jump to navigation

SOLAR INFLUENCE UNDERESTIMATED by Professor Will Alexander January 26, 2009

Posted by honestclimate in Discussions.
Tags: , , ,
1 comment so far


Professor Will Alexander

Professor Will Alexander

By Professor Will Alexander

Via Email, January 26, 2009

Until now the climate alarmists exploited their untouchable status within the shelter of the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. This has come to an end.

Our studies confirm that variations in received solar energy and not atmospheric discharges by burning fossil fuels are far and away the dominant cause of climate variability.

We can demonstrate beyond doubt that reductions in greenhouse gas emissions will not have the slightest effect on South Africa’s climate now or in the future.

Please distribute the attached memo widely.

Memo 07/09

Climate change – solar influence underestimated

Monday 26 January 2009


The scientific advisers to the South African Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism have created the impression that climate change is one of the greatest threats to our planet and to our people.

This statement is totally false and misleading.

As shown in this memo, during the past five years the range of received solar energy was 28 units compared with a range of only 1.6 units resulting from human activities.

Reducing undesirable emissions arising from burning fossil fuels will not have any measurable effect on climatic processes.

This conclusion is confirmed by comprehensive studies of our extensive hydro-climatic database during the past 30 years. These studies demonstrated the unequivocal linkage with variations in solar activity and complete lack of evidence of the effects of human activities.

The Minister is urged to appoint an independent, multi-disciplinary commission of enquiry to advise him before he commits South Africa to undertake costly and fruitless measures that can only damage our economy at a time of a global economic recession and rising unemployment.

The Minister is further informed that South Africa has now entered a period when severe subcontinental droughts can be expected. The basis for this prediction has been denied by his advisers.

I must also record that the Minister’s advisers are well aware of our studies but have rejected my frequent suggestions that we meet to discuss our differences on this nationally important issue.

Midrand Summit

The Midrand Summit is only four weeks away. The South African authorities are about to make some irreversible decisions that will affect the future prosperity of our nation and its citizens. There will be no benefits — just penalties.

This might be in order if we were facing a national emergency but we are not. There is no enemy at our gates. The threats are entirely imaginary as this memo demonstrates.

I am reminded of Adolf Hitler’s infamous statement that the bigger the lie the more believable it will be. I also recall Winston Churchill’s rallying cry that we will fight them on the beaches, we will fight them on the landing grounds, —- we will never surrender.

Am I exaggerating? Here is yet another example of a big lie perpetrated by climate alarmists. It goes to the very heart of the issue.

I received several responses to my request for one-page contributions that challenge the underlying science of climate change. I have attached a one-page comment from Fred Bailey in the UK. Here is some background to his comments.

Everybody accepts that solar energy received on earth drives the earth’s climate. It must follow that changes in the received energy will result in corresponding changes in climate. It is also elementary knowledge that the magnitude of the received energy will depend on the earth’s distance from the sun.

The first thing that scientists should do is therefore to determine the magnitude of changes in the earth-to-sun distance and then calculate the corresponding changes in received energy. This is what Fred Bailey did. His results are attached. More details of the methods that he used are provided in his book Textbook of gravity, sunspots and climate. Details of the linkage with the earth’s climate are given in our five-authored, refereed paper Linkages between solar activity, climate predictability and water resource development. (Alexander, Bailey, Bredenkamp, van der Merwe and Willemse, in the Journal of the South African Institution of Civil Engineering, June 2007.)

In the attached note Fred Bailey demonstrates that wattage changes in the range of 30 Wm-2 have been taking place over millions of years. Compare this with the IPCC’s figures below.

The IPCC’s big lie

Climate alarmists have gone to great lengths to discredit the influence of variations in solar activity on climatic variations. They are forced to do this in order to establish their claims of exclusive human causality of undesirable climatic fluctuations. This is how they propagated their big lie. The emphases are mine. Note in particular that the IPCC’s variations are determined from proxy and satellite observations and not direct calculations. Why did they not carry out direct calculations based on the variations in the earth-to-sun distance? The answer is obvious.

IPCC third assessment report, 2001, working group 1, section C6.

Radiative forcing of the climate system due to solar irradiance change is estimated to be 0.3 ± -0.2Wm-2 for the period 1750 to the present. Most of the change is estimated to have occurred during the first half of the 20th century. The fundamental source of all energy in the earth’s climate system is radiation from the sun. Therefore, variation in solar output is a radiative forcing agent. The absolute value of the spectrally integrated total solar irradiance (TSI) incident on the earth is not known to better than about 4Wm-2, but satellite observations since the late 1970s show relative variations over the past two solar 11-year activity cycles of about 0.1%, which is equivalent to a variation in radiative forcing of about 0.2 Wm-2 . Variations over longer periods may have been larger, but the techniques used to reconstruct historical values of TSI from proxy observations (e.g.sunspots) have not been adequately verified.

IPCC fourth assessment report, 2007, working group 1, section 2.2.

There is a very high confidence that the global average net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming, with a radiative forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] Wm-2.

In comparison, changes in solar irradiance since 1750 are estimated to have caused a small radiative forcing of about +0.12 [+0.06 to + 0.30] Wm-2, which is less than half the estimate given in the third assessment report.

Figure 2.4 of the report provides the following radiative forcing components.

Long-lived greenhouse gasses: 2.14

Ozone: 0.30

Stratospheric water vapour: 0.07

Surface albedo: -0.1

Total aerosol: -1.2

Linear contrails: 0.01

Solar irradiance: 0.12

Total net anthropogenic: 1.6

However, Fred Bailey calculated that for the past five years the range was equal to 28 Wm-2 compared with the IPCC’s estimate of the anthropogenic component of 1.6 Wm-2 !

The solar influence is therefore 17.5 times greater than the human influence. No wonder the IPCC cooked the books.

For the past 30 years I have repeatedly demonstrated that there is NO evidence in the hydro-climatological data of human-caused abnormalities against the background of the undeniable evidence of the influence of variations in solar activity.

Midrand Summit

The IPCC’s fourth assessment report will be discussed at the Midrand Summit. It will be very interesting to hear how the presenter treats this problem. Will he quote the overwhelming ignorance of the vast majority of climate alarmists? How will he account for undeniable linkage with the hydroclimatological processes described in our joint paper?

Drought alert

For the past two years I have repeatedly drawn attention to the probable occurrence of severe global droughts from 2009 to 2016. This warning is described in detail in my article The likelihood of a global drought in 2009 – 2016 <click here to read>, published in Civil Engineering in June 2008.

There are already signs of a developing drought in parts of South Africa. Other parts of Africa are in the grip of a drought but confirmation is difficult. Argentina is also currently experiencing a severe drought. The country faces a potential loss of revenue from agricultural production of US$4.4 billion.

My prediction is based on the observed, regular and therefore predictable, periodicity in the hydrometeorological data. The existence of this periodicity is denied by climate alarmists.

Soon it will be far too late to take any action to avoid the consequences, particularly to the rural and farming communities as well as the water supply authorities.

[Fred Bailey’s comments are attached.]

UNVERIFIED HYPOTHESES by Professor Will Alexander January 23, 2009

Posted by honestclimate in Discussions.
Tags: , , ,
add a comment


Professor Will Alexander

Professor Will Alexander

By Professor Will Alexander

Via Email, January 22, 2009

What is our Minister hoping to achieve at the Midrand Summit?

The Summit is a closed event with no debate allowed on the science on which it is founded. Why is this? It must be obvious that there is something that the Minister’s advisers wish to withhold from public scrutiny. Some examples are given in the attached memo. There are more to follow.

Climate alarmists repeatedly claim that the science is settled. This statement is false. In this memo I demonstrate the opposite.

