Home What's New Speeches & Articles Newsletter - Sep 2008 Biography Diary Contact Information Photo Album Parliamentary Highlights Publications Links MEPs' Transparency   Conservative Party Latest News from Conservatives.com Conservative Party Website
		Man made global warming – is it all hot air? by Kenneth R Jones MA econs Over the last 6 years, since its third report, 2500 scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change sifted through thousands of studies on global warming and distilled the world's accumulated knowledge into this conclusion: "Warming of the climate is unequivocal". The fourth IPCC Assessment Report, part published in February 2007, put simply, states inter alia "that most of the increases in globally averaged temperatures is very likely due to the observed increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide greenhouse gas concentration" and that "the primary source of the increase is fossil fuel use". It goes on to say "continued greenhouse gas emissions, at or above current rates, would cause further warming and induce many changes in the global climate system in the 21st century that would very likely be larger than those experienced during the 20th century. The effect will have devastating consequences for the economic and social environment." Many science academies and scientific organizations support the conclusions of the IPCC and in a joint statement said "the work of the IPCC represents a consensus on climate change science. It is the world's most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes". So wherein lies the controversy? The work of the IPCC has attracted much criticism from those in the science community. Scientists opposing the mainstream assessment of global warming have expressed varied opinions. John Christy, an IPCC lead author, wrote that contributing authors and reviewers have little influence, so that "to say that 800 contributing authors or 2500 reviewers reached a consensus on anything describes a situation that is not reality". They say that chapter authors are frequently asked to summarise current controversies in which they themselves are professionally involved, which invites bias. Also, that some research which contradicts the hypothesis of greenhouse gas induced warming is under-represented. Further, there is no attempt to downplay uncertainties and limitations in the underlying science. Finally, while the IPCC enlists many expert reviewers, no indication is given as to whether they disagreed with some or all of the material they reviewed. In previous IPCC reports many expert reviewers have lodged serious objections only to find that, while their objections are ignored, they are acknowledged in the final document, giving the impression that they endorsed the findings. A more compelling problem is that the Summary for Policymakers, attached to the IPCC Report, is produced, not by scientific writers and reviewers, but by a process of negotiation among unnamed bureaucratic delegates from sponsoring governments. MIT's Professor of Atmospheric Science, Dr Richard Lindzen, writes "It's not 2500 people offering their consensus, I myself was a participant. Each person who is an author writes one or two pages in conjunction with someone else. They travel around the world several times a year for several years to write it. The Summary for Policymakers has the input of about 13 scientists. Ultimately, it is written by representatives of governments". In 2005, the House of Lords Economics Committee wrote that "We have some concerns about the objectivity of the IPCC process, with some of its emissions scenarios and summary documentation apparently influenced by political considerations". The main claims of the House of Lords Economics Committee were rejected by the government and the Stern review. There are questions regarding the proportion of scientists who agree on the existence of human-caused global warming. Opponents either maintain that most scientists consider global warming unproved, dismiss it altogether or decry the dangers of consensus science. Some say only that it has not yet been ascertained whether humans are the primary cause, others that it is natural variations and increased solar activity. S. Fred Singer, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia, is one of many notable scientists who state there is no proof that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from human activity. They claim ice core records show that temperature increases have preceded, not resulted from, increases in CO2. They suggest that the warming of the oceans is an important source of the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide. As the global climate cools, the Earth's oceans absorb carbon dioxide and as the climate warms, they release it. Due to the large oceanic mass, it takes hundreds of years for global temperature changes to register in the oceans, which is why changes in atmospheric CO2 follow changes in global temperature. As the dominant greenhouse gas, water vapor is far more important than CO2. Water vapor makes up 95% of all greenhouse gases and water vapor is not within our control. The skeptics say that current warming is likely to be part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that has been traced over a million years and because the likely cause of warming is mostly natural, then there is little we can do about it. We cannot control the inconstant sun. No one is denying that the Earth has got warmer, but how do we reconcile warming taking place at the farthest reaches of the solar system with the contention that it is caused by human activity? Almost every planet is simultaneously undergoing temperature change and volatile weather patterns. Does not this suggest that global warming is a natural cycle as a result of the evolving nature of the sun? Dire predictions of future warming are based almost entirely on computer models. Individual models differ widely according to the input assumptions. To the untrained, computer models look impressive and give appearance of rigorous science, but the modelers themselves acknowledge that they are unable to predict future climate, preferring the term 'scenario' to describe the output of their experiments. Models predict what will happen in 50 years time. They are only proved wrong long after people have forgotten about them, therefore they produce an outcome that is interesting or alarming. Nonetheless, environmental groups and many government reports still claim unanimous agreement in the scientific community in support of the cause that climate change is primarily man-made. This has led climate change campaigners to affirm a consensus and say "the time for debate is over……any criticism no matter how scientifically rigorous is illegitimate, even worse, dangerous". They argue that the world needs to move to a 'post-carbon' economy as quickly as possible in order to curtail drastically the CO2 emissions that they allege are causing warming. Yet it is only invalidated computer models that suggest dangerous warming will occur Typical of this, is a statement by California Governor Schwarzenegger "The science is in, we know the facts, there's no longer any debate as to global warming". This is a delusion because the science of climate change has never been more uncertain. Furthermore, science is about facts, experiments and testing hypotheses, not consensus. Science is never 'settled'. Those who believe that the science is 'in' and those who believe that the global warming alarm is dressed up as science, but is in fact not science but propaganda, has given rise to overheated rhetoric on both sides. George Monbiot, when commenting on the skeptical view, stated "the same old conspiracy theory that we've been hearing from the denial industry for the past ten years". Environmental groups, many government reports and the media often claim virtually unanimous agreement in the scientific community in support of human-caused global warming. They maintain that the majority of climate scientists agree that the warming is primarily the result of human activity. Yet this majority consensus is far from unanimous. Supporters of global warming theory have similarly accused their opponents of being motivated by financial or ideological interests. Some adopt an extremist position. "We can't afford to have this debate" they scream, arguing that the end is nigh and unbelievers need to be metaphorically burned at the stake of public opinion in the interests of human survival. On the other hand the 'deniers' claim that the IPCC is a political body, not a scientific organization and therefore its reports are purely intended at achieving a political agenda. Czech President Klaus stated, "Global warming is a myth and every serious scientist says so. The IPCC is not a scientific institution, it's a political body of a green flavour made up with politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment". US Senator James Inhofe asked the question: "With all the hysteria, all the fear, all of the phony science, could it be that man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetuated on the people"? Skeptics emphasise the point that the environmentalist movement is more about a socialist political mission than scientific inquiry, sharing those same instincts, faith in big government and the distrust of private enterprise. Like socialism, it marches under the banner of a superior morality. They benefit from instilling fear into millions of people over the still unproven theory of man-made global warming. How has this been done? By political activists, who have, over time, infiltrated the environmentalist movement. They have learned to use 'green' language in a persuasive way which has more to do with being anti-growth, anti-capitalist and anti-USA than it has to do with climate science. They have been hugely successful at an international level and have turned the theory of global warming into a full blown campaign. They have successfully stifled debate and dragooned politicians into line. And the result? It is now treated as sacrilegious to even question the dogma that leads the environmentalists to endlessly repeat what has been brainwashed into them by the establishment media. Could it not be that people are labouring under enforced adherence to a program of mass deception?. Both the environmentalist movement and mainstream political parties, through the IPCC, have declared 'case closed' on the man-made origins of global warming. One doesn't have to be a climate change denier to recognise that there's a great range of opinion on the subject. Given the many uncertainties and inadequacies in our understanding of climate science and the lack of empirical evidence for human causation, how has it come about that some public opinion in western nations has become convinced that dangerous human-caused warming is occurring? The answer is that the public have been conditioned by the media through a relentless repetition of dire climate messages. With a rapidly expanding media landscape all competing for public attention, the inevitable result has been an increasing shrillness. It is a rare day that television or newspapers fail to carry one or more anecdotal stories on climate change and other similar environmental campaigns. The means by which some of the public have been convinced are not subtle. The combined alarmist activities of the IPCC, crusading environmental NGO's, some individual leading climate scientists and many science academies can only be termed a propaganda campaign. The IPCC's case for dangerous human caused climate change now rests not on empirical data of any sort but on computer models and anecdotal accounts of climate changes, such as glaciers melting, that may be wholly of natural origin. Because all these interest groups communicate with the public primarily through the media, it is they, the media who carry the responsibility for the unbalanced state of public opinion. Recently, in a BBC TV newscast, a spokesperson for Greenpeace when expressing disappointment with the USA for not being more co-operative in taking active measures to combat global warming said "the situation is urgent, the Earth is getting progressively warmer". This doesn't stack with the global average surface temperature record compiled by the Climate Research Unit of the UK Hadley Centre for thermometer measurements: which shows that temperature rise at the Earth's surface has flattened since 1998 and temperature in the troposphere is virtually unchanged since 1979. Furthermore, this whole farrago has spawned a colossal new industry. It is responsible for thousands of jobs. Global investments in renewable energy have risen from $27.5bn in 2004 to $70.9bn in 2006. The world market in carbon trading has also expanded massively, from $10bn in 2005 to $30bn in 2006. There are examples of firms, ranging from the food industry to airlines who are engaged in carbon offsetting. Let us just take one example, the energy company BP. This company entered into a scheme whereby they sponsored the burning of methane given off from the effluent of pigs. It was claimed that this would offset the CO2 emissions from 750,000 vehicles using their fuels. In fact, it offset that of just 2,500 cars. When questioned, BP agreed and said they are reassessing their claims. One is bound to question whether this is motivated by a real concern for the environment or simply PR. A major problem for carbon offsetting is that it is extremely difficult to definitively calculate the size of the carbon footprint upon which carbon offsetting is based. Nonetheless, there is the 'precautionary' approach which says that we should limit man-made CO2 emissions even where there is a lack of scientific certainty. That is to say, where there is only a risk that emissions will cause dangerous warming. Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister, said that "No matter if the science is all phoney, through action, there are collateral environmental benefits" and former US Senator Timothy Wirth said that "Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will still be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy". This is a moral precept masquerading under a scientific cloak. To expend trillions of dollars on measures that are predicted to only delay by a few years a small fraction of a degree rise in hypothetical temperature is irrational. It is a waste of resources. The same monies could be applied with much greater effect to other pressing global environmental and social problems. So what are the implications for public policy?> Given that there is still considerable debate over the role of human activity in global warming, then if the cause is not even agreed upon how is it that the solution is? Globalists imagine they offer us a solution, but the solution is always more government intervention, more command and control from the centre, increased regulation, less consumer sovereignty and a less free, market economy. There is already in existence the Climate Change Levy which applies to most energy users with the exception of those in the domestic and transport sectors. Electricity generated from nuclear sources is also taxed even though it causes no direct carbon emissions. Increasing taxation by additional 'green' taxes in order to decrease emissions may cause significant production to move to countries that are either not covered or exempted under the Kyoto Protocol, such as India and China. As these countries are less energy efficient this will lead to additional carbon emissions. Proposals to extend taxation by way of green taxes on consumption are likely to prove problematic. Taxing goods and services that are seen to contribute to atmospheric pollution by way of carbon emissions, that is to say negative externalities, usually entails exerting a burden on consumption and since the poor consume more as a share of their income, any shift towards further green consumption taxes is considered regressive. Tax planners say they will set green taxes at levels which will maintain overall progressivity and be revenue neutral for government. To the extent that green taxes correct negative externalities such as atmospheric pollution, this corresponds to mainstream economic theory. In practice, however, setting the correct tax level needed to do so is difficult. Unless the price, income and cross elasticity's of demand are accurately calculated, green taxes are likely to lead to further distortions or unintended consequences. Furthermore, the general public are not convinced. Opinion polls reveal that nearly two- thirds of people think that politicians are using the green issue as an excuse to tax more. The Taxpayers' Alliance Watchdog states that the British government is raising almost double the revenue in so-called green taxes that it needs to offset the social cost of CO2 emissions. A study found that the social cost of Britain's entire output of CO2 was £11.7bn yet the total net burden of green taxes and charges was £21.9bn. They say that if the government were really concerned about climate change they would bring in incentives in the form of tax breaks not punishments for reducing CO2 emissions. Phil Downing, Head of Environmental Research at Ipsos Mori, said "our research shows there is still a lot to do to win the public over on climate change and encourage low carbon lifestyles". Findings show that the public remains unconvinced about warnings that the climate is being affected by global warming. Many believe that the issue is not as bad as the environmentalists claim. There is also scepticism about 'green spin' and a feeling that the situation is being overstated in order to raise revenue rather than save the planet. In fact, climate change is not a priority for most people in Britain; terrorism, crime, immigration and the tax burden are of more concern. On a further aspect S. Fred Singer maintains that none of the schemes for greenhouse gas reduction currently bandied about will do any good. The control of CO2 emissions, whether by rationing or carbon offset trading, uneconomic 'alternative' energy such as bio-fuels, the massive installations of wind turbines and solar collectors, the domestic installation of energy saving electric light bulbs or even switching off the country's lights at midnight will do any good. They are all irrelevant, useless, and wildly expensive". Bio-fuels was one of the big themes of 2006 but this has led to the 'food versus fuel conflict' and which through huge subsidies, has done more to boost agribusiness than to combat climate change. Ironically, even if CO2 were to be responsible for the observed warming trend, all the schemes would still be ineffective, unless we could persuade every nation, including China, to cut fuel use by 80 percent. So, what are the actions that government should adopt?. No one is denying that energy conservation per se is not beneficial. It reduces reliance on imported energy sources from unstable regions of the world and also helps to lower production costs. If it accelerates the growth of new technologies, creates new jobs and perhaps evens-out the present un-even spatial distribution of UK economic activity and helps to part solve the long- lasting regional imbalance, then so much the better. The real danger of the current global warming hysteria is that it is distracting attention and resources away from the need to develop a sound policy of adaptation to future natural climate change. The causes of climate change are many, various and incompletely understood. After all, haven't we been here before?. In the late 60's and early 70's the in-vogue hysteria about climate change and how it spelled the end for humanity revolved around the concept of global cooling. Again, this arose out of a misunderstanding of long-term temperature fluctuations. Let's ignore the hype, or at least counter it with a calm and measured response. A sensible climate policy would emphasise building resilience into the capacity to adapt to change. To consider strategies of adaptation, as S. Fred Singer says, "adaptation policies will protect present and future generations from climate sensitive risks far more than efforts to restrict CO2 emissions". Steven Hayward of the American Enterprise Institute says "A rise in sea levels need not be the end of the world, as the Dutch have taught us" ! September 2007