Hayes Windfarm Appeal

1

HAYES WINDFARM APPEAL

NZ Environment Court, Cromwell, July 28-29, 2008

EXTRACT FROM THE WITNESS STATEMENT OF

PROFESSOR ROBERT M. CARTER, Hon. FRSNZ

______

1.0 STATEMENT TO COURT

1.1 I, ROBERT MERLIN CARTER,Adjunct Research Professorof James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland 4811, Australia, make oath and say that I make this witness statement at the request of lawyers acting for appellant Roch Patrick Sullivan in the matter of an appeal under section 120 of the Resource Management Act 1991 that lies before the Environment Court (ENV-2007-CHC-307).

1.2 I confirm that I have read the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses in the Environment Court (Consolidated Practice Note 2006), and that my statement of evidence has been prepared in accord with the principles and practices specified therein.

2.0 QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE

2.1 Since 2000 I have been Adjunct Research Professor in the Marine Geophysical Laboratory and School of Earth Sciences, James Cook University, and also for a period Adjunct Research Professor in the School of Environmental and Earth Sciences, University of Adelaide.

2.9 My research career has been supported by grants from competitive public research agencies, especially the Australian Research Council (ARC), from whom I have received a Special Investigator Award. I receive no research funding from special interest organisations such as environmental groups, energy companies or government departments

3.0 TERMINOLOGY

3.1 In this evidence the term “climate change” is used in conformity with its general scientific meaning, as also adopted by the IPCC. Thereby, the term refers to the sum of all changes in climate, howsoever caused. The qualified terms “natural climate change” and “human-caused climate change” are used when they need to be distinguished, though these terms are in general relevant only in description of very recent climate history, i.e.,that which has occurred since the industrial revolution.

3.2 The term “climate change” is defined in the Resource Management Act (RMA) as:

“a change of climate that is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and that is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods”.

3.3 It is difficult to conduct a meaningful scientific discussion with reference to this definition, because (i) it refers to attribution rather than evidence; (ii) it does not define who is to do the attributing; (iii) it only considers change that is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions (there are other human effects on climate); and (iv) no evidential distinction has ever been demonstrated between natural and human-caused climate change at the global scale, and the phenomenon referred to is therefore unmeasurable.

3.4 The following acronyms are used throughout:

3AR Third Assessment Report (of the IPCC)

4AR Fourth Assessment Report (of the IPCC)

GCM General Circulation Model (computer climate model)

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

SPM Summary for Policymakers (of the IPCC)

4.0 SUMMARY

4.1 My evidence will show that a human effect on global climate change has not yet been distinguished and measured. Meanwhile, global temperature change is occurring, as it always naturally does, and a phase of cooling has succeeded the mild late 20th century warming.

4.2 My conclusions are:

• No human global climate signal has yet been measured. It is therefore likely that the human signal lies embedded within the variability of the natural climate system.
  
• The science of climate change is far from settled. Meanwhile, there is no compelling evidence that human-caused climate change poses a strong future danger.
  
• The available scientific data, and proved relationships, do not justify the belief that carbon dioxide emission controls can be used as a means of “managing” or “stopping” future climate change.
  
• The projections (which are not predictions) of computer modellers must be assessed against the best available empirical science.
  
• As is the case for other natural planetary hazards, policies to cope with climate change should be based upon adaptation to the change as it happens - whether warming or cooling - including appropriate mitigation of undesirable socio-economic effects.

5.0 INTRODUCTION

5.1 The issue of dangerous human-caused global warming is a complex one. It can be assessed meaningfully only against our knowledge of natural climate change, which is incomplete and in some regards even rudimentary.

5.2 There is no Theory of Climate, in the sense that there is a Theory of Gravitation or Relativity. Therefore no computer model, let alone the unvalidated General Circulation Models (GCMs) that are employed, for example, by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), can accurately predict future global or regional climate.

5.3 Furthermore, science does not operate by consensus. To assert – as many do – that IPCC advice on climate change represents a consensus scientific view that should necessarily be acted upon is a statement about sociology and politics, not about science.

5.4 In these circumstances, extreme caution is required for public authorities that are charged with environmental planning or safeguard for matters in which global warming is claimed to be a factor. It is vital that such bodies base their determinations onevidence-based, not speculative or virtual reality, science, and that they strive to appraise the evidence in a balanced manner. All sides of the global warming issue (and there are many more than the two caricatured in the media) must be presented fairly and given equal consideration.

5.5 Hereafter, this evidence comprises (i) A summary of the global warming issue, (ii) A commentary on the Witness Statement of Dr David Wratt; and (iii) Conclusions.

The commentary considers the following topics: (i) Over-reliance on IPCC advice; (ii) Presumption that additional atmospheric carbon dioxide is harmful; (iii) Reliance upon unvalidated computer modelling; (iv) Failure to consider recent evidence; (v) Over-reliance on circumstantial evidence; and (vi) Unsupportable conclusions.

