"Stupid Is As Stupid Does, Forrest"
Here's The list, once again, thanks to Paul Sheehan. Sheehan thinks these 10 points are so far-reaching in their ramifications that the Greens are not willing to debate them.
I'm not a Green, but let me try it on.
1. The pin-up species of global warming, the polar bear, is increasing in number, not decreasing.
Polar bear numbers have surged since hunting was largely banned in the 1970s. When Tim Flannery predicted that polar bears would be extinct within 25 years, he was challenged by Dr. Mitchell Taylor, the polar bear expert for the Canadian federal territory of Nunavut, which covers most of the polar bear's Canadian habitat.
Mitchell wrote in 2006: "Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present… it is just silly to predict the demise of polar bears in 25 years based on media-assisted hysteria."
A counter perspective: Last year, at the latest meeting of the world's peak polar bear study group, the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group, scientists reported that eight of the 19 sub-populations of polar bears were declining, compared with five declining populations in 2005. Of the other 11 sub-populations, three were stable, one was increasing, and there was insufficient data to describe a trend in the remaining seven.
Polar bear populations rebounded dramatically after over-hunting was restricted in the 1970s, but the threat posed to polar bears now is completely different - a loss of the sea ice habitat that is essential to their survival.
Lord Monckton's Sydney bomb-toss: "There are five times as many polar bears now than there were 40 years ago."
Okay. The destruction of the habitat isn't the only thing going on with the Polar Bears. They are also being protected more vigorously across the Arctic Circle. As with Timber Wolves in National Parks, their numbers may be on the rise due to reduced Human hunting. They may even be rising because the increased warmth may be a better environment for the Polar Bear. The Polar Bear numbers alone do not disprove Global Warming. Nice Cherry-pick, but it's a cherry-pick all the same.
2. President Obama supports building nuclear power plants.
Last week, in his 2010 State of the Union address last week, when the President said, "That means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country", his speech was greeted with applause.
A counter perspective: After the applause, President Obama continued: "It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development. It means continued investment in advanced bio-fuels and clean coal technologies. And yes, it means passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America."
Lord Monckton's Sydney bomb-toss: "China is going to be the emissions king, not America."
I guess this is aimed at the Green Party tradition of opposing Nuclear Power. China might become a greater emitter than the USA shortly, but neither of these things in o themselves mean we shouldn't have some kind of emissions trading scheme. Judging from Peter Garrett's about-face from a lifetime of artistic railing against the Nuclear Industry, it seems to be a ground that the Greens may have to give up to make one claim stick. In any case, this point isn't really something that says Climate Change/Global Warming is not true.
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 attending the conference.
A counter perspective: According to the website of the Department of Climate Change in Canberra: "The Copenhagen Accord is a welcome step forward on climate change action. The Accord… is the first time there has been agreement to keep global temperature increase to less than 2 degrees Celsius, and to take responsibility for action to realise this target. A transparent system to track progress was also agreed, which is key to getting the environmental outcome we all need."
Lord Monckton's Sydney bomb-toss: "Copenhagen was the left's attempt to collectivize. It involved a massive transfer of wealth from the West… But you have to carry the people with you, which is why in the draft treaties put forward you never see references to 'election', 'ballot', 'democracy'. It is non-existent in the process."
I don't see how Copenhagen was the "Left's attempt to Collectivise". Note the pernicious language of the right wing fascist who thinks anything they disagree with must be an attempt to "collectivise". Is Mr. Stalin alive? Where does this stuff come from? It's this kind of language that gives away the unreasonable-ness of Monckton's position. He's not being a Climate Change 'sceptic', he's being a nasty little fascist pretending to be a Climate Change 'sceptic'.
Copenhagen was a mess and not much positive came out of the process for the First World. But it can be argued that nothing much good came out of it for the BRIC economies either. To try and couch the failure of Copenhagen as a Left Wing
pusch that failed says more about Monckton's political leanings than science.
4. The reputation of the chief United Nations scientist on global warming is in disrepair.
Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is being investigated for financial irregularities, conflicts of interest and scientific distortion. Last month, the IPCC was forced to admit that the claim in its 2007 report that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035 had no scientific basis. The scientist who originated the claim, Dr Syed Hasnain, works at The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), the Delhi-based institute where Dr Pachauri is director-general.
TERI, which won substantial grants in part on this baseless claim, used to stand for Tata Energy Research Institute, because it was funded by the Tata industrial conglomerate, which stood to claim about a billion dollars in tax credits under the UN’s Clean Development Mechanism.
A counter perspective: Dr Pachauri has denied all allegations made against him. No charges have been laid. Since becoming head of the IPCC in 2002 he has been an outspoken advocate for international action and co-operation to mitigate the affects of global warming. In 2007, he accepted the Nobel Peace Prize on behalf of the IPCC.
Lord Monckton's Sydney bomb-toss: "Pachauri is being investigated by the [UK] Charity Commission. He faces the possibility of going to prison."
