JavaScript disabled. Please enable JavaScript to use My News, My Clippings, My Comments and user settings.

New feature Personalise your news, save articles to read later and customise settings View Demo

Hi there! Beta version

If you have trouble accessing our login form below, you can go to our login page.

National Times

Facts conveniently brushed over by the global warming fanatics

Paul Sheehan
February 1, 2010

Opinion

Illustration

Illustration: Michael Mucci

Here are 10 anti-commandments, 10 selected facts about global warming which have been largely ignored amid the orthodoxies to which we are subjected every day. All these anti-commandments are either true or backed by scientific opinion. All can also be hotly contested.

Read the full 10 anti-anti commandments

1. The pin-up species of global warming, the polar bear, is increasing in number, not decreasing.

2. US President Barack Obama supports building nuclear power plants.

Last week, in his State of the Union address, he said: ''To create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. And that means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country.''

3. The Copenhagen climate conference descended into farce.

The low point of the gridlock and posturing at Copenhagen came with the appearance by the socialist dictator of Venezuela, President Hugo Chavez, whose anti-capitalist diatribe drew a cheering ovation from thousands of left-wing ideologues.

4. The reputation of the chief United Nations scientist on global warming is in disrepair.

Dr Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is being investigated for financial irregularities, conflicts of interest and scientific distortion. He has already admitted publishing false data.

5. The supposed scientific consensus of the IPCC has been challenged by numerous distinguished scientists.

6. The politicisation of science leads to a heavy price being paid in poor countries.

After Western environmentalists succeeded in banning or suppressing the use of the pesticide DDT, the rate of death by malaria rose into the millions. Some scholars estimate the death toll at 20 million or more, most of them children.

7. The biofuels industry has exacerbated world hunger.

Diverting huge amounts of grain crops (as distinct from sugar cane) to biofuels has contributed to a rise in world food prices, felt acutely in the poorest nations.

8. The Kyoto Protocol has proved meaningless.

Global carbon emissions are significantly higher today than they were when the Kyoto Protocol was introduced.

9. The United Nations global carbon emissions reduction target is a massively costly mirage.

10. Kevin Rudd's political bluff on emissions trading has been exposed.

The Prime Minister intimated he would go to the people in an early election if his carbon emissions trading legislation was rejected. He won't. The electorate has shifted.

None of these anti-commandments question the salient negative link between humanity and the environment: that we are an omnivorous, rapacious species, which has done enormous damage to the world's environment.

Nor do they question the warming of the planet.

What they do question is the morphing of science with ideology, the most pernicious byproduct of the global warming debate. All these anti-commandments were brought into focus this past week by the visit of the Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, better known as Lord Christopher Monckton, journalist by trade, mathematician by training, provocateur by inclination.

Last Wednesday a conference room at the Sheraton on the Park was filled to overflowing, all 800 seats sold with a standing-room only crowd at the back, to see the Sydney public appearance of Monckton, a former science adviser to Margaret Thatcher. At the end of his presentation he received a sustained standing ovation.

Monckton is the embodiment of English aristocratic eccentricity. His presentations are a combination of stand-up comedy, evangelical preaching and fierce debating. Almost every argument he makes can be contested, but given the enormity of the multi-trillion-dollars that governments expect taxpayers to expend on combating global warming, the process needs to be subject to brutal interrogation, scrutiny and scepticism. And Monckton was brutal, especially about the media, referring to ''all this bed-wetting stuff on the ABC and the BBC''.

There has also been a monumental political failure surrounding the global warming debate. Those who would have to pay for most of the massive government expenditures proposed, the taxpayers of the West, are beginning to go into open revolt at the prospect.

Last week the Herald reported that Monckton told a large lie while in Sydney.

On Tuesday it reported: ''He said with a straight face on the Alan Jones radio program that he had been awarded the Nobel, a claim Jones did not question.''

The Herald repeated the accusation on Thursday. It was repeated a third time in a commentary in Saturday's Herald.

In 2007 the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change shared the Nobel Peace Prize with the former US vice-president Al Gore. The prize committee, in citing its selection of the IPCC, said: ''Through the IPCC . . . thousands of scientists and officials from over 100 countries have collaborated to achieve greater certainty as to the scale of [global] warming.''

Thousands of people were thus collectively and anonymously part of the prize process.

So what lie did Monckton tell about the prize? Despite the gravity of the accusation, the Herald never published the offending remark. Here, for the record, is what he actually said:

Monckton: ''I found out on the day of publication of the 2007 [IPCC report] that they'd multiplied, by 10, the observed contribution to sea-level rise of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheet. By 10! I got in touch with them and said, 'You will correct this.' And two days later, furtively, on the website, no publicity, they simply relabelled, recalculated and corrected the table they'd got wrong.''

Alan Jones: ''But this report won a Nobel Prize!''

Monckton: ''Yes. Exactly. And I am also a Nobel Prize winner because I made a correction. I'm part of the process that got the Nobel Prize. Do I deserve it? No. Do they deserve it? No. The thing is a joke.''

312 comments

  • Falsification of scientific data to obtain funding and / or conspiracy to form a world government seems as likely as the climate change garbage we are being fed, The science should stand up without trying to make it look better or outright dishonesty.

    Commenter
    Dag of Gloucester
    Date and time
    February 01, 2010, 6:18AM
  • Is there supposed to be something profound in this jumble? Ten "anti-commandments"? What pretentious nonsense. Some of the statements are undoubtedly true, others simplistic or a matter of opinion. Pachauri is just a front man- to call him a "leading scientist" is to give him undeserved credit (he seems to have started out as a railway engineer). Regardless of any business irregularities he should resign for failing to perform his duties properly.

    Throwing in DDT is a diversion (as is most of little Lord Ha Ha's ranting). There are real problems with highly persistent pesticides, even those with relatively low toxicity like DDT (yes really). Massive over-use and resistant pests resulted in an overreaction. Some limited uses really are valuable, but all this has no bearing whatever on the global warming debate.

    Few environmentalists I know support biofuels, at least as now deployed in the USA and Europe (and here). The motivation seems to be security (false!) and another way to subsidize US and EU farmers.

    I could go an- all of the "points" in this article are nothing more than that. If there were no errors and gaps in a report the size of the IPCC assessment it would be amazing. The correction of the error pointed out by Monckton shows the process working, but It does need changing to provide greater openness. All drafts should be available for scrutiny and debate from the start.

    What matters is that measurements do show a strong global warming trend, in spite of annual fluctuations and local effects. We cannot reliably predict every local effect but there are enough biological changes showing up to be worrying. A recent report has on-ground measurements showing ice the Beaufort Sea to be thinner and weaker than satellite data had suggested.

    Commenter
    Mycelius
    Location
    Brisbane
    Date and time
    February 01, 2010, 6:17AM
  • One of the first indications that Rudd etc. really knew they were on shaky ground happened when they stopped talking "Global Warming" and started talking about "Climate Change". Climate change has always been with us (duh); lets recognize it and do what we can to manage the consequences of climate change (which continues to be out of control of the human race) and get on with life.

    Commenter
    FAIR GO
    Location
    Queensland
    Date and time
    February 01, 2010, 6:22AM
  • I always find these poorly constructed arguments entertaining!

    It is interesting that none of your "commandments" (carefully worded) involved the arguments made by the climate change septics has (I refer to them as "Flat Earthers" as they would have argued this as well), as their counter arguments are usually pretty silly!

    I also laughed at number 5: The supposed scientific consensus of the IPCC has been challenged by numerous distinguished scientists.

    Who are these mysterious hidden people (the Scarlet Pimpernel)?

    Finally, like all Flat Earthers, you are playing the man, not the ball. Your "commandments" are attempting to discredit people not involved determining the fact or fiction regarding climate change.

    P.S. The argument on climate change has been around for over 10 years ago - what was your position 5 years ago?

    Commenter
    Adam O'Halloran
    Location
    Sydney
    Date and time
    February 01, 2010, 6:07AM
  • Had the pleasure of seeing those same commandments in an entertaining display of provocation last week. Will have to check out the various claims made by the Lord Monckton.

