Reason triumphs: Tribunal says warming doom-mongers are
exaggerating

Andrew Bolt
Friday, February 16, 2007 at 04:11pm


A brave - as in evidence-based - decision by a Queensland
tribunal has accused prominent global warming prophets of
exaggerating and distorting evidence.

Its devastating findings should give rationalists faith that -
glory be - reason is not yet dead in Australia.

As the ABC reports:



  ELEANOR HALL: While the industry's unions may be trying to
adjust to climate change, one of the world's biggest mining
companies has just won a case in Queensland in which the judge
questioned the science behind global warming concerns.

  The Queensland Conservation Council had taken action in the
Land and Resources Tribunal in an attempt to force mining giant
Xstrata to offset any greenhouse gas emissions involved in
expanding its Newlands coal mine in central Queensland.

  But in a win for the coal industry, the tribunal ruled the mine
expansion would not have an adverse environmental impact, and at
the same time it criticised the international report released by
the world's top climate scientists earlier this month.

Some notable doom-mongers get their come-uppance - like the
Australian Conservation Foundation's Ian Lowe:


  Professor Ian Lowe gave evidence on behalf of the Queensland
Conservation Council, saying the proposed mine would contribute
to the cumulative impacts of global warming and climate change.

  But the Tribunal criticised that evidence, saying he'd grossly
exaggerated likely emissions by comparing emissions over the
15-year life of the mine with annual global emissions.

Grossly exaggerated? Ian Lowe?

Ouch. And not just him, of course.



  The tribunal was also sceptical of two recent environmental
reports, including the Stern Review and the latest report from
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

  In its decision it said the Stern Review has been criticised on
scientific and economic grounds as biased, flawed and alarmist.

I can't imagine what give the judge that idea. Not if he's an ABC
listener or reader of Fairfax newspapers. But if, for instance,
he's read this, then everything becomes clearer.

And I gather the the tribunal president, Greg Koppenol, isn't
much of a fan of close-our-coal-exports extremists such as Tim
Flannery and Bob Brown, either.

  It also said that imposing conditions on the mine would drive
wealth and jobs overseas and have serious economic and social
impacts on the state.

More from The Australian:

  In an extraordinary decision handed down yesterday, tribunal
chairman Greg Koppenol lashed out at the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change and the Stern Review, which have in recent
months generated huge concern worldwide about global warming.

  Mr Koppenol accused prominent ecologist and Australian
Conservation Foundation president Ian Lowe of exaggerating the
facts by a factor of 218 in his evidence to the tribunal.

And this:



  Mr Koppenol said the intergovernmental panel's report, released
last month, had concluded that most of the observed increases in
temperatures since the mid-1900s were due to emissions.

  But a "close examination" of the global mean temperature chart,
which was said to support that view, revealed temperatures rose
by just 0.5 per cent from 1900 to last year.

  The largest temperature rise was 0.75 per cent between 1976 and
1998, but similar rises occurred in 1852-1878 and 1910-1944.

  Mr Koppenol said the chart showed average temperatures had
risen by 0.6C since 1951. As the panel had said "most" of the
rise was due to emissions, an increase of about 0.45 per cent
over 55 years seemed a "surprisingly low figure" upon which to
base concerns about global warming.

UPDATE

The tribunal finding is here.

And it hoes into other environmentalists and scientists for
exaggerating global warming and its effects, too.

There's Jon Norling, of Urban Economics:


  Mr Jon Norling spoke about the economic effects of climate
change. Like Professor Lowe, he placed great emphasis upon:
  . the British Government's 2006 Stern Review on the Economics
of Climate Change (the Stern Review),3 which concluded that there
would be very serious consequences for humanity because of global
warming-induced climate change if GHG emissions were not severely
cut; and
  . assessments by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC).
  Regrettably, Mr Norling grossly exaggerated references in the
Stern Review to sea level rises: for example, converting Stern's
"if" certain ice sheets melt over "centuries to millennia", to
"when" they melt over "the next several centuries" and suggesting
that sea levels could rise 5m to 12m over the next century-when
Stern predicted only 0.09m to 0.88m and IPCC only 0.18m to 0.59m.

There's last year's much-hyped review of Sir Nicholas Stern, a
British public servant:

  However, the Stern Review has been severely criticised on both
scientific and economic grounds. Papers recently published by
Professor Robert Carter et al and Professor Sir Ian Byatt et al
concluded that Stern's claim that the scientific evidence for
GHG-induced serious global warming and climate change was
overwhelming was just an assertion and was wrong-and that the
Stern Review was:
  . biased, selective and unbalanced;
  . scientifically flawed;
  . a vehicle for speculative alarmism; and
  . not a basis for informed and responsible policies.

