“Climate deniers are mad”

The Guardian (God bless it) of Sept 23rd carries a wonderfully patronising article seeking to analyse the psychological traits that lead to “climate denial”.  You might paraphrase it “Why climate deniers are mad”.

Note the implied assumption that the current climate orthodoxy is “settled”, that all sensible people accept it, and that dissent is not seen as a sign of keen interest and lively debate, but simply evidence of flawed psychology verging on madness.  This shows a fundamental failure to understand the scientific method.  Anyone (like President Obama) who asserts that “the science is settled” just doesn’t understand science.  Science is about establishing hypotheses which are always subject to potential falsification by subsequent data or experiment – indeed if a proposition is not falsifiable, it is not science.

Author Michael Crichton (Jurassic Park) expressed it perfectly: “There is no such thing as consensus science.  If it’s consensus, it isn’t science.  If it’s science, it isn’t consensus.  Period”.  Yet the Guardian is still repeating the “97% consensus” myth which has been comprehensively debunked.  And it reports that “Rejection of experts spreads from Brexit to climate change” – despite the fact that the “experts” proved diametrically wrong on Brexit.  Be careful what similes you choose – they may come back to bite you.

The suggestion is that “climate deniers reject climate science”.  Yet for a start, there are no climate deniers.  No one denies that the climate exists. No one denies that it changes.  But there are different interpretations of the reasons driving the changes in climate.

Secondly, I’m not aware of anyone who rejects the science.  But we (clearly I am someone whom the Guardian regards as a “climate denier”) do reject dogmatic interpretations of the science that lead to improbable conclusions.

No one denies that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.  But we do question the dogmatic assumption that the world’s complex and chaotic climate system can be reduced to a single variable.  Even the IPCC identifies many factors that impact on the global climate (like solar changes and volcanoes), before deciding that perhaps CO2 is the only one that merits its attention.

We “deniers” note that the world’s average temperature has followed a 1000-year cyclical pattern for at least 10,000 years, and arguably for much longer.  We note that the slight late-twentieth century warming is entirely consistent with that long-term, natural cyclical pattern, and therefore (applying Occam’s Razor) we are disinclined to seek exceptional explanations for it, or to pin the blame on anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

We note also that the standard IPCC position involves large numbers of computer models of global temperature which have persistently and grossly over-estimated future temperatures – failing the basic test of science that hypotheses should lead to predictions which can be confirmed experimentally.

We recall Al Gore’s film “An Inconvenient Truth” in which he cites a long-term (600,000 year) correlation between temperature and atmospheric CO2 as conclusive proof that (unexplained) changes in CO2 levels drive temperatures.  We on the other hand note that the temperature cycle precedes the CO2 cycle by a thousand years or so, and we conclude that the temperature drives the CO2 level.  It seems likely that the long-term temperature cycle is driven by cyclical astronomical factors.  And we know that warming oceans are able to hold less CO2 in solution, so warming results in CO2 being released from the oceans into the atmosphere.  There is approximately fifty times more CO2 in the oceans than in the atmosphere, so relatively small changes in dissolved CO2 in the oceans can result in disproportionate changes in atmospheric CO2.

Warmists cheerfully assume that rising CO2 levels over the last century are solely the result of anthropogenic emissions.  They could equally be the result of cyclical warming and out-gassing from the oceans.

We recall that in geo-historical terms, the current level of atmospheric CO2 at around 400 ppm is very low – the level has been at least ten times higher, maybe fifteen times, in the remote past, and those periods were not associated with “runaway global warming”.  We recall also that CO2 is an invisible, non-toxic trace gas in the atmosphere, a gas which is essential for life on earth.  In fact the current increase in atmospheric CO2 is greening the planet, promoting plant growth, bio-mass formation and crop yields.

We “deniers” even know enough about climate science to be aware that the warming effect of atmospheric CO2 is non-linear —  it follows a law of diminishing returns.  It takes a doubling of CO2 to produce a given temperature impact.  So if doubling from say 400 ppm to 800 ppm produced a temperature rise of xoC, it would take not another 400ppm, but another doubling – 800 ppm – to produce the next xoC.

So this begs the important question – what is the value of “x”?  Surely the orthodox climate scientists and the IPCC must know the answer?  Right?  No.  Wrong, I’m afraid.  The IPCC offers a range of estimates from 1.5oC to 4.5oC – an enormous variation.  A factor of three.  Some climate scientists believe that the actual value may be even lower, and the gross over-estimates of computer-based temperature projections lend credence to that view.

