Annual General Meeting 2002:
10 September 2002
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I present the Annual Report for the Lavoisier Group for the
The major event for the year was the conference held on September
10th and 11th, 2001 at the Stamford Hotel here in Melbourne. It
was followed by the Annual General Meeting. A few hours later
the two towers of the World Trade Centre were destroyed by terrorists,
and two other hijacked planes were also destroyed, one crashing
into the Pentagon, the other crashing into the ground in Pennsylvania.
Papers from that conference are available on our Website.
Apart from the presented papers and the debates which took
place at the conference, the occasion provided an important opportunity
for members and friends to get together and establish networking
Since the conference, The Lavoisier Group has published two
pamphlets, the first entitled The Kyoto Protocol---Should Australia
Ratify? and the second entitled The Kyoto Protocol
and Global Warming by Sallie Baliunas, Deputy Director
of the Mount Wilson Observatory and an eminent astrophysicist
from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.
Dr Baliunas is a key participant in the debates on global warming
in the US and this monograph is an authoritative summary of the
current state of greenhouse science. The Lavoisier Group has distributed
these pamphlets as widely as possible, and I wish to thank those
of our members who have taken on the role of proselytisers in
the cause of rational argument and serious debate.
Two of our members, Bob Foster and Ian Castles, represented
the Lavoisier Group at a workshop conducted by the Australian
Academy for Technological Sciences and Engineering (AATSE) to
review an Addendum to their 1995 Report on Climate Change on April
4 last. Although our representatives were arguing against people
who have invested a great deal in global warming, it was good
that they able to present in person the evidence now accumulating
against the Kyoto protagonists.
A high proportion of the Lavoisier Group membership has qualifications
and experience in science or technology, and has been drawn into
this debate because of concerns about the integrity of the science
which purports to justify the Kyoto Protocol, and the global regime
of decarbonisation which the proponents of the Protocol, such
as President Chirac of France, seek to impose.
There is a new development, however, in the Kyoto debate which
may be just as important as the debate about the science. One
of our members, Ian Castles AO, who was formerly Australian Statistician,
and who is internationally recognised for his expertise in the
field of comparative statistics, took it upon himself to examine
carefully the assumptions and methodology behind the IPCC's predictions
of global CO2 emissions during the 21st
century. These predictions provided the input data for the climate
modelling which in turn led to the temperature rises forecast
by the IPCC spokesmen at the Shanghai meeting in January last
of between 1.4 and 5.8 degrees Celsius.
What Castles found was that the assumptions and methodology
used by the IPCC statistical modellers were profoundly flawed.
So flawed, indeed, that the lack of integrity of the whole IPCC
process is now beyond argument. At the heart of the scandal is
the use of exchange rates rather than Purchasing Power Parity
(PPPs) as the means of comparing economic growth trajectories.
I quote from a recent article by Castles published in the Canberra
By adopting the long-discredited method of converting incomes
into a common currency using current exchange rates, the IPCC
modellers greatly overstated the size of the development gap,
but there are two more fundamental objections to the modellers'
First, living standards in the developing countries in 2100
will depend on their actual economic growth during the
coming century. No significant country has ever achieved a 20-fold
increase in output per head in a century, let alone the 30-fold
or 70-fold increases projected by the IPCC for most of the world's
Second, and paradoxically, the IPCC's model-builders are hostile
to wealth per se. They are obsessed by the belief that
growth in productivity and affluence leads to unacceptable growth
in greenhouse emissions. For example, they argue that 'if governments
support the development of rapid growth sectors, the tendency
may be to promote long-term economic growth, increase household
income and consumption, and hence increase GHG emissions.'
It has been difficult to persuade cabinet ministers and senior
bureaucrats to consider the possibility that the science behind
Kyoto is deeply flawed. This may well because there are few people
with scientific or technical training within their ranks. But
Ian Castles' discovery of fraudulent social science within the
IPCC changes the situation. Ministers can readily understand the
nature of the frauds that have been perpetrated here, and we can
look forward to them facing some hard questions, requiring honest
answers, in the immediate future.
For the associated Press Release, please click here: