SUBMISSION REGARDING THE CARBON TAX REPEAL

The introduction of a Carbon (dioxide) Tax by the previous Australian government was made under the guise of reducing anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions to prevent imaginary catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW). The previous Australian Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, blatantly deceived the Australian public by promising there would be no Carbon (dioxide) Tax, only to introduce such a tax once she was in office.

It appears that the Carbon (dioxide) Tax was introduced on the basis of the following unsubstantiated assumptions:

1. Carbon dioxide is a significant “greenhouse gas” and is reaching dangerous levels;

2. Anthropogenic (human-produced) carbon dioxide is contributing to global warming which will threaten life on Earth;

3. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the world authority on climate science and they support statements 1 and 2;

4. A carbon Tax will reduce anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions and help to combat CAGW.

Each one of the above statements is demonstrably false.

Carbon dioxide is a minor “greenhouse gas” and has never driven global temperature at any time over the last 500 million years. Consider the following proxy data:

1. Carbon dioxide levels have never driven global temperature over 500 million years of geologic time. Data from Vostok ice cores show that, even when carbon dioxide and temperature appear to be linked, change in temperature always precedes change in carbon dioxide level by about a thousand years;

2. When carbon dioxide levels were ten times higher than current levels (during the Ordovician for instance), the Earth was in the depths of an ice age;

3. Current carbon dioxide levels are amongst the lowest they have been over the last 500 million years. The planet needs more carbon dioxide - not less.

In testimony before the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Dr William Happer, Professor of Physics at Princeton University stated:

“I believe that the increase of CO2 is not a cause for alarm and will be good for mankind.”

And:

“But what about the frightening consequences of increasing levels of CO2 that we keep hearing about? In a word, they are wildly exaggerated.”

And:

“The current warming period began about 1800 at the end of the little ice age, long before there was an appreciable increase of CO2. There have been similar and even larger warmings several times in the 10,000 years since the end of the last ice age.”

Global temperatures have been rising gently as we have recovered from the Little Ice Age (LIA) with the expectation that warming should continue. It hasn’t.

So was the late twentieth century warming unprecedented as the Australian public was led to believe? Consider the following two warming temperature trends which took place between 1910 and 1950 and then between1970 and 2010.

To argue that the first temperature rise was due to natural causes whilst the second rise was due to anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions defies common sense yet this is what the IPCC has been seriously suggesting and the Gillard government accepted without question.

Consider the temperature record over a much longer period of time:

It is clear that 20th century warming pales into insignificance compared with the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), the Roman Warm Period (RWP) and the Minoan Warm Period (MWP), for which we have excellent paleo and historic data. There is no link between these previous periods of global warming and atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide and there was certainly no industrial carbon dioxide being generated during those time periods.

Looking at global temperature over the last 15,000 years shows that the Earth has been warmer than today for most of the last 10,000 years, with rapid warming taking place 11,000 and 15,000 years ago. Again, there is no link between such rapid warming and atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.

For most of geologic time the Earth has been free of glaciers and polar ice sheets. We are living in the mild part (interglacial) of an ice age and the current interglacial warming is not unprecedented with further natural warming a possibility. Consider previous interglacial maxima:

Petit et al. (1999) have shown that the current Holocene interglacial peak temperature is lower than any of the previous 4 interglacials.

More specifically, Sime et al. (1999) have shown that the current interglacial peak temperature is cooler by at least 2oC when compared to previous interglacials. Further global warming should come as no surprise.

The Earth’s climate has always changed. Sometimes change has been rapid and sometimes slowly. The Greenland Ice Core Project (GRIP) has provided evidence of rapid temperature fluctuations which have occurred during the last 110,000 years and on a scale much greater than any shifts that have taken place during the past 10,000 years. Again, it is evident that the climate has always changed, it is currently changing and it will continue to change in the future, irrespective of what we do and such change will proceed independently of carbon dioxide levels.

The UK’s Met Office reported findings, from thousands of measuring stations, showing that global temperature, despite increasing levels of carbon dioxide, has not increased at all during the last 15 years.

