A RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT DOCUMENT “South Coast Regional Sea-level Rise Planning and Policy Response Framework by Whitehead and Associates, July 2014”

Prepared for the Eurobodalla Shire Council and Shoalhaven City Council. Primary council contacts: Norm Lenehan (ESC); and Isabelle Ghetti (SCC)

I have read the above draft document and, whilst there are too many points of contention to be addressed here, I would like to focus on issues of concern regarding some questionable assumptions made and highly questionable sources of authority. It is perhaps appropriate that Whitehead and Associates state:

“Limits to understanding climate change science, predicting future emissions and projecting future sea-level rise, mean that there is significant uncertainty and absolute predictions cannot be reliably made.”

And:

“However, there is presently no means to place robust numerical likelihoods on the rates of future sea-level rise.”

I would firstly like to reflect on the following questionable statement from the draft document:

“We note that there is genuine scepticism relating to the reality of climate change, but among scientists that have an established track record in climate science and directly related fields, this point of view is apparently only held by a small minority of suitably qualified professionals.”

To say: “.. there is genuine scepticism relating to the reality of climate change,..” is a fatuous comment and I would challenge Whitehead and Associates to point out just one scientist who claims that the climate is not changing. Climate has always changed, sometimes slowly and sometimes rapidly. It is changing as you read this and will continue to change irrespective of what we do.

What we “climate realists” question is the alarmist claim that we are experiencing dangerous global warming and sea level rise as a result of the trivial quantities of carbon dioxide coming from anthropogenic sources. The report adds that: “ .. this point of view is apparently only held by a small minority of suitably qualified professionals.” (My emphasis.) Perhaps Whitehead and Associates should have actually searched for easily found peer reviewed, published papers which contradict the above statement. They could have started by looking up:

“More Than 1,000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims.”

In fact the alarmist notion of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) is now rejected not by a small minority but a very clear majority of scientists. Consensus should never be used as an argument in science but, if Whitehead and Associates would like to know where the consensus really rests, I suggest they look up the following lists (with tens of thousands) of scientists who reject the notion of CAGW: The Heidelberg Appeal (4,000 signatories including 72 Nobel Prize winners); The Oregon Petition (Over 31,000 scientists); The Manhattan Declaration (Over 600 research climatologists); Petition to the United Nations (100 key geoscientists). Other petitions and statements from scientists include: Petition to the Canadian Prime Minister; The Leipzig Declaration; Statement from Atmospheric Scientists; US Senate Minority Report. (More than 700 international scientists); Petition to President Obama; Petition to the German Chancellor. As Dr Stanley Goldenberg, Hurricane Division of NOAA, points out: “It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” Whitehead and Associates and council officials might want to reflect on the following letter from NASA scientists and engineers to their administrators, in response to statements from NASA activist scientists such as (now retired) Dr James Hansen: March 28, 2012 The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr. NASA Administrator NASA Headquarters Washington, D.C. 20546-0001 We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled. The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.

As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself. For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you. Thank you for considering this request. Sincerely, (Attached signatures) CC: Mr. John Grunsfeld, Associate Administrator for Science CC: Ass Mr. Chris Scolese, Director, Goddard Space Flight Center Ref: Letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, dated 3-26-12, regarding a request for NASA to refrain from making unsubstantiated claims that human produced CO2 is having a catastrophic impact on climate change. /s/ Jack Barneburg, Jack – JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years /s/ Larry Bell - JSC, Mgr. Crew Systems Div., Engineering Directorate, 32 years /s/ Dr. Donald Bogard – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 41 years /s/ Jerry C. Bostick – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 23 years /s/ Dr. Phillip K. Chapman – JSC, Scientist – astronaut, 5 years /s/ Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Division, MOD, 41 years /s/ Dr. Kenneth Cox - JSC, Chief Flight Dynamics Div., Engr. Directorate, 40 years /s/ Walter Cunningham – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 7, 8 years /s/ Dr. Donald M. Curry - JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Leading Edge, Thermal Protection Sys., Engr. Dir., 44 years /s/ Leroy Day - Hdq. Deputy Director, Space Shuttle Program, 19 years /s/ Dr. Henry P. Decell, Jr. - JSC, Chief, Theory & Analysis Office, 5 years /s/Charles F. Deiterich - JSC, Mgr., Flight Operations Integration, MOD, 30 years /s/ Dr. Harold Doiron - JSC, Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention Panel, 16 years /s/ Charles Duke - JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 16, 10 years /s/ Anita Gale /s/ Grace Germany – JSC, Program Analyst, 35 years /s/ Ed Gibson – JSC, Astronaut Skylab 4, 14 years /s/ Richard Gordon – JSC, Astronaut, Gemini Xi, Apollo 12, 9 years