  Those authors also said that climate prediction is an uncertain
new area and not a mature science and that the rates of modern
temperature change observed fall well within the rates of minor
warmings and coolings inferred for the Holocene (the last 10,000
years of the Earth's history) in, eg, the GRIP ice core (a 3,029m
long ice core drilled in Greenland from 1989 to 1992).

There's the IPCC report:

  [17] Finally, the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Summary for
Policymakers was released on 2 February 2007. It relevantly
concluded that is very likely that human-induced GHGs are causing
global warming, and that most of the observed increases in
globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century are
very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic
(human-caused) GHG concentrations. ...

  But the fact that very similar rises have previously occurred
(1852-1878, 0.65°C and 1910-1944, 0.65°C) was not specifically
mentioned or causally explained in the Summary. Also not
mentioned or causally explained is the fact that temperatures
have actually fallen 0.05°C over the last 8 years
  -- 

  Regards

  Bonzo

  "Public broadcasters' coverage of the global warming issue
indicates their staff do not understand the difference between
sound empirical science and the virtual realities of speculative
computer modelling." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology,
James Cook University, Townsville

"HangEveryRepubliKKKan"  wrote
>> 1998 14.57  *********************o*****
>> 1999 14.33  *****************>>>>o
>> 2000 14.33  *****************>>>>>o
>> 2001 14.48  ************************o
>> 2002 14.56  *************************o**
>> 2003 14.55  **************************o*
>> 2004 14.49  *************************>>o
>> 2005 14.63  *****************************o**
>> 2006 14.54  ***************************>>>o
>>
>>   Look at all those "o"'s lined up there.

"Bonzo"  wrote
> The "0"'s are NOT THE DATA!
> They have created a trend which does not exist in the data.
> Voodoo statistics!

  Ahahahahahahahahaha... Stupid KKKonservative KKKlown. A trendline skirts
across the top of the data leaving equal portions of the data above and
below.  In this instane 10 dots above, and 14 below as a result of the crude
nature of ascii graphics.  Nevertheless it represents the best line that can
be fitted to the data based on minimizing the square of the distance between
the line and the real data.  It's called a least squares curve fit.

  You are completely ignorant when it comes to statistics and mathematics in
general aren't you Bonzo.

  Ahahahahahaha.. You don't know what statistics are, where it comes from,
how it is used, or how to use it, and yet in your vast ignorance, you seem
to think that you know more about science than all of the worlds scientists.

  "Voodoo statistics"  Ahahahahahahahah...  You need to go back to public
school and take a refresher course in basic technical literacy.

  Stupid... Stupid.. KKKonservative KKKlown....


"Bonzo"  wrote
> Here is the data which shows NO TREND!
>
> 1998 366.50 2.5721     14.57
> 1999 368.14 2.6148     14.33
> 2000 369.41 2.6399     14.33
> 2001 371.07 2.6672     14.48
> 2002 373.16 2.7032     14.56
> 2003 375.80 2.7487     14.55
> 2004 377.55 NA            14.49
> 2005 379.75 NA            14.63
> 2006 381.90 NA            14.54

  No?  Lets plot the data and find out shall we?  Here it is along with the
best linear fit to the data shown as "o".

1998 14.57  *********************o*****
1999 14.33  *****************>>>>o
2000 14.33  *****************>>>>>o
2001 14.48  ************************o
2002 14.56  *************************o**
2003 14.55  **************************o*
2004 14.49  *************************>>o
2005 14.63  *****************************o**
2006 14.54  ***************************>>>o

Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.

So Bonzo, who is paying you to post lies to this newsgroup?

