Why we must repeal the Climate Change Act

"Snowball Earth": the real climate threat is cooling, not warming

At a recent meeting someone thrust a small booklet into my hand.  Entitled “Reconsidering the Climate Change Act”, it summarised a presentation given on Feb 22nd this year in the House of Commons by the renowned atmospheric physicist Richard S. Lindzen of MIT.  And it should be compulsory reading for policymakers, including that huge majority of MPs who voted for the Climate Change Act in October 2008 (as an exceptionally early snow fell over London).  The booklet is published by the Campaign to Repeal the Climate Change Act.  For a copy, e-mail pf.smp@dial.pipex.com.

The Climate Change Act is expected to cost the British economy an eye-watering £18 billion a year for forty years.  And it’s probably unnecessary.

Lindzen makes some key points.  The warming we have seen over the last century is less than 1 degree C, which is entirely consistent with natural variation.  It is best interpreted as a continuing recovery from the Little Ice Age, preceding a new 21st Century Optimum comparable to the Roman Optimum or the Mediaeval Warm Period.  And in fact it seems to have stopped in 1998: there has been no further warming trend for the past fifteen years.

The Arctic Ice is not melting significantly (though reports of its demise have appeared in the press a number of times since the mid-nineteenth century).  And long-term changes in sea level are almost within the limits of measurement error, and are utterly trivial compared either to shorter-term sea level changes or the very real and rapid changes at the beginning of the current interglacial.

Anyone who has looked at a graph of global temperatures over the last two and a half million years would see an Ice Age, with short regular spikes to warmer temperatures every 100,000 years or so.  We are in such a spike right now, and if that very regular cycle continues, we could expect glaciation to resume in the next thousand years or so.  Global cooling is a much more realistic threat to humanity than global warming.  A resumption of the glaciation seen 20,000 years ago would decimate humanity.  Snowball Earth could be with us soon.

Lindzen points out that a doubling of atmospheric CO2, from the current c. 400 ppm to 800 ppm would probably cause a warming of around 1 degree C.  And because the relationship is logarithmic, it would take a further doubling — an extra 800 ppm, not an extra 400 — to raise it another one degree.  The rather arbitrary target of “Not more than Two degrees” seems unlikely to be exceeded.

So how come the IPCC is pedalling disaster scenarios?  They have to postulate positive feedback effects to amplify the warming and increase the sensitivity of temperature to CO2.  Yet these effects have not been demonstrated, still less proved.  Meantime studies of the actual relationship between temperature and warming over the last century suggest that sensitivity is actually lower than one degree per doubling — that is, there may actually be negative feedbacks, like increased cloud cover affecting the albedo (reflectivity) of the earth.

The IPCC’s disaster scenario is quite literally speculative, and unsupported by the evidence.  It exists in a virtual world of computer models which reflect the prejudices and the inputs of the climatologists who programmed them, and have about as much relevance to the real world as Grand Theft Auto.

The commentariat ridicules Lembit Opik for his obsession with the threat of an asteroid strike, yet they fail to see that their obsession with climate change is equally over-cooked.  The Climate Change Act is a catastrophically disproportionate response to an entirely speculative problem.

Climate Change is a threat to humanity first and foremost because of the vast economic damage which our responses to it will do.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Why we must repeal the Climate Change Act

  1. Bloke down the pub says:

    When enough people say it, the powers that be may realise that the emporer has no clothes.

  2. Absolutely correct. Climate change is real enough, but the effects can be warmer or cooler, and it has been so for hundreds of thousands of years. And CO2 has some influence. The real discussion devolves around the so-called “re-inforcing effect” of CO2 which is undemomstrated, in the major “disaster” mode and is counter to observed effects, but is used, emphatically, in climte modelling. This latter is why climate models seem always to be in conflict with the data collected.

    Certainly high time this nonsence was abandoned.

    The only reason for a low carbon economy is our independence of foreign fuel which can hold us to ransom at any time. It does NOT mean wildly pursuing renewables, none of which offer any sort of solution, but they do pay a small minority amongst us very, very handsomely, with our money.

    Richard Phillips, NEWBURY.

  3. Mike Spilligan says:

    RH: I don’t know what the “mechanism” is for initiating a repeal to an Act, but in any case I suspect that there will be few who voted for this only 3-and-a-half years ago and who will now be willing to admit that they got it wrong and do (as the cliche goes) a U-turn. Only 3 members of all parties voted against, I believe. I wrote to my MP – East Midlands, Tory, by the way – about this a year ago and his reply was just the usual nonsense. He certainly doesn’t want to upset Cameron or any of his colleagues who will carry on pointing their noses in the air, while wearing no clothes.

