Climate Change – A Christian Response (Pt-2)

Last month we saw that the world’s climate has never been static. There is ample evidence that warmer and colder periods occurred in history, without the influence of man. This month we will examine some of the claimed evidence for Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), and consider the potential impact the AGW agenda may have on the world’s poor.

Prof Bjorn Lomborg, a paid up member of Greenpeace, and a professor of statistics in Denmark, wanted to influence his students. He wanted them to see how disastrous the world environmental scene was. So he set assignments for them to do the statistical analysis of some of the data being promoted by the environmental movement. Much to his dismay, he discovered that most of what is presented as “known facts”, is simply assertions made by an individual or the spokesman of an organisation, without any substantiating evidence, and only very rarely sourced from peer reviewed scientific journals. His discoveries led him to write the very readable book: The Skeptical Environmentalist – Measuring the Real State of the World. (Cambridge University Press, 1998).
It is well worth reading!

David Evans started work in the Greenhouse Office in Canberra in 1999 as a computer modeller. He was convinced that global warming was caused by carbon dioxide emissions.
He was highly motivated and excited about his job and developed a program that is widely used for calculating the amount of carbon various tree plantations would take from the atmosphere. It is widely used because it has been shown to be accurate to plus minus 10%.

But as more evidence has emerged, David says it has becoming more and more difficult to hold to AGW. He says the facts that are known today, simply don’t support it.¹

A major problem facing individuals (and governments!) who want to be informed of the facts, is that when some previously promoted “fact” is exposed as flawed, the media and much of the environmental movement merrily go on their way propagating the falsehoods. For example, 2005 is still touted as being the hottest year on record in the USA. Steve McIntyre found the data had been incorrectly processed; there was a Y2K error in the computer code. The facts now are that 1934 is the hottest year on record, and four of the hottest years in USA are now known to have occurred
in the 1930s, and only 3 in the last
10 years. McIntyre was also the person who discovered the errors in Michael Mann’s infamous hockey stick graph in the third IPCC report. That false graph was also used in Al Gore’s movie An Inconvenient Truth. Have we ever heard Al Gore setting the record straight? Unfortunately not.

Interestingly, a British judge ruled recently² that Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth could only be shown to school children if the nine factual errors in it were pointed out before hand. He found that the “apocalyptic vision” presented in the film was not an impartial analysis of climate change but part of a politically partisan crusade, and that the film was deliberately alarmist.

It is interesting to note that Al Gore continues to use 20 times as much energy as the average American, and he has made it clear he has no intention of reducing his energy consumption! It makes me wonder whether he really believes the message of his own movie!

So what hard facts are there to support the notion that carbon dioxide emissions are the cause of the small (0.6C) increase in temperate that has been recorded in the past 100 years?

Firstly we need to note that the biggest part of the increase took place in the period 1905 to 1940, which was before the CO₂ levels began to increase significantly.

Repeated calls by “sceptical” scientists for independent, repeatable observations to support the notion of AGW have failed to produce any evidence. It may surprise you that there is NO experimental evidence, nor measurements which have established a link between carbon dioxide emissions and global warming written in a peer reviewed scientific journal. Indeed, the only measurable, repeatable observations made come from ice core data (which is not always reliable). This data suggests that CO₂ levels lead temperature increases by 800 years; this means that the temperature increase causes the increase in CO₂, not the other way around!

The “evidence” for AGW is based solely on computer climate models which have been developed. The problem with these models is that they are overly simplistic – they depend on the notion that the way the atmosphere works is like the air in a glass jar. This fails to take into account the many buffering effects in the natural systems that produce our climate. Not one of the models that gives the various dooms day predictions, has been able to predict the average world temperature
5 years in advance. When run backwards, they fail to give answers consistent with what we know the climate was like 5, 10 or 20 years ago.

Kevin Trenberth, coordinating lead author of the IPCC 4th Assessment Report admitted the weaknesses inherent in the models used. He 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. (This quote is not a misprint!)

Even within the IPCC there are many scientists who do not believe that AGW is by any means established. Yuri Israel, the Vice Chairman of the IPCC has stated: there is no proven link between human activity and global warming.

But shouldn’t we try and reduce the CO₂ emissions just in case they are the cause of global warming? That sounds a reasonable argument.

Given the fact that we know that asteroids have hit the earth in times past, and have had a catastrophic impact on climate, should we not also invest in schemes to try and deflect asteroids from hitting the earth?

Whether we like it or not, the world has finite financial resources. The question we need to ask is: Is it justifiable to spend huge sums– billions upon billions – trying to avoid an asteroid strike, when the likelihood of being able to influence the outcome is rather dubious at best? Or should we direct these resources to alleviate poverty and environmental degradation in third world countries? I think most would say: use those resources to alleviate poverty!

Given that the only evidence for AGW comes from overly simplistic computer models, I believe humanity would be far better served if all the money spent on the Bali Climate conference, and the many salaries of CO₂ emission counters, research into the geo-sequestration of Carbon Dioxide, etc were channelled into poverty alleviation and environmental projects in the third world.

