Posts Tagged ‘New Straits Times’

NST: Global Warming: The Facts Do Not Add Up

December 5, 07

BANKAI! / PWNED!

Just one day after I posted about the NST not printing my Bankai-ing of Datuk Renji Sathiah, they go and help me gang-flank him.

Kudos to you NST for helping truth defeat falshood! (As I say and give examples of in the first paragraph of here.)

Here is the NST version of my letter below. I recommend that you see my previous post Bankai-ing Datuk Renji Sathiah on Global Warming for the text Datuk Renji Sathiah’s letter (image thumbnails provided below), the full version of my letter (original is always the best), and helpful links.

—————–

Datuk Renji Sathiah’s letter from NST 28 Nov 2007:

   RenjiSathiahClimateChange1   RenjiSathiahClimateChange2

—————–

My letter from NST 5 Dec 2007 (NST removes links after about a week):

   GWFactsDontAddUp1   GWFactsDontAddUp2

Global warming: The facts do not add up

By : SCOTT THONG YU YUEN, Ipoh

I, a Malaysian citizen, am offended by the accusations of Datuk Renji Sathiah, former head of Malaysia’s delegation to climate-change talks (“Global warming irrefutable” — NST, Nov 28).

I was once a firm believer in the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory.

But then I began to research the facts. What I found was flaws in the methodology, theoretical models and conclusions of AGW theory. Weighing the proponents’ and the sceptics’ claims, I found the sceptics to be more logical and honest.

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-motivated disregard of science.

Among them, 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 ignoring the scientific method to strengthen its case for AGW.

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 more than US$9 billion in 2005), and it has utterly failed to even slow rising carbon emission levels, let alone reduce them. The carbon cap-and-trade method does not work.

However, Renji is correct in his assertion that the US rejected Kyoto Protocol in 1997 due to political reasons.

The protocol calls for a rollback of carbon dioxide emissions to 1990 levels. Why this date? 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 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 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 targets.

With such politically-motivated and unfair terms, is it any wonder the US Senate voted 95-0 to reject the protocol until the flaws in it are fixed?

Renji implies that all scientific studies that refute global warming have no credibility, simply because a handful of them have fossil-fuel lobby 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?

The green lobby, environmental foundations and various governments spend much more on financing climate studies than the handful of oil companies. Nasa scientist and AGW proponent James Hansen received US$25,000 (RM82,000), US$720,000 and US$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.

As for who the obfuscators are, let me close with this quote from Stephen Schneider, one of the original 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.”

————————–

       SkepticsPWNFearmongers

You can come down when the global warming doomsday hoax is finally disowned by the world.

Bankai-ing Datuk Renji Sathiah on Global Warming

December 4, 07

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):

   RenjiSathiahClimateChange1   RenjiSathiahClimateChange2
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.

DoodWhyUGotaBSoMean

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!)

NST Letters: Global warming: Inconvenient Truths of Another Kind

November 1, 07

My letter to the NST on global warming fallacies has arrived.  Coming after they printed my letter NST: Nobel Peace Prize: Another Side to Gore’s Efforts to Combat Global Warming, it seems the NST editors may not care much for Al Gore and global warming fermongering either! Kekekeke!

Unlike The Star which used a photo and caption that seemingly contradicted the gist of my message in The Star Opinions: Kyoto will Creep Up on Us, the NST used a photo that seems contradictory, until you read the decidedly (and surprisingly frank) supportive caption!

Full letter below.

————————-

From NST Letters 1 Nov 2007 (NST removes links after about a week):

InconvenientTruthAnotherkind1   InconvenientTruthAnotherkind2   InconvenientTruthAnotherkind3

Global warming: Inconvenient truths of another kind

By : SCOTT THONG YU YUEN, Ipoh

A dried-up pond in Hubei province, China. Situations like this have been blamed on global warming. However, the fact is the actual recorded temperature rise over the past 100 years has only been 0.5 degree Celsius.
A dried-up pond in Hubei province, China. Situations like this have been blamed on global warming. However, the fact is the actual recorded temperature rise over the past 100 years has only been 0.5 degree Celsius.

FOR all who believe that global warming is caused primarily by humans and is an undeniable threat to our way of life, I would like to clarify three prime misconceptions about global warming and climate change.

Firstly, whatever you may hear about wildly rising temperatures, the actual recorded rise over the past 100 years has only been 0.5 degree Celsius. This amount is inconsistent with the much vaunted — and yet unproven — computer models that predict a rise of 1.5 degrees due to increased greenhouse gas emissions.

Doubly inconsistent with the global warming theory is that most of the recorded warming took place before 1940. Clearly, industrial and vehicular emissions were greater in the latter half of the 20th century. So why does the data not show an even greater temperature rise from 1940 onwards?

In fact, highly accurate satellite temperature measurements show a warming of only 0.04oC per decade, while grounded stations show an increase of around 0.17oC per decade.

Why such a discrepancy? Could it be because surface stations are often placed in absurd locations, such as in a blisteringly hot parking lot?

Secondly, of the greenhouse gases blamed for global warming, carbon dioxide comprises just 0.0383 per cent of the entire atmosphere. In 2003, the top 20 carbon-emitting nations produced a scant 0.00034147 per cent of atmosphere in carbon emissions.

