This report shows that some council leaders are falling over themselves to sound "good" on climate, without having any clear idea of how to achieve it. This "I'm the greenest" syndrome is a worrying trend, and council tax payers will be picking up the bill.
Friday, 30 November 2007
Thursday, 29 November 2007
Wednesday, 28 November 2007
This article points out the complete nonsense at the heart of attempts to cut CO2 emissions. If bio-diesel has to replace fossil fuel then new places have to be found to grow the palm-oil. How ironic that in the process more CO2 is released than if the fossil fuel was used in the first place. How fortunate that CO2 isn't the cause of global warming!
Here's a story which suggests that while "saving the planet", Al is also doing himself a bit of good at the same time. I'll leave readers to make up their own minds on the issue. Of course he has to pay his large energy bills, so who could blame him?
Tuesday, 27 November 2007
This report in today's Telegraph gives an insight into what sort of response is now being asked for by climate alarmist groups in response to the perceived "global warming" crisis. Most people would agree that improvements to home insulation are a good thing, but look a little closer and you will see that this is far from a voluntary scheme being proposed. There would be massive "encouragement" in the form of energy performance certificates, presumably extended to all properties, not only those on sale. This is state intervention on a massive scale, intruding into people's private homes and demanding they reach a standard set by the state. The recommendations go far beyond insulation, to strict energy controls on all appliances, and many other enforcement measures, as well as use of taxation as a stick as well as a carrot. The cost, at £13billion per year, would be a massive cost to taxpayers.
This is just the tip of the iceberg of what is to come in order to tackle a "crisis" that has not been proved to exist.
Monday, 26 November 2007
Some prominent voices in industry are urging the CBI to press for large increases in energy costs. No it isn't a joke according to this article from the Telegraph. Where is the voice of the ordinary citizen who cannot pass the extra cost on by increasing prices?
There are many groups of scientists and others who try to put forward a rational and balanced view of the science on issues such as climate change and energy provision. One group that is well worth looking at and supporting is The Scientific Alliance which campaigns for science to be used wisely for the benefit of us all.
This article in the National Post explains how Stephen Harper, the Canadian Prime Minister insisted that the Commonwealth should not issue a communique stating that they would agree to cut CO2 emissions unilaterally. He insists that any agreement must include all nations. At least this is a spark of reality setting in. In practice agreement will be highly unlikely and delivery even more unlikely!
Sunday, 25 November 2007
Scientists are aiming to improve their very sparse knowledge of the world's oceans. See this report in the Telegraph for details. Clearly our present knowledge cannot be sufficient to be confident about all the complex interactions occurring there.
Saturday, 24 November 2007
Today's post is to recommend you to read this summary of a lecture by Professor Fred Singer in which he explains in an understandable way how the science points to global warming being natural rather than man-made. The lecture was given to high school students and the write-up has a few extra hyphens in the wrong pl-ace, but don't let it put you off. Professor Singer makes the case in a very persuasive manner. Read Fred Singer's question and answer session here
Friday, 23 November 2007
This very thought-provoking article suggests that it can in the short term, but in the end the truth will out. However in the mean time a lot of damage can be done. David Bellamy and Jack Barrett make a very powerful case against the alarmists in this clear well-argued piece which certainly makes a lot of sense.
Thursday, 22 November 2007
Wednesday, 21 November 2007
Tuesday, 20 November 2007
5. THE ATMOSPHERE IS NOT BEHAVING AS MODELS WOULD PREDICT.
Climate models are not accurate as this article discusses. More information here supports this.
6. CLIMATE IS MAINLY INFLUENCED BY THE SUN
There is a strong argument for this in this article. Also see this 2007 article for more evidence.
7. A CARBON DIOXIDE RISE HAS ALWAYS COME AFTER A TEMPERATURE INCREASE NOT BEFORE
This is true, and even the BBC have had to admit it. It is the strongest argument and the counter to it is weak. Without any evidence they blame CO2 anyway and claim things are "different" today.
8. LONG-TERM DATA ON HURRICANES AND ARCTIC ICE IS TOO POOR TO ASSESS TRENDS
As with 7, the BBC have to accept there is no evidence of a link.
9. WATER VAPOUR IS THE MAJOR GREENHOUSE GAS; CO2 IS RELATIVELY UNIMPORTANT
Again it is true and has to be admitted.
10. PROBLEMS SUCH AS HIV/AIDS AND POVERTY ARE MORE PRESSING THAN CLIMATE CHANGE
This one follows logically if we believe the CO2 theory is unproven.
Continuing from yesterday, I am looking at the next arguments put forward by the BBC.
3. THE EARTH HAS BEEN WARMER IN THE RECENT PAST
It is simply not possible to be certain about past temperatures, as records are very incomplete and only go back a very short time. However the evidence which does exist is not nearly as clear cut as the BBC have stated. To say that there is no evidence of the Medieval Warm Period outside Europe is untrue. Readers can look at a whole lot of evidence on the excellent John Daly website.
4. COMPUTER MODELS ARE NOT RELIABLE
Climate is such a complex and chaotic area that to confidently state that it is possible to make long term predictions is simply not credible. If it were possible, then why don't scientists prove their accuracy by making specific short term predictions? We know the answer - they cannot do it. Without accurate computer models the whole theory falls apart! For more on this see here.
Monday, 19 November 2007
The BBC website has listed ten ARGUMENTS against the CO2 theory and then tried to counter them. Do their arguments add up? Over the next few days I am going to look at each one and evaluate it.
1. EVIDENCE THAT THE EARTH'S TEMPERATURE IS GETTING WARMER IS UNCLEAR
The BBC does not attempt to argue against two fundamental points;
one is that the surface temperature record is very incomplete, and the other is that attempts to reconstruct past temperatures using proxies, such as tree rings are not proven to be accurate. The fact that we have had warming of 0.4C in the last 40 years is not disputed.
2. IF THE AVERAGE TEMPERATURE WAS RISING, IT HAS NOW STOPPED
I would not argue that we know it has stopped. What is interesting though is why an El Nino event should raise the average global temperature. Surely the ocean movements can only move heat from one place to another?
Sunday, 18 November 2007
Here are the video links to the 9 sections of the film The Great Global Warming Swindle. I have put them all together for convenience. The whole film is about 80 minutes long and visitors may prefer to view it in sections, though if you have the time it is good to see it right through.
PART 1 , PART 2 ,PART 3 , PART 4 , PART 5 , PART 6 , PART 7 , PART 8 , PART 9
Saturday, 17 November 2007
The following extract is from the BBC news website today. It has also been the lead story on the radio news bulletins. (There has not been much news today.)
"Delegates to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) summarised thousands of pages of scientific analysis, bringing together elements of the three reports already released this year" - The report then goes on to say that climate change "MAY bring abrupt and irreversible impacts. The impacts COULD include the fast melting of glaciers and extinctions." They might have gone on to add that a super volcano in Yellowstone Park may erupt at any time soon, or that one of the Canary Islands could be about to break up and cause a huge tsunami to destroy the East Coast of the USA.
We can all appreciate that we face many potential threats, changes to the climate among them. What is needed is not increased scare-mongering, but sound science, including a clear admission of what is not known. What these apocalyptic reports do is actually make us less ready to believe any reports at all. If anyone wants to read the full BBC report it can be accessed HERE
Friday, 16 November 2007
HERE is an article by Richard Lindzen which explains in a very readable way the science and how it has been hi-jacked for political aims. This article was written in the early 1990's and it is interesting to see how relevant it is to what is happening today.
Thursday, 15 November 2007
Those who have read the article by Roger Helmer MEP (see below) may have spotted a reference to a group of scientists referred to as the NIPCC. A search of the web has revealed the following article HERE which explains a little more about them.
And even more info on this and other related matters HERE
Wednesday, 14 November 2007
HERE is a website worth looking at. The report on Arctic circulation changes is particularly interesting. I will also put it on the links list.
While our own government are bringing in ever more costly regulations, costing British jobs, we are importing more and more goods made in China, where there appears to be little or no regulation at all. Just take a look HERE If our government were really serious about the environment,why don't they stop importing goods from China until they clean up their act?
Monday, 12 November 2007
Sunday, 11 November 2007
A startling new revelation from the UN's International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) blows apart the myth of scientific unanimity. New information suddenly revealed by the IPCC, apparently to pre-empt embarrassing disclosures under Freedom of Information laws, shows that significant numbers of the panel of 2,500 climate scientists - usually described as "unanimous" in their support of man-made global warming - have registered serious concerns, which the IPCC serially rejects even while claiming a "consensus". It is becoming obvious that this climate-change consensus is a journalistic fiction.
An illustrative example of how the IPCC treated substantive, often damning critiques and contrary views presented by its own panel members is to reject it, not with typical rebuttal, but with the claim that the alleged error happens to be their "standard practice". And therefore, it is good, goes the "logic".
The IPCC is driven by a central group committed to the climate change orthodoxy, with specific sectors of the work farmed out to appropriate specialist groups. It is becoming increasingly clear that the ideologically-driven central group is exerting "politburo" control over the whole project. It systematically rejects and denigrates dissenting opinions, whether from within or outside the IPCC.
Papers are submitted by panel members to the IPCC for inclusion into its reports. Both the selection and editing of these papers is in the hands of the central group, who also draft the Executive Summary - the only section (if any, beyond the press release or those of pressure groups) that most politicians and journalists read. These summaries have been consistently shown to adopt a more hard-line alarmist position than is justified by the underlying science. The summaries are political spin, not science.
Meantime the Oregon Petition dissenting from the alarmist consensus has attracted the voluntary and verified signatures of over 17,000 qualified scientists who have serious doubts about the anthropogenic hypothesis and who oppose the Kyoto Protocol.
Commenting on these revelations, Roger Helmer MEP, a member of the European parliament's Temporary Committee on Climate Change, said:
"This is the moment when we realise that the self-proclaimed Emperor has no clothes. Far from being a monolithic group of 2500 scientists committed to the idea of catastrophic, anthropogenic global warming, the IPCC panel itself is riven with dissension and is desperately struggling to keep the lid on this internal dissent.
"We need to examine whatever it is that scientists do actually agree upon before we do huge -- further -- damage to our Western economies in an attempt to avert a highly speculative risk".
Mr Helmer chaired a conference on climate change in the European parliament in Brussels on July 4th, which was addressed by celebrated climatologist Professor Fred Singer, and other experts including Hans LaBohm, a former adviser to the Dutch Foreign Ministry and himself an expert panelist of the IPCC who disagrees fundamentally with their conclusions.
These experts have produced a challenge to the IPCC conclusions, presenting an alternative science-based view in the name of a larger coalition of experts most with experience as IPCC authors or expert reviewers, called the Non-Governmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).
Saturday, 10 November 2007
Vincent Gray is not a household name. but he is a leading scientist who was a member of the IPCC, and he has decided that the system has been hi-jacked for political ends and so he has decided to leave. Read the full account of why HERE and page 2 here
Another scientist has also decided to leave previously. See HERE
Congratulations to Steve McIntyre and his Climate Audit blog for his success at being voted Science Blog of the Year in a recent poll. Steve has worked tirelessly to expose the shortcomings in the methods used by some climate scientists to ascertain the temperatures in the past. He has campaigned for all scientists to make all their data and methodology accessible to others; something that some scientists refuse to do. It only makes us ask, "what have they got to hide?"
Steve's site is our first link and has a vast amount of material, much of it only understandable to those with a good knowledge of statistics. His work has shown recently that 1998 was not the hottest year ever in the USA; it was pipped by 1934. In fact four of the hottest years on record were in the 1930's. Statistics are renowned for being subject to manipulation, and with so much depending on the outcome it is good to know that Steve is keeping a check on it.
Thursday, 8 November 2007
"One of the great memories of my life was walking alongside the thousands and thousands who marched in Edinburgh on that summer’s day two years ago to Make Poverty History. In 2009, I want to be able to march alongside millions to Make Climate Change History".
Hilary Benn, the Labour government minister responsible for the Climate Change Bill, made the above comment in a speech on 29th October 2007. It is an odd situation for a member of a government to go on a march to encourage his own government to take a particular action. He could have simply argued his point with his cabinet colleagues; but that would not be seen by the public.
Of course we would all love to make poverty history (and conquer disease and eliminate crime etc), but we all really know that poverty will always exist and no amount of marching will eradicate it. It is a political slogan, a grandiose pipe-dream which cannot happen until all the corrupt regimes that result in their people remaining in poverty are eliminated.
What does he actually mean by "make climate change history"? Does he mean that he hopes to keep the climate exactly as it is today? That is the actual meaning of what he said. If so, does he really believe that we can prevent the forces of nature. In reality, there is no way mankind can control the forces that change our climate and to suggest that we can is being dishonest. It seems that despite our great increase in knowledge and understanding, we are still vulnerable to someone coming up with a simplistic soundbite.
We know that the climate is constantly changing all over the world in different ways. Some changes are beneficial, such as increased rainfall in a dry area, or slight warming in cold regions. Others are obviously harmful changes, but the point is that there are many different climates changing in many different ways. Simplistic slogans are a meaningless response and Benn should know it. He wants to stop the bad changes and allow the good ones. This is a child-like form of gesture politics. Where are the grown up politicians?
