THERE was a most extraordinary feature story and then interview last night on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s popular late news program with well known reporter and television presenter Leigh Sales giving American journalist Chris Mooney publicity for his new book and a generous amount of air time to explain that anyone who doesn’t believe in anthropogenic global warming is scientifically illiterate and ignorant. A friend and colleague Andrew McIntyre send Ms Sales the following email in response:
Leigh,
I have a regular commentary spot on radio (Jon Faine’s Melbourne 774). I am constantly frustrated by the scientific illiteracy as outlined by Chris Mooney last night, particularly by the media, and especially by journalists within the ABC, including the much quoted Robyn 100-metres-sea-level-rise Williams. However, to say, as they do, that the science is settled is objectively and scientifically nonsense … and dangerous.
Firstly, you should know that it simply cannot be true that the science is settled when so many eminent scientists are contesting the science. I draw your attention to the Global Warming Petition Project [not be confused with earlier petitions that were sabotaged with false signatories] http://www.petitionproject.org/
There are over 30,000 registered scientists of which more than 9,000 with PhDs, in climate and related fields. Whatever else anyone thinks of climate science, you can hardly accuse these people of scientific illiteracy, which is what your programme was suggesting. The ABC should categorically refuse to accept this lie.
If you care, there is a brilliant summary outline of sceptical scientific arguments and graphs all peer reviewed by eminent scientists here http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
They may all end up being wrong as may the IPCC, but they cannot be dismissed as unscientific. These were the very arguments that Senator Fielding asked Penny Wong and the Commonwealth chief Scientist to explain. They were unable to do so. Surely this was an enormous admission and an enormous media story, but scandalously, the ABC has completely ignored it to its disgrace.
Also, I dare you to interview Garth Paltridge who has just published a book, The Climate Caper. Professor Paltridge is probably the most eminent Australian scientist working on climate. He is an atmospheric physicist, was chief Research Scientist with the CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research before becoming director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies and CEO of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, and headed the Antarctic Research Division. Now retired, he can say what he wants, and clearly cannot be accused of scientific illiteracy. Have you asked why the ABC is not rushing to interview him on TV with appropriate headlines?
Secondly, why is that now, even the IPCC scientists themselves are admitting that their models are wrong in relation to recent temperature trends. These are the consensus scientists that are now admitting that something is wrong with the “science”. Please see The New Scientist article here
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17742-worlds-climate-could-cool-first-warm-later.html
All the best,
And don’t forget to insist that the scientists answer when you ask what they ate for breakfast. This last lot only talked about their dinner, yet again. And you were rolled.
Cheers,
Andrew McIntyre
Melbourne
*********************
Notes and Links
Public must engage with scientific fact: book. Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 17/09/2009, Reporter: Margot O’Neill. Interview Leigh Sales
A new book called Unscientific America has put forward the theory that we are facing a dangerous divide between science and culture.
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2689426.htm
Author discusses science-culture divide. Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Broadcast: 17/09/2009, Reporter: Leigh Sales, One of the authors of Unscientific America, Chris Mooney, joins Lateline from Boston to discuss the book. http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2689429.htm
World’s climate could cool first, warm later
September 2009 by Fred Pearce
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17742-worlds-climate-could-cool-first-warm-later.html
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide by ARTHUR B. ROBINSON, NOAH E. ROBINSON, AND WILLIE SOON
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
The Climate Caper
http://www.connorcourt.com/catalog1/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=29&products_id=113
Part 1 is here: http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/09/leigh-sales-smears-scientific-scepticism/
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
“Also, I dare you to interview Garth Paltridge who has just published a book, The Climate Caper. Professor Paltridge is probably the most eminent Australian scientist working on climate. He is an atmospheric physicist, was chief Research Scientist with the CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research before becoming director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies and CEO of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, and headed the Antarctic Research Division. Now retired, he can say what he wants, and clearly cannot be accused of scientific illiteracy. Have you asked why the ABC is not rushing to interview him on TV with appropriate headlines?”
Surely Garth is in the pay of big Oil, loopy, denier, scientifically illiterate, ( I hope your children/grandchildren all die early from climate change) etc etc.
There you go Luke, sod, steve etc, etc. That will save you a few lines, but being the wonderful guys you are you will probably come up with a few more sweet things to say.
It is interesting to note the ramping up in the media of alarmism with the Con-penhagen Climate Change Warmaholics convention not far off. As the news gets worst for the AGW non event the images get more desperate, more alarming and more incredible. It can’t be far from the day that a prominent warmer gets an attack of the guilts and outs themselves as a sceptic. It defies belief that they can dismiss the mounting evidence that natural feedbacks keep overwhelming any of the so called amplified positive feedbacks of CO2. But what would I know stupid idiot scum denier I am. ( Just saved you a few more lines fellows)
So c’mon guys, do Garth’s book over. Give it your best shot. And next week you can tell us how to nail jelly to the ceiling.
“And next week you can tell us how to nail jelly to the ceiling.”
Ahhh, that’s an easy one.
Freeze it
Drill a hole for the nail in it (just nailing it might cause it to split)
Nail away
Oh yeah, Don’t be under it when it thaws!!!
Saved you another one Lukey!!!
Poor old Leigh – she’s the only one trying but she’s surrounded by the high priests Robyn and Tony and all the other ABC acolytes who I’m sure monitor and tut tut every word she utters.
Yeah, ain’t the warmers great??
When I lived in San Francisco, most of the warmers I got into discussions with in the coffee shop near my house would leave in a car or SUV!!!!
We have to save the world but my car is more important to me than that?! They would get real PISSY when called on it also!!
Luke, SJT, and old SOD,
are you walking and bicycling exclusively yet?? I should point out you have to go slow so you don’t increase your respiration of CO2 too much!! By the way, public Transport just shifts the CO2 to a different area!! Don’t even THINK about flying or boating!!! Scuba tanks are verboten along with ski lifts…!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Surely the ABC could give Garth the opportunity to say a few words on Unleashed.
Lukey: “So c’mon guys, do Garth’s book over. ”
I’ve read Garth’s book ‘The Climate Caper’. Its more in the nature of a polemic than a blow by blow rebuttal of AGW which of course would cost billions to produce. Its highly readable but would not appeal to an AGW believer. Its full of good quotes, here is one:
“The IPCC was always going to be a lobby mechanism for a particular view of the climate change issue, so it is not too surprising that it has become more than a little messianic and tends to ignore contrary opinion. Certainly its behavior argues a belief in the old adage that the end justifies the means. But its most remarkable achievement is that it has introduced a sort of religious supportive fervour into the behavior of many of the scientists directly involved in its activity.”
MicroW: “As the news gets worst for the AGW non event the images get more desperate, more alarming and more incredible. It can’t be far from the day that a prominent warmer gets an attack of the guilts and outs themselves as a sceptic.”
Naw. Belief in AGW is a religion similar to creationism or other forms of orthodox religion. Once the self-induced brainwashing process has taken place, deprogramming, and in particular self-deprogramming becomes rather difficult.
But you are correct in that the AGW message will become more hysterical and desperate as the temperature continues to fail to rise in accordance with prophecy. Raupach and this Mooney creep are perfect examples of this tendency.
Well there is one warming zealot who did have a conversion:
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/beware-the-climate-of-conformity-20090412-a3ya.html?page=-1
What I am about to write questions much of what I have written in this space, in numerous columns, over the past five years……
The setting up by the UN of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 1988 gave an opportunity to make global warming the main theme of environmental groups. “The IPCC process is related to environmental activism, politics and opportunism. It is unrelated to science. Current zeal around human-induced climate change is comparable to the certainty professed by Creationists or religious fundamentalists.”
Heaven And Earth is an evidence-based attack on conformity and orthodoxy, including my own, and a reminder to respect informed dissent and beware of ideology subverting evidence.”
More:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26056202-7583,00.html
“The IPCC process is related to environmental activism, politics and opportunism. It is unrelated to science. Current zeal around human-induced climate change is comparable to the certainty professed by Creationists or religious fundamentalists.”
crap.
SJT:“The IPCC process is related to environmental activism, politics and opportunism. It is unrelated to science. Current zeal around human-induced climate change is comparable to the certainty professed by Creationists or religious fundamentalists.”
crap.”
Indeed, CRAP!
SJT – may I remind you:
Thanks for printing the rant Jennifer, it was fun to read. However, should I complain about it clogging up an email address paid for by us taxpayers?
PS. Andrew McIntyre’s rant is almost as funny as the new meme amongst Denialists (as expressed here by Louis) of comparing to creationists the large body of scientists who have honestly reached their own conclusion on AGW and so reject the denialist talking points.
Jeremy C: “PS. Andrew McIntyre’s rant is almost as funny as the new meme amongst Denialists (as expressed here by Louis) of comparing to creationists the large body of scientists who have honestly reached their own conclusion on AGW and so reject the denialist talking points”
You seem to forget that a large body of creationists honestly reached their own conclusion on creationism and so reject the talking points of unbelievers. Why should scientists be necessarily any more honest than creationists? Indeed sadly when it comes to AGW science and honesty have gone their separate ways.
If you believe in scientific honesty, why not write to Raupach and condemn his lies to the newpaper?
Ohhh Dribble…..wonderful, wonderful logic…….
BTW. Creationism is just a misinterpretation of Gen 1 to 3. If Plimer had understood that he wouldn’t have bene slapped around the chops by the creationists.
Science is this rigorous process of ferreting out the truth.
Forming a hypothesis
Gathering information to test the hypothesis
Analyzing the data.
Did your hypothesis hold up?
Write up the results.
Subject your paper to a peer review group.
Put your results in a science journal.
Converse with other scientists who will test your results with their own skepticism.
If it fails back to square one.
Question then is, has OISM gone through that same process?
If there is really a valid argument why isn’t it going through the process?
A non politicized skeptic would understand the science deeply and look to see how it fits together.
Are you so solidly locked in skepticism that you can never accept AGW?
Can you put aside Global Warming Conspiracy and just study the science for a couple of years to see?
It is rather predictable that the Jeremy C simply dismisses the e-mail and its documentation and then goes stroaight to implying that it should be cesnosred.
That pretty much sums up the AGW promoter style of discussion:
Ignore, distract and censor.
That is what any true believer does, when faced with inconvenient issues.
But it is not working out too well, is it?
That pesky climate is refusing to cooperate, and those unenlightened people are not complying with the great wisdom of the AGW profits.
Hunter,
You have topped Dribble for twisted logic. Brilliant work!!!
Censoring…….. oh that is just so funny!
BTW. I hadn’t downloaded this ed of Lateline (Leigh Sales….sighh) so watched both pieces earlier today London time so thansk for the heads up Jennifer. They were good pieces and I have just reread McIntyre’s email again and its comedy that just keeps on giving…… . But then perhaps he drafted it thinking the Lateline staff are dolts……and for someone who has a spot on radio he sounds pretty unfamiliar with the editorial process i.e. he addressed the email to the face on screen neglecting to find out who the segment producer(s) was/were and sending the email to them. Still it was just a rant and I am sure that Leigh Sales (sighh) gets such emails all the time.
Jeremy C
I started a new meme that describes the AGW scientists like creationists?
That’s interesting – where did I do that? If anything I would have categorised them as Lyellians who use artful rhetoric to demonstrate scientific truths rather than the boring old empirical method. Lysenkoism is another term for it, but Creationists?
As a one time creationist myself I think I might actually know something about this. You see, creationists believe that all biologist and most other scientists are God haters, deceivers and probably secret Marxists. Evolution could not possibly be true because that would negate God, therefore Evolution is the enemy and must be destroyed at all costs. Read Plimers “Telling lies for God”. Creationists fear the doctrines of science and all but the very brave would never study science at Uni for fear of being corrupted and losing their salvation. They come from a position of; recent Earth creation must be true, therefore despite any evidence to the contrary, that evidence must be false and will either be attacked mercilessly or denied as ridiculous.
This is just the tip of the iceberg but you get my drift.
Now from my position, the group that most clearly resembles creationists are the AGW crowd and I’m not talking about reputable scientists here but the likes of Hansen, Mann etc.