/s/ Gerald C. Griffin – JSC, Apollo Flight Director, and Director of Johnson Space Center, 22 years /s/ Thomas M. Grubbs - JSC, Chief, Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering Branch, 31 years /s/ Thomas J. Harmon /s/ David W. Heath - JSC, Reentry Specialist, MOD, 30 years /s/ Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr. - JSC, Flight crew training and operations, 3 years /s/ James R. Roundtree – JSC Branch Chief, 26 years /s/ Enoch Jones - JSC, Mgr. SE&I, Shuttle Program Office, 26 years /s/ Dr. Joseph Kerwin – JSC, Astronaut, Skylab 2, Director of Space and Life Sciences, 22 years /s/ Jack Knight - JSC, Chief, Advanced Operations and Development Division, MOD, 40 years /s/ Dr. Christopher C. Kraft – JSC, Apollo Flight Director and Director of Johnson Space Center, 24 years /s/ Paul C. Kramer – JSC, Ass.t for Planning Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Div., Egr. Dir., 34 years /s/ Alex (Skip) Larsen /s/ Dr. Lubert Leger - JSC, Ass't. Chief Materials Division, Engr. Directorate, 30 years /s/ Dr. Humbolt C. Mandell - JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Program Control and Advance Programs, 40 years /s/ Donald K. McCutchen - JSC, Project Engineer - Space Shuttle and ISS Program Offices, 33 years /s/ Thomas L. (Tom) Moser – Hdq. Dep. Assoc. Admin. & Director, Space Station Program, 28 years /s/ Dr. George Mueller - Hdq., Assoc. Adm., Office of Space Flight, 6 years /s/ Tom Ohesorge /s/ James Peacock - JSC, Apollo and Shuttle Program Office, 21 years /s/ Richard McFarland - JSC, Mgr. Motion Simulators, 28 years /s/ Joseph E. Rogers - JSC, Chief, Structures and Dynamics Branch, Engr. Directorate,40 years /s/ Bernard J. Rosenbaum - JSC, Chief Engineer, Propulsion and Power Division, Engr. Dir., 48 years /s/ Dr. Harrison (Jack) Schmitt – JSC, Astronaut Apollo 17, 10 years /s/ Gerard C. Shows - JSC, Asst. Manager, Quality Assurance, 30 years /s/ Kenneth Suit - JSC, Ass't Mgr., Systems Integration, Space Shuttle, 37 years /s/ Robert F. Thompson - JSC, Program Manager, Space Shuttle, 44 years/s/ Frank Van Renesselaer - Hdq., Mgr. Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters, 15 years /s/ Dr. James Visentine – JSC Materials Branch, Engineering Directorate, 30 years /s/ Manfred (Dutch) von Ehrenfried - JSC, Flight Controller; Mercury, Gemini & Apollo, MOD, 10 years /s/ George Weisskopf – JSC, Avionics Systems Division, Engineering Dir., 40 years /s/ Al Worden - JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 15, 9 years /s/ Thomas (Tom) Wysmuller - JSC, Meteorologist, 5 years

Perhaps the primary council contacts: Norm Lenehan (ESC); and Isabelle Ghetti (SCC) could ask Whitehead and Associates if they stand by their statement that “.. this point of view is apparently only held by a small minority of suitably qualified professionals.” Councils should also ask Whitehead and Associates to point out a list where a mere 1,000 scientists endorse the alarmist notion of CAGW and associated threat from sea level rise. The Whitehead and Associates report says: “We consider that the modelled projections from the IPCC’s AR5 report are widely accepted by competent scientific opinion”

And:

“There are four projections presented in AR5, referred to as Representative Concentration Pathways, or RCP’s. RCP2.6 is a very low emissions scenario that includes the active removal of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere; RCP4.5 and RCP6.0 are mid-range emissions scenarios that include a gradual reduction of emissions towards the next century; and RCP8.5 is a high range emissions scenario which represents continuation with present patterns of energy use and energy sources.”

