and inherent biases that result from the global ‘averaging’. (e.g see UK, USA, Netherlands)
So we join the graphologists for the global
and country picture, in search of
DANGEROUS GLOBAL WARMING.
Climate model predictions
GLOBAL Temperature trends from
1880 to 2008—about 0.8 o C. Is this a
dangerous acceleration of warming?
This data is from the NCDC—the US National
Climate Data Centre. The thin blue line after 1950
represents the ‘unadjusted’ temperature curve
folks — move
In England, we have the Central England
Temperature Record (CET) - 351 years of
continuous measurement from 1659
LITTLE ICE AGE
1500 TO 1700
Spiky data is year by year temperature variations,
with 5 year intervals shown on the X axis.
Blue line is smoothed
(averaged) temperature data
No dangerous warming trends here, and no relation of temperature
trends to rising CO2 trends (dotted line); see also Page 14.
CO 2 trend
Graphs from http://www.c3headlines.com/
The Central England Temperature Record (CET)
- shown with a more compressed time scale along the X axis
This is the same graph as previous, but with the X axis compressed a little, to show a
warming trend of 0.25 degrees C per 100 years. So ‘global warming’ has happened,
but the trend is so masked by natural variation as to be almost undetectable; the rate
may also differ from country to country — European trends differ from US trends
CO 2 emissions build up
from about 1946
The pink line shows the smoothed average trend; the
warming trend since Little Ice Age is +0.25 o C per century
folks — move
LITTLE ICE AGE
1500 to 1700
Meanwhile in the USA, we have many examples of raw and
long term data to help us find ‘dangerous global warming’
Data for SUMMER temperature, Texas,
USA—months of June, July and August. Data
from the US National Data Centre
The graph shows that some summers were HOT, some were COOL., and many near-NORMAL.
There is absolutely no
evidence showing the
last 10 years have
been the ‘world’s hottest
decade’ — at
least in TEXAS, USA.
The 1930’s, 1950’s and
1980 all had hotter
summers than the
most recent decade.
Conclude: over the past 117 years there is absolutely NO trend in the State’s summer temperatures.
Data from Willis Eschenbach, 13.4.2010; temperature data from the US
Historical Climate Network : published in WUWT web blog.
MORE Temperature, Graphs and
Statistics for the USA
Homer says ‘Oh my God, look at that temperature
rise’ from 1890 to 2010; this is not as scary
as some would tell you. Note that the
graph is from the USA, and Y axis is degrees Fahrenheit.
The temperature CHANGE is about 1
degree F or 0.5 o C over 120 years.
The exaggerated rise in the linear trend (red line)
happens because the time line (X axis) is highly
compressed, and vertical scale extended.
Despite the trend, the amount of change in 120
years is only 0.5 o C, so small that we would not feel
it, let alone blame anthropogenic CO2 emissions for
But can the data be presented in a way that relates
better to our own experiences of month to
month of living through the 4 seasons, repeated for
120 years of record keeping ?
Please turn the page
1895 to 2009
Photo: Vernal Falls, Yosemite
This is the SAME data showing
summer to winter trends for
120 years in the USA
Graph shows average monthly temperatures from
1895 to 2009 (114 years). It is a thermometer
record, and each colour curve is a different year.
There are 115 lines here all overlapping with each
Because it is northern hemisphere, the hot months
and the cold months Jan-Feb
Temperature scale is Fahrenheit.
The graphs show NO SIGN of any dangerous
warming or dangerous changes over 120 years, despite
CO2 content of the atmosphere rising from
280 ppm to 380ppm . The average monthly temperatures
for July 2009 (month 7) and December
2009 are about the same as they were in July 1895.
THERE IS NO DANGEROUS
GLOBAL WARMING HERE !
Data from Willis Eschenbach, 13.4.2010; temperature data from the US
Historical Climate Network : published in WUWT web blog.
