The Evils of Climate Enthusiasm

Address to the Alumni of Warrane College, University of New South Wales

Academic Dinner, September 2017

Dr Howard Thomas Brady

No matter our age we are all adapting to circumstance. I would never have thought, after I went away to be a Catholic priest at the age of 16, that 20 years later I would be standing at the geographic South Pole as Lieutenant Commander Brady, US Navy Chaplain, or 60 years later, I would be reflecting on the joy of being married with a wonderful wife, 4 very different children and having written a book on the climate debate.

So today I am talking about the climate, confronting young academics when probably the climate debate is furthest from your minds. And even if it weren’t, why be interested? Well, for one thing, in Australia, and in many other nations, everyone encounters the climate debate when they pay their electricity bill; a bill that in some countries has more than doubled in the last few years. And as the price of electricity continues to rise, many local industries will continue to close at a frightening pace, unable to survive rising electricity prices; others will locate to other countries with cheaper costs of power.

The economic health of many countries is at stake if politicians do not do something about the price of power. Unfortunately in some countries it is unlikely they will do anything significant because they are trapped in simplistic arguments that link the continuing rise of carbon dioxide with a global warming trend that began 300 years ago and will probably continue for another 200 years. This trend is similar in its timing and effect to past climatic cycles in the last 5000 years. Linking and blaming rising carbon dioxide levels with modern climate change has led to panic and to over-subsidising the installation of infant alternative solar and wind energy technologies on an industrial scale in the mistaken belief that we can change this global warming trend.

Rather than panic, we should heed the words of the great environmentalist, James Lovelock:

So let us keep our cool as the Earth gently warms, and even enjoy it when we can

(Lovelock, 2015)

There are very sound reasons to continue to lessen our global dependence on oil, coal and gas by developing alternative energy technologies, but this development has to be sensible, based on sound economics, not spurred by panic. By over-subsidising infant alternative energy technologies, Spain nearly bankrupted itself. Indeed, any nation that legislates in panic expensive subsidies for alternative energy technologies will become the sacrificial lamb of world-wide movements that have seized incredible social power through simplistic and false argument predicting catastrophic climate change. And in that process its economy will suffer, youth unemployment will worsen and the enthusiasm and drive of its youth will give way to frustration and despair.

Forecasts of global climate disaster have dominated the climate debate for the last 40 years. The father of the modern climate nihilism in the United States was James Hansen of the NASA Goddard Space Centre. Thirty years ago he predicted that Manhattan would be flooded by 2010. He is still predicting metres of sea level rise this century. Only ten years ago, a Professor in England predicted that the next generation of children in Scotland would never know snow. Australia wasted over 10 billion dollars building desalination plants due to advice from the Australian Climate Council that Australia would be trapped in never-ending drought due to climate change. Australians were told that their dams would never fill again, that Adelaide would endure eternal drought and that Perth would be the world’s first wasteland metropolis. The United Nations in 2005 predicted there would be 20 million climate refugees by 2010; there were none.

Any sensible person would think these failed prophets should be sacked, but no: the environmental movement canonises its prophets. They continually reinvent themselves and remain supported and defended by university intelligentsia and by a media that loves headlines predicting disaster.

In contrast, those who call these prophets charlatans are not treated with the same kindness, but with systematic persecution. Did you know, within the hallowed halls of many universities throughout the world, there are teams linked to the Rapid Climate Response Team, which man the trenches to debunk scientists like me, who do not deny climate change, but think it is not catastrophic and not a cause to panic! The late Australian Professor Bob Carter, Head of the Geology Department at James Cook University for over a decade, had his position of Emeritus Professor terminated in 2013 because of his outspoken views on these climate prophets. Even now there are calls for the position of Professor Peter Ridd at that same University to be terminated as he has questioned those who say that the Australian Barrier Reef is in decline due to bleaching. Ridd’s scientific opinion is that bleaching events spur the coral to further adapt to warming by choosing better algae symbionts that make them more resilient when the next warming event occurs.

So where are our ideals of academic freedom allowing opposing views to be aired? How can science go forward without significant review? Consensus is never scientific proof. It always needs to be challenged. It is often proved wrong. When I wrote, Mirrors and Mazes: a guide through the climate debate’, I wrote this:

There is now a New Inquisition presided over by a clique of scientists who have given themselves the right of trial to put scientific heretics to the stake. The new torture methods are not the stake or the rack but the denial of promotion, the manipulation of the media to denigrate, and the refusal to employ. Indeed, efforts to stop such scientists publishing in scientific periodicals have extended to controlling the editorial committees of many well-known periodicals. This is the modern equivalent of the Spanish Inquisition’s Burning of the Books. (Brady, 2017)

But is this university-world the only one exercising such thought-control? We may well adopt a superior air and criticise the Medieval Church for misunderstanding science and condemning Galileo, but have things really changed? At this very time in the 21st Century, advisors to Pope Francis in Rome are too closely aligned with a bevy of left-wing socialist thinkers believing theories of catastrophic climate change.

In 1936 Pope Pius XI established the Pontifical Academy of Science to provide the Catholic Church with sound scientific advice. In doing this he was reviving traditions extending back to the famous Academy of the Lynxes in 1603, a society with Galileo as a member that stressed the objective nature of science. The lynx was thought to have the best eyesight, so the role of the scientist was to be like one, to fearlessly describe what was seen, not what others thought one should see. Since its inception, the Pontifical Academy of Science irrespective of religion has offered membership to the world’s leading scientists. Famous members include Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr, Ernest Rutherford, Erwin Schrodinger, Stephen Hawking, the Australian neurologist Sir John Eccles.

Contrary to this tradition of scientific excellence, when the Church rightly looked to comment on the moral and spiritual challenges arising from our treatment of the environment, from the pollution and population stress endured by millions in the many cities, such as Lagos, Beijing or Bangkok, unfortunately it turned to Hans Joachim Schellnhuber of the Potsdam Climate Impacts Institute in Germany. Here was a radical, a social activist, a catastrophist with whom many scientists on both sides of the climate debate disagree. This physicist sees climate change due to increasing greenhouse gases as the greatest challenge of the 21st Century. He sees 7 climate tipping points threatening the Earth. He claims the carrying capacity of the Earth should be no more than one billion people, and he proposed the idea that a 2°C rise in global temperatures would be catastrophic; a rather bizarre target when for most of Earth’s history temperatures have been 3°C to 5°C above that of today.

Schellnhuber is also in the vanguard of leftist movements who are manipulating climate science as a tool to restructure society globally and limit nationalism. To fight this climate threat, these movements want to replace nationalism with an international world government; in Schellnhuber’s case, with a Council of wise men. He is also of the view that climate science is so settled, and the climate situation so desperate, that scientists with different views should not be allowed to speak at the Pontifical Academy as they are flat-earthers, a distraction and waste of time.

And then there is Cardinal Turkson, who links both human slavery and climate as both evil and sinful. He was influential in drafting the encyclical Laudato Si’ and has welcomed Naomi Klein as an advisor. Klein is a Canadian communist who does not think that climate change can be solved without the destruction of capitalism. For her and Cardinal Turkson, the West punished the Third World through an industrialisation that increased greenhouse gases causing destructive climate change. So now the West, in reparation for its climate sins, must distribute trillions of dollars to the Third World as penance. And there is also adviser Naomi Oreskes. She rails against anyone who thinks climate change is mainly natural or the contributions of humans – minor. In her view such scientists should be treated as criminal mafia mobsters or like evil capitalists who promote cigarette smoking.

I am deeply concerned about the Vatican’s amateurish attempts to become too relevant in the modern climate debate. The way complex issues such as climate change, population stress, heat stress, famine, pollution, ocean acidification, loss of species diversity and disease control are being mixed together is equivalent to throwing 1000 cats into a room to play with a thousand balls of wool.

I was dismayed when recently Archbishop Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo invited Paul Erhlich to talk to the Academy. Erhlich in 1968 wrote the Population Bomb in which he wrongly predicted millions would starve in the 20th century because agriculture could not keep up with the rising world population; he was wrong, it did. Erhlich has put forward ideas on male sterilisation, on the use of mass sterilisation agents in food and on the limitation of food to punish countries with high birth-rates.

And the situation worsens, when to forbid dissent and to isolate scientists who dispute catastrophic climate change, Bishop Sorondo places the Pope’s statements on climate science, not at the level of infallible religious doctrine, but still within a level of certainty in Catholic theology, that is, the Pope’s ordinary Magisterium. Sorondo says the Pope’s statement regarding global warming “must be considered magisterium – it is not an opinion”. What a bizarre theological corruption of science!

Hearing Bishop Sorondo or Schellnhuber speak or reading statements by Klein or Oreskes, and looking at the manipulations of climate science by the catastrophists and left-wing environmentalists, I wonder along with Vaclav Klaus, the former President of the Czech Republic, “Is our climate really endangered or our freedom?” (Klaus 2007).

I do not deny that individually and collectively we have a deep spiritual responsibility to Mother Earth. But when devising that care, science must stay within the logic of scientific methods; otherwise it can be manipulated. A famous example of such manipulation was the control of Soviet science by Trofim Lysenko, who condemned the modern genetics developed by the Augustinian monk, Gustav Mendel, and theories of natural selection proposed by Charles Darwin.

The independence of modern science from theology and philosophy was clearly spelt out by Cardinal John Henry Newman in his famous book, ‘The Idea of a University’, published in 1858:Unless at liberty to investigate on the basis and according to the peculiarities of his science, the scientist cannot investigate at all.


There is now a growing observational database that does not support the idea that increasing carbon dioxide levels coming from human industrialization are controlling the direction and extent of modern climate change. The present Vatican has backed the wrong horse, just like it did when it condemned Galileo. The words of James Lovelock, a world famous scientist who wrote books on catastrophic climate change, should be nailed to the doors of St Peter’s Basilica. Lovelock had the courage and objectivity to change his mind:

The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened. The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world by now… (Lovelock, 2015).

When the Church condemned Galileo it took centuries to disentangle itself from that contemporary mixture of science, philosophy and theology. Today’s situation within the Church is not different; there is a similar mess, and only the players and the scientific parameters involved are different. As Vaclav Klaus (2008), the previous President of Czechoslovakia, has said:

Our beautiful blue planet has been placed in green shackles by leftist environmentalists and prophetic catastrophists (Klaus, 2008).

The fairy tale called the Emperor’s New Clothes is very relevant. The defense of the role of greenhouse gases as the primary drivers of the present global warming may become more strident, but one day, someone or some event, will make it so blatantly obvious that the emperor and all his rabid followers are stark naked. Then the science community, and hopefully also the Church leadership, will nod in agreement so that the simplistic climate theories, built up over the past 40 years, will collapse. And finally, the charade of catastrophism and left-wing environmentalism that are threatening our freedom and our economic development will be over.


‘The Emperor’s New Clothes’ (illustration by Vilhelm Pedersen 1849)

Thank you for listening to me. I hope I’ve challenged you.

Dr Howard Brady

Books referred to:

Brady, H. 2017 (2nd Ed). Mirrors and Mazes: a guide through the climate debate. Mirrors and Mazes, Canberra (

Klaus, V. 2008. Blue Planet in Green Shackles: what is endangered – Climate or Freedom? Competitive Enterprise Institute, Washington.

Klein, N. Conway, E. 2017. This changes everything: Capitalism versus the Climate. Simon & Schuster. Penguin Books.

Lovelock, J. 2015. A rough ride to the future. Allen Lane – Penguin Books.

Oreskes, N. 2014. 2011. Merchants of Death. How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. Bloomsbury Press.

Newman, J.H. 1858. Idea of a University. Yale University Press, 1996.


96 thoughts on “The Evils of Climate Enthusiasm

  1. If we want the false prophets to stop prophesying, we have to stop feeding them. We are simply receiving the science we are paying for – the squeaky hinge gets the most oil, the squeaky doomsday prophet gets the largest grants. If we eliminate all government funding for universities, the problem will simply dry up and blow away.

    • Eric, if all government funding for universities is eliminated then many universities will simply dry up and blow away. That is particularly so in Australia where only Bond University can be considered even close to a private university.

      I think that would be throwing out the baby with the bath water. Further, what of the great private universities in the USA? Are they producing anything more scientific in the realm of climate studies?

      • Bond is a great uni but bloody exspensive. I went an open day to look at PHD options and some of the PHD students I met were all ataken with climate change in their dissertations. So Bond, great place, too expensive without government subsidy and the place is a climate change haven for warmie believers. Decided Bond wasn’t for me.

    • Eric, from what I see happening on US universities I think you remedy is too little too late. Yes, withdraw government funding from universities, but place a large part of that withdrawn money in the hands of police to get of the radical leftists and not let them roam the cities and prey on their inhabitants.
      Radical leftists in the streets are the clear and present danger, not any tall tales about climate change.

    • “If we eliminate all government funding for universities, the problem will simply dry up and blow away.” In Greece we have a proverb : ” head hurts? cut head”

      • in addition, if you cut now government university funding, the CAGW will really have a free field with all the money they make with carbon taxes. The only surviving universities will be the ones with predominant climate religion.

  2. “There are very sound reasons to continue to lessen our global dependence on oil, coal and gas by developing alternative energy technologies, but this development has to be sensible, based on sound economics, not spurred by panic”


  3. These masters of manipulation has now infiltrated the Church, and gullible priests have fallen into line. It will take centuries to undo the damage. Hard to believe that JP II “The Great” has been followed by Francis the Fool.

    • Deprogramming the masses from the human climate change belief and replacing it with actual scientific discussion is something that can only be accomplished through the mass media. That is the source of the present deception-by-omission.

    • I wish I had some real money.
      Just wondering what the pope would look like in a court room, $900,000,000,000 to start

  4. Regarding: “There is now a growing observational database that does not support the idea that increasing carbon dioxide levels coming from human industrialization are controlling the direction and extent of modern climate change”: What I see is that modern climate change is real and mostly manmade, but overstated and not headed for being catastrophic. With the recent El Nino spike and according to the most-warming-indicating (and questionable) global temperature datasets, global temperature barely (and temporarily) got to what the climate models predicted.

    As I keep saying, the models are a little off due to being selected/tuned to hindcast the past, mostly 1975-2005, without consideration for multidecadal oscillations which were mostly on an upswing and warmed the world by about .2 degree C from 1975-2005 (according to Fourier analysis of HadCRUT3). So these models had excessive climate sensitivity to have CO2 causing about .2 degree C more warming from 1975 to 2005 than it actually did. If they are retuned to have .2 degree C less warming from 1975 to 2005, then they would be doing a good job.

    • You’ve given the models and the much adjusted temperature records far too much credit. There is nothing unusual about the temperature changes we’ve seen and indeed, we’ve measured similar changes well before industrial activity was sufficient to have contributed much according to the greenhouse gas model. The onus is on those who propose that CO2 is the main driver of climate change or global warming to prove their case. They have not. 20 years of no statistical warming in the most reliable sattelite record while CO2 continues to rise is sufficient for those with reason to ignore the theory altogether.

