heaven + earth excerpt

7/31/2019 Heaven + Earth Excerpt

1/47


2/47

politicians and the public expect science to provide answers to problems and theanswers are expected to be unequivocal. Nevertheless, we are told, the world isgoing to end, we are all going to die slowly, we are going to be fried in a hotgreenhouse world and, what's more, we are going to die poor. And it's all ourfault. Folks, it's time for indulgences. Or is it?

There is a pretty dismal history of experts making predictions about the end ofthe planet and other such frightening catastrophes. Most predictions, includingthose of the climate zealots, have religious overtones. Pessimistic predictionsattract interest and there is always a crowd ready to listen to dire apocalypticpredictions.2199

The New Testament tells us (Matthew 16:28) that the world will end before thedeath of the last Apostle.2200 The world didn't end. In 992 AD, the scholar

Bernard of Thuringen confidently announced that, from his calculations, theworld had only 32 years left. The world did end for Bernard, who died before the32 years elapsed. The Last judgement was to take place 1000 years after thebirth of Christ. As the world was to end, it was not necessary to exert energyand effort planting crops in what were subsistence cultures. Many didn't plantcrops. In 1000 AD the world ended for many because there was famine. Theastrologer John of Toledo circulated pamphlets in 1179 AD showing that theworld would end at 4.15 pm (GMT) on 23 September Uulian calendar) when theplanets were in Libra. This was taken so seriously that in Constantinople theByzantine Emperor walled up his windows and the Archbishop of Canterburycalled for a day of atonement. Walling up windows worked. The world did notend.

The early 16th Century was a great time for end-of-world predictions. Despitenumerous failed predictions, the population was only too willing to believe thenext prediction. The best prediction of the lot was by astrologers who suggestedthat a biblical-type deluge would end the world in 1523. Some 20,000 Londonersleft for higher ground as they preferred to perish outdoors rather than in thecomfort of their own homes. Others, like the Prior of St Bartholomew's, stockedup on food and water. The world didn't end and the astrologers claimed that

their calculation was a mere 100 years wrong. and the world was goingy to endanyway in 1623. It did for all those that were alive

2197 Booker, C. and North, R. 2007: Scared to death: From BSE to globalwarming. Why scares are costing us the Earth. Continuum.2199 A good example is the poem Said Hanrahan, by John O'Brien (1878-1952)fromAround the Boree Log and Other Verses (1921).

2200 A good summary of end of world ideas, some of which are used herein, is

James Randi's 1990 book The mask of Nostradamus A biography of the world'smost famous prophet. James Scribner's Sons, New York.


3/47

Page 458:-

in 1523.

This prediction sounds very much like the predictions we hear from the climatezealots who make predictions so far in advance that they will not be around tobe stoned by angry mobs when their predictions faiL Despite the failure of the

1523 end of the world, astrologers were at it again in 1524 when the planetswould be aligned in Pisces. of course, the end was to be a global flood. Thisplanetary conjunction was Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn along withthe Sun. Neptune, unknown then, was also in Pisces but Uranus, Pluto (unknownthen) and the Moon were not. Who could fail to believe an astrologer calledNicolaus Peranzonus de Monte Sainte Marie, one of the main promoters of theend of the world? Others, like Georg Tannstetter of the University of Vienna,argued that the world would not end. The cacophony of hysteria was so greatthat Tannstetter was not heard. The same applies today. The global flood waspredicted for 20 February 1524, there was frantic boat building activity and

many scaled-down replicas of Noah's Ark were built. Many in port townsretreated to boats.

In Germany, Count von Iggleheim built a three-storey ark. He retreated into theark on the designated deluge day and an angry crowd gathered outside becausea rich man was to go through the eye of a needle and they were to perish. Onthe deemed deluge day, it rained lightly, the crowd behaved as a crowd andhundreds were lilled in a stampede. It certainly was the end of the world for theCount, who was stoned to death by the crowd. Records show that 1524 was adrought year in Europe!

The delightfully-named Frederick Nausea, Bishop of Vienna, predicted in 1532that the end was nigh because he had seen all sorts of strange things such asbloody crosses in the sky with a comet, black bread had fallen from the sky,there were three suns, and a burning castle had been seen in the sky. The worlddid not end.

The mathematician and biblical scholar Stifebus of Lochau (Germany) calculatedthat the world would end at 8 am on 3 October 1533. This created great fear inthe people of Lochau. The world did not end. Fortunately, the citizens of Lochaucame to their senses and gave Stifelius a well-deserved flogging, stripped him ofhis ecclesiastical title and ran him out of town. In Strasbourg (France), the

Anabaptist Melchior Hoffmann announced that the world would be immolated in1533. Only 144,000 were to live. The rich forgave their debts and gave awaytheir earthly goods in order to be among the chosen few. The year 1533 was onewith very few house fires, principally because there was great caution about thedangers of fire and the resultant fiery end. The world did not end in 1533.However, recalculations showed

HEAVEN +EARTH : ET M0I


4/47

page 459:-

that it was now to end in 1534. Over 100 credulous punters were baptised inAmsterdam as a precaution. The world also did not end in 1534.

Calculations by the astrologer Pierre Turrell in Dijon (France) showed that theworld would end in 1537, 1544, 1801 or 1814. Such calculations are thecomputer models of today. Turrell was smarter than the average astrologer andpredicted the end of the world would occur well after his expected lifetime. Thisis exactly what the climate alarmists are doing. Another astrologer, CyprianLeowitz, calculated that the world would end in 1584. He must have had greatconfidence in his calculations because he issued astronomical tables showingcelestial events until the year 1614 in case the world did not end. It didn't. Theyear 1588 was another end-of-the-world year according to johann Mullier. Muller,a self-professed sage who used the name Regiomontanus, was also smartenough to predict the end of the world well after his expected lifetime.

In the 17th Century, 1648 was an end-of-the-world year according to RabbiSabbad Zevi of Smyrna (now Izmir, Turkey). In a fit of humility, Zevi claimed hewas the Messiah and persuaded the citizens of Smyrna to give up work andprepare for their return to Jerusalem. Zevi was arrested for sedition by theSultan and, while in prison in Constantinople, was converted to Islam. The endof the world did not happen in 1648. In 1578, Helisaeus Roeslin of Alsacecalculated that the world would end during a solar eclipse on 12 August 1654.This was a pretty safe bet as the physician Roeslin would have expected to bepushing up daisies in 1654. However, the eclipse occurred on 11 August 1654.Notwithstanding, people stayed indoors and the churches were filled on 12August.

It was business as usual in the 18th Century with Cardinal Nicholas de Cusadeclaring that the end of the world would be in 1704. Although he was aCardinal, his prediction was not supported by the Vatican, the end did not come.The Swiss Bernoulli family produced eight outstanding mathematicians in threegenerations. Jacques Bernoulli is well known for discovering the mathematicalseries now called Bernoulli Numbers and less well known for his prediction thatthe world would end from a cometary impact on 19 May 1719. Who coulddispute such calculations if they were done by a Bernoulli? Both Bernoulli

Numbers and the world survived.The English had their own William Whiston, who predicted that the world wouldend on 13 October 1736. It didn't. Emmanuel Swedenborg, known for hisscholarly concordance, claimed that he frequently consulted with the angels whorevealed to him that 1757 would be the end. It was not. The English sect leaderJoanna Southcott claimed that the world would end


5/47

HEAVEN +EARTH

in 1774 and that she was pregnant with the New Messiah. The world didn't endand joanna did not deliver a bundle of joy.

England has sporadic earthquakes. The 8 February 1761 earthquake was followed28 days later on 8 March by another earthquake. Wiffiarn Bell persuadedLondoners that the next earthquake would be 28 days later on 5 April. This,rather like climate predictions, was a linear projection based on

two points. Many left towns, mainly by boat. On 6 April Londoners carn, to theirsenses and threw Bell into Bedlam, the institution for the mentally disturbed.

John Turner, prophet and follower of joanna Southcott, predicted that D-Day was

14 October 1820. It was not. The dates of 3 April 1843, 7 July 1843, March 211844 and 22 October 22 1844 were predicted by Wiffiam Miller asend-of-the-world dates. Surely just one date was enough? The end was to bepreceded by a midnight cry in 1831, and a spectacular meteor shower in 1833only strengthened Miller's prophecies. On each appointed date, Millerites wouldgather on hilltops awaiting the end. Up until Miller's death in 1849, the credulousstill believed that Miller could predict the end of the world. Egyptologists got intothe act and, from measurements of the Great Pyramid at Giza, some claimed thatthe world would end in 1881. Remeasuring gave a more accurate date of 1936and even more detailed remeasuring gave the date at 1953. Richard Head, an

example of nominative determinism, published a book in 1684 called The Life andDeath of Mother Sh40ton. A reprint in 1862, replete with forged rhymesattributed to Mother Shipton, predicted the end in 1881. It was then claimed thatthe end was to be in 1891. Anyone for 1981 or 1991?