Please turn the page again
1895 to 2009
Willis Eschenbach then
graphed the data by decades
NO SIGNIFICANT WARMING OVER 114 YEARS
Graph shows average monthly temperatures from
1895 to 2009, but this time grouped in decades.
Each decade is a different colour line.
Temperatures for the decade 2000-2009 are
about the same as the decade from 1900 to
1909, despite rising CO2 levels.
Willis says: ‘The temperature changes of half a degree
C for the past century are trivially small, and
are not a problem that “eclipses that of
terrorism” (Guardian quote).
Photo: Half Domes, Yosemite
‘For me, poverty, injustice, recurring warfare, lack
of clean water and rampant disease vastly eclipse
the possibility of a degree or two of warming
happening at night in the winter in the extratropics
fifty years from now”
Data from Willis Eschenbach, 13.4.2010; temperature data from the US Historical Climate Network :
published in WUWT web blog.
Only the alarmists would
argue against that
Thus far, we have seen NO dangerous warming trends globally or for
central UK and the USA, for timespans ranging from 1659 to the present.
The organizations which present these data are as follows:
NOAA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration—a US Federal agency focused on
oceans and the atmosphere
NASA/GISS: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, with
GISS being an agency—the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (at
Columbia Uni, New York. Also sent men to the moon)
NCDC: National Climatic Data Centre—
part of NOAA, and archives climate data
HADCRUT: The Hadley Centre of the UK Met
Office, which archives monthly temperature records,
combined with the Climate Research Unit of the
Universe of East Anglia (of Climategate fame)
This is what happened when James Hansen and his
group decided to ‘adjust’ the NZ temperature record
Most climate organizations use data
collected by these organizations; the
data has been known to be manipulated
from time to time by various groups,
mainly by ‘adjustments’ of temperature
records downwards in early years of the
data, to give an artifical and exaggerated
warming trend overall.
Graph from: http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2007/09/is-james-hansen.html
To recap, we have seen NO dangerous global warming for the past century or
more, and NO CORRELATION BETWEEN TEMPERATURE AND RISING CO 2
RED squares are upper limits of ‘predicted’
alarmist temperatures to 2100—about 6 o C
BLUE dots are temperatures in 2100 if
current trends continue
Black dots show the
carbon dioxide trend
BUT WHAT ABOUT RECENT TRENDS AND THE ‘HOTTEST YEAR EVER ??”
Satellite Temperature Data since 1978: moderate 1.4 o C warming trend.
CO 2 levels
The short term trend compares with global trends over 300 years of about 0.3 o C/century. Note the warmer
temperatures during El Nino cycles, and cooler temperatures in La Nina cycles and periods of volcanicity. The latter
spreads dust around the upper atmosphere, limiting incoming sunlight. There is little or no relation to CO2 levels
However, since 1998, there appears to be a change in slope of the
temperature-time curve, strongly indicating a neutral or cooling trend.
NO SINGLE CLIMATE MODEL PREDICTED THIS DECLINE !! 1998 2010
Top right: http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2007/09/is-james-hansen.html
This is satellite data for the last
30 years—global warming has
NOT OCCURRED for this period
despite rising CO2 content.
The reasons for this trend
change could be due to solar
cycles and /or large circulation
systems operating in the Earth’s
atmosphere and oceans.
Climate models are in generally bad odour; in 1999, NASA modelled that winters
would warm across the hemisphere ; Robert Kennedy Jr said in 2008 that his
children would be robbed of their childhood joys of sledding and skiing in Washington
DC., due to global warming. And Al Gore addresses his adoring minions. .
Winters in 2009-2010 produced record and near-record cold
temperatures across the UK, Europe and the USA. A record
low minus 18.7 o C was recorded on 23 December 2010 at
Castlederg, County Tyrone in Northern Ireland.
What is happening in the oceans ?? Not much it seems
This chart shows the traverses
made across the tropical Pacific
measuring water temperatures
to 300m depth, using buoys.
The traverse extended from longitude
130E to longitude 80W
folks — move
The ocean temperatures
at least in this part of the
Pacific show no significant
warming trends for the
past 32 years. 1998 was a
major El Nino year. La
Nina ocean warming
occurred in NE Australian
waters in late 2010—early
CLIMATE MODELS also attempt to predict the effect of CO2 emissions into
the atmosphere; they predict a global warming hot spot in the troposphere
as KEY PROOF of their hypothesis that CO2 causes dangerous warming.
12 km height
Here is the troposphere,
extending up to about
12km above ground..
Graph from http://www.c3headlines.com/& realagenda.com
This chart ABOVE shows modeling by 4 agencies predicting a hot
spot at about 12km height ( 200 millibars of pressure), as a result of
increased CO2 emissions and extra water vapour. The hotspots are
predicted to occur either side of the equator, from latitudes 30S to
30N, and also at surface levels at higher latitudes (e.g. 60N and
60S, left and right hand lower corners of each graph)
THIS COULD GET SERIOUS S !
What do actual observations from balloon measurements show?
(9 to 15km)
NO HOT SPOT HERE
Temperatures from balloon
recording (radiosondes) show
NO HOTSPOT—in fact a decreasing
temperature trend is
evident in the troposphere.
These charts compare
modelled rates of atmospheric
rates of atmospheric
warming, as determined
from balloon measurement
(only to 1999).
NO HOTSPOT HERE
There is NO HOTSPOT.
There are also NO
surface hot spots.
The MODELS ARE
remains a factor of
concern and error.
Data from Thor;ne et al., 2005
* Garbage in Garbage out
And then there is the
CHAMELEON factor !!
Watch my colour change !!
This comes about when alarmist climate modellers
push and torture data to the extreme in trying to
overcome the embarrassment of NO HOTSPOT.
These authors published this diagram below right,
saying the hotspot has been found in the troposphere,
but there is a fudge factor at work here.
The normal way of representing temperature trends
is like this—zero trends are the light colours.
Allen and Sherwood (2008, Nature Geoscience) claimed to
have found this hotspot, but a closer look shows that they
moved the colour scale to show zero trends as RED. In reality,
this diagram shows NO conclusive hotspot at all—it is mostly
all near zero. This is the CHAMELEON FACTOR.
This is simply BAD and DATA-BENDING science, as climate
modellers struggle to find what they predicted, and which is
in fact very elusive. CO2 emissions are NOT creating
dangerous warming in the troposphere, or anywhere else.
As revealed by http://joannenova.com.au/2010/07/sherwood-2008-where-you-can-find-a-hot-spot-at-zero-degrees/
And what exaggerations are being made about sea-level rise??
Sea levels fall in ice ages, and
rise in the interglacial periods.
In the last 200,000 years there
have been up to 10 changes of
sea-level, some up to 100m below
present levels. The highest
levels would have flooded the
site of Brisbane, and the lower
levels saw the coastline move
40km out to sea. Our sea-level
history is independent of CO2.
This is the Enterprise sand mining operation on North Stradbroke Island (view to NW), where
bands of valuable rutile and zircon are being mined from old beach zones, where heavy minerals
(“black sand”) were concentrated by wave action. This high dune area was part of the beach
140,000 years ago, when the sea level was about 5m higher than today.
Sea levels are said to be rising dangerously, to flood our towns and
cities — so say the IPCC, Mr Garnaut, Mr Combet, Dr Steffen, the showboating
President from Tuvalu and all the other alarmists out there. .
Tidal gauge data over
300 years globally give a
rate of sea level rise of
1.6 to 1.8mm per year.
More recent satellite
data give a rate of
3.2mm per year, but a
recent change of trend at
about 2005 gives a recent
rate of 1.2mm per
year, and falling.
Change of slope,
meaning a LOWER
rate of sea level rise
The long-term slow rise in
sea level is due to the
final stages of interglacial
melting of the ice sheets,
since the last glaciation
17,000 years ago.