    • Donald L. Klipstein – September 23, 2017 at 7:01 am

      What I see is that modern climate change is real and mostly manmade, but overstated and not headed for being catastrophic. ……………….. As I keep saying, the models are a little off due to being selected/tuned to hindcast the past, mostly 1975-2005, …………….. If they are retuned to have .2 degree C less warming from 1975 to 2005, then they would be doing a good job.

      Donald LK, you should have stopped writing/keying immediately after you completed this sentence, to wit:

      What I see is that modern climate change is real and mostly manmade,

      …… simply because the proven falsity and idiotic claims by the proponents of CAGW matters not one (1) twit to your profound Religious belief.

    • The models actually, inadvertantly present one of the strongest disproofs of man-made global warming.

      Figure 5. Simplification of IPCC AR5 shown above in Fig. 4. The colored lines represent the range of results for the models and observations. The trends here represent trends at different levels of the tropical atmosphere from the surface up to 50,000 ft. The gray lines are the bounds for the range of observations, the blue for the range of IPCC model results without extra GHGs and the red for IPCC model results with extra GHGs.The key point displayed is the lack of overlap between the GHG model results (red) and the observations (gray). The nonGHG model runs (blue) overlap the observations almost completely.

      From March 31, 2017 testimony by John Christy

      IPCC Assessment Reports show that the IPCC climate models performed best versus observations when they did not include extra GHGs and this result can be demonstrated with a statistical model as well.

      • The tropical upper tropospheric hotspot in the models is caused by a decrease in the lapse rate caused by increased concentration of water vapor. The models have an excessive increase of water vapor in order to get a climate sensitivity high enough to account for the warming from 1975 to 2005 without the upswing of multidecadal oscillations that accounted for about .2 degree C of that warming.

        I see the cloud albedo feedback as being positive, but less so than IPCC does. I see that being caused by clouds being more efficient at moving heat, and that means a smaller percentage of the planet is covered by them to have the thermal effects of updrafts and downdrafts balance each other. Another effect that I see is decreasing global atmospheric relative humidity. And the models don’t have decreasing global atmospheric relative humidity, because that would have them underestimating the warming from 1975 to 2005 and actually more accurate overall. So, manmade global warming is not disproven, what is shown merely is that the models are tuned incorrectly and overstate it.

      • I just did a followup on the Dr. John Cristy March 2017 Congressional testimony. His written testimony is at

        Although he says that the IPCC models correlated best with the data (for the “middle troposphere”) when the effect of increasing GHGs is completely removed, he does not claim that the effect of increasing GHGs is zero. In fact, in the written testimony he does say:

        “The most obvious answer is that the models are simply too sensitive to
        the extra GHGs that are being added to both the model and the real world.”
        “climate models were showing about twice the sensitivity to GHGs than calculations based on real, empirical data.”

        Notably Dr. Christy cites Spencer, who is his associate Dr. Roy Spencer. Spencer says that manmade global warming from manmade increase of greenhouse gases is real, but overstated. Spencer also says he thinks manmade warming is a minority of the warming in the last several decades and a majority of that warming was natural, but he’s not sure about that, and a majority of it may be manmade. His expectation is .5 maybe 1 degree C of warming this century due to manmade increase of greenhouse gases. I expect about or a little more than Spencer’s high end, or about or slightly under half of what IPCC says (or more accurately avoids overtly saying) what they think is most likely as of AR5.

        Dr. Christy merely gives very strong evidence that there is something wrong with the climate models, not that manmade global warming is completely nonexistent.

      • As Ron points out, you don’t need any Anthropogenic CO2 to get the observed results.
        Observed trends mirror the most likely trends without[extra] GHGS.
        The observation is that with extra Anthropogenic CO2, the feedbacks, whatever they may be, cancel out any effect.
        Occam’s razor then says that extra Anthropogenic CO2 does not alter the system temperature in its present equilibrium.
        The fact that the models are wrong is well accepted.
        Were they properly tuned they would yield the same result as observations.
        Neural networks that learn and use paleo data may be a way to go.

      • Models with excessive climate sensitivity to change of GHGs and that account for the warming without any effect from the increase of greenhouse gases would also have excessive climate sensitivity to the non-GHG factors that caused warming. If the climate sensitivity in the models is reduced to what it is in reality, then non-GHG factors alone can’t explain the amount of warming that occurred and some warming from the increase of GHGs is needed to account for the actual amount of warming.

      • Looks like Donald refuses science and continues CO2 advocacy.

        Just as deluded as James Hansen. Continual frantic hand waving and excuses fail to cure what ails CO2 consensus, CO2 centered climate models, and continual falsehoods regarding climate caused disasters.

      • So claimith Donald L. Klipstein – September 23, 2017 at 11:36 am

        Another effect that I see is decreasing global atmospheric relative humidity.

        Shur nuff, Klipstein, ….. and I betcha you can also see in your “magical climate models” a tremendous increase in global average precipitation quantities, ……… RIGHT?

        Klipstein, ….. please explain why you think, religiously believe, that it is scientifically possible for the near-surface air temperatures to be increasing ……. with a corresponding decreasing in near-surface humidity (H2O vapor).