The Central England Temperature record (CET), maintained since the middle of the 17th Century, shows a temperature rise of around +0.45oC per century since 1850, marking the end of the Little Ice Age. CET records from 2000 onwards reveal that recent cooling has already negated about 80% of the temperature rise since 1850.

Temperature stasis has been recorded on 6 data sets:

UAH temperature data show stasis since 2008;

GISS temperature data show stasis since 2001;

Hadcrut4 temperature data show stasis since 2000;

Hadcrut3 temperature data show stasis since 1997;

Hadsst2 temperature data show stasis since 1997;

RSS temperature data show stasis since 1997.

Despite carbon dioxide levels having increased, mainly via natural inputs from ocean venting, organic matter decomposition and volcanism, uncontaminated satellite data are showing that global temperatures have essentially remained static with some showing a slight cooling trend:

Many scientists have noted this temperature stasis, which was not predicted by the IPCC.

Dr Mojab Latif, climate modeller and IPCC author told more than 1,500 climate scientists at the UN’s World Climate Conference in Geneva we could be entering one or even two decades of cooler temperatures.

The Chairman of the IPCC, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, has now conceded there has been no global warming for the past 17 years.

Professor Phil Jones from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, where global temperature data are collated, admitted that from 1995 to 2009 there was no statistically

significant global warming

MIT climate scientist Professor Richard Lindzen says: “There has been no warming since 1997 and no statistically significant warming since 1995.”

Climate scientist Professor Judith Curry said it is clear that the IPCC’s unvalidated computer modeling, which predicted continual warming, is deeply flawed and suggested that all climate scientists should:

“Use this as an opportunity to communicate honestly with the public about what we know and what we don’t know about climate change. Take a lesson from other scientists who acknowledge the pause.”

Dr David Gee, chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress, asks the question:

“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" 

IPCC contributing scientist Dr Don Easterbrook comments:

“Global temperatures have been on a cooling trend since 2002. The average of the four main temperature measuring methods is slightly cooler since 2002 (except for a brief el Niño interruption)”

Dr Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in St. Petersburg, Russia, says: “The Earth as a planet will henceforward have negative balance in the energy budget which will result in the temperature drop in approximately 2014.”

In a leaked email (#1939) from Dr Peter Thorne of the UK Met. Office to Professor Phil Jones at the CRU, where global temperatures are collated for the IPCC, we see a frank admission (and warning) about global temperature stasis:

“Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be

honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary.”

Thorne added a further prophetic warning about their precarious position:

“I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.”

It is clear that carbon dioxide is not the main driver of global temperature and other natural mechanisms, such as the sun, are likely to be far more important. So any legislation which involves “lowering carbon footprints” and “carbon reduction schemes” will prove meaningless and pointless.

The IPCC is often quoted as the authority whenever politicians, journalists or activist environmental groups want to link anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions with global warming or climate change or climate extremes. Such groups, when promoting a revenue raising carbon tax or emissions trading scheme will always use the Argumentum ad Verecundiam and refer to the authority of the now discredited IPCC.

Anyone who seeks independent advice about the IPCC’s climate predictions would find that even the IPCC acknowledges the limitations of their own modelling. Their computer models have not been able to predict future climate accurately, at either global or regional level. This is well understood by all climate modelling practitioners and their colleagues, starting with the IPCC authors who wrote in 3AR (Section 14.2.2.2, p. 774): 

“In climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

Furthermore, Dr Kevin Trenberth, IPCC senior scientist and lead author, has admitted to this problem:

“There are no (climate) predictions by the IPCC at all and never have been.” 

It should be understood that, rather than being an unbiased voice of authority on climate science, the IPCC is a political/ideological organization which masquerades as an impartial scientific body and readily distorts the scientific advice it receives.

The IPCC’s links with advocacy groups is well known and the claim that the IPCC strives for a dispassionate, authoritative meta-analysis of the climate science literature is a travesty. Little known to the media and politicians is the fact that the IPCC has readily used and cited material produced by activist organizations such as Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund.

The IPCC does not have a neutral Chairman in the non-scientist Rajendra Pachauri who has already stated his position on transforming the world’s economy and his desire to demonize carbon dioxide:

"Unless we live in harmony with nature, unless we are able to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels and adopt renewable energy sources and until we change our life styles, the world will increasingly become unfit for human habitation."

