Tag Archives: Bill Hare

‘Doctor’ Hare’s Nasty Green Prescription

Murdoch University[1] and its ex-Greenpeace alarm alumnus “Dr” Bill Hare truly deserve each other. At Perth-based Murdoch, Mr Hare earned a B.Sc. (Hons) in 1983 and in 2008 Murdoch gave him an honorary Doctor of Science for being, among other things, “the best climate lobbyist in the world”. Ever since he’s been paraded around by himself, Murdoch and others as “Dr” Bill Hare.

And here’s the bombshell: Murdoch has authorised and encouraged him to flaunt the “Dr” title generally “to promote the university”. Truly, Murdoch is sui generis, or for non-Latinists, “constituting a class alone: unique, peculiar.”

______________________

“The title ‘Dr’ is only used by Honorary Degree recipients when engaged in Murdoch University activities.” – Murdoch University policy document, last revised 14 October 2016.
______________________

Murdoch’s response to my query about Hare[2] is below, with my emphasis added:

I have a statement for you that can be attributed to a Murdoch University spokeswoman…

“Bill Hare is a distinguished alumni and Adjunct Professor at Murdoch University working closely with our students and staff on a number of research and engagement projects.

“He was awarded an honorary degree in 2008, which entitles him to uses (sic) the title Dr in relation to his activities in the Murdoch University environment.

“At the time, he was advised that it was appropriate to use the title generally to promote the University …

“I acknowledge that I am working on Whadjuk Noongar Boodjar [country] and pay respect to all Noongar people and Elders, past and present.” 

Murdoch’s abrogation of its own honorary title policy – “The title ‘Dr’ is only used by Honorary Degree recipients when engaged in Murdoch University activities” —  could hardly be more official. But rather than throw Hare under the bus, the university threw itself under the bus.

What will the senate, led by Chancellor Mr David Flanagan AM CitWA make of this?[3] Mr Flanagan earned his Curtin University BSc in Mining & Minerals Exploration Geology and became a distinguished geologist and mining executive.  Suppose a mineral exploration company  prospectus described its geologist with a Murdoch honorary degree as “Dr Fred X , Ph.D”? Next move, I’d say the board would be shirt-fronted by the corporate regulator.

To protect the public from a jungle of spurious academic titles and claims which could even lead to serious harms, the federal-state Australian Qualifications Framework was set up in 1995. Mainstream universities subscribe to its formulae. AQF rules include,

Use of titles by graduates

Individuals who have been awarded a Doctoral Degree at Level 10 on the AQF are entitled to use the title ‘Doctor’. The title ‘Doctor’ will not be used by those who hold an honorary award. An honorary award is not an AQF qualification … As such any certification documentation issued to an honorary award recipient will specify that the award is honorary. (My emphasis).

Here’s how Sydney University puts it in its Honorary Awards Policy,

15A Use of titles

An honorary doctorate is not a qualification under the Australian Qualifications Framework, and therefore does not entitle the recipient to use the title ‘Doctor’ or ‘Dr’ except when participating in an activity or event associated with the University.

ANU’s policy is the same

Use of title

Use of the title ‘Dr’, associated with an honorary degree of the University, is only permitted when participating in an activity or event associated with the University.”[4]

A year ago Hare’s Climate Analytics group launched its report, “Western Australia’s Gas Gamble – Implications of exploiting Canning Basin and other unconventional gas resources for achieving climate targets.” On the third page, reproduced below, is the imprimatur and co-authorship, “Dr Bill Hare, Director.”

On a Climate Council petition signed by 28 alarmists last month, Hare is among its top tier of 15 professors and doctorate-holder signatories. I challenged the Climate Council about Hare’s “Dr”. The council replied that Hare’s Doctor of Science outranks a Ph.D.

Quoting a Monash University document, the council continued,

The degree [D.Sc.] will give the applicant authoritative standing in that field and the right to general recognition of this standing by scholars in the field.” The council concluded, “Dr Hare is a globally respected scientist who has made an extensive contribution to the field. He is an important and welcome addition to the signatories of the list.

The council obtusely missed the point that Hare’s D.Sc. is honorary. Such honorary D.Sc.’s are two a penny on the stripey-gown investitures of our 40 universities. Advised of the Sydney University ‘don’t-use’ policy about honorary doctorates, the Climate Council declined comment and suggested I contact “Bill Hare” direct.

It might seem overkill to pursue this “Dr” Hare issue. But Hare has been a key influencer in international climate policy-making for the past 30 years.

Hare helped run Greenpeace International as its “climate policy director” (1992-2002) and as a climate adviser to 2009. He was also, strangely, helping to run the IPCC process, dating back to the IPCC’s origin in 1988. He’s been a lead author and co-writer of an all-important summary report. For the 2013 report he wore his hat from Potsdam’s Climate Impact Institute (PIK).

PIK houses the world’s most fanatical climateers, some of whom are now ensconsed in dark green corners of Australian academia, including Melbourne University. The money quote from PIK’s then-deputy head,Ottmar Edenhofer[5], is that climate policy “has almost nothing to do any more with environmental protection” and “we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.”

Hare pioneered topics, if not actually invented them, that are now commonplace in the global policy lexicon. Thanks to Hare and his pals at Greenpeace and/or PIK,  we can  all parrot mumbo-jumbo like “global emissions budget” (Hare’s Greenpeace shtick from 1997), 2deg/1.5deg  “tipping points” and most perverse of all, leaving accessible fossil fuels permanently in the ground.

Concerning that emissions budget, he wrote in 2009 to ginger up the Copenhagen conference that the ceiling ought to be only another half-trillion tonnes of emitted carbon: “The probability of exceeding 2°C rises to 53–87% if global GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions are still more than 25% above 2000 levels in 2020.” His worst-case crystal ball was pretty foggy because the cumulative emissions went up 50%(never mind 25%) from 2000—2016 alone, with last year’s emissions setting a new record. If Hare and his Potsdam pals can’t get their ten-year assumptions remotely near reality, what credence can be invested in their 20-, 50- and 100-year climate forecasts?

Hare’s dire predictions about warming harms have been designed to frighten Western governments into destroying their fossil fuel industries.  Australia’s policies are consistent with this, the EU’s more so.

His 1997 Greenpeace paper demanded governments  immediately curtail fossil fuel exploration, thus capping reserves at 1997 levels. The goal would be to “limit the long-term committed increase of temperature to less than 1C above 
pre-industrial global average temperature.” 
(Compare that with the current target by extremists of a maximum 1.5degC increase. The 1degC rise has already occurred.)

Hare’s 1997 prescription involved

# leaving all but “a small fraction” of global coal reserves in the ground

# “There should be no further exploration and/or technical development of unconventional oil and gas reserves” [today that would stymie the US fracked-gas revolution]

# “Further exploration and development of fossil fuel resources by industrial nations should be halted immediately, as it makes the problem worse and more difficult to solve and is a waste of money that should be invested in clean energy.”

# To lock in the above measures,  Western countries should sign a legally binding emission cut program at the Kyoto 2005 climate conference.

# The global cost of fossil fuel phase-out for renewables would be equal to or less than business-as-usual.

”This is the carbon logic,” he concluded.

In the event, cheap electricity since 2000 has lifted hundreds of millions of the world’s poor into happier lives. Meanwhile CO2 emissions have greened the planet to an extent even greater than the landmark study of 2016 (with CSIRO involvement) suggested, and agricultural yields and output have hit new peaks. Global temperatures have barely risen, according to UAH satellite measurements, apart from the 2016 el Nino effect. How wrong could a Greenpeace guy be?

But Hare’s extremism has changed little since 1997, and his nostrums are now mainstream among the West’s so-called progressives. Yet this person who would transform the world still can‘t get his title right!

Academics can get enraged about honorifics. Here’s Dr Hannah Forsyth, now Senior Lecturer in History, Australian Catholic University:

A degree that is awarded honoris causa (because Latin boosts snootiness) has never conferred the right to use the degree.

The public can rest assured that there are not medical doctors, veterinarians, accountants or lawyers plying their trade without actual qualifications.

This need for the public to trust university degrees is important. It means that it is considered a shocking faux pas to call oneself a “doctor” on the basis of an honorary doctorate. Don’t expect to see anyone refer to “Dr John Howard” anytime soon.

This does not make it impossible … When this happens, the scholarly community averts its gaze in embarrassment. That may not sound like such a terrible fate, but for the types that are awarded honorary degrees, it kind of is.[6]

The exceptions merely prove the rule, like “Dr” Billy Graham and Lowitja O’Donoghue who, in an excess of kindness, is referred to, even officially, as “Dr O’Donoghue”.[7]

Sometimes since 2008 Hare describes himself as “Dr (h.c) Bill Hare”, acknowledging the honorific element (honoris causa).  In the 2017 annual report of the Climate Analytics non-profit Hare co-founded and leads, he’s written in as “Dr Bill Hare” four times and “Dr (h.c) Bill Hare” twice. However, in the 2016 and 2015 reports, he’s “Dr (h.c) Bill Hare” three times each and never “Dr” Bill Hare. [8]  Do a search of “Dr Bill Hare” (no honorifics) on his Climate Analytics website and it comes up 28 times.

The ANU, Sydney and Murdoch Universities’ protocols say use of honorary doctor titles is OK if the occasion is an event or activity at that university. I’m guessing the drafters had  special ceremonials in mind, like graduations. In practice, the universities bung on hundreds of events and publications targeted at both their own people and the outside public. It would  be unusual for honorary doctors speaking under such circumstances to be described as “Dr”, but Hare again gets the gong. Murdoch’s 2017 Keith Roby lecture was advertised by Murdoch as being by “Dr” Bill Hare. Sally Neighbour, executive producer of Four Corners, has referred me to a Murdoch publication, its alumni news-sheet Murmur. In its Spring 2018 issue it refers to “Dr Hare” once  as B.Sc Hons, Hon Doc Sc, which is accurate, and three times to “Dr Hare”.

The ANU Centre for Climate Law and Policy advertised as its public speaker for March 12, 2008“Dr Bill Hare, IPCC author and Potsdam Institute fellow”. Maybe that was splitting hares or jumping the gun. Murdoch presented his Honorary Doctorate five days later on March 17.

Among the publications of  Sweden’s Air Pollution and Climate Secretariat (a combination of Swedish-based nature groups including WWF), a 2009 environmental fact sheet is described as authored by Potsdam’s Katja Frieler, Ph.D., Malte Meinshausen, Ph.D., and Bill Hare, Ph.D. Frieler and Meinshausen have earned Ph.Ds. It’s doubly wrong on Hare’s honorary degree, which is D.Sc.

The fawning media’s been wrongly citing “Dr Hare” since about 1992. The latest example was the  climate propaganda piece on Four Corners last April Fools Day. When I squawked about “Dr” Bill Hare,  producer Sally Neighbour promised to be more wary next time, and she alerted colleague Laura Tingle who had also bruited “Dr” Hare to the world.

Others getting “Dr” Hare wrong include the non-profit independent Australian Science Media Centre (AusSMC) “giving journalists direct access to evidence-based science and expertise. We aim to increase the quantity and accuracy of science reporting in the media, and hence the public understanding of science.”[9] AusSMC, you’re inaccurate on this: “Other Australian scientists involved in drafting the synthesis report [for 4thIPCC report] are Neville Nicholls, a Professorial Fellow… and Dr William Hare.”[10]  I never found a single correction to all the times the media, NGOs and academia have mis-labelled Hare as “Dr Hare”.

As for Hare’s main base at Potsdam, Australian journalists have been duchessed to respect the PIK crowd, especially its (recently retired) boss Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, who has called for the unconditional destruction of the fossil fuel industryand “warned about the end of civilization”. 

For example, in June 2015 the Berlin-based Green thinktank Ecologic organized a three-day Berlin climate-study tour for Peter Hannam, environment editor for SMH/Age, Tony Walker (Financial Review) and Sid Maher (The Australian), as a warm-up for the Paris climate negotiations. Ecologic is funded largely by the EU and German governments, and the tour was funded by the German government and its Canberra embassy. The German  briefers included Bill Hare’s wife, Dr Ursula Fuentes-Hutfilter, who has a senior policy role in the German climate bureaucracy. According to Ecologic, only Hannam delivered with two media features, involving panegyrics to Merkel-adviser Schellnhuber at his “renowned” PIK. Hannam wrote, “Seated in the same Potsdam room that Albert Einstein discussed his theory of relativity in 1916 with fellow pioneers, Professor Schellnhuber said …” and so forth blah, blah, blah. The other piece featured humble-bragging by Schellnhuber about advising Pope Francis on his strange climate encyclical Laudato Si.[11]

As a reality check on the journos’ immersion in 2015 German spin, German energy authority Professor Harald Schwarz was reported this month, “We will not be able to cope with the shutdown of coal and nuclear power in three years’ time and can only hope that there are still sufficient reserves of coal and nuclear power in neighbouring countries to supply Germany when we can no longer do it ourselves”. The Wall Street Journal dubbed Germany’s Energiewende last week as “the stupidest energy policy in the world”.

