Andrew Kenny - Climate Change Denialist

I am becoming convinced that this Andrew Kenny gets far too much media space. The rubbish he talks needs to be rebutted for once and for all. His Lomborg inspired dithering, confabulation and dissembly of reality simply places his bullshit in perspective.

This man is not only a danger to himself but to our planetary ecosystems and is a prime example of how supposedly well educated people need not possess an iota of common sense. His rant shows why those pushing technology have landed us in the trouble that we are in. He seems to have mounted a one man anti earth day campaign that cannot, in the name of democratic discourse, be allowed to stand unchallenged.

My responses to Kennys disinformation and falsehoods are in RED and the hyperlinks to related articles should be in blue.

Superstition, not science, feeds top folly of our age
March 27, 2009

From Independent Newspapers Business Report
http://www.busrep.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=553&fArticleId=4908350
By Andrew Kenny

Man-made global warming, the notion that mankind is changing the world's climate in a dangerous way, never had much grounding in science. Kennys initial assertion is false – a strong scientific case has been built over the last two decades and more that anthropogenic (human induced) global warming is real. The IPCC report should be sufficient for most. But note how throughout his article he continuously hedges his terms. Never had MUCH grounding. His tacit admission there is a some grounding for climate change, but its not much, or perhaps not enough for him, is revealing in itself. It has now departed from proper science altogether and become a millennial religion of rich people in rich countries. Here Kenny inserts the first of his false flag points, by attempting to diminish the scientific consensus that is not only established but is continuously broadening. He sounds a lot like those evangelists who insist that Darwin is wrong and we are not related to chimpanzees. This is where he introduces his theme of casting aspersions on those concerned about global warming by equating them to faith based fundamentalist religious zealots. Instead of actually providing facts he resorts to cheap name calling in his first two sentences and builds the foundation of his burning straw man.

We can expect the well-funded Jeremiahs (here is another interesting abuse of reference that shows that Kenny is only trying to be clever, yet fails abysmally. Jeremiah was a prophet who was ignored and who was eventually proven correct in his predictions. Kenny wanted to say the opposite but in trying to be clever has tripped himself up, not for the first time). of climate change to produce apocalyptic warnings (in fact the International Panel on Climate Change has been rather conservative, not at all apocalyptic – yet another example of exaggeration for its own sake and abuse of religious symbolism) of disaster (sea levels rising by metres, disappearing ice caps and other such nonsense – this is not nonsense, there is proof a plenty that the north polar ice cap has markedly shrunk in recent times, that Greenlands' icesheet and glaciers are melting faster than ever before, and faster than scientific predictions have suggested and even that Antarctica could be being affected long before scientific predictions suggest that this could happen.) before the Copenhagen climate negotiations in December, where the faithful (another religiously disparaging and misplaced remark that attempts to belittle those urging action, instead of engaging in any substantiative manner) hope to persuade governments to damage their economies with foolish efforts to reduce greenhouse emissions. Here is an out and out egregious lie – this is not about damaging economies, it is about changing the direction of our present economic folly that has not only landed us in a massive ecological crisis but has tripped itself up through overreach and greed, landing us in an unprecedented global economic crisis that Kenny must deny in concert with climate change, in order to be consistent! We need to examine the reality that issues beyond the climate crisis; pollution, overfishing, resource extraction, rainforest destruction, etc. are all the result of an unsustainable economic model and system. The alternative to the present economic model is not more of the same but a new way of doing business, of growing economies, in ways that Kenny obviously hates – by building entire new industries around sustainable energy and moving away as rapidly as possible from his beloved nuclear energy, while embracing other of his shibboleths.

There is overwhelming scientific evidence (au contraire, there is none. If there was would thousands of climate scientists, mathematicians, statisticians, geologists, biologists, etc etc have said we are in crisis? See reference above to the IPCC and choose if you would prefer to trust those scientists, who ARE qualified to speak about their domains of expertise, or should you instead trust a well known lobbyist for nuclear power and a well known conservative commentator who is published by the likes of the Spectator, that hoary old UK Conservative party mouthpiece. Who hangs out with the intellectual likes of these fools?) that the slight warming of the 20th century was perfectly natural - no different from previous natural warming periods. It had little, if anything, to do with rising levels of carbon dioxide (CO2).
Kenny here deems himself a climate expert by glibly dismissing the work of thousands far better qualified than he in this field. Kenny starts to make his position clear, not as a the scientist he claims to be, but as an ideologue, driving a conservative agenda for business as usual and nuclear power as a solution – in short more of the same he has railed on about for years, with nothing to show. Global warming is not part of some mysterious natural trend, or series of myths that Kenny loves to hang with, it is now clearly linked to human interference in global ecosystems.
During the medieval warm period, which was worldwide, (it was not, it was mainly European – ice cores, tree rings and lake deposits show that the global climate at this time was in fact cooler than even the early 20th century, illustrating yet another Kenny falsehood) from about 900 to 1200 AD, temperatures (again, the northern hemisphere, mainly in Europe) were rather higher (rather higher, how much is rather higher? Data shows less than a half a degree higher than the long term average, and cooler than at present! Lets not mention that experts suggest that we could have temperature increases of between 2 and 6 degrees by the end of this century if we continue as at present.) than now, while CO2 levels were lower (this is also off the point and there are several well documented reasons why this occurred such as interference with the Atlantic conveyor (thermohaline circulation) higher tree cover due to low population and hence higher CO2 uptake, etc etc. Again Kenny, mimicking the discredited Bjorn Lomborg, chooses to use selective and misleading references and quotations).

