UPDATE 5 DEC 2007: TOTAL PWNAGE!!! NST HELPS ME BANKAI TEH DARTOUKS!
Datuk Renji Sathiah wrote a letter to the NST that was printed on 28 Nov 2007 as a response to my own letter Global Warming: Positive Benefits From A Hotter Planet.
Take a look-see:
From NST 28 Nov 2007 (link will be removed by now):
Climate change: Global warming irrefutable
By : DATUK RENJI SATHIAH, Penang
AS the former head of Malaysia’s delegation to the climate change negotiations for many years, I have been distressed over articles and letters – for example, Scott Thong Yu Yuen’s “Positive benefits from a hotter planet” (NST, Nov 26) – challenging the conclusions of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
I am especially concerned as climate change is, without question, the biggest threat to mankind. It is a scientifically irrefutable fact that the build-up and concentration of greenhouse gases which is essentially caused by human activities, in particular the excessive use of fossil fuels since the Industrial Revolution began more than 100 years ago, is a new phenomenon.
That this will lead to global warming is also irrefutable.
It is true that computer models used by different scientists vary in their estimates of the level of warming that will take place but even the most optimistic models show an increase in global temperatures that will have disastrous consequences.
Firstly, there is the rise in sea levels, already more than noticeable in small island states such as the Maldives. With even the smallest rise in global temperatures predicted, countries like Bangladesh will lose most of their land mass and others, even Malaysia, will suffer significant losses of their land mass.
As for the ridiculous assertions by Thong that warmer temperatures will mean greater biodiversity, benefits to agriculture, etc, the reality will be otherwise as global warming will cause such dramatic changes to climate that agriculture as we know it will become unsustainable. It will be the death knell for biodiversity already under threat from human encroachment.
The impact on current agricultural practices will be so enormous and sudden that adaptation is simply not feasible. In addition, the changes to land mass and human life will be so dramatic that global political and economic stability will be threatened.
The IPCC’s conclusions have always erred on the side of scientific caution and represent the consensus opinion of hundreds of the leading scientists in this field worldwide. It is also not true, as Thong states, that there is nothing new in the IPCC’s latest report.
As research has progressed and studies intensified, the conclusions have become more definitive and thus more alarming.
As for being politically biased, the fact is that, if anything, political interference has come from recalcitrant states like the United States which have attempted to obfuscate the issue because, as the largest polluter, the US is simply not, for political reasons, prepared to change the wasteful lifestyle of its people.
I was a first-hand witness of the heavy-handed efforts of the US delegation to block progress in the negotiations.
Furthermore, the powerful and wealthy fossil fuel energy lobbies spent millions to lobby to prevent a global agreement. As a result, the Kyoto Protocol was a flawed agreement as it had been so watered down by these tactics.
Certain theses that a handful of scientists have come out with in recent years, challenging the IPCC, were proven to have no credibility as they were shown to have been financed by the fossil fuel energy lobbies.
If Thong, like George Bush and others, wants to live in denial of the facts, I only hope that most people will not be taken in by the arguments contradicting the IPCC report and will join with others around the world who are rightly concerned about the kind of world they will be leaving to their children.
I am thrilled with the election of pro-environment Labor Party leader Kevin Rudd as Australia’s new prime minister as the US has been left totally isolated on this vitally important issue.
The oh-so-ekspertiz on teh subjekks Datuk obviously has grait times pickin on poor lil me with all his mean wurdz to maik himself feel so clevurs.
Coming from penang and being a global warming alarmist, I bet he blames global warming for Gurney Drive’s ugliness as well as for everything else in existence.
Mr. Sathiah is a bigshot indeed, not unlike the Bleach character Renji Abarai from Bleach, which commenter SF referred to. As this Google search shows, he’s attended quite a number of functions as an honoured guest.
Perhaps that is why, after having picked on me and all global warming skeptics with his smearing allegations, the NST still has not prinetd my follow up letter which you can find below.
In the unprinted letter, I spell skeptics as sceptics – which makes me think of anti-septics, but that’s what the Malaysian papers always correct my spelling to.
As a bonus, I added links to relevant information, which I can’t do for a hard-copy newspaper letter. See, skeptics like me use real and checkable information instead of pure smear tactics and insinuations!
Enjoy, and tell me whether you think I kicked Renji’s bankai!
Sceptics are not greedy, uneducated shills for fossil fuel lobbies
Datuk Renji Sathiah, former head of Malaysia’s delegation to the climate change negotiations, made several accusations in his letter dated 28 Nov 2007, ‘Climate change: Global warming irrefutable.’
From the outset, he uses the standard global warming proponent’s tactics of stirring up fear with predictions of catastrophe, appealing to non-existent scientific consensus, and smearing sceptics as motivated by greed and ignorance.
(Ref:Global warming thugs, Hot tempers on global warming)
I, an ordinary Malaysian citizen, am somewhat offended by these accusations and respectfully ask for the chance to address some of the claims.
I was once a firm believer in anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory. After all, everyone else agreed it was real.
But then I began to research the facts for myself, as anyone with an inquisitive mind and access to the Internet can. What I found was major flaws in the methodology, theoretical models and conclusions of AGW theory.
Weighing both the proponents’ and the sceptics’ claims, I found the sceptics to be both more logical and more honest.
It was because I looked at the facts – not because I denied them – that I became a sceptic of AGW. And I am not alone.
The Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is often regarded as the authority on climate change issue, but it is becoming clear that the much-trumpeted AGW ‘consensus’ of scientific opinion is merely a mirage created by cherry picking of data and a misrepresentation of individual scientific papers.
Dozens of scientists whose work was cited by the IPCC reports as ‘proof’ of AGW have filed lawsuits to have their names removed from what they consider a politically motoviated disregard of science.
(Ref: Prof. Reiter sues to have named removed, see ProfBitten by the IPCC for some background on Reiter and the IPCC’s level of ignorance)
John Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama, renounced the Nobel Prize he jointly ‘won’ as part of the IPCC due to his opinion that they are in reality nowhere close to a proper understanding of the science of climate change.
(Ref: IPCC Scientist Rejects Nobel Prize, Global Warming Hoax)
Vincent Gray, a member of the IPCC Expert Reviewers Panel since its inception, called for the IPCC to be abolished because it has for years been systematically igoring the scientific method in order to strengthen its case for AGW.
(Ref: IPCC Member Calls For Its Abolition)
So much for the global consensus, it doesn’t even exist within the IPCC itself!
In any case, a consensus is not a replacement for hard facts. It used to be the 100-percent consensus that the Sun revolved around the Earth, that rats spontaneously generated from wheat, and that the tectonic plates were not moving.
As for the Kyoto Protocol which the IPCC advocates, it is a clearly checkable fact that Europe’s implementation of the Kyoto Protocol has achieved only two things: It has caused energy costs to skyrocket (Germany’s by over USD 9 billion in 2005 alone), and it has utterly failed to even slow rising carbon emission levels – let alone reduce them. The carbon cap-and-trade method simply does not work.
(Ref: Germany energy costs higher by USD 9.2 billion, Kyoto to cost hundreds of billions of Euros, Italy, Japan and Spain face USD 33 billion in Kyoto fines, USD 150 billion a year worldwide for 0.001 degree temperature reduction)
However, Datuk Renji Sathiah is correct in his assertation that the US rejected Kyoto Protocol in 1997 due to political reasons. Here’s why…
Kyoto Protocol actually calls for a rollback of carbon dioxide emissions to 1990 levels. Why this date, and not any others? The reason lies not in science, but in politics and economics.
European and Japanese economic growth had stagnated since 1990. A slow economy means less production, less energy use and fewer carbon emissions. Since 1990, the British had been closing down coal plants and switching to gas power.
In 1990, Germany was reunified and closed down many of the inefficient, dirty Soviet-era factories. Since 1990, Russia had slow economic growth and closed thousands of wasteful Soviet-era factories.
Each of these proponents of Kyoto gained instant advantage by setting the CO2 level target at 1990, rather than any other arbitrary date. Their CO2 emissions levels in 1997 were hardly any greater than the 1990 levels. Meanwhile, the US would have had to cut back on its decade of strong economic growth to meet the arbitrarily set targets.
With such politically motivated and unfair terms, is it any wonder the US Senate voted 95-0 to unanimously reject the Kyoto Protocol until the flaws in it are fixed? Those flaws still have not been addressed. And with the dismal performance of Kyoto, the US is unlikely to hang itself on that particular economic noose.
(Ref: Senate votes 95-0 against Kyoto Protocol, Why Kyoto is set to 1990 emissions standards)
Lastly, I am confounded as to why AGW sceptics are always accused of being shills for big oil, big industry or so on.
Datuk Renji Sathiah implies that all scientific studies that refute global warming have no credibility, simply because a handful of them have fossil fuel lobbys sponsorship. I would ask, does he apply the same standard to environmental lobby sponsorship?
Who do you think pays the salaries of all the climate scientists? Who sponsors studies that support the ‘irrefutable reality’ of AGW? If the AGW hysteria were to collapse like a house of cards, what would happen to the paycheques and funding of all these ‘impartial’ scientists?
The Green lobby, environmental foundations and various governments spend magnitudes more on financing climate studies than the handful of oil companies.
(Ref: $100 million a year in advertising alone about how undeniably true global warming is)
NASA scientist and AGW proponent James Hansen alone received USD 250000, USD 720000 and USD 1 million from foundations that support AGW theory. This same Hansen’s data which showed increasing temperatures was recently discredited as flawed due to a Y2K bug, an error that he was forced to admit after it was exposed by sceptics earning a fraction of his pay.
(Ref: $720,000, $250,000 and $1 million, NASA quietly fixes data flaws)
To say that the meagre funding a few sceptics receives takes away their credibility, while the vastly greater funding that climate scientists receive does not affect their research at all, is to make a naked and biased ad hominem attack.
Why do global warming fearmongers always resort to character assassination instead of attempting to address the fact-based arguments of sceptics? I dare venture it is because they have no satisfactory answers to cover for their very tattered scientific claims.
Sceptics are not uneducated ignoramuses. Sceptics are not on the payroll of fossil fuel lobbies. Most prominent sceptics are ordinary folk like myself, with ordinary jobs and some spare time on their hands, who are incensed at the shoddy science that passes for AGW theory.
As for who the true obfuscators are, allow me to close with this quote from Stephen Schneider, one of the original leading public advocates for AGW:
“We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
(Ref: Google it yourself and see!)