Answers to Alarmists Arguments

1. Answers to Alarmists Arguments Warning - The truth may offend

2. If you are just checking out the facts about climate change and carbon dioxide, you might get thrown all sorts of curly questions or arguments so here are a few answers that might help you sort out the truth from the tricks Anthony Cox TCS Secretary & Lawyer Leon Ashby TCS Spokesman

3. Al Gore showed Ice core data to say there was a correlation between CO2 levels and temperature. He implied CO2 made the temperature rise. Close analysis of the Ice Core Data shows the temperature rose before CO2 levels did. This is a contradiction to Al Gore`s claims he happily ignores

4. There is less ice in the Arctic and the polars bears are going extinct? Not True –The numbers of polar bear numbers have risen from 5,000 over 50 years ago to 25,000 today. Also each year hundreds are legally hunted by Eskimos. Each year the ice cover varies in the Arctic and this has no effect on polar bear numbers as they are well adapted to those conditions.

5. CO2 is a greenhouse gas (GHG), It will keep warming the planet? • Yes CO2 is a greenhouse gas but the evidence is not showing it will continue to warm the planet. • Human caused CO2 is one millionth of the Atmosphere. Its impact is minor next to water vapour`s contribution. (95% of GHGs) • If there were no other GHGs, then the warming impact of CO2 would be much as this graph shows and in the next 100 years Earth`s temp would increase 1 degree C (But CO2 isn`t the only GHG so this isn`t what happens) The real impact of CO2 is now being shown to be nothing (or very close to it) The work of Miskolczi, Lindzen, Paltridge, Spencer and others show The greenhouse effect is not increasing see here Miskolczi

6. Richard Lindzen has also shown from satellite data that the longwave radiation (heat) exiting the earth is directly proportional to the sunlight (short wave radiation) hitting the earth over 25 years - therefore the Greenhouse effect is not increasing as CO2 levels rise. (otherwise the Longwave radiation would be decreasing over time) ERBE Satellite Professor Richard Lindzen

7. Furthermore the IPCC models predicting future temperature of the earth assumed less outgoing radiation (Heat) as CO2 increased (as shown by the negative sloping graphs below), but the actual data from the satellite showed the opposite – even more evidence of no increasing greenhouse effect including showing the IPCC models are wrongly programmed Professor Richard Lindzen

8. But is this last decade the warmest in history? Whereas US surface temperatures show a similar warm period in the 1930`s Not quite so. By only using satellite recordings (which began in 1979) would anyone say it is the warmest decade

9. Similar tree ring data graphs show a Medievel Warm Period warmer than today If we look at a graph of the last 1,000 years produced by the IPCC in 1990, it shows temperatures warmer than today 800 years ago A proxy data temperature graph over 5,000 years show three warm periods warmer than today

10. But notice too the predicted temperatures of the IPCC versus the actual temperatures. The temperature of the planet isn`t becoming as unusual as the IPCC is saying it will become.

11. But won`t the acidification of the oceans destroy the Great Barrier Reef Not quite right either. 1) The Ph of the ocean is 8.1 to 8.4 (depending who you listen to) Putting lots of CO2 into air & it being absorbed into the ocean will reduce the PH slightly over a 100 years but it will never reach neutral (PH of 7) let alone become acidic. (PH under 7) Peter Ridd 2) Professor Peter Ridd (marine scientist at James Cook University says the Great Barrier Reef was in “bloody brilliant shape” and rejects the claims of people like Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg of Queensland University who make scary predictions. Here are some points to remember. In 1999, Hoegh-Guldberg warned that the Great Barrier Reef was under pressure from global warming, and much of it had turned white. In fact, he later admitted the reef had made a “surprising” recovery. In 2006, he warned high temperatures meant “between 30 and 40 per cent of coral on Queensland’s great Barrier Reef could die within a month”. In fact, he later admitted this bleaching had “a minimal impact”. In 2007, he warned that temperature changes of the kind caused by global warming were again bleaching the reef. In fact, the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network last week said there had been no big damage to the reef caused by climate change in the four years since its last report, and veteran diver Ben Cropp said this week that in 50 years he’d seen none at all. And even Hoegh-Guldberg’s claim that the shells of shell-fish would have trouble forming has now been debunked.