This rate means a rise of
about 12 to 30cm by
2100. WE can cope with
Some sea levels in the Pacific are in fact stable these past few years; there has been
zero trend sea level rise in PNG, Samoa, Nauru, and yes, even Tuvalu, compared
with alarmist forecasts of from 4 to 6mm per year. Embarrassingly, Robyn Williams
of the ABC Science Show has claimed that a 100metre rise in sea levels is possible.
On March 28th 2011, ALP
politicians were given a
script to read to a hopefully
gullible public. It said
“Sea levels could rise by
up to a metre or more by
2100; up to 250,000
homes are at risk of inun-
dation” (The Australian 28.3.2011)
Here boys, read my
script on sea levels—
it’s hilarious !!
Harry, this is
a load of
This is peer-reviewed data from March 2011; it examines
whether sealevel rise (based on US tidal gauges) has been
accelerating or decelerating through 82 years of the 20th
Century. The RESULTS?? Most records show NO major
change in the rate of SL rise over the period of 82 years.
(see cluster from –0.1 to +0.1 mm/year on graph).
THE RATE OF SL RISE OVER 82 YEARS HAS BEEN 1.7mm
PER YEAR, or a projected 15cm rise up to 2100 —just over
your ankles. And in 2011, the rate has fallen further.
The ALP figure (provided by their scientists) of at
least 1 metre rise of sea level by 2100
looks exaggerated — just another bit
of non-scientific scaremongering .
From Houston & Dean 2011 Journal of Coastal Research
This man, Rajenda Pachauri is chairman of the IPCC, and he and
foolish statements tend to go together; his latest in March 2011 was
this, blaming a small 17cm rise in SL for greater tsunami damage:
“In the 20th C, sea-level rise was 17cm; if the
sealevel was lower, the Japanese tsunami
would have had a less devastating effect “ .
This is idiocy of the highest quality
Concerns about 17cm of sea-level
rise in 100 years was the last thing
on the minds of Fukushima
residents when confronted by this
monster wave on 11 March 2011.
14 metre high
tsunami at reactor
Julia Gillard, Greg Combet
All these visionaries from the Left, or from politics and economics and palaeontology, probably love their
pets and visit their aged parents at least once a month, but they nevertheless have said intemperate words
Between them, these people in recent months have publicly (e.g. Radio National, TV) called
skeptical scientists ‘creationists’, ‘flat-earthers’, ‘fruitloops’, ‘racists’, ‘nutters’ , ‘denialists’, and
worse; this is contemptible language, reflecting their total inability to understand scientific
argument outside of the prism of IPCC ‘consensus’, and their own fractured capacity to listen to
other than quasi-religious mantra and trite sloganeering so rife in the social media universe.
Here are a selection of skeptical scientists labelled and scorned as DENIALISTS,
CREATIONISTS , and FLATEARTHERS by these self-styled intellectual giants
Professor Bob Carter —
adjunct Research Fellow at
James Cook University ; a
marine geologist and environmental
scientist ; head of
School of Earth Sciences at JCU
1981 to 1999, and author of
2010 book ‘Climate—the
Professor John Christie—
professor of atmospheric
science and director of the
Earth System Science Centre
at the University of Alabama
at Huntsville; IPCC
author & specialist in satellite
and awarded a
NASA medal in 1991.
Kim Stanton-Cook —
geologist and MD of mining
Cross Resources. Vastly
experienced observer of
world geology, and
hugely supportive of the
minerals industry as a
wealth creator & driver of
Professor Richard Lindzen
Is the Alfred P Sloan professor
of Meteorology at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology.
Works on the dynamics of
the middle atmosphere and
ozone photochemistry, and has
published more than 200
books and scientific papers.
Stephen McIntyre —fomer
director of junior exploration
companies and policy analyst
for governments in Canada;
strong education in mathematics
and statistics, and together
with Professor Ross
McKitrick exposed the climate
science fraud of ‘Climategate’
and Michael Mann, the subject
of the successful book The
Hockey Stick Illusion, written
by Andrew Montford.