Our Minister and the people of this country are being seriously misled by corrupt science. It is practised by a handful of individuals who appear to have no concern for the welfare of our nation or its peoples.

Let me continue.

The opening sentence of the Summit information brochure is:

The South African government regards climate change as one of the greatest threats to our planet and our people.

Unfortunately the statement in itself is demonstrably false. If the situation is indeed so serious, why has the Minister not followed the normal procedure of appointing a multi-disciplinary commission of enquiry consisting of representatives of all the affected groups of our society, to advise him?

Instead he has chosen to rely on the advice of a few climatological and environmental extremists. It has become obvious that they have no wider knowledge in the engineering and applied sciences. They have no knowledge of all the economic and sociological consequences of their recommendations.

Furthermore, we are a rainbow nation struggling to overcome the inequalities of the past. Our nation is already suffering from the consequences of Eskom’s failure to keep up with the rising electricity demand. We are on the brink of running out of water as the demand exceeds the availability. Our rivers are becoming increasingly polluted. The economic recession has already resulted in job losses as mines and businesses start closing down.

Poverty is increasing, not decreasing. Crime and racial conflicts within the poorer communities are increasing.

Against all this background, the imposition of restrictions on emissions from our coal burning power stations, transport and other activities can only worsen the situation.

Moving to the international scene, all you have to do is to look at a map of the world. Note South Africa’s position surrounded by oceans at the southern tip of the African continent.

Can any sane person believe that any action that we take can have even the remotest effect on the world’s climate? Compare our emissions with the emissions of the countries in the northern hemisphere from the USA in the west, through Europe in the middle, and on to India and China in the east.

Why does the Minister not instruct his advisers to present him with the comparison of South Africa’s emissions in units, not percentages, with each of those of the world’s largest emitters? Don’t let them say that South Africa is the world’s 16th largest emitter. Insist that they provide the actual quantities. They will be very instructive.

I love my country and its people. I am not prepared to remain silent while a small group of intellectually challenged individuals are intent on forcing South Africa to its knees.

Memo 06/09

Climate change is an unverified hypothesis

Thursday 22 January 2009

Once again I must stress that my memos are not attacks on the integrity of individuals. They expose the unscientific practices that are misleading our government. These can cause incredible harm to our nation and its peoples. It is essential that they be brought to the attention of the authorities, the public, and the scientific profession. The forthcoming Midrand Summit is founded on false science. These are some examples.

In 2004 I was a member of a team of international experts appointed to advise the Japanese authorities on the establishment of an international water research institute. During a break, I asked the team what they thought of the climate change issue. The response was unanimous. It was nothing more than an unverified hypothesis.

This is the basic difference between pragmatic engineering approaches and theoretical climatological approaches. The fundamental requirement of all computer models in the engineering sciences is that the models must be developed using one or more datasets. The models then have to be verified using data not included in the development of the model. No engineer would consider using an unverified computer model.

Now compare this with a very recent example.

Alarmist predictions

I’m sure that it was a coincidence but the day after the distribution of my memo describing the SW Cape nonsense by 15 authors, the local Beeld newspaper carried an article on a paper published by Francois Engelbrecht and the others in the International Journal of Climatology. The headline of the newspaper article was that large parts of South Africa would be drier in future. The rainfall in the Limpopo region would decrease by up to 20% and in the SW Cape it would decrease by up to 30%.

These are dramatic decreases. But as in the case of the 15-authored SW Cape analyses, there are serious believability problems in the analyses.

Firstly, the predictions were based on the output of a single computer model. Secondly and most importantly, changes of this magnitude cannot occur suddenly. We are told that the emissions from burning fossil fuels have been increasing for at least the past 50 years. The decreases in rainfall should therefore be observable in the data. The first thing that the authors should have done was to verify their predictions by examining the long district rainfall records published by the South African Weather Service. This is what they would have found.

District 4 is in the extreme SW Cape that includes Cape Town. It is in the winter rainfall area. District 35 on the other hand, is in the Limpopo region. This is at the very opposite end of South Africa. It is deep in the summer rainfall region.

The histogram of the data for District 4 in the SW Cape region shows a steady increase in rainfall during the period of record. Trend analyses also show an increase in District 35. From this information alone it is clear that there are fundamental errors in the climate computer model used by Engelbrecht.

As a matter of interest, Districts 33 to 35 are in the Kruger National Park. The rainfall in the Kruger National Park also shows no decrease during the period of record. This exposes the fraudulent claims that the wildlife in our national park are at risk due to climate change. I will return to this in a later memo.

Now we can go one step further. I carried out comprehensive analyses that are described in my 474 page technical report Climate change and its consequences — an African perspective. I demonstrated that there was a 9% increase in South African rainfall during the period from 1921 to the end of the century. My report has 51 tables, 33 figures and 218 references.

Report of UK Met Office at Bali

The Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office was once an esteemed institution. At the Bali conference it produced a document titled New science for managing climate risks. In a section titled Water – drought and flooding, it produced a table postulating percentage changes in the flow of the major rivers of the world as a result of climate change. It claimed that there would be a 30.6% increase in the flow in the Congo River, while there would be a 34.9% decrease in the flow in the Zambezi River. How is this possible when these two rivers have adjacent headwater catchments?

This is pure alarmist nonsense. Once again these uninformed climatologists failed to calibrate their models with real-world data.

Publications like this distributed at an international conference on climate change are thoroughly unprofessional and misleading. This table does not contain information on a single river in Europe or North America. The obvious reason is that these fallacies could be easily checked by hydrologists in these continents. The Hadley Centre relied on the assumption that there are no intelligent hydrologists in the river catchments listed in their table.

Marion Island

The uninhabited Marion Island is located in the cold seas between South Africa and the Antarctic. A manned South African weather station is in operation on the island. In an article published in the South African Journal of Science, a climatologist discussed the influence of global warming on the single glacier on the island. He produced two photographs. One taken in 1966 showed a glacier prominently in the foreground. The other taken in 2005 showed that the glacier had disappeared. It was claimed that this was due to global warming.

However, a closer examination shows that the latter photograph was an enlargement of the barren background of the 1966 photograph. No subsequent apology was offered.

Other conscientious climatologists have also published papers on the climate of Marion Island. Now their conclusions are marred by this single example of unscientific opportunism.

Technology transfer

I watched President Obama’s inaugural address on TV while the writing this memo. It was very inspiring. I’m sure that all reasonable people of the world will wish him success in achieving his objectives.

On Wednesday, our local newspapers headlined his inauguration with lots of praise. One of the newspapers also carried an article on an inner page. Our Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism was in Washington. He informed the new administration of the ambitious plans that South Africa intends implementing to reduce our undesirable emissions. He ended up by informing his hosts that technology transfer and financial assistance from developed to developing nations is essential for addressing climate change on a global scale.

Our Minister obviously hopes to be able to inform the Midrand Summit that he was successful in obtaining technology transfer and financial assistance from the new American administration. Even if he is successful he is taking a huge risk. I have not seen a single report that predicts that all nations will commit themselves to undertake meaningful measures to reduce their emissions at the Copenhagen conference at the end of this year. Surely our nation has higher priorities.

Once again the Minister’s scientific advisers are misleading him. Firstly, carbon capture and storage technology does not exist. Secondly, and more importantly, the developing nations of Africa simply do not have the technological expertise to implement it. We discussed technology transfer at United Nations discussions on natural disaster mitigation. We decided that it was simply impractical in most African countries.

Let me give you an example.

One of our meetings was held at Gigiri outside Nairobi. It is the headquarters of the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP). A member of the UNEP staff addressed us. He complained that the nations of Africa were not implementing the recommended environmental conservation measures.

After he completed his presentation I stood up. I challenged him to walk out of the room and along the road towards Nairobi. On the way he would pass through a squatter settlement on the banks of a stream. I asked him to imagine what the reaction of the squatters would be if he requested them to stop cutting down the indigenous vegetation for firewood, and cease polluting the stream with sewage effluent. Would they heed his demands?

This is the embarrassing situation that our Minister is in. He has chosen to listen to the advice of climate alarmists. Their only source of information is unverified climate models and refereed papers in the literature. Their practical knowledge of the real-world situations is close to zero. Now the people of South Africa must suffer from their ignorance.

Summit questions

The Climate Change Summit invitation makes frequent references to the science of climate change and recent developments. It will be fascinating to see how the 15-authored SW Cape report that I discussed in my earlier memo, the examples in this memo, and my 474-page technical report will feature in the summit presentations.


Will Alexander

CORRUPT SCIENCE by Professor Will Alexander January 20, 2009

Posted by honestclimate in Discussions.
Tags: , , ,
add a comment

CORRUPT SCIENCE by Professor Will Alexander

Professor Will Alexander

Professor Will Alexander

Via Email, January 20, 2009
Dear all,


This is the first of my memos directly targeted at the Midrand Summit on climate change.

My apologies for overloading you with all these memos, but this is a vitally important national and international event.

It is most important that my memos be distributed to South African scientists so that they can appreciate the damage that is being done in the name of science. There is more to follow.

Memo 05/09

Climate summit. Corrupt science

Tuesday 20 January 2009

Alexandra Township, Johannesburg.

I took this photograph in Alexandra Township. The flimsy shacks are built on an old refuse dump that is now being eroded away by the river. A large tree has already collapsed into the river. The wreckage of a Volkswagen Beetle had its roof stripped off to be used for the construction of a shack. The Jukskei River in the foreground is the most polluted river in South Africa. This is because of the complete lack of sanitation facilities in the shacks along its banks.

This Township is less than 20 km from the summit venue. How dare our Ministry of Environmental Affairs and Tourism hold an expensive four-day summit on climate change, attended by 600 delegates, when thousands of people are living in abject poverty within 20 minutes driving distance from Midrand?

I have been involved in searching for solutions to these difficult sociological problems for more than 15 years. Resulting from my work in Alexandra, I was appointed by the United Nations Secretary-General as a member of the United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters. This United Nations body functioned at the same time as another United Nations body the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

However, there was no communication between the two bodies. This was for the simple reason that our studies demonstrated without doubt that increases in the loss of life from natural disasters were due to growing human populations and forced occupation of areas exposed to floods and droughts. The photograph above is an example.

Our thorough studies demonstrated that there was no evidence of increases in the frequency or magnitude of floods and droughts. This is not what the UNFCCC wanted to hear.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988 by two high level international agencies. These were the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO), and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). It has produced several assessment reports at roughly five-yearly intervals. The latest was issued in 2007. From the beginning, the approach adopted by the IPCC was directly contrary to the recommendations of other United Nations bodies. The claims of increases in floods and droughts have no substance.

Search for solutions

The development of solutions to this very important sociological problem is very difficult. I described it in my United Nations commissioned study Risk and Society – an African Perspective that was published in 1999.

Coincidentally, another United Nations initiative was published at the same time. This was the Declaration on Science and the Use of Scientific Knowledge. It was the output of a combined UNESCO/ICSU World Conference on Science held at Budapest, Hungary in June 1999. It emphasised the need for vigorous scientific debate and multidisciplinary approaches to the difficult problems of the future.

These are some extracts from the Budapest Declaration. The emphases are mine.

We seek active collaboration across all the fields of scientific endeavour, i.e. the natural sciences such as the physical, earth and biological sciences, the biomedical and engineering sciences, and the social and human sciences.

Today, there is need for a vigorous and informed democratic debate on the production and use of scientific knowledge…Greater interdisciplinary efforts, involving both natural and social sciences, are a prerequisite for dealing with ethical, social, cultural, environmental, gender, economic and health issues.

Scientists have a special responsibility for seeking to avert applications of science, which are ethically wrong or have adverse impact.

The practice of scientific research and the use of knowledge from that research should always aim at the welfare of humankind.

The social responsibility of scientists requires that they maintain high standards of scientific integrity and quality control, share their knowledge, communicate with the public and educate the younger generation.

You will not find examples of vigorous debates or the results of multidisciplinary studies in the IPCC assessment reports.

Each and every one of these essential research requirements will be ignored in the scientific presentations at the Midrand Summit.

My involvement

Ever since my involvement in the climate change issue, I have repeatedly requested that we get together to seek solutions related to the climate change problem. All my approaches were rebuffed. Not only have the climate alarmists ignored the solidly-based recommendations of the other United Nations bodies, but they have done their best to suppress all contrarian research.

At the previous Midrand conference on climate change held in October 2005, the Minister firmly rejected the idea of any cooperation with scientists in the other disciplines who were more cautious. Now we have another climate summit. Once more the delegates will be exposed to one-sided presentations based on environmental concerns. The delegates will not hear any balanced views on the subject.

I was invited to present my views on natural disasters at a conference in Ecuador, South America. I requested the audience to imagine that the hall was full of people directly exposed to natural hazards. What would their reaction be to the conference proceedings I asked?

Now I ask the climate summit organisers the same question. What do they think the reaction of the people from Alexandra Township would be if they were invited to attend the summit?

In the following memos I will have much more to say on the whole climate change charade that will be presented at Midrand.

Is it too much to expect that these memos will end up on the desk of the Minister? His scientific advisers are misleading him.

Please pass this memo on to other South African scientists so that they can appreciate the damage that is being done to the image of science as an honourable profession.


Will Alexander


Posted by honestclimate in Discussions.
Tags: , , ,
add a comment


Professor William Alexander

Professor Will Alexander

By Professor Will Alexander

Via email, January 17, 2009

A golden opportunity has arisen that will allow us to deliver a fatal blow to climate alarmism. A UNFCCC-type summit is to be held at Midrand, South Africa early in March.

At the Bali summit the UN managed to keep us at a distance. Now things are very different. We have time to prepare strong written rebuttals and distribute them to the attendees and the media via the Internet ahead of the conference.

It will be the organisers’ turn to be vulnerable to heart attacks, and search for pacemakers.

Your early comments and/or participation will be very welcome.

Memo 04/09

Climate change. Pacemakers required

Saturday 17 January 2009

Wedding anniversary postponed

Gladys and Will Alexander on New Years Day in East London. Five days later Gladys was in the Wilgers Hospital ICU after a heart attack. She has since recovered and is fit and well.

My wife and I returned to our home in Pretoria on Monday 5 January. We had a wonderful holiday with our family. Our three children are scattered far and wide. It was the first time that we were together with our children in nine years. We were thoroughly spoilt by them.

On Wednesday after our return to Pretoria we were due to celebrate our 59th wedding anniversary. This was not to be. On Tuesday my wife had a heart attack. We called Netcare emergency ambulance. The paramedics were wonderful.

She ended up in the Hospital ICU. The cardiologist told her that she could thank God that she was still alive, which we did. She is an extrovert with many friends who also prayed for her.

Two days later she was back home. She is tough. She will probably have to have a pacemaker inserted to regulate her heartbeat.

Climate change summit

Now it is my turn. On Friday after I sent off my memo Who will tell the Minister, a colleague drew my attention to an announcement of the climate change summit to be held at Midrand on 3-6 March. Details are provided on the website:


I downloaded the information this morning, Saturday. This immediately increased my heartbeat. I thought that it may be my turn to have a pacemaker installed.