6.0 A SUMMARY OF THE GLOBAL WARMING ISSUE

6.1 A balanced summary of the global warming issue as it relates to human societies might read as follows.

“Climate changes naturally all the time. Human activities have an effect on the local climate, for example in the vicinity of cities (warming) or near large areas of changed land usage (warming or cooling, depending mainly upon the changed albedo*). Logically, therefore, humans must have an effect on global climate also. This notwithstanding, a distinct global human signal has not yet been identified within the variations of the natural climate system, to the degree that we cannot even be certain whether the signal is one of warming or cooling. Though it is true that many scientists anticipate on theoretical grounds that human warming is the more likely, no strong evidence exists that any such warming would ipso factobe dangerous.

The gentle global warming that probably occurred in the late 20th century falls within previous natural rates and magnitudes of warming and cooling, and is prima facieunalarming, especially when consideration is given to the likelihood that the historic ground temperature records used to delineate the warming are warm-biased by the urban heat island and other effects. Once corrected for non-greenhouse climate agents such as El Ninos and volcanic eruptions, the radiosonde (since 1958) and satellite (since 1979) records ofatmospheric temperature show little if any recent warming and certainly none of untoward magnitude.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide is indeed a greenhouse gas, but the empirical evidence shows that the warming effect of its increase at the rates of modern industrial emission and accumulation is minor, given an assumed pre-industrial atmospheric level of about 280 ppm and noting the established logarithmic relationship between gas concentration increases and warming. As one such empirical test, it can be noted that no significant increase in global average temperature has now occurred since 1998 despite an increase in carbon dioxide over the same 8 years of about 15 ppm (5%).

Putative human influence aside, it is certain that natural climate change will continue into the future, sometimes driven by unforced internal variations in the climate system and at other times forced by factors that we do not yet understand. The appropriate public policy response is, first, to monitor climate accurately in an ongoing way; and, second, to respond and adapt to any changes - both warmings and the likely more damaging coolings - in the same way that we cope with other natural events such as droughts, cyclones, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions.

In dealing with the certainties and uncertainties of climate change, the key issue is prudence. The main certainty is that natural climate change will continue, and that some of its likely manifestations – sea-level rise and coastal change in particular locations, for example – will be expensive to adapt to. But adapt we must and will. Adaptation will not be aidedby imprudent restructuring of the world’s energy economy in pursuit of the chimera of “stopping” an alleged dangerous human-caused climate change thatcan neither be demonstrated nor measured”.

(*albedo is a technical term that means reflectivity)

6.2 This quotation is drawn from a published critique of the widely promulgated Stern Report on the economics of climate change,of which I am the senior author (Carter, De Freitas, Goklany, Holland & Lindzen, 2007). The analysis in the paper demonstrates that the Stern Report rests upon naïve science and speculative computer modelling, to a degree that vitiates the economic conclusions that are drawn.

6.3 A fuller discussion of many of the pros and cons of global warming, and an explanation of the alarmism that attends public debate on the issue, is provided in the review paper by Carter (2007).

6.4 Similar comments and advice to those contained in the quotation above appear in a letter written to the Secretary General of the United Nations by 103 professional persons in December, 2007 (Attachment A). The distinguished list of signatories to this letter includes many winners of awards, medals and prizes in meteorology, climatology or cognate subdisciplines, and 24 are Emeritus Professors. Unlike scientists associated with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, who are bound by the “cabinet solidarity” principle to the politically nuanced advice that is contained in IPCC’s Summary for Policymakers, the signatories of the UN letter – as those of the Manhatten Declaration (below), and the authors of the scientific papers that I refer to hereafter - provide their judgements independent of anything other than scientific merit.

6.5 Another recent public statement on climate change, the Manhatten Declaration, was first declared at a Climate Change meeting in New York in March, 2008 (Attachment B). The Declaration has now attracted more than 1,100 signatories (International Climate Science Coalition, 2008), of whom187 (at the time of writing) are persons highly qualified in climate or a cognate science.

6.6 Summary

Science truth is not determined by head counts. Nonethless, there is now overwhelming documented evidence that a large number of responsible, highly qualified professional scientists and economists do not accept that the advice given by the IPCC is accurate enough to carry exclusive influence in setting climate policies. The considered views of such a large body of expert people cannot simply be wished away.

7.0.0 COMMENTS ON THE EVIDENCE OF DR DAVID WRATT

7.0.1 I have been provided with, and read, a copy of the evidence of Dr David Wratt, presented on behalf of Meridian Energy Ltd. Dr Wratt, who bases his advice largely on IPCC opinions, has put similar arguments many times previously. They have been critically assessedin an analysis provided by Auer et al. (2006) to the Royal Society of New Zealand.

7.0.2 I make the followingcomments on Dr Wratt’s evidence.Other argumentation and supporting references forthe topics covered below are provided by Auer et al. (2006), Carter (2007), Carter et al. (2007) and NIPCC (2008).

7.1.0 Over-reliance upon IPCC advice

7.1.1 In paras. 10-12, Dr Wratt outlines the history of the IPCC, and the remainder of his evidence rests almost exclusively upon statements made by that organisation. Only 3 of more than 40 references that he cites are from sources other than the IPCC, and more than 60% (28) of the citations are to the IPCC Summary for Policymakers (SPM).

