DEBATE about the climate and the reality of a two-decade pause in global temperature rises, has made its way from the sceptical fringe to the mainstream media.
In a lengthy article this week, The Economist magazine said “if climate scientists were credit-rating agencies, then climate sensitivity in the same way climate reacts to changes in carbon-dioxide levels would be on negative watch” but not yet downgraded.
Another paper published by leading climate scientist James Hansen, the head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, says the lower than expected temperature rise between 2000 and the present could be explained by increased emissions from burning coal.
Somehow this all means burning more coal is stabilising world temperatures, yet carbon emissions are rising at a massive rate, making a mockery of the original well funded IPCC modelling.
International Panel on Climate Change chairman Rajendra Pachauri recently told The Weekend Australian the hiatus would have to last 30 to 40 years "at least" to break the long-term warming trend, but even if that is a possibility, it shows the fear campaigns have been over exaggerated.
One wonders if those taken in by this whole decade of spin around what drives the weather, will now be calling the IPCC deniers, like any who dare speak up against the doom and gloom of the whole climate change agenda in the past.
Now that global surface temperatures, not following the expected global warming pattern has become widely accepted, one would think we could take the time to at least re-access where all the money raised by the all urgent carbon tax is ending up.
Research by Ed Hawkins of University of Reading shows surface temperatures since 2005 are already at the low end of the range projections derived from 20 climate models and if they remain flat, they will fall outside the models' range within a few years.
Interestingly the original label of global warming was replaced with climate change, before the truth made it out into the open, that said, we should never over look who ends up with all the carbon money, and of course who has worn the brunt of the burden.
On a global scale billions of dollars have simply gone missing from carbon pricing schemes, rewards for innovation have dwindled and genuine hard thought environmental initiatives have been cut back, so in essence we have paid highly for less environmental action, all based on failed scientific modelling, yet still no one is following the money trail, which would defiantly expose more truth than we dare consider.
Even David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation "The global temperature stand still shows that climate models are diverging from observations," . "If we have not passed it already, we are on the threshold of global observations becoming incompatible with the consensus theory of climate change," he concluded.
The “Economist” reported “the world has added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010, about one-quarter of all the carbon dioxide put there by humans since 1750”.
This mismatch between rising greenhouse gas emissions and not-rising temperatures is among the biggest puzzles in climate science just now, The Economist article says.
The problem is those who were not funded to find proof of global warming are still wearing the label of denier, even though some of these still believe warming will soon continue. The debate has become one of believe without question what your government tell you, or loose funding or your good name.
The fact is temperatures between 2000 and 2010 are only half a degree above their level in the first decade of the 20th century, an issue that could be easier explained by natural climate cycles, rather than a man-made disaster that needs immediate action.
Could it be that climate is responding to higher concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide in ways that had not been properly understood before, just maybe as I have said for years, “mother nature and the universe are a very powerful force, more powerful than any new tax regime”
There are now a number of studies and peer reviewed articles that predict future temperature rises as a result of man-made carbon dioxide emissions at well below the IPCC best estimate of about 2C over the century, yet the upcoming IPCC report is expected to lift the maximum possible temperature increase to 6C?
The IPCC lead authors over the years have already been critical of the way in which their science is reported, so for such a massive rise in their predictions when their modelling is proving to be faulty and their lead author himself exposing this 20 year relaxing in temperature rises, stinks of an alternate agenda.
We should never forget the billions of dollars the UN receive as a result of the science predicting a catastrophe, so is this whole one sided debate simply about money, and in fact a failed monitory policy?
"Perhaps the world should seek to adjust to, rather than stop carbon emissions” say's the “Econommist” something I have been saying for over a decade, adapting to what 1 degree of warming might bring in the next century is more prudent than throwing billions of dollars at trying to change the weather, as if the hand full of nations left in the carbon pricing arena could even dent the output of carbon if they all shut down their nations overnight.