      • Sam C C: My claim of humidity was for relative as opposed to absolute and quantity of water vapor is absolute. I made no claims of near-surface, but for global atmosphere, and I should have said troposphere to exclude the minority (by mass) of the atmosphere that is above the troposphere. And I don’t expect tremendous increase of global precipitation. Any models predicting that instead of minor increase are among the ones tuned wrong to have excessive water vapor positive feedback to have the rapid warming from 1975 to 2005 including about .2 degree C more than actual from increase of GHGs and positive feedbacks to temperature change.

      • Donald L. Klipstein – September 24, 2017 at 9:12 pm

        Sam C C: My claim of humidity was for relative as opposed to absolute and quantity of water vapor is absolute.

        Shur nuff, DLK, …… but you being a brilliant climate scientist, I just assumed that was a temporary brain dyslexia problem on your part …… and given the fact you just confirmed your intended usage it relegates your stated claim to junk-science based “weazelworded” rhetoric.

        Here is a clue for you, to wit:

        relative humidity – the amount of water vapor present in air expressed as a percentage of the amount needed for saturation at the same temperature.

        And here is your originally stated claim, to wit:

        Another effect that I see is decreasing global atmospheric relative humidity. And the models don’t have decreasing global atmospheric relative humidity, because that would have them underestimating the warming from 1975 to 2005 and actually more accurate overall..

        So, Klipstein, …. GETTA COUPLE CLUES, …… climate modeling computer programs do not model “percentages” ………. and a calculated percentage of H2O vapor in the atmosphere is NOT a “driver” of either increasing or decreasing near-surface air temperatures. The air TEMPERATURE is the per se “driver” of the calculated PERCENTAGE of resident H2O vapor

        And Klipstein, while you are at, please explain why this isn’t more of your “weazelworded” rhetoric, to wit:

        Any models predicting that instead of minor increase are among the ones tuned wrong to have excessive water vapor positive feedback to have the rapid warming from 1975 to 2005 including about .2 degree C more than actual from increase of GHGs and positive feedbacks to temperature change.

        DLK, is not “excessive (increased) water vapor” …… the very same EXACT thingy as the “increase of GHGs”?

        “DUH”, iffen a 200 ppm increase in the near-surface atmospheric GHG (CO2) will cause a slight increase in near-surface air temperatures ……….then for damn sure a 25,000 ppm increase in the (2x more potent) near-surface atmospheric GHG (H2O vapor) will cause a horrendous increase in near-surface air temperatures. (And at 40,000 ppm H2O vapor, surely horrendous enough to burn the socks off your feet while standing knee deep in water.)

        Do the math.

      • Samuel C Cogar: No climate scientist is claiming that any climate scientist’s projection of temperature increase is going to increase water vapor by 25,000 ppm. 40,000 ppm is about right for near-surface humid tropical air. The Wikipedia article on Earth’s atmosphere says it is on average (with very uneven distribution) about 1% water vapor at sea level, .4% for the whole atmosphere, which means about .55% (or 5,500 ppm) for the whole troposphere assuming negligible above the troposphere.

        Increasing global air and sea surface temperature by 1 degree C increases this by a factor of about 1.06-1.07, increasing by 2 degrees C increases this by a factor of about 1.06-1.07 squared, etc., although the relationship is not exactly a power relationship. 1 degrees C of warming would increase 5,500 ppm by about 350 ppm. And this assumes constant relative humidity. If warming from increased greenhouse gases causes a decrease in relative humidity (such as if the cloud albedo feedback is positive), then it would cause a smaller increase in the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere.

      • Samuel C. C.: No climate scientist is predicting 25,000 ppm increase of water vapor from the amount of warming predicted by any climate scientist. 40,000 ppm is about right for near-surface tropical humid air. According to the Wikipedia article on Earth;s atmosphere, water vapor concentration in the atmosphere (along with being very unevenly distributed) is about 1% (10,000 ppm) at sea level, .and about .4% (4,000 ppm) throughout the whole atmosphere. Assuming this is negligible above the troposphere, this means about .55% throughout the troposphere.

        If the world’s atmosphere and waters are warmed evenly, the amount of water vapor increases by a factor of roughly (not exactly) 1.06-1.07 raised to the power of the temperature increase in degrees C/K, assuming relative humidity stays constant. This means a 1 degree C warming would increase the global average tropospheric water vapor concentration by around 350 ppm. If warming results in a reduction of global atmospheric relative humidity, which is likely if the cloud albedo feedback is positive, then the increase would be less.

      • Donald L. Klipstein – September 26, 2017 at 8:51 am

        If the world’s atmosphere and waters are warmed evenly, the amount of water vapor increases by a

        Shur nuff, Klipstein, ….. and If a toad had wings it wouldn’t be bumping its arse n the ground everytime it hopped.

  5. Watt a marvellous and eminiently sensible address, delivered with cold hard logic, a message I shall try to disseminate amongst family and friends. It certainly deserves to be spread as widely as possible.


    And warmunists want to ruin it.

    Aren’t they living things deserving compassion and care?

    Then let’s give them a better greenhouse effect

    And put more CO2 in the air.

