Quote of the week

"The largest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity," warns Czech President Vaclav Klaus, "is no longer socialism. It is, instead, the ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous ideology of environmentalism."

Dennis Jensen: A voice of reason from Down Under

The following speech was given on the floor of the Australian Parliament by Liberal MP Dennis Jensen. It is so good, I want to share it in its entirety. Keep in mind this guy isn't your typical political hack. He has a doctorate in physics.

This speech should be repeated on the floor of the U.S. Senate and the House before each and every future debate on climate change:

Dennis Jensen:

But let us take the time to examine some of the pseudoscience on which this whole anthropogenic global warming belief is based. Let us also examine how these disciples act and how they are reported. First, I find some of the commentary coming from some of the anthropogenic global warming zealots extremely perplexing.

We hear that the rate of increase of global temperature is faster than the science predicted. But what is actually happening?

I have three graphs: one from the third IPCC assessment report and two from the fourth assessment report. All of the projections show an increase from the year 2000, even if the graph for carbon dioxide is held constant at year 2000 levels. I repeat: all the projections show an increase over the last decade. But what do actual measurements show? I have many charts showing the global temperature as measured by four groups, including the Hadley centre, whose data is officially used by the IPCC. This data shows that the temperature has flatlined over the last 10 years. Observation does not fit theory and yet the theory is deemed correct.

A classic example of rejecting facts which do not fit the theory is the temperature graph over the last 1,000 years and the use of tree ring and tree density data as a proxy for temperature. There is a well-known problem when comparing tree ring and density data with temperature data over the last 140 years. Between 1860 and 1960, the data agreed reasonably well. After 1960, there is a divergence. The tree ring and density data indicate that temperatures have decreased, where measurements have actually indicated an increase. If you look at the IPCC graphs, the tree proxy data ends abruptly at—you guessed it—1960.

Keith Briffa, a lead author of the IPCC, in the chapter relating to tree proxy data had this to say of the divergence problem: In the absence of a substantiated explanation for the decline, we make the assumption that it is likely to be a response to some kind of recent anthropogenic forcing. On the basis of this assumption, the pre-twentieth century part of the reconstructions can be considered to be free from similar events and thus accurately represent past temperature variability.

In other words, we do not know how the hell to explain the post-1960 data, so we will just blame humans and accept that all the earlier data is correct because that fits neatly with our paradigm. This is what a friend of mine refers to as ‘situating the appreciation rather than appreciating the situation’. You make the facts fit the theory when you should make the theory fit the facts.

If global temperature is not heating as predicted, maybe this elusive heat is going into the oceans. Not so. Three thousand oceanic robots that dive up to 1,000 metres have been measuring ocean temperatures since 2003 and show, if anything, a slight decrease and certainly not an increase. So where has the heat gone? IPCC coordinating lead author Kevin Trenberth has stated: ... none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate. In particular, the state of the oceans, sea ice, and soil moisture has no relationship to the observed state at any recent time in any of the IPCC models.

According to Kevin Trenberth, the lost heat is probably going back out to space. He says the earth has a number of natural thermostats, including clouds, which can trap heat, turn up the temperature or reflect sunlight and help cool the planet. So why is none of this reflected in the modelling? It is situating the appreciation again.

This whole issue of anthropogenic global warming has all the classic hallmarks of religion. There are the high priests—the Gores, the Flannerys et cetera of the world, who talk the talk but are utterly hypocritical when it comes to walking their talk. There is the concept of original sin, being industry and carbon dioxide, and the whole issue of penance or paying the price for your actions. This is the way we have to pay for the use of industry which is emitting carbon dioxide. The high priests, however, can get away with their profligate lifestyle by buying indulgences, also known as carbon credits, and so continue to sin. Hence, we have Flannery jetting here, there and everywhere and Gore, similarly, with just one of his residences—one of three, I might add—consuming 20 times as much energy as the average American household. That is how concerned he is about global warming in reality.

The media indulge the high priests, castigating the many heretics who dare to differ. Yet they let the high priests off, not scrutinising their statements as the media should. Take Flannery’s suggestion, for example, of putting sulphur into the atmosphere, using terribly polluting aircraft to disperse it. What a delicious irony! For those who know a bit of chemistry, what happens when you mix sulphur, water and oxygen? You get sulphuric acid, also known as acid rain. I guess that is the price that we need to pay for our sin. But why has the media not lampooned Flannery, who is supposed to be a global warming expert scientist of the highest order, for such a ridiculous proposal? It is political correctness of the highest and most unconscionable order.

So what we have is a more and more desperate anthropogenic global warming theory supporters club who, when the data indicates that the planet has not been heating for the last 10 years and the oceans have not heated for at least the last five, tell us that global warming is happening even more quickly than the theory predicts. After all, the models must be right, just like the bookies must always be right with predictions on match or racing results.

The problem is that this religion based around the false god of a controllable and naturally benign climate is going to hurt every man, woman and child in Australia as a result of significantly higher fuel and energy prices and consequent increases in the cost of living, particularly food, so groceries and fuel and so on are going to go up significantly—estimates say approximately 10c to 30c per litre for petrol alone. This government is clearly quite happy with that, and that is a tragedy for many Australians.

Where is the media "watchdog"?

I was always led to believe the media was the skeptical watchdog that always sifted through the biases and personal agendas behind the news stories to get at "the truth" of what was being reported.

Yet with global warming, they seem to give the High Priest of Environmentalism, Al Gore, a complete pass!

Here's a hypothetical for you: Assume I had Gore's high-profile status and access to the media. Now supposed I traveled around the world telling people that aliens were in the process of quietly and surreptitiously stealing our atmosphere and that if we didn't do something about it NOW our planet would be uninhabitable in 50-100 years.

Now suppose that the "solution" to this problem was for everyone to purchase (on a daily, weekly or monthly basis) a new device called a "wonklet " that you could hang outside your home or off your car antenna that would fend off these aliens. Also suppose I had hundreds of scientists confirm that "the science was settled" that our atmosphere was being stolen by these aliens.

I appear before congress urging urgent legislation that requires everyone to purchase and use these wonklets. Companies are required to buy them (or trade their wonklets with others), then make them available to their customers...or at least bake the cost of the company's wonklets into the prices they charge all their customers.

I then spend $300M on print and television ads telling the country how bad the atmosphere-stealing-alien problem is and how wonklets are the key to saving the planet. I even have ultra-left-wingers appearing with ultra-right-wingers in the TV ads to highlight how important it is for all of us to work together on this hyper-critical problem.

Now, also suppose I had a financial interest in the company that designed the wonklet, and I had invested heavily in the manufacturer of them. If the legislation I'm advocating passes, I stand to make hundreds of millions of dollars. (I've already made over $100M just talking about the atmosphere-stealing alien problem. I even made a movie about it with really big charts and graphs!)

How long do you think I'd be allowed to promote the wonklet solution without some journalist actually pointing out my enormous financial interest in the solution I was promoting?

I suspect it wouldn't be long.

So why does Saint Al get a pass on his investments in cap-and-trade brokering companies and "green energy"?

Sanity wins....for now. No cap-and-trade this year!

After three days of debate, the Climate Tax Bill has been killed for now. From Sen. Inhofe's press release:

"This bill was doomed from the start," Senator Inhofe said. "When the Majority Leader filled the amendment tree and filed cloture on the Climate Tax Bill, it was obvious that the Democrats were not serious about supporting this bill. This was one of the largest bills ever considered by this Congress and probably the largest non-appropriations bill the Senate has ever considered. This bill deserved a full and honest debate, with amendments offered and voted upon. The American people did not deserve a political exercise geared toward election year politics. Republicans were prepared to debate this bill with over 150 amendments ready to be offered. The Democrats did not want to debate and vote on our amendments that were aimed at protecting American families and workers from the devastating economic impacts of this bill. The 1990 Clean Air Act amendments were considered on the Senate floor for five weeks, and this comprehensive climate bill demands at least equal debate.

I'm sure it will be back in the future, but for now we've dodged this bullet.