In fact the IPCC’s past and present reports and modeled projections have been rejected by the broader scientific community.

The IPCC’s credibility has all but evaporated as it becomes increasingly apparent that the IPCC has been abusing climate science, almost since its inception in 1988. Many scientists have contributed to the IPCC process in good faith, only to see their input ignored, changed or marginalized, unless it conformed with the IPCC’s alarmist political/ideological agenda. In summary there is clear evidence to show:

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-scientist 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;

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 17 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 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 no such thing and indicated that there were significant shortcomings in each major step of the IPCC’s assessment process.

If any public-listed company produced an end of year report with such deception, it would be facing suspension and prosecution. But what do IPCC contributing scientists themselves now say about IPCC “science” and “process.” Should there be a public hearing about the credibility of the IPCC and the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming mantra, there would be a long queue of IPCC contributing scientists just itching to testify against the IPCC process and findings. Here is a sample of their statements: 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." The Whitehead and Associates report commented: “The IPCC is a scientific body established in 1988 by the United Nations which aims to provide a clear view of the current state of climate change science, regularly releasing widely accepted and competent scientific opinion.” Nothing could be further from the truth. It is now evident that the IPCC is a political/ideological body which masquerades as an independent scientific body yet the Whitehead and Associates report is largely based on IPCC “findings.” The following comments from the Whitehead and Associates report also ring a little hollow: “There are vocal sceptics and deniers but the prevailing view among appropriately qualified scientists is that human influence on the climate system is clear.” And: “The peer review and clear attempts to consider genuine alternative points of view indicate that the IPCC assessment is sound.” The Whitehead and Associates report rightly comments: “… the scientific process is not perfect. For example, investigations of the so called “Climategate” controversy in 2009 found that the leaked or stolen emails and documents demonstrated (Lahsen, 2013) “tendencies to resist transparency about data supporting their scientific findings and to exclude the work of certain scientists in peer reviewed journals and assessments based on extra-scientific considerations”

In fact “tendencies to resist transparency” is an understatement.

In a paper entitled: Global Warming Advocacy: A Cross-Examination, which looked to see if the IPCC reports actually represented “an unbiased and objective assessment” Dr Jason Johnston, former Professor of environmental law observed: “Such verification means comparing what the IPCC has to say about climate science with what one finds in the peer-reviewed climate science literature.” He concluded:

“On virtually every major issue in climate change science, IPCC reports systematically conceal or minimize what appear to be fundamental scientific uncertainties.”

Johnston went on to say that when they examined research by “scientists at the very best universities” who are of “unimpeachable credibility” they found “facts and findings that are rarely if ever mentioned” by the IPCC.

Johnston did not find the IPCC reports to be “an unbiased and objective assessment.”

Reflecting on the “climategate” emails, the Whitehead and Associates report concludes:

“The scientists involved were largely exonerated and Lahsen noted that none of the findings have affected the prevailing conclusion that greenhouse gases are changing the global climate.”

Largely exonerated? This statement indicates that Whitehead and Associates have not looked into the so-called climategate investigations or they have chosen to ignore reality.

The Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at East Anglia University has provided temperature data to the IPCC and published science that was used by the European Union and various governments to implement expensive and useless climate mitigation schemes, including massive subsidies for unreliable, inefficient alternative energy systems.

The leaked emails, rather than showing an impartial and dedicated team of climate scientists diligently looking at all available climate/paleoclimate data, revealed a clique of activist scientists going out of their way to conceal, manipulate and destroy data which challenged the CAGW mantra. There is also evidence that CRU scientists took steps to silence skeptics. In one email, Jones stated:

“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep Them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is.”

The outrage from the broader scientific community led to the University appointing an “independent” panel to examine the activities of CRU scientists, under the direction of Lord Ronald Oxburgh.

Oxburgh was the obvious choice for the university since he was President of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association; Chairman of wind energy firm Falck Renewables and a member of the Green Fiscal Commission. Oxburgh had a direct financial interest in the outcome of any investigation. Suffice to say, the investigation was largely held in camera; there was minimal criticism of the CRU team and no

direct testimony or questioning from scientifically and statistically competent skeptics or CRU critics. Dr David Hand, from the Royal Statistical Society, said the "hockey stick" that pointed to the threat posed by climate change greatly exaggerated the rise in temperature and it was created using "inappropriate" methods. The Oxburgh Report was a superficial and embarrassing 5-page “whitewash.” There was no investigation into “hiding the decline” or Michael Mann’s “trick” in hiding the fact that his multi-proxy data did not show the expected warming after 1979. Interestingly, the so-called investigators looked at a handful of carefully selected CRU papers and failed to look into the 1,000 year temperature reconstructions, the cherry picking and deletion of data which didn’t support their alarmist story. Curiously, Oxburgh famously reported: “… the science was not the subject of our study.”

Other so-called climategate investigations have been thoroughly critiqued by Dr Ross McKitrick, Professor of Environmental Economics at the University of Guelph, Canada. He concluded:

“The world still awaits a proper inquiry into climategate: one that is not stacked with global warming advocates, and one that is prepared to cross-examine evidence, interview critics as well as supporters of the CRU and other IPCC players, and follow the evidence where it leads.”

Whitehead and Associates said: “The scientists involved were largely exonerated.”

This is clearly not the case.

In 3.2.2 Climate Change Science 101, Whitehead and Associates said:

“The Earth is warming. This would not be remarkable considering variations that have been known to occur over geological time scales were it not for the influence of human beings.”

Whitehead and Associates really need to actually complete Climate Change Science 101 since the above statement illustrates an alarming lack of knowledge.

Their report correctly showed an increasing level of atmospheric carbon dioxide:

Mischievously, the same report failed to show that carbon dioxide levels were not accompanied by any increase in global temperature. In fact NOAA data show slight cooling of the planet whilst carbon dioxide levels continue to rise, albeit slowly:

It is now widely accepted, even by warming alarmists, (perhaps not from those with vested interests) that there has been no increase in global temperature over the last 17 years. Even the IPCC’s non-scientist Chairman, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged the pause in global temperature rise.

Dr Mojab Latif, climate modeller and IPCC author said:

“We could be entering one or even two decades of cooler temperatures.” Dr Khabibullo Abdusamatov, head of the space research facility at the Pulkovo observatory in St. Petersburg warns of low solar activity and global cooling which could continue for 2 or more decades. He states: "By the mid-21st century the planet will face another Little Ice Age, similar to the Maunder Minimum, because the amount of solar radiation hitting the Earth has been constantly decreasing since the 1990s and will reach its minimum approximately in 2041.” The Royal Society has admitted in a statement on the science of climate change that the late 20th century spell of warming ended in 2000. The UK’s Government Chief Scientific Adviser Professor John Beddington admitted to Lord Nigel Lawson: “It is true that global average temperature has remained roughly constant over the past decade.” The UK MET office placed on record before the UK Parliament, that global temperature is not rising.

Professor Bob Carter says:

“The recently quiet Sun, and the lack of warming over at least the last 15 years — and that despite a 10% increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide level, which represents 34% of all post-industrial emissions — indicates that the alarmist global warming hypothesis is wrong and that cooling may be the greatest climate hazard over coming decades.”

Climate scientist Dr. Richard Keen of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado says: “Earth has cooled since 1998 in defiance of the predictions by the UN-IPCC….The global temperature for 2007 was the coldest in a decade and the coldest of the millennium…which is why ‘global warming’ is now called ‘climate change.” Climate scientist Professor Don Easterbrook warns: “That global warming is over, at least for a few decades, might seem to be a relief. However, the bad news is that global cooling is even more harmful to humans than global warming and a cause for even greater concern.”

The Journal Science has said the pause in global temperatures is real, as do many refereed scientific papers in numerous journals. Even the IPCC’s alarmist Dr Kevin Trenberth admitted in a leaked email: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” NOAA data to the end of 2012 has confirmed that the IPCC’s prediction of carbon dioxide driven global warming has simply not happened. Professor Howard Hayden observes:

“If the science were as certain as climate activists pretend, then there would be precisely one climate model, and it would be in agreement with measured data. As it happens, climate modelers have constructed literally dozens of climate models. What they all have in common is a failure to represent reality, and a failure to agree with the other models.”

The IPCC’s 5th report (5AR) acknowledges that, between 1998 and 2012, simulations from 111 out of 114 unvalidated climate models clearly failed to predict the current 17 year temperature stasis. Following many years of denial, the IPCC has finally acknowledged the temperature stasis and now scrambles to suggest reasons, including (surprise) natural climate variability.

