Advertisement

Warming Hysteria Road to Economic Ruin

By Christopher Booker, The Telegraph - July 12, 2009

Accessibility links

Digital Publisher of the Year

Sign in or register

Sunday 12 July 2009 | Christopher Booker feed | All feeds

By Christopher Booker Published: 6:10PM BST 11 Jul 2009

Comments 124 | Comment on this article

The moves now being made by the world's political establishment to lock us into December's Copenhagen treaty to halt global warming are as alarming as anything that has happened in our lifetimes. Last week in Italy, the various branches of our emerging world government, G8 and G20, agreed in principle that the world must by 2050 cut its CO2 emissions in half. Britain and the US are already committed to cutting their use of fossil fuels by more than 80 per cent. Short of an unimaginable technological revolution, this could only be achieved by closing down virtually all our economic activity: no electricity, no transport, no industry. All this is being egged on by a gigantic publicity machine, by the UN, by serried ranks of government-funded scientists, by cheerleaders such as Al Gore, last week comparing the fight against global warming to that against Hitler's Nazis, and by politicians who have no idea what they are setting in train.

What makes this even odder is that the runaway warming predicted by their computer models simply isn't happening. Last week one of the four official sources of temperature measurement, compiled from satellite data by the University of Huntsville, Alabama, showed that temperatures have now fallen to their average level since satellite data began 30 years ago.

Faced with a "consensus" view which looks increasingly implausible, a fast-growing body of reputable scientists from many countries has been coming up with a ''counter-consensus'', which holds that their fellow scientists have been looking in wholly the wrong direction to explain what is happening to the world's climate. The two factors which most plausibly explain what temperatures are actually doing are fluctuations in the radiation of the sun and the related shifting of ocean currents.

Two episodes highlight the establishment's alarm at the growing influence of this ''counter consensus''. In March, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which has a key role in President Obama's plans to curb CO2 emissions, asked one of its senior policy analysts, Alan Carlin, to report on the science used to justify its policy. His 90-page paper recommended that the EPA carry out an independent review of the science, because the CO2 theory was looking indefensible, while the "counter consensus'' view – solar radiation and ocean currents – seemed to fit the data much better. Provoking a considerable stir, Carlin's report was stopped dead, on the grounds that it was too late to raise objections to what was now the EPA's official policy.

Meanwhile a remarkable drama has been unfolding in Australia, where the new Labor government has belatedly joined the "consensus'' bandwagon by introducing a bill for an emissions-curbing "cap and trade'' scheme, which would devastate Australia's economy, it being 80 per cent dependent on coal. The bill still has to pass the Senate, which is so precisely divided that the decisive vote next month may be cast by an independent Senator, Stephen Fielding. So crucial is his vote that the climate change minister, Penny Wong, agreed to see him with his four advisers, all leading Australian scientists.

Fielding put to the minister three questions. How, since temperatures have been dropping, can CO2 be blamed for them rising? What, if CO2 was the cause of recent warming, was the cause of temperatures rising higher in the past? Why, since the official computer models have been proved wrong, should we rely on them for future projections?

The written answers produced by the minister's own scientific advisers proved so woolly and full of elementary errors that Fielding's team have now published a 50-page, fully-referenced "Due Diligence'' paper tearing them apart. In light of the inadequacy of the Government's reply, the Senator has announced that he will be voting against the bill.

The wider significance of this episode is that it is the first time a Western government has allowed itself to be drawn into debating the science behind the global warming scare with expert scientists representing the "counter consensus" – and the "consensus" lost hands down.

We still have a long way to go before that Copenhagen treaty is agreed in December, and with China, India and 128 other countries still demanding trillions of dollars as the price of their co-operation, the prospect of anything but a hopelessly fudged agreement looks slim. But even a compromise could inflict devastating damage on our own economic future – all for a theory now shot so full of holes that its supporters are having to suppress free speech to defend it.

Flying in the face of reason

Even now it is not widely appreciated that in 2003 the power to regulate air safety across the EU was taken over by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). Several times I reported evidence that this new EU body in its shiny headquarters in Cologne would be too weak, incompetent and bureaucratic to do the job properly. Since then one of many problems reported to EASA has been a serious fault in the speed probes of some Airbus airliners, which can cause the automatic piloting system unexpectedly to shut down. EASA did nothing to ensure that the fault was corrected.

Last month, when Air France’s Airbus flight 447 plunged into the Atlantic, killing everyone on board, this fault was high on the list as a possible cause. So far, apart from hinting at 'pilot error’, the authorities have come up with no explanation. But last week Air France pilots demonstrated in Paris, writing a letter to EASA and its French subordinate agency, protesting that 'appropriate measures from either agency’, forcing the manufacturers to make the necessary changes, 'would have helped prevent the sequence of events that led to the loss of control of the aircraft’. The real problem with handing over to the EU the power to govern Europe is simply that it doesn’t work.

Comments: 124

A number of people have suggested that the Earth is already, or is about to start, cooling. There is no statistically significant evidence for such assertions. Indeed, world temperatures may now be recovering from the La Nina caused dip in temperatures that started in mid 2007. May 2009 was the third equal warmest May on record (not that one month's value is statistically significant, but at least it makes a mockery of claims that things are now getting colder.) See: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt The dip of the last couple of years appears to be ending, with predictions of a (warming) El Nino event on the horizon. On a longer time scale, five year monthly average temperatures, which are a rough and ready guide to temperature trends, show a continuing rise: These are the five year averages from HADCRUT3: Years Anomaly (1961-1990 = 0deg.C). 1974-1978 �0.136C 1979-1983 +0.087C 1984-1988 +0.066C 1989-1993 +0.147C 1994-1998 +0.296C 1999-2003 +0.382C 2004-2008 +0.416C see: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/gtc2008.csv Every five year period has been warmer than the previous one (except 1984-1988) and that trend continues.

To Charles Lee: Do you refute that the earth is being protected by the Smog above us despite the holes caused by greenhouse gases? Do you believe that a reduction of chemicals into the atmosphere will cut down on greenhouse gases that are destroying are atmosphere and allowing 'IN' higher Ultra Violet rays? Do you believe that if we do nothing all will be fine? Do you believe that without cutting down in our fossil fuel pollution will solve the world's problems and we can carry on regardless? Do you believe that repeatedly saying, "No it isn't" is the answer because "this" is economically unattractive? I wish I knew all the answers because I surely don't. What I will not accept is denial of what is happening without sufficient reason except by someone like you saying "It isn't".- To me that is 'head in the sand' stuff, Sir. I should be grateful if you were able to prove & share your assertions. The thing is you cannot any more than I can. The real question is do you wish to pay attention & make preparations in case the the 'Naysayers' are right. I think not. Because it costs too much & hell, we'll be dead anyway. Let the next guys take care of it. That's for sure.

Just as an aside - this *is* the same Christopher Booker who's also on record as saying that asbestos is completely safe, isn't it? Just checking...

Igonikon Jack, I'm not quite sure what it is that you're saying, as it's SO difficult to read. Perhaps you could re-type in readable sentences and paragraphs?

Richard T writes:- quote; Is this by any chance the same Christopher Booker that:- 1. Defends the creationism myth (AKA intelligent design) 2. Claims that white asbestos is �chemically identical to talcum powder� and poses no threat to health 3. Regularly distorts what science says on a number of subjects. 4. Claims that man-made global warming was �DISPROVED� in 2008. End quote. Point 1, no comment Point 2, White asbestos is a naturally occurring silicate mineral that is readily broken down in the body. What he actually noted in his book was "This is a serpentine mineral, a form of magnesium silicate, and closely related to talcum powder." You should get your facts right. Point 3, no comment other you appear to be doing so as well. Point 4, he got this wrong. R L Wood in 1909 showed by a classic experiment in his back garden that CO2 did not warm the atmosphere. Published in the Philosophical Magazine. He was an expert on Infra Red radiation and went on to invent Infra Red photography. Work long forgotten or deliberately ignored? quote; I would guess that most contributors haven�t read a single scientific paper on the subject. end quote. Well it is obvious you have not either. Go read the IPCC report and you will see comments that clearly question the role of CO2 in the "Greenhouse" model and planet warming. Your ad hominem comments only debase what you have to say, and demonstrate your complete ignorance on the climate change subject.

For Slioch: I checked your link: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1979 I have no idea of the accuracy of the readings, Slioch, but I couldn't help but notice that temperature peaked about the time the sun switched to a quiescent state and has been falling ever since (it is now cooler than it was in the early 1980s).

Kevin Wardle, desertification is associated with cooling events, not the other way round. Do a little research.

There is nothing better for life on Earth than to pump CO2 into the air. If you actually crack open a physics/chemistry book....Duhhhhh.

Only weak minded runts believe that man is destroying the planet. The voters and their politicians are going to destoy us all with their taxes and laws.

There is no doubt that we will have to start killing politicians before they murder us all. These political animals cannot live on the same planet as us.

Scientists and climate change experts agree with Christopher Booker that the sun and oceans do not lie as he enunciated in the title of his article. But, where there is always sharp disagreement is in his views on the impact of the sun and oceans on Mother earch where humans, plants and other animals live in the eocosystems of biodiversity and sustainability of diminishing global resources. The evidence is insurmountable and measured not by variations in multuple-location temperatues which differ, which are at times negligible, which Bookers has often used to deny climate change realities, dynamics and manifestaions. But, rather in the increasing severity of these climatological forces in recent times that have caused biggger comparative damage to the earthly and global environment. To summrize the nature of climate change trends, effort and evolution, President Barack Obama stated it best at the G8-G5 summit in L'Aquila, Italy: "Progress has been made. But, much work still needs to be done." Not the barren, futile, hopelessness and helplessness in environmentalism that Booker evangelizes and pontificates. I have no qualms with most other brilliant and informative articles he has written on other issues outside the domain of climate change. Booker belabored the cost of climate change. This was the alarmist propagandism, greedy, corporatist and mercentalist forces and interests peddled at the beginning of the climate-change debate; using trumped-up Al Gorist environmentalist extremism and climitological catastrophism to scare or undermine cogent and common sense climate-change debate. What is now emerging as Al Gore, also, make it clear, is that what called climate-economic economics or climate-change industrialism will spur a whole new generation of products that will generate and revolutionize the agroi-ndustrial systems and renewable-energy economy. Here, double-barrell gains are made: The world will be cleaner and safer. Profits will be made. New green-energy products will be created. This will take time. This is just the beginning and it's not going to work out overnight. The carbon package curbs commpanies can sale or forfeit are compelling, legislative designs and formulas that will drive climate change. Companies that pollute more buy carbon- emission allowance from those that pollute less, which will lead to less pollution, climatological degradation and diminished environmental catastrophism. At the G-8 summit, G-5 members where invited. Climate-change differences are still wide, but not insurmountable. The G-5 members are nations like China, India, Brazil, Mexico and South Africa hat claim to pollute less working and negotiating get to funding from G-8 nations to assist the economy of developing nations that'll be affected by theses climate- change impositions. Indian prime minister Mahomam Singh summrized the views of developing countries when he said at the conclusion of the meeting, in the Economic Times flying home and talking to a reporter in June 11 online edition: "Developed countries are by far the biggest polluters of the environment since the start of the Industrail Age. Now some of them are asking India, China and other emerging economies to commit themselves to reducing greenhouse gas emissions to curb climate change...There is a lot of presssure on India and China on the issue of climate change. We have to resist it. I have made my views on them before other countries (in the G8-G5 summit in Italy). India became a leading nation, major spokescountry for the G-5 nations, because China which assumed the role had its leader President Hu Jintao fly home early from the summit to deal with the issue of separatist, Muslim fundamentalist Uighurs in Western China bordering Islamic Pakistan. China and India have been asking $300 billion for climate changge implementations in G-5 nations and other developing nations as a price for signing on to the UN Framework Climate-Change Treaty that is expected to be signed in Copenhagen later this year during summit scheduled for December 7-18. But, British Prime minister Gordon Brown has proposed $100 billion from the G-8 nations--a figure that has not yet been accepted. No one knows what impact absence of the Chinese leader Hu Jintao might have had on the G-8 Brown's $100 billion offer to G-5 nations as I highlighted it in my commentary under Telegraph View's July 7 "The challenge for the G-8 summit is for it to matter," (11:53 AM). The other major difference is that G-5 nations proposed 40 percent greenhouse-gas reduction by 2020 and by 80 percent by 2050. G-8 nations proposed 50 percent reduction by 2050. They are getting somewhere. The climate-change train may be grounded, but it's almost ready to move. It's just waiting for the green light by nations building the ground track defined by atmospheric and enviromental regulations being negotiated. This is just the analogy or metaphorical explanation of the current global, climate change talks. So, Booker is right one way; The sun and oceans don't lie. But, the inhabitants of Mother Earth won't allow their abuse or abuse of them to destroy their ecosystems. Igonikon Jack, USA

For C.Brooks: "Just as the ice melt at each Polar continues" The ice at the Poles is no longer melting. All the scare stories about ice melting relate to the past period of Global Warming. We are now in a period of Global Cooling. The evidence for this will become irrefutable over the coming years. Manmade CO2 as the engine for global warming is outrageously bad science. Al Gore is a con man. His film had scientific advisors who MUST have known of the Vostok ice cores, and their clear evidence that CO2 rises FOLLOW temperature rises, and not the other way round. I have nothing but contempt for Gore, a smug, cynical Yesterday's Man who jumped on the Global Warming to boost a flagging public career and a flagging bank balance.

Read Full Article »

Latest On Twitter

Follow Real Clear Politics

Real Clear Politics Video

More RCP Video Highlights »