Brad Norington
April 09, 2008
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23509775-2702,00.html
QUOTE: "How does a small increase in a very small component have such a
large apparent effect? The truth is that no one has yet shown that
itdoes."
RESPECTED academic Don Aitkin has seen the ugly side of the climate
change debate after being warned he faced demonisation if he challenged
the accepted wisdom that global warming poses a danger to humanity.
Professor Aitkin told The Australian yesterday he had been told he was
"out of his mind" by some in the media after writing that the science of
global warming "doesn't seem to stack up".
Declaring global warming might not be such an im****tant issue, Professor
Aitkin argued in a speech to the Planning Insitute of Australia this
month that counter measures such as carbon trading were likely to be
unnecessary, expensive and futile without stronger evidence of a crisis.
The eminent historian and political scientist said in a speech called A
Cool Look at Global Warming, which has received little public attention,
that he was urged not to express his contrary views to orthodox thinking
because he would be demonised.
He says critics who question the impact of global warming are commonly
ignored or attacked because "scientist activists" from a quasi-religious
movement have spread a flawed message that "the science is settled" and
"the debate is over".
Professor Aitkin is a former vice-chancellor at the University of
Canberra, foundation chairman of the Australian Research Council and a
distinguished researcher at the Australian National University and
Macquarie University.
Although not a scientist, he has brought his critical approach as an
experienced academic accustomed to testing theories to a debate he says
so far lacks clear evidence.
Professor Aitkin's speech cast strong doubt on the Rudd Government's
plan to impose significant limits on carbon emissions as the key to
combating climate change, while the developing economies of China and
India become the world's biggest polluters. "I doubt the proposed
extraordinary policies will actually happen," he said. "China and India
will not reduce their own use of carbon."
According to Professor Aitkin, attempts to set carbon-use levels in
Europe, to be emulated by Australia, have been laughable because of
absurd errors involved in allocating quotas and the potential for fraud.
He believes carbon trading will lead to rorts, and that the "bubble will
burst" on enthusiasm for urgently containing the carbon-producing
effects of burning coal and oil.
The story of the human impact on climate change, which Professor Aitkin
calls Anthropogenic Global Warming, "doesn't seem to stack up as the
best science", according to his own research.
Despite thousands of scientists allegedly having "consensus" on global
warming, he says there is an absence of convincing data: "Put simply,
despite all the hype and models and the catastrophic predictions, it
seems to me that we human beings barely understand 'climate'. It is too
vast a domain."
Much of the evidence of global warming, he says, is based on computer
modelling that does not take account of variables, and does not cover
the whole planet.
Professor Aitkin calls himself a global warming "agnostic", and his
comments are a direct challenge to the orthodoxy successfully promoted
by influential figures such as former Australian of the Year Tim
Flannery, whose scientific expertise is paleontology, despite his
popular writings on climate change.
The basis of the Kyoto Protocol, signed by the Rudd Government, is
unvalidated models that cannot provide evidence of anything, Professor
Aitkin argues. But he says the Rudd Government is among policy-makers
trapped, willingly or unwillingly, by the world view of climate change
campaigners who take a "quasi-religious view" that the dangers of global
warming cannot be doubted.
Professor Aitkin told The Australian last night that Kevin Rudd's
climate change adviser, Ross Garnaut, was "a captive" because of the
riding instructions he had been given to provide solutions that accepted
global warming as fact.
In his speech, he says: "The hard-heads may not buy the story, but they
do want to be elected or re-elected.
"Democratic governments facing elections are sensitive to popular
movements that could have an electoral effect. I am sure that it was
this electoral perception that caused the Howard government at the end
to move significantly towards Kyoto and indicate a preparedness to go
down the Kyoto path, as indeed the Labor Party had done earlier, and
Kevin Rudd did as soon as he was elected."
Professor Aitkin says the earth's atmosphere may be warming but, if so,
not by much and not in an alarming and unprecedented way.
"It is possible that the warming has a 'significant human influence', to
use the (UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's) term, and I do
not dismiss the possibility.
"But there are other powerful possible causes that have nothing to do
with us."
He says an increase in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide over the
past century is agreed, some of it due to fossil fuels, cement-making
and agriculture. However, normal production of CO2 is not known, and it
makes up only a tiny part of the atmosphere. "How does a small increase
in a very small component have such a large apparent effect? The truth
is that no one has yet shown that itdoes."
According to the professor, much of the inadequate policy-making on
climate change is based on "over-certainty in the absence of convincing
argument and data" and "over-reliance on computer models".
"While governments can never ignore what they see as popular feeling,
good policy cannot be based on moods,"
--
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
".it should not be surprising to see hordes of former Reds, or of those
who otherwise would have become Reds, turning from Marxism and becoming
the Greens of the ecology movement. It is the same fundamental
philosophy in a different guise, ready as ever to wage war on the
freedom and well-being of the individual." Dr. George Reisman's book
Capitalism
|