Such a tiny percentage seems unlikely to increase the greenhouse effect in any meaningful way. Global- warming proponents contend that the carbon dioxide absorbs infrared (heat) waves of a certain wavelength that would otherwise escape into space.

Sceptics counter that once that tiny fraction of infrared waves is absorbed, carbon dioxide ceases to play any meaningful role in the greenhouse effect — particularly when all of the other wavelengths of energy it can absorb overlap with other gases, including the ever-abundant water vapour.

More likely, other non-human factors such as the solar cycle are the drivers for climate change. Global temperatures rise and fall for the most part independently of human carbon emissions — as they have for the thousands of years before human industry, and for the eons before human civilisation even existed.

Thirdly, I find it astounding that many people unquestioningly concur when the main proponents of anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming theory, such as Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), advocate taking drastic measures to cut carbon dioxide emissions.

I am not saying that we should not wean ourselves off fossil fuels and polluting lifestyles. I simply want everyone to get the facts straight on the matter of global warming.

The Kyoto Protocol has already cost Europe multiple billions of euros in higher energy expenses. Yet it has totally failed to curb rising emission levels. Can the developing nations with their fledgling economies afford such ineffective luxuries?

If the threat of climate change is not nearly as impending or dire as the alarmists claim, we would be far better off developing new technologies, building clean wind and solar farms, and gradually shifting to a carbon-neutral lifestyle.

And need I reveal that although Al Gore and the IPCC recently won the Nobel Peace Prize for their efforts in increasing the hysteria about climate change, the outcome was decided by a panel comprising a mere four politicians and one historian — not scientists?

Meanwhile, after much research and deliberation, the United Kingdom High Court ruled that nine major scientific errors were present in An Inconvenient Truth (Al Gore’s influential film on global warming), which it also found to be political and partisan in portraying only one side of the global warming debate.

In conclusion, let me remind you that there are always many sides to each story. Even as some nod their heads in agreement with An Inconvenient Truth’s portrayal of Antarctic ice melting, others shake their heads at the fact that the film focuses on the mere two per cent of Antarctica that is warming, while the other 98 per cent not portrayed has actually been cooling — with more ice today than has ever been recorded!

For those who get their “facts” solely from the IPCC, I would suggest that you give a fair hearing to the sceptic’s point of view.

A quick browsing online will turn up many such sites. Some of them are obviously leaning towards strong scepticism, but many of them are well balanced and researched, such as Climate Audit run by Steve McIntyre, the man who recently exposed Nasa’s data on rising temperatures as skewed by the Y2K bug!

————————

Links elaborating on my above points: 

For the mere 0.5 degrees increase in temperatures that happened mostly before 1940, see The Marshall Institute: Uncertainties in Climate Modeling: Solar Variability and Other Factors

For satellite measurements refuting ground based measurements, see Carbon Dioxide and Global Warming – 5 Reasons Why I’m Not Alarmed (point4).

For surface stations in blisteringly hot car parks, see NST: GLOBAL WARMING? The ‘science’ of a warming world, The Sun: Fuzzy Facts on the Climate and Ground Based Temperature Recording Stations: Stupid Locations For Measuring Global Warming

For carbon dioxide levels, see Carbon Dioxide and Global Warming – 5 Reasons Why I’m Not Alarmed and Carbon Emissions and Percentage of Atmosphere.

For carbon dioxide having smaller and smaller effects as its concentrations increase, see Coyote Blog: Diminishing Return and very clear explanation at Coyote Blog: The 60-Second Climate Skeptic.

For how the Kyoto Protocol is costing billions for no improvements in Europe, see The Star Opinions: Kyoto will Creep Up on Us. For how much it is estimated to cost further, see Star Opinion: Guard Against Kyoto Protocol Hype.

For some clues as to whether Gore is being altruistic in promoting carbon caps and offsets as the way forward, see Follow the Clues: Is Al Gore’s Promotion of Global Warming Hysteria Merely A Scam to Make Him Money?.

For how (dis)honest Gore has already proven to be, see Al Gore: High Commander of War & Peace Hypocrisy.

For my preference for technology as the way forward out of fossil fuel dependence, see The Sun & The Star: Green Carrot Compromise.

For Al Gore and the IPCC’s Nobel Peace Prize win, see Al Gore 2007 Nobel Peace Prize Editorial Cartoons.

For the court verdict against An Inconvenient Truth, see Official British Court Finds 11 Inaccuracies in Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, Labels It As Political Propaganda. For even more errors in the film, see 35 Scientific Errors (or Intentional Lies) in An Inconvenient Truth.

For Steve McIntyre’s Climate Audit, go to http://www.climateaudit.org/.

For how he pwned NASA’s data stupidity, see Michelle Malkin: Hot news: NASA quietly fixes flawed temperature data; 1998 was NOT the warmest year in the millenium,  Newsbuster: UN Climate Panel Accused of Possible Research FraudNST: GLOBAL WARMING? The ‘science’ of a warming world,  The Sun: Fuzzy Facts on the Climate and Red faces at NASA over climate-change blunder.

And for cartoons mocking global warming nonsensory, see of course Global Warming Editorial Cartoons.


%d bloggers like this: