Download Chapter XX Collapse of IPCC

Chapter XX
Collapse of the IPCC
Chapter XX .............................................................................................................................................................1
Collapse of the IPCC................................................................................................................................................1
1.
Establishment of the IPCC .............................................................................................................................1
1.1.
Kyoto protocol ....................................................................................................................................1
2.
Exeter (Feb 2005) .........................................................................................................................................1
3.
DEAT (May 2005)..........................................................................................................................................2
4.
I start writing my technical report ..................................................................................................................2
5.
Kyoto at the crossroads (22 June 2005) .........................................................................................................2
6.
Hockey stick (28 June 2005) ..........................................................................................................................3
7.
G8 aftermath (13 July 2005) ..........................................................................................................................3
7.1.
Looking ahead ....................................................................................................................................4
7.2.
The bell tolls on a decade of illusion .....................................................................................................4
8.
The way forward (15 July 05) ........................................................................................................................4
8.1.
Interview with IPCC chairman ..............................................................................................................4
9.
Legal and moral issues (22 July 2005) ............................................................................................................5
9.1.
Legal and moral issues ........................................................................................................................5
9.2.
The South African situation ..................................................................................................................6
9.3.
Legal and moral issues ........................................................................................................................7
9.4.
Further reading ...................................................................................................................................7
10.
Call for guidance (25 July 2005)................................................................................................................7
10.1.
Time for plain speaking .......................................................................................................................7
11.
Climate and reason (1 August 2005) .........................................................................................................9
11.1.
My priority ..........................................................................................................................................9
11.2.
Damage control ..................................................................................................................................9
11.3.
Coincidence? ......................................................................................................................................9
12.
Here I stand (3 August 2005) ...................................................................................................................9
12.1.
Postscript ......................................................................................................................................... 10
13.
The cancer of ignorance (8 August 2005) ................................................................................................ 10
14.
Post Mortem .......................................................................................................................................... 11
1.
Establishment of the IPCC
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988. Its first scientific report was published in 1990, the second in 1995,
and the third assessment report (TAR) in 2001.
J Houghton’s authoritative book Global warming – the complete briefing (Cambridge University Press 2004) is of interest. There are several
concerns relevant to this chapter. For example on p17 he credits Roger Revelle of California in his 1957 paper as being the first person to express
concern regarding the build up of carbon dioxide as a result of human activities on climate change, whereas the South African civil engineer DF Kokot
had already addressed this issue in his book An investigation into the evidence bearing on recent climatic changes over southern Africa
published nine years earlier in 1948.
An even more important omission is the lack of reference to climate related anomalies in temperature, rainfall, river flow and solar activity reported by
the civil engineer RE Hurst in 1951. Furthermore, the anomalous grouping of sequences of wet and dry years and their association with solar activity
was first reported by the South African forester DE Hutchins in his book Cycles of drought and good seasons in South Africa published in 1889.
Yet in the IPCC TAR it is stated that
Mechanisms for the amplification of solar effects on climate have been proposed but currently lack a rigorous theoretical or observational
basis.
There are none so blind ---!
While there are abundant references to radiative forcing by greenhouse gasses (GGEs), there is a complete absence of references to the far more
important effects of variations in solar activity itself.
These two issues, the reliance on proxy data instead of the abundant real world data, and the reliance on radiative forcing by GGEs instead of
variations directly attributable to regular variations in solar activity, are major weaknesses in global climate predictions.
The basic problem in this whole climate change issue is the fundamental lack of numerical skills and consequent reliance on unprovable process theory
instead of observational theory that needs no proof.
1.1.
Kyoto protocol
In 1995 a protocol was formulated that required commitments from signatory nations, specifically industrialised countries of the developed world for
specific, quantitative reductions in GGEs from their 1990 levels. This would be expanded over time to include developing countries, particularly China
and India with their rapidly growing economies, as well as South Africa.
The terms of the Protocol were agreed at a conference in Kyoto in 1997. The details were finally agreed in 2001. By the end of 2003, 120 nations had
agreed to the Protocol with the notable exception of the USA and Russia. Russia held out until February 2005 when it agreed to the conditions of the
Protocol against the advice of its Academy of Science.
The Kyoto Protocol came into force. Its implementation would have serious adverse consequences on national economies, particularly those of the less
affluent countries of the African continent.
2.
Exeter (Feb 2005)
On the instructions of the UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, a conference was held in Exeter with the title Avoiding dangerous climate change. All
presentations were by invited pro-climate change speakers. The conference was specifically convened as a prelude to the G8 deliberations.
Chapter XX Collapse of IPCC.doc
29 June 2017
2
In his keynote address the Chairman of the IPCC RK Pachauri identified the major impacts of climate change as they affected health, agriculture, water
resources, rising sea levels, and loss of habitat and species. He made some alarmist predictions in these fields. One of which was that 50 million people
globally may be displaced due to change-induced famine. He maintained that changes are already taking place including a significant increase in the
number of disasters of hydrometeorological origin, principally floods and droughts. In parts of Asia and Africa, the frequency and intensity of droughts
have been observed to increase in recent decades.
Once again the exclusive use of global climate models (GCMs) and complete lack of validation using real world hydrometeorological data was a notable
feature of the presentations at the conference. In a presentation relating to the South African situation under the subheading Linkages between
climate variability and water resources in southern and eastern Africa it was stated:
Coupled to possible variations in rainfall are a number of possible changes that may be induced in the hydrological regime. Decreases in
runoff for example, over much of South Africa. Overlaid onto these scenarios of climate and related hydrological regime is the possibility that
these changes may also be exacerbated by ‘shock’ events e.g. drought and floods.
All these mays are the equivalent to the statement that if pigs had wings they could fly. There is simply no evidence of this in the real world
observations.
3.
DEAT (May 2005)
On 5 May 2005 the Office of the South African Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT) issued a press release titled South Africa braces
for impacts of climate change: major conference to be held in October. Many local newspapers and magazines carried excerpts from the
release in articles on climate change. The emphases are mine.
It contained a statement that
The simple truth however is that the climate is everyone's concern, as over the next 50 years it may well define the worst social, economic
and environmental challenges ever faced.
It went on to say that
Climate change could lead to provinces such Mapumalanga, Limpopo, the North-West, KwaZulu Natal and even Gauteng becoming malaria
zones by 2050. In less than 100 years, the research indicates that thousands of plants species may well be extinct starting with a massive
reduction in the distribution of fynbos and succulent Karoo biomes. With clean water resources becoming increasingly scarce, small-scale
agriculture as likely to be hard hit with less rainfall in certain regions and too much in others. In short, climate change will intensify the worst
effects of poverty through losses in biodiversity, agriculture, health and almost every sector of society. The government climate change
response strategy kicks off with a series of events in October, including a conference of African scientists with a national conference on
climate change.