The question has to be asked: Why didn’t Whitehead and Associates acknowledge global temperature data, showing stasis, from the following uncontaminated satellite data bases:

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.

This information is readily available.

In a leaked email from Dr Peter Thorne of the UK Met. Office to Professor Phil Jones at the CRU 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 warning:

“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.”

Prophetic words indeed from Thorne, who clearly sees the storm clouds gathering.

In fact temperature stasis has occurred whilst atmospheric carbon dioxide levels continue to increase yet Whitehead and Associates want us to believe, without any supportive empirical evidence, that carbon dioxide drives global temperature.

Climate scientist Professor Judith Curry said it is now clear that the IPCC’s computer modeling, which predicted continual warming, is deeply flawed. She suggests 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”.

In fact she is asking for intellectual honesty, which appears to be in short supply within some organizations.

The report by Whitehead and Associates also stated:

“As greenhouse gas concentrations increase, so too does radiative forcing and the Earth warms. A warming Earth will contribute to sea-level rise in two main ways.

As the oceans heat, the water expands. This is known as thermal expansion;

As the atmosphere heats, ice previously supported directly on the earth’s crust (i.e. not floating) will melt and ultimately flow into the ocean. Key sources for this contribution are glaciers and ice caps and the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica.”

Whitehead and Associates appear not to be aware that carbon dioxide has never driven global temperature over 500 million years:

They should be aware that not only has carbon dioxide never driven global temperature but, when carbon dioxide levels were ten times current levels, the Earth was in the depths of an ice age. Furthermore, when carbon dioxide does track closely to global temperature, it is temperature which always precedes changes in carbon dioxide levels. Ice core data show temperature fluctuations over the last 11,000 years with a clear disconnect between global temperature and carbon dioxide levels:

Perhaps Whitehead and Associates can tell the councils why the following peer-reviewed published papers are wrong. After all, they conclude that: "The CO2 decrease lags the temperature decrease by several thousand years"

Fischer, H. et al. 1999. in Science 283: 1712-1714; Indermuhle, A. et al. 2000. in Geophysical Research Letters 27: 735-738; Mudelsee, M. 2001. in Quaternary Science Reviews 20: 583-589; Monnin, E. et al. 2001. in Science 291: 112-114. Had Whitehead and Associates reviewed the literature on climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide they would have found evidence continuing to accumulate, showing climate sensitivity (for a doubling of pCO2) to be lower than IPCC alarmist claims, e.g. Chylek and Lohmann (2008); Schmittner et al. Douglas and Christy (2009); (2011); Rowling et al. (2012); Lewis (2012); Gillett (2012). One has to ask why Whitehead and Associates are concerned about rising levels of carbon dioxide and why they believe the Earth is warming when a little due diligence would show this is not the case. The atmosphere is not heating and there is no evidence for unusual ice melt. Whitehead and Associates say:

“Key sources for this contribution (to sea level rise) are glaciers and ice caps and the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica.”

Again, a little due diligence from Whitehead and Associates would show that current Antarctic sea ice extent is 1,354,000 sq km above the 1981-2010 mean, whereas IPCC computer models incorrectly predicted a decline. The US National Snow And Ice Data Center (NSIDC) shows that ice around Antarctica covers about 16 million sq km, more than 2.1�million above what is usual for the time of year - the highest level since satellite observations started in 1979.

Dr Tom Sheahen points out that alarmists always focus on the West Antarctic Ice Shelf which contains a mere 8% of Antarctic ice. This peninsula has melting glaciers but is not typical of Antarctica. Neither is it a new phenomenon and neither is it related to anthropogenic activity. Again, a little due diligence would have revealed

that Zwally et al. showed that, between 2003 and 2008, the mass gain of the Antarctic ice sheet from snow accumulation exceeded the mass loss from ice discharge by 49 Gtlyr

Additionally, Dr. Sebastian Lüning (2013) has shown that, Greenland was 2-3°C warmer 6000 to 4000 years ago than it is today whilst the ice remained intact. Additionally, a paper by Lecavalier et al. (2013) shows that Greenland has actually cooled 2.5°C over the last 8,000 years. The question has to be asked: Even if all the ice in Antarctica and Greenland melted, considering that several kilometer deep basins would be left behind on both land masses, where do we suppose the melt water would go? Certainly not into the oceans. The ocean heat content down to 700m has been measured by Argo buoys and those data are readily available. IPCC climate models projected ocean heat content increasing at about 0.7 X 1022 Joules per year so how did these predictions compare with reality:

Perhaps Whitehead and Associates can comment about this discrepancy.