Bill Hare’s Climate Analytics site, like PIK, is full of modelled projections of our climate doom.[12] For example, he offers a tool for local sea level rise projections, based on the IPCC models. I plugged in Fremantle, my home town and port. By 2100 we’re talking 52cm sea rise, as per Paris Agreement, and a very serious 103cm by 2200. For the 4degC temperature rise scenario, it’s 80cm under the Paris deal by 2100 and 198cm by 2200. The very worst case 2200 outcome is four metres, which would also put most of Perth underwater.

Woe to my two fair cities in 180 years! But I cheered up by checking how much the sea level at Fremantle has actually risen in the past 100 years, as measured by its trusty tide gauge. Answer: 13.6cm, about the length of my palm and middle finger.

The deep explanation for Murdoch University’s suck-up to Hare is that its culture from top to bottom reflects a green mania. Think of “Dr” Bill  as something akin to Murdoch’s patron saint with his decades of jeremiads on global emissions politics. And one gathers that honorary degree of 2008 was too little honor. Hare in 2017 bagged a gig delivering the university’s signature Keith Roby Lecture, preceded in 2015 by ex-leader of the Australian Youth Climate Coalition and ex-GetUp campaigner Kirsty Albion, who led the fight against Port Augusta’s now-blown-up coal-fired generator. In addition, Hare collected, along with Greens leader Dr Adam Bandt (earned Ph.D)[13], a 2017 “Distinguished Alumni Award” from Vice-Chancellor Professor Eeva Leinonen.

Time-travel back 34 years and Murdoch’s green delusions were already flourishing. In 1985, Murdoch was a sucker for disseminating the faux Armageddons of Paul Ehrlich, who in 1969 was predicting disastrous global famine by 1975 that would require compulsory birth control via sterilising agents in food and water. He forecast that 65 million Americans would die of starvation in the Eighties, and that  the US population would decline by 1999 to 22.6 million.[14] Today’s US population is 330 million. Another Ehrlich climate forecast, from 1971: “If I were a gambler, I would take even-money that England will not exist in the year 2000.”[15] Instead of derision, Ehrlich has wallowed in honors ranging from Murdoch’s lecture to the 50 million yen ($US450,000) 1999 “Blue Planet Prize” of Asahi Glass for environmental conservation biology.

Hare describes himself not just as “Dr” but as a “physicist”.  As a Bachelor (Hons) student he majored in physics for sure in 1983,[16] but for the past few decades he’s been a global-warming politician. None of the peer-reviewed papers he cites in his Climate Analytics’ c.v. are in physics journals, they’re all related to anti-emissions politics.[17]

He refers to his roles as “policy responses to climate change and stratospheric ozone depletion” (my emphasis). Of course, one can call oneself “physicist” or whatever one likes. I’m an economist (B.Ec., 1974). Hire me.

Tony Thomas’s new book, The West: An insider’s tale – A romping reporter in Perth’s innocent ’60sis available from Boffins Books, Perth, the Royal WA Historical Society (Nedlands) and online here.

 

[1] Named after the late Sir Walter Murdoch, great-uncle of Rupert Murdoch

[2] “Does Murdoch have a protocol guide for holders of Murdoch honorary degrees, as to when/how they may be referred to as “Dr”, e.g. ‘Dr Thomas’?”

[3]  “CitWA” is a newie on me. It must refer to his 2014 WA Citizen of the Year Award.

[4] Melbourne University is currently revising its honorary degree policies

[5] Now PIK director

[6] Some gloss came off the historian’s polemic when she described Benjamin Franklin as a US president.

[7] O’Donoghue has honorary doctorates from five universities including Murdoch.

[8] I sought clarifications from Hare but was emailed by his office in Berlin, “Bill is currently on Easter holidays for the next 10 days and unfortunately there isn’t a way to reach him at the moment.”

[9] AusSMC’s “Gold Sponsors” include the Academy of Science, SBS, a law firm and various universities. ABC science stalwart Robyn Williams is a deputy chair. The Australian Museum in  Sydney is under the delusion that Williams’ honorary doctorate is a real one.

[10] AusSMC doesn’t bother to explain to journalists – who don’t want to know anyway — that the all-important Synthesis Reports are written by the politicians from IPCC member states, whose views trump those of IPCC scientists.

[11] “The Pope is interfering in the writing of my book,” Hans Joachim Schellnhuber jokingly told visiting Australian journalists. “The request is a pain in the neck, but you have to accept it, as it comes from above.”

[12] Funding partners of Climate Analytics are a remarkable array, ranging from EU, UN and German and UK government sources to World Bank and Greenpeace. Sceptics’ main funding is from tip jars.