I’m thinking Luke and Sod fit the bill quite well too.
“the group that most clearly resembles creationists are the AGW crowd ” don’t verbal me you creep – you’re the lot frothing like rabid dogs on here. Meanwhile every day the science just erodes you away – ho hum. And what an amazing collection of non-science denialist twits we have parading here on a daily basis. Gawd !
Now back to denying you go …
It appears we are in good company Luke.
Xiao Ziniu, the director general of the Beijing Climate Center.
You are correct about one thing Luke, I’m not a scientist, I’m just a science teacher. You, on the other hand come across as a scientist and an academic as do most of the contributors to this blog.
As a convenience I will group together who I think are scientists; Luke et al. Louis et al. and the rest who are a handful of merely interested parties.
As I’ve stated before, neither Luke et al. or Louis et al. are likely to convert anyone from the opposite side so that only leaves the third group.
If you actually care about convincing misguided people like myself that we have been conned and are in error, then you need to think seriously about your delivery. Most of what I read from Louis et al (apart from what is directed at you personally) is couched in moderate, reasonable and rational terminology and style. Hence, even if in my limited understanding of the topic I may disagree on some point, I will always attentively read and consider what they have to say regardless of my personal position.
Some people in your camp are generally reasonable but reading your comments is like trying to have a conversation in the mosh pit at a rock concert. I can’t hear the message for the noise.
Luke, you come across as a bully and a boor, you are like that kid at school that draws on other kids bookwork just to be annoying.
Prove me wron, try to convince me in a reasonable way without the nastiness.
Comment from: Renewable Guy September 19th, 2009 at 4:01 am
With appropriate editing.
Are you so solidly locked in AGW alarmism that you can never accept it doesn’t exist?
Can you put aside Global Warming Preaching and just study the science for a couple of years to see.
Again the same question to you Renewable Guy.
I am :Agnostic: evolutionist: you very much should vacinate your children: plate techtonics absolutely best evidence: have no problem with the development of solar, wind, geothermal, nuclear,etc: Man landed on the moon: the nazi holocost happened: Islamic fundamentalists flew into the Twin Towers: Pauline Hansen mostly talks rubbish: Fairies, Pyschics, Astrology, Witches, homeopathy, laughably stupid: There probably is life in outerspace: Think UFO’s extremely unlikely: Believe in Democracy, free speech : Thinks almost all conspiracy theories are rubbish: Free marketeer, Universal health care supporter: Social safety net supporter:
Oh and by the way, have read about AGW science, climate and weather extensively for twenty odd years and have come to the conclusion that AGW has been falsified.
What I want to know from you is how I dump my sceptisim when my brain tells me otherwise. Does that make me insane? Why can’t I just accept!!! I feel I should support AGW theory and for Pete’s sake I want to be like everyone else and believe but everytime someone comes up with a reason to believe a little bit of reading later or remembering a fact or two from earlier and “bang” back I slump into being a sceptic.
Should I end it all now sod or wait for the men in white coats or better still wait for my criminal trial as a ” Climate Change Denier”?
Louis,
Don’t be daft, read the posting straight after yours….
The Climate Alarmists seem to be strangely quiet on one of their favourite subjects, which at this time of the year, they are usually beying about……. The melting Arctic Sea Ice…. Why?… Well, it just aint meltin. In fact it is substantially above what they crowed about in 07 & 08.
But then again, I did see a TV grab a couple of weeks ago with one Ban Hic Moon or whatever his name is, the guy who is the Secretary General of the United Soviet Socialist Nations. The aforesaid Mr BHM was standing on an ice flow lamenting the demise of Polar Bears because of “Global Warming”, caused by the evil West.
Anyway we are in Seattle at present having just travelled from Aus. via S F, and are journeing up to Alaska. It is 35 years almost to the day, since we were here last. At that time we took a photograph of Mt. St Helens. And guess what! Standing in the same spot, there is more snow on Mt. St. Helens today, then there was then.
And in that time, the sea level hasn’t changed a bit.
“Can you put aside Global Warming Conspiracy and just study the science for a couple of years to see?”
Renewable Guy, I’ve been studying it for longer than that, looking at the feasibility, the internal logic, the weight of evidence, statistical validity etc – problem is I keep reading lots of baseless assertions, and weak science. I also see firm conclusions supporting the sceptical view.
For example – this statement “there is no prima facie evidence of a potential climate-change induced trend in tropical cyclone intensity in northwestern Australia over the past 30 years” from
Harper, B.A., Stroud, S.A., McCormack, M. and West, S. 2008. A review of historical tropical cyclone intensity in northwestern Australia and implications for climate change trend analysis. Australian Meteorological Magazine 57: 121-141.
Then the first accurate sea temperature data – from the Argo buoys – show a cooling trend…..attempts to “correct” them still show no warming….
See? Much of the real world data don’t support the theory.
The more peer-reviewed science I read, the more sceptical I become……
Sid Reynolds,
Over in the east it seems Hudson Bay has remained frozen longer this year than normal, because of colder than usual subarctic weather.
The good news is that there are a lot more healthier polar bears ‘being spotted along the west-Hudson Bay coast.’
http://themigrantmind.blogspot.com/
Jeremy C,
That post is an hour after mine – Derek Smith’s I assume you refer to ? But based on the evidence before that, I seem not to be as daft as you make out.
el gordo,
Good site. Particularly the following story about AGW advocates not listening to their own experts who are in effect sceptical of the A and the G and the W. However, they aren’t game to admit it.
Check it out Luke, SJT, Renewable Guy etc.
“….Skepticism requires evidence…..” SJT September 18th, 2009 at 5:55 pm (previous thread).
That sums up the alarmists’ cognitive bias.
‘….It is possible that little if any of the observed increase in the globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is due to observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations…’
That statement is perfectly in accord with the ‘ex cathedra’ proclamation in IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4).
While writing ‘The Origin of Species’, Darwin, who was always alive to the possibility of error in his work, observed that facts which ran counter to his theory were quickly forgotten by him, while those confirming it were always present in his mind; so every month he carefully wrote down everything that did not tally with his theory, and kept the list constantly before him.