Ian Plimer -—Professor
of Geology at Adelaide
anti-creationist, winner of
ABC Eureka prize for
author of “Short History
of Planet Earth”, “Telling
Lies for God”, and
‘Heaven and Earth’ .
Vincent Courtillot —
Professor of geophysics at
the University of Paris
Diderot and Director of
the Institut de Physique
du Globe in Paris. Past
President of he European
Union of Scientists, and
researcher of solar cycles
in relation to climate
TV meteorologist, 25 years
on air despite a hearing
difficulty. Specialises in
and presentation; runs
Watts Up With That,
voted Best Science Website
on the Net for 2011.
theoretical physicist and
professor at Princeton,
and author of many
widely read science books.
These are but 9 of 99 or 999 or 9,999 scientists committed to climate realism rather than alarmism
How can Simon Sheikh and his Gen Y followers claim any scientific
authority over Stephen McIntyre, described by New Statesman 27 September
2010 as “one of the 50 people who matter in the world” ? He
was listed as No. 32, ahead of Oprah Winfrey but behind No. 1, Rupert
Murdoch. McIntyre’s transparent honesty, civility, integrity and analytical
brilliance should be a model for ALL scientists.
How can economist Ross Garnaut describe Ian Plimer as a
“creationist” when Plimer took creationists to court to keep this
pseudoscience out of the school science curricula, and paid a
heavy financial price for his troubles ?
How can Tim Flannery describe keepers of Earth history such as
skeptical and eminent geologists Carter, Stanton-Cook and Plimer
as ‘flat-earthers”, and expect people to take him seriously in his
role of Climate Commissioner? This is just ad hominem abuse.
Dr Flannery, a palaeontologist, has many failed doomsday-like predictions to his credit.
Flannery has said “within this century the concept of the strong Gaia will actually
become physically manifest . . This planet, this Gaia, will have acquired a
brain and a nervous system. That will make it act as a living animal, as a living
organism”. Fortunately, our geologists by contrast know the earth consists
of a core, mantle and crust, and they know how it all interacts to produce
the resources which build our country. Rocks can ‘speak’ to a geologist by
their very arrangement, which provides the clues to origins and earth history.
But they don’t sulk or cry with pain when hammered to provide a sample. . .
Flannery’s Gaia, this one whole and living creature, is
part of a dingbat world of pseudoscience and talking plants
And so it comes to this. A BATTLE of the GRAPHS
Graph of Mann et al, 1998, in Nature 392
I P C C V E R S I O N
Observed and validated temperature trends
T R U T H
The International Panel on Climate Change did itself
and it’s reputation no good at all with their support
for the infamous “Hockey Stick” of Michael
Mann and others. For many years it was the iconic
image for the IPCC, and Al Gore. Apart from the
exaggerated modelled rise in temperature to the
right, Mann et al managed to get rid of the well
established Mediaeval Warm Period (MWP) and
the Little Ice Age (LIA) using statistical chicanery.
This deceptive action was exposed by Stephen McIntyre
and Ross McKitrick, and is described by Andrew
Montford in his book, “The Hockey Stick Illusion”.
The IPCC temperature projections to 2100 are shown here,
and are based on modeling of CO2 emissions and their
contribution to the greenhouse effect. The lowest trend
shown by the IPCC assumes a constant CO2 content in the
atmosphere. In the face of real-world evidence, the IPCC
has had to downgrade it’s temperature forecasts, from
0.3 o C per decade in 1990 to 0.2 o C per decade in 2001, to
0.15 o C per decade currently. This is described by the IPCC
as being “worse than expected”.
Wherever one looks, the IPCC MODEL projections are not looking that hot. .
Green line A: temperature growth with CO2 growing as usual
Orange line B: Temperature with moderated CO2 emissions
Blue line C: Temperature with CO2 levels held constant
Where we are now
And others offer projections much less than IPCC models
The Easterbrook projections are based on observed
cycles of temperature variation in past
Earth history, generally independent of CO2
emissions. The projected amount of possible
warming by 2100 is about 0.5 o C, less than the
latest IPCC estimate, and far less than the 2 to 4
degrees C rise spoken about by many other
We are here
The cost to avoid this possibly
FLAWED IPCC projection of temperature
rise will be TRILLIONS of $$$.
The blue lines in this graph of projected temperature
rise to 2100 reflect estimates based on observation of
past and current climate and solar cycles; these are
indicating about 1 degree C or less of projected temperature
rise by 2100, compared with the higher
Skeptical scientists contend that the IPCC bases it’s
models and projections mainly on the modelled
behaviour of CO2, without taking into account the
role of water vapour, a much more voluminous
So if IPCC climate models involving carbon dioxide are suspect
and flawed, what other temperature controls may exists ??
We are currently in Cycle 23—a
prolonged 11 year cycle of LOW
sunspot activity– and entering 24
David Archibald, Australian geologist, counts sunspots, as
others have been doing for +300 years, and believes that
they also may control temperature trends. That should not
be a difficult concept for most of us. Why didn’t the IPCC
think of that?? (Ref: Archibald, D 2010 Past and Future of Climate)
The sunspot cycles are
about a decade (11yr) in
length (grey line), but
MULTIDECADAL trends are
also present (Red line). The
current pattern is similar to
that of the Dalton Minimum,
a period of global
cooling at about 1800—1820
Le Mouël et al 2009 ‘Evidence for solar forcing in variability of temperatures and pressures in
Europe.’ 2009 Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics
Let’s look at solar activity and relation to actual temperature records
This diagram shows that solar activity and Arctic temperatures
correlate very well—much better than any CO2-temperature
correlation presented by the IPCC. Data covers 120 years.
Note that temperature curve does NOT correlate with fossil
fuel consumption. From Robinson et al 2007 Journal of American
Physicians and Surgeons 12, 79-90
100 years of data from the Netherlands: Blue
line “knows only the sun” i.e. solar activity; Green
line “lifeline” knows only the temperature record of
the Netherlands. This is yet more convincing data
that the relation between CO2 and temperature
trends is weak, whereas the correlation is strong
with solar activity From Le Mouël et al 2009 ‘Evidence for solar
forcing in variability of temperatures and pressures in Europe.’
2009 Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics
CO 2 is simply not an issue
Proxy for temp.
So by how much will a carbon tax reduce emissions and
temperatures, and what might be the cost??
83% reduction in emissions by 2100
The results above: “The global temperature ‘savings’ of the Kerry-
Lieberman bill are astoundingly small—0.043°C by 2050 and 0.111°C by
2100. In other words, by century’s end, reducing U.S. greenhouse gas
emissions by 83% will only result in global temperatures being about onetenth
of one degree C less than they would otherwise be (from 2.95 o to
2.84 o C ). That is a scientifically meaningless reduction.”
In the US it is MAGICC—
this means “Model for the
Assessment of Greenhouse
Pat Michaels in May 2010
used the IPCC model to
assess the impact of the
Power Act—a cap and
trade mechanism to reduce
CO2 emissions by
83% by 2050 (Bill introduced by
Messrs Kerry and Lieberman)
Turn here to see
some costs. . .
Consider the Environmental Protection Agency in the US. It is proposing to
declare CO 2 to be a pollutant, and to penalize all CO 2 use into the future.
QUESTIONS: How much will it cost, and by how much
will the reduced CO 2 levels reduce the temperature ?
Some answers come from Willis Eschenbach, quoting EPA figures
contained in a US Senate minority report dated 28 Sept 2010. See
New regulations will cost $78 billion per year ; total cost to 2100 is $78 billion x 90 years approx.
THIS COST IS US$7 trillion ($7,000 billion dollars)
Carbon dioxide emissions may be reduced by about 3 ppm in a total of possibly 500ppm by 2100
Global mean temperature may be reduced by an average of 0.00375 o C by 2100—about 4
thousandths of one degree C. over 90 years
DO THE SUMS: $7 trillion divided by 0.00375 = US $1.9 quadrillion for each degree of cooling.
