Climate deniers are trying hard at present to deal with the latest IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Report. The Murdoch media has been doing such denying for many years by publishing many authors who deny IPCC science, because they can. And the result is numerous claims by these deniers, none of which actually agree very much with each other. The IPA publication “Climate Change: The Facts” (2017) demonstrates the muddle when its editor tells us there are many contradictions among the authors, but it is hoped that these contradictions will be reconciled.
The latest IPA publication “Climate Change: The Facts” (2020) takes a different stance and rejects the idea of human-induced climate change and puts the whole matter down to natural cycles. It is this idea which guides the work of Chris Mitchell in his essay “IPCC report shows devil is in the detail for climate alarmists” (15/8/2021, pay-walled).
Mitchell makes three points in his introduction. One is that the Report adds little to the 2014 report and that it is a political report according to Graham Lloyd (a fellow journalist who has compiled so many of those denier contributions over the years) and he claims that it does not bode well for the Glasgow meeting in November.
Secondly, he suggests reducing CO2 emissions to 1.5C – 2.0C by increasing targets is a waste of time because the developed world is already reducing emissions, but India and China are not reducing emissions before 2030 – so emissions will still rise from developing countries.
[Why there could not be reductions across the board does not seem to be considered, but the fault, it seems, is with other people.]
Thirdly, finance people are asking Australia for increased climate ambitions, but there is “voter hesitancy” in paying for climate action.
[Rather like citizen hesitancy with vaccines. But what is the cost of no or very little climate action?]
Mitchell claims there is and will be conflict between countries and also within the UK about paying for climate action while, according to the Daily Mail, “the Chinese are burning coal like there is no tomorrow.”
[What we see here is what climate activists are accused of; that is, being alarmists. It is a favourite tactic used by deniers: activists are alarmists while deniers give only “the facts.” Besides, who is providing China’s coal?]
While Barnaby Joyce chips in with the thought that he is not going to ruin his lifestyle while helping to improve the lifestyle of Indians and Chinese.
[This is part of the neoliberal claim: that selling coal to others lifts them out of poverty, but to stop selling coal would ruin our own lifestyle. The first thing to say is that both India and China are aware of the limits of a carbon economy, but Australia is still caught up in a technology climate plan which will still allow the burning of coal plus “technologies”.]
Mitchell keeps a keen eye on what happens on the ABC. Adam Bandt, in speaking with Fran Kelly, mentions what Johnson has done in the UK and what Biden has done in the USA. Mitchell claims all Johnson has done is abandon his heat pump policy and Biden has seen record gas and oil exploration and exports.
[Is that all Johnson has done? And what about Biden?]
According to worldoil.com 17/2/2021:
“US will import 62% more crude by 2022 due to domestic production declines, says EIA ( US Energy Information Administration)”. It goes on to say “The EIA Short Term Energy outlook 2/2021 estimated that 2020 marked the first year that the US exported more petroleum than it imported on an annual basis.”
[But see the headline above. Obviously one has to keep up with changing facts.]
Bandt asked about Oz’s carbon emission. Mitchell claims Oz’s emissions reductions are ahead of most countries and ahead of its Paris commitment for 2030.
[Of course, the Coalition target is not a big one, and even if the Coalition does achieve it, it will leave much to be done by 2050. The question is: Where will the Coalition be in 2030 or 2050? The www.industry.gov.au March 2020 quarterly report tells us that overall emissions fell1.4% or 7.7m tonnes – now 14.3% below 2005 levels. Still a way to go. Some emissions have occurred through the effects of the pandemic. An SMH headline, 10/8/2021, says: “Australia’s climate policies falling short of United Nation’s global goals.”]
Bandt told Kelly that Oz is lagging on renewables. Mitchell’s comment was: “The numbers show Australia is a leader on wind, rooftop solar and solar farms.”
[Remember how the Coalition has been happy to subsidise coal. But is not happy about subsidising renewables which are becoming cheaper than coal and making coal a stranded asset. Here, anyone would think that the Coalition invented renewables, so full of praise for renewables as they are.]
Bandt claims that “Morrison is putting Australian lives at risk with his 2030 targets.” Mitchell replies: “Yet 2021 is to date one of the coolest years since 2000, largely because of a strong La Nina phenomenon.”
[climate.gov’s state of climate tells us “June 2021 was the fifth warmest on record.”]
More dramatically, the carbonbrief.org article (26/7/2021):
“While the early months of 2021 have been cooler than much of the past decade, global temperatures have risen in recent months as the effects of La Niña have started to fade” gives many instances of extreme weather events, which the World Weather Attribution says are “virtually impossible in the absence of warming caused by human emissions of CO2 and other hothouse gases.”