According to The Economist, "given the hiatus in warming and all the new evidence, a small reduction in estimates of climate sensitivity would seem to be justified." On face value, many scientists now agree, the slowdown in global temperature rises can be seen as "good news".
What they all forget is that from my point of view it matters not, whether it warms or doesn’t, actions to lower genuine pollution and embrace renewable energy should be embraced by every nation, and in fact they are, trading in pieces of paper that are valued by dubious means is not and never has been good policy.
Hansen a lead researcher, recently argued that the impact of human carbon dioxide emissions has been masked by the sharp increase in coal use, primarily in China and India, so what it appears now is that the 10% of nations working to lower carbon emissions have achieved nothing, and those that forge ahead like India and china, could now be showing the rest of the world we were wrong?
Another paper published in Geophysical Research Letters on research from the University of Colorado Boulder found small volcanoes, not more coal power stations in China, were responsible for the slowdown in global warming. "Emissions from volcanic gases go up and down, helping to cool or heat the planet, while greenhouse gases from human activity just continue to go up," author Ryan Neely says.
Not so funny in this case are my articles from back in 2007 that clearly showed co2 emissions from volcanic activity of one volcano wiped out all the savings in a few days from the one nation that had proved successful in the Carbon trading arena.
Australia’s Labor parties carbon tax scheme hoped to lower emissions to lower than our output from the 1990’s, yet on a global scale, emissions have doubled while we attempt to slow, the result is easy to see, our Industries have been crippled, the cost of living has skyrocketed and we have lost our place as one of the top 3 leading nations in environmental innovation.
I can still remember debating this issue with the team from Labor's GetUp, who argued we should vote Labor when they promised not to introduce a carbon tax, then again with the very same people when they ran the “Say Yes” to a carbon tax campaign several weeks later, even before the details of Labor's tax were even on the table.
Over all the years of debate, some very important arguments were never allowed, how are carbon emissions quantified, who issues carbon credits and at what value and where does all the money end up, yet the only answer was silence, which says it all.
Australia has indeed led the way, we have endured the most lies, the most deceit, we have imposed the most tax, we have lead the way in lowering our environmental protections and we have led the way in regards to destroying our competitive industrial edge.
We now lead the way having the highest cost of living, the highest electricity pricing in the world, all to lower our Carbon emissions by a reported 2%, which is more so the result of people no longer affording to turn on the power.
China alone would have wiped out our emission savings in a matter of days with their massive increase in productivity, so we have achieved nothing more than the lowering of our standard of living.
As I have said over and over, toss the words climate change in the bin, and concentrate back on what is most important, the protection of our environment, rewarding innovation in renewable energy, reduce genuine emitters of pollution and address habitat restoration, so as to step back up as a leader, rather than being dictated to by the United Nations ill thought ideals.
Whether or not you believe carbon emissions are changing the weather, or in my case not, the path forward is the same for both believer or denier whatever those tags mean, lowering pollution in turn lowers Co2 emissions, increasing investment in renewable energy and mass power storage is also acceptable to Australians on either side of the debate, as is lowering our foot print on this earth.
Moving forward united in our goals is a much better idea than this continued debate which clearly seeks to divide opinion. It is past time we stopped allowing billions of our hard earned dollars to head off shore into dodgy pockets and take a step back and look clearly at our current policy directives
I am certain of one point, every Australian would like any financial impositions incurred by the Australian public in regards to future environmental policy to be spent here in our nation to not only create jobs, but to see our nation lead the world by example.
Labors own climate reports showed we once were leaders, and since the Carbon tax, we are now followers, lagging behind the rest of the world, so scrap the tax, look back to when we lead in environmental innovation, and start again from there based on what works best for us as a nation.
Since the adoption of the United nations agendas, like agenda 21, free trade and carbon pricing, our nation has gone backwards dragging with it our quality of life, our rights & liberties and our manufacturing sector, let alone our ranking in the important environmental arena, so just maybe it is time our leaders waved goodbye to the UN, and get back to the task of running our country in its own best interests.
Mark Aldridge Independent candidate for Wakefield