‘It will have come to your Lordships’ knowledge that a considerable change of climate, inexplicable at present to us, must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice has been, during the last two years abated.
‘This affords ample proof that new sources of warmth have been opened and given us leave to hope that the Arctic seas may at this time be more accessible that they have been for centuries past, and that discoveries may now be made in them not only to the advancement of science but also to the future intercourse of mankind and the commerce of distant nations’
That was the President of the Royal Society, speaking to the Admiralty in London on November 20, 1817.
For a year or so I have been sitting on the European parliament’s Temporary Committee on Climate Change, which of course with a few honourable exceptions is populated by passionate climate alarmists and Little Green Devils. I have been not quite a lone voice crying in the wilderness, but close to it.
The rapporteur is German MEP Karl-Heinz Florenz, a charming fellow but a fully-paid-up member of the alarmist tendency. He has now produced his draft report , which is a predictable litany of bad science and worse economics (though to his credit he does at least recognise some of problems of biofuels, on which I have had a huge post-bag from the region).
We shall be debating his report in Committee in October, and I have the opportunity to table some amendments. All of my amendments will, of course, be voted down, but at least I shall give the rational position an airing. And the list of amendments makes quite a useful summary of the alternative case.
Parliamentary reports always start with a list of “recitals”, which means factors to be borne in mind in the report. Florenz has no fewer than 100, which is exceptional. These usually start “Whereas…”, and I have followed this quaint custom for my additional dozen.
Whereas the world has experienced no global warming for a decade, with average global temperatures static or declining since 1998
Whereas the pattern of global warming (in terms of latitude and altitude) predicted by computer models using the anthropogenic CO2 hypothesis is wholly at variance with actual climate changes as revealed by ground stations, meteorological balloons and especially satellite measurements
Whereas the climate forcing effect of CO2 is governed by a logarithmic relationship, creating a law of diminishing returns, so that future increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations from current levels will have only a marginal effect on climate
Whereas the global climate has been warmer than today’s for several periods during the last 5000 years, notably during the Holocene maxima, in the Roman optimum and in the Mediaeval Warm Period
Whereas more than 32,000 scientists have signed the Oregon Declaration challenging the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis, in addition to the similar Manhattan Declaration of March 2008
Whereas measures to reduce CO2 emissions, such as the Kyoto protocol, even if fully implemented, would have a trivial effect on climate
Whereas even if the EU adopts aggressive emissions policies, it is extremely unlikely that other major emitters such as China and India will do so, and the EU’s sacrifices will be in vain, and cause devastating economic damage and loss of competitiveness
Whereas studies of changes in sea level fail to show the increasing rate of rise predicted by anthropogenic climate models
Whereas despite predictions to the contrary, studies of polar bear populations show major increases in polar bear numbers in recent decades
Whereas many studies by reputable economists find that the costs of proposed action to mitigate climate change will significantly exceed any possible benefits
Whereas studies by reputable economists, notably by Bjorn Lomborg and his Copenhagen Consensus, show that money proposed to be used for CO2 emissions reduction would achieve much greater good for humanity if spent on other programmes like eradicating malaria, or providing fresh water, health-care and education across the third world
Whereas human societies have prospered in a wide range of temperatures and climates, and many commentators argue that adaptation to changes in climate are a much more measured and practical response to climate change than attempts to prevent it
A recent Populus Poll published on Conservative Home breaks down the party’s overall improvement in support by policy area. Overwhelmingly the Economy comes first, at +36%, with Tax & Spending at +21%, and housing at +17%. Europe lags in 5th position at +11%. And climate? The hot issue into which we’ve sunk so much effort? It’s down in 9th position, at a mere 6%. Of course most people think we should “do something” about climate, until they realise that it means £1000 extra on a new car, or £100 extra on the family holiday. And at a time when we’re facing exceptional inflation on both food and energy, the public are starting to understand that climate policies, biofuel targets and carbon taxes are helping to drive up prices. In the middle of an exceptionally cold summer, global warming is the least of their worries.
I saw a headline on the BBC News web-site, “Brown faces Climate Bill Revolt”, and for one glorious moment I thought that perhaps the Labour Party had had an outbreak of sanity. But it was not to be. It seems that 80 Labour MPs have signed up to an amendment to the Climate Bill that would require even deeper CO2 cuts by 2050 — 80% rather than the current draft figure of 60%.
This is a disaster for several reasons. I have covered on my blog a range of reasons why climate hysteria is misplaced. The slight increase in global temperatures since 1850 is totally consistent with the natural cyclical trends of global climate over many thousands of years. The observed pattern of warming, in terms of both latitude and altitude, is wholly different from that predicted by CO2-based climate models. The logarithmic nature of CO2’s climate forcing effect means that today’s levels of CO2 generate virtually all the greenhouse effect that CO2 can cause, and further emissions will make little difference. And to cap it all, the world has got slightly cooler over the last ten years. How long do we have to live with stable or cooling temperatures before climate hysteria runs out of steam?
Even the more modest EU CO2 reduction target of 20% by 2020 (15% for the UK) is unachievable, and will cause huge economic damage. The government is relying mostly on wind power, and it simply won’t get the turbines in time. When it does get them, it will find it difficult if not impossible to balance the grid with a high percentage of randomly variable wind power, and the costs and emissions of the necessary conventional back-up will off-set most of any environmental benefits.
Of course even if the UK could reduce its CO2 emissions to zero by next year, our shortfall would be made up by emissions growth in China alone in the same time-scale, so our impact on climate change (even if you accept the alarmist scenario) would be zero.
Perhaps the worst thing about a 2050 target is this: that none of today’s politicians will be there to carry the can in 2050 when our grandchildren find the lights have gone out and the economy is ruined. 2050 is 42 years away. How many political commitments from 42 years ago — 1966 — do you remember today? None. All too often a long-term target is a cynical device to get good headlines without doing anything. It’s a cheap promise for today’s politicians to make, because they know they won’t be around to deliver.
I’d be much more impressed if they would tell us what they’re going to do this year to ensure our energy security in ten years’ time. They could start by committing to a substantial new build programme of nuclear and coal-fired generators.
Following recent comments made by the Bishop of Stafford on the subject of Climate Change I have issued a podcast rebuttal which you can listen by clicking this link.
1 Is the world getting warmer? No. It warmed a little from the mid 70s to 1998. Since then global temperatures have been static or declining. This is much more consistent with a cyclical trend than a straight line.
2 Is the warming down to human activity? Almost certainly not. The predictive climate models on which the global warming hysteria is based all show that most warming should take place in the high atmosphere, between 5 and 10 kms up. But all the observations (both satellite and weather balloon) show that what warming there was, was most marked at the surface. Meantime astronomical observations show warming on Mars (where the frozen CO2 ice-caps are shrinking), as well as on other planets and moons. This is consistent with a solar cause, not a terrestrial cause. Even the IPCC admits that the CO2 greenhouse effect is logarithmic — a law of diminishing returns. At current levels of atmospheric CO2, even significant further increases in CO2 levels would have little effect on climate.
3 Will the current proposals to counter climate change have any effect on climate? Any effect will be trivial. Most experts agree that full implementation of Kyoto (which will not happen) would make only 0.2 degrees C difference to average global temperatures — and that not until the end of the century. Talk of a “Tipping Point” is so much nonsense. Changes to CO2 emissions would take decades to achieve, but reductions in consequent levels of atmospheric CO2 would take centuries. (It’s rather like the way that changes in birth rates take decades to feed through into population figures). For good or ill, we can’t make any significant difference.
4 What will the effect be on our economies? Disastrous. I’ve just seen credible estimates that the EU’s biofuels targets would cost €300 billion. The Stern Report suggested that the costs of inaction exceeded the costs of mitigation. But that assumes that mitigation would have some effect: it won’t. And it uses the wrong discount rate. OK, so it’s a bit technical, but the discount rate allows us to compare present costs with future benefits. The costs of mitigation today will be vast. The imagined benefits in fifty years time, properly discounted, are much less. And the damage we do to our economy today will leave us less well-placed to develop alternative solutions and energy-efficient technologies. We would do better to spend the money on alleviating poverty and providing health care and clean water in the third world, than on chasing unachievable climate targets.
Global warming is a politicians’ scam designed to centralise power and increase taxes.
Al Gore’s disaster movie is fiction, like most disaster movies. The decision by the government to distribute it has been the subject of legal action by a concerned parent, Stewart Dimmock. Although a full ruling has yet to be given, the Court found that the film was misleading in 11 respects and that the Guidance Notes drafted by the Education Secretary’s advisors served only to exacerbate the political propaganda in the film.In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that 1.) The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. 2.) If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. 3.) Eleven inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.
The inaccuracies are:
- The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government’s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
- The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
- The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming.
- The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that this was not the case.
- The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
- The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant’s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
- The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
- The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
- The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
- The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
- The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.