So the precautionary principle is not quite as wise a principle as some would have us believe. In fact, as with the consensus argument, the resort to precautionary principle indicates that the evidence is weak. Where we can reduce our emissions without increasing the cost of living (which always affects the poor the most), by all means let’s get rid of our SUVs if we don’t need them and buy the most energy efficient fridge and air con system. But most of the advocated strategies cost money. Big money!

Add to this the fact that there are actually known benefits from the increased CO₂ levels in the atmosphere, and it makes the principle look decidedly foolish.

For some, to suggest that there could be benefits from increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, is akin to suggesting there could be benefits from paedophilia. But let’s be rational and ask the question!

Dutch horticulturalists have long known that rotting bales of straw in the glass house lead to better crops. Scientists have worked out why: It increases the level of carbon dioxide in the air. As the carbon dioxide level increases, not only does their growth increase, but they are also able to withstand drought better. It is interesting to note that there is substantial evidence that in the days of the dinosaurs the carbon dioxide level was 3000ppm, about 10 times the present level. And it seems the world survived these levels! There is also evidence that forests around the world have increased their growth rates in the past 50 years as the carbon dioxide level has increased.

Various crops have been tested for response to carbon dioxide “fertilising”. While the results vary, they range from 10 to 100 percent increase in yields. If CO₂ levels were to increase to say 600pm, most crops would yield between 10 and 20% more. That is certainly a significant benefit that should help to feed the world!

If the CO₂ were to increase the world’s temperatures a little more, Northern American, European and Russian homes would need to spend much less on heating. Canadian farmers would have bumper crops. Ships could take a short cut across the arctic from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean. (By the way in 1896 a British Admiral reported on the fact that the ice had receded so much that it now seemed possible to make that crossing! And that was before CO₂ levels went up! ) Indeed Fred Singer, a retired professor of environmental science has written a book Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 years, which outlines the benefits of global warming.

The problem with the Global Warming/Climate Change debate is that it has moved from science to the realm of politics, and the political method simply does not produce good science!

It seems that with the rejection of Christianity in the western world, people are looking for another cause. As Ray Evans writes: Environmentalism has largely superseded Christianity as the religion of the upper classes in Europe and to a lesser extend in the United States…It is a form of religious belief which fosters a sense of moral superiority in the believer, but which places no importance on telling the truth.³

If a lie is repeated often enough, many people will believe it. Much of what is written about Climate Change (From the Stern report, to Evangelical Climate Change Initiative’s Climate Change: An Evangelical Call to Action) assumes that AGW is a fact, when at best it is a very dubious hypothesis.

Given the dubious foundation of the hypothesis that the 0.6C increase in world temperatures in the last 100 years is due to CO₂ emissions produced by man, I find it immoral for Christians and others to call on governments to spend huge sums of money (and we are talking billions upon billions) to try to prevent scenarios which simplistic computer models are predicting. Imagine what a difference such sums invested in the developing world could make to the growing environmental degradation occurring there! It could provide the infrastructure for clean water, sewage treatment, safe garbage disposal, recycling schemes, health care, irrigation schemes etc for the poor. And such investment would pay huge environmental dividends.

¹ Watch part of an interesting lecture he gave at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTUDWy6T050&watch_response

3 Nine Facts about Climate Change by Ray Evans, quoted in Greenhouse sceptics to congregate, The Age 28/02/2007

I have come across so many (especially prior to the recent federal election) people who felt that Australia should have signed the Koyoto protocol. When I have asked them whether they were aware of how it worked, most thought it was simply about agreeing to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions. But that is only a very small part of it. Here is how it works:

Countries that ratified the Koyto Protocol agreed to reduce their CO₂ emissions to their pre 1991 levels by 2012.

Under the terms of Koyoto, developing countries (including Africa, India, Indonesia, China) can continue to increase emissions without any penalty.

For every tonne of CO₂ that a country exceeds its target, it must pay $25 to a country that has reduced its CO₂ by more than its target. So who are the winners? It is mainly the former Soviet satellite states whose economies crumbled with the fall of communism, and whose inefficient and polluting industry could not compete on world markets, and hence closed down. The fact is that these countries are buying their goods from elsewhere now – probably China – where the pollution per item produced is far higher than it would be in a modern western country.

Those western countries whose economies have prospered and expanded, will not meet their targets, and so have to pay big dollars in 2012. Kevin Rudd said that Australia looks like it might exceed its target by 1%, or 6 million tonnes, so we would have to pay $150 million to some of these Balkan or other states who have “credits”.

The problem with Kyoto is that there are no set methods for calculating a country’s CO₂ emissions. It is generally accepted that it is impossible to calculate it any more accurately than plus or minus 10%. World Bank’s calculations indicate Australia will exceed its target by 100 million tonnes, but the Greenhouse Office in Canberra says their calculations show only 6 million. The difference in credits we have to pay is going to be either $150 million or 2.5 billion. Who will decide?! Sounds like a lawyers paradise!

The problem with Koyoto is that we could almost meet our target by simply not clearing any more land. And if we chose to close down our cement industry, and import all cement from Indonesia, we could pat ourselves on the back and say what exemplary world citizens we are in having met our Koyoto protocol obligations. But buying our cement from Indonesia does absolutely nothing for the world CO₂ levels!

[1] West Australian, June 12, 2007 p 16

[2] http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4674 accessed 4/1/2008