Here are sea temperature data from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park since 1982:

Presumably Whitehead and Associates would know that the Australian BOM has an observation station on Willis Island and sea surface temperatures measured at Willis Island are remarkably similar to Great Barrier Reef temperatures:

The temperature trend at Willis Island is equivalent to an increase of 0.12 degrees/century, which is hardly alarming and temperatures from Willis Island suggests that sea surface temperatures on the Great Barrier Reef have hardly changed over the last 70 years with no sustained periods of significant warming. Kuhnert and Mulitza (2011) reported cooling of the Atlantic Ocean surface temperature over the past millennium and passive microwave data from the Windsat, TMI and AMSR-E satellites have shown no warming of sea surface temperatures (SST) since 2003.

Dr Roy Spencer comments:

“I consider this dataset to be the most accurate depiction of SST variability over the last 10+ years due to these instruments’ relative insensitivity to contamination by

clouds and aerosols..”

With Whitehead and Associates having provided no convincing evidence for either recent global warming or thermosteric expansion of the oceans, another question has to be asked: Where is the evidence for significant sea level rise?

Professor Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change, was an IPCC contributing scientist. Mörner, arguably the world’s foremost expert on sea-level measurement, has called into question the IPCC’s prognosis on future sea-level rise and how this contradicts what recognised experts in the area have documented.

Mörner reported to the UK House of Lords that genuine experts on sea level refuted IPCC claims of rapidly rising levels and that island nations could be inundated. Mörner said:

“There is a total absence of any recent ‘acceleration in sea level rise’ as often claimed by IPCC and related groups ... So all this talk that sea level is rising, this stems from the computer modeling, not from observations. The observations don't find it.”

If sea level is rising significantly it would have been noted at various sites around the Pacific and recorded by the Australian South Pacific Sea Level & Climate Monitoring Project located near Takuu Island. The SEAFRAME (Sea Level Fine Resolution Acoustic Measuring Equipment) records all parameters likely to influence sea level.

Between 1992 and 2009, SEAFRAME showed some variation, but no overall sea level rise, at its reference points. Noted was the relative sea level rise at Takuu Island and the Carteret Islands. Both groups are on the submarine Ontong Java Plateau, where relative sea-level rise can be attributed to tectonic subsidence.

Professor Cliff Ollier, School of Earth and Environment, University of Western Australia says:

“Graphs of sea level for twelve locations in the southwest Pacific show stable sea level for about ten years over the region. The data are compared with results from elsewhere, all of which suggest that any rise of global sea level is negligible.”

Unvalidated computer model predictions of future global warming and sea level rise do not provide a scientific basis for sea-level rise projections for the Shoalhaven and Eurobodalla coasts. Nor do they provide a basis for coastal planning.

It is interesting to note that Whitehead and Associates quote Dr John Church and the CSIRO extensively. Both the IPCC and CSIRO have political and financial incentives for promoting global warming and sea level rise alarmism whilst Whitehead and Associates fail to point out that such alarmism is not supported by the available evidence. For instance, Boretti (2012) has looked at two decades of global sea level data, i.e. from the TOPEX and Jason series of satellite radar altimeter data. Boretti found the average rate of sea level rise to be 3.1640 mm/year

and that sea level rise is actually reducing, concluding that this finding "is clearly the opposite of what is being predicted by the models.”

Other studies which contradict IPCC SLR alarmism are those of Holgate (2007), Wunsch et al. (2007), Wenzel and Schroter (2010) and Houston and Dean (2011).

Councils need to be aware and cautious when building is planned on eroding coastlines, floodplains, fault lines, subsidence zones, karst topography or fire prone areas. They should seek expert unbiased advice which is measured and considers all available evidence. In my opinion, the report: “South Coast Regional Sea-level Rise Planning and Policy Response Framework by Whitehead and Associates, July 2014” does not meet these needs.

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

28th August 2014