The 20th Century was no different. Despite the horrors of two world wars, JohnBallou Newbrough predicted that 1947 was the year. The US and othergovernments were going to be crushed and Europe again would have massivedepopulation from war. It didn't. There have been numerous late 20th Centurypredictions of population and environmental catastrophes 2201 in the style ofThomas Malthus (1766-1834), all of which have been spectacularly wrongbecause they omitted to consider advances in science and technology. In 1980s,we had a few choices of dates for the end of the world. When Saturn and Jupiterwere almost in conjunction in the sign of Libra on 31 December 1980, the worldwas to end. It didn't. The planets were aligned on 10 March 1982. A 1974 book,The Jupiter Effect, predicted that there would be earthquakes on that day. Theproblem is that there are earthquakes every das, whether the planets are alignedor not. Earthquakes in 1980 were touted a,

2201 Elrlich, P. 1968: The populalion bomb. Ballantione


6/47

ET MOI page 461

the premature result of "the Jupiter effect". In fact, anything that occurred onplanet Earth at that time was due to "the Jupiter effect". just as today anyextraordinary weather phenomenon is promoted as evidence of global warming.

At some unspecified time in the 1980s, Jeane Dixon predicted that a comet woulddestroy the Earth. It didn't. Since one day for God represents 1000 years for manand God creatively toiled for six days, then man should toil for 6000 years andthen take a rest. A long rest. A permanent rest. By this calculation the worlddidn't end in 1996 although, while in an embrace with Bacchus, I rnight havemissed the end. Quatrain 10-72 of Nostradamus tells us that July 1999 was thetime. It wasn't. Millennium cults had a field day in 1999 and 2000. The worlddidn't end. Computers did not fail with the Y2K bug. Aeroplanes did not fall out ofthe sky. The world just kept on doing' what the world does.

In the late 20th and early 21st Centuries, the world was going to end with anuclear holocaust, Chernobyl, fluoride, a new ice age, DDT, soil loss, planetaryalignments, mega-farnines, AIDS, peak oil and the end of oil, the second coming,9/11, GM foods, breast implants, acid rain, ozone holes, Y2K bug, avian flu,SARS, mad cow disease, acid oceans, asteroid impacts, Cuban crisis, globalwarming, inflation, financial booms, financial crashes, political assassinations,wars and goodness knows what else. At my age, I have experienced all of theseend-of~the-world scenarios, I have experienced three climate changes and haveseen better health, greater longevity, greater wealth, better education, better

transport and less famine. All of them brought to the planet by science,technology and capitalism. More people die in winter than in summer, there ismore depopulation in global cooling events than in global warming events, andyet we are the first generation on planet Earth to fear warmth.

For millennia, people have been predicting the end of the world. Thesepredictions have been based on religion, science and mathematics. They arenormally blessed with moral overtones. If just one of these predictions werecorrect, then we would not be here. Apocalyptic predictions have a 100% failure

rate. It is really very hard indeed to be 100% incorrect. Those making apocalypticpredictions have no interest in improving fife on Earth, they just demonstrate acomplete denial of reality We fragile humans probably need to fear the unknownas a fundamental biological survival mechanism making us alert to dangers.

Climate zealots warn us of a future catastrophe and that we must pay penanceand change our ways. They use a narrow body of science and

462 HEAVEN +EARTH

some mathematics and the message is given with religious vigour. There is, no


7/47

reasoned argument presented, hence reason cannot be used to evaluate contrarydata and change conclusions. One is reminded of the words of ionathan Swift(1667-1745): "It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he neverreasoned into."

Politicians and the public are frightened witless. There is also a universal fear that

the hypothesis that human activity causes global warming will be debated andthat this hypothesis will be shown to have poor foundations. Attempts to restrictfree speech and calls for censorship of alternative views are made by climatezealots. Such actions have characterised salvationist cults down through theages.

1 suggest that we give the climate zealots the same treatment given to previousprophets of doom such as Count von Iggleheim, Stifebus, Rabbi Zevi and WilliamBell. The next time someone comes to your front door and tells you that theworld is going to end, sool the dog onto them. History is on your side.

There is no use for an honest scientist who says "I don't know". Yet uncertainty isthe crux of science whereas certainty underpins religious beliefs. The politiciansand the public prefer to hear scientists give confident black-and~white answersand make confident predictions. Uncertainty and predictions that all is well are farless likely to attract attention than those that say we're doomed.

It is hereby declared that the end of the world is cancelled. History is on my side.

Religion, environmentalism and romanticism

Any system that allows the questioning of beliefs is an enli~ tened system.

The truth can only be determined by having, without fear, vibrant critical andanalytical discussion, by embracing rather than fearing uncertainty and by notsuppressing evidence that may be contrary to one's treasured beliefs. Some 150

years ago, John Stuart Ifill stated:

Complete liberty of contradicting and disproving our opinion is the very conditionwhich justifies us in assuming its truth for purposes of action; and on no otherterms can a being with human faculties have any rational assurance of beingright.

This does not happen with the populist global warming movement. In schoolstoday we teach scientific "facts" the same way as theological "facts" were taughtcenturies ago. Global warming has become the secular religion

ET MOI


8/47

463

of today. In contrast, those in the knowledge business pursue facts and objectivetruths, they are rooted in reality and, on the basis of new validated information,constantly change their conclusions.

Dogma, suppression of alternative ideas and reliance on authority arecharacteristics of fundamentalist religions. Of great concern is that there are dataerrors in the system designed to provide accurate temperature data. It is thisdata that is the cornerstone of the climate models. However, it appears that dataand the scientific process are not required in the new secular religion.

Human-induced global warming is an unproven scientific hypothesis yet it hasbecome an article of scientific dogma. The peer review process in climatologyresearch is controlled by the secular equivalent of the Collegium Romanum, theIPCC. They in turn are answerable to the Inquisition, the global warmingfundamentalists, who in today's world cannot yet resort to instruments of torture.

Despite our comfortable materialistic lives in the Western world, there are manywho ask: Is that all? They want a meaning to fife and yearn for a spiritual life.Some follow the traditional religions, others embrace paranormal beliefs,superstitions and irrationality and many follow a variety of spiritual paths.Established religion in Western societies has taken a giant backward step, there is

a huge spiritual gap and many people want something to believe in. In fact, manywill believe almost anything just to fill the yawning spiritual vacuum.

A new religion has been invented to fulfil this need: extreme environmentalism. Itis an urban atheistic religion disconnected from the environment. The rise inenvironmentalism parallels in time and place the decline of Christianity andsocialism and incorporates many of the characteristics of Christianity andsocialism. just as the Roman Empire discovered, when the masses haveembraced a new religion, the state must follow. Environmentalism is an urban

religion disconnected from Nature, or rural fife, or the realities of food andmineral production. This environmental religion is terrified of doubt, scepticismand uncertainty yet claims to be underpinned by science. It is a fundamentalistreligion with a fear of Nature. It has its own high priests such as Al Gore and itsholy writ, such as the IPCC reports and the Kyoto Protocol. Instant theologicalgratification occurs with the various future scenarios in the IPCC summaries. Likemany religious followers, few have ever thoughtfully read and understood theholy books.

Like many fundamentalist religions, it attracts believers by announcingapocalyptic calamities unless we change our ways. Fear is bankable. The new


9/47

464 HEAVEN +EARTH

environmental religion exploits fear and those who genuinely believe thatsomething must be done to save the planet are attracted to this new religion. Theconverts speak and interact like traditional evangelicals upon conversion ("Howwere you converted?" i.e. How have you established your credentials ~) Its credo

is repeated endlessly and a new language has been invented that separatesbelievers from non-believers. Environmental evangelism has a ritual andlanguage that has replaced substance. Logic, questioning or contrary data are notpermitted. Heretics are inquisitorially destroyed. In 1600, Giordano Bruno wasburned at the stake for supporting the Copernican theory of a Sun-centreduniverse. In 1632, Galileo was accused of heresy for supporting the Copernicanview and was forced to retract. Now the Royal Society has issued an edictexcommunicating all those who argue that the Sun and not human activitycauses variations in the Earth's climate. Again, it is the Sun that appears to becausing all the trouble.

A new class of high priest resorts to the traditional methods of enforcement. Inorder to establish the essential fear-provoking scenario they have nominated inthe role of original sin one particular element, one element out of the 92 naturalelements in the periodic table. To the rational mind it is a bizarre choice, yet onethat conforms to the long-established principles of the founding of authoritativereligions. Why is it bizarre? If you are of a mind to seek out mystery, magic andmiracles look no further than the sixth member of the periodic table of elements.

Like other fundamentalist apocalyptic religions, it states that now is the mostimportant time in history and people are told that humanity is facing the greatestcrisis ever. We must make great sacrifices. Now. This nem, environmental religionis underpinned by judeo-Christian thinking: If the world has changed, then wehumans are to blame. This New Age religion tries to remystify the world, a worldthat its adherents neither experience nor try to understand.

The environmental religion produces widespread fear and a longing for simpleall-encompassing narratives. It offers an alternative and static account of a

natural world with which adherents have little contact. Environmentabsrn is not aconnection with the natural world. The greens' construction of selfunderstandingparallels New England (USA) Puritanism, where the structure of what is beingsaid is of import, not what is being said. Environmentafisrn is an ascientificdisconnection from the natural world arising from a modern

urban lifestyle where the necessities of fife come from shops. An urban lifeshields consumers from the effects of their lifestyle, they become blameless andenjoy the fruits of an affluent consumer fife while producing httle.


10/47

ET M0I page:465

Vicarious experiences with Nature are learned and romanticised via television orthe internet. The urban environmentalist does not experience flood, drought,forest fires, subsistence farming, crop failures, dust storms, insect plagues andchanging seasons. The urban environmentalist does not know about or appreciate

seasonal foods because of rapid international trade.

Environmentalism develops a righteous cause, politicians promise to save thisand that and the media are provided with a never-ending source of drama withall the essential ingredients. Unholy alliances are forged between environmentalgroups with no accountability, politicians, bureaucrats, academics and the media.Minority groups (such as farmers and miners) who provide the basic necessitiesfor urban life are sitting ducks for cheap shots by environmental groups andpoliticians.

The doomsdayers promote their new religion with seven-second television grabs.A disunity between religion and science is created. Observational science isfield-based, computer modelling is urban-based. The very way in which science isundertaken encourages disunity and exacerbates the divide between the urbanatheistic religion of environmentalism and rural reality. The science that derivedfrom the Enlightenment and which bathes in doubt, scepticism and uncertainty iswillingly thrown overboard. Contrary facts are just ignored, enthusiastic reportingby non-sciendsts is undertaken and new science is reported with alarmistimplications, yet there is no reporting of contrary information. Non-scientific

journalists and public celebrities write polemics that encourage public alarm.

Rabid environmentalism embraces the hallmarks of fundamentalist ChristianityThe end of the world is nigh. judgement Day is at hand. Repent.Environmentalism embraces the Fall - the loss of harmony between man andNature caused by our materialistic society. It romantically searches for the lostEden of the past. In fact, long ago there was only bitter cold, struggle, starvation,malnutrition, death and unemployment. There was no harmony with Nature. Theenvironmentalists' lost Eden never existed. Humans have burned and eaten the

environment since Adarn was a boy. We are the first generation to try to actotherwise.

For billions of people around the world, these are the best times to be alive. FromBeijing to Bratislava to Benin, more of us are living longer, healthier and morecomfortable lives than at any time in history. Fewer of us are suffering frompoverty, hunger or illiteracy. Pestilence, famine, death and war, the FourHorsemen of the Apocalypse, are in retreat, thanks to the liberating forces ofcapitalism, science and technology. If indeed temperature is rising, it is goodnews. Previous warm spells (e.g. Medieval Warming,

466 HEAVEN +EARTH


11/47

Roman Warming, Minoan Warming) are associated with prosperity and th,~advance of civilisation. By contrast, cold has been the deadly killer.

Both environmentalism and fundamentalist religions foster a sense of moralsuperiority in the believer. They create a sense of guilt. Our wickedness has

damaged our inheritance and, although it is almost too late, immediate reformcan transform the future. The fact that we Westerners can Eve a comfortable fifeis exploited as guilt. There is no necessity to tell the truth, as I have found invarious battles with creationists.2202 I see little difference between the US-basedcreationist movements and extreme environmentalism. In Western Europe,extreme environmentalism has superseded Christianity as a modern urbanatheistic religion of the middle classes, and converts witness their faith throughNG0s, the Worldwide Fund for Nature, Greenpeace, World Business Council forSustainable Development, talk fests at Rio, Nairobi and Bali and various UNactivities.

History shows that it was warmer in the Minoan Warming, the Roman Warming,the Medieval Warming and the Late 20th Century Warming. Why is the Late 20thCentury Warming anything special? Both history and science are dismissedbecause they are not in accord with the dogma chanted ad nauseam by the highpriests. It is very dangerous for society to dismiss history because it is not inaccord with dogma. Science is a celebration of doubt, there is always argumentabout data and about the interpretation of data.

The environmental religion embraces anti-human totalitarianism. Someenvironmentalists consider their ideas and arguments to be an indisputable truthand use sophisticated methods of media manipulation and public relationscampaigns to exert pressure on policy makers to achieve their goals. Theirargument is based on the spreading of fear and panic by declaring the future ofthe world to be under serious threat. In such an atmosphere they continuepushing policy makers to adopt illiberal measures, impose arbitrary limits,regulations, prohibitions and restrictions on everyday human activities and makepeople subject to omnipotent bureaucratic decision making.

Global warming hysteria has a chilling effect on free speech. Those scientistswho, on the basis of evidence, have a contrary view are written off as deniers andcompared to Holocaust deniers. If the arguments to support human-inducedglobal warming were undeniably strong, then such hysteria would not benecessary. From Torquemada to McCarthy, we have had calls for censorship onthe basis of protecting the public from dangerous seditious contrary ideas.Torquemada wanted to save humanity from religious heresy * McCarthy wantedto save Americans from communism. Our modern censors

2202 Plimer I.R., 1. R. 1994: Telling lies for God. Random House.

ET M0I page 467:-


12/47

want to save the planet. From what?

A former spokesman of the Royal Society joined 37 other signatories demandingthat a TV company make changes to the Martin Durkin film The Great GlobalWarmin

,g Syindle. It was alleged that this film had a "long catalogue of fundamental andprofound n-iistakes" and that these "major misrepresentations" should beremoved before the film was distributed to the public as a DVD. The sameself-chosen 38 did not write to AI Gore demanding corrections to his filmAnInconvenient Truth. Furthermore, there are thousands of DVDs on sale that makescientific claims to support crackpot ideas. Have the chosen 38, in their spirit ofpublic interest, taken it upon themselves to complain about such anti-scientificideas?

Gore admits that there are errors in his film but, notwithstanding, his film willstimulate debate about climate change amongst school children. This is allowableby the self-appointed chosen 38 because, despite elementary scientific errors, itpresents the correct moral outlook. Because Durkin's film has what has beendeemed an incorrect moral outlook, it is vilified. School children do not have thebreadth and depth of scientific knowledge to demonstrate the scores of scientificerrors in Gore's movie. The Gore film has not stimulated debate amongst schoolchildren. It has been accepted as fact.

The filling of a spiritual vacuum by environmentalism creates an ever greaterspiritual vacuum. The environmental religion based on climate changecatastrophism is itself a catastrophe that we inflict upon ourselves at hugeintellectual, moral, spiritual and economic cost. This has been long recognised byreligious leaders. For example, Australia's Cardinal George Pell wrote:

... pagan emptiness and fears about nature have led to hysteria and extremeclaims about global warming. In the past, pagans sacrificed animals and even

humans in vain attempts to placate capricious and cruel gods. Today theydemand a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.

In science, we are in awe of Nature. In religion, we are in awe of God. Yet thenew environmental religion is in awe of nothing. It is spiritually vacuous andnegative. Christianity has a long tradition of using music for worship. This music,especially from the time of Bach and onwards, underpins all Western music. Theenvironmental religion has no music, no traditions, no scholarship, no nothing.The new environmental religion has no big questions. It has no unknowns. Whenenvironmentalists recognise the religious aspects of their stance, then realdiscussion with scientists becomes possible. Until then, they are no different fromcreationists who claim that their stance is


13/47

HEAVEN +EARTH

scientific when their very foundations are religious, dogmatic and fraudulent.Religion (religare) can mean to bind fast. The contradictory religion ofenvironmentalism has given people a purpose in life and binds disparate (and

desperate) groups. Despite ignoring all the contrary science, this new religionprovides some of the stitches that hold the fabric of society together.

The laboratory for religious fife and practice is experience. Religion is not aboutpie in the sky when we die, it is about the present. Religion tries to make senseof what's happening to us now and gives us the mechanisms whereby we canhave hope for a meaningful life, in spite of crippling disappointments. Religiongives us the mechanism to cope with failure. Environmentalism cannot providefor any of these needs.

The global warming movement has joined disparate groups in a common cause.It has unified a collective of prejudices with a perceived moral high ground. Theenvironmental romantics hate industry, love Nature, idealise peasant fife, believecapitalism is wicked, think people in modern society lead depraved shallow livesand have forgotten the true value of things, don't like cars or supermarkets andhate the average person taking cheap longhaul flights to warm areas for holidays.We humans normally seek a warmer climate for our holidays. Maybe warming isgood for us?

The environmental romantics have a loathing and fear of population increase,seek to return to the past and promote pagan superstitions. Well before thecrutch of global warming appeared, the environmental romantics hated themodern world despite the fact that in industrial societies we live longer, we arehealthier, the air and water are getting cleaner, the area of forests is expandingand we have far greater freedoms than in past times. It is the energy~intensivecommunication systems of the modern world that allow the environmentalromantics to spread the word.

The world of the environmental romantics does not exist. Their world is one thatwould result in no electricity or potable water, and warm food and heating wouldbe from the burning of dung, wood or poor quality coal in an unventilated smallhovel. These fires would en-~t carcinogenic smoke, create respiratory diseases(especially in women), destroy forests and create widespread atmosphericpollution. There would be neither light nor heat in many hovels. The death tollwould be horrendous. Sustainable living is viewed by the environmentalromantics as a virtue. In effect, sustainable living is such that, with the slightestchange in weather, climate or politics, there is disease, mass famine and death.

Sustainability creates a miserable existence, poverty, disease, depopulation andignorance.

Self-denial and a return to the past led to the 600-year Dark Ages after


14/47

ET M0I page 469:-

the fall of the Roman Empire and an age of darkness in the Islamic Empirestarting in 1566 AD. By trying to work with Nature, one faces famine and death.Being creative and riding the waves of change is the only way we humans have

survived. Mother Nature does not build Gardens of Eden for the eco-conscious.She has given us at least 50 mass extinctions, she is the mother of catastropheand constantly changes the unwritten rules.

The tradition of judeo-Christian religions is strongly coupled with philosophicaloptimism. God did not put us here on Earth to moan and groan. Our humanheritage has equipped us well to deal with the challenges from ice ages and cavebears to disease and overpopulation. The whole species cooperated to eliminatesmallpox and the women of Mexico united to reduce their average family size

from 7 to 2.5 in 50 years. Science has helped us to understand challenges and todefeat them. Science is the only way to tackle modern environmental problemssuch as toxic pollutants in our air, water and soil and over-exploitation of theplanet's resources. These problems and their solutions can only be understoodwith apolitical dispassionate science. Non-sciendfic ideological-based extremeenvironmentalism inhibits solutions to problems.

We are one of the most pathetic species on Earth. We are born as hairless,immobile, long-term suckling creatures with neither fangs nor claws. It takesyears before we are independent enough to feed ourselves. Even cockroachesand mice can sprint faster than we can. Yet we live on the ice, at altitude inmountains, at sea level, in the tropics and in deserts. How did we do it? We didnot work with Nature, we conquered Nature. Despite natural disasters. Andbefore we get too arrogant, the ultimate survivors and conquerors of Nature onplanet Earth are bacteria. They are the largest biomass on Earth, have been onEarth for 4000 million years and can survive in a diversity of extremely hostileenvironments. They have survived the five major mass extinctions of fife onEarth.

Photosynthesis for the survival and growth of plants requires CO 2* Animalsrequire plants. A significant reduction in atmospheric CO 2 would slow or evenstop plant growth. The end result of green environmental political policies is notgoing green but going brown by reducing vegetation. This will destroysubsistence agriculture, and create famine and widespread suffering.

Some 40% of the people on Earth have neither reticulated electricity nor potablewater. This is a matter of life and death. These 40% live in impoverished nations.The cheapest electricity is generated from dirty coal and the denial of cheap

electricity to 40% of humans is immoral. In the


15/47

HEAVEN +EARTH

Western world, we take clean water and electricity for granted. This is ademonstration that capitalism, science and technology have delivered on a trulyspectacular scale. However, the policies of the Western-based green movementskeep impoverished people in misery, exacerbate curable disease, create food

shortages, destroy economies, kill people and offer no practical solutions to theplight of those without potable water and electricity.

The romantic environmentalists just don't care, or prefer not to care, as long asthey adhere to their political faith. Once the ideology has been shown to bespectacularly wrong, the environmental romantics just move onto another causeunderpinned by another flawed ideology. This suspension of disbelief, criticalfacilities and scepticism and the reliance on faith has long been known as ahuman fragility.2203 Environmental romantic policies are already starting to bite.Many Western cities are now having water shortages and irregular electricity

supply because no new dams and coal- or nuclear fired power stations have beenbuilt as a result of decades of green political pressure.

One hears, "If AI Gore's film has inaccuracies, isn't it worth it just to get themessage across?" It's professionally unacceptable, unethical and untruthful.That's why. In comfortable Western countries, a little fiction ma~do little harmand may even result in some good. However, in developing countries diversion ofresources to address the myth of human~induced climate change promoted byGore is catastrophic. Funds could otherwise be used to help with pressing issues

such as clean water supplies, reticulated electricity, health services andeducation.

Global warming hysteria is big business. Just follow the money. Various greenmovements claim that those who do not accept the hypothesis that humans arecausing climate change have this view because they are supported by thepetroleum and coal industries. A US Senate report shows that the greens are thebest-funded quarter of the advocacy industry. Between 1998 and 2005, the 50biggest green movements in the USA attracted revenue of $22.5 billion2204 This is

the GDP of a few impoverished African countries. Such funds could providemassive improvements in the health of millions of people and would have a fargreater environmental impact on the planet than advocacy.

2203 The Wiilling suspension of disbelief for the moment, which conslitutes poeticfaith " (Biographia Literatia, Chapter XIV [1817], Samual Taylor Coleridge[1772-1834).

2204 http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm??

FuseAction=Minority,Blogs&ContentRecord-id= 38d98cOa-23ad-48ac-d9f7facb61a7

ET MOI page 471:-


16/47

Bjorn Lomborg provides a faint glimmer of boring objectivity2205,2206 He hasundertaken cost-benefit analyses of global challenges such as disease, pollution,conflict, terrorism, climate change, water and so on. Climate change does noteven make his top ten list. If $1 billion is spent on the important problems, some600,000 children will be prevented from dying and about two billion people willbe saved from malnutrition. A $2 billion expenditure on climate change wouldonly stop warming by about two minutes at the end of the 21st Century. If $60

million per annum is spent on micro-nutrient supplements for malnourishedchildren, yearly benefits through improved health, fewer deaths and increasedearnings would be worth more than $1 billion. Deworming and community-basednutrition, ending trade tariffs and clean water are not glamorous. The mostspectacular pictures of glaciers calving, hurricanes and cute animals such as apolar bear allegedly stranded on ice do not show the most pressing issues forhumanity~ If the emotion and hysteria of the climate change argument wereremoved and there were a quest to find the objective truth about the state of theplanet, then more pressing issues might be on the agenda. The green movementseems to be quite happy to turn a blind eye to pressing issues such as medicine

and nutrition.

Since the inception of the Kyoto Protocol, some $10 billion a month has beenspent to avert a speculated 0.5oC temperature rise by 2050. These funds wouldalready have provided all of the Third World with potable water, reticulatedelectricity and would have reduced global atmospheric pollution.

And yet many environmentalists cant about morality and ethics!

The Kyoto Protocol

'On 2 February 2007, amid great fanfare, the IPCC released the SummatyforPoligmakers for the Fourth Assessment Report. The press release stated:

The 2007 IPCC report, compiled by several hundred climate scientists, hasunequivocally concluded that our climate is warming rapidly, and that weare now at least 90% certain that this is mostly due to human activities.The amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere now far exceeds thenatural range of the past 650,000 years, and it is rising very quickly due tohuman activity. If this trend is not halted soon, many millions of people willbe at risk from extreme events such as heat waves, drought,

2205.... Lomborg, B. 2001: The Skeptical Environmentalist. Cambridge UniversityPress.

2206 Lomborg, B. 2007: Cool It! The skeptical environmentakst's guide to globalwarming. Published online 31st August 2007.

HEAVEN +EARTH page 472:-


17/47

floods and storms, our coasts and cities will be threatened by rising sealevels, and many ecosystems, plants and animal species will be in seriousdanger of extinction.

The Kyoto Protocol is based on global temperature changes and atmospheric CO

2 changes. A plot of various temperature estimates (Hadley and satellite) againstCO 2 concentration (Mauna Loa) since the Kyoto Protocol shows that there is nocorrelation between temperature and CO 2, yet a correlation betweentemperature and CO 2 was the entire basis for the Kyoto Protocol. In fact, thetemperature-C02 Plot shows cooling despite an increase in atmospheric CO 2*Furthermore, the CO 2 rise is linear yet CO ' emissions from rapidly growingeconomies like China and India are certainIv not linear. This immediately ringsalarm bells about the reliability of CO 2 measurements. Oceans, soils and plantsalready absorb at least half of the human CO 2 emissions and human emissionsare dwarfed by the balanced natural system. For example, termite methane

emissions are 20 times more potent than human CO 2 emissions, and massivevolcanic eruptions (e.g. Pinatubo) emit the equivalent of a year's human C02emissions in a few days.

The Kyoto Protocol classifies the Gulf States as developing countries, hence theyare under no obligation to reduce CO 2 emissions. They can produce amegawatt-hour of electricity using Australian coal for $US17.49 (mid 2008dollars). Using home-grown petroleum products, they can generate amegawatt-hour of electricity using their own gas ($US41.34) or oil ($US79.50). Itis far cheaper for the Gulf States to import Australian coal for electricitygeneration and sell petroleum. The sun-drenched Gulf States generate acombined 36 megawatts of solar electricity. In 2007, gloomy Germany produced1300 megawatts. The Gulf States have used their developing country capacity togenerate the cheapest power whereas the Germans have used the mostexpensive and unreliable method for generating electricity. When science andeconomics are ruled by ideology, bizarre events occur.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear

The hypothesis that human activity can create global warming is extraordinarybecause it is contrary to validated knowledge from solar physics, astronom~',history, archaeology and geology. Extraordinary claims require extraordinaryevidence. The requirement for extraordinary evidence has tempted somescientists to create evidence by a diversity of dubious methods.


18/47

ET M0I page 473:-

Irving Langnluir... argued that there is good science, pathological science andpseudoscience. Langrnuir argued that there are cases where there is nodishonesty involved but where people are tricked into false results by a lack ofunderstanding about how humans can be led astray by subjective effects, wishful

thinking and threshold interactions. Pathological science attracts much mediaattention, even for decades, and then is quietly forgotten. Larignluir's Rules are:

i. The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent ofbarely detectable intensity.

ii. All observations are near the threshold of optical visibility.

iii. There are claims of great accuracy.

iv. Fantastic theories contrary to experience are created.

v. Criticisms are met by ad hocexcuses thought up on the spur of themoment. There is always an instantaneous answer to criticism.

vi. The ratio of supporters to critics rises to near 50% and then decreasesgradually to oblivion. During this process, only supporters can reproducethe effects, critics cannot.

The science supporting human-induced global warming fails on at least three ofLanginuir's Rules.