  7. Dr Howard Brady – thank you Sir – well said!

    I just posted this n another thread, before reading your excellent essay. Here is an excerpt:

    The warmist argument is based on an ASSUMED high value of climate sensitivity to increasing atmospheric CO2 (“ECS”), which is THE key falsehood in the warmist sc@m. The overwhelming evidence is that ECS is low, about 1C/{2xCO2) and probably less, and increasing atmospheric CO2 will NOT cause dangerous global warming. Other warmist falsehoods such as wilder weather, etc. are also unsupported by the evidence.

    The fact that NONE of the warmists’ scary predictions have materialized in the 30+ years of this debate is further evidence that they have negative scientific credibility, and nobody should believe anything they say.

    Global warming alarmism is a multi-trillion dollar sc@m that has caused enormous harm to humanity and the environment.

    Global warming alarmism has driven up energy costs and reduced grid reliability in the developed world, and denied access to cheap reliable energy in the developing world. This sc@m has increased excess winter mortality worldwide and has also increased illness and death due to energy poverty in the developing world.

    It is the obligation of responsible, competent professionals to blow-the-whistle on this sc@m, and to encourage the availability of cheap, reliable, abundant energy systems for humanity. This is especially true for the elderly and the poor, and for the struggling peoples of the developing world.

    • On whistle-blowing:

      As an uninvolved citizen and a Professional Engineer, I was advised in May 2016 of an extremely dangerous situation. Following the Professional Engineers’ Code of Ethics, I investigated, established the facts and reported to the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER). This situation was then made safe by the AER.

      The risk to the public was enormous – tens of thousands of Calgarians could have been killed.

      Best, Allan

      Documentation on the shutdown of the Mazeppa sour gas project.

      High River Times, August 25, 2016

      Calgary Herald, March 21, 2017
      This action by the AER (formerly the ERCB) is the most severe reprimand against any company in the history of the Alberta energy industry.

      Were Albertans put at risk as a natural gas producer unravelled in 2016?
      Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, April 24, 2017.
      Note: H2S is instantly lethal at 0.1% concentrations.

      Calgary Herald, July 10, 2017
      Epilogue: The Southeast quadrant of Calgary is now safe and industry standards have been reinforced.

      • Allan, “tens of thousands of Calgarians could have been killed” is extreme hyperbole. There was a possibility of equipment failure that would not be attended by competent personnel due to the financial failure of the company and employees not coming to work. The risk of someone being killed was about the same as someone being killed at a street intersection due to failure of the traffic lights. That’s quite short of your nuclear holocaust level hype. Lest you question my credentials, I am also a P.Eng. and an ‘involved’ citizen having provided consulting services for the plant in question.

      • Alan, I as a Canadian P Eng lost a job many years ago by informing my client that a development proposal received from a US engineer he had met at a conference was grossly deficient – it promised development at an impossibly low cost and was too sketchy with details. I advised he check his resume and contacts. Being a promoter type, he said he had. I called the two state engineering associations and ‘his’ university – no record of him. I told my client if he engaged this fellow, I was obliged to report it to my association. He didn’t engage him but informed me they no longer required my services.

      • DMacKenzie:

        When did you work on this project and what exactly was your responsibility?

        I strongly doubt that you understand the situation. If you did, you should have reported the situation to the AER yourself, as was your professional obligation. If you have doubts, read the APEGA Code of Ethics and if you still have doubts, kindly contact APEGA. When I investigated, I called a Past-President of APEGA and we agreed that the risk was excessively high.

        Re credentials, (coincidentally) in the early 1990’s I was General Manager of Engineering for the company that owned and operated the Mazeppa critical sour gas project SE of Calgary, among many others, including the Petrogas critical sour gas project NE of Calgary. My former company sold Mazeppa to Compton, and later it became the property of Lexin.

        In May 2016 the Mazeppa sour gas gathering pipelines had not been injected with anti-corrosion chemicals for ~6 months, whereas monthly injection was the standard. The pipelines were significantly corroded and had reportedly experienced at least one recent minor leak. The pipelines were located within ~1 mile of heavily-populated suburbs in SE Calgary, and there would be no time to evacuate or to flare a major leak.

        The Mazeppa project processed up to 40% H2S sour gas, and less than 0.1% is instantly fatal when inhaled. If a major leak had developed, the sour gas, being heavier than air, would have drifted along the ground killing everyone and everything in its path. If you are comfortable with this scenario, I certainly am not.

        Risk = (Severity of Occurrence) x (Probability of Occurrence)
        You could possibly argue that the Probability of Occurrence of a sour gas leak was not necessarily imminent, but the severity of a major release of 40% sour gas was certainly catastrophic.

        The worst industrial disaster in history was the Union Carbide accident at Bhopal, India when 3000 people died. I estimate that a worst case disaster at Mazeppa could have killed many more people.

  8. Allen MACRAE
    more than 600,000 pensioners in GERMANY have no electricity,

    • I agree ZZ. My above statement was written to INCLUDE the developed world and the developing world
      “It is the obligation of responsible, competent professionals to blow-the-whistle on this (global warming) sc@m, and to encourage the availability of cheap, reliable, abundant energy systems for humanity. This is especially true for the elderly and the poor, and for the struggling peoples of the developing world.”

      The elderly and the poor in the United Kingdom, Germany and other countries are suffering increased winter deaths due to high energy costs. In the UK, this human disaster is called “Heat or Eat”.