There is a string of events listed. “This year is now on track to end up somewhere between the fifth and seventh warmest year for the earth’s surface since record began in the mid-1800s.
“The past two months have seen record-breaking heatwaves in the western US and Canada that are fuelling devastating wildfires, as well as flooding events in Europe, India and India driven by extreme rainfall.”
And there is more on the website.
And a word about heat affecting the planet. This comes from a little book about climate change entitled ”Dr Karl’s Little Book of Climate Change” written by Dr Karl Kruszelnicki, published by the ABC. He writes:
“The amount of extra heat from the Sun trapped by the current level of Greenhouse gases is about 400,000 Hiroshima atom bombs each day. That’s an incredible, but dreadful, number. However, this energy is spread over the 510 million square kilometres of the entire planet’s surface, not just concentrated into a single square kilometre.”
[And he goes on to explain details you might not have heard before.]
Now we come to the most amazing claim made by Mitchell in his entire essay.
“Here’s a fact this newspaper has been emphasising for two decades. Man-made climate variability in the short term is dwarfed by natural changes to climate.”
[We come to an interesting and revealing part of Mitchell’s essay. The IPA climate publication for 2020 has bagged the IPCC manmade science and now claims climate change is a result of natural cycles. Mitchell claims The Australian has been emphasising natural cycles for 20 years. Meanwhile, he calls upon Graham Lloyd to make a contribution.]
Graham Lloyd (30/7/2021) has “reported a stunning admission reported in Science magazine.” The Science report is that some climate models are “running hot”. But first, let us go to someone else to discuss climate models, always a matter of contention.
[A team of 9 from different places write about climate models in “Yes, a few climate models give unexpected predictions – but the technology remains a powerful tool” (The Conversation, 9/8/2021).]
“(Models) unequivocally show that warming of the planet since the Industrial Revolution is due to human-caused emissions of greenhouse gases. This confirms our understanding of the greenhouse effect, known since the 1850s. Models also show the intensity of many extreme weather effects around the world would essentially impossible without human influence.
“The latest scientific evidence, using observed warming, paleoclimate data and our physical understanding of the climate system, suggests global average temperatures very likely increase by between 2.2 degrees C or high as 5.6 degrees C.
“… scientists use climate models cautiously, giving more weight to projections from climate models that are consistent with other scientific evidence.“ (Prevention Web, 8/8/21)
So it is not a matter of models only. And scientists know when predictions are wrong and can search for reasons why. Whereas deniers cry alarmism, yet use models, too.]
Lloyd’s writing on models concludes with reference to Professor Michael Asten, geophysicist, who says:
“There is a discrepancy between models and observational studies. And that has been obvious since the year 2000. It’s even clearer now in 2021. The only surprise to me is that it’s taken so long for the establishment to admit there is a problem,” Asten says.
“In 2021… the global temperature has decreased to the same value it was 15 years ago. The report ignores this. I argue this is a significant flaw in logic.”
“Asten,” said Lloyd, “took the rational approach to over-hyped reporting.”
“The world has already warmed 1.1 degree since 170 year ago and the world’s a nicer place…170 years ago was a little ice age. If we warm another 0.4 of a degree I don’t see that is a problem and, no I am not frightened’.”
Asten is easily debunked by The Conversation team of scientists. His ideas about models and observation is wrong, as are his quoted temperatures.
But it gets worse with further research into Asten and his ideas about natural cycles. There is a published notice of an Environmental Seminar 21 August , 2020 at the University of Queensland.
In an abstract for that Seminar, Asten explains he will discuss and compare:
“… proxy temperature cycles contained in data sets from European glaciation, China agricultural records and two global constructs. A high correlation between European and China data sets, especially for 800 – 2000 CE, demonstrates a level of synchronicity between possible regional phenomena. Spectral analysis shows a series of spectral peaks in all data sets consistent with those detected globally in cosmic ray flux, which supports the theory of natural climate cycles being partially under astronomical control.”
So there we have it. “Cosmic ray flux” and “natural climate cycles … under astronomical control”?
How does that sound? About right? Just the kind of thing to impress “informed” Murdoch readers?
And for real analysis by a real astrophysicist, Professor Michael Ashley, at The Conversation (31/8/2011): “Event horizon: the black hole in The Australian’s climate change coverage” where the author is scathing about the climate coverage at the time when Mitchell was editor of The Australian and debunks various deniers, including Asten. Well worth a read.
It appears that nothing has changed at Murdoch Land. They claim they present alternative views for people to decide what they think. In fact, it is such a muddle of disparate views there is no sense to be made of it and all it has achieved is delays in what should be done about climate change. Very dangerous and alarming.
[textblock style=”7″]
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
[/textblock]