This is confirmed by hundreds of scientific studies and by historical record. (Again, on the contrary, these red herrings constantly floated by the fossil fuel and other business interests have been roundly debunked, time and again, see above hyperlinks.) During this period the Vikings had a colony in Greenland, growing crops where it is now too cold for them. (Hmm interesting. Greenland is now growing crops and raising cattle just as occurred during the slightly warmer northern hemisphere weather, that was NOT global. Here it is what Kenny chooses NOT to disclose that is revealing! Of course there is no global warming Mr Kenny, its just a statistical anomaly, not a reality, that Greenland is getting warmer.)

CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas (by far the most vital is water vapour) (which, Kenny fails to inform, only has an average residual life of around a week, while CO2 etc remains in the atmosphere for hundreds or even thousands of years), whose only significant absorption band is already saturated. CO2 has never been seen to affect global temperatures (Oh really? Why then was it so hot when CO2 levels were so high all those millions of years ago then Mr Kenny? Boy oh boy, this chap is full of contradictions!), although of course temperatures can affect it, because cooling oceans dissolve more of it, removing it from the air, and vice versa with warming oceans. (Not entirely true, another selective look at what happens and an even more misleading explanation thereof) In the past 500 million years, CO2 levels have averaged above 2 000 parts per million (ppm). (again we have sweeping generalisations long propagated by the climate change deniers, led by the Exxons and other pro-fossil fuel industry lobbyists and climate change denialists around the world. In fact historically high CO2 levels are associated with periods of natural extinction and much warmer global periods, so Kenny is yet again arguing against himself, being surface smart but profoundly stupid. The problem is he has failed to research his topic properly, or alternatively he is attempting hard to prove a point based on fallacies, resulting in his tripping himself up. Yet again. These historic events of high CO2 levels are thought to have been caused by volcanic activity, meteors, etc and not by the anthropogenic effects that we are now experiencing, although dinosaur farts or rotting vegetation, etc. may have had something to do with it! Which leads to another very important fact Kenny is wilfully ignoring – the presence of other greenhouse gasses(GHG) such as methane are also presently increasing. Methane is a far more potent GHG and is starting to be liberated by the rapid melting of permafrost around the Arctic, creating what is known as a positive feedback loop that will exacerbate climate change. The problem is not nearly as simple as Kenny would paint it, or perhaps as simple as his reasoning ability is.)

They are now below 400ppm, extraordinarily low, way below the optimum level for most green plants, upon which we depend. (What nonsense! Below the optimum level for plants! This leads to the straw man so favoured by the fossil fuel lobbyists and the Bjorn Lomborgs of the world that increased GHG in the atmosphere is going to be good for farming (and a whole lot of other things )as we will be able to farm further north and plants will grow better as more CO2 is available. These are simply fairy stories that Kenny appears to have read to his children a few times too often.)

The main cause of climate change seems to be solar variation, especially as it affects cloud formation. (oho, this hoary old chestnut had to come up again – climate change is caused by sun spots and solar variation – yet another myth propagated by the climate change denialists. We are presently in a time of solar minimum activity and warming is continuing unabated. We are headed for a predicted solar max around 2012, which according to Kennys loony theory below, would again exacerbate, not diminish, the already serious problems we face.) Clouds are all-important in determining our climate. Cosmic rays from beyond our solar system penetrate our atmosphere and produce low clouds by giving them nucleation sites. (Wow! Cosmic rays now cause clouds according to this fellow? He is clearly relying on the debunked theories of Svensemark and others , promoted where? On Junk Science an internet website that is dedicated, amongst other things, to denying climate change whenever possible. What science has shown is that clouds are formed by water accumulation around dust, and notably around sulphur and other molecules liberated by plankton in the seas. Which are being affected by decreased alkalinity because CO2 acidifies the oceans....... But then Kenny does not like a few facts to get in the way....which leads me to my next rebuttal of his rubbish. Clouds form around particulate pollution caused by burning fossil fuels and other fires, etc. and are not caused by cosmic rays!! This sort of cloud generation is known as masking, where pollution particles, beside liberating CO2, also cause increased cloudiness and thus reflect sunlight out, thus masking the effects of increased CO2 levels. But Kenny wants us to believe clouds are caused by cosmic rays now. Clearly he loves junk science! This must be his best joke yet, if you still have a sense of humour!)

