Below is a Press Release on my presentation this morning to Maroondah Probus on the Global Warming issue. The release, which is in effect a summary of what I said to the 77 attendees, draws attention to the many flaws in the analysis which the IPCC uses to justify its promulgation of the thesis that the usage of fossil fuels is causing temperatures to increase to dangerous levels.
Also available here are a series of graphs compiled by Physicist Dr Tom Quirk on many of the arguments used to support this thesis. I think that these graphs and the accompany analyses deliver fatal blows to those of the IPCC.
I draw your particular attention to new research Tom has done showing that the published average temperatures almost certainly overstate the rise in temperatures by
0.3-0.4C of a degree, that is almost half of the published rise is not correct. This error arises from the use by the IPCC and others of the wrong method of calculating an average and their failure to disclose what they should have known.
The graphs also include the preliminary results of research undertaken by Tom showing that the extent of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere is about 3 times less than the proportion used by the IPCC (55 per cent). If correct, this (combined with other serious analytical deficiencies) makes it difficult to justify any action by governments to reduce emissions of fossil fuels.
Des
Fundamental Flaws in IPCC Analyses Exposed by New Research
PRESS RELEASE 19/7/13
In a presentation to Maroondah Probus, Des Moore, Director, Institute for Private Enterprise, has exposed fundamental flaws in the analyses by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change suggesting that urgent action is needed to reduce the use of fossil fuels in order to prevent dangerous warming from increasing temperatures.
The presentation shows that the following analyses and claims by the IPCC (and others) no longer have credibility and there is no policy significance in claims that we have temperatures that are the highest on record.
The analyses and claims by official agencies fail for the following reasons:
The foregoing suggests that no sound basis exists for any projection of an increase in temperatures to 2100 ranging from 2-4.5C degrees or for any action by governments to reduce emissions of fossil fuels.
The foregoing contrasts markedly with the fact that Australia’s various governments, including state and local ones, have in place a range of measures designed to reduce our CO2 emissions by 5 per cent by 2020 and to increase that reduction in the years beyond that. At present these measures include a policy aimed at producing 20 per cent of electricity from sources other than coal, gas or oil, with an accompanying range of extensive subsidies to producers of alternative energy sources, such as windmills and solar panels, as well as a tax of $24 a tonne on emissions of 370 large companies.
Yet there is no credible reason for Australia’s current policies to be more emissions-restrictive than those of other countries. The most controversial policy is the so-called carbon tax, which Rudd Mark 11 now proposes to abolish as from July next year. Assuming that policy is agreed by Parliament, large companies would continue to be required to buy a permit for any emissions above the level prescribed by the government. They would have to buy that permit in the market which trades in carbon permits and that permit could apply to emissions in other countries.
This usage requirement to purchase still constitutes a tax, albeit at a rate currently much lower than the existing tax of $24 a tonne. However, the price next July and after that would not be determined by Australian policies and conditions but by the policies being pursued by the European Union and the economic conditions there. If the price stays at the $6 a tonne predicted, or even double that, it is highly unlikely that this segment of the policy would result in any significant reduction in emissions in Australia or Europe.
For its part, the Opposition agrees with abolishing the tax but claims it would meet the required 5 per cent reduction in emissions by 2020 by using taxation revenue to fund spending on so-called direct action. In such circumstances the opposition policy would also involve higher taxation than would otherwise occur. The measures to be adopted by the opposition would include an attempt to bury the carbon dioxide through a process of sequestration, to plant trees to absorb CO2 and (seemingly) to replace electricity generators which have high emission rates. However, the small amount of expenditure foreshadowed by the opposition for these tasks makes it highly unlikely that any significant reductions in emissions would occur.
Given the massive flaws in the analysis by the IPCC (and others), the time has surely come to undertake an immediate inquiry that includes scientists who are sceptics or non-believers in the IPCC line.
Des Moore
19 July 2013