We went shopping. Our favourite Superspar has a little cafeteria that serves coffee at R4.50 per cup. I bought another notebook and started writing this memo while my wife toured the aisles with a shopping trolley. This usually occupies half an hour or so.

After deep thought and two cups of coffee my heartbeat slowed down. This is what I have in mind.


As I described in my Who will tell the Minister memo, the Minister has isolated himself from reality. He is taking a huge political risk. Elementary salesmanship tells us that it is very difficult to sell something that has no benefits to the purchaser. The general election is due weeks after the summit. The economic recession is biting. Thousands of people have already been laid off. The opposition parties will be on the warpath. The media will be unsympathetic.

It is obvious that his scientific advisers have failed to inform him that the science of climate change is rapidly disintegrating as others in the engineering and applied sciences become involved. This is a weakness that we must exploit.

Notice also that this is not a conference. It is labelled the 2009 Climate Change Response Policy Development Summit. This summit programme consists of presentations by his acolytes followed by question and answer sessions. There have been no invitations for presentations by anybody other than those nominated by the organisers. Even those wishing to attend will be screened:

As participation in the climate change summit 2009 proper is limited to 600 climate change response stakeholders, unfortunately, the participation of mandated representatives … will be prioritised.

This exclusionist policy is typical of the UNFCCC procedures that a group of us experienced at the Bali conference 13 months ago. There is no room for debate on the science – just questions and answers.

The very essence of the summit is presentations based on:

… the IPCC’s fourth assessment report pertaining to climate change science as well as new or emerging findings and/or trends.

This is the summit’s weakness. The rapidly emerging science from the other disciplines discredits the very basis of the IPCC’s position. We must demonstrate this.

Another Achilles’ Heel is the press conference.

The media is provided with an opportunity to interview the various summit speakers.

We must inform the press before the summit.

Those of us who have concerns regarding the welfare of this country and its people, particularly the poor and disadvantaged communities, have an obligation to expose the corrupt science on which the summit will be based. There will be nobody at the summit who can speak up for them.

This is what I have in mind. In consultation with others I will produce two short reports that solidly refute the reports of the IPCC’s working groups. The reaction of his advisers will be to refer to the fictitious consensus of international scientists and the overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary. We must refute both of these claims.

Our strength is that the whole scientific basis is collapsing. Also, the adverse effects of the actions that our authorities intend imposing on the income-generating activities, particularly business, industry, agriculture and mining, must be highlighted. There will be inevitable additional job losses. The trade unions are unlikely to be sympathetic.

Pacemakers required

I know that there are many recipients of my memos who are equally critical of this whole climate change fiasco. This is a golden opportunity for all of us nationally, as well as internationally, to expose this whole alarmist nonsense for what it is.

I therefore invite those who would like to play a part in bringing about the downfall of climate alarmism, to send me one-page notes on any statements in the IPCC 4th assessment reports that you can demonstrate are seriously in error. Use your own presentation style and letterhead if you wish. The notes should be targeted at intelligent, lay readers. The comment has to be short, to the point, and above all it has to be true, accurate and bulletproof. Much is at stake.

Please provide your name, affiliation, country of residence and email address.

It is not necessary to provide references but keep them at hand so that we can produce them if required.

Your comments on the proposal would be helpful even if you are unable to provide the notes.

I look forward to this challenge. It is what I have long been hoping for. In the meantime I will continue with my memos. I have a lot to say.


Phantom of the Opera is our favourite musical. We have seen it three times, twice in London and once in Pretoria. Do you remember the final scene when the large chandelier crashes to the floor? This is my vision of the future of climate alarmism. The Midrand summit will be the stage.


Will Alexander

Who will tell the Minister? January 16, 2009

Posted by honestclimate in Discussions.
Tags: , , ,
add a comment

Who will tell the Minister?

Professor Will Alexander

Professor Will Alexander

By Professor Will Alexander

Via email, January 16, 2009

Scientists are understandably very cautious when criticising government policies. This is particularly so in the situation of state funded institutions. The Anthony Turton case that I described last November is a good example. He was forced to resign from the CSIR because his activities embarrassed the government.

An unfortunate consequence is that in the absence of criticism, the authorities have no way of discerning the truth. This is further amplified when ignorant scientists use this protection from criticism to feather their own nests.

In this situation, the only scientists who can speak out without fear are those who are no longer vulnerable. I am in that position. I also have a very strong motivation to present the truth. It is the plight of the poor and disadvantaged people of Africa. My professional and ethical concerns force me to speak on their behalf whether or not this may upset the authorities.

In the attached memo I caution the Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism that his advisers are leading him into a situation that could easily cause considerable damage to the economy of this country and its peoples, without any balancing benefits. There are appreciable political risks as well.

Please distribute these memos widely.

Hopefully somebody will slip this memo under the Minister’s door.

Memo 03/09

Climate change fantacies. Who will tell the Minister?

Friday 16 January 2009

South Africa is one of the few western democracies where climate change is not a political issue. With a general election due within months, not one of the parties has climate change on its election manifesto. This has advantages for the governing party but it also has considerable political risks.

The Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism has chosen to accept the advice of a handful of climatological and environmental extremists and ignore the views of scientists who disagree with them. Scientists of the National Biodiversity Institute accompanied him to the UNFCCC conference in Poznan, Poland last month.

Sunday Independent.

Last Sunday the Sunday Independent newspaper gave prominence to the Minister’s strongly held views expressed after the failed UNFCCC conference. He expressed no doubts at all on the climate change issue. He detailed measures that South Africa will enforce to reduce emissions from burning fossil fuels.

The article also contained comments urging the Minister not to take steps that will damage our economy. There was an accompanying tongue-in-cheek photograph of a river in Bosnia that could no longer generate hydroelectric power because it was frozen solid. The caption commented: Scientists warn that an increase in the global average temperature of more than 2°C could have disastrous consequences.

I have attached a one-page cut-and-paste copy of the article. Please read it and note the Minister’s views and the balanced reaction to his views on economic grounds.

Who will tell the Minister?

The Minister has chosen to appoint a scientific bodyguard of climate alarmists. At the Midrand conference he stated:

‘We will not be derailed from our responsibility to act by endless engagement with fringe scientists… we have reached and passed this in the debate about the science of climate change.’

Now he has a serious problem. For the past four years several of us have repeatedly warned that there are very serious scientific errors in this whole climate change issue. All of a sudden, around the world scientists in other disciplines have started demonstrating the fundamental errors in current climate change theory. The basic assumption that greenhouse gas emissions cause global temperatures to rise is seriously questioned. My colleagues and I have demonstrated the dominant role of variations in solar activity on multi-year climatic variations. The Internet is full of critical comments of climate change theory and those who propagate it.

In the newspaper article, the Minister mentioned the introduction of a carbon tax; encouraging the use of renewable energy sources; and carbon capture requirements for new coal-fired power stations and oil-from-coal industries.

Has he not been informed that carbon taxes will be passed on to the consumers and so pose a political risk?

Has he not been informed that there are no economically viable sources of renewable energy on the required scale other than nuclear energy?

Has he not been informed that carbon capture technology does not exist?

Is he not aware that at least 90% of the population of this country do not have the slightest interest in climate change?

He complained that some of the developed countries are still playing hide-and-seek with the climate and that this is irresponsible. Surely he must realise that they have a reason for their reluctance. The imposition of uniform restrictions on all countries is not economically feasible because they will result in trade disadvantages to some and advantages to others. It seems that the Minister was chuffed because the rich nations refused to donate large sums of money to the developing nations, including South Africa, for adaptation and mitigation measures.

