US Congressman Lamar Smith has written a piece on climate that should be compulsory reading. But for those without the time even to read his piece, let me summarise the bullet points:
1 For 18 years, while atmospheric CO2 levels have increased, global surface temperatures have been flat, in defiance of the IPCC theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).
2 US CO2 emissions have reduced 9% since 2005. This was the result of market forces and new technology – not climate policy
3 In the last 1000 years, natural cyclical variation has seen temperatures both higher and lower than today’s. There is nothing exceptional to explain.
4 In the US, Obama’s environmental plans would cost billions of dollars, yet are projected to reduce global temperatures by only 0.01oC
5 Extreme weather: Even the IPCC admits that there is little or no link between climate change and extreme weather events.
6 Population growth (+ two billion by 2050) will lead to major increases in CO2 emissions, swamping the effect of our very expensive climate policies
7 Atmospheric CO2 amounts to only 0.038% of the atmosphere, and human activity contributes on 3% of that. Man-made emissions are essentially trivial.
For more detail, click the link to the Congressman’s speech.
Roger Helmer MEP 
Can I have a comment from the UKIP energy spokesman on this Roger?
Seems to me Point 6 has been blindingly obvious since the word “anthropogenic” entered the argument.
There are many other consequences of Population Growth, in particular loss of habitat for all other species.
We can also see from the current EU migrant crisis that human aspiration the World over is for a better life as exemplified by what we have in the “West”. So not only is the population growth an issue in itself, it is what all current and future population will want to do.
World Population growth was stated as a big problem in the 60’s. Family planning in the UK was introduced with vasectomies, condoms, the coil, fertility pills, abortion legalised, Income tax relief was then reduced to limit our population growth. We fell from an average 2.4 chidren per married couple to less than 1.4. We had complied and did what was required of us as responsible citizens.
Our reward has been unlimited immigration from the Third World of mainly people who encourage lots more children, because we needed them to fund our Old Age Retirement Pensions?
Was this logical or sensible? Or was this part of a plan for Global Internationalisation?
I think it was, and this is why I am a Nationalist.
I hope it wasn’t a conscious plan to change the ethnic make-up of Europe — but whether or not planned, that seems to be the effect. But read Matt Ridley (The Rational Optimist) on population growth.
I now it was Roger. Tony Blair has said, “We have changed the demographics of the UK irrevocably”.
Today there’s HOPE! AGW promoter sites endorsed the need for rigorous honesty in science:
https://businessblogsbysamtumblin.wordpress.com/2015/09/18/david-attenborough-backs-huge-apollo-style-clean-energy-research-plan/
Other issues can be resolved if we can agree “Stalin’s lock-step science“ is flawed and must be corrected.
https://brittius.wordpress.com/2015/08/16/dr-o-manuel-ph-d-stalins-science/
“Fact 1” isn’t true. http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-noaa-analyses-reveal-record-shattering-global-warm-temperatures-in-2015
“Fact 2”, if true, has nothing to do with the reality of climate science. But remember US emissions per capita are about 10 times what developing countries emit, so a 9% reduction won’t get them close to the developed country average, let alone get emissions down to where developed countries are committing themselves to get.
Fact 3 is a logical fallacy. The fact the climate changes naturally does not invalidate the reality of man made climate change.
Fact 4 is nothing to do with the reality of climate science. It questions the effectiveness of policies (and appears to agree with the proposition that changes in CO2 affect global temperatures)
Fact 5: the IPCC does agree that individual extreme weather events can’t causally be attributed to AGW (though more recent papers disagree). However, it seems you cherry pick bits of the IPCC that appear to support your position whilst ignoring the vast swathes of it that don’t.
Fact 6: population growth may well be a problem but remember breathing is a carbon neutral activity. If it leads (as it probably will) to increased fossil fuel emissions and increased deforestation then that drives more CO2 into the air. But if CO2 doesn’t change the climate as you assert, why worry about it? If you’re worried about it you obviously agree CO2 drives the climate.
Fact 7: Roger, I though you had a maths degree? That 3% is PER YEAR above the natural balance. Like interest on money, that means the total amount in the air increases. In fact we can measure that it has increased from 270ppm around 1850 to 400ppm now, a near 50% increase. Basic physics tells us that this must warm the planet. Did you do any physics in your maths degree? Thought not.
I’d suggest you take this down to avoid embarrassing yourself.
I can see you, as a libertarian, disagree with regulatory policies. That’s fine: argue for alternatives (and do nothing is a policy to consider). But please don’t argue that policies are not needed because you assert with no evidence that the science is wrong.