(That is $1,900,000,000,000,000 per degree !! And that is using EPA figures.
THE LUNATICS ARE RUNNING THE ASYLUM EVERYWHERE
If Australia shut down tomorrow,
emitting NO CO2, it would lower
the temperature in 2050 by just
0.0154 o C (IPCC figures).
A CARBON TAX means a lot of
pain for NO GAIN.
As Jo Nova says: “Welcome to Futility Island”
Climate science is like this can of worms from my compost heap; when climate
alarmists tell you the science is settled, they tell you a lie. ‘Consensus science’ is
an OXYMORON, and says that ‘near enough is good enough’.
The alarmist IPCC arguments are marred by a lack of trust, exaggeration, some dubious statistical methods, a
reliance on computer models, heavy use of the words ’may, ’might’, & ‘possibly’, and lack of real-world observation
Faced with a perceived problem—global warming—the Gillard Government had four
options open to it:
1. Do nothing.
A near-fanatical desire by the IPCC to prove CO 2 is a pollutant overlooks the role of water vapour, a far more abundant
greenhouse gas than CO 2 and which 2. Introduce produces a solution that over fixes the 90% problem: of reduces the greenhouse global warming effect; real-world observations
show that there is no dangerous warming
(notoccurring possible but technically
Temperature trends correlate better with solar activity.
3. Introduce a solution that doesn’t fix the problem but doesn’t have too
many deleterious effects.
4. Introduce a solution that doesn’t fix the problem and also has many
negative economic effects.
They chose option #4.
A carbon tax is all pain for no gain; the temperature reductions due to reduction of CO
the temperature reductions due to reduction of CO 2
emissions to 2050 are miniscule, about 0.0154 o c, which is virtually unmeasurable. There is no global
warming crisis. Instead of wasting huge amounts of money and transforming our economy for the worse,
we need to remain economically strong to best adapt to the natural hazards which are always with us.
And then there is the Climate Commission Australia — Notes on the
Ipswich Civic Centre public meeting with the Commissioners 7 April 2011
Meet two of the Commissioners — on the night, their role was
low key and muted — about as useful to public debate on
climate change as an ashtray is to a motorbike. Their
involvement was miniscule and not very informative.
Prof. Lesley Hughes, Head of Dept
of Biological Sciences Macquarie
Uni, and lead IPCC author
And then there was Tim Flannery—
on the night, made to promise not to call
skeptics ‘denialists’. Overall, a subdued leader of the panel trying to convince
the audience that the commission was ’independent’. At least the audience
was spared Tim’s latest adventures from Avatar and Star Trek.
Star of the night was Will Steffen, the logical and calming Director
of the ANU Climate Change Institute. His performance was
actually a surprise, since his opening comments were that ‘the
science is settled; there is no argument” , which brought gasps of
disbelief from some in the audience who actually read material
other than IPCC reports. He then proceeded to show some slides
of his evidence, including Michael Mann’s discredited Hockey
Stick graph. This immediately labelled him as being unaware of
or unwilling to read The Hockey Stick Illusion. This impinges
strongly on the perception of bias in a so-called independent
Commission, which was meant to deliver ALL sides of the debate
to Australians. It is an entity stacked only with alarmist views.
Dr Steffen simple parroted the
IPCC line at every opportunity
The ‘science’ advice given to government is both flawed and monopolistic.
This bit was provided by Dr Will Steffen, parroter of the IPCC warming views.
From deep within the breast of the
IPCC, Dr Steffen delivered this slide
show to members of the Multi-party
Climate Change Committee on 10
November 2010. This science has
been critically dissected by Dr Bob
Carter and others (see link below),
and Dr Steffen’s report has been
found severely wanting.