It is now common knowledge that the IPCC is merely using its version of “climate science” for its own ends. Incredibly, Rajendra Pachauri no longer tries to hide his intentions, stating:

“I am not going to rest easy until I have articulated in every possible form the need to bring about major structural changes in economic growth and development. That’s the real issue. Climate change is just a part of it.”

Ottmar Edenhofer is a leading member of the UN’s IPCC. He was co-chair of the IPCC's Working Group III, and a lead author of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report released in 2007. He made clear the UN’s position:

“The climate summit in Cancun ---- is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War.”

He described what the UN intentions are:

"We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy."

and

“If global emission rights are distributed - If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there.”

UN bureaucrat, Richard Benedik has expressed similar views:

“A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect.”

This is not climate science. It’s climate ideology and should never be the basis for government schemes which use taxpayers’ money.

Investigative journalist Donna Laframboise has made a detailed analysis of the IPCC’s version of science and scientific process. She says:

“The IPCC was established by politicians, its experts are selected by politicians, and its conclusions are negotiated by politicians.  A predetermined political agenda has been part of the landscape for the past 20 years.”

and:

“I've given up expecting the IPCC to demonstrate any sort of professionalism or accountability. I think the internal culture there is so rotten, the situation is quite hopeless.”

Laframboise’s book: The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World's Top Climate Expert (2011), should be read by every scientist, journalist and politician who has ever trusted, without question, the authority of the IPCC.

Compared to their initial trust, the vast majority of scientists now reject completely the pseudoscience of CAGW. See for instance: The Heidelberg Appeal; The Oregon Petition; The Manhattan Declaration; The Petition to the United Nations; The Petition to the Canadian Prime Minister; The Leipzig Declaration; The Petition by German Scientists to the Chancellor; Letter to the Members of the

U.S. House of Representatives and the US Senate; The Statement from Atmospheric Scientists; American Physical Society Petition; Memorandum submitted by the Institute of Physics; Statements from NASA scientists.

Other insightful reading is found in the following document:

“More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims.”

All politicians should heed the words of those many scientists who contributed to the IPCC process in good faith, only to find that their work, if it wasn’t suitably alarmist, was essentially ignored or marginalized by the IPCC (UN) bureaucrats. Here is a sample:

Dr Robert Balling: “The IPCC notes that "No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected." (This did not appear in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers).

Dr Lennart Bengtsson: “Climate change has become extremely politicized. The issue is so complex that one can not ask the people to be convinced that the whole economic system must be changed just because you have done some computer simulations”

Dr. Lucka Bogataj: “Rising levels of airborne carbon dioxide don’t cause global temperatures to rise.... temperature changed first and some 700 years later a change in aerial content of carbon dioxide followed.”

Dr John Christy:  “I have served as a Lead Author of both the IPCC and CCSP reports and will demonstrate with published data that these reports are not always “factual” but written (a) to give the impression of certainty where large uncertainty is the reality or (b) to actually suppress results which run counter to the more alarming conclusions.”

Dr Rosa Compagnucci:  “Humans have only contributed a few tenths of a degree to warming on Earth. Solar activity is a key driver of climate.”

Dr Richard Courtney: "The empirical evidence strongly indicates that the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is wrong."

Dr Judith Curry: “I’m not going to just spout off and endorse the IPCC because I don’t have confidence in the process.”

Dr Robert Davis: "Global temperatures have not been changing as state of the art climate models predicted they would. Not a single mention of satellite temperature observations appears in the (IPCC) Summary for Policymakers."

Dr Willem de Lange: "In 1996, the IPCC listed me as one of approximately 3,000 “scientists” who agreed that there was a discernable human influence on climate. I didn’t. There is no evidence to support the hypothesis that runaway catastrophic climate change is due to human activities."

Dr Chris de Freitas: “Government decision-makers should have heard by now that the basis for the longstanding claim that carbon dioxide is a major driver of global climate is being questioned; along with it the hitherto assumed need for costly measures to restrict carbon dioxide emissions. If they have not heard, it is because of the din of global warming hysteria that relies on the logical fallacy of ‘argument from ignorance’ and predictions of computer models.”