Other postulated threats were rising sea levels and expanding deserts. No solutions were offered. I can hardly think of a more alarmist statement of
national policy.
I deal with alarmist press release again below.
4.
I start writing my technical report
I have been closely involved in research on water resources, floods and natural disasters at national and international level for the past 35 years,
personally as well as a research administrator and coordinator. Since 1993 I have been involved in studies of linkages between climate variability and
hydrometeorological responses based on the wealth of routinely recorded data. Details are provided in earlier chapters of this report.
Following the October 2003 SASAS conference I developed an email distribution list that I used to keep professional colleagues informed of the
progress of my studies. Nobody in South Africa, and as far as I know elsewhere in the world, was undertaking research along these lines. Initially, the
distribution list consisted mainly of climatologist SASAS members but it subsequently grew to the present 60 addressees in several related disciplines.
The feedback has been very encouraging.
My direct studies came to an end with the submission of my two papers to peer-reviewed journals in August and November 2004 and their publication
in April and May 2005. By then I had assembled a lot of information on this subject. In January 2005 I started compiling the material for publication in
a comprehensive report on An assessment of the likely consequences of global warming on the climate of South Africa. The first chapter
was distributed in May 2005. The publication of my two papers and the production of my first chapter coincided with the peak of the international
activities. My efforts were a very small voice of protest in the international scene.
My professional problems in this field started in 1993 – more than ten years ago – with the submission of my paper Floods, droughts and climate
change to the SA Journal of Science (SAJS) and the subsequent long, unexplained delay of 18 months before publication. In June 2001 after my return
from the Tokyo workshop on Water and Climate I submitted my general interest article Climate change and river flow – an agnostic view to the
SAJS but it was rejected. I was very sure of my case. I assembled and studied a very large hydrometeorological database and in October 2002 I
submitted a detailed paper to the SAJS titled Climate and the multidecadal properties of rainfall and river flow. It soon became clear that this
would suffer the same fate as my previous submission. Correspondence became unpleasant and in May 2003 I withdrew my paper. More details are
provided elsewhere in this chapter as well as in an ealier chapter.
The reason why I keep harping on my publication problems with South Africa’s premium science journal is because there was only one common feature
in my rejected or withdrawn articles submitted to the SAJS. It was the word ‘climate’.
The rejection of papers criticising climate change is a worldwide phenomenon that has resulted in many complaints by authors. One of the international
exceptions is the journal Energy and Environment based at Hull University in the UK. My paper Linkages between solar activity and climatic
responses was published by the journal in May 2005. It was a paper by two Canadian authors in an earlier issue of this journal that precipitated the
collapse of the IPCC.
Engineers and others are familiar with instability phenomena. A situation becomes increasingly unstable. The greater the instability the less the effort
(energy) needed to trigger the sudden collapse. By June 2005 the whole climate change issue was highly unstable. Its collapse was sudden and
dramatic. I recorded it as it happened in my emails starting 22 June 2005. The rest of this chapter other than the post mortem, is directly from my
emails.
5.
Kyoto at the crossroads (22 June 2005)
A few emails ago I commented that the wall around the climate change issue was crumbling. I did not realise that it would happen so soon. The next
two weeks will be critical for the survival of the Kyoto Protocol.
3
Last November the UK PM Tony Blair announced that he would make climate change one of the key issues during his chairmanship of the European
Union. More recently he expressed the same view regarding his position as chairman of the G8 (the world’s most affluent industrialised nations)
meeting to be held at Gleneagles, Scotland from 6 to 8 July. The major international problem is that the USA, the world’s greatest producer of
greenhouse gasses, refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol.
When the threat to Kyoto became obvious, the academies of science of the G8 countries as well as those of China, Brazil, India and Italy, produced a
joint statement: Global response to climate change. I have attached the file 06072005.pdf to save you the effort of having to download it yourself.
Now PM Tony Blair is in a very awkward position. It is essential that the final communiqué produced at Gleneagles should express the unanimous view
of the participants, but the USA is digging in its heels. The only unanimous verdict is likely to be a toothless document.
The other major concern that worries the climate change activists is that the European Union countries that were once united in their support for Kyoto
are now wavering as they are already behind in achieving their reduction in greenhouse gasses. They are beginning to appreciate the huge costs of
meeting their Kyoto commitments – only months after signing the protocol. To make matters worse, the opposition party in Germany has announced its
intention to reduce the stringent emissions standards imposed by the present government a political issue at the general election later this year. The
opposition party in New Zealand has announced similar resistance.
I continue to be amazed by the political naivety of some members of the scientific community both here and overseas.
6.
Hockey stick (28 June 2005)
On 8 June Tony Blair visited George Bush in an effort to persuade him to change his mind but he did not succeed. On the previous day the academies
of science of the G8 countries plus those of Brazil, China, India and Italy produced a statement advising all nations to take immediate steps to
contribute to the global reduction of greenhouse gas emissions plus other measures. A file containing the statement is attached. Academies
06072005.pdf
The first crack in the IPCC position occurred on 23 June when the IPCC vice-president and member of the Russian Academy of Sciences issued a
statement that the global climate change problem was overshadowed by many fallacies and misconceptions that often form the basis of political
decisions. He ended: Therefore I believe that the link between man’s activities and rising temperatures has not been proved completely. Natural factors
and the impact of man seem to be interlinked.
In the US, notwithstanding the strong support for Kyoto by the US Academy of Science, the US Senate Committee on Energy and Commerce wrote a
strongly worded letter to the Chairman of the IPCC on 23 June demanding answers to a number of questions. (A file containing the letter is attached
Senate 0623005_Pachauri.pdf .)
The Senate Committee also sent a personal letter to Dr. Mann of the University of Virginia. (File Senate 0623005_Mann.pdf attached). This must be
unprecedented in scientific research.
One of the major criticisms of the IPCC including its South African supporters, is the lack of transparency and refusal to supply critical supporting
information in a format that would allow others to replicate their studies. When confronted with opposing views they claim that their findings represent
consensus views and that those who differ are branded as sceptics with their own agendas. A good example is the response by Mann quoted in Wall
Street Journal where he was quoted as saying that he would not be intimidated into releasing his data and algorithms. Now he is about to face the
consequences.
The IPCC is now in a very difficult position. It is obliged to reply without jeopardising US research funding, which is very substantial.
The following three pending documents will seal the fate of the IPCC, the Kyoto Protocol and possibly Dr. Mann’s career. They are the declaration on
climate change that will be issued by the G8 nations on 8 July, and the IPCC’s response to the US Senate committee’s questions that is due before 11
July, and Dr. Mann’s response to the Senate’s queries, also due by 11 July.
I suggest that all South African scientists involved in the climate change debate should note the position that Dr. Mann finds himself in. This is because
he apparently refused to make his data and methodology available to others so that they could replicate his studies. Bear in mind that his conclusions
are the foundation on which the IPCC based their findings. This was the famous ‘hockey stick’ graph. These in turn resulted in the recommendation that
nations, including and especially the USA, spend thousands of millions of dollars annually on damaging greenhouse gas emission control measures.
Whatever the responses are, climate change advocates will no longer have the free hand that they have enjoyed up to now. In particular, they should
appreciate that they will no longer be immune from criticism and that they will be obliged to make their data and methodologies available so that
others can replicate their analyses.
As I see it, in future, US scientists who question the climate change theory are more likely to receive state funding than those who support it. This
polarisation is not healthy for the advancement of science in this important field, but the climate change advocates have themselves to blame. They
should stick to science and leave politics to the politicians. It is not their function to launch politically motivated awareness programmes. It is the
politicians who have to balance benefits and costs. I have yet to see any estimates of the cost of implementing the Kyoto Protocol in South Africa.
It should also be noted that the world’s leading academies of science have placed their credibility at stake. They have already been accused of mixing
science with politics. If they are rebuffed by the G8 and the US Senate Committee, they will lose their status of independent advisers to governments.
This will be a great setback to world science. Let us hope that this will not happen.
Watch this space!
Attachments:
Academies 06072005.pdf - Joint statement by the twelve academies of science.
Senate 0623005_Pachauri.pdf - Letter from US Senate committee to the chairman of the IPCC.
Senate 0623005_Mann.pdf - Letter from US Senate committee to Dr. Mann.
7.
G8 aftermath (13 July 2005)
I have attached the two Gleneagles communiqués issued by the UK Prime Minister’s office. The first is the communiqué itself and the second is the
Gleneagles plan of action.
This is my interpretation of the documents based on the wealth of paper generated during the past weeks.
Note the title: ‘Climate change, clean energy and sustainable development’, and the emphasis on addressing climate change within the
constraints of sustainable development.
It is very clear in the documents that no nations are expected to take any action to curtail dangerous greenhouse gas emissions (GGEs) that would
have an adverse effect on their economies. This is a complete turn around from the current position where nations, particularly those who signed the
Kyoto Protocol, are obliged to reduce GGEs regardless of the cost.
It is also very clear that there is no consensus, either scientifically or politically, on the presence and particularly the magnitude, of adverse
consequences of climate change. This is notwithstanding the joint communiqué of the academies of science immediately prior to the G8 meeting.
4
Note the switch in emphasis from prevention to adaptation, and from legal enforcement to voluntary encouragement.
Note also the multidisciplinary approach in paragraphs 31 and 32 of the plan of action.
7.1.
Looking ahead
There is no way at all that climate change advocates will persuade governments to reconsider their positions on climate change within the near future.
In my opinion, the only way that they will succeed in future is to replace alarmist rhetoric with hard facts. To do this they will have to make a
fundamental change away from unprovable hypotheses based on proxy data and global climate models that are no more reliable than their
assumptions. Instead they will have to move towards observational theory based on the wealth of real world data. They will have to make a serious
effort to involve scientists in other branches of the natural sciences (such as tropical diseases) as well as disciplines in the applied sciences such as
engineering, agriculture and economics.
All this in turn requires coordination but South Africa does not have a visible equivalent of the academies of science of other countries. Nor do we have
a multidisciplinary scientific journal that is willing to publish contentious material.
7.2.
The bell tolls on a decade of illusion
Editorial: The Australian 13 July 2005.
As the G8 Gleneagles summit proved, there is no consensus on how to combat global warming today or tomorrow but the bell now tolls on a decade of
illusion. The Kyoto protocol, with its system of caps, targets and timetables, is being buried with a discretion that conceals one of the great public policy
failures in recent decades. Hoax is probably a better word. [My emphasis.]
The demise of Kyoto is a symbol of the transfer of global power from Europe to the Asia-Pacific region where China and the US are located. The idea
that the Kyoto system, sanctified by Europe's leaders, sustained by the public's idealism and driven by the greens, would work on a global basis was
always flawed. The rearguard action to salvage Kyoto will be waged by some European nations, the green lobby and
sections of the scientific community but their cause seems forlorn.
The Kyoto targets and timetables are not effective. In Australia we allowed the debate to polarise around Kyoto. But the real debate now is about postKyoto and how to get a comprehensive and practical system that limits greenhouse gas emissions. What's actually happening is that Tony Blair and
other nations have moved closer to the US position that the answer must be found in technology and this is reflected in the G8 climate statement.
Developing nations pledged to high levels of economic growth to destroy poverty and improve incomes reject the campaign by rich EU nations to
impose legally binding emission caps that involve a surrender of sovereignty at considerable economic cost.
The future solution will be different from Kyoto. It will be universal. It will involve less "top-down" prescription and more "bottom-up" practical
applications. There will be a greater emphasis on innovation, cleaner technologies and lower emitting energy sources. There may well be timetables but
they are going to be voluntary, not binding and yes, the new global consensus is a long way off.
8.
The way forward (15 July 05)
Three different views on the G8 communiqué are shown below. The most important is Reuters interview with the IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri.
There can be no doubt that the IPCC will have to follow an altogether different philosophical approach from that followed until now.
Nobody claims that climate change is not important. It was the radicalism and branding everybody who disagreed as sceptics with hidden agendas, that
brought about its downfall.
In South Africa we have a unique diversity in climate and everything that goes with it. Surely it would be far more productive to study this diversity and
its linkages with other natural processes (meteorological, hydrological, etc) than continue to make alarmist pronouncements in fields that are outside
the professional competence of those who make them.
I will continue writing my report, which is in full compliance with the following high level views and recommendations.
IPCC (2001). Report of Working Group 1: The Scientific Basis, in its foreword:
“The IPCC was jointly established by the WMO and UNEP in 1988. Its terms of reference include … to assess available scientific and socio-economic
information on climate change and its impacts and on the options for mitigating climate change and adapting to it…”
Joint Science Academies’ Statement. (June 2005).
“Prepare for the consequences of climate change…The projected changes in climate will have both beneficial and adverse effects at the regional
level, for example on water resources, agriculture, natural ecosystems and human health…The task of devising and implementing strategies to adapt
to the consequences of climate change will require worldwide collaborative inputs from a wide range of experts. Including physical and natural
scientists, engineers, social scientists, those in the humanities, business leaders and economists.”
G8 Gleneagles communiqué. (July 2005).
“7. Adaptation to the effects of climate change due to both natural and human factors is a high priority for all nations…we will work with
developing nations to help them improve their resilience and integrate adaptation goals into sustainable development strategies.
Because of our unique situation I really believe that South African scientists can make a positive contribution to these objectives instead of having
others dictate what we should do.
8.1.
Interview with IPCC chairman
INDIA
WON'T
COMMIT
TO
EMISSION
CAPS,
SAYS
IPCC
CHAIRMAN
"We (India) are a large political entity but should we be penalised on that account?" Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the United Nations'
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, told Reuters in an interview. "People here are not responsible for even 1/20th of the extent of the
greenhouse gases that, say, someone in North America is probably emitting." Pachauri said developed countries had to take the lead in cutting carbon
emissions
that
scientists
say
are
causing
the
world
to
heat
up.
"We are not historically responsible for this problem. So the first steps have to be taken by those who are historically responsible -- the developed
countries."
"If the developed countries do nothing and expect us to take the burden, that's clearly unacceptable ... we are a large country, a poor country, an
energy-scarce
country
and,
therefore,
a
lower-emitting
country
in
terms
of
per
capita
emission."
The G8 meeting in Scotland pledged to "act with resolve and urgency" to reach common goals that include reducing greenhouse gases, but did not set
5
any measurable target or timeframe. The eight most powerful nations said it was in the world's interest to work in partnership with major emerging
economies -- a reference to China and India, which are expected to expand their greenhouse gas output rapidly with economic growth.
"The G8 focused on climate change which is a very far-reaching development because they have not done it in the past," Pachauri said. "They invited
five major developing countries including India, which gave us an opportunity to state our position very effectively."
9.
Legal and moral issues (22 July 2005)
On 21 July I compiled the memo below on legal and moral issues. When I had finished I typed NOT DISTRIBUTED at the top of the memo and went to
bed. It was too disturbing. As has happened so often in the recent past, this morning something occurred that persuaded me to change my mind. A
colleague forwarded a 43-page report titled Africa – Up in smoke? The second report from the Working Group on Climate Change and
Development.
Guess what? The prominent silhouette on the title page was a camel! To drive the message home, the illustration on top of the contents page showed
two camels. Then on the third page there was the hockey stick graph. The last page showed the logos of the supporting organisations. They included
Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, and the World Wildlife Fund plus a number of others that I had never heard of.
The contents were the usual alarmist messages – floods, droughts, malaria, plus some new ones – the Churches and climate change, locust plague in
the Sahel, the Mozambique flood disaster, the ecology of disaster reduction, the recent tsunami, gender problems, etc. Then, just as I was getting tired
of reading, there was a full-page illustration of two camels again. This was too much, so let me put it bluntly:
Climate alarmism has brought about its own downfall.
The G8 communiqué was a severe setback to the whole climate change issue. The developments described below confirm that the climate sceptics
have a strong case that will have to be addressed before the climate change advocates can regain respectability.
Before reading further, let me ask a simple question. Assume that you have developed a new climate computer model and you announce through the
press that very severe floods will occur in the Gauteng area on 1 October, and that the government should take immediate steps to relocate tens of
thousands of people to safe areas above the 100-year flood line. Now assume that a parliamentary committee writes to you demanding details of your
methodology and that you provide your computer program so that it can be evaluated by others. Would you reply that your program is your intellectual
property and refuse to provide any further details?
Dr Mann, the developer of the hockey stick graph, which is the very foundation of the climate change issue, was asked by a US Senate committee to
provide his computer program and other information. In an aggressive reply, he questioned the committee’s jurisdiction, answered most of the
questions, referred the committee elsewhere for other information and told them that his computer program was his private, intellectual property. In a
few paragraphs, he destroyed not only his own credibility, but the credibility of the whole climate change issue.
It is NOT the purpose of the memo below to rub salt in any wounds.
Now read on.
9.1.
Legal and moral issues
On 5 May 2005 the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT) issued a press statement that included the following summary. Over the
next 50 years climate change may well define the worst social, economic and environmental challenges ever faced… In short, climate change will
intensify the worst effects of poverty through losses in biodiversity, agriculture, health and almost every sector of society.
Now the department and its scientific advisers face considerable embarrassment, as the very foundation on which this press release was based has
become a matter of international dispute.
It started with research by Dr. Mann, an assistant professor at the University of Massachusetts in the USA. He produced a graph showing a steadily
declining temperature for the past 1000 years followed by a rapid increase since about 1900. This graph and its derivatives featured prominently in the
Summary for Policymakers issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001.
An often-quoted statement from the IPCC summary is that the 1990s was the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year for the past 1000 years.
This is also from Mann’s study. During the past year the graph, which was dubbed the hockey stick because of its shape, was increasingly questioned.
Mann used proxy data, particularly tree ring data from alpine trees, to develop a relationship between the proxy data and global temperature. This
involved statistical correlation analyses.
Scientists in other disciplines found that they were unable to replicate the hockey stick from the same proxy data. They pointed out that Mann’s graph
did not show the temperature changes associated with the Medieval Warm Period of the 11th to 14th centuries or the Little Ice Age in the 15 th to 19th
centuries. These scientists included McIntyre (a mining industry executive) and McKitrick (an economist) both from Canada and von Storch (a
statistician) from the Netherlands. Mann was requested to provide his data, methodology and computer algorithms in a format that would allow others
to replicate his results but refused.
A stalemate position developed until the weeks before the G8 summit when the US came under increasing pressure to comply with the Kyoto protocol
requirements. In an unprecedented step, on 23 June a US Senate committee sent letters to the IPCC, the US National Science Foundation and directly
to Mann requesting certain information.
6
The letters can be downloaded from:
http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/Letters/06232005_1570.htm
In an aggressive response dated 15 July Mann set out his position. His reply can be downloaded from:
http://www.realclimate.org/Mann_response_to_Barton.pdf
On 19 July McIntyre responded to Mann’s reply to the Senate committee. His response can be downloaded from:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=266#more-266
The only points that I wish to make are that Mann is adamant that: My data and methodological information, and that of my colleagues, are available
to anyone who wants them…and I have met every requirement of transparency and openness in our research. He maintains later: My computer
program is a piece of private, intellectual property.
I agree with the following policy quotes from McIntyre’s response to Mann’s letter to the Senate committee. It is in the interest of good science, as well
as in the interest of the public, who fund our science activities, that data and information produced at public expense, be made available for secondary
use in the shortest time period… I am sure that others, like me, would have assumed the broadest possible disclosure and closest possible examination
– and later comment – Replication is the keystone of science. Since the Mann et al results cannot be replicated, they are not science.
The availability of information in a format that others can use to replicate the researcher’s results is not only fundamental to the advancement of
science, but is essential in the context of climate change research where costly action by other parties and nations may result. I have adopted this
policy for the past 18 months by distributing the results of my research as I progressed, and again in the draft chapters of my technical report. As will
be seen in the forthcoming chapters, I either provide the mathematical equations in the report or show where they can be found. The database will be
provided.
Computer program algorithms are numerical implementations of the equations. I have always had good cooperation from other institutions. For
example it took me three months of programming to write the computer code for the implementation of the Wakeby distribution. When I completed it I
found that it could not be fitted to many South African data sets. I approached the principal author of the method in the USA who confirmed that the
method was not applicable in our situation. I had similar problems with the GL/LM distribution. I approached the responsible institution in the UK and
supplied them with data sets and my computer output. They used their own programs and confirmed my results. I could then distribute my material
with confidence. This is the way that science should work.
9.2.
The South African situation
This brings me to the South African situation. My opinion article Climate change – there is no need for concern was published in the
January/February 2004 edition of The Water Wheel. Responses were published in the May/June edition in the form of two opinion articles by four
writers and letters to the editor by no less than 13 writers all of whom disagreed with my views. This was formidable opposition. However, there was
one characteristic common to all these comments. Not one of them attempted to produce detailed evidence to the contrary. On 15 August 2004 I sent
the following email to the four principal writers.
________
Dear colleagues
It was good hearing from you again, even if I was not given the traditional courtesy of seeing and responding to your comments before they were
printed. I have just sent off the attached two memos to my email circulation list.
I have one further question to all of you. Your statement about the shrinking of Cape vineyards, etc is obviously extremely important. Could you please
provide me with the following information so that I can pass it on to my colleagues on the distribution list?
7
1.
What are the principal physical changes in the meteorological processes that will result in the environmental changes. I assume that they are
rainfall and temperature. If so:
2.
What are the current conditions (average, variability and extremes) for each process.?
3.
What are the expected changes (average, variability and extremes) for each process.?
4.
What is the basis for converting the changes to environmental consequences?
5.
How are the changes determined? I assume that they are GCM scenarios. If so
6.
What are the inputs and outputs from the GCM?
7.
Has the GCM been calibrated?
8.
Has it been used by anybody else in South Africa. If so
9.
Where and with what results?
My distribution list is the only forum for exchanges on this issue. Can you suggest another way that we can exchange ideas?
Regards
Will
_______
I believe that these were legitimate questions in the light of the comments by these writers on my Water Wheel article. But none of the addressees
provided me with this information.
Note the similarity of my questions to those by the US Senate committee last month. Note also that there is international consensus that scientists are
obliged to present their findings in a format that is transparent and can be replicated by others.
Now have another look at the DEAT press release of 5 May as quoted in my draft opinion article to the SAICE editor that I circulated yesterday.
On 5 May the South African Department of Environment Affairs and Tourism issued a press statement titled South Africa braces for impacts of climate
change. Major conference to be held in October. It continued: Over the next 50 years climate change may well define the worst social, economic and
environmental challenges ever faced. The threats included the spread of malaria to wide regions of South Africa; the extinction of thousands of plant
species; and that small-scale agriculture is likely to be hard-hit by less rainfall in certain regions and too much in others. The statement concluded: In
short, climate change will intensify the worst effects of poverty through losses in biodiversity, agriculture, health and almost every sector of society.
Each and every one of these claims is contestable, bordering on irresponsible, yet they were presented to the public as facts. Given the extreme
seriousness of the situation described in the press release, where can I find the material on which these views were based in a format that will allow
me to replicate the results, and specifically the answers to the questions that I asked of my critics eleven months ago? I am particularly interested in
the basis for the spread of malaria, as well as claims of increases in floods, droughts, effects on water resource development and natural disasters.
I will inform my climate list recipients if, when, and what form I receive this information. I will attempt to replicate the studies and report my results in
my forthcoming Chapter 10. If this information is not forthcoming we can draw our own conclusions. [I received no response to this request.]
9.3.
Legal and moral issues
Note that the DEAT press release was in the form of an edict (an order proclaimed by authority). There was no room for discussion. Wait until October
and the public will be provided with details of the action that the government intends taking. This attitude is not only directly in conflict with the
government’s policy of consultation before action is taken, it is also contrary to the basic principles of science – transparency, reproducibility and
discussion.
It is not for me to preach to anyone. I merely wish to bring these matters to the attention of all those on the distribution list. It will be very interesting
to see the responses of DEAT and its scientific advisers to the international conflict between science and politics that has been waged during the past
two months, and whether the DEAT will repeat these views again in future.
I suggest that all of those involved in climate change research study the legal issues surrounding Dr Mann's claim that the data, methodology and his
computer program are his intellectual property and that he is not obliged to disclose them. The principles apply to South African researchers,
universities and research funding institutions. The basic legal issue is whether the information belongs to the individual, the university, or the research
funding agency, and whether or not the owner is obliged to provide it on request to other scientists in the same field of study. Regardless of the legal
situation, what are the moral requirements where the research could have far-reaching implications such as those described in the DEAT press release?
My offer to participate in discussions is still on the table but is now subject to the above information being made available to me and other scientists
who have an interest in this subject, which is of great national importance. The responsibilities of researchers regarding transparency and
reproducibility are now abundantly clear.
9.4.
Further reading
The importance of the hockey stick graph can be assessed by referring to the following publications, all of which reproduce the graph.
IPCC (2001) Summary for Policymakers. (Several hockey stick graphs.)
Houghton J (2004). Global warming. The complete briefing. Third edition. pp 138+
Lomborg B (2001). The skeptical environmentalist. Measuring the real state of the world. Ninth reprint 2002. pp 260+
Crighton M (2004). State of fear. Techno-thriller. p 84.
10.
Call for guidance (25 July 2005)
10.1.
Time for plain speaking
This whole climate change debacle has got out of hand and it is time for some plain speaking.
I received the following email from UNESCO in Paris on Friday 22 July. I only opened it after I had finished writing my memorandum on legal and moral
issues, which I distributed to my email list on Saturday 23 July.
______
Dear Prof. William John Alexander,
Water-related disasters such as floods and droughts are major challenges that need to be overcome in order to ensure sustainable human development
and poverty alleviation. The needs to take appropriate actions to mitigate
numerous international events and conferences.
8
impact from devastating water hazards have been emphasized at
To respond the needs, the launch of the International Flood Initiative/ Programme (IFI/P), as a joint effort of UNESCO, WMO, UNU, ISDR and IAHS,
was declared at the UN World Conference on Disaster Reduction (WCDR) in January this year. Furthermore, the proposal to create the International
Centre for Water Hazard and Risk Management under the auspices of UNESCO (ICHARM) was approved at the 171 session of UNESCO executive board
in April and the Centre plans to be established coming autumn in Tsukuba, Japan.
We are planning to collect information and knowledge on global movement, needs and outlook of water resources and risk management from various
points of view for the development of ICHARM.
Therefore, we would like to ask your contribution from yourself as an internationally prominent professional (or your staff under your supervision) to
collect information and data, put your knowledge into writing on (a) assessment of the global situation and needs of the field, (b) current state of your
specialized field / country / region in water-related risk management, (c) strategy and direction of your organization / sector with respect to water
related risks, (d) criteria to evaluate the success of a international center, (e) necessary conditions for an international center to function effectively and
(f) outlook on water resources and risk management including ICHARM, 4th WWF, WCDR and UN-Water, and compile them as at least 30-page report,
and to provide you with reasonable fund ($5,000) for the work since we have received recommendation from Mr. Szollosi-Nagy.
If you are interested in this work, could you please send us a brief note to explore your idea at your earliest convenience? If you have any questions,
please feel free to ask us.
________
I am the only scientist in Africa who can provide UNESCO with the required information. The problem is more social and economic than technical, and
there are no easy solutions. So what should I tell UNESCO?
1.
That the official position of the South African authorities is that in the Dept. of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT) press release of 5
May. This is entirely negative and offers no solutions. It is unhelpful within the context of the UNESCO request.
2.
That this prediction was based on findings of SA research institutions that refuse to supply information on the data and methodology in a
format that can be replicated by other scientists?
3.
That two years ago the SA Journal of Science made it clear that it was not prepared to publish material that challenged the climate change
issue? I was threatened with legal action if I disclosed confidential information in connection with my manuscript that I was forced to
withdraw. In defiance of the threat I have reproduced a copy of my email to the editor dated 5 May 2003 below. Judge for yourself.
4.
That if my paper had been published, both the DEAT and its advisers would have had information at their disposal that would have
demonstrated that their fears were groundless?
5.
That I would be able to respond to the UNESCO request without embarrassing the South African government and its scientific advisers?
6.
That I am now in the process of writing a detailed 300-page technical report titled An assessment of the likely consequences of global
warming on the climate of South Africa at my own cost, and that my findings are in direct conflict with those of the climate alarmists?
I am now forced to advise UNESCO that I am unable to provide the information that they require. I will have to fabricate some excuses and forfeit the
offer of $5000 for providing the information. This breaks my heart because it is the poor and defenceless peoples of Africa who will suffer. They are
now at the mercy of environmentalist bodies such as Greenpeace, WWF and crazy scientists who proclaim that the African continent is turning into a
desert as a result of climate change. These bodies and scientists are more interested in preserving the fynbos biome than relieving the plight of the
suffering people of Africa.
I have no information on the positions of the Department of Water Affairs or the Water Research Commission on the climate change issue.
I have advised UNESCO that I will reply to their request by next Monday. Any face-saving suggestions would be more than welcome.
___________
Email to Editor of SAJS dd 9 May 2003
The title of my paper was Climate and the multidecadal properties of rainfall and river flow. The first referee recommended publication.
MS 5127 Request for final decision please
Dear Graham,
I have had discussions with professional colleagues. They informed me that the second referee was out of order when he criticised the validity of the
district rainfall database. The database was published by the responsible government agency, and any shortcomings are not valid reasons for
withholding publication of conclusions based on it.
As far as the third referee is concerned, his comments are obviously offensive and prejudiced, and are not worthy of consideration. In any event they
are not relevant, as the first two referees both recommended publication, the only proviso being the second referees comment on the database.
If there are any passages in the MS that in your opinion could cause offence, I will gladly change them. However, I am not prepared to make further
changes of a technical nature.
I respectfully request that you make an urgent and final decision please.
Yours sincerely
Will
The editor insisted that my differences with the second and third referees be resolved before publication. In conscience, I was unable to do this. He
offered to appoint another two referees as a favour to me, but I had had enough and I withdrew my paper.
Remember that ancient rhyme ‘For the want of a nail a kingdom was lost’. If my paper had been published it could have led to the implementation of
poverty alleviation measures not only for our country but also Africa as a whole. Now it is too late.
9
11.
Climate and reason (1 August 2005)
With less than two months to go to the October conference announced by the DEAT on 5 May, the public has still to be informed of the nature of the
conference, who the presenters will be, and who will be invited to attend it. Time is getting short if it is to be an open discussion where scientists in
affected disciplines are to be invited to present their views. A one-way presentation will not go down well with the scientific community. It is also
interesting to note that this press release was issued before the events of the recent G8 summit. There are no indications of how the communiqué
issued by the G8 nations will affect the Department’s policy or the views of those who advised the Department.
Those who still hold the view that human activities in will have disastrous effects on climate-related processes will have to move beyond verbal rhetoric
to numerically quantifiable proof, if they wish to persuade the increasingly sceptical audience.
Taking this one step further, given the choice between the Kyoto protocol, which sees the control of dangerous greenhouse gas emissions as the only
solution, and the G8 communiqué, which gives priority to measures that can accommodate the changes, if and when they occur, nations will follow the
latter route, and research funds will be allocated accordingly.
Climate alarmists can protest as much as they like but until they can produce solid, quantifiable and provable supporting evidence, their protests will fall
on deaf ears. I do not see any nation, including South Africa, taking costly action based on the unproven precautionary principle. Increasing alarmism is
having the opposite effect to that which was intended.
11.1.
My priority
My priority is applying the knowledge and experience gained over many years towards improving the lot of the poor and disadvantaged people of South
Africa in particular, and the African continent in general. This has both positive (improving their conditions) and negative aspects (challenging actions
that will impoverish them further). My technical report has the latter as its principal motivation at this time, in the light of the above press release. The
recent pronouncements of the DEAT have been totally negative. Not a single solution was offered that will improve the condition of these people.
Furthermore, the press release contains information that is demonstrably false and can only lead to further alarm and despondency.
To make matters worse, international environmentalist organisations such as WWF and Greenpeace have climbed onto the climate change bandwagon.
Concern for human welfare does not feature in their agendas. They can only be encouraged by the DEAT’s policy declaration where the conservation of
fynbos and Karoo biomes is considered to be more important than combating poverty, malnutrition and disease.
I have summarised the action that I intend taking below. Unfortunately, it is more critical than constructive for the simple reason that I have had no
indication at all that those who make these dire predictions are amenable to reasoned discussion. With the postulated serious consequences in mind,
the bodies that are in a position to initiate these discussions are the Departments of Water Affairs, Environmental Affairs and the Water Research
Commission. Another body that could play a role is the National Science Foundation but its priorities seem to be elsewhere. The South African Journal
of Science unfortunately has a policy of not publishing material that it deems to be controversial, without appreciating that most of the advances of
science occur when scientists question existing beliefs. The suppression of conflicting views takes us back to the dark ages of science.
This will be the thrust of this and the remaining chapters of the technical report.
11.2.
Damage control
I trust that everybody appreciates the very severe damage that climate alarmism has caused to international scientific institutions and science in
general. For the first time in history twelve national science academies issued a joint statement. They then suffered an embarrassing rebuff by the
world’s most powerful national leaders at the G8 summit. Also for the first time in history, a committee of the US Senate and the UK House of Lords
independently issued public statements criticising the science associated with the global warming issue.
I believe that now is the time for scientists to consider why science has suffered this humiliation and start looking towards damage control and
restoring respectability.
Climate change is real. It is the causes and consequences that are in dispute.
South Africa, like many other countries that have dry climates is running out of conventional water resources. This is exacerbated by the very high
probability of widespread rainfall events and floods within the next 12 to 24 months followed by sequences of years with well below rainfall and river
flow through to 2016. The probable consequences of these events should be the national research priorities.
11.3.
Coincidence?
The highest recorded floods in the coastal areas of KZN occurred in April 1856 when the Mgeni River overflowed its banks and floodwater crossed
Durban and entered the harbour, (History of Durban). The highest flood recorded in the Loire River at Orleans, France occurred two months later in
June 1856, (Alexander photos).
The most severe meteorological drought in the interior of South Africa occurred during the period October 1991-March 1992, (Van Heerden and
Alexander 1992). The UK drought achieved its greatest severity in the early spring of 1992, (Institute of Hydrology annual report 1992-1993).
These are two examples from my studies that show global linkages of extreme events.
Last Tuesday 940 mm of rain fell in one day in Mumbai, India and 1000 lives were lost. This is the heaviest rainfall recorded in one day in any city in
India, (CNN 1 August 2005). Hutchins 1889, Appendix F to my report, demonstrated similarities between the occurrence of floods and droughts in India
and South Africa. Extensive flooding also occurred in China within the past month. Does this support my view that we can expect heavy rainfalls in
South Africa in the near future?
As a matter of interest, the highest rainfall recorded in a South African city was on 1 September 1968 when 552 mm was recorded in four hours in Port
Elizabeth. The highest loss of life in an urban area occurred in December 1995 at Edenvale near Pietermaritzburg where 150 lives were lost. This event
was associated with the climate reversal that I had predicted two years earlier in my SAJS paper Floods, droughts and climate change, (Alexander
1995).
If heavy, flood-producing rainfall occurs over a wide area of South Africa within the coming 12 to 24 months this will provide very strong support for
the validity of my climate prediction model detailed in Chapter 3 which in turn was based on my studies of the early 1990s. Should this occur, it would
strengthen my prediction of sequences of droughts in the following years from about 2008 onwards. These will be the critical years for South African
water supplies. The predicted occurrence of these drought sequences has nothing to do with the as yet unproven effects of unnatural global warming.
What South Africa needs are innovative solutions, not questionable, alarmist predictions.
12.
Here I stand (3 August 2005)
I am having some difficulty writing this so please bear with me.
The two DEAT press releases of December last year and May this year could have come straight out of Crighton’s State of Fear. Scare the hell out of
them; let them sweat for a while; then offer them castor oil to cure the problem. This is not science.
10
An article in Engineering News of 17 May 2005 reported the visit to South Africa by Sir David King scientific adviser to the British government. After
the usual alarmist views he stated that ‘…four cities (in South Africa) will host the North, South, East and West exhibition, which is aimed at young
audiences such as schoolchildren.’ So now our children are being indoctrinated.
He also stated ‘While the Kyoto protocol will not solve the problem of carbon emissions, it is a financial mechanism that can be tightened to force
countries to act’. Bullying tactics will not succeed. No countries like to be forced to do anything against their wills. According to newspaper reports, he
was not invited to attend the G8 summit discussions and was instructed by the UK Prime Minister not to address the press on this issue. Kyoto is dead
and we have heard nothing more from him.
Some of my professional colleagues are as concerned about this climate alarmism as I am and I have been asked to see if there is no other way that
we can counter it. One suggestion was the publication of a pair of pro- and con- articles by two authors in a scientific journal.
I will carry on with my report. I provided details in my last email. Chapter 10 will deal with agricultural and environmental concerns. In it I will
demonstrate the fallacy of the view that a relationship exists between climate and the spread of malaria. I cannot understand the position of those who
advised DEAT on this subject. I have personal experience and there is a wealth of information to the contrary.
I will also deal with the claims of desertification, which are equally groundless.
These are clearly scare tactics to attract attention regardless of the facts or the consequences. I will comment on other environmental issues in the
same vein.
I keep on suggesting round table discussions but there has been no interest. I have said it before, and I say it again. There are natural climate
variability problems that need to be addressed and I do not for one moment suggest that current research be discontinued or discredited. Climate
alarmism has brought about its own downfall. It is up to those of you in the natural sciences to decide which route you wish to follow to achieve your
objectives. Alarmism, antagonising the agricultural communities, upsetting scientists in related disciplines, and creating indifference in others is not the
way to go.
I am doing my best but there is a limit to what I can do without falling into the same trap of antagonising my audience. Like Martin Luther: Here I
stand. I can do no other.
12.1.
Postscript
You will no doubt sense some despair in the note above but it had its reward. I decided to let it cool off overnight. When I next looked for emails, there
was a paper sent to me by the overseas author. It has just been published in Energy & Environment. My paper on solar activity was published in the
previous issue. It was an answer to a prayer.