Surely the Minister must appreciate that there is no way that all nations of the world, developed and developing; rich and poor; will simultaneously agree to commit economic suicide.

Surely he must appreciate that the measures he proposes will cause further job losses and increased poverty and social unrest.

Surely he must realise that there will be no meaningful international agreement at Copenhagen in December. This will leave South Africa high and dry and expose him to ridicule.

Above all, does he not realise the potential risk that he faces when the machinations of his scientific advisers are exposed?

The media and his political opponents will be unforgiving.

Further complications.

The Minister should be informed that it is not only his own ministry that is at risk. Press releases issued before the sudden blackouts show that Eskom’s delay in building new power stations was the consequence of pressures from the Minister. This cost South Africa tens of millions of Rand and thousands of job losses, particularly in the mining and in the construction industries. South Africa is still suffering from this decision.

Given this experience, it is pure fantasy to assume that South Africa can halt further increases in emissions by 2020 (11 years from now), and have absolute emissions reductions of between 80% and 95% below the 1990 levels by mid-century. This target is totally unattainable, particularly in view of our rising population and our progression towards prosperity. Where will our additional electricity supplies come from? What will be the cost to our economy and our citizens? What will the effect be on our national economy? Why does our Minister not supply this information so that the electorate can have a say in his proposals? His dictatorial attitude is not appropriate in our democratic society.

Above all, these actions will not have even a miniscule effect on global warming. Ask any climate alarmist to provide his calculations that support his claims that South Africa’s actions will have a measurable effect on global climate.

His scientific advisers can expect no mercy once their manipulations of the truth become known. The reputation of science as an honourable profession will also be severely damaged.

Given these questions, why does the Minister not establish a multi-disciplinary committee of experts to advise him instead of relying on a small group of climatological and environmental extremists who have zero knowledge in this field? Why do these scientists not make this recommendation themselves? Failure to do so places them at serious risk of being accused of unprofessional conduct.

There are also other state departments that are being dragged into the climatological quicksands. These include the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry as well as the Water Research Commission.

I will discuss the Water Research Commission’s predicament in my next memo.

National disaster ahead.

South Africa has an expanding coal mining and export industry. Why does the Minister not mention this and the associated job losses if the industry succumbs to his pressures?

The Minister’s second portfolio is tourism. This makes up a significant part of our economy. Why does he not mention the consequences of restrictions and increased costs of air and road travel on our tourism industry?

Greenpeace has just established an office in South Africa. There will soon be head-on collisions with the South African authorities.

Internationally, our Minister is fast losing friends. His policies are in direct conflict with those of the powerful developing nations of India and China, and now with the developed nations of Europe and the USA as well.

Put all the above together and what do you get? A national disaster in the making.

Face-saving solution.

As a start the Minister should seriously consider firing his scientific bodyguard.

There is only one solution that can save the Minister and his party from considerable political embarrassment. It is one that I have repeatedly recommended. It is that he should appoint a multi-disciplinary commission of enquiry as a matter of urgency.

But who is going to inform the Minister? His entourage are isolating him from the truth.


Will Alexander

[Copy of Sunday Independent newspaper article attached.

CLIMATE CHANGE – THE BIGGEST SCAM OF ALL, by Professor Will Alexander January 14, 2009

Posted by honestclimate in Discussions.
Tags: , , ,


Professor William Alexander

Professor William Alexander

By Professor Will Alexander

Via email, January 14, 2009

Dear all,

The attached memo contains information on the biggest scam yet perpetrated in South Africa. I wish that I could read the minds of the writers. What were they trying to achieve?

I received favourable comments on memo 01/09 on lies and damned lies within hours of sending it off. These are some of them.

A New Zealand recipient informed me that the memo was on its way to international websites.

A United Kingdom recipient congratulated me.

A recipient in Washington in the USA in his roundup of new inconvenient studies, noted that it is growing nearly impossible to keep up with the numerous studies and developments in refuting man-made warming fears and the growing number of scientists publicly dissenting. He produced many examples including my comment that climate models are no more intelligent than the dishwasher in the kitchen.

A very interesting response was from a South African recipient who mentioned that there is a new term in the running for the word of the year. It is climate porn. This is the alarming way in which climate change is presented to the public. It has been described as unreliable at best and counterproductive at worst.

An Australian recipient informed me that the UK publication Energy and the Environment has produced a double volume of papers Volume 20 – Number 1+2 – 2009, on natural drivers of weather and climate which is now in press. The emphasis is on the role of solar activity. It is very relevant to my attached memo.

Memo 02/09

Climate change – South Africa’s biggest scam

Wednesday 14 January 2009

Urgency and importance.

I am fully aware of my professional responsibilities when compiling this set of memos. The world is in an economic recession equivalent to that of the early 1930s. Damage to national economies, rising unemployment and increasing poverty are some of the consequences.

Against this background, the climate change issue is dividing nations. There are east-west tensions (developed versus developing nations), and north-south tensions (rich versus poor nations). Attempts to unify nations on the climate change issue started to disintegrate in Bali in December 2007. The disintegration increased further at Poznan (Poland) last month.

There is another threat. Based on my detailed analyses, I have reported that there is a very real possibility of imminent, widespread droughts equivalent to those of the 1930s. To support this prediction <click here for Professor Alexander’s Global Drought paper>, there is a rising concern that the delayed onset of sunspot activity could herald dramatic changes in the world’s climate. As far as I know, nobody else has linked these two possibilities. The last time that it happened it led to the outbreak of World War II.

In my view, the struggles to persuade nations to adopt economically damaging emissions control measures have gone too far. There is a very real possibility that international pressures could lead to trade conflicts, which could deteriorate further. As we all know, it only takes a single minor incident to trigger international conflicts.

Please treat this series of memos very seriously. I have documentary support for all my statements. I am more than willing to appear before a multi-disciplinary body appointed to investigate the matter.



How can you tell if a document on climate change contains the truth; the whole truth; and nothing but the truth?


The answer is easy. Ask the writer if he supports the establishment of a multi-disciplinary commission of enquiry on climate change that includes members in the applied and engineering sciences. If so, would he be prepared to submit the document to the commission?

In the unlikely event that he agrees, ask him why he and his colleagues have not recommended the establishment of such a commission themselves, bearing in mind the great national importance of the subject.

On many occasions I have requested (pleaded!) with those on the other side of the fence that we get together and try to sort out our differences. On each occasion I have been unsuccessful.

This has forced me to come out into the open and expose the machinations of the climate alarmists over the years. I get no pleasure from writing these accounts.

In this memo I describe the most glaring example of all. It refers to the position in the South Western Cape where a conference on climate change will be held later this month. In these days of rapid Internet communications, I trust that this memo will end up in the hands of at least some of the delegates.

In fairness I should disclose my experience in legal matters. I have served as court assessor, arbitrator, and expert witness in a number of national and international disputes.

Assessment of the effects of climate change in the Western Cape.

The report of 15 scientists titled A status quo, vulnerability and adaptation assessment of the physical and socio-economic effects of climate change in the Western Cape CSIR Report No. ENV-S-C 2005-073 is a good example of their machinations.

The authors were Midgley G.F., Chapman R.A., Hewitson B., Johnstone P., De Wit M., Ziervogel G., Mukheiber P., Van Niekerk L., Tadross M., Van Wilgen B.W., Kgope B., Morant P.D., Theron A., Scholes R.J. and Forsyth G.G. Their affiliations (not in the same order) were the South African Biodiversity Institute, CSIR Environmentek, Climate Systems Analysis Group, de Wit Sustainable Options CC, and the Energy Research Centre, University of Cape Town.

To casual readers and political policy makers their report is very professional and well constructed. The contents are very plausible. Unfortunately they are false and misleading. This is the biggest scam inflicted on the South African public.

The report commences with the unsupported claim that climate change will result in the region becoming warmer and drier in future. This alarmist prediction is based on the outputs of complex but uncalibrated and unverified global climate models. This is the first serious mistake. If global temperatures increase, ocean temperatures must increase. Evaporation from the oceans and land surfaces must increase not decrease. What goes up into the atmosphere through evaporation processes must come down again as rainfall. This understanding requires no more than an elementary knowledge of the hydrological cycle.

The authors then attempted to justify their claims of exclusive human causality of their warmer and drier predictions. They followed their usual tactics of ignoring all evidence to the contrary. Instead, they quoted a UK author who maintained that variations in solar activity were too small to influence South Africa’s climate.

How could they sink to these depths of deliberate deception? More than a hundred years ago D.E. Hutchins, a Knysna forester, published his report Cycles of drought and good seasons in South Africa. His studies included analyses of temperature and rainfall data recorded at the Royal Observatory in Cape Town that commenced in 1842, 160 years previously.

The authors also conveniently omitted to comment on the publications by Tyson and others on the multiyear periodicity of South African rainfall. Understandably, they completely ignored my studies and reports.

This is not honest, and it is not science.

Sequence of events

This is the sequence of events. A short while after the publication of the report I was contacted on behalf of a group of farmers in the Oudtshoorn area. They were concerned about the prediction that the indigenous flora would be at risk due to climate change. I obtained a copy of the report and carried out on my own analyses. In February 2006, I distributed my report Climate change in the southern and western Cape. A critical assessment. I was then invited to address a meeting in Oudtshoorn on the subject. A few days before the meeting, I was informed that the meeting had been cancelled in response to pressures from Cape Town. This in itself is evidence that the writers of the report had something to hide.

I subsequently received a written response by Midgley but I do not have his permission to quote from it. It reinforced my views expressed below.

I would more than welcome a public debate with the authors of this report.

The following is from my response of February 2006.

Climate change in the southern and western Cape. A critical assessment

WJR Alexander. February 2006.


This report is in response to an approach by a group of landowners and others who are striving to develop a living landscape consisting of regions where people live in harmony with the environment. They expressed concern that the alarmist publications of a small group of scientists and the reaction of the provincial authorities would have the opposite effect to that intended. Many people have already expressed the view that this is a hopeless cause. They say that most species are about to become extinct as a result of climate change, so why bother.

There is also a growing concern among other researchers in the natural and engineering sciences whose studies directly contradict those of the climate change lobbyists. Their concern is heightened by the deliberate policy of excluding all those who hold different views from participating in policy-making conferences. I am not the only one to have experienced this discrimination.

This response is based on my long professional experience and recent detailed studies.

Unique richness

There are few regions in the world that have a greater diversity of climate and corresponding diversity of flora and fauna than the southern and western regions of South Africa. While there is an obvious need to preserve this unique richness for posterity, there is an equally important need to sustain agricultural and other activities required in a healthy society. Only then will we be in a position to eliminate poverty, malnutrition and disease among our growing population. A balance has therefore to be found between conservation and development.

Solutions have to be sought in the first instance by impartial, multidisciplinary, scientific studies. The results have to be reduced and summarised in a form that is readily understandable by the public as well as the political decision makers. There is a fundamental difference between theoretical papers published in scientific journals and a report addressed to decision makers and the public. In the latter case the scientists are expected to present both the benefits as well as the consequences of climate change in an impartial manner.

Researchers are also required to develop practical adaptation and amelioration strategies. These require not only sound scientific knowledge, but also an advanced knowledge of the sociological and economic aspects. These have to be in sufficient detail to allow decision makers to make informed decisions.

It is most unfortunate that the recent, comprehensive report by fifteen authors from seven different institutions: A status quo, vulnerability and adaptation assessment of the physical and socio-economic effects of climate change in the Western Cape, (Midgley et al 2005), does not meet these basic requirements.

Essentials of the global warming issue

The following is a terse summary of the global warming issue.

Water, not temperature determines the habitability of our planet. Human habitation will be found all the way from the heat of equatorial Africa to the sub-zero temperatures of continental areas of Canada and Russia. No humans can survive in waterless deserts – whether hot or cold.

The essence of the concerns related to global warming is that undesirable emissions of so-called greenhouse gasses, principally carbon dioxide (CO2), from power stations, coal-consuming industries, aircraft and motor vehicles, creates a blanket effect in the atmosphere that raises global air temperatures. Observable consequences of increases in global temperatures are the melting of the Arctic and Antarctic ice sheets and terrestrial glaciers.

The principal postulated (i.e. as yet unproven) consequences of global warming are changes in rainfall (e.g. droughts), river flow (e.g. floods), and air temperature. These in turn may pose threats to agriculture, water supplies and the natural environment. Beneficial consequences are largely ignored in the South African literature.

The postulated remedy is to reduce dependence on carbon fuels, which in turn will increase the cost of electricity and transport. These will result in a decrease in national and individual prosperity. The consequences will be an increase in poverty with accompanying increase in malnutrition and disease. There will be consequent threats to economic and political stability.

Note: The effectiveness of the proposed control measures remains unproven. It is very difficult to visualise how the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in South Africa can prevent the postulated environmental consequences. This aspect is not addressed in the publications referenced below.

The essence of an independent analysis is the quantification of the threats in numerical terms. Simple non-numerical statements such as the infamous ‘precautionary principle’ are not sufficient in an issue of this magnitude and national importance.

This immediately identifies a major shortcoming in the whole climate change issue. The principal postulated consequences of global warming relate to rainfall, river flow and temperature. These are readily measureable and quantifiable. The absence of arguments based on data from the official SAWS and DWAF databanks, would, in my opinion, not survive the rigorous examination of an independent commission of enquiry.

Here is a simple question. The seriousness of the consequences of global warming is at the very heart of the climate change issue. We are repeatedly told that the past decade was the warmest for the past thousand years or more. Why then is there no evidence of the consequences of this global warming in South African published data? Why do the climate change lobbyists have to rely on abstract theory instead of being able to produce solid and incontestable evidence that these undesirable consequences are already taking place? The answer is very simple. There are no observable changes for the simple reason that they do not exist.

The whole global warming theory is no more than an untested and unproven hypothesis. This is not just my view but is that of all internationally recognised experts in the field of water resources with whom I have consulted.

[This was followed by seven pages of my detailed analyses that refuted their claims. I then continued.]

Interpretation of the facts

This very simple analysis showed that except for the three districts (1, 2 and 3) along the west coast, and the single district (12) on the south coast, all other districts in the western and southern Cape, including those in which the fynbos and large areas of the succulent Karoo are located, exhibited consistent increases in rainfall during the period of record.

The SAWS weather station at Cape Agulhas at the southernmost tip of the African continent also recorded an increase in temperature during this period. Furthermore, it is reasonable to assume that CO2 has also increased. If all three of these principal elements that affect plant growth have increased for the past 65 years, what is the basis for the NBI authors’ alarmist predictions? Furthermore, if the rainfall analysis shows that there has been a sustained increase in rainfall during the past 65 years, and that this increase will continue as long as global warming continues, what weight should be placed on the allegation that:

In less than 100 years, the research indicates that thousands of plant species may well be extinct starting with a massive reduction in the distribution of fynbos and succulent Karoo biomes. (DEAT 5 May 2005.)

The information above clearly illustrates that these alarmist predictions have no substance.

Finally, why did the NBI scientists not carry out the simple analyses described here using the district rainfall data that has been available since the 1970s? The analyses would have taken less than a day to perform, and do not require any numerical expertise other than simple arithmetic. This would have demonstrated the unreliability of global climate models and consequent invalid conclusions in their papers.