On Oct 12, 3:44 pm, "HangEveryRepubliKKKan"
 wrote:
> "HangEveryRepubliKKKan"  wrote
>
> >> 1998 14.57  *********************o*****
> >> 1999 14.33  *****************>>>>o
> >> 2000 14.33  *****************>>>>>o
> >> 2001 14.48  ************************o
> >> 2002 14.56  *************************o**
> >> 2003 14.55  **************************o*
> >> 2004 14.49  *************************>>o
> >> 2005 14.63  *****************************o**
> >> 2006 14.54  ***************************>>>o
>
> >>   Look at all those "o"'s lined up there.
>
> "Bonzo"  wrote
>
> > The "0"'s are NOT THE DATA!
> > They have created a trend which does not exist in the data.
> > Voodoo statistics!
>
>   Ahahahahahahahahaha... Stupid KKKonservative KKKlown. A trendline skirts
> across the top of the data leaving equal portions of the data above and
> below.  In this instane 10 dots above, and 14 below as a result of the crude
> nature of ascii graphics.  Nevertheless it represents the best line that can
> be fitted to the data based on minimizing the square of the distance between
> the line and the real data.  It's called a least squares curve fit.
>
>   You are completely ignorant when it comes to statistics and mathematics in
> general aren't you Bonzo.
>
>   Ahahahahahaha.. You don't know what statistics are, where it comes from,
> how it is used, or how to use it, and yet in your vast ignorance, you seem
> to think that you know more about science than all of the worlds scientists.
>
>   "Voodoo statistics"  Ahahahahahahahah...  You need to go back to public
> school and take a refresher course in basic technical literacy.
>
>   Stupid... Stupid.. KKKonservative KKKlown....
>
> "Bonzo"  wrote
>
> > Here is the data which shows NO TREND!
>
> > 1998 366.50 2.5721     14.57
> > 1999 368.14 2.6148     14.33
> > 2000 369.41 2.6399     14.33
> > 2001 371.07 2.6672     14.48
> > 2002 373.16 2.7032     14.56
> > 2003 375.80 2.7487     14.55
> > 2004 377.55 NA            14.49
> > 2005 379.75 NA            14.63
> > 2006 381.90 NA            14.54
>
>   No?  Lets plot the data and find out shall we?  Here it is along with the
> best linear fit to the data shown as "o".
>
> 1998 14.57  *********************o*****
> 1999 14.33  *****************>>>>o
> 2000 14.33  *****************>>>>>o
> 2001 14.48  ************************o
> 2002 14.56  *************************o**
> 2003 14.55  **************************o*
> 2004 14.49  *************************>>o
> 2005 14.63  *****************************o**
> 2006 14.54  ***************************>>>o
>
> Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.
>
> So Bonzo, who is paying you to post lies to this newsgroup?

2001 was a significant year sept 11 gee alot of planes stopped flying
in the jet streams around this time.
Random diffusion of gases, prehaps not?

"davee"  wrote
> 2001 was a significant year sept 11 gee alot of planes stopped flying
> in the jet streams around this time.

9/11 study: Air traffic affects climate
August 8, 2002 Posted: 1:29 PM EDT (1729 GMT)

Contrails, such as in this satellite image over California, have an impact 
on temperatures, scientists say. The trail of condensation forms in an 
aircraft's wake.

By Richard Stenger
CNN

(CNN) -- The thin wisps of condensation that trail jet airliners have a 
significant influence on the climate, according to scientists who studied 
U.S. skies during a rare interruption in national air traffic after the 
September 11 terrorist attacks.

During the three-day commercial flight hiatus, when the artificial clouds 
known as contrails all but disappeared, the variations in high and low 
temperatures increased by 1.1 degrees Celsius (2 degrees Fahrenheit) each 
day, said meteorological researchers.

While the temperature range is significant, whether the jet clouds have a 
net effect on global warming remains unknown.

"I think what we've shown are that contrails are capable of affecting 
temperatures," said lead scientist David Travis of the University of 
Wisconsin, Whitewater. "Which direction, in terms of net heating or cooling, 
is still up in the air."

Contrails Explainer:

Long white wisps of artificial clouds high in the atmosphere, contrails are 
the condensation trails left behind by jet airplanes.

Similar to human exhalation making a fog in chilly weather, contrails form 
when warm humid engine exhaust meets extremely cool air in the atmosphere.

Air temperatures where contrails form are generally lower than minus 40 
degrees Fahrenheit (minus 40 degrees Celsius).

Like natural cirrus clouds, contrails insulate the planet, blocking out 
incoming solar energy from above and keeping in heat down below.

Scientists estimate that contrails cover some 0.1 percent of the Earth's 
overall surface, with regional concentrations as high as 20 percent.


In many ways, contrails behave in the same manner as cirrus clouds, thin 
high-altitude floaters that block out solar energy from above and trap in 
heat below.

As a result, they help reduce the daily range in daytime highs and nighttime 
lows. Contrails, by providing additional insulation, further reduce the 
variability.

With air traffic growing and contrails becoming more prevalent, the natural 
variation will further decline and could disrupt regional ecosystems, some 
scientists speculate.

Certain trees, crops and insect species depend on specific daily temperature 
variations for their survival.

In some ways, contrails differ from their natural brethren. Cirrus clouds 
let less heat out than in overall, producing a net increase in the Earth's 
temperatures, according to climate scientists. With contrail clouds, they 
said they are not so sure.

"Contrails are denser and block sunlight much more than natural cirrus 
clouds," said Travis, who conducted the study with Andrew Carleton of Penn 
State University in University Park, Pennsylvania. They reported the 
findings this week in the journal Nature.

"And contrails are much more prevalent when the sun is out," he said. "When 
this is factored in, there is a possibility that they offset global warming, 
and this is what we are trying to determine now."

The researchers plan more studies to tackle that question, but they said 
they expect to rely on circumstantial evidence only.

"We can only hope that the September 11 tragedy never happens again," Travis 
said.