It is simply absurd that the Paris Climate Conference proposes “a limit of 2oC on global warming”, and argues between 2o and 1.5o, when the official climate science body, the IPCC, offers such a huge range of uncertainty on climate sensitivity.  Its forecasts become virtually meaningless.

Add to this the effect of both positive and negative feed-back effects, which are not at all well-understood, and the uncertainty becomes overwhelming.  Some climate scientists believe that the net effect of all feedbacks could be negative.  I personally lean to the view of distinguished American atmospheric physicist Fred Singer that “if there is a signal from anthropogenic CO2 emissions, it is lost in the noise of other factors”.

So the world is not divided between rational climate scientists who subscribe to the IPCC consensus, set against anti-science “deniers”.  On the contrary, there is (or needs to be) a real debate between different but legitimate opinions and interpretations about the conclusions that can be drawn from a very uncertain and complex situation.  Oh, and maybe the Guardian could try to take a slightly less patronising tone.






This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

58 Responses to “Climate deniers are mad”

  1. Kevan Chippindall-Higgin says:

    I attended Philip Foster’s talk at the conference and that was a real eye opener. I am now reading his book before diving into a different one on Thorium.

    Philip’s core point is very simple. If the CO2 layer was reflecting heat back to earth, it would have to heat up. It does not. It is impossible to use a cool source to heat something up. Most people are aware of this which is why they turn the heating on in winter rather than cranking up the air conditioning.

    Thanks for bringing your blog back Roger. I wanted to thank you in person at the dinner but missed you.

    • charles wardrop says:

      Surely CO2, is a diffused gas rather than a narrow layer like a blanket or metallic sheet, so any warming of it would be too small and diffuse for it to be detectable?
      However, the fable of AGW is clearly just that and climate scientists simply do not understand and cannot predict what will happen next or, so far, ever!

  2. Jane Davies says:

    Please worry no more…..these two are going to STOP climate change, phew……I will sleep more soundly knowing that everything will be OK now.

  3. Oliver K. Manuel says:

    Thank you, Roger, for this post. Society now faces a major decision. Shall we:

    1. Accept reality, as revealed by precise measurements and observations on mass (m) and energy (E) by Albert Einstein in 1905 and Francis William Aston in 1922, or

    2. Be enslaved by Carl von Weizsacker’s (1935) and Hans Bethe’s (1936) false model of nuclear binding energy that hid neutron repulsion, the source of energy that powers the Sun and the cosmos?

    There is no third option. Reality vs. Enslavement is the issue in the AGW debate.

    • Oliver K. Manuel says:

      Roger, believers in global warming in fact rejected the science of Einstein (1905) and Aston (1922): E = mc^2; Rest mass (m) is stored energy (E); The Sun made sustains every atom, life and planet in the solar system.

      The Big Bang Model of Cosmology, Standard Solar Model of hydrogen-filled stars, and Standard Model of Earth’s Climate are all based on Weizsacker’s (1935) and Bethe’s (1936) flawed model of nuclear energy. Their error hid NEUTRON REPULSION, the source of energy that powers atomic bombs, the Sun and the cosmos.

      The error in logic that isolated humanity from reality for the past eighty years is shown by the sloping baseline across the top of Figure 2:


      The late P. K. Kuroda (1917-2001) deserves credit for noticing this misunderstanding at the end of Aston’s lecture on nuclear energy at the Imperial University of Tokyo on 13 June 1936.

      • Oliver K. Manuel says:

        In brief, the official structure of postwar science has focused more on hiding nuclear energy in atomic bombs from the public than on using that energy to advance mankind.

  4. Jane Davies says:

    Apologies for going off topic but is this true? As for Dianne Abbots comment that Brexit voters are all racist……unbelievably ignorant assumption, so only white folk voted for Brexit then?


    • David says:

      I seldom call folk names but abbott is a !”$^*)+>t

    • Ex-expat Colin says:

      Missed it..was it this:
      “Diane Abbott declared that anyone who complains about the EU’s freedom of movement simply wants “less foreign-looking people on their streets”.”


      She’s getting the message though…I thought Brexit was caused by old UK farts? Those being the ones who were conned at the outset..Common Market BS.

      London was always full of foreigners…ask the way to somewhere in the 60/70’s and invariably it was a foreigner who couldn’t help you. Now, I wouldn’t even stop to ask..thank god for GPS! (can I say god?)

      • KennieD says:

        “Diane Abbott declared that anyone who complains about the EU’s freedom of movement simply wants “less foreign-looking people on their streets”.”
        Colin, did the racist ignorant Abbott really say that and what does she actually mean by it? Does she mean:
        (a) she thinks people want foreigners to try to look more British,
        (b) she thinks foreigners should be smaller
        (c) or did her ignorance of the English language triumph when she actually meant “fewer” foreign-looking people?

      • David says:

        Certainly you may invoke Gods’ name in that context, but Please, respect His status with capital first letters – there’s a good chap ;-))

    • steveta_uk says:

      Jane, I find the assumption that only white folks can be racist to be incredibly racist.

  5. Shieldsman says:

    The “97% consensus” myth was an outright swindle accepted by environmentalists and politicians with no scientific training or knowledge. It was the Guardian and its cohorts who helped push the consensus lie.
    I think your history lecture is very important – We recall that in geo-historical terms, the current level of atmospheric CO2 at around 400 ppm is very low – the level has been at least ten times higher, maybe fifteen times, in the remote past, and those periods were not associated with “runaway global warming”. We recall also that CO2 is an invisible, non-toxic trace gas in the atmosphere, a gas which is essential for life on earth. In fact the current increase in atmospheric CO2 is greening the planet, promoting plant growth, bio-mass formation and crop yields.

    The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is minute in comparison with the major green house gas – water vapor and is constantly being recycled by the Earths vegetation.

    The modern day climatologist concentrates on recorded temperatures since the start of the Industrial Age and tries to pin any temperature rise on CO2 from burning fossil fuels, which emit heat.The long term temperature recordings are from the Northern Hemisphere and include the CET. THE CET shows a steady temperature rise starting Centuries ago, long before 1890.

    Since 1940 and the expansion of Aviation the Meteorologist has expanded his knowledge of the Earths oceans and atmosphere, but they still have a lot to learn. Events like El Nino are still rather a mystery.

  6. Francis says:

    Roger, it is hard to deny your logic and of course CO2 is essential for all life. Unfortunately the real issues of concern are pollution and CO2 cannot be considered in that group. However, CO2 is used to measure those pollutants and thus the falsehood was born. We need to have another measure that is meaningful. The obvious one being NOx. Now this is a bad boy and we do need to reduce it.

  7. “the “97% consensus” myth”

    Or, as Einstein put it when the Nazis assembled 100 physicists to declare that his theories were wrong, “If I’m wrong, wouldn’t one have been enough?”

    • Oliver K. Manuel says:

      Thanks, Andrew, for a great Einstein quote. The answer to Einstein’s question: At least 99 other physicists were required for Nazis to have 99% consensus agreement

  8. charles wardrop says:

    A baffling mystery is the near-unanimity of MPs in passing Climate Change Acts and now in retaining a Parliamentary CCComittee, when it is clear the greenhouse gas-AGW bogey was false.
    Do initial simple gullibility and now inertia explain these, or is its persistence based on various kinds of corruption, in your view, Mr Helmer?
    Surely we voters ought to be able to trust legislators to recognise “King’s New Clothes” cons ?

    • Oliver K. Manuel says:

      A greater and more baffling mystery has been the near-unanimity of National Academies of Sciences to abandon Einstein’s 1905 and Aston’s 1922 definition of mass (m) as energy (E) and to adopt instead the flawed definition of nuclear binding energies by Drs. Carl von Weizsacker in 1935 and Hans Bethe in 1936.

      Society can be restored to sanity (contact with reality) if this 80-year old error is corrected.

    • Kevan Chippindall-Higgin says:

      If only. The majority of MPs have bought into the EU myth so why stop there? Any incredible nonsense seems grist to their mill. The problem is that this myth has grown so huge with so many jobs reliant upon it that it has attained a life force of its own. There are too many vested interests ensuring that true science is swiftly swept under the carpet.

      For many years, it was exactly the same with the EU. Only now have people woken up to the simple reality that leaving the EU will not result in the UK being cast adrift in the North Atlantic. Once everyone gets used to that idea and emerge blinking into the sunlight, we can start to make real progress.

