Debunking a climate sceptic
By Clive Blanchard, B.E.(Hons), M.I.E.Aust, CPEng, NPER, M.AIRAH
Many climate sceptics have been making
ridiculous claims. As an aid to promoting
informed debate, I have analysed the claims in
‘Why an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) is
not necessary’ by sceptic Leon Ashby. The
majority of the claims are ridiculous, and even
the two or three reasonable questions he
raises are readily answerable.
Introduction

There are a number of documents circulating, claiming there
is no need to have an emissions trading scheme. One of
these is ‘Why an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) is not
necessary’ by Leon Ashby President of “The Climate
Sceptics”

My presentation shows a number of the tricks used by Leon
and many other climate sceptics to distort the facts. By
understanding the sceptics arguments, you can demonstrate
to others that a trading scheme is required.
About Clive Blanchard, the author

Is a Registered Professional Engineer with a Bachelor of Engineering (Honours) in Mechanical Engineering.
(University of Adelaide).

Established www.coolmax.com.au in 1997. It is Australia's premier independent website on energy saving in
the home.

Is on a Standards Australia sub-committee.

Wrote ‘House Taming: How to reduce greenhouse gases in Comfort’ a book on reducing energy use in the home.

Has spoken at industry conferences and seminars and has had a number of innovative papers published .

Has had a number of innovative energy saving ideas patented.

Has over 30 years experience in minimising energy use.
Outline of this presentation
1.
2.
3.
Examples of tricks used by climate
sceptics
Why we should have an emissions
trading scheme.
What you can do about it
Examples of tricks often used by
climate sceptics

When arguing that the benefits of an emissions trading scheme are small they often use the lowest estimates of the reduction in
carbon emissions associated with the lowest carbon reduction targets, yet when they argue about the cost of a trading scheme they
use the highest estimates of likely carbon costs. Comparing the costs of a high reduction target with the benefits of a low reduction
target is completely misleading.

Implying that what occurs in a controlled experiment can be directly extrapolated to the earth as a whole.

Stating untruths (e.g. saying 3.4% of CO2 in the atmosphere is caused by humans when it is actually 28%)
Suggesting CO2 is not a pollutant
Leon argues that because CO2 is needed for
life it is not a pollutant.
 Anything in too great a concentration is a
pollutant. In this context, if the
concentration is great enough to cause an
unacceptable change in climate, then yes it
is a pollutant.

Arguing that more CO2 is good

The fact that plants may grow faster in some circumstances in higher
concentrations of CO2 is irrelevant to the debate. This faster growth
only occurs where growth is not limited by sunlight, water or nutrients.

It is irrelevant because there would be few if any locations on earth
where the limiting factor on plant growth is atmospheric CO2
concentration the normal limits are:

insufficient water

Insufficient sunlight

Insufficient soil nutrients
Arguing that human caused greenhouse
emissions are tiny.
First of all he says human
caused CO2 emissions are
only 3.4% of total CO2
when it is actually 28%
 He ranks greenhouse gases
by volume when you should
rank them by contribution
to the greenhouse effect.

CO2 (ppm)
Preindustrial level
Increase since
1750
Concentration of CO2
showing the actual increase
since 1750
Arguing that Australia’s ETS will have
no effect on greenhouse gas emissions
He does his analysis assuming Australia is the only country reducing greenhouse gases
◦
(actually real commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions have been made by most countries, and
now cover over 85% of emissions)
◦
He uses the erroneous arithmetic detailed in the previous slide
◦
He uses the 5% commitment by 2020, which is not relevant as the long term expectation is that all nations
will reduce emissions to an equivalent of around 2.5 tonnes CO2 per capita. (Australia currently emits
about 26 tonnes, requiring a long term per capita reduction of about 90%)
Claiming it will cost $4,550 per
taxpayer

Leon claims it will cost $50 Billion per year for 40 years or $4,550 per taxpayer
per year based on a report from Frontier Modelling.

Check the original report: it gives $121 billion over 20 years or approx $6
billion per year i.e. 1/8 the value claimed here!

When you do the numbers, the Frontier Modelling report suggests it will
cost $283 per person per year or less than a dollar a day per person.

This cost is affordable.
Blaming Spain’s unemployment on
their renewable energy policies.
Most commentators link Spanish unemployment
to labour market and other economic policies.
 The one technical paper that claims a link to the
green policies, claims 110,000 jobs were lost due
to moving to green power, but even if this is true
(most commentators argue it increased
employment) this is only a fraction of Spain’s
4.1million unemployed.

Claiming that ‘just 5 independent scientists’
from the IPCC supported the claim that
CO2 causes climate change

This is a ridiculous statement.

The vast majority of those on the IPCC believe that human
greenhouse gas emissions probably cause climate change.

If he wants to make this statement then his own analysis says
that only two independent scientists from the IPCC believe that
there is less than a 90% chance that climate change is caused by
mankind.
Implying that just because it has been warmer
previously, we shouldn’t worry about climate
change.

Our current society didn’t exist in previous warm periods.

Our society is set up for the current temperatures.

We could change the climate our society is set up for, but do we want to
pay the cost?

The rate of change of temperatures is far higher than previous changes.

It is less risky to slow human caused climate change, than to deal with
the consequences.
Using short time scales to reach
erroneous conclusions

There are many factors which influence temperatures. Including many that
cause short term fluctuations. Even if there is an overall rising trend, you
will get some short periods where the trend is flat or even down.