Dr Peter Dietze: "Using a flawed eddy diffusion model, the IPCC has grossly underestimated the future oceanic carbon dioxide uptake."

Dr John Everett: “It is time for a reality check. The oceans and coastal zones have been far warmer and colder than is projected in the present scenarios of climate change. I have reviewed the IPCC and more recent scientific literature and believe that there is not a problem with increased acidification, even up to the unlikely levels in the most-used IPCC scenarios." 

Dr Giorgi Filippo: “I feel rather uncomfortable about using not only unpublished but also unreviewed material as the backbone of our conclusions (or any conclusions) ... I feel that at this point there are very little rules [sic] and almost anything goes.”

Dr Oliver Frauenfeld:  “Much more progress is necessary regarding our current understanding of climate and our abilities to model it.”

Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen: “The IPCC refused to consider the sun's effect on the Earth's climate as a topic worthy of investigation. The IPCC conceived its task only as investigating potential human causes of climate change.”

Dr Lee Gerhard: "I never fully accepted or denied the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) concept until the furor started after [NASA's James] Hansen's wild claims in the late 1980's. I went to the [scientific] literature to study the basis of the claim, starting at first principles. My studies then led me to believe that the claims were false.”

Dr Indur Goklany: “Climate change is unlikely to be the world's most important environmental problem of the 21st century.  There is no signal in the mortality data to indicate increases in the overall frequencies or severities of extreme weather events, despite large increases in the population at risk.”

Dr Vincent Gray: "The (IPCC) climate change statement is an orchestrated litany of lies."

Dr Kenneth Green: "We can expect the climate crisis industry to grow increasingly shrill, and increasingly hostile toward anyone who questions their authority.”

Dr Mike Hulme: "Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous ... The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was “only a few dozen.”

Dr Kiminori Itoh: "There are many factors which cause climate change. Considering only greenhouse gases is nonsense and harmful. When people know what the truth is they will feel deceived by science and scientists."

Dr Yuri Izrael: "There is no proven link between human activity and global warming. I think the panic over global warming is totally unjustified. There is no serious threat to the climate."

Dr Steven Japar:  "Temperature measurements show that the climate model-predicted mid-troposphere hot zone is non-existent.

This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them.”

Dr Georg Kaser: "This number (of receding glaciers reported by the IPCC) is not just a little bit wrong, but far out of any order of magnitude ... It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing,"

Dr Aynsley Kellow: “I’m not holding my breath for criticism to be taken on board, which underscores a fault in the whole peer review process for the IPCC: there is no chance of a chapter [of the IPCC report] ever being rejected for publication, no matter how flawed it might be.”

Dr Madhav Khandekar: "I have carefully analysed adverse impacts of climate change as projected by the IPCC and have discounted these claims as exaggerated and lacking any supporting evidence."

Dr Hans Labohm: "The alarmist passages in the (IPCC) Summary for Policymakers have been skewed through an elaborate and sophisticated process of spin-doctoring."

Dr. Andrew Lacis: “There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department.”

Dr Chris Landsea: "I cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound."

Dr Judith Lean: "Climate models failed to reflect the sun’s cyclical influence on the climate and that has led to a sense that the sun isn’t a player ... they have to absolutely prove that it’s not a player.”

Dr Richard Lindzen: "The IPCC process is driven by politics rather than science. It uses summaries to misrepresent what scientists say and exploits public ignorance."

Dr Harry Lins: "Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now. The case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated.”

Dr Philip Lloyd:  “I am doing a detailed assessment of the IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science. I have found examples of a summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said.” 

Dr Martin Manning: "Some government delegates influencing the IPCC Summary for Policymakers misrepresent or contradict the lead authors."

Dr Stephen McIntyre: “The many references in the popular media to a “consensus of thousands of scientists” are both a great exaggeration and also misleading.”

Dr Patrick Michaels: "The rates of warming, on multiple time scales have now invalidated the suite of IPCC climate models. No, the science is not settled."

Dr Nils-Axel Morner: "If you go around the globe, you find no sea level rise anywhere."