Charles Darwin again:
“…Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge…”.
Derek thanks for feedback on inter-personal skills. Must be very difficult then being a science teacher on such a topic as AGW. That is if any our students is really interested.
The Climate Alarmists seem to be strangely quiet on one of their favourite subjects, which at this time of the year, they are usually beying about……. The melting Arctic Sea Ice…. Why?… Well, it just aint meltin. In fact it is substantially above what they crowed about in 07 & 08.
Wrong. The level this year is still substantially below the long term average, and Watts has made a brave call saying it’s growing already.
But then again, I did see a TV grab a couple of weeks ago with one Ban Hic Moon or whatever his name is, the guy who is the Secretary General of the United Soviet Socialist Nations. The aforesaid Mr BHM was standing on an ice flow lamenting the demise of Polar Bears because of “Global Warming”, caused by the evil West.
Anyway we are in Seattle at present having just travelled from Aus. via S F, and are journeing up to Alaska. It is 35 years almost to the day, since we were here last. At that time we took a photograph of Mt. St Helens. And guess what! Standing in the same spot, there is more snow on Mt. St. Helens today, then there was then.
It’s the glaciers that show the long term trend, not highly variable annual snow.
And in that time, the sea level hasn’t changed a bit.
It has.
Thanks for your reply Luke. In fact I teach at an area school in country S.A. so many of our kids live on farms. As you can guess there are several factors that would be concerning for them such as the ongoing drought conditions, cost of fuel, distances needing to travel to major towns just to name a few. Climate change on its own is a big enough headache for these people but if you throw in AGW it makes their future even more uncertain.
Unfortunately, farmers won’t have ready access to some of the transport infrastructure changes that will be required, such as electric and/or hydrogen technology, if AGW is real and if governments can overcome their inertia and actually do something about it.
Good site. Particularly the following story about AGW advocates not listening to their own experts who are in effect sceptical of the A and the G and the W. However, they aren’t game to admit it.
No, it’s the usual case of misrepresenting what has been said. Kind of like that Monty Python scene where the King wants to guards to not let his son out of the room.
So Derek – do you teach your students about AGW and what do you tell them?
“No, it’s the usual case of misrepresenting what has been said.”
Well, this is what was said:
“I am not one of the sceptics,” insisted Mojib Latif of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University, Germany. “However, we have to ask the nasty questions ourselves or other people will do it.”
SJT,
This guy is a realist, a S C E P T I C .
But if he doesn’t want to be villified by you gory warmers and lose cred amongst the brethren, he has to qualify these kinds of realistic statements with the precursor: “I am not a sceptic but….”
Apologies to Jen here. She has already posted this very relevant story on one of her mini posts
“The Guardian recently interviewed Xiao Ziniu, the director general of the Beijing Climate Center.
Excerpts:
A 2C rise in global temperatures will not necessarily result in the calamity predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), China’s most senior climatologist has told the Guardian.
He had this bit of wisdom to pass along:
“There is no agreed conclusion about how much change is dangerous,” Xiao said. “Whether the climate turns warmer or cooler, there are both positive and negative effects. We are not focusing on what will happen with a one degree or two degree increase, we are looking at what level will be a danger to the environment. In Chinese history, there have been many periods warmer than today.”
He added:
“Climate prediction has only come into operation in recent years. The accuracy of the prediction is very low because the climate is affected by many mechanisms we do not fully understand.”
Below is an abridged English translation of an article by Wang Jing that appeared in China’s Science Times on September 7, 2009.
“The IPCC’s estimate of a global temperature increase of 2.5 degrees C due to CO2 emissions increase is an average value obtained by some meteorologists through multiple model calculations. Ding’s report found that there is no solid scientific evidence to strictly correlate global temperature rise and CO2 concentrations. Some geologists believe that global temperature is related to solar activities and glacial periods. At least human activity is not the only factor to cause the global temperature increase. Up to now not a single scientist has figured out the weight ratio of each factor on global temperature change.
However, the massive propaganda “human activity induced the global temperature increase” has been accepted by the majority of the society in some countries, and it has become a political and diplomatic issue. Why do the developed countries put an arguable scientific problem on the international negotiation table? The real intention is not for the global temperature increase, but for the restriction of the economic development of the developing countries, and for keeping their own advantageous positions.”
Says it all really, doesn’t it. And it’s the official Chinese position too.
“So Derek – do you teach your students about AGW and what do you tell them?”
Derek, do you still beat your wife?
I wonder if Luke means Presumed GW, Presumed Natural GW or Presumed AGW?
Being a country school teacher you better teach your kids the evils of govt drought assistance as well.
hahahahahahahahaha
So Spanglers ponders drought assistance while the climate has changed. Note that is your classic denialism. Is my arse on fire coz it’s burning? Nah !
I meant AGW and associated issues.
Teaching AGW is the same as teaching nonsense. 😉
Luke, a good question that deserves an honest answer.
Firstly, it’s clear that I’m a skeptic so it’s hard to be objective about this in the classroom. the worst part is the range and volume of propaganda that gets thrust upon us by the powers that be. I’m quite sure Luke, that if you saw the drivel that we are supposed to pass on to our future leaders you would howl with laughter. When I have tried to “do the right thing” and use department material I mostly give up in disgust and proceed with an unprofessional rant about Al gore, Greenpeace and P.E.T.A followed by some OHP’s about past climate and then scare them to death with the next looming glacial period.
Apart from that I usually avoid the subject.
Louis,
I’m not sure about the reasonableness of the Wang Jing opinion that you quoted:
“The real intention is not for the global temperature increase, but for the restriction of the economic development of the developing countries, and for keeping their own advantageous positions.”
China dams reveal flaws in climate-change weapon
By JOE McDONALD and CHARLES J. HANLEY, Associated Press Writers Joe Mcdonald And Charles J. Hanley, Associated Press Writers
XIAOXI, China – The hydroelectric dam, a low wall of concrete slicing across an old farming valley, is supposed to help a power company in distant Germany contribute to saving the climate — while putting lucrative “carbon credits” into the pockets of Chinese developers.