[13] And three others

[14] Ehrlich, Paul R. The Population Bomb. New York, Ballantine Books, 1968.

[15] Paul Ehrlich, Speech at British Institute For BiologySeptember 1971.

[16] And environmental science

[17] His own c.v. says his peer-reviewed articles are in journals including Nature Climate Change, Nature, Climatic Change, Regional Environmental Change, and Climate Policy.

2 comments
  • Richard Harrison

    Another along the same lines is “Dr” Karl Kruszelnicki. He has never earned a doctorate in any discipline, but has been referred to as “Dr Karl” by his ABC (and other) enablers since Adam was a boy.

    In 2016 the University of the Sunshine Coast gave him an honorary doctorate, so since then there has been a fig-leaf for his titular pretensions.

  • en passant

    What is the word for cultists so bereft of self-awareness, so certain in beliefs that are designed to hurt their country and its people that they push on year after year despite the overwhelming evidence they are wrong? Is it Greenie? Is it Lysenkoist? Is it hare-brained… I am sure someone knows a suitable word for someone so narcissist that they need a tin title to stroke their ego.
    Fell free to call me ‘Sir’.

Post a comment

Sign me up for the newsletter!

Four Corners‘ March-Hare Climatology

Four Corners‘ March-Hare Climatology

The ABC has jumped yet again through the climate alarmists’ looking glass.

The recent Four Corners  episode on global warming, Climate of Change,  reminded me of physicist Wolfgang Pauli. He described a paper as so bad “it was not even wrong.” The ABC’s presenter  was Stephanie March, a veteran ABC reporter and foreign correspondent in India and North America. I’ll first discuss the background of March’s main guest on the program, Dr Bill Hare, then run through some of the Four Corners content.

Dr Hare scored ten appearances — 620 words out of the 8100 — during 45 minutes, plus the final words on the episode. So who’s Dr Bill Hare? Just “the best climate lobbyist in the world”, as cited by Murdoch University.

For starters, and unmentioned by Four Corners, his main 16-year career (1992-2008) was as climate policy director and spokesman for Greenpeace International. To the Greenpeace fanatics, he was a “legend” in global climate politics,[1]  penning fiery Greenpeace polemics such as warning the top 100 US companies to reject President Bush’s climate policies within a week or “face the consequences” globally. He also accused Australia of behaving like “an international selfish brat”.  In 2002, he helped Greenpeace and similar groups start the Exxon Secrets website, described as “a chronicle of ExxonMobil’s efforts to corrupt the debate on global warming.” Greenpeace managed to dredge up $US30.9 million in donations by the company to alleged sceptic groups over 16 years, i.e. $US2m a year. The renewables industry currently involves investments of  $US1.5 trillion a year. 

As a Greenpeace activist, he didn’t seem to fit the specs for the supposedly science-neutral, objective work of the IPCC authors (“humourless people in white coats” was how then PM Kevin Rudd described them). Well, whatever. Greenpeace boss Hare was author/reviewer and/or writer for the IPCC reports of 1995, 2001 and 2007, helping draft the latter’s key Summary for Policymakers. For the 2013 report he wore his hat from Potsdam’s   Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK).

To add some spice, the IPCC crowd are the “gold standard” for science, as the ex-IPCC chair and now  accused sex-crimes perpetrator Rajendra Pachauri used to say. The Guardian also refers to “Dr Bill Hare” as a “top climate scientist”. So let’s check.  On his bio at his Climate Analytics business website, he’s described as “Dr (h.c.) Bill Hare”. The coy “h.c.” stands for “honoris causa”, and refers to an honorary doctorate  awarded in 2008 from his alma mater Murdoch University in WA. At his Linked In entryhe lists a matriculation and leaving certificate from Kent Street Senior High, Perth, a  Murdoch  Bachelor of Science degree in Environmental Science and Physics (Double Major), and an Honors Degree in Physics (1979-82). His B.Sc (Hons) is also cited at his Potsdam site.

For his Climate Analytics a year ago, he  co-authored a paper   called “Western Australia’s Gas Gamble”. He describes himself there as “Dr Bill Hare”.