In my experience of more than 40 years of science, scientific research is difficult,takes time, one's favourite theories may require abandonment on the basis ofnew validated evidence, and significant new discoveries contrary to theestablished validated body of evidence are rare. Scientists hold no shining moralbeacon. Many findings are promoted with over-enthusiasm and delusion is notuncommon. As with any other discipline, fraud, creating data ex nihilo, stupidityand mistakes occur. Charles Babbage (1792-187 1)2211 suggested that there arethree forms of scientific dishonesty:

i. Trimming (the smoothing of irregularities to make data look extremelyaccurate).

ii. Bias (retention of data that fits the theory and discarding data that doesnot fit the theory), and

iii. Forging (inventing some or all of the data).

Some science supporting human-induced global warming (most notably the"hockey stick of Mann) fulfils at least two of these criteria. Creation "science"

fulfils them all. Fraud in science is undertaken, like other fraud, for

2207 Langtnuir, 1. 1989: Pathological science: scientific studies based onnon-existent phenomena. Physics Today36: 47 (transcribed and edited by R. N.


19/47

Hall).

2208 Feder, K. 1996: Frauds, myths, and mysteries.. Science and pseudosdence inarchaeology. Mayfield Publishing


20/47

HEAVEN +EARTH page 474

financial gain, fame, nationalism, racial pride, religion and a Rousseauvian desirefor a romantic past. Some pseudoscience, such as creation "science", is the fruitof an unsound mind.

Figure 54: Mann ~ "hockey stick" which fulfills, two of the three criteria of

Babbage for scientific dishonesty. The "hockey slick" manages to ignore thehundreds of scientific studies that show the Medieval Warming (900-1300 AD)was far warmer than at present and the Little Ice Age (1300-1850 AD) was farcolder than at present. The "hockey slick " attempts to show that 20th Centurytemperatures have risen at an unprecedented rate.

It just suits an awful lot of people to believe that human activity has a significanteffect on temperature. These are environmental movements under various guises(e.g. Greenpeace, WWF, F6E), the Green political parties, politicians (who wish to

use the hypothesis to justify various actions or a lack of action), the media(whose survival is based on attention-grabbing stories), some scientists (who seeit as a treasure chest to plunder for research and to increase reputations) and theIPCC (whose raison d'etre would disappear if no human influence was found).

Scientists, like other professions, do not have a mortgage on ethics, morality andhonesty. However, the validation, repeatability and coherence processes ofscience are a long-term audit of science. This process has detected mistakes,fraud, cultural bias and incompetency.2210 I do not think that scientists manipulatetheir results to get on the gravy train of research

2210Gould, S. J. 1996: The mismeasure of man. NortonET M0I page 475:-


21/47

funding. However, there are limited funds for research and if there is a popularsubject of research, then it is funded better than other areas. If there is a war oncancer, then a higher proportion of biological research becomes cancer research.If we are frightened to death about the effects of global warming creating moreinsect-borne disease, then it makes good electoral sense to make more fundingavailable for insect-borne disease research.

Although Occam's Razor2210 is commonly used in science and is a general rule ofthumb, sometimes Nature plays cruel tricks and the simplest explanation is notnecessarily the explanation supported by data. Hypotheses must be tested. Thehypothesis that human activity has produced global warming fails on a number ofcounts. Once there is an initial hypothesis, then specific testable predictions aremade. Predictions made from the hypothesis that humans have produced globalwarming have failed.

Our Western society is based on science. It is this science that has given ustechnology. This technology has been used by capitalism to create wealth.Notwithstanding, there are a large number of people in Western countries whobelieve weird things. Nfichael Schermer has identified some 25 fallacies that leadpeople to believe weird things .221 ' The theory that human activity has producedglobal warming follows at least six of these 25 fallacies.

Flawed scientific papers that accept the popular paradigm are easily published.Papers critical of the popular paradigm and the replies to criticism are moredifficult to publish. For example, it was claimed that the summer temperature inBurgundy (France) could be derived from 1370 AD to the present from grapeharveStS.2212 The paper claimed that 2003 was the warmest summer since1370 and this bold assertion certainly would have helped publication and mediapublicity. After a tortuous effort to obtain the authors' primary data, andcomplaints to Nature, it was statistically shown by Douglas Keenan 2211 thatthere was no basis for this claim. Keenan writes on his website:

What is important here is not the truth or falsity of the assertion of Chuine et al.

about Burgundy temperatures. Rather, what is important is that a paper on whatis arguably the world's most important scientific topic [global warming] waspublished in the world's most prestigious scientific journal with essentially nochecking of the work prior to publication.

.... Enlia non sunt muliiplicanda.

Schermer, M. 199 7: Why people believe weird things. Pseudoscience,superstitions and other confusions Of our time. W H. Freeman and Company.

.... Chuine, L, Yiou, X, Viovy, X, Seguin, B., Daux, V. and LeRoy Ladurie, E. 2004:Grape ripening as a past climate indicator. Nature 432: 289-290.


22/47

211 ' Keenan, D. J. 2007: Grape harvest dates are poor indicators of summerwarmth. Theoretical and Applied Climatology 87: 255 - 256.


23/47

476 HEAVEN +EARTH

This is not the first rime that editors and reviewers ofNature had not checked thework of authors making astounding claims (e.g. Mann el al.).

The Stern Review looks very impressive. A reader of the first 21 pages devoted to"The Science of Climate Change" could not fail to be impressed by the 74references and the opening to the Chapter:

An overwhelming body of scientific evidence now clearly indicates that climatechange is a serious and urgent issue. The earth's climate is rapidly changing,mainly as a result of increases in greenhouse gases caused by human activity.

The science, of course, says nothing of the sort. Science does not say climate

change is a serious and urgent issue. Politicians and environmental activists makesuch claims. The science does not say that the Earth's climate is rapidlychanging. Climate is changing, as it always does, but the current changes are farslower than previous changes. Even the IPCC does not agree with Stern'sassertions. The 1PCC.... states that: "most of the warming over the last 50 yearsis likely to have been due to an increase in greenhouse gas concentrations".

Nothing is written about humans or rapidly changing climate yet we are warnedby Stern that temperature will rise 0.7'C over the next 150 years. This is exactly

what has happened over the last 150 years of post-little Ice Age climate. This isnot a rapid rise and the fluctuations in temperature over the last 150 years areno guarantee that the temperature will rise. It may fall, as it has done in thepast.

The Stern report distorts IPCC statements by claiming: "The IPCC concluded in2001 that there is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observedover at least the past 50 years is attributable to human activities."

The IPCC statement actually was: "There is new and stronger evidence that mostof the warming observed over the past 50 years is attributable to humanactivities." Stern has exaggerated by adding the words "at least" and somehowomits to mention that for half of the past 50 years the climate was actuallycooling. Furthermore, Stern has exaggerated the models for temperatureincrease by the IPCC. He has tried to include methane gas in his scientificsummary, a greenhouse gas that Stern argues has been increasing for the last 50years. It has not. The Stern report makes no attempt to explain why temperaturehas been decreasing since 1998. Stern claims that:

If annual greenhouse gas emissions remained at the current

2211 IPCC, 2001: Climate Change 2001. The scientific basis. Contributions of


24/47

ivorkinggroup I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panelon Climate Change (eds Houghton, J. 1, jenkins, G. J. and Ephraums, J. J.),Cambridge University Press.

ET MOI

level, concentrations would be more than treble pre-industrial levels by 2100,comrnitting the world to 3 to I O'C warming level based on the latest climateprojects.

Wrong. There is no established relationship between greenhouse gas emissionsand greenhouse concentrations in the atmosphere. Reducing emissions does notnecessarily mean a reduction in atmospheric concentrations, unless humans arethe only force driving all natural processes on planet Earth.

The Stern Review ignores one of the rare notes of caution in an IPCC Summaty toPoligmakers, which suggests that observed changes may be explained by thegreenhouse effect "but do not exclude the possibility that other forcings havecontributed"."" The Stern Review disregards such caution and claims that: "morethan a decade of research and discussion .... has reached the conclusion thatthere is no other plausible explanation for the observed warming for at least thepast 50 years."'

This is untrue. There have been many plausible explanations advanced in

2217,2218,2211 2220

the scientific literature, one of which states:

... the global warming observed during the last 150 years is just a

short episode in the geologic history. The current global warming is most likely acombined effect of increased solar and tectonic activities and cannot be attributedto the increased anthropogenic

impact on the atmosphere. Humans may be responsible for less than 0.01'C (ofapproximately 0.56'C total average atmospheric heating during the last century).

The Stern Review ignored any contrary sciendfic research. Stern does not even

understand that models trained to emulate the last 150 years of

.... Summatyfor Poligmakers, p. 10, in: IPCC, 2001: Climate Change 2001. The


25/47

scienfific basis. Conffibutions of workinggroup I to the ThirdAssessmentReport ofthe Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds Houghton, J. 1, jenkins, G.J. and Ephraums, J. J.), Cambridge University Press.

"' Stern Review, page 3.

121' Kalmay, E. and Cai, M. 2003: Impact of urbanization and land use change onclimate. Nature 423: 528-531.

211 ' de Laat, A. T. J. and Maurellis, A. N. 2004: Industrial C02 emissions as aproxy for anthropogenic influence on lower troposphere temperature trends.Geophysical Research Lietters 31, L0524, doi: 10.1029/2003GLO19024.

221' Hale, R. C., Gallo, K. P, Owen, T. W and Loveland, T. R. 2006: Land use/land

cover change effects on temperature trends at U.S. Climate Normals stations.Geop~ysical Research Utters 33: L1 1703.