Dr Johannes Oerlemans:  "The IPCC has become too political. Many scientists have not been able to resist the siren call of fame, research funding and meetings in exotic places that awaits them if they are willing to compromise scientific principles and integrity in support of the man-made global-warming doctrine.”

Dr Roger Pielke: “All of my comments were ignored without even a rebuttal. At that point, I concluded that the IPCC Reports were actually intended to be advocacy documents designed to produce particular policy actions, but not as a true and honest assessment of the understanding of the climate system.”

Dr Jan Pretel: “It’s nonsense to drastically reduce emissions ... predicting about the distant future - 100 years can’t be predicted due to uncertainties.”

Dr Alec Rawls: “What I found interesting in the IPCC report is how blatant the statistical fraud is, omitting the competing explanation from the models completely, while pretending that they are using their models to distinguish between anthropogenic and natural

warming. These people are going to hang on to their power grab until the bitter end.”

Dr Paul Reiter: “As far as the science being ‘settled,’ I think that is an obscenity. The fact is the science is being distorted by people who are not scientists.”

Dr Murray Salby: “I have an involuntary gag reflex whenever someone says the “science is settled. Anyone who thinks the science is settled on this topic is in fantasia.”

Dr Ben Santer: “It’s unfortunate that many people read the media hype before they read the chapter ...... we (the IPCC) say quite clearly that few scientists would say the attribution issue was a done deal.”

Dr Tom Segalstad: "The IPCC global warming model is not supported by the scientific data."

Dr Jagadish Shukla: ”It is inconceivable that policymakers will be willing to make billion-and trillion-dollar decisions for adaptation to the projected regional climate change based on models that do not even describe and simulate the processes that are the building blocks of climate variability.”

Dr Fred Singer: “Isn't it remarkable that the Policymakers Summary of the IPCC report avoids mentioning the satellite data altogether, or even the existence of satellites--probably because the data show a (slight) cooling over the last 18 years, in direct contradiction to the calculations from climate models?”

Dr Hajo Smit: “There is clear cut solar-climate coupling and a very strong natural variability of climate on all historical time scales. Currently I hardly believe anymore that there is any relevant relationship between human CO2 emissions and climate change.”

Dr Roy Spencer: “The IPCC is not a scientific organization and was formed to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. Claims of human-cause global warming are only a means to that goal.”

Dr Peter Thorne: “Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just

downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest.”

Dr Richard Tol: “The IPCC attracted more people with political rather than academic motives. In AR4, green activists held key positions in the IPCC and they succeeded in excluding or neutralising opposite voices.”

Dr Tom Tripp: “There is so much of a natural variability in weather it makes it difficult to come to a scientifically valid conclusion that global warming is man made.”

Dr Fritz Vahrenholt: “Doubt came two years ago when I was an expert reviewer of an IPCC report on renewable energy. I discovered numerous errors and asked myself if the other IPCC reports on climate were similarly sloppy. I couldn’t take it any more.”

Dr Cornelis van Kooten: “I was a reluctant contributing author of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report – reluctant because, after having been a reviewer of the third report, putting in quite a bit of time and then totally ignored, I viewed the process as nothing more than a sham…”

Dr Heinz Wanner: “ I was a reviewer of the IPCC-TAR report 2001. In my review ... I critcized the fact that the whole Mann hockeystick is being printed in its full length in the IPCC-TAR report.

In 1999 I made the following comments:

1. The spatial, temporal (tree-ring data in the midlatitudes mainly contain “summer information”) and spectral coverage and behaviour of the data is questionable, mainly before 1500-1600 AD.

2. It is in my opinion not appropriate already to make statements for the southern hemisphere and for the period prior to 1500 AD.

My review was classified “unsignificant” 

Dr Robert Watson: “The (IPCC) mistakes all appear to have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change is more

serious by overstating the impact. That is worrying. The IPCC needs to look at this trend in the errors and ask why it happened.”

Dr Gerd-Rainer Weber: “Most of the extremist views about climate change have little or no scientific basis.”

Dr David Wojick: "The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates."

Dr Miklos Zagoni: “I am positively convinced that the anthropogenic global warming theory is wrong.”

Dr. Eduardo Zorita: “Editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations, even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed. By writing these lines... a few of my future studies will not see the light of publication."

