If I were a Queenslander, I wouldn’t be too worried about the impact of drinking recycled water. Whatever they’re drinking right now seems to be doing strange things to their thought patterns, given the rather strange court case, and even weirder decision, that’s been made in their Land and Resources Tribunal.
As Senator Andrew Bartlett describes, several local environment groups objected to a new coal mine development on the basis of its greenhouse emissions and the deleterious effect such emissions had on the environment.
The judgement itself is a rather extraordinary document, in several respects. Firstly, Ian Lowe, head of the Australian Conservation Foundation, gets caught out by the presiding member of the tribunal using misleading figures to distort the impact of the mining operations on greenhouse emissions:
Emeritus Professor Ian Lowe AO gave evidence that the proposed mine would contribute to the cumulative impacts of global warming and climate change. He was the only QCC witness to address the key issue of causation (GHG emissions:climate change).2 However, Professor Loweâs assessment of the mineâs GHG emissions (which he said he was putting âin contextâ?) sought to compare its minelife emissions with global annual emissions. That was said to give a figure of 0.24% of current annual global release of GHGs. But when the mineâs annual output of CO2-e (5.6Mt over 15 years ÷ 15 for the annual figure) is compared with global annual output of CO2-e (34,000 Mt), the correct figure is not 0.24% but (as I calculate it) 0.001098%. In other words, Professor Loweâs figure was 218 times too high…
Lowe, in an article in the Oz, disputes this and says his figures were only out by a factor of 15.
But Lowe isn’t the only one making odd claims. The decision seems to be in part due to the tribunal president Greg Koppenol’s own personal analysis of the IPCC report:
Finally, the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changeâs Summary for Policymakers was released on 2 February 2007.6 It relevantly concluded that is very likely that human-induced GHGs are causing global warming, and that most of the observed increases in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century are very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human-caused) GHG concentrations. However, a close examination of the global mean temperature chart (Fig SPM-3), which was said to support that view, reveals that the last 106 years had 3 periods of cooling (1900-1910, 1944-1976, 1998-2006) and 2 periods of warming (1910-1944, 1976-1998) and that temperatures rose only 0.5°C from 1900 to 2006. The largest temperature change in the 20th century was a 0.75°C rise between 1976 and 1998, But the fact that very similar rises have previously occurred (1852-1878, 0.65°C and 1910-1944, 0.65°C) was not specifically mentioned or causally explained in the Summary. Also not mentioned or causally explained is the fact that temperatures have actually fallen 0.05°C over the last 8 years. [18]
If a comparison is made of temperatures over the last 55 years (1951-2006), as the IPCC presumably did in reaching its conclusion, the chart shows that average temperatures increased from 13.85°C (1951) to 14.45°C (2006)âan increase of 0.6°C. As âmostâ? of that increase is said by the IPCC to be due to increases in GHGs, it follows that the temperature increase of concern is about 0.45°C (0.45°C being 75% of or âmostâ? of 0.6°C ). With all respect, a temperature increase of only about 0.45°C over 55 years seems a surprisingly low figure upon which to base the IPCCâs concerns about its inducing many serious changes in the global climate system during the 21st century.
I find this absolutely flabbergasting – this is Andrew Bolt stuff, not something you’d expect from a senior legal official. The IPCC reports are the agreed consensus view of thousands of climate scientists from around the world. The Summary for Policymakers is just that – a relatively non-technical summary of their conclusions designed to inform those making decisions on policy, rather than a super-detailed scientific analysis of the reasons behind the IPCC’s conclusions. Yet, it appears that, on the basis of a hugely superficial (and, frankly, wrong) analysis of one piece of data in the Summary report, Koppenol has discounted the report as an authoritative source of information on the causes and possible effects of climate change.
In what universe is it the role of a judge (or pseudo-judge) to be trying to argue against the opinion of the overwhelming majority of the world’s scientific experts on a particular issue?
Personally, I don’t think court cases like this are actually a particularly helpful way of addressing global warming, which needs to be tackled at a national policy level rather than trying to whack-a-mole with court cases about specific projects, and so I’m not that sad at the actual outcome. In any case, such a decision would likely have led to legislation ruling global warming issues out of bounds for environmental courts (as may well happen in NSW).
But when individual tribunal officers start suffering from delusions of grandeur and think that they know better than the world’s experts on scientific topics, it is kind of disturbing. Hopefully this aspect of the decision, at least, might be dealt with through judicial review.
