Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.

 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate


On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.


RSS 2.0

Do we really have control over our climate?

By Ray Evans - posted Thursday, 8 February 2007

In January 2001, the IPCC launched its Third Assessment Report (TAR) in Shanghai. Behind the speakers was a giant projection of what became known as Mann’s Hockey Stick - a temperature-time graph - which purported to represent global temperatures from AD1,000-2,000, and which showed temperatures declining very gradually from AD1,000 to AD1900 and then taking off like a rocket over the next 100 years.

The graph looked like an ice hockey stick lying on its handle (AD1000-1900) with the blade pointing to the sky (AD1900-2000). The inference was that global temperatures had been more or less stable for 900 years and then, because of anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide, had increased by an unprecedented 0.9C.

Mann’s Hockey Stick turned out to be fraudulent. The Medieval Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age had been washed out through statistical manipulation of the data. The IPCC spent quite some time and energy in damage control after being exposed.


One of the consequences of that exercise is that the Policy Makers’ Summary (PMS) of the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), released in Paris on February 2, 2007, is rather more cautious about predictions of temperature and sea level rises than TAR. Instead of the 5.8C temperature rise of 2001, we are back to 3C, and sea level rises have been scaled back to the 500mm range.

This has caused considerable angst among more hard-line members of the anthropogenist movement - the group of radicals who believe passionately that anthropogenic carbon dioxide will bring about the end of the world as we know it, and who demand immediate decarbonisation of the world’s economy. Australia’s Graeme Pearman, formerly head of the CSIRO’s Division of Atmospheric Research, is an adherent of this group.

For example, Robin McKie, science editor of the London Observer wrote (January 18, 2007):

Serious disagreement has broken out among scientists over a United Nations climate report's contention that the world's greatest wilderness - Antarctica - will be largely unaffected by rising world temperatures.

The report, to be published on Friday, will be one of the most comprehensive on climate change to date, and will paint a grim picture of future changes to the planet's weather patterns. Details of the report were first revealed by ‘The Observer’ last weekend.

However, many researchers believe it does not go far enough. In particular, they say it fails to stress that climate change is already having a severe impact on the continent and will continue to do so for the rest of century. At least a quarter of the sea ice around Antarctica will disappear in that time, say the critics, though this forecast is not mentioned in the study.


The IPCC had to steer a difficult course between making a fool of itself - again - as in 2001, and satisfying the demands of the decarbonising radicals. The solution the IPCC chose was to moderate its predictions but to lay the blame more firmly on the shoulders of mankind.

The Policy Makers’ Summary is adamant (90 per cent confidence) that man is responsible for continuing global warming. The fact that the satellite record shows temperature decline since 1998 is ignored. Indeed, the historical record as manifest, for example, in the Greenland Ice Cores, corroborated by sediments from the ocean floors and by cave stalactites, tells us the Medieval Warm Period (AD900-1300), the Roman Warm Period (250BC-AD100), and the Minoan Warm Period (1400BC-1200 BC), were warmer than our present late 20th century Warm Period.

Anthropogenic carbon dioxide cannot explain these warm periods nor can lack of anthropogenic carbon dioxide explain the Little Ice Age which was familiar to the citizens of 17th century London, and indeed to their heirs in the 19th century. The Napoleonic Wars were fought in a period known as the Dalton Minimum when sun spot activity was extremely subdued and temperatures were very low indeed, as La Grande Armée discovered on the retreat from Moscow.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

37 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Ray Evans is Secretary of the Lavoisier Group Inc. He is also an adviser to Bert Kelly Research Centre.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Ray Evans

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Ray Evans
Article Tools
Comment 37 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy