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
Search the blog
Calendar of posts
- My final speech in Strasbourg – Two-seat parliament a perfect metaphor for the hubris and futility of EU project
- The European parliament: an apology
- COP21 climate agreement: An eye-watering amount of money for virtually no return
- £100,000 mis-spent?
- EU energy labelling: confusing consumers and creating problems for industry
Jane Davies on The European parliament: an… catweazle666 on The European parliament: an… Sheila White on The European parliament: an… charles wardrop on The European parliament: an… Mike Maunder on The European parliament: an…
- 943,952 hits
- Add new tag
- Air fares
- Alan Johnson
- Al Gore
- Animal Welfare
- Broughton Astley
- Climate Change
- Credit Crunch
- David Cameron
- David Davis
- emissions trading
- Energy Security
- EU Presidency
- Freedom Zone
- Free Speech
- Global Warming
- GM Food
- gordon brown
- Lib Dems
- Liberal Democrats
- Monetary Union
- No Campaign
- Peer reviewed papers
- Philip Lardner
- Politics Show
- roger helmer
- Sarah Palin
- Stem Cell Research
- St George's Day
- The Freedom Zone
- Vice President
- windfall tax
What a refreshing summary of the facts this is. A couple of points not mentioned. 1. The models predict that if anthropogenic warming is a reality, there will be a “signature” – a hot zone about 10km above the earth. Despite all the searches, it hasn’t been found. 2. IPCC claims that 2,500 scientists have reviewed their findings. However, that doesn’t mean they agreee with them. In fact, many onjections have been buried and quietly ignored.
Whereas just a tiny 2% of the CO2 in the atmosphere derives from fossil fuels. Etc Etc …
I wonder how far global temperatures will have to fall before dim witted politicians wake up to the fact that “man made CO2 caused global warming” is a total scam ?
Thanks for the helpful comments. In fact my second point about the pattern of warming was meant to cover the “hot zone” point — difficult to get over in a few words.
Like you, I hate introductions with a long list of “recitals”.
But I have a comment to your second last item.
You write:”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 . . .”
First: Lomborg is not an economist, and some of his understanding of economics is somewhat shallow. He is, by education, a political scientist.
Next, it is not true that the Copenhagen Consensus shows what Lomborg purports it to show. The thing is that the various items that have been compared have not been treated with the same discount rate. If for instance the item dealing with research and development to mitigate climate change had been analysed with a discount rate of 3 %, like the malaria item was, then there would have been a higher benefit/cost ratio for the climate issue than for the malaria issue. It is only be “cheating” – analysing the climate issue with a higher discount rate than the other items – that Lomborg could reach the result that he obviously wanted.
Things are not always like they seem to be.
You may check this on the website
or se my comments at the end of the thread at