UPDATE: Tim Lambert looks more carefully at the numbers than I did (Lowe still gets it wrong, but so does Koppenol), and eviscerates Koppenol for his interpretation of the IPCC report.
‘Whatever [Queenslanders are] drinking right now seems to be doing strange things to their thought patterns, given the rather strange court case, and even weirder decision, that’s been made in their Land and Resources Tribunal.’
Really?! So the myopic decisions of bloody-minded officialdom are purely a Queensland phenomenon, are they?
But, oh wait … at the end of this article, Mr Merkel deigns to throw us backward Queenslanders a crumb:
‘In any case, such a decision would likely have led to legislation ruling global warming issues out of bounds for environmental courts (as may well happen in NSW).’
Well, thank you, Mr Merkel! So the myopic decisions of bloody-minded officialdom are not just a Queensland thing, after all. It could happen anywhere. In fact, it’s happening EVERYwhere!
‘Stupid-Queenslander’ quips may have raised a laugh among superior-minded southerners during the Jo era, but to continue this puerile rhetoric thirty years on is as pathetic as it is unnecessary.
If the decision was made in a Victorian or NSW tribunal, I would have been happy to direct an equal amount of snark.
Aside from one throwaway line, the entire post was about the misrepresentations of Ian Lowe, and the dumb denialism of Greg Koppenol.
I’m very happy with the Qld crack. There can’t be too many jurisdictions where a judge as deluded as Koppenol sits. It’s almost Tasmanian.
I like the way the good judge quotes all those peer reviewed studies giving all the stats about the number of jobs and the amount of wealth that would be lost if the mine was forced to limit its CO2 pollution. He showed the IPCC a thing or two. Jo’d be proud.
The fact that a bunch of cuckoos like these are actually allowed to bring such a case to court, and be taken seriously, is the most embarrassing thing for Queensland.
What has the country come to when we waste money & time on fringe loonies like those who brought this case?
“The IPCC reports are the agreed consensus view of thousands of climate scientists from around the world”. Where did you get that idea Robert? The scientists do not agree on the summary, and the summary is not prepared by scientists.
It seems they do not understand the scientific reports, which they present as backing their flawed summary. Reminiscent of Gore saying that CO2 causes global warming, and presenting a graph which shows the CO2 released only after the warming which it is supposed to have caused.
I prepared a post on the day after Flannery was made Australian of the year.
It resonates with Greg Koppenol’s conclusions, although not identical.
The following was written on 27 January last:
This disingenuous buffoon is perfect for Australian of the Year. He will tirelessly tell lies about the environment, which seems to be what the majority of Australians want.
His inappropriate good humour arises from him observing the millions made by Al Gore promoting falsehoods with a scowl on his face. How much more do you make if you deliver with a smile?
He would gain a scintilla of respect from me if he would state the true situation that there has been no global warming since 1998, and the last four years has shown small but consistent lowering of the global temperature.
All this fuss, is over a variation in global temperature of six tenths of a degree, in one hundred years.
Now that’s a slander on the Aussie character, Jocky boy. Aussies are as straight up as an axe handle.
Thanks for that, Jock. I’m sure there are any number of retired petroleum geologists amongst the Lavoisier Group who still aren’t convinced.
Bannerman is a Queenslander. Not to put to fine a point on the issue and all puns aside, he couldn’t give a shit about what the Land and Resources Tribunal thinks or decrees. This is politics! Wake up, Australia!
The Tribunal relied on Carter et al (2006) World Economics 7, 165-232 for its assertion that the Stern Report was incorrect WRT the science behind anthropogenic climate change (thankyou to Andrew Bartlett for the reference). A quick reading of Carter et al suggests that their main complaint was that Stern did not give sufficient weight to the uncertainties around estimates of the contemporary changes in mean global temperatures (but note the absence of trained statisticians on the author list for the section dealing with the science; note too that other statisticians are satisfied that global temperatures have increased in recent decades).
However, the Tribunal seems to have engaged in cherry-picking: from a reading of the abstracts, it appears that the following article in the same issue of World Economics — Tol & Yohe (2006) — is satisfied with Stern’s interpretation of the scientific literature, but takes issue with some of the economic analyses. It is interesting to speculate why the Tribunal should accept one paper in a journal as a decisive factor in a deliberation, but not another paper from the same issue of the same journal that presents a different view.