Dr Carter noted that the Steffen presentation:-
1. contained no substantive new science, and fails to show that dangerous humancaused
global warming is occurring
2. Fails to cover recently published papers that provide evidence that dangerous
warming is not occurring,
3. Comprises a rehash of many old and invalid IPCC arguments, the deficiencies of
which have been pointed out many times
David Evans, mathematician and computer modeller, also says that “We are now at an
extraordinary juncture. Official climate science, which is funded and directed entirely by government,
promotes a theory that is based on a guess about moist air that is now a known falsehood. Evidence
proves that climate models are fundamentally flawed, and that they greatly overestimate the
temperature increases due to carbon dioxide”. http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/04/07/climate-models-go-cold/
But where are the brave investigative souls of the mainstream media when this country really needs them? The
MSM have a great story of highly conflicted science and ideological politics going on in front of their eyes, but
sit on their hands instead, prepared to watch this country slide into an avoidable economic abyss.
Link to Article Quadrant Online by Carter, Evans, Franks, Kininmonth and Moore, 24 April 2011:
In this page, I mention some sources and areas of future reading: many
are weblogs of reputable and honest people with strong scientific
credentials, some are well-educated educated and informed commentators with
challenging and defendable views on questions of climate change.
Some are authors of well-reviewed and authoritative books. I recom-
mend all of them to you. Realclimate.org is the blog for those who still
support the much-discredited hockey stick graph and it’s creators.
And of course, “Watts Up with That” - voted best science web blog 2011,
Climate Audit, & Climate Realist, all respected for exposure of the Hockey
Stick and other alarmist misrepresentation, and the Carbon Sense Coalition.
CLIVE JAMES, a man of letters and intelligence, has
a message for people like these half-dozen alarmist
commentators who believe there is a thermostat
somewhere that can be set according to their whims
Before the floods, proponents of the AGW view had argued
that there would never be enough rain again, because
of Climate Change. When it became clear that there
might be more than enough rain, the view was adapted:
the floods, too, were the result of Climate Change. In other
words, they were something unprecedented. Those opposing
this view. . . . took to quoting Dorothea Mackellar's
poem "My Country"
“The blue sky is pitiless”
In Australia the facts are that the climate will
starve you or wash you away, unless you build
something. Banning certain categories of lightbulb
will never be enough. Such measures imply
the desirability of a return to some kind of
benevolent natural state. There is a natural state
all right, but any benevolence is our idea. The blue
sky is ‘pitiless’, as Dorothea Mackellar reminds us in
her second stanza of ‘My Country’. .
I love a sunburnt country,
A land of sweeping plains,
Of ragged mountain ranges,
Of droughts and flooding rains.
I love her far horizons,
I love her jewel-sea,
Her beauty and her terror —
The wide brown land for me
Core of my heart, my country!
Her pitiless blue sky,
When sick at heart, around us,
We see the cattle die —
But then the grey clouds gather,
And we can bless again
The drumming of an army,
The steady, soaking rain.
Extracted from the essay The Drumming of an Army Standpoint magazine 5thMarch 2011
“We can alleviate poverty and protect the poor from the
(supposed) ravages of climate change by making them
middle class — and that takes energy ( W Eschenbach, 17/3/11)
North Korea by
night: a low-carbon
J A P A N
Keep our lights on — the best rate of carbon tax is ZERO
Thank you for taking this journey with me.
Meet me — Dr Geoff Derrick—just your average geologist with
47 years of experience, a love of the planet and the science behind it’s
origins and an appreciation of the resources it contains to provide
humankind with a just and civilized life. Specialist in Mt Isa geology.
Mature of age but keen of vision, widely travelled and naturalist at
heart, supporter of individual enterprise but opponent of the forces of
creationism in science education—not a crank nor a fanatic, but
totally despairing of the level of scientific awareness in our media and
political spheres. I hate wind farms for the blight they bring to the
landscape, and for the total waste of money that they represent.
2 wins from 2 starts 2011
Contact Details: G M Derrick Geology,
PO Box 184 CORINDA
Qld 4075 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Ph: 0408 796 148; FAX 07 3379 2375