    Commenter
    cune
    Location
    Newcastle
    Date and time
    February 01, 2010, 5:59AM
  • A few dodgy facts in this article:
    1.Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, is not the "chief UN scientist". He's not noted as a scientist at all. He's an administrator.
    2. Lord Monckton is not a mathematician by training. He is a journalist with a classics degree.
    3. DDT has nothing to do with global warming. But it was banned by the Nixon Administration, not by greenies.

    Commenter
    Nick Stokes
    Location
    Melbourne
    Date and time
    February 01, 2010, 5:58AM
  • How about you start by renaming this article "Opinions from the far Right conveniently brushed over by the global warming fanatics ".
    1. The Polar Bear, erhmm "Statistics" you have read no doubt come from FOX news report of 2004 wholely misinterpreted the facts.
    2. A lot of us nut job lefties support Nuclear Power and are vehemently opposed to the mythological "Clean Coal"
    3. etc blah blah right wing ranting

    "7. The biofuels industry has exacerbated world hunger." I could not agree more. This and the UN-Science involved in the Organic Foods movement is selfish and costly and here I am agreeing with you.... on 1 point. ONE of the very few facts mentioned.

    Commenter
    Mikey P
    Location
    Sydney
    Date and time
    February 01, 2010, 6:35AM
  • The IPCC is flawed and spin and exaggerration don't help their credibility, but the deniers are even worse. The press loves an argument but is bored by science - it's too demanding. If you read the scientific literature, it is invariably cautious, tentative and moderate, unlike the stupidity that regularly makes it into the media on both sides, from Gore to Plimpton. The science is uncertain about a number of important issues, but I think anyone who reads a range of scientific papers will be very worried about the impact of AGW and want to do something about it. How urgently depends on the politics, not the science, and the deniers are winning the political argument at the moment.

    Commenter
    milo
    Location
    melbourne
    Date and time
    February 01, 2010, 7:26AM
  • The most relevant statement in this article is "None of these anti-commandments question the salient negative link between humanity and the environment: that we are an omnivorous, rapacious species which has done enormous damage to the world's environment....Nor do they question the warming of the planet."

    From the comments most people have not even noted the line! Yet it is the core of the problem. It is why something must be done. We need to cost in externalities so cosumers understand the true cost of their purchasing decisions. And this is why an inperfect carbon trading scheme that stimulates investment in efficiencies and cleaner technologies is needed fast.

    The rest of the article unfortunately feeds the climate sceptics who wish us to continue on or rapacious path!

    Commenter
    Better Futures
    Location
    Sydney
    Date and time
    February 01, 2010, 7:24AM
  • The founders of the age of reason such as Voltaire, Mill and Smith believed that reason would release the world from the shackles of superstition and the inherited rights of Kings. They saw it as a way of fostering knowledge of the world and of eliminating the pernicious influence of the Medieval School-men who had tied up the pursuit of knowledge in rhetoric and a priori reasoning.

    Since those great original thinkers however, we have stripped reason of the other vital human qualities that those early thinkers believed were vital to clothe reason with relevance and to stop it becoming just another way of enslaving mankind.

    We have stripped away common sense, imagination, ethics, intuition and most important of all, memory. Without these reason can lead to an imprisoning of the mind in a formal process of thought that is internally consistent, but wholly irrelevant to the world.

    Paul often uses reason based on a whole series of false propositions and assumptions, but often also without reference to common sense, ethics and memory. The result of such fractured thinking is an increasing disconnect from the observed world and the logic being used. That disjunction can be ignored only for so long until the rhetoric, as that is their inheritance from the School-men, becomes unsustainable.

    The arguments are he uses are clothed in formal rhetoric, but based on wholly spurious assumptions and a rejection of the common sense evidence accumulating at an ever increasing rate. No doubt he would sustain the argument even as reality drowned him.

    Commenter
    Lesm
    Location
    Balmain
    Date and time
    February 01, 2010, 7:24AM

More comments

Comments are now closed

More Related Coverage

Ten anti-anti-commandments and Lord Monckton's verbal bombs

1 Feb The ten anti-anti-commandments and Lord Monckton's verbal bombs