The Queensland Conservation Council should stop wasting money on tilting at windmills.
If they engage in these foolish exercises they should get a real climate scientist rather than Ian Lowe.
If you pore over the graph in Figure SPM-3 of the IPCC SPM and draw lines you can’t verify the statements Koppenol has made about it.
Koppenol has clearly latched onto the a critique of Stern in World Economics. There is a pdf of the critique here.
I became aware of this critique from a discussion Michael Duffy had with Ian Castles and David Henderson.
I haven’t read the critique. When you see who they rounded up to do the science critique you have to ask yourself why you would bother. Have a look at what a RealClimate scientist thinks of Carter’s line on global warming.
Castles and Henderson’s views on Stern have been extensively gone over at Quiggin’s. I can’t pick up the exact reference, but I recall Uncle Milton saying that they are on about a third order issue.
That’s good TFA. I didn’t see yours before I posted my comment.
If you want to follow it up here’s the abstract of Tol and Yohe.
In this article, at least, Tol dismisses the Stern Review as “alarmist and incompetent.” (pdf)
Brian – thanks for the links. Tol is interesting; a browse through his publications reveal someone who assumes anthropogenic climate change is a given: the article you linked to in your 12:39 post seems more misanthropic than the other co-authored papers linked to from his home page. Do you know where it was published?
Feral, if you truncate the url it looks like Luxembourg.
Brian – I was interested in whether it had been published in any journals. Its not listed among Tol’s publications on his homepage (hosted by Hamburg Uni), which hasn’t been updated since April 2006.
Tol’s view certainly differs from that of the likes of Carter and Lindzen, who essentially argue that the measurements are wrong, the interpretations of data are flawed, that there is no evidence of anthropogenic influence, and that observations are within the range of `normal’ fluctuation anyway. Tol accepts that climate is changing due to anthropogenic influence, but simply isn’t overly concerned about it. His stance is that humankind — and the rest of the biota — will find ways to deal with the changes without excessive disruption or damage. So he’s not your classic climate sceptic, but more of a consequence sceptic.
Feral, you can tell from Tol’s photo that he doesn’t scare easily.
Mentioning Hamburg made me think of Hans von Storch. There seems to be a number of scientists in those parts who accept man-made global warming, but downplay it’s seriousness and emphasise adaptation rather than mitigation.
They are very competent scientists and clued up on statistics. They think that the science is being taken over by the media hysteria.
von Storch’s testimony to the US H of R hearings on “Questions surrounding the ‘hockey stick’ temperature studies” (pdf) last year make fascinating reading. He sees science as a social process wherein scientists have to be aware of and respond to the social influences on them.
He’s interesting too on the IPCC process, especially the role of ‘gate-keepers’ as lead authors, having been one in the Third Assessment. I notice that Tol too has been involved in the IPCC.
They are not so much sceptics or denialists as perhaps minimalists.
On the Koppenol judgement, I had wondered with the IPCC AR4 SPM how the ‘very likely’ assessment of human-caused climate change would relate to judicial standards of proof. Surely 90-95% is surely something below ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. If that was the standard of proof it was all that Koppenal had to say.
On Tol and Stern, I wonder whether Tol appreciates that Stern took as one of his fundamental concepts the economics of risk. That means he seriously looks at the implications of outcomes with relatively small probabilities. So while the chance of catastrophic warming of 5C plus is small the chances need to be taken seriously. We take out insurance against events of lower probability and seriousness.
Jock in your spiel you say:
This is a hoary one that was dealt with at RealScience over two years ago. Perhaps you might like to demonstrate how and why those scientists are mistaken. Assertions don’t cut it.
From New Scientist 10 Feb 2007,
Notwithstanding the futility of getting judges to understand anything besides the law , the compromises made in the IPCC report downplayed the scientific concerns rather than the other way round.
Queensland’s Land and Resources Tribunal has rejected objections to a new coal mine by environmental groups who wanted offsets for the carbon emissions of the mine. Unfortunately, the Tribunal got the science badly wrong, understating the emissions by a factor of 15, making inappropriate comparisons for the emissions, and dismissing the scientific consensus on global warming based on their own erroneous understanding of the science.
Continued here
Quiggin on the decision:
http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2007/02/19/another-own-goal-for-the-denialists/
I’d love to have a non-mathematically trained judge adjudicate on my mathematical work! What a laugh.