      The Excess Winter Mortality Rate in Britain is much higher than that in Canada. Canada has a population of about 35 million and the UK about 65 million, but Excess Winter Mortality in Canada is about 5000 to 10,000 per year, and in the UK it is 25,000 to 50,000 per year.

      Canada and the UK have genetically similar populations and similar health care systems. Canada tends to be colder but mostly drier than the UK. However, Canada generally has much lower energy costs and better-insulated housing and probably better central heating systems, on average. This suggests that adaptation to winter and low energy costs are significant drivers of lower Winter Mortality rates.

      Imagine IF the UK had competent politicians in the past several decades instead of warmist imbeciles. Instead of spending billions on green energy debacles, they could have spent the funds on improving home insulation and central heating, and encouraged fracking of shales to reduce natural gas prices., and a whole lot of grannies and grandpa’s would still be alive for their grandchildren.

      Cheap, abundant, reliable energy is the lifeblood of society – it IS that simple.

      When politicians fool with energy systems, real people suffer and die.

      Regards, Allan

      “Cold Weather Kills 20 Times as Many People as Hot Weather”, September 4, 2015
      by Joseph D’Aleo and Allan MacRae

      • Proof of what you say…

        Rising rates of life expectancy are grinding to a halt in England after more than 100 years of continuous progress, says a leading health expert.

        He said it was “entirely possible” austerity was to blame and said the issue needed looking at urgently.

        From here:

    • Bullshit. People on social welfare in Germany get paid their Heating expenses. If sombody does not pay or forgot it, his power will be cut. But normally only for some days, until they sort out the problems.

      I cannot imagine a such hight number of pensioners or other citizens having no electricity.

  9. As I’ve said elsewhere, using hyperemotional terms to stir the pot is not working so well any more.
    Turning a part of science into a form of religion, and not even making it Gaia Worship, is not science. It is politics. Since it has been so widely publicized and people have learned to draw their own conclusions, I think this “movement” toward controlling an entire world population is going to fail, and fail badly.
    I have photos of snow on my front steps in late April this year, and the microclimate snow line in my yard from this year, also. I have LOTS of photos like these. It won’t be long before the birds expect me to feed them into the month of June, because grasses and bugs they depend on haven’t arrived. And I will take lots of those pictures, too.

  10. This address by a clear and fine mind is a pleasure to read. That it was allowed to be delivered at a major university is remarkable. It is another sign the ruling class will find it increasingly difficult to divert resources on the basis of CO2-voodoo, which is hopeful for economic prosperity and political stability.

  11. Thanks you for your excellent and very wise words on this topic. More voices speaking with similar reason will be a great aid to getting society focused on the issues that really matter.

  12. Well stated Dr Brady.
    The basic problem is the lack of geological education in our schools.
    We must reduce the 2-legged sheep populationwho are most easily herded

  13. A little aside- I never understood the logic in “The Emperor’s New Clothes.” If only the best, classiest people could see the clothes, why would the emperor have a parade? Wouldn’t he realize the lowlifes would all see him naked?

    • Eustace, as Roda says the story is that virtuous people could see the clothes. Not wanting to be considered lacking in virtue, those who could not see the clothes pretended they could. Only the little boy was prepared to say out loud what others were thinking.

      Wow. Talk about parallels with modern times.

  14. What is this ad that appears lately at WUWT, anyway?

    It’s a direct webpage link, so it’s not part of an ad campaign and appearing because of my own browser history. I guess maybe it’s a comment on readers?

    • I got that great ad too. However after being amused for quite a while by the so called “targeted” advertising we switched the tracking/data all off and now get random adverts. Hence this one and the fantastic offers for lingerie, discounted bras, industrial sheds, commercial kitchens, and Russian brides. Interestingly my wife is now MORE suspicious of what ever I am doing on the internet

    • Seems to be the poor man’s bidet.

      I have toilet cleaner bottles with a similar shape. Will try these for that purpose – when emptied.

      Possiby this bottle saves water (and therefore the earth ;-)) ) as less paper is used.

  15. BBC (re)showed a ‘Horizon’ programme very recently, about Shuttle Colombia.

    What struck me was the behaviour and thinking of NASA at the time and how very similar their thinking still is – currently with regard to CO2, ozone and climate.

    It goes like:
    NASA state, if you ask about Climate Change, that CO2 is a ‘heat trapping gas’ and causes the planet to get hot.
    There is no further explanation. Nothing. The discussion is closed, the science is settled and there’ll be no further research into any other reason why thermometers are ‘twitching’

    NASA will also say that CFCs are destroying the ozone layer. Despite the bizarre low temperature chemistry, no discussion on ozone’s magnetic properties, no mention how the CFCs crossed the equator and numerous other problems with the theory.

    NASA tell us categorically that *their* satellite says that CO2 is causing global greening.
    Simply that. The satellite says that the UK is 25% greener. The UK is always green, unless the farmers there plough it up. It is impossible for the UK to get greener.
    They could have asked any reasonably savvy farmer anywhere around the world about what makes plants ‘green’ and got a quite different answer. Nitrogen.
    But no. Flat no

    And so back to the Colombia TV programme where I saw the same closed-mind, can’t be bothered, pass-the-buck and settled-science thinking which led to the shuttle calamity.