Wednesday, 7 November 2007
If anyone believes the argument is over, ask them to read the following letter from no less than 60 top scientists working in the field. All their names and posts held are listed beneath the letter. For every scientist who speaks out there are many more who dare not do so for fear of being marginalised and denied funding.
April 06 2006, an open letter, published in the Financial Post of Canada
Sixty scientists call on Canadian Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, to revisit the science of global warming.
Dear Prime Minister:
As accredited experts in climate and related scientific disciplines, we are writing to propose that balanced, comprehensive public-consultation sessions be held so as to examine the scientific foundation of the federal government's climate-change plans. This would be entirely consistent with your recent commitment to conduct a review of the Kyoto Protocol. Although many of us made the same suggestion to then-prime ministers Martin and Chretien, neither responded, and, to date, no formal, independent climate-science review has been conducted in Canada.
Much of the billions of dollars earmarked for implementation of the protocol in Canada will be squandered without a proper assessment of recent developments in climate science. Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. Yet this is precisely what the United Nations did in creating and promoting Kyoto and still does in the alarmist forecasts on which Canada's climate policies are based.
Even if the climate models were realistic, the environmental impact of Canada delaying implementation of Kyoto or other greenhouse-gas reduction schemes, pending completion of consultations, would be insignificant. Directing your government to convene balanced, open hearings as soon as possible would be a most prudent and responsible course of action.While the confident pronouncements of scientifically unqualified environmental groups may provide for sensational headlines, they are no basis for mature policyformulation. The study of global climate change is, as you have said, an "emerging science," one that is perhaps the most complex ever tackled.
It may be many years yet before we properly understand the Earth's climate system. Nevertheless, significant advances have been made since the protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.
We appreciate the difficulty any government has formulating sensible science-based policy when the loudest voices always seem to be pushing in the opposite direction. However, by convening open, unbiased consultations, Canadians will be permitted to hear from experts on both sides of the debate in the climate-science community. When the public comes to understand that there is no "consensus" among climate scientists about the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change, the government will be in a far better position to develop plans that reflect reality and so benefit both the environment and the economy.
"Climate change is real" is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural "noise." The new Canadian government's commitment to reducing air, land and water pollution is commendable, but allocating funds to "stopping climate change" would be irrational.
We need to continue intensive research into the real causes of climate change and help our most vulnerable citizens adapt to whatever nature throws at us next.We believe the Canadian public and government decision-makers need and deserve to hear the whole story concerning this very complex issue. It was only 30 years ago that many of today's global-warming alarmists were telling us that the world was in the midst of a global-cooling catastrophe. But the science continued to evolve, and still does, even though so many choose to ignore it when it does not fit with predetermined political agendas.
We hope that you will examine our proposal carefully and we stand willing and able to furnish you with more information on this crucially important topic.
CC: The Honourable Rona Ambrose, Minister of the Environment, and the Honourable Gary Lunn, Minister of Natural Resources
Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Dr. Tad Murty, former senior research scientist, Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans, former director of Australia's National Tidal Facility and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide; currently adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa
Dr. Fred Michel, director, Institute of Environmental Science and associate professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa
Dr. Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment Canada. Member of editorial board of Climate Research and Natural Hazards
Dr. Paul Copper, FRSC, professor emeritus, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ont.
Dr. Ross McKitrick, associate professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph, Ont.
Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg; environmental consultant
Dr. Andreas Prokoph, adjunct professor of earth sciences, University of Ottawa; consultant in statistics and geology
Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology), fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, Canadian member and past chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa
Dr. Christopher Essex, professor of applied mathematics and associate director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.
Dr. Gordon E. Swaters, professor of applied mathematics, Dept. of Mathematical Sciences, and member, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Research Group, University of Alberta
Dr. L. Graham Smith, associate professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.
Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, professor and Canada Research Chair in environmental studies and climate change, Dept. of Economics, University of Victoria
Dr. Petr Chylek, adjunct professor, Dept. of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax
Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, climate consultant, former meteorology advisor to the World Meteorological Organization. Previously research scientist in climatology at University of Exeter, U.K.
Dr. Keith D. Hage, climate consultant and professor emeritus of Meteorology, University of Alberta
Dr. David E. Wojick, P.Eng., energy consultant, Star Tannery, Va., and Sioux Lookout, Ont.
Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, B.C.
Dr. Douglas Leahey, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, CalgaryPaavo Siitam, M.Sc., agronomist, chemist, Cobourg, Ont.
Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, The University of Auckland, N.Z.
Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Dr. Freeman J. Dyson, emeritus professor of physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.
Mr. George Taylor, Dept. of Meteorology, Oregon State University; Oregon State climatologist; past president, American Association of State Climatologists
Dr. Ian Plimer, professor of geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide; emeritus professor of earth sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia
Dr. R.M. Carter, professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia
Mr. William Kininmonth, Australasian Climate Research, former Head National Climate Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology; former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology, Scientific and Technical Review
Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
Dr. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, geologist/paleoclimatologist, Climate Change Consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand
Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, professor of environmental sciences, University of Virginia
Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, emeritus professor of paleogeophysics & geodynamics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, Calif.
Dr. Roy W. Spencer, principal research scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville
Dr. Al Pekarek, associate professor of geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minn.
Dr. Marcel Leroux, professor emeritus of climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS
Dr. Paul Reiter, professor, Institut Pasteur, Unit of Insects and Infectious Diseases, Paris, France. Expert reviewer, IPCC Working group II, chapter 8 (human health)
Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, physicist and chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland
Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, reader, Dept. of Geography, University of Hull, U.K.; editor, Energy & Environment
Dr. Hans H.J. Labohm, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations) and an economist who has focused on climate change
Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, senior scientist emeritus, University of Kansas, past director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey
Dr. Asmunn Moene, past head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway
Dr. August H. Auer, past professor of atmospheric science, University of Wyoming; previously chief meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New Zealand
Dr. Vincent Gray, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001,' Wellington, N.Z.
Dr. Howard Hayden, emeritus professor of physics, University of Connecticut
Dr Benny Peiser, professor of social anthropology, Faculty of Science, Liverpool John Moores University, U.K.
Dr. Jack Barrett, chemist and spectroscopist, formerly with Imperial College London, U.K.
Dr. William J.R. Alexander, professor emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa. Member, United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000
Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences, University of Virginia; former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service
Dr. Harry N.A. Priem, emeritus professor of planetary geology and isotope geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences; past president of the Royal Netherlands Geological & Mining Society
Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey professor of energy conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
Dr. Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist and climate researcher, Boston, Mass.Douglas Hoyt, senior scientist at Raytheon (retired) and co-author of the book The Role of the Sun in Climate Change; previously with NCAR, NOAA, and the World Radiation Center, Davos, SwitzerlandDipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze, independent energy advisor and scientific climate and carbon modeller, official IPCC reviewer, Bavaria, Germany
Dr. Boris Winterhalter, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland
Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden
Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser, physicist/meteorologist, previously with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Calif.; atmospheric consultant.
Dr. Art Robinson, founder, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, Cave Junction, Ore.
Dr. Arthur Rorsch, emeritus professor of molecular genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands; past board member, Netherlands organization for applied research (TNO) in environmental, food and public health
Dr. Alister McFarquhar, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.; international economist
Dr. Richard S. Courtney, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.
What if the alarmists are right and we are facing apocalypse unless we stop emitting CO2? Surely we ought to do it just in case? These are arguments I often get put to me. So let's take a flight of fancy for a moment - let's pretend that scientists really have found the key to our climate and it's down to man-made CO2.
First of all to make a significant impact every major power in the world would have to agree to make big cuts, and this is the biggest problem of all. If all the nations who signed up to Kyoto had met their obligations it has been calculated that by the end of the 21st century it would have kept the planet 0.1C cooler. So we are talking of much more cuts than that. Are we even seriously going to ask the government's of India, Brazil and China to take part in these cuts? I think we all know the answer to that is no.
"But", I hear people say, "we in the developed world have caused all the past emissions and so it is our fault. We must stop our emissions and then the rest will follow." This is an argument to appeal to our sense of guilt, but it doesn't make any sense. If we now believe that only drastic cuts in CO2 will save us, then it is pointless half the planet making drastic sacrifices, while the other half continues to carry on increasing their emissions. George Bush is right, it has to be either everyone or it won't work. By being the first nation in the world to have a legally binding reduction target, we are simply making a futile gesture. Unless everyone else follows we will be enduring costs and hardship for nothing.
The government believe the subject of climate science is now settled. They say the debate is over and the only thing left to do is to stop CO2 emissions. This website is a focal point for those who disagree with this analysis. We believe that climate science is only just beginning and that there is still a huge amount to learn