Unjoining CO2, climate and ecocide

This Christmas, friends gave me a subscription to The Monthly. I was told that its articles were good, in-depth and varied.

The first essay that I came across was "Diabolical"by Professor Robert Manne. This essay is about the man-made climate change due to burning of fossil fuels and how to stop it, a gigantic (t)ask. Manne proposed in his essay a global solution in order to combat human "destruction of our planet". He advocated a sort of "communism in theory" where humans live in harmony with the Earth. The comments in the discussion that followed the article universally praised Manne's "great article" and its "sound assessment". It was a "tour de force".

I then noticed that the Morry Schwartz Press donates 5% to the Climate Council for every subscription. Experience tells me that often the leftwing press fails to air alternative viewpoints. Nonetheless I appealed to The Monthly's sense of intellectual and journalistic fair-play, and submitted a riposte - a version of this article. The Monthly describes itself as "an independent voice in Australian media, (being) essential reading for anyone who is seeking deep engagement with national politics, society and culture" and elsewhere as "providing enlightening commentary and vigorous, at times controversial, debate on the issues that affect the nation". The appeal to publish my article was in vain.

Not wishing to sound nitpicking about a problem as large as the "destruction of a planet friendly to humans and other species", it is nonetheless important for me to state that asking the right questions, and answering accordingly, is fundamental to prosecuting actions that can stall the degradation of our planet by humans.

In the article which now follows, I argue that climate change should not be the centrepiece of our efforts to right the environment. The conscious and unconscious degradation inflicted by humans on the Earth, while overlapping with, should be disentangled from, climate and CO2, because there are massive opportunity costs and negative impacts arising from an excessive focus on CO2.

The article contains sections that summarise the science which is far from settled, the dangerous politicization of climate science, the sheer volume of corrupting money, and lists some down to earth solutions.

It is frustrating that The Monthly will not want to share with its readers just one alternative viewpoint. Manne's essay commences with the assumption - "Unless by some miracle almost every climate scientist is wrong, future generations will look …" but the social science research underpinning statements such as 97% of all climate scientists believe in anthropogenic climate warming, has been thoroughly discredited. Manne as a political scientist, should be well enough equipped to critique this literature, which is lousy with misleading research. That this meme is repeated over and over by influential opinion leaders, film stars, politicians and other caring people, is disconcerting but should not be surprising. There are many historical examples of well-meaning advocates in science or in philosophy or politics or the arts, who end up being affiliated with the destruction of scientific reputations, or worse.

The following paragraphs outline the many reasons why the science is far from settled.

CO2 is increasing and human activity is contributing to this, but there is genuine scientific debate about how much this affects temperature. More than three-quarters of all anthropogenic CO2 release has occurred since 1945, but there is a pattern of overall warming since 1850, and there have been shorter periods of overall cooling (e.g. 1940-1975). Thus, the pattern is not well explained by man-made CO2.

Contrary to the impression given by Manne that global warming is unprecedented, there have been periods of global warming in the historic past, all of which predate the large-scale burning of fossil fuels. There were warm periods like the present occurring e.g., 7000-8000 BP, in Roman times 2000 years BP (50 AD) and around 800 BP (1250 AD).

Mean sea level has been rising very slowly for the last 1000 years but it rose much faster between 20,000 BP to 7000 BP, again predating the large-scale burning of fossil fuels. During the last ice age, 20,000 BP, the sea level was 120m lower than that of today. There is no basis in measurement to assert that the recent rate of rise in sea level has accelerated.

CO2 is associated with some global warming but the statement that man-made CO2 is causing most global warming can be refuted easily. This is because while ambient CO2 has been rising inexorably since measurements started around 1958, mean global surface and lower atmospheric temperatures (as best as they can be defined and measured) have not appreciably changed over the last 18 years, as based on the global temperature records. The IPCC modeling sort of explained the mean global temperatures from 1979 to 1998 but has failed miserably to predict the future since 1998, and fails to explain the past before 1979. Statements that uptake of heat by the sea can explain the recent 18-year pause in the IPCC-prediction of rising mean global temperatures, require qualification. The sea has always been a sink for heat.

Modelers have raised concern about the acidification of the oceans and recent measurements of ocean pH suggest that mean pH may be ever so slightly decreasing (~0.01 pH units). However, ocean pH can vary by whole pH units from day to day and according to sea depth, latitude and currents.

The size of the Antarctic sea ice shelf varies according to the seasons: its maximum size is currently increasing, a fact rarely mentioned by the IPCC or anthropogenic climate change proponents. The increase in area of the Antarctic ice shelf in 2015 is greater than the decrease in the arctic ice shelf area, which has not decreased in the last several years despite the man-made accelerated rise in CO2.

That there have been more cyclonic events in the last 10 years compared to the previous 100 years, is a false statement. Cyclonic event intensities and landfalls have been recorded for many years, and are relatively easy to define, but the latest report from the IPCC states that there has been no discernible increase.