  4. Video Part 1 of 2 Organised by Campaign to Repeal the Climate Change Act
    Reconsidering the Climate Change Act “Global Warming: How to approach the science (climate models and the evidence?) with MIT Prof Richard S. Lindzen Seminar Held at the UK House of Commons on the 22nd February 2012

  5. David W. says:

    It’s no coincidence that many of the World Bank’s climate change purveyors are conveniently, simultaneously economics experts and climate change experts. The love of money (i.e., power) is indeed the root of all evil. No wonder the industrialized world is swimming in a sea of debt.

    Get it?

  6. Edward. says:

    Quite apart from the loony idea of MM CO2 precipitating climate thermageddon, which incidentally is a supposition of outrageous nebulosity. The actual cost of the ‘green energy agenda’ and fighting a non existent threat will, in the very near future; bankrupt the nation. Here are a few salient facts; it will close down British industry and manufacturing [carbon floor price] and cause widespread and prolonged blackouts……………………………….Worse even than the above…..

    The British climate change act was drafted by a set of amateurs:

    Bryony Worthington.

    She was born and grew up in Wales,[3] and graduated in English literature at Queens’ College, Cambridge,[4] before joining Operation Raleigh as a fundraiser. In the mid 1990s, she worked for an environmental charity, and by 2000 had moved to work for Friends of the Earth as a climate change campaigner. She then worked for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, implementing public awareness campaigns and helping draft the Climate Change Bill, before becoming head of government relations for the energy company, Scottish and Southern Energy. She left to form Sandbag in 2008.[5]

    She was raised to the peerage as Baroness Worthington, of Cambridge in the County of Cambridgeshire, in 2011, and sits on the Labour benches.[6]


    English graduate, no less and climate activist know nowt – who makes British law! Is that not – reason enough to bin this effin ACT of treachery – 2008 climate ACT?

    Repeal, rescind? NO, roll out the tumbrels for the nutters who wrote this piece of trash into law.

  7. A few weeks after the event in London, England, UK.
    Lord Monckton appeared at London, Ontario, Canada,
    to give several interviews and to address the 2012
    Nerenberg Lecture at University of Western Ontario.

    Much controversy preceeded this event, and Monckton
    delivers a mathematical argument which, leaving aside
    the contention and disceptation about the exact role of CO2
    in the observed atmospheric temperature variances, is surely
    very persuasive and irresistable. Monckton argues from a
    standpoint of applied mathematics to prove that the economic case
    for “carbon taxes”, and “carbon mitigation” strategies, is seriously
    flawed, and in fact untenable.

    See the Full Story at the UKIP Scotland website ….
    “Monckton’s Schenectady showdown in the USA”

    • David W says:

      At the last Scottish general election UKIP received 1% of the vote.

      If they continue to peddle nonsense as above, they will become even more of a laughing stock.

      • David W –
        That wouldn’t be “Professor” David Walter Wolfe would it?

        Certainly you reflect his views, for he is a arrant collaborator
        in the climate mummery & sustainable development stakes.

        You do not say what is the “nonsense” you complain about,
        and that is typical of the fatuous gainsayer. Wooly headed
        and vague mutterings is about all that they are capable of.
        No rational sane person would be persuaded by undefined
        banalities, such as you have proffered.

        In reality it is the demonstrable ignorance, of SNP Leader
        Alex Salmond which is becoming ever more risible as each
        day passes. His ludicrous statements are frankly untenable,
        and he and his party are daily ridiculed in the newpapers.

        Clearly Salmond won his Scottish Parliamentary majority
        because of the collapse of the Liberal Democrat vote in the
        last Scottish Elections, and would have had to form a coalition
        to retain power, if that were not so. The SNP policy continues
        to preach of an “independence within The EU”, and there is a
        classic oxymoron isn’t it. The EU is in a state of imminent
        collapse and failure, and everyone sees it but Salmond & Co.

        As to the Climate Change Act itself, I wonder whether the
        commenter “David W” has actually read it. The entire
        document reads like a bad paperback fiction novelette.
        For legislation to be enacted on the basis of innuendo,
        falacious taradiddle, vacuous twaddle, and utter baloney, is
        tantamount to misconduct in public office. That is the truth.

  8. Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup | Watts Up With That?

  9. Don Vandervelde says:

    Excellent article, thanks. Only would it were really true that the IPCC were pedalling its rot instead of peddling it. Cheers, Don V.

  10. Pingback: ALEC-New Partnerships and Exposing Hidden Foreign Influences – with a Comparison to the NCSL | vltp.net

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s