222' Khilyuk, L. E and Chifingar, G. V 2006: On global forces of nature driving theEarth's climate. Are humans involved? Environmental Geology 50: 899-910.


26/47

478 HEAVEN +EARTH

climate using data from many source S1211,2222,2223 are only successful atpredicting warming and failed spectacularly at predicting the cooling from 1998onwards.

The first page of Stern's science has basic errors of fact, exaggeration,misquotation, opinion, science created ex nihilo and fulfilment of pre-ordaineddogma. And it gets worse. For example, diagrams are redrafted with differentbase lines and the omission of the order of accuracy and the discussion on Mann's"hockey stick" just happens to omit the scientific demolition of the "hockey stick".These little difficulties in Mann's work are brushed under the carpet because eventhough temperatures are little different from the past, temperature is only one ofthe "fines of evidence for human-induced climate change". If temperatureessentially does not change, then it is hard to see that climate is changing. Sternstates that these fines of evidence rest on "the laws of physics and chetnistry".

What laws? It appears that if the facts do not agree with the pre~ordainedconclusion then they must be dismissed.

The Review is underpinned by the preconceived idea that climate is exclusivelyinfluenced by greenhouse gases. The Stern Review, an economic analysis, doesnot even acknowledge that another major review in the UK on the economics ofclimate change 1124 was conducted shortly before the Stern Review wascommissioned. This does not give confidence.

Leading economists worldwide have totally demolished the SternRevieW2225,2226,2227,2228,2229,2230,2231 and economists and scientistshave shown

211 Myashtorin, L. B. and Lyubushin, A. A. 2003: On the coherence betweendynarnics of the world fuel consumption and global temperature anomaly. Energyand Environment14: 733-782.

2222 Loeffle, C. 2004: Climate change: detection and attribution trends fromlong-term geologic data. Ecological Modelling 171: 433-450.

2123 Kotov, S. R. 2001: Near-term climate prediction using ice-core data fromGreenland. ln: Geolo

,gkalperspeclives on global climate cban

ge (eds Gerhard, L. C. et al), Studies in Geology, American Association ofPetroleum Geologists 47: 305-316.


27/47

1124 House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs, 2"d report of Session20052006. The Economics ofClimate Cbange. Volume 1: Report. Volume 11:Evidence.

122' Byatt, L, Castles, l., Goklany, 1. M., Henderson, D., Lawson, N., MclGtrick, R.,Morris, j., Peacock, A., Robinson, C. and Skidelsky, R. (2006): The Stern Review:

A dual critique. Part 11: Economic aspects. World Economics 7(4) 199-229.

222' Tol, R. S. J. and Yohe, G. W 2006: A review of the Stern Review. WorldEconomics 7 (4): 233-250.

112' Henderson, D. 2006: Report, response and review: An argument in Britainon climate change issues. Ener

gy and Environment17.

1221 Mendelson, R. 0. 2006: A critique of the Stern Report (sic). Regulation29(4).

222` Dasgupta, R 2007: The Stern review's economics of climate change.National Institute hconomic Review199.

12 h, Beckerman, W and Hepburn, C. 2007: Ethics of the discount rate in theStern Review on the economics of climate change. World Economics 8 (1).

22 ` Henderson, D. 2007: Governments and climate change issues: A case forrethinking. U'~)rld I ~rononnis 8 (2): 183-228.

ET MOI

479

that both the economics and science of the Stern Review are highly 2212,2111

questionable. It is little wonder that the Stern Review has been dismissed as arather shabby political document unrelated to science which reached itspre-ordained conclusions.

The Stern Review, as well as the IPCC, implicitly assume that without someregulatory intervention future use of fossil fuel would continue unconstrained bysupply and price. None of these reports considers any possibility of shortagescreated by green politics and what this might mean. None of these reports


28/47

predicted the global financial meltdown. If Stern, an economist, cannot make aprediction in his own area of expertise, then what hope is there of his predictionsabout climate change?

The Stern Review fails to refer to any science that contradicts the claim that thescience of greenhouse gas-induced global warming is settled. It also fails to note

that the computer models are trained to emulate the last 150 years oftemperature measurement but have failed in forward projections. It fails toacknowledge that studies of past climate over different time scales all havesuggested that there is both warming and cooling and that Earth is in aninterglacial hence the next major climate change will be cooling. 2234,2235,2236

The Stern Review emphasises "significant melting and an acceleration of ice flowsnear the coast" and the possibility of "irreversible" melting of the Greenland icesheet. Of the four papers relied on to make these statements, two show a netgain in the Greenland ice sheet, 2237,2238 the third indicates an ice JOSS221'

and the fourth uses meteorological models to show no significant trend .22` Thisselective use of data does Stern no credit. Papers that show

2232 Carter, R. M., de Freitas, C. R., Goldany, 1. M., Holland, D. and I-indzen, R.S. 2006: The Stern review: A dual critique. Part 1: The science. W1orldEconomics 7(4): 167-198.

1211 Carter, R. M., de Freitas, C. R., Goldany, 1. M., Holland, D. and Lindzen, R.

S. 2007: Climate science and the Stern Review. World Economics 8(2).

2214 Khiluk, L. E and Chilingar, G. V 2006: On global forces of nature driving theEarth's climate. Are humans involved? Environmental Geology50: 899-910.

2211 Myashtorin, L. B. and Lyubushin, A. A. 2003: On the coherence betweendynamics of the world fuel consumption and global temperature anomaly. Energyand Environment 14: 733-782.

12` Loeffle, C. 2004: Climate change: detection and attribution of trends fromlong-term geologic data. Ecolo

,gicalModellin

,g 171: 433-450.

1217 Zwally, H. j., Giovanetto, M. B., Li, H., Cornejo, H. j., Beckley, M. A.,Brenner, A. C., Saba, J. L. and Yi, D. 2005: Mass changes of the Greenland andAntarctic ice sheets and shelves and contributions to sea-level rise: 1992-2002.Journal of Gladology51: 490-527.


29/47

2238 johannessen, 0. M., Khvorostoysky, K., Miles, M. W and Bobylev, L. R 2005:Recent ice-sheet growth in the interior of Greenland, www.scienceexpress.org,20,h October 2005.

2211 Rigot, E. and Kanagaratnam, R 2005: Changes in the velocity structure of

the Greenland ice sheet. Science 311: 986-990.

"" Hanna, E., Huybrechts, R, janssens, L, Cappelin, j., Steffan, K. and Stephens,A. 2005: Runoff and mass balance of the Greenland ice sheet.Journal ofGeotbysical Researrb 110: doi 10.1029/2004JD005641.

HEAVEN +EARTH

that Greenland is colder than it was in 1940.... and that temperature is littlechanged from the 1780S1141 were just ignored. The Review also does not statethat Greenland was as warm or warmer in the I 930S114' and that the Antarcticice sheet is growing." The Stern Review also did not acknowledge theuncertainties and knowledge gaps in science, it relied on studies for which therewas no disclosure of primary data and methods, it relied on advocacy documentsand not scientific documents, and it uncritically accepted models to explain thecauses of climate.

The Stern Review does not recognise that the societies with the cleanest air andwater, the greatest abundance and highest nutrition of foods, and the mostaesthetically and socially pleasing and hygienic environments, are communitiesthat maximise their use of technology and industry.

The Stern Review gave the UK government exactly what it wanted. The Britishtaxpayer did not get value for money and should be angry. Very angry.

In Australia in 2008, the Garnaut Report on climate change and emissions tradingcommissioned by the Labor government was released. Professor Garnautregularly speaks in public about carbon pollution derived from industry. He has ahobby cattle farm and must know that his stock are a massive emitter ofmethane, a potent greenhouse gas. Since 1995, he has been chairman of LihirGold Ltd, a company that dumps millions of tonnes of waste and tailings in theocean adjacent to coral reefs. He is also a director of Ok Tedi Nfining Ltd. In1999, the Ok Tedi tailings dam failed, some 80 Mt of tailings contaminated 120villages over 1300 square kilometres and affected 50,000 people along the Fly

River (Papua New Guinea).

There was one paper'141 that was used to resolve an issue in the latest IPCCreport. The 1PCC argued that effects on temperature by urbanisation are


30/47

insignificant (i.e. urban heat island effect). This paper had Wei-Chyung

1141 Chylek, R, Box, J. E. and Lesins, G. 2004: Global warming and theGreenland ice sheet. Climatic Change 63: 201-221.

1142 Vinther, B. M., Andersen, K. K., jones, P D., Briffa, K. R. and Cappelen, J.2006: Extending Greenland temperature records into the late eighteenth century.Journalof Geophysical Research 111: doi 10. I 029/2005JD00681 0.

2211 Polyakov, 1. V., Alekseev, G. V, Bekryaev, R. V, Bhatt, U., Colony, R. L.,johnson, M. A., Karklin, V P, Makshtas, A. P, Walsh, D. and Yulin, A. V 2002:Observationally based assessment of polar amplification of global warming.Geophysical Research Letters 29: doi 10.1029/2001GLO11111.

1211 Wingham, D. j., Shepherd, J. A., Muir, A., and Marshall, G. J. 2006: Massbalance of the Antarctic ice sheet. Philosophical Transactions of the PS,~yalSodeo A 364: 1627-1635.