Climate change in the Western Cape

With the above in mind, consider the detailed, 155-page report A status quo, vulnerability and adaptation assessment of the physical and socio-economic effects of climate change in the Western Cape prepared by 15 authors from seven institutions in June 2005, (Midgley et al 2005). Under normal circumstances this report should carry heavy weight. Unfortunately a single fundamental issue on which the report is based is demonstrably false and completely undermines the scientific integrity of the report and all the conclusions drawn from it.

The very foundation of the report is that global warming will reduce rainfall over the entire region. This assumption is based entirely on global climate model outputs, whereas a simple analysis of the long records of the many rainfall stations in the region shows that there has been a general increase in rainfall. This was demonstrated above where some districts show substantial increases of up to 68% during the period of record. As global warming is reported to have increased steadily during the past century, it follows that rainfall will continue to increase as long as global temperatures continue to rise.

The following are brief extracts from the introductory section of the report. The emphases are mine. References to a drier future climate are patently false, as future climate in this region will be wetter, not drier.

In this study we have carried out a broad reassessment of the vulnerability of the Western Cape to climate change impacts using a wider range of climate scenarios from more sophisticated climate models

The future climate of the Western Cape is likely to be one that is warmer and drier than at present according to a number of current model predictions.

A future that is warmer and possibly drier, will encompass a range of consequences that will affect the economy, the livelihoods of the people and the ecological integrity of the Western Cape region.

Projections for the Western Cape are for a drying trend from west to east[My analyses demonstrate the opposite. See Fig. 15 above.]

In a warmer and drier future, the competition for fresh water will increase steeply.

The vulnerability of estuaries to warming and drying is particularly acute …

The impact of climate change manifested by a warmer and drier climate is likely to be a progressive impoverishment in species richness …

A drier environment would restrict the spread of alien invasive species …

The combination of increasing water scarcity, and rising temperatures will also regularly affect sectors of the economy that are particularly dependent on ecosystem goods and services, for example agriculture, forestry and fishing.

All that the authors should have done was to spend an afternoon plotting the rainfall data on graph paper and they would have noticed the very clear increase in rainfall in the region. Claims of future water scarcity as a result of global warming have no foundation.

Economic sectors such as insurance, banks (through the underlying secured assets), transport and communication infrastructure and construction may all be affected to some degree by climate change.

Regrettably, this all-inclusive statement illustrates a complete ignorance of how modern society functions.

Linkage with solar activity

Climate variability has been linked to variation in solar activity, i.e. the sunspot cycle, (Houghton et al (2001). However, recent analyses by Foukal et al (2005) have called this hypothesis into question, citing the small variation of solar output (0.8%) that can be attributed to the sunspot cycle and the relatively poor ability of instruments to measure accurately these variations.

In 1889, more than 100 years ago, the Knysna forester D E Hutchins reported as follows in his book Cycles of drought and good seasons in South Africa.

This confirmation comes from the Cape Town Observatory. The returns for thirty years from the Cape Town Observatory show a close correspondence between sun-spots and temperatures, the maximum of temperature lagging a year behind the minimum of sun-spots. (p17).

At Cape Town, the correspondence between the mean rainfall and mean sunspot frequency has long been an established fact. (p25).

For these reasons we ought to consider the Cape Town Observatory rainfall figures as of great importance to ourselves, an importance enhanced by the fact that they go back to the year 1842. For the three cycles comprised in the period 1842 to 1875 the mean annual rainfall at the Royal Observatory, Cape Town, was: –

During Minimum Sunspot years 21.05 inches.

Intermediate 23.59

Maximum 27.95

Given all this information, based on records extending back as far as 1842, why did these fifteen scientists choose to quote an overseas author’s claim that no linkage existed when the linkage was demonstrated by a Knysna forester more than 100 years ago? All that was needed was for one of these authors to study the rainfall and temperature records and possible linkages with sunspot activity. Instead they chose to rely on an overseas author who was obviously ignorant of the well-documented, synchronous linkages that have been reported in South Africa and internationally for more than a century.

What does all this tell us about the reliability of publications by these authors and other climate change lobbyists who hold similar views? It was on this thoroughly unscientific basis that the DEAT minister was persuaded to take drastic action that will inevitably have an adverse effect on the welfare of the people of this country. It also explains why I and others who hold similar views, were deliberately excluded from addressing the Midrand conference, and more recently the function at Kirstenbosch.

The deliberate exclusion of those with different views at public meetings on a topic of national importance is reprehensible. Claiming that this was a decision of the organisers is no excuse. No responsible scientist or organisation should agree to participate in a national conference attended by cabinet ministers and senior government officials where scientists who hold different views are deliberately excluded from participating in these presentations.

Final proof

As I write these notes the rivers are running, dams are filling and the countryside is greener than it has been for decades. This completely negates the unfounded and pessimistic views of the climate change lobbyists. Nevertheless, droughts follow floods as night follows day – a fact that has been known since biblical times.

South Africa will indeed face a crisis in the years ahead as we exhaust our water resources. Conflicts between the need for water to sustain the quality of human life and to sustain the environment will pose serious challenges. Solutions will have to be sought. The policy followed by climate change lobbyists of excluding all those who hold different views on the solution of the problem is not the way to go.


It would be a tragedy if the 149-page report: A status quo, vulnerability and adaptation assessment of the physical and socio-economic effects of climate change in the Western Cape is accepted without question by the national and provincial authorities. There is a very real possibility of a backlash once it becomes obvious that the basis of the report and the proposed costly and intrusive recommendations have no foundation in science or reality, and are unsupported by large sections of the scientific community.

[39 references were provided of which 16 were my publications, none of which were referenced by the writers of the report.]

Climate models are no more intelligent than the dishwasher in the kitchen, claims South African professor Will Alexander January 12, 2009

Posted by honestclimate in Discussions.
Tags: , , ,

Climate models are no more intelligent than the dishwasher in the kitchen, claims South African professor Will Alexander

By the blogowner, honestclimate, January 12, 2009

I would like to share the below memo by Professor Will Alexander, received via email today.

First a quick bio on Professor Alexander:

William J.R. Alexander is Professor Emeritus of the Department of Civil and Biosystems Engineering of the University of Pretoria, and Honorary Fellow of the South African Institution of Civil Engineering.

He was appointed by the Secretary General of the United Nations as a member of the UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters from 1994 to the end of the international decade in 2000.

His interest in climate change commenced in 1993 when climatologists produced alarmist predictions that were contrary to studies by civil engineers extending back to the 1950s. He retired from active teaching in 2000 but continued with research on flood frequency analyses, water resource development and natural disaster mitigation methods.


Professor Will Alexander

Professor Will Alexander

By Professor Will Alexander
Via Email, January 12, 2009

Lies, damned lies and climate change

Dear all,

The climate change issue is rapidly coming to a head in South Africa as well as internationally. South Africa and the world only have 11 months left before irreversible commitments will have to be made.

There is therefore an urgent need for the South African public and the authorities to be informed of the completely false and unscientific basis on which this whole climate change charade rests.

This memo is my first contribution in which I exposed these unpatriotic, unethical and unscientific practices. There are more in the pipeline.

As always, feel free to pass this on to anybody who may be interested.

Memo 01/09

Monday 12 January 2009

These were the two introductory paragraphs of my last memo 44/08 of 2008.

Many thanks for all those emails urging me to continue exposing this whole climate alarmism issue for what it is. In this memo I make one last attempt for this year at least.