The UK Carbon Brief warmist information website refers to “Dr Bill Hare” as “bill-hare-hero”. There seems no end to his talents. In the book, The Winning of the Climate War by UK green-energy businessman Jeremy Leggett,[2] he gets a paean as a world-respected economics whizz:

Dr Bill Hare, an old colleague at Greenpeace, is the single most talented technical expert I have met in all my quarter century of climate campaigning. This is because he is both an accomplished atmospheric physicist and also expert enough in economics to engage the world authorities at that strange discipline and earn their respect…

The ABC’s Laura Tingle, like Stephanie March, doesn’t distinguish between honorary and earned Ph.Ds, interviewing Hare on 7.30 last October as “senior scientist Dr Bill Hare”. I suppose, going by the ABC’s “Dr Bill Hare” precedent, we should be more deferential to “Dr Kerry O’Brien”, “Dr Phillip Adams” and “Dr Robyn Williams”, not to mention other floppy-hat wearers such as the disgraced “Dr Rolf Harris”, cartoonist “Dr Michael Leunig” and purported comedian “Dr Yahoo Serious” (Newcastle University, 1996).

Of course, one can be a great modern scientist without a Ph.D. ticket. Physicist/mathematician Freeman Dyson, with his Max Planck Medal, Enrico Fermi Award and showers of honorary doctorates, never earned a Ph.D. But Dyson has never described himself as Dr (h.c.) Freeman Dyson, let alone Dr Freeman Dyson.

Come to think of it, why was this Four Cornersepisode also a 97 per cent male bastion? Five anonymous women accounted for just 100 words out of 8100, plus March cited a thirty-word quote to trash-talk Coalition environment minister Melissa Price. Of twenty-seven named interviewees, Price was the only female. Hasn’t March heard of female climateers Dr Lesley Hughes, Dr Joelle Gergis or the Climate Council’s silver-tongued Amanda McKenzie? So much for ABC diversity policy.[3]

March was astute not to invite the intrepid Judith Sloan, whose smarts, if not edited out, would have punctured the entire episode. The other sceptic on the program, The Australian’s Chris Kenny, was allowed a total ten words and seven seconds. (That’s what I call tight editing). He managed to point out, just, that nothing Australia does will alter the global climate.

Returning now to Bill Hare B.Sc. (Hons), he transitioned in 2009 from Greenpeace to set up and run his non-profit Climate Analytics, which started with funding from the German federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Safety. The same department also funded Hare’s global warming  “PREVENT” lobbying unit at his Climate Analytics and PIK.

Hare is half of a double act with wife Dr Ursula Fuentes-Hutfilter  (Ph.D atmospheric science, Ludwig Maximilians University, Munich). She has been a key player for decades within the German Government’s climate negotiations and now-faltering energy-transition to renewables. They met at the Kyoto IPCC meeting in 1997. Her main job has been with the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety. She was an author/reviewer for the fifth IPCC report. Currently, they are both adjunct professors[4] at Murdoch University, where she works on Asia-Pacific energy transformation policy. Hare maintains his links as visiting scientist with Potsdam (PIK).

Dr. Fuentes-Hutfilter is also leading a project under the Australian-German Energy Transition Research Hub, which aims to have sixty researchers. It is backed by the Department of Foreign Affairs and the German Education Ministry, plus Melbourne University and ANU, PIK and several other institutions. The Hub’s goals are energy market changes, low-carbon investment policies, negative emission technology and new trade and exports. “The global shift to a net-zero emissions economy presents genuine opportunities for Australia and Germany,” it claims.

One can see how entrenched the Potsdam (PIK) group now is in the Australian energy scene. PIK has its share of warming revolutionaries. Its loopy founder/director Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber in 2011 was boasting about his “plan for a  transformation of society” and “a new basis of our coexistence”. He advocated $US135 billion per year climate funding from the West to developing countries, compared with Paris’s modest   current prescription of only $US100 billion p.a. His deputy Ottmar Edenhofer a little earlier got a bit too frank and said that climate policy “has almost nothing to do any more with environmental protection” and “we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.” An economist, Edenhofer says his master plan for 75% renewables globally by 2050 would only cost “a mere twelve thousand billion dollars by 2030”.[5]

As for the content of the Four Corners program, it’s great if you still believe the planet faces by 2100 an existential crisis of scorchiness caused by human-caused CO2. A problem, however, is that in the past 20 years, global temperatures have barely risen[6]while CO2 emissions since 1998 (110b tonnes) were equivalent to nearly a third of all the human-caused CO2 emissions ever. Please explain.

