Articles Tagged "Kelvin Kemm"

Dear all

As a South African scientist and consultant who follows climate change and other environmental issues very closely, Dr. Kelvin Kemm always has unique perspectives to share with readers around the world who might otherwise receive only a western, first world or environmentalist viewpoint. His article today provides another timely analysis of environment and climate change issues, just as the UN global warming conference gets underway in Doha, Qatar.

As Dr. Kemm notes, far too much of what passes as science on climate change, melting polar ice caps and related issues is far removed from actual science. It thus provides a harmful, almost “Alice in Wonderland” parallel universe “reality” that ill serves our decisions on the most important energy, environmental and economic public policy issues of the day.

Best regards,

Paul Driessen

Senior policy advisor, Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT)

Kelvin Kemm: Alice in Wonderland science

Our energy and environment deserve better – in South Africa and Qatar

One of the major achievements of mankind, over many centuries, has been the development of logical thinking processes. Science now has a well-established process of thinking patterns by which scientists work.

Some pieces of evidence that appear in scientific investigation may seem to be confusing. This is why the rules of logic have to be followed to ensure that there are no false conclusions.

It really amazes me – and also does not surprise me – when, in climate change discussions, completely illogical conclusions take hold in the public mind. It is amazing that basic logic escapes the public or is twisted without anyone seeming to care. On the other hand, it does not surprise me because there are elements in society which want false conclusions to be fed to the public so that they will toe the line of the propagators.

Let me now ponder the issue of claims of melting glaciers and melting ice, in general, that is blamed on global warming.

Inconvenient questions will not be tolerated in Durban or other climate crisis conferences

British Viscount Christopher Monckton of Brenchley parachuted with me into Durban, South Africa, to challenge UN climate crisis claims, attracting numerous journalists and onlookers. A 20-foot banner across our press conference table gave the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow further opportunities to present realistic perspectives on the science and economics of climate change.

CFACT played by the rules, obtained the necessary permits beforehand, and ensured that its message was heard throughout the seventeenth annual climate conference (COP-17). Greenpeace, on the other hand, got no permits before staging an Occupy Durban protest in the hallway outside the plenary session – and got kicked out of the conference.

Shortly thereafter, however, Lord Monckton and another CFACT representative were summarily (though temporarily) ejected from the Durban conference, for preposterous reasons that dramatize how thin-skinned and arrogant the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has become.

We must demand scientific rigour on climate change, or we will reap the consequences.

From my vantage point here in South Africa, I could hardly miss the major build-up to the COP-17 United Nations world environment and climate conference, which is being held November 28 to December 9 in Durban, where I went to school and university.

For weeks international news broadcasts spoke of “the road to Durban,” and people of all ranks made daily comments concerning issues to be addressed at COP-17. Conference organisers announced that bottled water would be limited, or even prohibited, because making, shipping and disposing of plastic bottles was not environmentally sound – and in any event Durban tap water is so good that anyone can safely drink water out of any tap, whether in a hotel room, restaurant or back yard garden hose. I agree with both points; Durban municipal water is excellent everywhere.

Other images also drifted through my mind, such as those of legendary scientist and philosopher Galileo, who dared to announce that it was not the sun that orbited the earth, but the planets, including the earth, which orbited the sun. The ruling establishment of the day jumped on Galileo, threatening him with dire consequences if he did not toe the politically correct line and recant his claims. He did so to avoid burning at the stake but was placed under house arrest anyway, to ensure that he did not spread his views, and his book was banned.

From my vantage point here in South Africa, I am aware of the momentum of the major build-up to the next big United Nations world environment conference, COP 17, which will be held in Durban, the city where I went to school and university.

We hear of ‘the road to Durban’ on international news broadcasts and, daily, people of all ranks are making comments on the issues to be addressed at COP 17. The conference organisers have already announced that the availability of bottled water will be limited, or, perhaps, prohibited because Durban tap water is so good that anyone can drink water out of any tap – be it in a hotel room, restaurant or back garden. Curtailing bottled water will limit the environmental impact of all the plastic bottles, water transport, refuse transport, and so on. I agree with that – Durban municipal water is excellent everywhere.

I find other images also drifting through my mind, such as those of legendary scientist and philosopher Galileo, who dared to announce that he was of the opinion that it was not the sun that orbited the earth but that it was actually the other way around. He stated that it was the planets, including the earth, which orbited the sun. The estab- lishment of the day jumped on Galileo and he was threatened with dire consequences if he did not toe the establishment line and recant his claims. He was forced to recant to stay alive, but he was placed under house arrest anyway to make sure that he did not spread his views, and his book was banned.

In January, India’s Environment Minister, Jairam Ramesh, said: “There is a groupthink in climate science today. Anyone who raises alternative climate theories is immediately branded a climate atheist in an atmosphere of climate evangelists.

“Climate science is incredibly more complex than negotiators make it out to be . . . Climate science should not be driven by the West. We should not always be dependent on outside reports.”

Indian newspaper The Hindu commented: “A key belief of climate science theology – that a reduction in carbon emissions will take care of the bulk of global warming – has been questioned in a scientific paper released by the Environment Ministry.”

Ramesh made his comments in response to a scientific study released by respected Indian physicist Dr UR Rao, a former chairperson of the Indian Space Research Organisation.

I was most pleased to see this Indian response, particularly from a Cabinet Minister. Ramesh is exhibiting the courage to listen to his scientists and then take a stand on a most important issue. The issue is also thorny, and many politicians avoid it like the plague.

The fundamental issue is: Is climate change occurring as a result of man-made factors, or is any potential or observable change due to natural factors?

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a body of the United Nations, is often projected as the world authority on climate change. This is far from the truth. The IPCC has always projected a very scary image of the world being plunged into disaster as a result of the actions of mankind.

The IPCC supports the theory that man-made carbon dioxide (CO2) is the cause of global warming. Despite significant evidence that any global warming observed is probably due to the incidence of cosmic rays from the stars, the IPCC refuses to be scientifically honest and to take this scientific evidence into account.

In one of its reports, the IPCC relied heavily on the now infamous Hockey Stick graph, which purported to show a great increase in temperature rise during the twentieth century. This graph has now been totally discredited, and the IPCC has withdrawn it.

In 2009, the Climategate affair was made public. In Climategate, a group of scientists led by Phil Jones, of the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, in the UK, manipulated results to falsely show that the earth was warming more than was the truth. This affair gave rise to the phrase ‘Hide the decline’, when many emails were discovered that had been passed between this group of people in which they plotted their deception. They were writers of a chapter of the IPCC report known as AR4.

I believe that, in the future, when people look back at the history of current decades, they will wonder how a sophisticated, technological society could be so misled by proponents of human-induced climate change, when so much scientific evidence is available to show that clear logical alternatives are available to the hysterical incantations of the doom-and-gloom cult.

It is actually fascinating to watch global climate change science being mixed into the extreme green emotional blender to such an extent that the truth becomes passing fragments in the swirl of emotional and distorted public discourse.

Against this background, it is necessary to stand back and pick out the truth and form a coherent picture that stands the scrutiny of correct scientific assessment. Correct scientific assessment was pioneered by people such as Sir Isaac Newton. The process has a long history, and is composed of well-defined protocols.

In the midst of the climate debate of confusion and counterclaim, painfully few members of the public stop to ask for the real credentials of the people making dramatic public statements that seem to be scientific.