Features Australia

Climate change stripped bare

31 August 2019

9:00 AM

31 August 2019

9:00 AM

Last July, the Prince of Wales warned global leaders they have ‘18 critical months’ to solve climate change and restore the balance of nature. This is the second such dire warning Prince Charles has given. In 2008 he forewarned, ‘the world faces a series of natural disasters within 18 months, unless urgent action is taken to save the rainforests’. Like his latest omen, the first was wildly exaggerated.

No doubt the prince is well-meaning. Perhaps, like millions of others who harbour Malthusian or guilt instincts, Prince Charles is naturally attracted to climate change hysteria.

Yet as someone deeply immersed in conservation and climate matters, it surely cannot have escaped him that 73 out of 73 climate models predict temperatures that are significantly above real world experience and are not fit for purpose. He should also be aware that weather data has proved equally unreliable. Evidence grows that much of it is ‘adjusted’ to suit a global warming agenda.

Take NASA’s breathless media release that 2014 was the warmest year on record. After challenge, the agency gave it only a 38 per cent probability. Or, NOAA’s key publication in the lead-up to the Paris climate conference which whistleblowers revealed was released before critical data issues were resolved

It’s not unusual for ‘official adjusted’ weather records to err on the warmer side. For example, an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report claimed that last July was the hottest month ever. Satellites say it was probably the fourth- warmest of the last 41 years. Australia’s weather bureau demonstrates similar bias. Amateur auditors regularly expose its inconsistent methodology and careless approach. They raise serious questions as to the reliability of Australia’s temperature record.

For the best part of five decades, the world has been fed dud prediction after dud prediction. Over that time the scientific and meteorological community has gone from near unanimity on global cooling, to the same level of confidence on global warming. At last, the public is beginning to see through the hysteria and not least, the tradition of widely promoted false dawns. As British scientist Philip Stott says, ‘In essence, the Earth has been given a 10-year survival warning regularly for the last fifty or so years’.

The latest deadline is 12 years. That’s how much time the IPCC says we have to keep global warming to ‘a maximum of 1.5C, beyond which, even half a degree, will significantly worsen the risks of drought, floods, extreme heat and poverty for hundreds of millions of people’. This significantly ratchets up the Paris imperative which, just four short years ago, agreed 2.0C was sufficient. For the new target to be met, means global carbon dioxide must be cut by 45 per cent by 2030. Good luck with that. If it is to be achieved, it will mean a change to almost every aspect of life and will carry an incalculable economic cost for the global economy.

The recent South Pacific Forum in Tuvalu laid bare the real agenda behind the climate change delusion. Despite handing out $500 million for a climate change and oceans funding package for the Pacific region, Australia was singled out as the pariah for refusing to commit economic suicide. It was accused of bullying its way through negotiations and for turning a blind eye ‘to its closest neighbours’ plea for an end to the coal industry’. However, no one offered to compensate Australia for the economic pain this would inflict.

Rather, a pretentious New Zealand Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern ignorantly demanded Prime Minister Scott Morrison increase Australia’s action on climate change. She disregarded the reality that New Zealand’s per capita emissions growth rate over the past 27 years has outstripped Australia’s five times. She also ignored the inconvenient truth that Australia’s per capita renewables deployment rate is four to five times faster than the EU, the US, Japan and China.

Of course, no one uttered a critical word to the Chinese delegates whose ‘greenhouse’ gas emissions are growing at the fastest pace in seven years and are more than the US and the European Union combined. Nor did this reality prevent the sanctimonious Chinese from lecturing Australians on the need to ‘earnestly carry out their obligations under the Paris agreement’. Nothing like cloaking economic and political self-interest in moral superiority. But if China genuinely believes there is a climate emergency, then it is incumbent on it and other developing nations to do more than lecture the developed world. They totally dominate global energy use and emissions growth.

Presumably, out of politeness to their hosts, forum delegates also avoided discussing claims that island nations face existential threats from rising sea levels. The latest satellite imaging shows 80 per cent of Pacific Islands, including Tuvalu, are growing or stable. Interestingly, sea levels at Sydney’s Fort Denison have fallen six centimetres since 1914.

Stripped of the theatre of shoddy science, meteorological hype, cheerleading rent-seekers, alarmist headlines, Extinction Rebellion stunts, climate emergencies and, even spooky Greta Thunberg’s lectures, the stark truth is that climate change is about politics and wealth redistribution, not science.

Timothy Wirth, president of the UN Foundation, confirms this. He consoles himself with, ‘Even if the (climate change) theory is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.’ Well, given the trillions of dollars misallocated for the cause, that’s of little consolation. Dr Ottmar Edenhofer, director of the influential Potsdam Institute, gets it.’One has to free oneself,’ he says, ‘from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.’ The last word is from UN climate supremo, Christiana Figures, who admits, ‘probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves… is to intentionally transform the economic development model’.

Manifestly, the climate establishment has no clothes but, how many leaders will call it out?

Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.

You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it. Try your first 10 weeks for just $10

Show comments