2141 joneS, P. D., Groisman, R Y, Coughlan, M., Plummet, N., Wang, W-G, andKarl, T R. 1990: Assessment of urbanization effects in rime series of surface airtemperature over land. ,'\'ature 347: 169-172.

ET M01

481

Wang as an author, as did another on the same subjeCt.224' Each papercompares temperature measurements from selected meteorological stations inChina from 1954-1983. One of the stations relied upon by Wang was on theprevailing upwind side of a city and later moved 25 km to be on the downwindside of a city. Another station was in the centre of a city and then was moved 15

km to the seashore. The papers claim respectively:

The stations were selected on the basis of station history; we chose those withfew, if any, changes in instrumentation, location or observation times... [and]They were chosen based on station histories: selected stations have relativelyfew, if any, changes in instrumentation, location or observation time.

These statements are the essential foundation for both papers and bothstatements are untrue. The authors chose 84 meteorological stations, 49 of whichhad no station history. 1241 Of the remaining 35 stations, one had five differentlocations from 1954 to 1983 up to 11 km apart, at least half the stations hadsubstantial moves and several stations had an inconsistent 2241


31/47

history making reliable data analysis unattainable.

The lead author in the first paper (PD. jones) is one of the two coordinating leadauthors of the IPCC chapter "Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change". It wasthe same jones who co-authored a paper with data from Beijing and Shanghaithat showed that station relocation substantially affected the measured

temperatureS.22` This paper is in direct contradiction to the paperjonesco-authored with Wang. ApproacheS2211 fora copy of the primary data fromjones (University of East Anglia) were met with silence and then, 'Why should Imake the data available to you, when your aim is to try to find something wrongwith it?" Every attempt to acquire the primary data was stonewalled. The UKFreedom of Information Act was then used, and the university initially refused torelease the data. A copy of a draft letter to the UK Information Commissioner'sOffice finally forced the university to release the data. The primary data wasmade available in April 2007, some

211,1 Wang, W_C., Z and Karl, T R. 1990: Urban heat islands in China.Geophysical

Research Letters 17: 23Zeng.,

77-2380.

2117 http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/ndps/ndp039.html

12` http://www.infomath.org/apprise/a5620/b17.htm

2119 Yan, Z., jones, P. D., Davies, T D., Moberg, A., Bergstr6m, H., Camuffo, D.,Cocheo, G, Maugeri, M., Demar~e, G. R., Verhoeve, T, Thoen, E., Barriendos, M.,Rodriguez, R., MartinVide, J. and Yang, C. 2002: Trends of extreme temperaturesin Europe and China based on daily observations. Climatic Chan

ge 53: 355-392.

22` Approaches by Dr Warwick Flughes (Australia) wanting to evaluate primarydata as

part of an urban heat island study and by Professor Hans von Storch (Germany)in an US Academy of Sciences presentation, 2nI March 2006.

HEAVEN +EARTH


32/47

17 years after the two papers relied upon by the IPCC were published. Sincethen, a number of papers have shown that the global warming measured in2251,2252

China is due to urbanisation.

There was fabrication of data upon which the 1PCC relied, there was a lack ofintegrity in some important work on global warming, and the normal process oftransparency and release of sciendfic data was not used. It is clear thaturbanisation effects on temperature measurements are highly significant. TheIPCC's claim in 2007 that urbanisation is insignificant is invalid.

It took nearly eight years and direct action from the US House of

Representatives before the data and computer programs for the 1998 Mann et

al. "hockey stick" were released. These showed a lack of robustness, statisticalflaws and fraud. The IPCC used the "hockey stick" with great fanfare in the

S2211

1PCC's 2001 report and highlighted it in the Summa7forPoligmaker. It did notappear in the IPCC's next report, save for an obtuse reference buried in thescientific part of the report.21` There was no explanation. This suggests that the1PCC knew that the "hockey stick" had no validity. If the "hockey stick" was valid,it would have been the only science that suggested humaninduced globalwarming. The "hockey stick" is still used by environmental extremists and somescientists promoting human-induced global warming.

Two prominent meteorologists took issue with the cherry picking of scientificinformation used in the IpCC.2111 Where peer-reviewed papers in internationaljournals conflicted with the view that global near-surface temperature isincreasing, these papers were just simply ignored. The public would not be awarethat such science was not considered, would assume that the IPCC had beenobjective and would clearly be influenced by a conclusion based on incomplete

information. In fact, the public had every reason to be confident that all thecompeting data and conclusions would be aired because the 1PCC's 2007 reportstated that it was :2211 "A comprehensive and rigorous

12MYihui, D., Guoyu, R., Zongci, L, Ying, X., Yong, L., Qia.oping, L. and jin, Z.2007: Detection, causes and projection of climate change over China: overviewof recent progress.Advances in Atmospheric Sciences 24: 954-97 1.

2252 He,J. E, Lu,j. Y, Zhuang, D. E, Zhang, W and 1ju, M. L. 2007: Assessing theeffect of land use/land cover change on the change of urban heat islandintensity~ TheoredealandApplied Climatolo


33/47

gy 90: 217-226.

2211 IPCC, 2001: Climate Change 2001. The scientific basis. Contribution ofworkin th

,g group I to e Third Assessment Reporl of the Inter

,governmental Panel on Ckmate Change (eds Houghton, J. M, jenkins, G. J. andEphraums,J. J.), Cambridge University Press.

2211 IPCC, 2007: Climate Cban

ge 2007. Thepbysicalscience basis. Contribution of workinggroup I to the Fourth

Assessment Report of the Inter

governmental Panel on Climate Change (eds Solomon et al.) CambridgeUr~versity Press.

121'http://chmatesci.colorado.edu/2007/06/20/documentadon-of-ipcc-wgl-bias-by-roger a-pielke-sr-and-daflas-staley-part-l/

'2" http://xx-uu,.ipcc.ch

ET MOI

483

picture of the global present state of knowledge of climate change."

Such papers were readily available to the 1PCC lead authors. Their omissionsuggests that both the science and the executive summary of IPCC reports hadpre-ordained conclusions. The rejected papers were not redundant, they just didnot support the assessment presented in the IPCC WG1 Report. Examples of onlysix of the dozens of omitted papers show the lack of objectivit)~2257,2258,2259,2260,2261,2262 In the crucial chapter (Chapter 9) of the IPCCreport, 40 of the 53 authors have either co-authored papers with each other orwork in the same establishments as other authors of

2263 this chapter. There is every possibility that they have also acted as peerreviewers for each other. This strongly suggests that the IPCC's claims are thoseof a small group of climate modellers and not a cross-section of various


34/47

disciplines that deal with climate, palaeochmate, atmospheric studies, solarphysics, astronomy, archaeology, history and geology. This group of climatemodellers has everything to gain and nothing to lose by promoting just oneargument. There is one constant: there is no shortage of self-styled climateexperts willing to make diabolical predictions and to cast shadows of doom.

Numerous scientific papers contradict the 1PCC predictions of increased extremeweather, floods and droughts due to human-induced global warming. All of thesescientific studies are ignored by the 1PCC. For example, the June 2003 issue ofthe scientific journal Natural Ha~ards was devoted to ascertaining whetherextreme weather is a result of human emission of CO 2* The editors concludedthat most studies found no such connection. This shows that there is also nocausation. River flow data of 44-100 years

121' Hansen, j., Ruedy, j., Glascoe, J. and Sato, M. 1999: GISS analysis ofsurface temperature change.Journal of Geop~ysical Research 104:

30997-31022.

2211 Chase, T N., Pielke, R. A. Snr, Knaff, J. A., Kittel, T E G. and Eastman, J. L.2000: A comparison of regional trends in 1979-1997 depth-averagedtropospheric temperatures. Internalionaljournal of Climatolo

gy 20: 503-518.

2259 Lim, Y. K, Cai, M., KaInay, E. and Zhou, L. 2005: Observational evidence ofsensitivity of surface climate changes to land types and urbanization. GeophysicalResearch Letters 32: L22712, doi: 10.1029/2005GLO2424267.

2M0 Gonzfflez, J. E., Luvall, J. C., Rickman, D., Comarazamy, D. E., Pic6n, A. j.,Harmsen, E. W, Parsiani, H., Ramirez, X, VAzquez, R., Williams, R., Waide, R. B.and Tepley, C. A. 2005: Urban heat islands developing in tropical coastal cides.EOS 86: 397.

... I Hubbard, K. G. and Lin, X. 2006: Re-examination of instrument changeeffects in the U.S. historical climatology network. Geop~ysical Researcb Letters33: L15710, doi:10.1029/2006GLO27069.

1162 Mahmood, R., Foster, S. A. and Logan, D. 2006: The GeoProfile met data,exposure of instruments, and measurement of bias in climate record revisited.InternationaiJournal of Climatolo

gy 26: 1091-1124.

2261 McLean, J. 2008: Pr~iudiced autborspr~udicedfindings. Did the UN bias its


35/47

attribution of '~lobal warming" to humankind. Science and Public Policy Institute.

484 HEAVEN +EARTH

duration from the Global Runoff Data Centre (Koblenz, Germany) shows nopattern of increasing or decreasing flooding. 1114 There has been no global

change in rainfall since satellite measurements commenced."' In a stud

2211 of drought in the USA from 1925-2003, the authors stated: "droughts have,for the most part, become shorter, less frequent, less severe, and cover a smallerportion of the country".