There is little doubt that these IPCC contributing scientists are fully aware of the questionable process used by the discredited IPCC and the many instances of scientific error or malfeasance such as the following:

1.The IPCC’s 1988 Statement of Intent and statements from IPCC members made clear that there was never any serious intention to consider factors other than human activity as a principal driver of climate change;

2. IPCC contributing scientists have observed how politicized the organization has become with the IPCC using global warming as a political “cause” rather than the basis for balanced scientific inquiry;

3. IPCC members have admitted that the IPCC is more about ideology and wealth distribution rather than a dispassionate analysis of climate science;

4. The IPCC’s non-scientists Chairman, Dr Rajendra Pachauri has publicly declared his bias about climate change, Western lifestyles and his desire to transform the world’s economy by demonizing carbon dioxide;

5.The IPCC’s claim that human activity is contributing significantly

to global warming and that this claim is supported by up to 4,000 scientists is demonstrably false;

6. The IPCC gives the impression that a large number of scientists contribute to the writing of IPCC reports when only a “select few” actually do;

7. The IPCC gives the impression that its reports are prepared by the world’s best scientists yet many contributors are graduate students and environmental activists;

8. The IPCC’s selection of literature is biased towards those scientists and papers which support the mantra of anthropogenic global warming, The IPCC’s peer review system is more like a pal review system;

9. The IPCC claims to use only peer-reviewed published literature when it clearly does no such thing;

10. The IPCC has not only incorporated “grey literature” in its reports but has also allowed NGO operatives, such as Greenpeace personnel, to make significant contributions;

11. The IPCC attempts to include the names of experts on their reports even if those experts disagree with the IPCC summary statements;

12. When IPCC scientists resigned over perceived malfeasance the IPCC simply ignored this;

13. The IPCC ignored data which show that carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas and has never driven global temperature;

14. Computer models were developed to give a predetermined outcome yet they all failed to predict the current 16 year temperature stasis whilst carbon dioxide levels continue to increase;

15. The IPCC predicted that Arctic summer ice would disappear by 2013. It hasn’t;

16. Because the predicted warming failed to materialise, the IPCC changed its terminology from “global warming” to “climate change” to “extreme weather”;

17. There has been no increase in severe weather since the

IPCC’s inception in 1988;

18. The IPCC does not allow any criticism of the anthropogenic global warming meme to progress through to the final IPCC Summaries for Policymakers;

19. Some statements in the technical reports were deleted or changed if they did not conform with the requirements of UN officials and bureaucrats;

20. Comments from IPCC expert reviewers were often ignored if they did not conform with the more alarmist requirements of UN officials and bureaucrats;

21. IPCC Summaries for Policymakers, made available to the media and politicians, were essentially written by UN officials and bureaucrats;

22. IPCC associates have brought pressure to bear on journal editors who have published papers critical of the anthropogenic global warming meme;

23. IPCC scientists have attempted to change well established climate history including the existence of the Medieval Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period and Little Ice Age;

24. The IPCC’s latest summary of AR5 claims a 95% confidence in their conclusions that human activity is responsible for over half of the climate change since 1950. Although this confidence level sounds statistically impressive, it is meaningless and was arrived at by a mere show of hands by IPCC authors who have a vested interest in promoting their own work;

25. The IPCC Chairman Dr Rajendra Pachauri claimed the IPCC’s process was completely transparent and “Whatever we do is available for scrutiny at every stage.” This statement is completely false since the IPCC’s Summaries for Policymakers, which go out to politicians and the media, are rewritten, line by line by UN officials behind closed doors.

26. The IPCC Chairman Dr Rajendra Pachauri claimed that the InterAcademy Council, established to investigate the IPCC, found the IPCC’s work to be solid and robust. In fact the IAC concluded that there were significant shortcomings in each major step of the IPCC’s assessment process.

Investigative journalists such as Donna Laframboise and the many scientists who how contributed in good faith to the IPCC process, have pointed to the lack of integrity in the IPCC scientific reports which were the primary foundations for policy decisions being made by the previous Australian government on climate change and a carbon (dioxide) tax.

Laframboise writes of the IPCC and Chairman Pachauri’s claims:

“It was like fact-checking a pathological liar’s resumé. One by one, I worked my way down a list of IPCC claims, attempting to verify their accuracy. Again and again, I found no evidence to support them.”

The IPCC’s First Assessment Report (FAR,1990) and Second Assessment Report (SAR,1995) clearly showed a graph in which the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and Little Ice Age (LIA) showing temperature shifts far in excess (in range and extent) of anything we saw in the 20th century. There is ample historic and paleoclimatic data to support this presentation:

Dr David Deming, geologist at the University of Oklahoma said:

“I received an astonishing email from an IPCC climate scientist who said: We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.”

Deming continued:

“The existence of the MWP had been recognized in the scientific literature for decades. But now it was a major embarrassment to those maintaining that the 20th Century warming was anomalous. It had to be gotten rid of.”

In 1999, Michael Mann and his colleagues produced a 1,000 year reconstruction of past temperature in which the MWP simply vanished. The infamous “hockey stick” became the centre piece for IPCC propaganda and it featured prominently in Al Gore’s silly movie “An Inconvenient Truth” which was embraced without question by gullible politicians and the media.

The IPCC paraded Mann’s hockey stick graph until overwhelming evidence showed it to be totally bogus. The independent Wegman report (2008) concluded:

“Overall, our committee believes that Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis.”

Later attempts, by IPCC scientists, to argue that the Medieval Warm Period was a localised phenomenon are readily dismissed

in light of the significant body of literature which shows it to be a worldwide event and we have a leaked email (5111) from IPCC member Dr Henry Pollack wherein he indicates the difficulty they have with the Medieval Warm period:

“But it will be very difficult to make the MWP go away in Greenland.”

It is interesting to note that the IPCC quietly dropped Mann’s hockey stick graph from subsequent reports.

Trillions of dollars have been and continue to be spent based on what the deeply flawed IPCC reports say.

Politicians worldwide would do well to read the 2013 report by the Non-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (NGPCC) where the unbiased, non-political, non-ideological science is presented and exposes alarmist fraud. This 1,018 page review has been prepared by 50 well-credentialed scientists who are not promoting any cause apart from scientific integrity.

Arguments from the previous government that Australia is being left behind in terms of introducing either a Carbon (dioxide) Tax or Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) are not based on fact.

Japan will not introduce an ETS; The US is unlikely to introduce either a tax or ETS; Canada has neither a tax nor an ETS; The UN Framework Convention on Climate (UNFCC) has 195 members of which 34 have an emissions trading scheme.

The US state of Florida formally repealed its own cap-and-trade law, joining Arizona, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington, Utah, New Jersey and New Hampshire to wind back or abolish state-based greenhouse gas initiatives.

Of the countries which have embraced some sort of tax or ETS, the 34 EU countries, New Zealand and Australia represent about 14% of global carbon dioxide emissions. The USA is far too worried about its current economic position to take any action on emissions reduction that might impact on its economy.

China has questioned the link between carbon dioxide and global climate and is the world’s largest emitter, building the equivalent of one new coal-fired power station per week.

India has flatly rejected the IPCC alarmist claims and recommendations of the IPCC. India’s emissions continue to grow.

Canada, Russia and Japan have all withdrawn their support of the Kyoto Accord.

Brazil, South Africa, Indonesia, South Korea, Mexico, Saudi Arabia and Iran will not reduce their carbon dioxide emissions. In fact, their emissions continue to increase and only a handful of western nations, whose gullible governments have swallowed the IPCC deception will try to do so.

As Professor Richard Muller has said:

“The developing world is ‘not joining-in with CO2 emission reductions nor does it have any intention of doing so.”

The remaining countries support about 40% of the world’s population and around 20% of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions. They will certainly not reduce their emissions and restrict their improving standard of living. Indeed, if people in developing countries can improve their transportation, communication, education, health and food production by producing inexpensive, reliable electricity from fossil fuels, which release life-giving carbon dioxide gas, we have a moral obligation to encourage and assist them to do so.

The Carbon (dioxide) Tax is a needless burden on the Australian taxpayer and should be immediately repealed.

Dr John Happs M.Sc. (Hons.); D. Phil.