But in the end the new Xiaoxi dam may do nothing to lower global-warming emissions as advertised. And many of the 7,500 people displaced by the project still seethe over losing their homes and farmland.
“Nobody asked if we wanted to move,” said a 38-year-old man whose family lost a small brick house. “The government just posted a notice that said, ‘Your home will be demolished.'”
The dam will shortchange German consumers, Chinese villagers and the climate itself, if critics are right. And Xiaoxi is not alone.
Similar stories are repeated across China and elsewhere around the world, as hundreds of hydro projects line up for carbon credits, at a potential cost of billions to Europeans, Japanese and soon perhaps Americans, in a trading system a new U.S. government review concludes has “uncertain effects” on greenhouse-gas emissions.
One American expert is more blunt.
“The CDM” — the 4-year-old, U.N.-managed Clean Development Mechanism — “is an excessive subsidy that represents a massive waste of developed world resources,” says Stanford University’s Michael Wara.
Forced relocations have become common in China as people in hundreds of communities are moved to clear land for factories and other projects, provoking anger and occasionally violent protests. But what happened here is unusual in highlighting not just the human costs, but also the awkward fit between China’s authoritarian system, in which complaints of official abuse abound, and Western environmental ideals.
Those ideals produced the Clean Development Mechanism as a market-based tool under the Kyoto Protocol, the 1997 agreement to combat climate change. The CDM allows industrial nations, required by Kyoto to reduce emissions of gases blamed for global warming, to comply by paying developing nations to cut their emissions instead.
Companies thousands of miles away, such as Germany’s coal-burning, carbon dioxide-spewing RWE electric utility, accomplish this by buying carbon credits the U.N. issues to clean-energy projects like Xiaoxi’s. The proceeds are meant to make such projects more financially feasible.
As critics point out, however, if those projects were going to be built anyway, the climate doesn’t gain, but loses.
Such projects “may allow covered entities” — such as RWE — “to increase their emissions without a corresponding reduction in a developing country,” the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) said in its December review.
The system’s defenders call it essential for hard-pressed industrialized nations to meet their Kyoto quotas, and say the CDM’s standards are being tightened.
“It’s not as if we’re printing money in a garage,” Yvo de Boer, U.N. climate chief, said of the credits. “Lots of legitimate questions are being asked,” he acknowledged to The Associated Press, but “that’s why I’m happy we have a transparent process.”
That transparency — online project documents and a U.N. database — allowed the AP to analyze in detail this exploding market, which attracts projects ranging from small solar-power efforts in Africa, to emissions controls on giant chemical plants in India and China.
The AP has found that hydroelectric projects, whose climate impact is most widely questioned, have quickly become the No. 1 technology in the CDM, and China in particular is rushing in to capitalize.
The Chinese now have at least 763 hydro projects in the CDM approval pipeline and are adding an average of 25 a month. By 2012, those projects alone are expected to generate more than 300 million “certified emission reductions,” each supposedly representing reduction of one ton of carbon dioxide. Even at recent depressed market prices, those credits would be worth $4 billion.
If the United States enters the Kyoto system, as proposed by President-elect Barack Obama, it would be the biggest player in a market expected to be worth hundreds of billions a year by 2030.
Here in central China’s mist-shrouded Zishui River valley, evicted farmers worry not about carbon-market billions, but about the thousands of Chinese yuan doled out to compensate them for lost homes and farmland.
Xiaoxi residents said that when they were evicted in 2005 to make way for the dam and its 4-square-mile reservoir, officials paid too little for condemned homes and forcibly removed owners who held out for more.
They said payments for losing their rights to state-owned land, where they grew beans and squash, were far below China’s legally required minimum, which they said requires payment of the value of at least five years’ harvests.
Residents spoke with the AP on condition their names not be used, to avoid trouble with authorities.
The dam’s state-owned builder, Hunan Xinshao Xiaoxi Hydropower Development Co., defended its dealings with the people of Xiaoxi.
“The compensation standard we adopted was relatively high compared with similar projects and was in accord with government regulations,” said Wang Yi, assistant to the company’s general manager.
For their homes, people said they were paid government-set prices of $4.60 to $5.70 per square foot. But such payments didn’t go far, even in this remote town surrounded by small tin mines and steep, wooded hills.
“What I got certainly was not enough to buy a new place. We had to borrow more,” said a man who stood holding his 1-year-old grandson in a street lined with new apartment buildings where some relocated families have moved.
He said officials refused to discuss compensation for thousands of yuan he had spent to fix up his family’s house. “I refused their offer, but they forced us out and demolished it,” he said.
The dam company says local surveys found overwhelming support for the project, with 97 percent of 212 respondents saying they were satisfied with their compensation. But people interviewed in Xiaoxi said they were not contacted for such surveys.
The CDM money has spawned an industry of consultants who help Chinese companies assemble bids for emissions credits, and of U.N.-certified “validators,” firms that then attest that projects meet U.N. standards.
For Xiaoxi, the developer hired Germany’s TUEV-SUED as validator, and then commissioned it again later to confirm that the project complied with European Union and German government requirements on “stakeholder consultation” — that local people approve of the project beforehand.
The TUEV-SUED report acknowledged that “the concerned villagers and their leaders were not involved in the decision process.” But it contended the guidelines’ “essence” was fulfilled because those affected “have improved their living environment.”
The German Emissions Trading Authority approved Xiaoxi credits early last year, but that government agency’s Wolfgang Seidel now tells the AP it is investigating questions newly raised about Xiaoxi. Julia Scharlemann, spokeswoman for beneficiary utility RWE, said it also was “making our own inquiries” regarding Xiaoxi.
A key question from environmentalists, led by the U.S.-based group International Rivers, is whether projects meet the CDM test of “additionality” — that they contribute to making real reductions of greenhouses gases rather than be business-as-usual projects capitalizing belatedly on the CDM bonanza.
At Xiaoxi, where the dam should be operating by 2010, construction began in 2004, two years before the developers applied for CDM credits, suggesting it would have been built without CDM money.
Company official Wang counters that CDM money will help pay retroactively for expensive Italian technology needed to cope with the site’s complex geology. “Without the money from trading emissions credits, the project would be unprofitable,” he said.