    • Francesca Macfarlane says:

      May’s chief adviser/guru Nick Timothy has described the 2008 Climate Change Act as a “unilateral and monstrous act of self-harm”, so perhaps it will be repealed in the not too distant future.

  9. Dung says:


    I truly welcome your excellent post on this subject, for me it ranks alongside the need to leave the EU as the most important issue facing the UK (and the planet in the case of CO2).
    This is going to sound like heresy but (gulp) in reality our scientists know next to nothing about how our climate works. I prefer to ignore the scientific theories and look at what we believe are the facts.
    Atmospheric CO2 was 800,000 parts per million at the time the earth was formed and as someone above commented; todays level of 400 ppm is dangerously low NOT high.
    During the 4.5 billion billion years since the earth was formed the earth never once went up in smoke despite levels of CO2 being consistently higher than today.
    The problem is the UN where there is a clique of scientists who think that humans are parasites who are destroying our planet (which they could not do if they set off every atomic bomb in existence).
    These people are not interested in facts or truth and so all the things we have said here have no effect.

    • KennieD says:

      Well said, Dung.
      Two problems at the UN:
      (1) too much money sloshing around mainly in the chosen ones’ pockets,
      (2) too much undeserved power being wielded by those in (1), making other people frightened of saying the “wrong” things.

      • Roger Turner says:

        I`ll go along with your first point KennieD
        but would add “Too much borrowed money”
        People borrow money, invest it, take the profit, and pass on the debt; sort of a giant game of pass the parcel, one muggins eventually gets left with it, probably the tax payer.
        This thought is not mine originally, I was watching Vivienne Westwood on RT this morning on “Going Underground”

  10. mike5262015 says:

    I have read some of the ideas about CO2 problems, and find that there are those who say it is natural, and the planet can cope, and those who say that if we continue we will kill the planet. Then there are those with sudo chemistry science knowledge, who pontificate their views for the confusion of us all. My view, which is in no way scientifically based, is BOLLOCKS ! I have a life of knowledge within the environment in which I live, and a little sense to guide me ! ……… Well done and Thanks Roger, your comments are taken on board with all the rest.

  11. Ex-expat Colin says:

    Driven to madness I’d say:
    “Why The UK Should Not Sign The Paris Agreement” – Clexit

    Its truly amazing how those we vote for tangle us in ever greater trouble(s). So another attempt at disruption is under way here: (Paul Homewood)


    Meanwhile US shale gas ships into Grangemouth

  12. DocRichard says:

    Roger, you say “We “deniers” note that the world’s average temperature has followed a 1000-year cyclical pattern for at least 10,000 years”. Please give a source for this. The only 10,000 year record I know is Marcott, and with the best will in the world I cannot see a 1000 year cycle http://www.realclimate.org/images/Marcott.png

  13. earlrobo says:

    Hello Roger, Thanks, that’s a great post, I am a Chartered Chemist and you are correct. Volcanoes which are emitting CO2 and other greenhouse gases continuously, ofter violently, have a much great global warming [if it even exists] contribution to the planet’s atmosphere than man.

    Also methane emitted in vast quantities by cattle and rotting vegetation worldwide has 20 times more effect, not to mention water vapour.

    Here the Wikipedia Greenhouse Gas entry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

    [image: Inline images 1]

    “keep the masses scared’ particularly the non-scientifically educated masses, is this latest made-up madness, to control the people and then tax them to ‘Save the planet’.

    Windmills? Utter nonsense, as I know you know fully well, they make politicians rich [Clegg’s wife is a director of a Spanish windmill manufacturer or example] their manufacture, installation and running costs costs area don’t make any economic sense, etc.etc.

    Sorry, I know fully well you already know all this.

    Best wishes fellow UKIP member,

    Phil Rowbotham [Stockport]

    PS I met you once some 3-4 years ago and we had a chat in Manchester at a UKIP delegation when we went on an evening canal boat trip down the Manchester Ship Canal after Nigel had been speaking in Bridgewater Hall.

    On 27 September 2016 at 18:45, Roger Helmer MEP wrote:

    > rogeroffice posted: “The Guardian (God bless it) of Sept 23rd carries a > wonderfully patronising article seeking to analyse the psychological traits > that lead to “climate denial”. You might paraphrase it “Why climate > deniers are mad”. Note the implied assumption that the cur” >

  14. John Reid says:

    The OED defines the term denier as “A person who denies something, especially someone who refuses to admit the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence.” Note that it is the majority of evidence (not of people or votes) that is at issue. Since there is very little evidence to support the climate-change hypothesis and plenty against it, the term “climate change denier” is an oxymoron. I prefer the term “climate change whistle-blower”. See my blog at blackjay.net

  15. I would say that anything that is modelling future events – especially something as complex as the climate – is not ‘settled’ by definition.