To get a meaningful understanding, you need to look at periods of 50 or
a100 years.

Leon claims that the trend in the last decade was flat, however it has just
been shown that it was the hottest decade since records have been kept.
Claiming ice core data doesn’t
support global warming


The Vostok ice core data
shows there is a link between
C02 and temperature.
Because of the feedback
loops, rising temperature can
increase CO2, or rising CO2
can increase temperature.
Claiming Miskolczi’s paper ‘Greenhouse effect in
semi-transparent planetary atmospheres’ means
CO2 will not affect temperature

Past climate changes caused by natural events have triggered greenhouse gas
releases which have increased both CO2 and water vapour, while he argues that as
CO2 increases water vapour reduces.

Even if we accept his work he still concedes temperatures can increase 3 degrees
due to CO2 increases, which is greater than the commonly accepted figure of 2
degrees being the maximum tolerable temperature increase.
Overestimating the cost of cutting
greenhouse emissions

Leon quotes a report prepared for the Business Council of Australia which he uses to give the impression that
four out of every 14 businesses will close, but:

The chart he uses is for $40 per ton, without compensation.

Compensation was always going to be included.

He failed to mention these case studies were all Energy Intensive Trade Exposed businesses (EITE businesses)
◦
Other businesses will only be significantly affected if they fail to make adjustments early enough
◦
Even with these EITE businesses the business council was arguing for a change in the scheme, not abolishing it.
◦
Substantial changes were made to the scheme so the conclusions do not apply to the current proposal
Claiming misleading costs
Leon makes a number of misleading claims about costs, such as that power will rise (in
price) 100%.
◦
the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) has forecast the wholesale price of electricity
may double, However what you pay (the retail price) increase due to the proposed emissions
trading scheme is likely to be around 3 cents. Other factors mean predicted retail prices will
rise more than that, but current proposals won’t lead to an untenable result.
◦
Even if the cost per kW rose by 100%, this doesn’t mean we would spend twice as much on
power, as at that price a large number of energy saving initiatives will be highly cost effective.
Claiming that Australia’s economy
will be like Cambodia’s
This is another completely unsubstantiated
claim, that Leon provides no evidence for.
 Lets keep the debate meaningful and ignore
ridiculous claims like this.

Tricks often used by climate
sceptics : Wrap-up

Claims denying that man is causing climate change are either:
◦ Valid questions over-emphasised
◦ Meaningless

Claims about the costs of an emission trading scheme typically use
the highest estimates of carbon cost giving an artificially high cost.

Claims about ineffectiveness of action typically:
◦ Using the lowest estimate of carbon costs and reduction target
and hence showing a small benefit.
Why we should take action
The cost of not taking action is likely to
be far higher than the cost of taking
action.
 Most proposed actions have other
benefits as well.
 An emissions trading scheme is insurance
for our planet.

The cost of not taking action is likely to be
far higher than the cost of taking action


The report ‘Australia to 2050: Future Challenges’ estimates an 8%
reduction in Australia’s GDP by 2100 if no action is taken.
Coastal flooding as sea levels rise.
◦ As significant numbers of Australians live very close to the sea, this will
have a major impact

Increased droughts in much of Australia particularly in the South
West and South East.

More Bushfires.
The cost of not taking action is likely to be
far higher than the cost of taking action continued
More frequent flooding due to extreme
rainfall events, particularly in the North
West of Australia.
 More storm damage.
 Southerly spread of tropical diseases and
pests.
 6% decrease in Australian net primary
production

Most proposed actions have other
benefits as well
Increased energy efficiency and increased
use of alternative fuels will reduce
conventional pollution (particulates, NOx,
etc )
 Reafforestation will reduce soil erosion,
increase birdlife and other native species.

An emissions trading scheme
reduces risk
We all live our lives exposed to risk, we
might have a car accident, so we insure
our car.
 An emissions trading scheme is insurance
for our planet. The difference is that in
this case if we don’t take out the
insurance (i.e. reduce greenhouse gas
emissions) the negative consequences are
highly likely to occur.

Why we should have an emissions
trading scheme: Wrap-up
The consequences of not having a scheme
are probably unacceptable.
 The costs of a scheme are much less than
the likely costs of not having a scheme.

◦ We can minimise the impact of climate change
and still have economic growth
Summary

Climate skeptics are erroneously claiming that
scientific evidence is being ignored
◦ When in fact they are distorting that evidence.

They claim logical arguments are being ignored
◦ When in fact they are ignoring logic and facts

They claim that international bodies will dictate
to us how our lives will be run
◦ This is another completely unsubstantiated claim that
Leon provides no evidence or arguments for.
Summary - continued
In fact:

Climate change probably is man made

The costs to minimise it are affordable

An emission trading scheme uses market forces to minimise
the cost

Previous experience with the introduction of legislation
impacting businesses is that businesses typically grossly
overestimate the costs of the legislation
What to do next
Distribute this to those who will be
interested.
 Take action to reduce your own
greenhouse gas emissions.
 For a simple and quick analysis to give five
cost effective actions to reduce your
energy use in the home visit
http://www.coolmax.com.au/ht/housetaming-quiz.php

Further information
To start with try the government site
www.climatechange.gov.au
 Also try http://info-pollution.com/warming.htm
which lists a range of sites debunking myths
 For energy saving ideas try my site,
www.coolmax.com.au
 Also try www.yourhome.gov.au