Environmentalists also point out that hydro power has long been a national priority in China. Since the 1990s — long before the CDM — the Chinese have added an average 7.7 gigawatts a year of hydro power, equivalent to six Hoover Dams annually, International Rivers reports.
In other words, Chinese planners aren’t suddenly replacing emissions-heavy coal-fired power plants with emissions-free dams.
The Xiaoxi project design document, in fact, says Chinese regulations would block the building of such a relatively low-output coal plant here. But that’s how planners determined the “emissions reductions” from the $183-million, 135-megawatt dam — by calculating how much carbon dioxide a 135-megawatt conventional power plant would produce instead.
That bottom line — some 450,000 tons of global-warming gases each year — would be added to RWE’s permitted emissions if it buys the Xiaoxi credits, at a current annual cost of $8 million. And such calculations will be repeated at 37 other Chinese hydro projects where RWE will buy credits.
All told, the 38 are expected to produce more than 16 million CDM credits by 2012, legitimizing 16 million tons of emissions in Germany, equivalent to more than 1 percent of annual German emissions.
At today’s low market prices, those credits would be worth some $300 million, paid to Chinese developers and presumably billed to German electricity customers, who by 2007 were already paying more than double the U.S. average rate per kilowatt-hour.
Utilities from Italy’s Edison to Tokyo Electric are making similar deals for hydro-project credits in a dozen other countries, from Peru to India to Vietnam.
Rather than reduce their own emissions, “firms in developed countries are buying offsets that don’t represent real behavioral change, real reductions in emissions,” said Wara, the environmental law professor.
The U.S. GAO investigators said they learned that middlemen sometimes manipulate project paperwork to show a need for CDM financing, and they believe “a substantial number” of projects have undeservedly received credits.
The CDM system “can be ‘gamed’ fairly easily,” said German expert Axel Michaelowa, both a critic and a CDM insider, as a member of the U.N. team that registers CDM projects.
But Michaelowa said the CDM remains “a crucial bridge between industrialized and developing countries.” It has problems but they can be solved, he said.
Christiana Figueres, a Costa Rican ex-member of the board overseeing the CDM, echoed Michaelowa’s view. She said it’s crucial to encourage China in particular, whose coal power plants make it the world’s biggest emitter of carbon dioxide, to build clean-energy facilities. And she counters critics who oppose dams in general because of their environmental impact.
“We cannot continue to demonize hydro,” Figueres told the AP.
She and R.K. Sethi, the CDM Executive Board’s Indian chairman, both pointed to reforms since 2007: A reinforced U.N. oversight staff, a validators’ manual with stringent standards, and a growing number of board reappraisals of validator findings.
In two recent dramatic steps, the board suspended the CDM’s most active validator, the Norwegian firm DNV, questioning its project assessments, and it rejected its first Chinese hydro project — after registering 139 others for credits. The project wasn’t “additional,” the board said, rejecting DNV’s validation that it was.
But environmentalists say a total overhaul is needed, shifting from project-by-project assessments that invite “gaming,” to a negotiated regime whereby the developed world, through aid funds, subsidizes emissions cuts in the developing world more broadly, industrial sector by sector.
As atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to reach record levels, threatening disruptive warming this century, the CDM pipeline continues to swell, with 4,364 projects worldwide approved or awaiting approval, one-quarter of them hydroelectric.
Here in Xiaoxi, meanwhile, where project credits await U.N. approval, dam construction jobs have produced an economic boomlet, but it’s only temporary and people’s grievances are not.
One group, hopeful still for a hearing, has written to authorities with their plea for more yuan for farmers’ lost way of life.
“We strongly request that they give us an explanation and a satisfactory resolution,” they wrote.
Joe McDonald reported from China, and Charles J. Hanley from New York. Associated Press Writer Patrick McGroarty in Berlin contributed.
The international carbon-trading transaction involving the Xiaoxi hydro project will do absolutely nothing to reduce CO2 emissions. As the article explains, the dam is a done deal–with or without the carbon trading.
So what’s happening instead. The Germans are making a charitable donation to the Chinese government. The Chinese government will get the same amount of hydro power, but their construction cost will be less.
Since the displaced homeowners and farmers aren’t getting just compensation, the Germans are rewarding the Chinese government for screwing their own citizens in the Xiaoxi area.
What will the Chinese government do with the savings? Who knows? On future hydro projects, they could increase the level of compensation to displaced homeowners and farmers. (Fat chance.)
The Chinese government could fund other economic development projects. They could invest it in Western stock markets. They could manufacture more weapons. Or the Chinese government fatcats could simply line their own pockets.
Real genii, those Germans! In this particular example, the Germans don’t appear to be restricting the economic development of the Chinese.
I don’t think that there’s a single well-defined Green agenda behind Carbon Trading. I’ve still got the infamous quotes from the Green Hell Blog in the back of my mind. The people quoted there fall into 4 main categories: misanthropes, Animal Rights extremists, born-again Commies, and a greedy sanctimonious creep named Al.
Oops, here’s a link to the HuffPost article that I was referring to.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/25/china-dams-reveal-flaws-i_n_160692.html
Jermey C: “You have topped Dribble for twisted logic. Brilliant work!!! ”
Pray tell, why is my logic twisted?
If a believer (ie a believer in AGW) is asked for evidence for their assertions, there are invariably two or three responses:
1. The first is to point to increase in average global temperature as being the evidence for AGW. One must then patiently explain to the believer that this is not evidence for the anthropogenic in AGW. After a while your patient explanation of this point may get through, but not always.
2. If, after the patient explanation given to the believer in 1., the believer may begin to realize that what he needs to provide evidence for is the anthropogenic in AGW, instead of just rise in temperature, he immediately refers to the IPCC scriptures, or refers to ‘thousands of highly qualified climate scientists’, or vaguely refers to ‘ computer models’.
3. The final preferred option for an AGW believer when asked to provide evidence is to change the subject altogether.
Thus, in my opinion, the comparison of AGW believers with creationists is perfectly valid. The believer relies on the alleged authority of sacred texts and a corrupt priesthood.
Ohhh Dribble,
Well, it seems you can’t think through your own position.