One thing that the statement by the national academies of science and the G8 communiqué had in common was that no action should be taken that
could damage national economies. What this author did was to accept the global impacts of climate change under various mitigation scenarios and then
determine which of the responses would be most effective, i.e. action to reduce climate change itself through mitigation measures, principally the
control of damaging greenhouse gas emissions, or to take action to reduce the vulnerability to climate change. Whereas in my view there is no
evidence to support predictions of adverse consequences of climate change, he accepted their presence, (including the spread of malaria!). He
nevertheless concluded:
‘Thus, even if the longer term mitigation is inevitable, the problem through the foreseeable future is not that climate change will perpetuate poverty
and hinder sustainable development, but that the lack of sustainable development will impede developing countries’ ability to cope with all manners of
adversity, including climate change.’
Referring to the adverse effects on ecosystems he referred to Article 2 of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change’s objectives, that is
‘to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened, and to enable economic development to
proceed in a sustainable manner.’
His final conclusion was:
‘Many – scientists and politicians alike - have declared that global warming is the most important environmental challenge facing the globe.
Notwithstanding these claims, Tables 1 through 4 indicate that over the foreseeable future, the magnitude of the problem due to unmitigated climate
change is generally smaller than that due to non-climate change related factors. Therefore, global warming is unlikely to be the most important
environmental problem facing the world, at least for the remainder of this century.’
What a relief!
I predict that we are going to see more research conclusions along these lines in future.
Reference:
Goklany IM, 2005. A climate policy for the short and medium term: stabilisation or adaptation? Energy & Environment, Volume 16 No. 3&4 2005.
13.
The cancer of ignorance (8 August 2005)
The Water Issues Announcement List is a conservative electronic bulletin directed at keeping members informed of the latest developments in the
water resource development field, with emphasis on water for the disadvantaged communities. I have been a recipient for several years. This is the
first response that I have seen that was written in anger.
The emphases are mine. He could equally be referring to climate alarmists. Who are the totally ignorant South African contributors to the research?
More than 30 years ago South African researchers demonstrated that afforestation reduces runoff. As a consequence, legislation has been in place for
many years requiring permits for new plantations. Yet this ‘new’ study that included South African researchers stated
“…the results from this 4-year multi-country collaboration in Costa Rica, South Africa, Tanzania, Grenada and India are immense as they contradict
current tree-planting policies.”
I recently attended a conference on El Nino held in Ecuador. The only other South Africans present were two SAWS expatriates now working in the UK.
The cancer of ignorance is spreading and now the alarmists will have a free hand. The South African authorities are being taken for a ride.
_____
From: -----To: "Water Issues Announcement List" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: How Land Use and WaterManagement can Work for the Rural Poor"
Date: Saturday, August 06, 2005 8:19 PM
11
“Trees, if planted in water scarce environments, may reduce dry season flows and therefore worsen the living conditions of the poor”, says the outcome
of a “new research”.
Amazing, isn’t it ? How little it takes to turn our world upside down ?
Actually, this is nothing new, and therefore not really “research”. Evapo-transpiration, i.e. the use of water by trees, is something that is understood by
any one who has taken even the most elementary one-semester course in hydrology, or in environmental sciences. India gets 4000 bcm of rainfall
every year, but the fresh water availability is estimated at 1869 bcm only. Of the remaining 2131, a major portion is used by the forests.
If evapo-transpiration by forests seems a new discovery to the NGOs, the reason is : a large number of those who are in the “business of saving the
environment and the poor”, are as good as illiterate so far as hydrology or environmental sciences are concerned.
The war cry of the neo “experts” of water management was “making water every one’s business”. It would have been better if the aim was “making
water every one’s concern”. But the word chosen was “business”. Some enterprising men and women were quick to spot the “business” opportunity in
this. Saving the environment and the poor in developing countries around the world has now become a multi million dollar “business” - with no
questions asked.
[Note the similarity of the emotional connection between poverty and environmental issues in this wording with that in the DEAT
press release of 5 May. “…climate change will intensify the worst effects of poverty through losses in biodiversity, agriculture, health and almost
every sector of society. Does nobody in the DEAT realise that they are being taken for a ride?]
One of the most significant fallout of this has been: marginalization of the qualified professionals. This was a necessary first step, so that ignorance and
lack of qualification do not become an obstacle in obtaining the grants for the NGOs. Many international awards were also at stake. As experts were
elbowed out and “experts” took over, the world of water management and environmental protection got reduced to fads, one-liners, and catchy
slogans, none of which had any basis in hydrology.
14.
Post Mortem
There are many reasons why climate alarmism brought about its own downfall. These are my views.
1.
Failure to define its objective. The ultimate objective was to persuade nations to take action that would eliminate undesirable consequences.
This requires that the undesirable consequences be quantified numerically so that the costs of this action could be quantified and thereby
justified. This failure was identified by Bjorn Lomborg in his book The sceptical environmentalist. Measuring the real state of the world.
(Cambridge University Press. Published in 2001. Ninth reprint by 2002.) His views were heavily criticised by climate change advocates. Now they
have paid the price of failing to appreciate that governments require facts and figures, not hypotheses and rhetoric.
2.
Failure to use real world data. The use of geological information and proxy data such as ancient tree rings and ice cores is the traditional
route followed in climatological textbooks such as PD Tyson’s Climate change and variability in southern Africa. However, this is a means to
an end. The general interest is in the consequences of climate change, not climate change itself. This requires that solid linkages have to be
established between the climatic processes and the responses of interest. This is what I have been doing for the past three years, but note the
publication problems that I encountered. As a consequence, we find frequent references to postulated undesirable consequences such as
increases in floods and droughts but nowhere have these been quantified numerically. For example, will flood magnitudes increase by 20% or
200%? The patent inability to provide believable numerical estimates is the reason why those in the applied sciences treat the claims as no more
than untested hypotheses.
3.
Reliance on unverifiable mathematical models. A fundamental requirement of all prediction models is that they be calibrated against
reliable observations and that the results be verified by applying the models to situations not used for development and calibration. For example,
a fundamental verification test would be the ability to replicate the historical numerical properties of South African annual rainfall and river flow on
at least a regional (e.g. large river catchment) scale. This is impossible without accommodating the well-documented, alternating multiyear
sequences that have been reported for at least half a century and described in my two recently published papers. It is hydrologically naïve to
characterise these processes solely in terms of their means and coefficients of variation.
4.
Recourse to alarmism. The characteristic recourse to alarmism to influence decision makers provided material for Michael Crighton’s popular
novel State of fear (HarperCollins Publishers 2004). The DEAT press release of 5 May is a good example. This approach is food and drink for
organisations such as GreenPeace and WWF, but is poor science.
5.
Denigration of those who hold opposing views. This is the most repulsive tactic adopted by climate change advocates.
_______