The past 40 years’ warming rate, as measured by satellite, is equivalent to only 1.34degC per century.[7]  And the supposed “proof” of CO2 causation derives from comparisons of unvalidated crude climate models run with and without the purported CO2 impact. Reporter Stephanie March also seems oblivious that the all-important feedback effects from rising CO2 are lately estimated at about 1.7 timesrather than the IPCC’s range of up to 4.5 times and the 31 CMIP5 models’ average of 3.1. If confirmed, the low CO2 sensitivity would scuttle the whole warming scare.

March built her  program around how Australia should meet its (voluntary) Paris pledges to cut emissions. She trots out with a straight face a plan for our 26 million belching cattle to live on low-methane seaweed.  In her innocence, she refers to CO2 throughout as “pollution”. Fact: Added CO2 has greened the planet to an area extent of 2.5 Australias and contributed to unparalleled and on-going agricultural productivity which continues to outpace population growth.

March’s talking head Professor Frank Jotzo (ANU) fretted that “the international community” will look down their noses at us if we don’t meet our Paris pledges, or get there only via Kyoto credits. Let me see: China, responsible for about 30 per cent of  global emissions, intends to keep raising them to 2030. India pledged nothing about its emission levels, only ‘emissions intensity’. Trump has pulled the US out of Paris while the US actually cuts emissions by switching to fracked gas. France relies on nuclear. German and British households are suffering hugely (a la South Australia) from their crazed energy policies and prices.[8] So who’s going to censure us? The Maldives? Gabon?[9] And even if all Paris signatories delivered on their toughest emission pledges costing multi-trillions, what would that do to global temperatures by 2100? According to Bjorn Lomborg, who used the IPCC’s own formulae, the temperature difference would be around 0.05 to 0.17degC cooler. Great!

Much of the episode involved renewable energy investors demanding more secure government targets, incentives and subsidies, i.e. risk-free profit. Climate virtue and bags of money make a heady mix. Steph March also badgered working-class guys at Oberon NSW about their V8 utes. (Why not badger greenies in Double Bay about their SUVs?). But bricklayer Brett was not easily patronised:

March: Do you see yourself ever buying an electric car?
Brett: No, no way in the world 
March: Why not? 
Brett: I couldn’t do it. I like me fuel. It would be weird. I’d have to have long hair and a man bun. I’ll pass. 

Unmentioned by March was any estimate of the cost of Australia’s renewables “transition”. Former government scientist Dr Brian Fisher puts the Coalition’s plan for a 27 per cent emissions cut at a total $293 billion by 2030, and Labor’s 45 per cent cut at $1.2 trillion. Also unmentioned by March was the West’s Paris pledge to a half-trillion handout to the Third World from 2020-25. Such a disclosure would have  switched the audience to more realistic shows like Married at First Sight.

Forcing people to buy electric cars, stuffing cows with seaweed, making Tathra NSW (pop. 1700) 100% renewable-powered by 2030,  electric buses humming around Canberra  (pop, 350,000), warming increasing extreme weather[10]Four Corners went  the full stupid on April Fools Day.

UPDATE: Four Corners’ Sally Neighbour responds to Tony Thomas:

Dear Mr Thomas,
Thank you for your email regarding the recent Four Corners program on climate policy. I apologise for the delay in responding.
I am advised that Bill Hare has an Honorary Doctorate of Science awarded to him in 2008 Murdoch University for his work on climate change science and policy. Murdoch University itself refers to Bill Hare as ‘Dr’ in some of its publications.
 
It is not uncommon practice to refer to people with Honorary Doctorates as ‘Dr’. I understand this is often qualified with the reference (h.c). For the purpose of our program, we did not feel this was necessary as most viewers or readers would not be familiar with the term. I am happy to take your comments onboard should we interview Bill Hare again on Four Corners. I will also convey your comments to Laura Tingle.
 
Yours sincerely,
Sally Neighbour

Tony Thomas’s new book, The West: An insider’s tale – A romping reporter in Perth’s innocent ’60s is available from Boffins Books, Perth, the Royal WA Historical Society (Nedlands) and online here . Hat-tip Dennis Ambler for his unpublished research on Hare.

 

[1]  Before Greenpeace he was a member of the Campaign Against Nuclear Energy, set up by Friends of the Earth, and  a research director for Australian Conservation Foundation.

[2] Crux Publishing, 2018

[3] Four Corners also gave Dr John Hewson a slot.  I understand it is compulsory to feature Hewson on all ABC programs.

[4] Fuentes is ‘adjunct associate professor’

[5] Such views were no barrier to his role from 2008 to 2015 as co-chair of IPCC Working Group III “Mitigation of Climate Change”.