You are faithfully following this lovely new propaganda meme on equating creationism with science on AGW. The denialists do push some good propaganda lines I’ll give them that and people like you and Louis faithfully reproduce them.
Personally, I find the creationist meme particularly funny. This because I’m a fully paid up christian, yep a holy roller, a conservative evangelical, you know all that sort of thingy. However…….. I’m not a creationist…… Creationism is simply a misinterpretation of Gen 1 to 3. So you see why I find it a funny piece of propaganda.
But I do think its a really good propaganda meme from the guys who tell you what to think.
The other bit of propaganda that I find really funny is the resurfacing of the denialist use of Galileo as a poster boy. Its funny because he was a devout christian till the end of his life so the people who tell you guys what to think haven’t really thought through their history…. but no suprise there. When the denialists first used to bring up Galileo it always seemed to be by the middle aged, bearded amongst you who would blow out their cheeks, look into the middle distance and talk about him in a way that made it seem their thoughts were, “I know how he would’ve felt”. It used to cracck me up so its great its back along with the creationist propaganda meme. I’m anticipating hours of laughter.
Jeremy C,
Setting up a couple of strawmen are you?
Louis,
Its more about how you guys get your thinking. You’re not very good at context in writing are you, you would make a very good creationist.
Dribble, your last sentence implies that all believers are creationists, when both Jeremy and myself have stated that this is not the case. Similarly, implying that all or even most clergy are corrupt is simply rubbish.
Dismiss religion all you want, you can have a festering hatred for God and Christianity for all I care but don’t make the mistake of vilifying a whole subset of society because of your antagonism.
Jeremcy
As a Lyellian I am an abject failure but then to deduce I might make a good creationist from the evidence is drawing a very long bow, indeed.
Lordy lordy, I misnamed you as Jeremcy, tsk, tsk, It’s Jeremy C, of course.
Oh but it also occurred to me that if being creationist implies that I am an empiricist, as my clerical predecessors were two centuries ago, then that is a label I will wear with honour.
What I won’t wear is the fictitious claptrap you proselytise.
I feel sorry for creationists, they devote their lives to unquestioning obedience to the word of their leaders, in many cases in fear of discipline should they have a contrary opinion.
I would defend their right to believe whatever they wished as long as they had the ability to seek truth without prejudice.
“Dismiss religion all you want, you can have a festering hatred for God and Christianity for all I care but don’t make the mistake of vilifying a whole subset of society because of your antagonism.”
Lordy lordy, I forget that some of our readers are Americans and thus, religious.
Luke et al, I’ve been thinking about why I am a skeptic because the reality is, for me at least, that despite what virtually everyone says on this blog, there is no absolutely hands down clear cut winner in the “evidence” stakes.
Remember Louis, I’m talking here from my perspective.
Anyway, it may come down to who got to me first(metaphorically speaking). For example, a couple of years ago I read a very interesting book about the little ice age which was compiled by a historian. There was a temperature graph in the front of the book aligned with a chronology of major events covering the last 1000 years in northern Europe. This graph clearly showed the MWP and the LIA so later on when I saw Mann’s hockey stick graph, It had a negative effect on me and I rejected it. Then began the biased search for information that reinforced my position which was quite successful and led me to paleoclimate sites which showed that the earth was warmer in the past such as the Eemian interglacial.
At some time I started looking at both sides of the argument but almost every site that I went to told me that I was stupid, an ignorant fool, akin to a holocaust denier, should be tried for crimes against humanity and wouldn’t know credible science if it kicked me in the groin. How was I expected to react?
Actually,now I think of it my first venture into the world of climate change was about 13 years ago when I stumbled upon John Daly’s site while I was searching for something else.
Anyway, the point of all this is that by a twist of fate or whatever, the skeptic side got to me first but there hasn’t been anything from the other side that I can actually comprehend that would change my mind. And the behavior of the likes of Monbiot etc just makes me dig my heals in.
I think with human nature it sometimes comes down to “are you a Ford or a Holden person”.
In America in particular, you have a division into a ‘faith’ based culture and a ‘fact’ based culture. The AGW/creationist meme is, roughly, about the relationship of Truth to Authority in a supposedly fact based culture. The AGW believers, and Mooney is a perfect example, expect that all citizens should dutifully believe in AGW on the basis of the authority of the IPCC and the ‘scientific experts’. I am merely pointing out that this belief by appeal to authority is more of a feature of faith based culture than fact based culture.
The reality is that the evidence for the anthropogenic in AGW is very slim, so much so that prominent scientists are forced to lie about it when promoting AGW to the public. As a skeptic I find this corruption of science by those who pretend to be purer than pure to be highly amusing and an endless source of comedy.
Dribble,
Your posts are ‘the comedy that keepeth on giving’. You go from twisted and circular logic to ranting, wonderful!
So let me ask you a question….
“I forget that some of our readers are Americans and thus, religious”, so how do you account for me as an Australian? Or perhaps you could let me know to what authority I am taking orders from , perhaps; names, adddresses, phone numbers……email addresses…er….er…..drop boxes……er instructions folded in anewspaper left on the parkbench at three pm..
I’m sorry Louis, I got my question to dribble in ahead of you as I am sure you were just typing ‘evidence required’ to him on the above quote when this appeared.
hahahaha Chris Mooney got a spot on the ABC.
The idiot has a degree in English Lit from Yale. Did Sales mention that?
So Derek is there strict curriculum material given on AGW. Is there a balance or is it fairly trivial.
How much leeway do you have?
The issue of course is whether these young people will have any skills to filter opposing views in the media and to inevitably vote on these issues as adults.
And are students interested or would rather be playing footy?
Creationists believe in the writings of ONE book. It’s a book that has an unknown origin an unknown authors. Belief in creation theory requires faith as there is no science, just a book.
To compare the creationists with global warming believers or sceptics is ridiculous.
Derek,
I’ve not bothered with the science for a long time – rather I recognise AGW as a political agenda and counter it on that level. It’s tied with with political correctness, deferral to authority, and the resort to character assassination, a variant of critical theory, points to the collectivists, finally achieving their goal by incremental takeover of our culture.
