A good reminder of why cutting carbon dioxide emissions is irrelevant is in Quadrant. John McLean writes
inter alia:
- the latest IPCC report admits that the temperature trend was flat from 1998 to 2012.
- thermometers on earth and microwave instruments on satellites are both reporting a flat-lining of the temperature trend.
- a track record of failure and often sensationalist claims can only encourage scepticism about climate models that predicted global warming.
Its is a folly to harm businesses and increase taxes to reduce carbon dioxide when it is demonstrably not harming the planet.
Here's Crikey's take on the guy:
http://www.crikey.com.au/2014/01/13/the-big-oil-backed-climate-denier-who-hoodwinked-fairfax/
Who is John McLean? What qualifications entitle him to speak as an expert on climate science? What is the ICSC, and which groups, interests and agendas do McLean and the ICSC represent? What exactly does it mean to be an “expert reviewer” of IPCC reports?
McLean is not affiliated with any university or scientific organisation. He has no verifiable qualifications in the field of climate science. On his website
McLean describes himself as a “computer consultant and occasional travel photographer”.
In 2006, McLean published his first peer-reviewed paper —
a “review” of CSIRO reports — in the journal
Energy and Environment. In the scientific community,
E&E is regarded as a
bottom-of-the-barrel journal. It is the journal of choice for loony papers, amateur enthusiasts and semi-retired climate sceptic scientists who have no credentials in the field of climatology. The journal’s editor, Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, once
told the Chronicle of Higher Education: ”I’m following my political agenda — a bit, anyway. But isn’t that the right of the editor?”
Two years later, and still with no verifiable scientific qualifications, McLean popped up as lead author of
a paper with fellow ICSC think tank associates Bob Carter and Chris de Freitas. Published in the
Journal of Geophysical Research, it concluded the Southern Oscillation (the atmospheric component of El Nino) was the primary driver of global temperatures, not human activities. The paper was
comprehensively demolished in a subsequent comment by nine leading climate scientists.
Which brings us to McLean’s
latest paper, which he and de Freitas published in an open-access Journal of Scientific Research Publishing, a vanity publisher whose journals have reportedly
re-published papers from reputable scientific journals without notification or permission of the author and
listing academics on its editorial boards without their knowledge or permission.
Clearly McLean has no standing or expertise in the field of climate science. So why does he persist in publishing opinion pieces as an “expert” on climate change? His affiliation with the International Climate Science Coalition holds the key to this question.
Despite its name, the ICSC does not conduct scientific research. It is
funded by the Heartland Institute, an American right-wing think tank historically
bankrolled by Exxon to promote climate denial. Perhaps not surprisingly, the ICSC’s primary agenda includes discrediting authoritative science on climate change, opposing regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and “educating” the public on the “dangerous impacts” involved in trying to replace fossil fuels with cleaner energy sources such as wind and solar power.
Executive director Tom Harris is a
former APCO public relations executive — APCO being most memorable for launching the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (or TASSC), a lobby group and crisis management vehicle bankrolled by Big Tobacco in the United States to discredit scientific studies linking second-hand smoke to cancer, while achieving legislative outcomes favourable to the tobacco industry.
APCO’s media strategy to launch TASSC included establishing the lobby group as a credible source for journalists, building a grassroots social movement that encouraged the general public to “fight” the science, and targeting sympathetic journalists who would run with the TASSC message unchallenged.