Climate science is politicized.

The premier global disseminator of climate science is the IPCC, a United Nations body. The IPCC's charter is to examine human-induced (anthropogenic) climate effects. It does not have a remit to investigate other causes of climate change, climate warming or cooling. Arguably the excessive focus on human-induced climate effects, in particular CO2, has skewed the overall climate science picture.

Some of the original mean temperature source data can no longer be viewed. There are several global temperature records but they are not all of equal quality due in particular to sampling biases and manipulation of the raw data. The satellite records (UAH and RSS) are the least affected by uneven sampling. The US NCDC and GISS surface records have been corrupted by data-cleaning manipulations since 2008. These changes cannot be independently validated and critically the source data can no longer be viewed. I would view the UK HadCRUT surface record as the most reliable surface temperature record.

The USA, which is the leading anthropogenic alarmist climate change proponent, has a geopolitical imperative to be independent of Middle Eastern and Russian oil and natural gas. It has a domestic energy policy to swap coal for natural gas. The policy is very likely destructive to the subterranean water aquifers but gets a green light because it releases less CO2. The USA has no intention of harming its economy.

The construct of man-made global warming has become a quasi-religious belief for many people. The urgency and severity of the perceived problem has disappointingly emerged as a reason to shut down opposing views, to justify misrepresentation of data (e.g. Mann's hockey stick or the East Anglia climategate email scandal), publication biases, scientific falsehoods (e.g. Director of NASA Gavin Schmidt's uncorrected scientific nonsense press release that "2014 was the warmest yet"by 0.02 +/- 0.04 °C). Subordination of ideas for the greater good was a feature of Stalinist Russia. It is also a feature of much of our news media. Dissenters such as prominent weatherman Philippe Verdier are sacked for being climate sceptics (2 November 2015). Less than 90 years ago, the advocates for some of the worst aspects of Stalin's Russia included literary giants such as George Bernard Shaw and Andre Gide, and film stars such as Charlie Chaplin. Few would dispute that they turned out to be mistaken in these particular views. While it does not follow that the current bevy of opinion leaders, film stars, politicians and scientific commentators in the leftist media, will also be so wrong about climate change, it behoves all of these people, scientists and non-scientists, to be more critical of their positions.

Alarmist man-made climate change doctrines are being taught in our schools. They are now accepted uncritically by large sections of the voting community as well as non-voting professional associations and colleges that benefit from ill-informed policies that are connecting with the growing environmental green movement. Disagreement or debate is discouraged by politically loaded pejorative labels such as 'denier', or 'flat-earther'.

CO2 is the carbon substrate for photosynthesis. Photosynthesis is how plants grow, and produces oxygen vital for life. The optimal CO2 concentration in a horticultural greenhouse is 1500-2000 ppm, which is 4x the current ambient CO2 concentration. CO2 is a building block of life on the Earth and in the Sea. The measured net green house gas effect of CO2 on temperatures is at least several-fold less than the alarming IPCC modelling, however, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) declared CO2 a pollutant in 2009. I believe that the predominant reason for this categorisation was political in order to outmanoeuvre a hostile US Congress. The CO2 endangerment finding gave EPA the power to regulate this gas even though the Congress would not pass laws to address man-made climate change.

The sheer volume of money associated with climate science is corrupting.

Climate change science devours money. Much of the money is spent on subsidies for either immature technologies or for mature technologies that cannot currently compete with burning fossil fuel for energy. There are rent-seekers whose livelihoods depend on these dollars. These include think-tanks on climate change policy, plantation schemes, and professional lobby groups which can tap into scientific, engineering, social and health aspects of the climate science budget. In the US, the total climate change spend from 2008-2012 was $68 billion dollars, but less than one quarter went to climate or renewable energy research programs.

The media often mention that the conservative side of climate change politics is generously funded by corporations. There is the implicit assumption that the corporations are immoral because of their primary allegiance to market fundamentalism, but precisely how much money is actually spent by them is not clear. Yet it must also be undeniable that the alarmist side of the anthropogenic climate debate, World Wildlife Foundation, Greenpeace, the United Nations IPCC, COP21, etc are also extremely well funded.

Cross-subsidies abound. The largest energy multinationals are heavily invested in renewables. Consequently, the largest energy corporations are major beneficiaries of these government (= taxpayer) subsidies.

Money buys influence with scientists because their careers are dependent on stable funding. If the funding is not regular then the scientists and their staff are out of a job. Unfortunately nearly all the funding from government, business and charities, is irregular. Few scientists have tenure. Scientists need to frame their research carefully to be competitive in the grants application game, where funding is uneven and political.Many funding applications for individual research projects, and in many instances whole programs and large scientific institutions, tap into the dollars that flow with the mantra of alarmist catastrophic climate change.