7.1.2 In this context, Dr Wratt hasfailedto adequately inform the court about the widely known inadequacies of the IPCC procedures, and about the political nature of the advice to governments that is contained in the IPCC’s SPM. Before release, this document is approved, line by line, by government appointed functionaries. Though based upon recommendations from qualified scientists - and resting in part on the substantive IPCC science review volume -the SPM, which is the primary source for policy formulation, carries a heavy political overlay.

7.1.3 Furthermore, over many years, severe and mostly unrebutted criticisms have been made of even the science processes and procedures used by the IPCC. These criticisms, many of which are detailed by McLean (2007a, b; 2008), include the following.

7.1.4 That the IPCC operates a deeply flawed “peer review” process, which is hostile to any criticism of the presumption of dangerous human influence on global climate.Scientists who have participated in IPCC review procedures have complained that they are corrupted by:

a failure to incorporate valid critical comments made by some expert reviewers;

chaotic editorial techniques, which have included the preparation and release of a new draft report whilst its first draft was still being reviewed;

in the final stage of review of a Summary for Policymakers, incorporating changes desired by government bureaucrats without recourse to expert scientific assessment;and

an inadequate and dismissive attitude towards informed criticism.

7.1.5 Wegman (2006), who conducted a review for the US Congress of a particularly controversial piece of IPCC 3AR science (Michael Mann’s now infamous “hockey stick” curve of recent climate change) listed as his first review recommendation that:

“Especially when massive amounts of public monies and human lives are at stake, academic work should have a more intense level of scrutiny and review. It is especially the case that authors of policy-related documents like the IPCC report, ’Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis’, should not be the same people as those that constructed the academic papers”.

7.1.6 Overall,the IPCC uses the term“peer review” to describe a procedure that differs greatly from the conventionally understood meaning of the term. The problem is well summarised by von Storch (2005), who writes:

"The IPCC has failed to ensure that the assessment reports, which shall review the existing published knowledge and knowledge claims, should have been prepared by scientists not significantly involved in the research themselves. Instead, the IPCC has chosen to invite scientists who dominate the debate about the considered issues to participate in the assessment. This was already in the Second Assessment Report a contested problem, and the IPCC would have done better in inviting other, considerably more independent scientists for this task. Instead, the IPCC has asked scientists like Professor Mann to review his own work. This does not represent an "independent" review."

7.1.7 A related matter is the repetitious promulgation of misleadingIPCC participant statistics; for example, of the 3,750 persons that Dr Wratt (para. 12) lists as participatingin or approvingthe IPCC’s 4AR recommendations, just 51 scientists participated in the completion and final approval of the recentSPM for 4AR.
7.1.7 In a recent study, McLean(2008) reports that out of the 62 expert reviewers of the critical Chapter 9 of the 4AR, “Understanding and Attributing Climate Change”, 55 had conflicting or vested interest. In fact, McLean was only able to identify 7 prima facie impartial reviewers, which is a very different number to 3,750.

7.1.8 The succinct advice of Sir Charles Fleming, one of New Zealand's greatest conservationists and natural scientists, on such pressure tactics was (Fleming, 1986):

"Any body of scientists that adopts pressure group tactics is endangering its status as theguardian of principles of scientific philosophy that are worth conserving".

7.1.9 During the preparation of 3AR and 4AR, a number of meritorious scientists who were involved expressed their dissatisfaction withIPCC process, in particular, what they saw as political interference in the preparation of IPCC reports. In one high profile case, on January 15, 2005, Dr Chris Landsea, an acknowledged leading expert on hurricanes/cyclones, withdrew his participation in IPCC. In resigning, Dr Landsea (2005) said:

“I personally 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”.

7.1.10 For the purposes of developing projections of future climate change, in 3AR the IPCC developed a number of alternative socio-economic scenarios for future world energy use. These scenarios, which feed into all climate projections made by the IPCC, have been shown to be both unrealistic and deeply flawed (Castles & Henderson, 2003). Yet these same inadequate economic scenarios have been used as the basis for the climate predictions made in the recent 4AR.

7.1.11 The IPCC exhibits an overdependence on climate projections made by unvalidated GCM computer models (see section 7.3 below).

7.1.12 The IPCC has adopted a qualititative scale of probability terms (which are deployed by Dr Wratt throughout his statement) that has no rigorous basis. IPCC terms such as “likely (66% probable)” and “very likely (90% probable)” have no actual statistical meaning, but instead represent only considered opinions. This is becausethe IPCC provides no empirical evidence that events predicted to have a >66% probability have indeed occurred at least two times out of three in the past.
The use of such terminology is highly misleading, and represents sociology not science.

7.1.13 In its reports, the IPCC often impliesan inverted null hypothesis, whereby any observed global warming is presumed to be human-caused unless it can be shown otherwise. Because both the rate and magnitude of recent warmings fall within the bounds of previous natural climate variations, the correct null hypothesis is that global climate changes are presumed to be natural unless and until specific evidence is forthcoming for human causation. Despite the expenditure of much money and great research effort, not least by IPCC-related scientists, to date no such evidence has been forthcoming;