    1. They saw the tile come off the tank on the take-off video.
    They could have run ground based experiments.
    Flat no – because the wing is rock-hard carbon (love the irony) fibre.
    We are NASA and we know best

    2. They could have looked at Colombia with big telescopes and checked the wing.
    Flat no.

    3. They could have sent someone out on a space-walk and check the wing.
    Flat no.
    (I do wonder about that one. Telescopes? Broken bits on orbiting thing? Some telescope!)

    4. They could have re-entered with the undamaged wing ‘leading’ instead of the one they saw being hit by the broken tile.
    Flat no – the rest is history

    What’s wrong with them and generally?
    Is it Arrogance. Laziness. Scared of being found ‘wrong’

    • ‘telescope’ wonderation should be under (2) – you knew that.

      Count it as a freebie for the pedants :-D

    • Pardon my being pedantic, but “Colombia” is a country in South America. “Columbia” is the name of US ships (and a river named for one of them), hence of the shuttle.

      • Pardon me for my pedantry. too: The author’s reference to the End of Snow prediction is incorrect: it was made 20 years ago, not 10. Significantly, it was made at the height of the large El Nino event of the late ’90s and is a shining example of how Climate Change™ peddlers project the present trend into the great Beyond and call it science. In the late ’60s, temps had been trending down for a couple of decades when Hansen famously predicted an ice age by 1990.

  16. I wish the whole talk could have been recorded and shown in schools. I have downloaded it and will quote from it whenever the opportunity arises. Thanks.

  17. The “Climate Consensus” us morphing into something even darker and more destructive than the eugenics movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
    This essay underscores the situation rather well.

  18. I have always said that we should try to “scale up” some of the well known experiments just in case the small lab effects are not representative of the real world. However I did not expect “throwing 1000 cats into a room to play with 1000 balls of wool”. Schrodinger would have been impressed.
    And I wasn’t expecting the reference to the Spanish Inquisition either.

    Joking aside this was a very well written piece, a pleasure to read and with good insights. Worth saving and passing on.

  19. Dr. Brady,
    You might enjoy this ode to the church on fighting climate change.

    Bureaucrats and Global Planners
    Speak in agitated manners,
    Predicating great disaster:
    “Climate change we now must master!”

    Human guilt and blame beseeching:
    “Children, shame we should be teaching!
    Man has sinned by overreaching
    Fragile Gaia’s limit!”

    Beware: this bold apostasy
    Spins prophesy from vanity!
    The firmaments will never be
    Controlled by mortal hands.
    So, use this world, as best you can,
    To take care of your fellow man
    And leave Earth’s destiny to God’s great plan!

    This Universe is God’s, alone
    Commanding elements He owns.
    Perplexes any man’s control,
    Yet, still provides for every soul!

  20. Science does not advance by name calling.
    It advances by data, measurement and observation.
    Religion is a social construct based on no science. It has zero relevance to Science. Geoff.

    • Geoff,

      “Religion is a social construct based on no science.”

      You have no possible way of knowing that all religion is merely social construct, right?

      And if some is more than that, then it might have great relevance to science, right?

      You can leave off the “I believe”, but that doesn’t make it more than that, right?

      • Yes it is as it could not exist without the human mind and what we call “society”. Like global temperatures, we made it up! Prove that wrong!

      • “But isn’t “Climate Science” a social construct based on religiosity? ”

        No, it’s based on a scientific theory . . obviously . .

        Some folks seem to me to have an almost worshipful attitude toward “science” in the establishment/community sense, to the point of being unable to face that “it” can be corrupted, and become a servant of nasty things/people, so they call it “religion”, to preserve their (to my mind) childlike faith in “science” . . (peace be upon it ; )

    • But isn’t “Climate Science” a social construct based on religiosity? Certainly, the social dynamic is identical. “Believe as we do — or burn in hell.”

      It’s the same old story — terrorize people with a false, apocalyptic paradigm, then offer them hope of salvation — if they repent. Smart people find it easier to believe in the End Times if the narrative is illuminated with formulae and equations.

  21. A very good essay. One point on Galileo. He got a fair hearing and abused the opportunity. Jesuits were supporting Kepler at the same time – not accusing him of being in the pay of Big Satan.

    • Thank you, Robert B. for pointing this out. Galileo was a brilliant but contentious man, who let his vituperative tongue get him in hot water with the Church. He was not the avatar of Science his iconography portrays.

      • Reminds me of the Hollywood Ten and their behavior before HUAC, which is what got them their jail terms; although I have a suspicion that in this case they were following orders – so that they could become martyrs.

    • Jesuits did not support Kepler’s Copernican views. All elements of the Catholic Church were opposed to heliocentrism.

      Galileo did not get a fair hearing on the merits of his case. He did tick off the pope, his former friend. But to assert that the Church dispassionately assessed the merits of geocentrism v heliocentrism is ridiculous.

  22. We will know we’ve turned THE corner when other, major, universities (Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Yale etc) write to Dr Brady and ask him to address their alumni! (It could be a long wait.)

Comments are closed.