So what’s changed? Climate scientists told us the Arctic would be 'ice-free’ by now. The real global warming disaster: green taxes, a suicidal energy policy and wasting billions on useless windmills.
The news that hundreds of scientists and officials from all over the world are
this weekend converging on Stockholm to discuss the next 2,000-page report
from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) again
highlights what is the most terrifying political conundrum facing our
country today. Emerging in instalments over the next seven months, this
report will try to convince the world, without a shred of hard evidence,
that the prospect of catastrophic man-made global warming is “extremely
likely”.
The air is already thick with familiar claims and counterclaims, President
Obama quotes yet another laughably silly paper trying to make out that “97
per cent of scientists” support the IPCC “consensus”. Sceptics point out yet
again that the lack of global warming over the past 17 years makes a
nonsense of all those computer-model projections on which the IPCC has been
basing its case for 23 years. And we can only look on this endlessly sterile
non-debate with a suffocating sense of déjà vu.
In essence, the argument has not moved on an iota since 2009, when I published
what is still the fullest historical account of this greatest scare story
the world has known, in a book called The Real Global Warming Disaster. Even
then, it was abundantly clear that the IPCC’s computer-model projections
were being disproved by what was actually happening to world temperatures.
It was already clear that not one of those predictions being made by Al Gore
and others in the days when the warming hysteria was at its height was
coming true.
This very weekend of September 2013, we were being told back in 2007, would be
the moment when the Arctic was “ice-free”. Yet this summer’s ice-melt has
been the smallest in seven years, and the global extent of polar sea ice is
currently equal to its average over the past 34 years. Tuvalu and the
Maldives are not vanishing beneath the waves. Far from hurricanes and
tornadoes becoming more frequent and intense, their incidence is lower than
it has been for decades. The Himalayan glaciers are not on course to have
melted by 2035, as the IPCC’s last report predicted in 2007. Nothing has
changed except that the IPCC itself, as the main driver of the scare, has
been more comprehensively discredited than ever as no more than a one-sided
pressure group, essentially run by a clique of scientific activists
committed to their belief that rising CO2 levels threaten the world with an
overheating which is not taking place.
But if the scientific case for their belief has disintegrated, the problem
this leaves us with is the reason why I subtitled that book four years ago:
“Is the obsession with climate change turning out to be the most costly
scientific blunder in history?” The political leaders of the Western world,
from President Obama to our own in the EU, are still as firmly locked into
the alarmist paradigm as ever, quite impervious to all the evidence. As the
EU’s “climate commissioner”, Connie Hedegaard, recently put it: “Let’s say
that scientists several decades from now said, 'We were wrong, it’s not
about climate’, would it not in any case have been good to do many of the
things you have to do to combat climate change?”
In other words, even if those scientists eventually have to admit that their
scare was all nonsense, it is still right that we should pile up green
taxes, make a suicidally mad shambles of our energy policy and continue to
pour hundreds of billions of pounds and euros into subsidising useless
windmills (while China and India continue to build hundreds of coal-fired
power stations chucking out more CO2 than we can hope to save). This is the
“real global-warming disaster” we are left with. And listening to the
vacuous drivel still pouring out of the likes of President Obama and Connie
Hedegaard, let alone our own “climate ministers” Ed Davey and Greg Barker,
we realise that the lunatics are still firmly in charge of the asylum which
the rest of us unfortunately have to live in. As I say, just how we are to
escape from this madness back into the real world is as intractable a
political puzzle as any that faces us.
Wake up guys – the EU doesn’t rule, OK?
Last week brought two more glaring examples of how at sea our media have
become over the complexities of how we are now governed. Several newspapers,
supported by Ukip, went to town over a story about how the wicked EU is
trying to ban the use of Union flag logos on food products, which indicate
to shoppers that they originate in Britain. True, it has long been a scandal
that, under EU law, these labels can be meaningless, so that it is quite
legal to stamp a Red Tractor logo with a Union flag on chickens imported
from Thailand, as long as they are processed in the UK. But the press got
this story upside down.
What the EU is in fact doing is the very reverse of what these stories
claimed. It is now proposing to insist that “country of origin” labelling
should mean exactly what it says. But the reason for this U-turn is not that
Brussels has grown honest. It is doing this to bring it into line with
“Country of Origin Labelling” (COOL) rules laid down, at a higher level than
the EU, by the World Trade Organisation and the UN’s Food and Agriculture
Organisation.
There was similar excitement last week over a story headlined “EU’s latest
bloomer”. This supposedly revealed that Brussels plans to make it illegal
for garden centres to sell a swathe of popular plant varieties, such as
Hidcote lavender and Nelly Moser clematis. But again, what this scare story
missed was that Brussels is only amending its directives on plant varieties
to bring the EU into line with rules agreed at a global level, by bodies
such as the UN’s Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) and the Organisation
for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
What almost everyone has been missing is the startling extent to which
regulation of all kinds, covering anything from food labelling to vehicle
manufacture, from banking and insurance to fisheries, now originates from a
network of global governance, forcing the EU to frame its own rules
accordingly, thus downgrading it to a mere regional branch office. In this
sense, as our lawmaking is removed ever further from any kind of democratic
control, leaving the EU would scarcely make any difference – except that at
least Norway, as an independent country, is represented on these world
bodies in its own right, whereas Britain is often represented only by
negotiators speaking for the “common position” of the EU.
For a fuller analysis of this topic, with links to relevant legislation, see
“Global governance: a COOL revolution” and “World government: the wrong sort
of elephant” on my colleague Richard North’s EUReferendum
blog.
A persistent claim made by believers in man-made global warming – they were at
it again last week – is that no politician was more influential in launching
the worldwide alarm over climate change than Margaret
Thatcher. David Cameron, so the argument runs, is simply following in
her footsteps by committing the Tory party to its present belief in the
dangers of global warming, and thus showing himself in this respect, if few
others, to be a loyal Thatcherite.
She found equally persuasive the views of a third prominent convert to the
cause, Dr John Houghton, then head of the UK Met Office. She backed him in
the setting up of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
in 1988, and promised the Met Office lavish funding for its Hadley Centre,
which she opened in 1990, as a world authority on "human-induced
climate change".
Hadley then linked up with East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) to
become custodians of the most prestigious of the world's surface temperature
records (alongside another compiled by Dr Hansen). This became the central
nexus of influence driving a worldwide scare over global warming; and so it
remains to this day – not least thanks to the key role of Houghton (now Sir
John) in shaping the first three mammoth reports which established the
IPCC's unequalled authority on the subject.
In bringing this about, Mrs Thatcher played an important part. It is not
widely appreciated, however, that there was a dramatic twist to her story.
In 2003, towards the end of her last book, Statecraft, in a passage
headed "Hot Air and Global Warming", she issued what amounts to an
almost complete recantation of her earlier views.
http://tinyurl.com/nfp79ub
No comments:
Post a Comment