Roger Helmer MEP

Let’s hope that after they win, Sarah will whisper into John McCain’s ear the truth about the Global Warming Hoax — and he will hopefully veto any silly CO2 caps/tax legislature coming across his desk.

Good sense at last, please instruct Cameron. The problem with politicians today is there complete lack of scientific knowledge, even the basics.
The truth about CO2 is that it has never, throughout geological history, driven climate. So why would the physics change for it to do so now?
Alarmists rely on models and the to put these in perspective you should look at a climate report by CSIRO for the South Australian Government which ended thus:- This report relates to climate change scenarios based on computer modelling, Models involve simplifications of the real physical processes that are not fully understood. Accordingly no responsibility will be accepted by CSIRO or the South Australian Government for the accuracy of projections in this report or actions on reliance of this report.
This just about says it all. Keep plugging away with the truth.

I’ve done a very readable primer in skeptical Climate Science; it’s also the story of my U-turn from AGW. Have a look and pass it on please to those who want to know, think for themselves, etc.

I am so impressed. A politician from a mainstream party who has actually taken the trouble to look at a graph and can clearly understand it. So many politicians are functionally innumerate and hence are unable to think for themselves with regard to what requires a high degree of numeracy.

Bobbt: Since politicians make decisions based on alarmist hype, and since those decisions are very costly and damaging, it is difficult to avoid being political. WWFLO: Sorry I can’t match your stereotype of innumerate politicians. Maybe something to do with that 1965 Cambridge maths degree!

Bobbt: In the Biden-Palin debate, Biden proudly displayed his ignorance by claiming global warming is real and humans are causing it. We know Palin’s view on the subject (she is a skeptic who has, to this point, loyally parroted the McCain line). But both Obama and Biden are committed to doing what the environmental lobby tells them to do, whereas, McCain’s less odious position and lack of debt to environmental extremists puts him in a much better position to respond to reason and scientific facts (particularly with Palin helping the process).

There is no question that, given the Obama-Biden position on drilling and their commitment to higher fuel and energy costs, the prospects of their “climate mitigation policies represent a worse economic disaster than the current financial crisis.”

It would be folly to give politicians a pass who have endorsed the most zealous carbon dioxide mitigation schemes. Why give politicians a pass who promote idiotic regulations that are costly and will have no benefit whatsoever? The AGW issue has been political from the beginning. Some “scientists” (notably James E. Hansen) were trolling for funding (for NASA), but the agenda was set by politicians at the UN’s IPCC and played out in a dangerous script featuring psuedo-science and hyper-hysterical alarmism.

It has EVERYTHING to do with politicians, since the science utterly rebukes the AGW theory (missing tropical mid-troposphere greenhouse warming signature, cooling poles, CO2’s lack of capacity to bring about significant warming, false feedback assumptions regarding water vapor, historical background warming trend predating the Industrial Age, etc., etc.).

“The alarmists will try to explain this by calling on short-term effects which temporarily disrupt a long-term warming trend. But some scientists who accept the alarmist position are now suggesting that these “short-term effects” could continue for another ten years. ”

Could you say what is wrong with this ‘alarmist’ position? It sounds plausible given how complicated the climate system is acknowledged as being (See e.g.: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/FAQ/wg1_faq-1.1.html ), and the fact that the standard averaging period for climate is 30 years. (see references in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate )

At the moment you seem to be attempting to engage with theories concerning global warming at only the most most superficial level.

Thanks for the reply,
I don’t think that the alarmist theory having an explanation for data you cite in your post constitutes a case of ‘convoluted special pleading’. At least you’ve provided no evidence whatsoever that it is. The theory is one which acknowledges that there are many factors which influence climate, and that therefore a continuous rise in CO2 won’t necessarily be accompanied by a rise in global temperatures in the short term.

The claim that we are experiencing a completely normal cyclical change in temperature (not caused by a rise in CO2 emmissions?) is a different point altogether. You mentioned this in a previous post (‘Stop worrying about global warming’), but again your arguments for it were shallow (there are responses to such arguments on many sensible websites e.g.: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/), and appeared to be addressed to a massive oversimplification of the theory.

Even a little research using resources available on the internet reveal that it’s a complicated theory about a complicated phenomenon. I know that I don’t have the expertise to effectively evaluate the evidence for and against it. You’ve previously claimed that as an elected representative you have to form opinions on areas in which you have little or no expertise. That may well be true. I think there’s an interesting question about how (and whether) one should write about things which one has little expertise in. But with respect, I suggest that the way to go about it is not to offer superficial arguments against an oversimplified version of the theory.

Does anyone here feel as outraged as I do about the absolute disgrace of our Parliament debating a “world class bill” to implement legally binding CO2 emissions cuts by 80% (!!!) before 2050, while snow is falling outside in October???

What is wrong with these dangerous lunatics?

This bill is genocide.

Or the RSPB blaming global warming for the decline in Scottish sea-birds, and ignoring the industrial-scale over-fishing of sand eels in the North Sea for fish-meal and fertiliser, and the dreadful depradations of the CFP?

How ironic and coincidental:

Arctic blast brings London earliest snow for over 70 years as the House of Commons debated Global Warming.

“The Arctic has been experiencing very cold temperatures this year, so it was an unusually cold front. Some unusual wind patterns meant it was blown over Britain very quickly, meaning the temperatures stayed very low. It is certainly very, very unusual to see snow in London this early,” said Mr Chalcraft. “The last time there was October snow [in the South-East] was in 1974, but the last time we actually had snow cover in October [in London], which we did late last night, was in 1934.”, said Byron Chalcraft, a Met Office forecaster.”

And if you are a director of a company,why not increase your profits? Use two simple tools to hit your competition. Chair the Climate Audit Committee and slam a tax in the name of AGW on your competitors:

“It was reported that Tim Yeo MP Chair of the Climate Audit Committee – and who had ignored requests from scientists and the public for evidence to justify his Climate Change proposals – had admitted a conflict of interests over anti-CO2 laws House of Commons Hansard Debates for 28 Oct 2008 Column 756.
Mr. Yeo: I declare an interest that is in the register: I am a director of Eurotunnel, which provides a low-carbon transport route between Britain and the continent.”

The tax in question being the inclusion of aviation and shipping into the emissions of CO2 legisation. How can vested interests like this be allowed?

Roger, for pity’s sake put your DVD up on GOOGLE Video as ONE 40 minute Show, sending them out by SnailMail is soooo Twentieth Century.

SOHO Solar Satellite Picture

URL:http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/synoptic/sunspots_earth/mdi_sunspots_1024.jpg

I am a geologist with 45 years international experience and I would like to congratulate you on your DVD. You make the essential points about the fallacy of human responsibility for climate change much more succinctly and eloquently than I ever could.

Global Cooling in 2008