Hmmm. So Monckton says guilty as charged when most of the allegations are inference. I sure as hell wouldn't want to be tried in that court. I think the proper thing to do in a democracy is stick with "innocent until proven guilty". Besides which, even if he were guilty of some crime somewhere along the way, it doesn't detract from what he is saying about Climate Change. It's only ideologues who believe that the guilty cannot speak the truth. Again, this line of reasoning says more about the pettiness of Monckton who is resorting to a smear and an
ad hominem attack on a scientist in order to make the claims of the other scientist look disreputable. It's a cheap shot.
One could easily ask, "what kind of stupid system makes this child-molesting Monckton a Lord?, and just why should we believe anybody who is accused of molesting children?" It could be asked, just to smear him, but it wouldn't be a fair question.
5. The supposed scientific consensus of the IPCC has been challenged by numerous distinguished scientists.
The IPCC assumes that CO2 concentration will reach 836 ppmv by 2100, but dissenting scientists contend that for the past nine years CO2 concentration has been on track to increase to 570 ppmv by 2100, which would almost halve the IPCC’s temperature projections.
A counter perspective: The website of the Department of Climate Change in Canberra offers this measured assessment of the scientific consensus behind the IPCC report: "The IPCC [report] provides a rigorous assessment of the published and peer-reviewed research on climate change and was compiled by 1,250 expert authors from over 130 countries… All IPCC reports are subject to extensive expert and government review."
Lord Monckton's Sydney bomb-toss: "Lord Stern [author of the Stern Review] is mad. That's the technical term for him… There are leading climate scientists, like Professor Richard Linzen of MIT, who do not believe a word of the [IPCC] global warming argument."
He says numerous distinguished scientists but he doesn't name who they are except
Richard Lindzen. He of the conservative
George C. Marshall Institute?
Lindzen has contributed to think tanks including the Cato Institute and the George C. Marshall Institute.[32] In a 1995 article in Harper's Magazine, Ross Gelbspan made allegations that Lindzen described as a "slander" and "libelous."[33][34] Gelbspan claimed Lindzen "... charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,[35] was underwritten by OPEC."[36][32] According to Juliet Eilperin the fact that Lindzen was paid expenses, "doesn't mean he's on anybody's payroll. He charges for his speeches, but so do prominent scientists who disagree with him about climate change."[26] According to Alex Beam of the The Boston Globe, Lindzen said that he charged expenses and expert witness fees in the 1990s but had not done so since.[37]
The distinguished scientists that are in the payroll of oil companies are challenging the IPCC findings? You don't say! Then he launches into an
ad hominem attack on Lord Stern. So again, I ask (rhetorically), "what kind of stupid system makes this child-molesting Monckton a Lord?, and just why should we believe anybody who is accused of molesting children?" Once again, it could be asked, just to smear him, but it wouldn't be a fair question.
6. The politicisation of science leads to a heavy price in poor countries.
After western environmentalists succeed in banning or suppressing the use of the pesticide DDT, the rate of death by malaria rose into the millions, with some scholars estimating the death toll at 20 million, or more, most of them children.
A counter perspective: The claim that millions have lost their lives as a result of the withdrawal of DDT is hotly contested among scientists. Speculation over the number of deaths caused by the withdrawal of DDT ranges from thousands to tens of millions. The dangers of DDT are well established. The majority of major environmental organisations continue to oppose its use. In many countries, DDT is no longer effective as mosquitos have built up an immunity.
Lord Monckton's Sydney bomb-toss: "After DDT was virtually banned, deaths from Malaria went from 50,000 a year to one million a year. Over 40 years, until the ban was basically lifted, 40 million people died, and most of them were poor children."
DDT? My goodness, how has this example got anything to do with Climate Change? The claim itself is hotly contested, and trying to build an argument out of such a claim is just not right. As in not correct. As in mistaken. As in not the right thing to do. But he does it anyway.
But even allowing for the argument to be, Politicisation of science being a problem, how is this the Green's problem when scientists on the payroll of energy companies and oil companies go and make counterclaims to science on the basis of politics? isnt this more of a problem with the so-called Climate Change 'Sceptics' and their version of science that oddly fits in with the necessities of those who pay them?
I don't think the Green owe Lord Monckton an explanation until Lord Monckton explains where Richard Lindzen gets his money from and if he can be trusted at all.
7. The bio-fuels industry has exacerbated world hunger.
Diverting huge amounts of grain crops to bio-fuels has contributed to a rise in world food prices, felt acutely in the poorest nations. The decision by the Bush Administration in the US to produce ethanol from corn was a disaster for countries like Mexico where corn is a staple food. The United Nations has warned that diverting sugar and maize for bio-fuels could lead to hundreds of thousands of deaths from hunger worldwide.
A counter perspective: Bio-fuels provided 1.8% of the world's transport fuel in 2008. The development of bio-fuels will lead to new forms of fuels using materials, such as algae, which will not impact on the world food supply.
Lord Monckton's Sydney bomb-toss: "Millions have died already because of the bio-fuels scam. It has cut the supply of food to fuel cars that don't need it and taken it from people who do."
It is true that biofuels compete with food grains and therefore is not a good idea over all. I don't know if you can therefore say millions have died because trendy Lefty city-dwellers in the first world chose bio-diesel over petrol cars, because I doubt there have been that many bio-diesel cars put into the market around the world. So this one is a piece of incendiary exaggeration - the kind of exaggeration that might sit well with an extremist agenda.
8. The Kyoto Protocols have proved meaningless.
Global carbon emissions today are significantly higher today than they were when the Kyoto Protocol was introduced. Even the climate scientist who has done more than other to mobilise global concerns on global warming, James E. Hansen, has criticized the Kyoto Protocol for promoting a cap and trade system which he regards as no more than an inefficient variant of the status quo.
A counter perspective: The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, or Kyoto Protocol, was adopted on 11 December 1997 and entered into international law in 2005. So far 187 states have signed and ratified the protocol, creating an international structure for global co-operation on global warming policies.
Lord Monckton's Sydney bomb-toss: "Since Kyoto, global carbon emissions have gone up 40 per cent."
I don't think the failures of Kyoto protocol
ergo means it isn't worth trying to curb emissions. To pretend that the failures of Kyoto and Copenhagen mean that we ought not are willfully misreading those failures in their favor. If this pathetic level of argument is what Lord Monckton is bringing to town, he should have saved himself the carbon emission and stayed in England. Seriously.
9. The United Nations' global carbon emissions reduction target is a massively costly mirage.
A counter perspective: From the Department of Climate Change: "The science indicates that stabilising greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at 450 parts per million (ppm), or lower, will reduce the risks of severe climate change and support our aim of limiting the average global temperature increase to no more than 2 degrees Celsius. At a 2 degree temperature rise we will certainly need to adapt.
"Without effective global action on climate change, temperatures in Australia could rise by around 5 degrees Celsius by the end of the century. The results would be catastrophic… As set out in a number of authoritative resources, such as the Stern Review and the Garnaut Review, the costs of inaction far outweigh the costs of action now."
Lord Monckton's Sydney bomb-toss: "The cost of mitigation of rising temperature is orders of magnitude less cost-effective than adapting to the changes in temperature. It is a colossal waste of money."
Says who? Says Lord Monckton. He just asserts it without actually giving evidence that the "cost is a colossal waste of money". He has no alternative plan, he just throws it out there. If I were the Greens' I'd laugh at the immaturity of Monckton saying "the reduction target is a costly mirage".
At best, this is a guess and a half-baked opinion based on how he wants it to be. But of course if somebody with an imposing title of Lord says it, we should take it on board. I think not. Which bring me to the next and final bit...
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.
A counter perspective: Rudd believes that inaction on global warming will have disastrous consequences, and international co-operation is essential. The world needs to set price signals on energy that reflect the real cost of fossil-fuels and an international structure send those price signals. Australia will thus move ahead with a carbon emissions trading scheme and the legislation will be re-introduced as one of the government's first acts of the new parliamentary year.
Lord Monckton's Sydney bomb-toss: "Kevin Rudd is happy to criticise me from afar… I written to him pointing out that even if all the nations of the world cut their carbon emissions by 30 per cent, at a cost of trillions of dollars, mostly to the West, it would stop global temperatures from rising by 0.02 Celsius. You couldn't even measure it with a thermometer.
"And to achieve this you will fatally damage your economy, and your workforce, you will make bankers rich, and you will frighten children in their classrooms."
I just want to point out that this is a Lord from England, expressing his pathetic, ill-conceived
opinion in order to try and influence the electorate of Australia. This is not a scientific point, this is Lord Monckton trying to influence the outcome of the next election through denigrating the emissions trading scheme. As an Australian, I find this offensive. We don't send our ex-pollies over to England to tell them which way to vote.
But let's put that aside for a moment and address what he's saying. He is asserting without any evidence that an ETS would "fatally damage your economy, and your workforce, you will make bankers rich, and you will frighten children in their classrooms."
If you don't put a dollar-value on carbon emission, you will never come up with a proper mechanism of dealing with emissions. So the first fear is idiotic. It is doubtful an ETS will harm the workforce because putting a dollar value on carbon emissions will open up the economy to new businesses built around addressing the issue of emissions. Bankers getting rich is not a problem that is new. They seem to get rich regardless of an ETS or not, banking regulations or not. They're *bankers*, Lord Monckton, they exist to get rich, regardless of carbon emissions.
As for frightening the children, I have no issue with that. They might be jolted awake into being responsible human beings on the basis of that fear. It wouldn't be an irrational fear, like the fear of monsters or ghosts; it would be an entirely rational fear to have. it's the kind of fear Lord Monckton himself might do well to possess.
Having gone through the 10 points, I'm sort of surprised the editor didn't pull this article from the SMH. It's idiotic in the extreme.