[6] Notwithstanding two large temperature spikes from natural El Nino warmings

[7] Temperatures have fallen by 0.5degC in the past three years

[8] Last year 5 million Germans were in strife with power bills, with 344,000 households cut off. Germany gets nearly a third of power from wind and sun.

[9] The only countries with  national plans matching their Paris pledges are Algeria, Canada, Costa Rica, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Indonesia, Japan, FYR Macedonia, Malaysia, Montenegro, Norway, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Samoa, Singapore and Tonga.

[10] The IPCC says the opposite

5 comments
  • Blair

    “It is not uncommon (sic) practice to refer to people with Honorary Doctorates as ‘Dr’.”
    So it is a common practice to refer to people with Honorary Doctorates as ‘Dr.?

  • en passant

    Orwell predicted these globalist, warmist, catastrophist people in “1984” & “Animal Farm”, but that was fiction. Orlov recounted the real-life amoral, cruel, anti-human monsters in “The Crimes of Stalin”, which appears to be the future our Greenfools long for as the Climate Con is about hating humans and destroying civilisation – using the excuse that CO2 is a pollutant.
    It is factual reality that most plant species show optimal growth characteristics when CO2 is well above current levels, a proven, repeatable case up to 2,700 ppm. Plant life appears optimized for atmospheric CO2 levels of around 1,200 ppm.
    Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations at the current 410 ppm level are dangerously low for life on Earth. Plants and therefore most life will die if CO2 falls below 180 ppm, but will thrive at 1,200 ppm. Can the catastrophists join the dots, or don’t they care, so long as people die?
    http://notrickszone.com/2013/05/17/atmospheric-co2-concentrations-at-400-ppm-are-still-dangerously-low-for-life-on-earth/
    Atmospheric CO2 concentrations have often exceeded 7,000 ppm, yet currently we are barely above the Earth’s record extreme low threshold for survival. At atmospheric CO2 Concentrations below 500 ppm plants struggle for growth, as they are today.
    Watch the following time lapse video over 42 days of growing Cowpea at CO2 concentrations of 450 ppm and 1,270 ppm with the higher CO2 producing a 44 % total biomass gain. What’s not to like if you prefer people having enough food to eat?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2qVNK6zFgE

    A CO2 level of 150 ppm would result in the death of plants due to CO2 starvation.
    Are Climate Change alarmists ignorant of this or do they just want to create a global depopulation by their hoax alarms. Without CO2, we would all die of starvation because every ecosystem on the planet would almost instantly collapse. If CO2 were dropped to zero, Earth would become a barren global desert of death entirely incapable of supporting human life at all. It is worth noting that Mars has 96% CO2, yet is frigid. Venus with 97% is frying. As the song almost goes: “What a difference a 1% makes …”
    As CO2 levels are raised by 1,000 ppm photosynthesis increases proportionately resulting in more sugars and carbohydrates creating greater plant growth and more food.
    Plant growth requires a tremendous amount of CO2. At the centre of every plant cell is an atom of Carbon, which the plant has absorbed from the surrounding air. When all other growing conditions are kept ideal, Carbon Dioxide becomes the growth limiting factor. This means, as you increase the CO2 in your garden area, you will also increase the plant growth rates – and your food yields.
    Get out of Paris now and send all these pseudo-science priestly charlatans to the scrap heap along with the alchemists, astrologists and phrenologists as this current crop are even more dangerous.

  • Salome

    It is highly bad form to use the doctor title where the doctorate is honorary.

  • Biggles

    en passant

    Another benefit to us by increasing the amount of CO^2 available to plants is that their water requirement decreases.

    “Without CO^2 we would all die of starvation…”. The fact is that if, by some magic we were able to take all the CO^2 out of your body, regardless of the atmospheric content, you would be dead in about 2-3 minutes. CO^2 is not just the gas of life for plants, it is also the gas of life for animals, See the paper on which Dr. Christian Bohr won the 1904 Nobel Prize for Medicine if in doubt.

  • Tezza

    Four Corners is very wearying on this line. When I last complained (futilely, of course) to ABC’s Audience and Consumer Affairs, and then to ACMA (also futilely) about a ridiculous Four Corners climate episode (‘Power to the People’), the ABC’s defence was that no one program was long enough to permit extended treatment of conflicting views, but that the ABC sought to achieve balance ‘over time’.
    The Four Corners on-line archive of its programs give the lie to that proposition. One can tabulate every episode the ABC has ever done on climate-related topics, and find the same line repeated about every 18 months for the last decade.