Wall Street has been expunged of capitalism – all the banks are now public utilities, and the US has caught up with the UK into the descent into serfdom.
As I never tire of repeating, contacts in the ALP have always maintained that AGW was about forcing us to live more sustainable lifestyle, and the science was but a means to an end.
However when confronted here with overwhelming stupidity even I think enough is enough – that it’s time to duck for cover and let the socialists learn from personal experience, (it will take them a generation) that their system does not work. Sweden has finally realised this and is starting wind back the nanny state. Unfortunately the US and Australia haven’t reached this state and must go down that path of experiencing the futility of socialism.
That Malcolm Turnbull is even “contemplating” some sort of different emissions legislation when he should be totally opposing it is a sign that the game is up. Our public service is wholly into this regulation, and it’s happening despite all our protestations, and like the US, we will have to do the hard yards before common sense prevails. Regulation of the workplace under the name of workplace safety has all the appearances of the totalitarian state – the paperwork you have to fill in on a monthly basis is mind boggling, Incident registers need to be maintained – I call them “snitch” books – because any activity could be considered to affect workplace safety. Soon political correctness will become pervasive – and if you stupid enough to tender for a commonwealth job, then all sorts of prerequisites are demanded – you have to have affirmative action implemented, diversity implemented, before they even give you a chance. So unless you have your token lesbian, poof, aboriginal, TS islander, etc, no work from the Commonwealth. If that isn’t a quasi totalitarian state, then I’m quite happy being a monkey’s uncle.
Climate change fears are merely the last hurdle they need to jump to enable energy regulation via emissions taxation.
What I am not sure about is whether they actually believe all this AGW stuff. The gulled here most certainly do, but ALP types I know don’t, and if the trade unions start to realise what is happening, then maybe there is hope after all, but I am not banking on it.
I don’t think anyone can counter overwhelming stupidity when it reaches a critical mass. All you could do is duck, get out of the way, and pick up the pieces and start anew.
Janama
I think Jeremy C was setting a straw man when he started on the creationist line of argument.
Jeremy C: ““I forget that some of our readers are Americans and thus, religious”, so how do you account for me as an Australian? Or perhaps you could let me know to what authority I am taking orders ”
Sorry, whenever I hear an evangelist crank up the bible-bashing, I automatically assume American. My deepest apologies for this slight upon your national character.
janama: “Creationists believe in the writings of ONE book. It’s a book that has an unknown origin an unknown authors. Belief in creation theory requires faith as there is no science, just a book.”
Q. Where’s the science in AGW?
A. Please refer to the IPCC reports for all the information you need.
Q.E.D.
Hi Luke, sorry it took so long to get back to you.
“So Derek is there strict curriculum material given on AGW. Is there a balance or is it fairly trivial.
How much leeway do you have?”
It just so happens that I taught it today in my senior Biology class. It’s part of the chapter on “Human influences on Ecosystems” and it’s strict CSIRO party line stuff. It is, however only a cursory look at the issue and only uses basic information.
I have some excellent PPT CD’s from a company called BIOZONE that I used today. I started with a slide describing the collective role of GHG’s in the atmosphere, explained in simple terms how the GH effect works, showed a slide of CO2 conc. from Mauna Loa 1955-2005 and explained the seasonal variations, showed the standard slide of global ave temp 1860-2008 noted the overall trend upwards in both graphs and explained that scientists have concluded that the first graph is responsible for the second. Then we talked about the industrial rev. and how the increased human contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere over the last 150 or so years is believed to be a major factor in the warming trend.
Then I told them that I don’t completely believe all of that but that they have to learn it for their exams.
The greenhouse effect is also part of the environmental Chemistry section in senior Chem.
“The issue of course is whether these young people will have any skills to filter opposing views in the media and to inevitably vote on these issues as adults.”
Excellent point Luke, I think that only rare students have these sort of skills and that I’m probably doing well to get them to acknowledge that there is frequently many sides to an argument rather than believing everything that they see on youtube. Most adults I know have only limited filtering skills.
“And are students interested or would rather be playing footy?”
Three guesses Luke.
You’ve got a problem louis as I didn’t start the creationsist argument – one of the silly propaganda meme’s you guys so easily latch onto.
janama: “Creationists believe in the writings of ONE book.”
Seems to me that you are displaying a Christian centric view of religion. The Koran is also a book about God – and his creation. There are others, most notably in India, but I will restrict my remarks to the Bible and the Koran. The point is that there is more than ONE book dealing with the creation of the world and all in it.
However, one might consider that the substantive point still stands – apart from the belief of the faithful that they are the word of God, these books show evidence of having been pwnned by more than one author, identity(s) unknown.
janama: “Creationists believe in the writings of ONE book. It’s a book that has an unknown origin an unknown authors. Belief in creation theory requires faith as there is no science, just a book.”
Q. Where’s the science in AGW?
A. Please refer to the IPCC reports for all the information you need.
You can’t tell the difference between a book of myths and legends, written by unknown authors, that offers no evidence for any of it’s claims, and one that lists all it’s authors, has references for the evidence it relies on, that relies on the proven scientific method. That’s how poor the argument against AGW has become. No wonder people like are ‘smeared’ as you put it. You refuse to even look at the evidence. That is not scepticism, and deserves no respect.
A sceptic is obliged to look at the evidence, otherwise they are not a sceptic. If they do not understand it, they are obliged to admit that.
Andrew McIntyre? Gee, he uses the same type of arguments to claim HIV does not cause AIDS (“look at all those scientists that disagree!”). An estimated 330,000 excess deaths in South-Africa may have been the result of this type of reasoning. But I guess that is valid skepticism, too. Seriously, Jennifer Marohasy, you sure know how to pick your friends.
Sadly, Latif’s story has been misrepresented, albeit probably unintentional. Latif’s papers propose a relatively stable period up to about 2009-2010, upon which there will be MASSIVE warming for 5-10 years (well above the projections), followed by yet another period of limited warming. The poor man is lamenting he has trouble how to explain that natural up-and-down movements over periods of 10-15 years are superimposed on a rising trend, and that this in the ‘short’ term may even lead to some level of perceived cooling.