The low clouds cause cooling by reflecting away incoming sunlight. (You look down upon them when you are flying.) The more cosmic rays, the more low clouds, and the colder it gets. (next we will have spacemen making clouds – or perhaps its just Kennys rotten logic. When we have clouds the earth looses less heat to space. For instance the coldest nights are clear nights, the warmest are occluded. This is known. But Kenny would stand all of this on its head and try to tell us that black is white. In fact the role played by clouds and global warming is far too complex to even debate in this space but then Kenny apparently loves to cherry pick his facts and not have to rely on in depth engagement.)

When the sun is active, the solar wind deflects the cosmic rays, there are fewer low clouds - and the warmer it gets. (Now its the solar wind.......more like to much wind from the Kenny windbag! Again, Kenny is reaching into the realms of far right pseudo-science to support his case.)

The coldest climate of the last 10 000 years happened in the 17th century during the "Maunder minimum", when the sun was unusually inactive. (this is a highly specious argument based on little proof. We do know there was a lot of volcanic activity at this time (Krakatoa anyone?) And that was not the only influence. Kenny is again being highly selective in his quotes) By contrast, the sun was active in the 20th century, which may explain the warming then. (Do I sense a hint of an admission here? MAY explain the warming. So there is now warming? And its just because the sun is hot? If the topic was not so serious Kenny could be writing comedy)

Since 2007, CO2 levels have risen, (no, they rise every year and are rising ever faster, not since 2007 but for the past couple of centuries) the sun has become very quiet and global temperatures have plunged, (Note the use of the evocative adverb 'plunged'. Interesting they have plunged so much that 2008 was still in the top 10 hottest years on record, and 2007 was a full half a degree above average. But lets not let the facts get in the way shall we?) bringing record cold and snow at locations around the world. (gosh, cold and snow?!! What about heat and floods, cyclones, hurricanes, all of the other things associated with global warming. Gobal warming is epitomised by so called unpredictable weather patterns. Which has made Etosha pan fill in the past two rainy seasons, for instance. And Mozambique flood almost annually, etc etc) This, perhaps the biggest environment story of the past two years, has been almost entirely ignored by the big media. (Why? Because once you really start looking it is not a story at all, unless you like fairy stories like Mr Kenny clearly does! The media tends to pursue facts, not fairy stories.)

We do not know if the cooling will continue, but let's hope not, because cooling is far more dangerous than warming. (ooh, now I am really scared. We are going to get cold! Which of course is nonsense because we are not, we are getting HOTTER Mr Kenny the bogus scientist. Your credibility is going down the drain. Rapidly.)

The head of the Church of Global Warming is the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It contains good scientists, bad scientists, political activists and functionaries. Its managers select, distort and ignore evidence to promote one view only: that mankind is damaging the climate. It is essentially a politically funded advocacy group. It is rich and powerful. (here lies the centrepiece of Kennys credo of falsehood, the issues that annoy him so. That the IPCC is somehow driving an agenda. No, not even that, it is worse. That it is a CHURCH!! Where facts and science are not used but where blind belief is at the core of what these so called BAD scientists, political activists (like George Bush and Dick Cheney and John Bolton and Condoleeza Rice – who had a supertanker named after her? I suppose these are the activists?) and of course the functionaries, whatever they are. Kenny is an unabashed abuser of rhetoric and more importantly truth and ethics. It is fine and well to say what he says if it is clearly identified as opinion, which is what it is. But he goes too far when he tries to dress up his lies, distortions and outright bullshit as fact and science when it is nothing but tired corporate fossil fuel and pro nuclear-capitalist hogwash dressed up in its bankers pin striped suit.)

The defining moment for the IPCC came in 2001 in its third assessment report, when it published the infamous Mann curve, or "hockey stick curve" showing temperatures in the northern hemisphere dropping slightly from the year 1000 to 1850, then suddenly rising to unprecedented highs in 2000.

The embarrassing medieval warm period had been removed from history! (because my dear man, in the big picture, the warm period of was only half a degree above mean, it was a hiccup, not a trend)

The Mann curve was instantly hailed by the faithful as the revealed truth. (Umm, because it was, perhaps?) In fact, it was a piece of scientific quackery and has since been utterly discredited. Ross McKitrick, a statistical expert, has written a detailed and devastating account of this perversion of science, What is the Hockey Stick Debate About? ( Need we do more than quote Mr Twain about lies, damn lies and statistics? Come now Mr Kenny, should we rely on some fossil fuel and conservative lobby groups internet postings, or should we perhaps trust the most widely researched published piece of climate data ever assembled by hundreds of experts from dozens of different fields of climatology, including statistics? Come Mr Kenny, lets see if we can let you relay trash your credibility yet further) (The perpetrators of the hockey stick now run an overheated website called www.realclimate.org.) (the perpetrators? As in criminal I presume? Yet more neutral, scientific language from a self proclaimed scientist? Overheated debate? Perhaps www.realclimate.org is run by those who agree with true science, not tired, hackneyed trying to “fit facts to ideology thinking” that has no real substance at all!)

Climate alarm seems to fit some deep-rooted human need for a religious moral: we have sinned (by our industrial society), we face disaster (by the planet warming dangerously) and we must repent and change our ways (by forsaking fossil fuels).

(oh goodness, do I really need to rebut this drivel? A man who calls himself a scientist dares to write this? This is not science it is a fundamentally flawed op-ed written by a dogmatic pusher of nuclear energy as a solution to the worlds ills. What is really surprising is that he gets the column inches he does. He cannot be paid for this dross surely?

FACTS Mr Kenny. If Anthropogenic climate change does create positive feedback loops as it is doing at present we are in extremely serious hot water. It is not about sinning, it is about abusing our global environmental capital to the extent that we have fouled our nest beyond a point where it may be possible to save anything resembling what we assume to be normal. Your opinion, for it is that and that alone, is utterly misinformed and clearly runs in parallel with those whose interests lie in attempting to debunk anything to do with global warming being real. Were you a flat earther I would ignore you. But your version of flat earthing is so outrageously dangerous that it cannot be allowed to stand unchallenged. And it shall not, while I still draw breath.)

It is a lucrative religion, providing jobs, funding, travel and conferences for a huge international congregation of academics, journalists, activists and bureaucrats.

Another egregious yet ironic generalisation. If Kenny opened his eyes to the reality he would realise that an entire new economy, that may even have the chance to rectify some of the mistakes we have collectively made, can be undone in a way that is profitable, that creates employment, that is beneficial to the poor as well as the rich. Even the United Nations supports this shift, for goodness sake. For Mr Kenny you continually ignore an important point, and that is that it is already the poor who suffer most from the effects of climate change. It is not a rich man's debate. It is a debate about poverty – a poverty that will eventually effect every single person on this planet if we do not sort out this challenge we have before us)

I am struck by the fact that so many of those promoting the scare have no training in the physical sciences or even a basic grasp of thermodynamics and heat transfer, upon which understanding of the climate depends. (And here we must presume that you do. Oh wait, you don't hesitate to tell us that you are now an expert in thermodynamics of late. And no doubt that makes you a climate expert too. That is a bridge too far, I am afraid and instead of benefiting your scientific kudos you simply continue to do it damage. I am really surprised that the University of Cape Town would permit its name to be associated itself with someone supporting such a clearly partisan perspective. Of course those 'Promoting the scare' as Kenny puts it are just a bunch of wild hippy tree hugging ignorant yahoos, not highly qualified, hard nosed scientists of far higher calibre than Kenny has shown himself to be.) They have nothing but faith (of course not, they have not a single fact at hand, its all faith based. It IPCC report is just so much hot air, according to you and your acolytes, linked comprehensively in this critique. At least they do not resort to evocative, emotional and manipulative language to anything like the extent to which you do, at every possible turn) and simply recite the litany of the IPCC (again the religious association) and former US vice-president Al Gore's atrocious film (here I must agree. Al Gore failed to spell out what was causing the problem. He refused to say that big oil, big corporations that have bought political influence are the problem and must be reined in. While Gores facts were far far better researched and presented than Kennys will ever be, Gore is far to deeply in the thrall to the political/ corporate nexus to have called a spade a fucking shovel and put the blame and responsibility where it should be – in the lap of corporate power.)

By far the best technology to reduce greenhouse emissions is nuclear power - clean, safe, economic, sustainable and emitting among the least greenhouse gases over the full energy cycle. (Ah yes, somewhere in this drivel had to come the paean to nukes, of course as usual ignoring facts and hiding reality amongst rhetoric. Like emitting “among” the least GHGs, which is of course nonsense because 'amongst what' is the comparison drawn? Yet another illustration of Kenny over-reaching his logic to a point of toppling into the precipice of misinformation. Nuclear power plants have been shown to produce around 35% of the CO2 of a conventional coal powered power station over their full life cycle, as well as producing vast amounts of radioactive material that will remain toxic to all life on earth for thousands and even millions of years. For which there is as yet no agreed upon disposal method, besides Kenny promising us that one is on the way....okay, lets just do that and trust this veritable nuclear Galileo, shall we?)

The worst technology is the one favoured by most of the faithful, (religious association, yet again, of course used as disparagingly as possible) wind turbines - hopelessly expensive, unreliable, and a proven failure wherever they have been used. (It is interesting that wind energy can now be produced at a cost on par with that of coal power stations, oil and other fossil fuelled sources and way way below that of Nuclear. There would be no nuclear energy were it not for government subsidies and lets be totally clear on that. Far from being a proven failure, wind energy is a burgeoning success, even in the USA, where it would not be accepted if it was not profitable. Why else are they the fastest growing form of energy generation in the world – because they are a failure? ) You need massive machines to give even small amounts of electricity. "Gigantic is Beautiful!" might well be the slogan of the wind lobby. (They are not massive machines, their footprints are tiny, they pay back the energy used in construction in a year or two and produce power for decades. Agriculture can continue below and around them. They do not kill birds as you have claimed in the past – that used to happen with the old, small ones. The large ones swing so slowly that birds easily avoid them. I have sailed around the world with a wind generator at the back of my boat and only one dumb booby was daft enough to fly into it and flew off with a sore head and no other visible damage.)

To provide the same amount of electricity as a standard Eskom coal station, you would require more than 5 500 wind turbines, each more than 90m high - higher than the Statue of Liberty (assuming 25 000 gigawatt hours a year for the coal station, two-megawatt capacity for each wind turbine and a generous 25 percent load factor for wind power). These would come at enormous cost, massive disruption to the environment - and on a still day they would give you not one kilowatt-hour of electricity. (More foolish, tired rubbish? How about the fact that you completely ignore the external costs of energy generation from coal? The health and environmental costs? What about solar energy, what about ocean based energy forms? If the billions that have to date been wasted on the Kenny wet dream of the PBMR were spent on current generators based along our East coast we would not only be world leaders in clean renewable energy but would be selling the stuff everywhere and creating jobs. Instead Kennys blinkered world view has been instrumental in holding back progress toward alternative energy sources in South Africa by decades. Now he will scream hysterically if his multi billion nuclear toy, the PBMR, is about to be canned? I am surprised that our media even bothers to print his drivel.)

Man-made global warming is an expensive and wasteful distraction from the real environmental problems of our planet: disappearing wildlife, polluted water, land degradation and the ravages of mass poverty.

(And I closed the last paragraph to call this man a fool and here he shows not just why he is a fool but how much of fool he is. Because he is so blinded by his picky, isolated world-view that he is incapable of perceiving that the issues he raises above – ecosystem destruction, water depletion and pollution, poverty and so forth, are each and all intimately connected to his destructive, extractive perspective of how we should do business and how he considers we should make this world a better place. He is too much of a fool to even be able examine his myopic world-view and see anything wrong with it and that it is the problem and not the solution? Adjusting to climate change is not just about doing away with a Nuclear PBMR or coal power. Its about building, its about creativity, its about a world that is better for us and for our children and that can help the poor and the dispossessed. Kenny is just flat out wrong.)

Fortunately, hundreds of the world's leading scientists, growing in number, are publicly explaining and speaking out against the superstition of climate change, the greatest folly of our age.

(More tiresomely predictable tosh – There is not any consensus amongst those opposed to climate change. Bjorn Lomborg, Kennys bedfellow, who wrote a book calling climate change pretty much the same sort of thing that Kenny does, was shown to have used selective quotations (as Kenny does) to have falsified statistics, to have basically used dishonest arguments (as Kenny does) and has been proven to be little more than an apologist for big business, as is Kenny.

If anything is a folly of our age it is giving space for fools like Kenny to spout the nonsense, lies, distortions and disinformation that they do. This man should for once and for all go and swim in a nuclear waste swimming pool and save the rest of the world a lot of wasted paper and time.

# Andrew Kenny is a consulting engineer with degrees in physics and mechanical engineering. His career, which has lately focused on thermodynamics, has spanned working in Eskom power stations, research at the University of Cape Town and the nuclear power industry.