  16. Ex-expat Colin says:

    Once upon a time I experienced the qualities of Resonance (Oscillators in Transmitters & Receivers) not knowing about National Grid Systems…and then:

    Discussion on a bus:
    “On our return trip from ANL (Argonne National Lab) Andrew Dodson was interviewed by Scott Medwid and Rick Maltese on the subject of grid stability, and the impact of “green energy”.”

    This topic arises due to the loss of all power in S. Australia on 28/9/16. The vid is technical to begin with but gets easier on the head towards the end when the “Hippy Grid” is mentioned. Turbines and Solars which really need their own grid and DC at that… if you don’t mind scheduling your life round them….just right for hippies?

  17. Oliver K. Manuel says:

    Kennie D. asked how an 80 year error in nuclear energy can be corrected now and I tried to post this answer above:

    1. My research mentor noticed the error in the first question asked after Aston finished his lecture at the Imperial University of Tokyo on 13 June 1936

    2. My students, colleagues and I first published a correction to the nuclear energy error in 2000: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1012290028638

    3. Dr. Dale Evans and Jo Nova were getting close to independently discovering the error. That is probably why Nature published a Featured News Story on it that is difficult to find on June 30, 2016: http://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/1.20175!/menu/main/topColumns/topLeftColumn/pdf/534610a.pdf

    4. The error is publicly exposed in a paper, Neutron repulsion published on pp 86-87 of The London 2016 Conference on Climate Change: Science & Geoethics – Conference volume of extended abstracts & commentary notes, 3rd revision. Preprint: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/NEUTRON_REPULSIONb.pdf

    • KennieD says:

      Thank you very much for that. I can read and try to understand what you are saying and the links posted by you and others.
      However, what I meant was, how do we get the messages around and get people (notably, the bought and paid for “concensus”) to accept that there may be an alternative school of thought. The “concensus” has managed to capture all the taxpayers’ money and will share it only with their fellow travellers, including most of the MSM and powerful politicians. Deniers, as they call people who question their conclusions, are mainly shunned, refused research money and refused publicity.
      How can that loaded situation be challenged?

      • Oliver K. Manuel says:

        There are many social benefits from tyrannical thought control. For anyone to oppose it, they will probably have to experience, personally, the evils of tyrannical thought control.

        The investigative reporter, Jon Rappoport, has struggled with this issue for years in his reports on the WORLDWIDE MATRIX OF DECEIT

      • Oliver K. Manuel says:

        It helped me to discover empirically that the Sun’s pulsar core is in constant and immediate control of every atom, life and planet in the solar system.

        Cosmic rays from the Sun induce charge separation (ionization) in air that causes condensation of water vapor into electrically charged clouds that we experience as lightening and thunder.

        There is a pulsar at the core of every star, so the one in the Sun only coincides with the historical definition of God for inhabitants of the solar system.

      • Oliver K. Manuel says:

        See this one-page summary on Energy in the Solar System:

        I regret that I have been so incompetent at communicating the sloping baseline that Weizsacker and Bethe used to calculate nuclear binding energy.

  18. KennieD says:

    Off topic but very important. Just heard on 10 o’clock news on ITV.
    Diane James resigns as UKIP leader after less than 3 weeks.
    What on earth is going on? And Nigel says he won’t return for $10M.

    • Oliver K. Manuel says:

      Very strange development!

    • David says:

      Update on UKIP leadership scene.
      UKIP Chairman has indicated that Nigel Farage IS prepared on a short term basis to step back into the breach – never doubt his commitment to UKIP and the welfare of Great Britain.

  19. Jane Davies says:

    This second rate actor jets around the world telling us ignorant folk that we should all decrease our carbon bloody footprints by not jetting off on our hols and have staycations instead and now this grade one hypocrite is saying this crap……methinks the little man is getting to big for his boots (pardon the contradiction!)