All of the IPCC's and Stern Review's speculated impacts of possible globalwarming are consistently biased and selective. They all heavily lean towardsunwarranted alarm.

The 23-page IPCC Summa7for Poligmakers was rushed out for the 2007 BahConference. It is a political document and is unrelated to the science in the bodyof the IPCC report. The main IPCC report containing the science was publishedmuch later, hence the science in the Summa7for Poligmakers could not be

validated while the Bah political discussions were in progress. However, this wasnot necessary. The Summa7 for Poligmakers showed cooling for 100 of the last160 years, during which time greenhouse gases were increasing. This certainlysuggests that CO 2 of human origin does not drive modern climate. There isabsolutely no demonstration of a relationship between the increase in greenhousegases and temperature.

The Summa7for Poligmakers states that precipitation in southern Africa declinedfrom 1900-2005. This is false. This may have been an attempt to win Africanvotes in Bali. Precipitation increased by 9% over this period. This statement iscontrary to a later claim on the same page that heavy precipitation eventsincreased during this period. Despite the fact that climate is driven by the receiptand redistribution of solar energy, there is no attempt to relate solar phenomenawith global surface temperature, global average sea levels and snow cover. Thedriving force for climate on Earth is just omitted. No explanation. No criticalanalysis. Nowhere can we read that there is a large body of solar physics,astronorr~cal, geological, archaeological and historical evidence to show thatthere are competing theories for the driving of modern and ancient climatechanges. Poficymakers are given the opposite scenario and that is that solaractivity has caused cooling despite a mountain of data showing that there is a

parallel relationship between solar activity and temperature on a muld-decadalscale. Although solar activity is summarily dismissed, there is no attempt todismiss the well-docutnented


36/47

2264 Svensson, G, Kundzewicz, Z. W and Maurer, T. 2005: Trend detection inriver flow series: 2. Flood and low-flow index series. Hydrolo

,gicalSdencesjournal50:811-824.

1161 Smith, T. M., Yin, X. and Gruber, A. 2006: Variations in annual globalprecipitation (1979-2004), based on the Global Precipitation Project 2.5' analysis.Geopbysical Research Letters 33: doi 10.1029/2005GLO25393.

2266 Andreadis, K. and Lettenmaier, D. 2006: Trends in 20' century drought overthe continental United States. Geophysical Research Letters 33: doi10.1029/2006GLO25711.

ET MOI

485

historical relationships between solar activity and temperature. In the SummagforPoligimakers it was just omitted. It appears that poEcymakers are being misled.

Nature does not obey our wishes. Global temperature has not risen in accordancewith greenhouse gas emissions for the past 10 years. The global mean

temperature has dropped, against all predictions, models and scenarios. This isthe most rapid and largest temperature shift in the last 100 years. How manyyears without a CO 2-temperature correlation do we have to suffer? The Earthalso cooled between 1940 and 1976, but this is rationalised by supporters ofhuman-induced global warming as being due to an increased quantity of aerosols.What is the excuse for the post-1998 cooling? If it is because it is following anatural event (the extraordinary 1998 El Niflo), then why can't the 20th Centurywarming and cooling also be due to another natural event? The 20th Centuryfollowed the six centuries of the little 1c6 Age. Surely it is not impossible thatafter the little Ice Age, the planet started to warm? Despite the fact that it is

cooling, we now have warmers'predictions that climate will continue to warm,with at least half the years in the decade

2211 after 2009 predicted to exceed the warmest years currently on record.

Time will test this prediction. Most predictions make astounding claims for theforthcoming centuries, which are safe predictions, as the authors will be longdead and buried before their predictions can be checked.

But, the environmentalists argue, what about the precautionary principle? Thisprinciple is a concoction by environmentah StS2M' and is underpinned by theassumption that the planet is not dynamiC.221' The environmentalists'


37/47

precautionary principle abandons scientific proof as well as the concept of proof Itlegitimises unfounded fears and raises irrational decision making to an art form.Who decides what are threats? The Montreal Protocol used the precautionaryprinciple to attempt to ban chlorofluorocarbons because these gases destroyozone. However, we use chlorine every day to make water fit to drink yet chlorinealso destroys ozone. There is no such thing as the precautionary principle inscience. No amount of precaution, whatever that is, is going to stop natural

climate change. There is a 100% risk of damage from weather and climatechange. This happens every day somewhere on Earth. If we followed theprecautionary principle to its logical conclusion,

.... Smith, D. M., Cusack, S., Colman, A. W, Folland, C. K., Harris, G. R. andMurphy, J. M. 2007: Improved surface temperature prediction for thecoming decade from a global climate model. Sdence 317: 796-799.

126' Deville, A. and Harding, R. 1997: Applying tbeprecauliona7ptindple.Federation Press.

1219 Goldany, I. M. 2001: The precautiona7 printiple.. A critical appraisalof entironmental lisk assessment. Cato Institute.

486

HEAVEN +EARTH

then we would never get out of bed. On second thoughts, maybe we should getout of bed because more people die in bed than standing up. By getting out ofbed we reduce our risk of dying.

The late Dr Roger Revelle, AI Gore's scientific adviser, must be turning in hisgrave. Before he died, he co-authored a popular paper... stating: `We know toolittle to take any action based on global warming. If we take any action, it should

be an action that we can justify completely without global warming."

Gore's staffers tried to have his name posthumously removed from the paper byclairning Revelle was senile. One of Revelle's co-author's took the matter to courtand won. Revelle's name stayed on the paper." Did this attempted suppression ofscience get widespread publicity? No, and the Gore gravy train is doing well. Themovie has cleared $50 million in takings, he charges $100,000-$150,000 perlecture, is the co-founder and chairman of Generation Investment Managementwhich invests in solar and wind power, and accepted a board position on (the

late) Lehman Brothers, an organisation that would have benefited from brokeringemissions trading permits. Gore lives in a 20-room shack near Nashville(Tennessee) that consumes only 221,000 kW hours of electricity a year, 20 timesthe US average. He defends this by stating that he has purchased renewableenergy credits to offset his own use. And who did he buy these credits from? You


38/47

guessed it, his own company, Generation Investment Management.22` For a manwho made his money from petroleum, he is now making the odd shekelfrightening people witless about global warming while he positions himself tomake serious money from emissions trading.

The fist of sciendfic misrepresentations is long. Trying to deal with these

misrepresentations is somewhat like trying to argue with creationists whomisquote, concoct evidence, quote out of context, ignore contrary evidence andcreate evidence ex nihilo. To show that one misrepresentation is wrong takesvolumes, as was shown in the eight-year battle to show that the Mann et al(1998) paper was fraudulent. And, no matter what methods Mann et almightuse, the Medieval Warming and Little Ice Age just refuse to go away. 2273

2271 Singer, S. E, Start, C. and Revelle, R. 1991: What to, do about greenhousewarming: look before you leap. Cosmos 1: 28-33.

2271 Singer, S. E 2003: The Revelle-Gore story: Attempted politicalsuppression of science.

In: Politia.Zing science.. The alcbemyofpoligmakin over Institution.

g (ed. Gough, M.), 283-297, Ho

22'2 WorldNewsDaily 2` March, 2007. "Core ~ carbon offsetspaid to afirm heowns."

22'1 Soon, W S., Bahunas, S., Idso, G, Idso, S. and Legates, D. 2003:Reconstructing climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years: areappraisal. Ener

gy and Entironment14: 233-296.

ET M01

487

An example. A book 2274 by a popular science writer (Gabrielle Walker) and theformer chief scientist of the UK (Sir David King) is riddled with creationist-type"science". The discredited "hockey stick" appears. This, the warmists' supremeicon, has been described 227' as "the most discredited study in the history ofscience." However, although the "hockey sticV has been discredited in thescientific literature, it is still used in The HotTopic. The "hockey stick" rewriting ofhistory suppressed evidence that in Medieval times temperatures were higherthan they are today. This does the warming cause no good. Nor do picturesshowing polar bears on floating ice wl-iich do not acknowledge that polar bearnumbers are increasing and that, as there are polar bears today, they must have


39/47

survived far warmer times in the recent past such as the Medieval Warming, theRoman Warming, Minoan Warming, the Holocene Maximum and the numerouspast interglacials. Walker and Smith must know this. Even if polar bears firstappeared in the creationist world at 9 am on 26 October 4004 BC, they still hadto survive at least five periods of global warming before they entered the Late20th Century Warming.

Hurricane Katrina is another warmist icon. What the authors fail to mention isthat hurricane activity was more extreme in the 1950s and that one of thereasons for the major damage in New Orleans was the collapse of levees and thesubsidence of New Orleans before Katrina. Walker and Smith mention theincreasing number of times the Thames Barrier has had to be closed withoutmentioning that eastern England is sinking, or that this sinking has been knownsince Roman times, or that the Barrier has been closed to keep in river waterrather than to keep the seawater out. Again, an omission of critical data leadingto a misrepresentation. Walker and Smith suggest that there were 35,000premature deaths caused by the 2003 European heat wave and they don't stressthat a far larger number of people die from extreme cold in Europe. These errorsare not trivial matters of perspective - the very fabric of the warmers' argumentsis based on discredited information.

In my own country, the prophetic predictions suggest that Australia, a particularlydry continent, is very exposed to the ravages of global warming. The popularthinking is that higher temperatures will produce increased eva

heaven + earth excerpt

Documents