As I have shown on many occasions, my actions are driven by the lack of believable evidence and the severe consequences of the proposed mitigation measures on national economies and the welfare of peoples. Now for the first time the alarmists are faced with a situation that requires action and not words. They have painted themselves into a corner. They have refused to come to the table and discuss my earnest, very serious, and solidly based drought warning.

At last they have come out into the open within the range of my artillery. The following short news item was published in the Pretoria News of 10 January.

Focus on climate change at Cape science powwow

Nearly 200 international scientists will meet in Cape Town this month for a dialogue on climate change and to send a strong message to African leaders to support scientific debate.
Delegates to the conference aim to deepen understanding of the interaction between natural and man-induced climate changes.
Martin de Wit, of the African Earth Observer Network, said: “If we want to really be sure in our modelling, we need to know what our influence is.”
Conference organisers say while Africa occupies over a fifth of the Earth’s surface, “a paucity of observational data … constrains global climate change models and African response”.
“This creates a challenge to the African scientific community,” they say.

Let me dissect this intriguing announcement.

1. Nearly 200 international scientists…Who are they? Who finances them? What scientific disciplines do they represent?

2. (Delegates) aim to send a strong message to African leaders to support scientific debate. This is what our Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism said at the Midrand Conference in October 2005. ‘We will not be derailed from our responsibility to act by endless engagement with fringe scientists… we have reached and passed this in the debate about the science of climate change.’ (My emphasis.) It would be a wonderful achievement if the meeting persuades him to change his mind. Does anybody think that this is likely to happen? Will he be invited to open the conference?

3. Delegates to the conference aim to deepen understanding of the interaction between natural and man-induced climate changes. This is a fascinating challenge. Europe is currently experiencing an exceptionally cold winter. Sceptics say that this discredits global warming theory. This is denied by the WMO. It maintains that this exceptionally cold weather is a natural fluctuation. This explanation will pose an insurmountable problem for the 200 scientists. How will they deepen their understanding if they do not know which climatic extremes are natural and which are due to human influences? Expect to see some serious wriggling from them to get out of this insurmountable difficulty.

4. If we want to really be sure in our modelling… Has nobody told them that even their most sophisticated models are fundamentally incapable of producing outputs that realistically capture the numerical properties of the climatic processes? These include changes in the means; the magnitude and nature of the variability about the means; and the nature and magnitude of the serial dependence; as a minimum.

5. … a paucity of observational data… This statement demonstrates the total ignorance of the climate alarmist fraternity. South Africa alone has one of the largest and most comprehensive hydrometeorological databases anywhere. Many hydrological records exceed 80 years in length. Hydrological data are collected at a rate of half a million station-days per year. The rainfall records are even more extensive. This statement is patently and deliberately false.

6. This creates a challenge to the African scientific community. The most important challenge to the scientific community is the truth.
In the light of the aims of the conference it is very important that the reprehensible conduct of the extremists be exposed.

Examples of reprehensible conduct

My wife and I spent the holiday period with our families in Cape Town, Plettenberg Bay and East London. I was not permitted to take my laptop with me so I took a supply of shorthand notebooks instead. I spent every free hour with pen and paper. I neglected visiting friends. (My apologies to friends in Plett.)

I am in the process of compiling a report detailing the reprehensible conduct of a few, unrepresentative climatological and environmental extremists on the issue of climate change. I have documentary support for all the material in the report. It will be of interest to historians studying the machinations of climate alarmists and the imminent collapse of climate alarmism.

The reactions to my report will be very interesting. They dare not ignore it. They will do their best to denigrate me personally. This will be no more effective than a duck’s water off my back.
I still have to fill in the blank spaces. This will take another week or so.

My report will have all the ingredients of a successful novel. These include large scale dishonesty, deception and intrigue. This is not only by politicians but also by many national and international scientists who have little concern for the truth, and even less for the suffering of the poor and disadvantaged people of the world.

Their complex global climate prediction models are no more intelligent than the dishwasher in the kitchen.


These are my carefully considered conclusions. They are based on more than 30 years of diligent studies of one of the most comprehensive hydro-climatological databases in the world. Alarmists claim that this database does not exist.

My conclusions are based on observation theory. It is as old as civilisation itself. This is routinely used by thousands of civil engineers for the design, planning, construction and operation of water supply projects, and structures exposed to the elements. Compare this with abstract process theory used by climatologists. It is not even capable of predicting next month’s climate. Nowhere in the world is process theory used for practical applications.

1. There is no scientifically believable evidence to support the existence of the following subcontinental scale claims for the present and possible future conditions, resulting from the burning of fossil fuels.

2. There has been no serious damage to the natural environment.

3. There has been no widescale loss of plants or animal species.

4. There is no threat to South Africa’s biodiversity.

5. There is no evidence of multi-year increases in floods or droughts.

6. There is no threat to our water supplies that can be attributed to unnatural causes.

7. There is an undeniable multi-year periodicity in hydro-climatological data that is causally related to synchronous solar activity.

8. The variations in the solar activity are related to the acceleration and deceleration of the sun as it progresses through galactic space. This in turn is the consequence of variations of the combined effect of the sun’s orbiting planets.


Scientific and other institutions are understandably reluctant to embarrass the South African authorities in these difficult times. It is nevertheless essential that these matters be brought to the attention of the government authorities, particularly the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism and the Water Research Commission.

It is strongly recommended that the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism should appoint a multi-disciplinary commission to study the issue and make recommendations. This commission should consist of members recommended by the major scientific, engineering, business, manufacturing and mining industries and not nominees by the Department or the scatterbrained climate alarmists.

If the South African authorities continue along the present path of deliberately ignoring the mounting evidence to the contrary, and the imminent, severe regional droughts <click here to read Professor Alexander’s Global Drought paper>, they should be prepared for increased threats to the national economy, and an escalation of poverty, unemployment, and civil unrest in the years ahead.

South Africa can no longer tolerate the unpatriotic, unethical, and unscientific activities of these climatological and environmental extremists. If these extremists choose to continue propagating their alarmist views via the media, I will not hesitate to provide the media with my report. An unfortunate consequence will be the reduction in the public’s trust in scientists in general.

The press announcement did not provide the date or the venue of the conference, or if it will be open to the public. Hopefully my report will be distributed ahead of the conference. This should keep the delegates on the straight and narrow path of honesty and the truth.

Remaining silent is no longer an option.

Will Alexander

A Lethal Global Cocktail – why we should be concerned September 22, 2008

Posted by honestclimate in Global Cooling, sunspots.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


A lethal global cocktail – why we should be very concerned

By the blogowner, honestclimate, September 22, 2008

What do you get when you mix the following ingredients together?

Global Financial Crisis

+Global Cooling (extreme cooling predicted)

+Global Drought (severe drought predicted 2009-2016)

global drought

global financial crisis

global cooling

= A Lethal Global Cocktail

We have recently witnessed a financial crisis not seen in a long time, just last week Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy. Lehman Brothers was the oldest bank in the United States, a bank heavily invested in the politics of climate change, but couldn’t even predict its own downfall.

Now we have news of an impending global drought and global cooling, mix this in with the current financial crisis and we have reason for concern.

I’d like to share with you predictions by 2 well respected scientists:

The first by Professor William Alexander who has predicted a severe global drought from 2009-2016.

The second is a global cooling prediction by Professor Joseph D’Aleo.

Click here for Professor William Alexander’s Drought Prediction paper

Click here for Professor Joseph D’Aleo’s article on Global Cooling

As you can see we are in for some really tough times, whilst our politicians insist on squandering millions upon millions upon trying to prevent global warming, something us humans clearly have no control of. After all, the globe has refused to warm since 1998, whilst human co2 has increased substantially.