12. But I heard Global Warming is increasing faster than expected This has been said in the media and the idea is used by IPCC chairman Dr. Rajendra Pachauri. He uses this graph as his evidence. It is a clever manipulation Dr Pachauri The next page explains why Dr Pachauri`s argument is quite wrong

13. 1) Fossil fuel use only began to increase in 1940. To use data before that time to indicate man made global warming is occurring is fraudulent. 2)The rates of increase in global temperature from 1975 -98 have twice been at a similar rate and both were before fossil fuel use exploded. 3) But since 2001 the trend has been decreasing Therefore the whole claim global temperatures are increasing faster than ever is false and mischievous and it deserves a complete rebuttal. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/letter_to_pachauri.html

14. Didn`t Al Gore say the Arctic Ice will be gone by 2012? • The graph of Arctic Ice cover of the last seven years, shows 2007 as the year with the least ice cover since satellites have been used (since they began in 1979) • In 2007 some people made a guess that the cooling trend would continue. Al Gore and others have repeated that guess. Since then the arctic ice cover has increased. 2009 2007 • Anecdotal evidence shows there were periods when ice cover was less than in 2007, (e.g. ships in the 1930’s navigated the north west passage without the assistance of ice breakers or GPS tracking of ice floes), so there is nothing unusual about the levels of Arctic Ice we have today • Arctic ice levels may indicate warming, but they still do not show CO2 causes any global warming.

15. What about Pacific islands showing sea levels are rising? Not so, That’s claim is probably based on the fact a small part of Tuvalu is sinking and the media uses that for a rising sea level claim. This Australian Government research shows the sea levels of Pacific Islands from 1992 -2004. It shows sea levels are not rising. Note the impact of the 1998 El Nino.

16. But the worlds top climate scientists agree on manmade global warming being a threat don`t they? John Christy Miklos Zagoni Richard Lindzen Vincent Gray Ross McKitrick No – Far from it. These are just some of the scientists who contributed to the IPCC. They are highly regarded scientists and Climate Sceptics. Al Gore would claim these scientists support the IPCC`s position, but they do not. In fact they openly oppose it. They are just some of the 2,500 scientists co sharing the Nobel prize with Al Gorethat aretop climate scientists. They do not agree with Al Gore in any way. * Note 31,000 scientists have signed a petition saying there is no conclusive evidence CO2 causes Climate Change. See www.petitionproject.org Bill Kininmonth

17. But climate sceptics do not publish in peer reviewed journals so you cannot take their claims seriously That’s certainly not accurate This Linkhttp://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.htmlis a list of 500 peer reviewed papers written by climate sceptics on matters involving the climate debate. BUT there has been evidence that climate sceptics do not get a fair go when publishing in many journals, e.g. IPCC scientist Phil Jones wrote “The other paper …………..(referring to a climate sceptic`s paper) …. I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin (Trenberth?) and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”– Phil Jones Phil Jones

18. I can`t agree with sceptics because the evidence of global warming won`t go away Sure global warming occurs. The question is What causes it? CO2 or Natural factors? If CO2 is not causing Global warming, the world is worrying about nothing. Worry, A carbon tax might help If CO2 is the cause Less concern, Adapt to natural cycles If CO2 is Not the cause

19. This is really about having an insurance policy and giving the planet the benefit of the doubt An insurance policy is when a small premium is paid compared to the cost of the actual disaster The cost of an ETS will be greater than the cost of the disaster – so its not insurance. Nicholas Stern reported It will cost the planet $27 trillion to save it from $13 trillions worth of damage. To convert to a carbon neutral ecomomy based upon an unproven idea that CO2 is causing harm is like everyone cutting off a leg because of the threat of leg cancer. The cure (insurance) is worse than dealing with the disease (if it ever happens)

20. Al Gore received a nobel prize so isn`t his movie highly regarded as factual? No - A UK court ruled Nine of the Facts in Al Gores movie were false. Lord Monckton identified 35 errors in Gores movie – See http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html

21. So how do you know CO2 isn`t masking a cool period? 1) Masking shows CO2 is not a dominant climate concern anyway. 2) The graph here shows that from 1940- 1975 fossil fuels use increased and temperatures decreased. This does not assist the masking theory. 3) The longer it goes for the global temperature to not rise as predicted by the IPCC, the less any idea of masking is possible. 4) The calculation and evidence of the nil impact of CO2 on the atmosphere by physicists like Miskolczi and Lindzen seemingly destroys the theory.

22. Okay the computer models are wrong – but that doesn`t prove CO2 isn`t a problem True – The question is by what criteria can anyone prove CO2 is a problem? CO2 is not toxic, not overheating the planet and its not causing environmental damage – in fact more of it will make plants grow quicker and feed us and other creatures easier. We should be celebrating it for making the world work so well. Doubling CO2 makes plants grow faster

23. But we should reduce pollution anyway shouldn`t we? • Yes reducing Pollution is always a good thing however CO2 is not a pollutant as such. • CO2 does no harm in the atmosphere, it’s a colourless, odourless and non toxic trace gas. • It is plant food and without CO2 being in the air, plants would not grow and we would have nothing to eat. • Its impact on the climate is negligible. • We drink it in cans of soft drink and beer. • Calling CO2 a pollutant is like calling water or oxygen a pollutant. It has been a huge con CO2 is used in Fire Extinguishers We drink CO2 in soft drinks & beer

24. But if we do nothing it will be catastophic. Not So. This is the impression given by the media and those who want a crisis. They are whipping up fear in the community. Sea levels are not rising unusually The Arctic Ice sheet is within normal levels The Global temperatures are still normal Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant. The CO2 levels are never ever going to be dangerous We have enough fossil fuels for hundreds of years The ocean is not acidifying The Great Barrier Reef is in great shape. Varying global temperatures will not cause extinctions You do not have to panic and be led into silly ideas • However • You have been misled over climate science • You have been scared into worrying about nothing • Your tax dollars have been wasted • And most of our politicians are complicit with all this.

25. But more Bushfires are proof of something changing e.g. global warming This is usually a claim made since Black Saturday 2009 in Victoria However there have been numerous huge Victorian fires well before 2009 on 6  Feb 1851 reports are that 25% of the State of Victoria burnt compared to 1.8% on Black Saturday 2009. The death toll in 1851 was 14 when Victorias population was 70,000 In todays terms that would have equated to 1,000 Victorian deaths. This historic painting is of 1898 Gippsland, Sunday night, Feb 20th, The thing that does made fires burn fiercer is Fuel (grass & vegetation) Reduce the fuel load to under 8 tonnes / hectare and the severity reduces enormously

26. But adding 37% more CO2 to the atmosphere has to do something bad? Not so - If there was never any countering effects in the atmosphere then this might be a point, but scientific evidence is showing greenhouse gases and temperature changes are within a system that act as a whole and has counterbalances in it. These effects can be called negative feedbacks One effect increases Evidence shows there is counter balancing (i.e. cooling occurs soon after) Positive effect Negative feedback When there is warming in the atmosphere from one effect Another decreases Also note that CO2 is a very small component of the atmosphere. Increasing it by 37% makes very little difference to the proportions of the atmosphere

27. CO2 may not be toxic, but that doesn’t mean that its concentration in the atmosphere is not dangerous.  It’s necessary for plants, but what about animals? • In the open air CO2 is 385 ppm • In many office blocks CO2 reaches 1000ppm (with no harm to people). • Farmers use CO2 at 1400 ppm to grow plants faster. • Evidence shows the earth previously had levels of up to 5000 ppm • We can survive very well with CO2 at over 5000 ppm • If all the known fossil fuels were converted to CO2, we would have less than 1500 ppm in the atmosphere – nothing to be concerned about. Animals need the plants to eat and therefore survive.

28. But converting to a green economy will mean more jobs • This is Hype. A study in Spain (which is converting to a renewable economy) has shown 2.2 jobs are lost for every green job created, … and the Green jobs cost over $700,000 each to create. While think renewable energy is a good thing, there is no need to destroy any economy with highly subsidised renewable options that cannot provide reliable base load power If you think about it, compare the work required in coal fired power, versus the work on wind generators. Which industry will have more jobs in it?

29. If you would like to support our Party please consider Forwarding this to your contacts Subscribing to our newsletter Becoming a member of the party Making a donation to the party Or becoming a part of our team of volunteers sharing different roles See our website www.climatesceptics.com.au or email info@climatesceptics.com.au For more information contact The Climate Sceptics PO Box 721, Mt Gambier SA 5290 Ph 0435423636