  20. edhoskins says:

    A summary On being a denier

    So with my views I would be derided as a “denier”, but I do not deny the following:

    I do not deny that climate changes. It does it all the time and can go either way warmer or colder.
    I do not deny that the world got warmer in the latter half of the 20th century, just as it did in the earlier half of the 20th century at about the same rate and to about the same degree: then there was no possibility of any influence from Man-made CO2.
    I do not deny that the world has gotten significantly warmer since the Little Ice Age and that this warming has produced a more congenial climate for man-kind and the biosphere.
    I do not deny that the earlier Medieval and Roman warm periods of the Holocene were even warmer than current temperatures.
    I do not deny that the previous millennium 1000 – 2000 AD was the coldest millennium of the current benign Holocene epoch
    I do not deny that the Holocene climate “optimum”, around 6000 BC, was more than 3°C warmer that the depths of the Little Ice Age.
    I do not deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. But it’s effect is minor and it is one of several warming influences the most important of which are water vapour and clouds.
    I do not deny that some 77% of the effectiveness of CO2 (up to ~200ppmv) as a greenhouse gas is essential of the survival of plant life and thus all life earth.
    I do not deny that the influence of CO2 on temperature diminishes with increasing concentrations and is now at ~400ppmv. At that level some 87% of its effectiveness as greenhouse gas is already expended
    I do not deny that man is contributing to the increase of atmospheric levels of CO2.
    I do not deny that Man-made CO2 output is inevitably going to continue to rise until the underdeveloped world, still about half the world’s population, has universal access to electricity and other life enhancing affordable energy sources.
    I do not deny that Man-kind pollutes the environment and does do significant toxic damage to the planet.
    I do not deny that variations in the output of the Sun at its full spectrum of visible and non-visible wavelengths has a significant but often unappreciated influence on the World’s climate.
    I do not deny that and the planetary mechanics of the Solar system has a major long term influence on the World’s climate.

    But from my examination of the Climate question I do deny the following:

    I do deny that atmospheric CO2 from any source is a dangerous pollutant: it is the foundation of photosynthesis – thus fortunately it is the basis for all life on earth.
    I do deny that CO2 is currently at dangerous levels in the atmosphere: presently it is at rather low levels compared to the historic past of our planet and the needs of plant life.
    I do deny that Man-made CO2 can ever be the most significant control knob for world climate.
    I do deny that any further moderate warming within normal limits, (+2°C or more) is a global catastrophe.
    I do deny that +2°C could ever be attained by Man-made CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels, because of the limiting and radical diminution effect that applies to increasing concentrations of CO2 into the future.
    I do deny that any additional warming is significantly enhanced by massive positive feed-backs that radically increase the effective warming that may be produced by higher CO2 concentrations.
    I do deny that there are major worldwide negative and catastrophic risks caused by Man-made Warming / Climate Change.

    This group of illustrated essays poses some of the central questions and solutions about the Man-made Global warming assertion. It also questions the due diligence with which they have been confirmed as irrefutable.

    Man-made Global Warming Advocates and Alarmists only ever emphasise the catastrophe that awaits the world in the future as a result of Man-made Global warming.

    But the obverse is more likely to be true.

    Increased levels of CO2 and a rather warmer, probably wetter, climate within natural limits will continue to bring real benefits to the biosphere and mankind just as they did in the previous 20th century and during the warmer periods of our current benign Holocene epoch.

    The world could well survive having additional areas available for viable, well fertilised, agriculture.

    Instead it is likely that the short spurt in global warming at the end of the last century, that gave rise to and has been exaggerated as the “Great Global Warming Scare”

    has been:

    an entirely natural process
    well within normal limits
    fortunately truly beneficial.

    Economic studies now show that there would still be net benefit to the biosphere and mankind in warming up to a further 2°C. See


    But further warming may be not now be occurring at all. So it has become clear that any attempts at man-made climate control by reduction of CO2 emissions to reduce global temperatures are ineffective and will be futile.


  21. Pingback: Yes, UKIP politician Roger Helmer rejects the science of anthropogenic warming – pressingwax

  22. geoffmprice says:

    Thank you Mr. Helmer for sharing your views. I’ve posted a detailed response to your article on my own blog here:

    Yes, UKIP politician Roger Helmer rejects the science of anthropogenic warming

    Anyone interested – especially those who also believe their rejection of the mainstream view on AGW *is* well-justified by scientific evidence itself – are welcome to comment, I do not aggressively moderate comments.

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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s