Last December, it was agreed (although not mandated) in Paris that developed nations should transfer $100 billion annually to developing countries for climate change mitigation. If this COP21 agreement is ratified then it will surely divert resources from traditional foreign aid, social services, health, and education. It logically has to be thus, given that the allocation of government budgets is generally highly contested. However, some have argued otherwise. Senator John Kerry spruiked that the $100 billion annual spend would be the greatest economic opportunity (one must ask for whom) of all time! The developing countries that happen to have manufacturing facilities for first and second world consumer brands, such as India Brazil and China, could be beneficiaries of this COP21 agreement.

My contentions are not just academic. Climate has always changed. Climate does this for many reasons, which have not been discussed in this article. The IPCC has focused on human-induced climate change and more particularly CO2, but there is a disconnect between empirical measurements and its alarmist modeling. This is not to deny that CO2 is increasing and that human activity is contributing, but the wrongful demonisation of CO2 has resulted in opportunity costs and negative impacts. These arguably have led and will continue to lead to national and global economically unproductive pursuits. Furthermore, the diversion of vast amounts of scarce government money undermines more purposefully directed efforts to minimise man's heavy footprint on the Earth.

It goes without saying that we should become less reliant on fossil fuels. However, the pace of change should not be forced in ways that impoverish nations. Fossil fuels remain necessary for the immediate energy requirements to release people from poverty in much of the developing world. They remain necessary for daily life in the developed world.In this regard, it must be acknowledged that there are some absolute constraints on the feasibility of many renewable energy sources – constraints that relate to energy density, and energy balance - the energy required to make and maintain them versus the energy that they can deliver over their lifetime.

Good policy is the art of combining the possible with the important. The degradation of the Earth due to human activity can and should be unjoined from climate and CO2. Solutions should not be centred around CO2 alone.

The following suggestions list some practical down-to-earth solutions, which hopefully are not controversial.

Spending money on renewable energy research (versus subsidy) will encourage development of renewable energy. The reliance on fossil fuels is particularly destructive to the Earth and the Sea when these are extracted on a large scale. However, moving away from them will not happen overnight and will not happen completely. Currently renewable energy applications are very competitive in isolated or smaller communities where power transmission lines are impractical. However, the current spend on renewable energy research is meagre compared to the expenditure on renewable subsidies. The "Breakthrough Energy Coalition Fund (BECF)", initiated by Bill Gates, was one desirable COP21 outcome, as economical large-scale renewable energy applications are badly needed.

Increasing the funding for research and development of energy-lean practices and technologies will help the environment because it will reduce the average environmental footprint of each person. It would be sensible to extend the charter of the BECF (fund) to include the research and development of energy-lean practices and technologies. Increasing the uptake of these would likely yield a greater economic and environmental dividend at this time than research into renewable energy generation, given the physical limitations that constrain many of the non-nuclear renewable energy sources.

On the world stage, there should be increased efforts to ensure a fairer distribution of wealth with an emphasis on better health and education for all in our societies. Reducing poverty has been shown to result in smaller families.

The burgeoning human population is often referred to as the elephant in the room in these discussions. Reducing it will benefit the environment of the Earth, the Air and the Sea. There are so many environmental impacts that are unrelated to CO2. A smaller human population will also reduce competition for resources, which in turn will reduce conflict. Conflict is the harbinger of war. Reducing wars will assist the rehabilitation of the Earth. It is not usually mentioned, but there is no requirement for an environmental impact study to start a war; war is the human activity that is perhaps the most destructive of all to the environment.

Conclusion

The solution to the problem, as exemplified by Manne and much of the blinkered leftwing press, is ill-informed and impractical. Manne advocates a sort of "communism in theory"where there is no need for mines and humans live in harmony with the Earth. His solution is motivated by the IPCC-led perception that climate change is a global predominantly man-made problem. Like many commentators, he has conflated the destructive behaviours of humans on the environment, with man-made climate change and CO2. Climate has always changed and for many reasons. Importantly to this date, there are no compelling observations (as opposed to theory or alarming models) presented in the IPCC reports to make one conclude that climate change has accelerated because of man or more particularly because of CO2.

The demonisation of CO2 leads to lost opportunity to reduce the many negative human impacts on the environment, and to some global economically- and environmentally-damaging pursuits. These pursuits have aided and abetted substitution of natural gas for coal and loss of manufacturing in Europe and Australia. Of course there will be people, who directly benefit from these pursuits, notably some financiers, lawyers, rent-seekers; they will always protest but their protests should be subject to critical evaluation.

For the people such as Manne who genuinely hold that the current trajectory of atmospheric CO2 is the most dangerous threat facing our planet, Earth, I encourage them to critically and carefully re-examine this belief.

Regards the Monthly, what can one say? To say that it does not brook criticism of its selected contributors would be kind. It claims to provide "enlightening commentary and vigorous, at times controversial, debate on the issues that affect the nation".The reality is that it preaches debate of ideas, but practices propaganda. Its idealistic and often young readers should be informed of this.