The Consultation Paper does highlight the limited scope of the current research and its bias (blinkered approach) by the omission of other relevant scientific data. It is overly weighted towards modelling and concepts that are not supported by real data. Moreover the “Climate Change Impacts” are not assigned any mathematical probability of actually happening and many of the proposed scenarios are too incredible to be believed!
As a consequence of these deficiencies the Consultation Paper it cannot be used by the public to make rational comments or judgments on how to manage risk of a postulated future climate change. The Consultation Paper takes the stance that Anthropological Global Warming is a fact and has been incontrovertibly measured, even though there is not a single scientific paper published which has shown this to be true.
In this submission I will take issue with the various statements contained in this Consultation Paper to highlight that the contained information is thinly researched, biased, unsubstantiated by actual data, use language that obfuscate uncertainties, and therefore is thoroughly misleading to the public of Victoria. It cannot aid policy making with respect to current and future infrastructure needs and care of the natural environment. Action needs to be taken by the Minister to get an objective view of Climate Science. The Minister should therefore employ a small team of independent scientists to review all the relevant published literature on Climate Change. Following this review of ALL available research and factual data, then the Minister can then decide whether any further State Government public funds should spent on “Future Research”! It seems $100 million has been or about to be spent, yet nobody has critically reviewed the freely available data and research. The Federal Government and its Environment Department is just as negligent.
Many research papers have clearly identified and conclusively proven that much of the observed warming over the 20th century is due to Urban Heat Island affects of city/town based ground recording stations. These observed warming-trends are not repeated in remote-area ground based stations or at polar research stations (highest data integrity), the latter being where the Global Circulation Models predict the largest warming. Moreover a high proportion of recording stations were shut down (mainly rural and remote-based) at the end of 1980’s which gave a statistic aberration to the climatic record; consequently the record is biased by urban-based thermometers. Over the last twenty five years corresponding Satellite-Microwave Sending Unit (MSU) and Weather Balloon Radiosonde data DO NOT show any warming trend. These instruments measure temperature precisely in the part of atmosphere (near surface to ~8000m; Lower Troposphere) which is predicted to warm by the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect Theory and the GCM’s. Unlike the irregular surface measurements, MSU data have an even geographic coverage of the Earth including oceans. Importantly the MSU measurements are very accurate (± 0.01°C). MSU and Weather Balloon Radiosonde measurements are independent of one another in technique and methodology yet show almost the same results. So the predicted warming as espoused by Enhanced Greenhouse Effect (CO2) Theory and GCM’s cannot possibly be valid as the warming predicted hasn’t been measured! The at-surface warming is therefore a cultural artifact.
I have included questions posed by Andrei Illarionov (Economic Advisor to Russian President Putin) in October 2003 at the Moscow World Climate Climate Conference to key members of the UN IPCC. Answers to these questions are the caveat placed by Russia to signing the Kyoto Protocol. By 8th July 2004, Mr Illarionov said at a Press Conference regarding the Results of the Climate Change and Kyoto Protocol Seminar in Moscow, that they HAVEN’T RECEIVED ANY RESPONSE AT ALL, even though they had made repeated enquiries. So one can assume that UN IPCC’s “evidence” on 20th century global warming and future projection claims CANNOT be substantiated by a thorough scientific analysis, logical argument and/or supporting scientific data! If another government can ask clear and pertinent questions regarding this issue, why can’t the Victorian or Australian Governments?
I have included in the Appendix some published papers that clearly highlight and identify problems with the concept of Anthropological Induced Climate Change and the use of Global Circulation Models to project/predict future climate based upon the projected levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
A substantial amount of research recently published shows that the Sun and its electromagnetic activity have the greatest effect on the Earth’s climate. In particular the Sun’s activity causing changes to incidence of incoming cosmic rays (flux) colliding with atoms or molecules in Earths upper atmosphere (cosmic rays are charged particles which are remnants of supernova explosions (collapsing stars) that travel through space at near light speed). Studies have found that cosmic ray flux is important in the formation/seeding of clouds; hence controlling rainfall and temperature. Consequently when the Sun’s magnetic field is strong or is in a violent phase fewer cosmic rays can reach Earth’s atmosphere because the rays are swept aside by the Solar Magnetic fields. The research suggests that Earth’s Climate was generally cooler during high cosmic ray flux (low solar magnetic activity), and conversely warmer during lower cosmic ray flux (high solar magnetic activity).
Another important adjunct to the Solar influence and ENSO cycles has been recently discovered by the late Theodore Landscheidt, Schroeter Institute for Research in Cycles of Solar Activity, Nova Scotia, Canada. This man accurately predicted ahead of time to the month the start and end of the last three El Niño’s. All other supercomputer powered climate models had failed to do so. Landscheidt has shown that the gravitational affects of the four giant planets Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune orbiting around the Sun, regulate the Sun’s motion around its Centre of Mass which in turn regulate its eruptive (electromagnetic) activity, which directly correlate to climatic events recorded on the Earth (as discussed above). These planetary-solar activity cycles can be calculated with apparently very high levels of confidence. Before his passing earlier this year, Landscheidt made predictions of the current La Niña from April 2004 to April 2005, while next El Niño from July 2006 until at least May 2007. Our government scientists CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology would be better employed investigating how Landscheidt undertook his analysis (he was a frequent publisher) than playing around with unrealistic Global Circulation Models.
I believe that climate will vary naturally due to changes in Solar Activities and Celestial factors into the future, therefore one can expect periods of droughts (El Niño’s) at intermittent periods into the future. Risk Management can be applied with high confidence as El Niño years can now be accurately predicted by studying Landschiedt methodologies. Consequently water resources for city and country dwellers can be conserved ahead of the next drought period. Farmers can therefore plan ahead their land management practices, crop types, stocking rates and feed requirements into the future El Niño years with confidence.
As the population grows, water will be the most important environmental issue irrespective of any postulated Climate Change facing Australia; availability of fresh potable and mitigating salinity levels in ground waters. If the Victorian government wants to spend money on the environment it would be better spent by piping much of the irrigation channels in northern Victoria; more water available as apparently 95% lost due to seepage and evaporation. Thus by piping irrigation channels we should have 19X more water available for use or for the environment (Murray River). This should also lower salinity levels both in the Murray River and in near-surface groundwaters in the Murray Basin. It is pleasing to see that the government is looking at technologies at recycling effluent, promoting the construction of infrastructure to have recycled water used on public and private gardens in new housing estates.
If the reader is using Adobe Acrobat to read this document, the CONTENTS page items are hot-linked.Moreover anything referenced in underlined bright blue within text are also hot-linked to source.To return to text hit Previous View Button.
STATEMENT: I am making this submission as a private individual. I am self employed.I am not contracted to, or do not represent any private or public organization or lobby group.Currently I am not a member of any community or business organization or lobby group.
a BSc (Hons) Geology and MSc (Mineral Economics). I have
previously worked in the Mineral Exploration industry.