Global Warming – The background to
UKIP’s scepticism By Iain Murray, MA (Oxon) MBA DIC
Overview
 Alarm over the prospect of the Earth
warming is not warranted by the agreed science or economics of the issue.
Global warming is happening and man is responsible for at least some of it.
Yet this does not mean that global warming will cause enough damage to the
Earth and humanity to require drastic cuts in energy use, a policy that
would have damaging consequences of its own. Moreover, science cannot answer
questions that are at heart economic or political, such as whether the Kyoto
Protocol is worthwhile. This paper summarizes current genuine issues in
global warming research and seeks to set the record straight on scare
stories that have been exaggerated by the media and vested interests such as
environmental pressure groups.
1. The Science
• There is no “scientific consensus” that global warming will cause damaging
climate change. Claims that there is such a consensus mischaracterise the
scientific research of bodies like the United Nations Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the U.S. National Academy of Sciences
(NAS).
• Scientists do agree that:
(1) Global average temperature is about 0.6°Celsius—or just over
1°Fahrenheit—higher than it was a century ago;
(2) Atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) have risen by about 30
percent over past 200 years; and
(3) Carbon dioxide, like water vapour, is a greenhouse gas whose increase is
likely to warm the Earth’s atmosphere.1
• Scientists do not agree on whether: (1) we know enough to ascribe past
temperature changes to carbon dioxide levels; (2) we have enough data to
confidently predict future temperature levels; and (3) at what level
temperature change might be more damaging than beneficial to life on Earth.
• The NAS reported in 2001 that, “Because of the large and still uncertain
level of natural variability inherent in the climate record and the
uncertainties in the time histories of the various forcing agents…a causal
linkage between the build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the
observed climate changes during the 20th century cannot be unequivocally
established.” It also noted that 20 years’ worth of data is not long enough
to estimate long-term trends. 2
• The temperature rise of 0.6°C over the last century is at the bottom end
of what climate models suggest should have happened. This suggests that
either the climate is less sensitive to greenhouse gases than previously
thought or that some unknown factor is depressing the temperature.3
• Predictions of 6°C temperature rises over the next 100 years are at the
extreme end of the IPCC range, and are the result of faulty economic
modelling, not science (see economics section below).
• Both James Hansen of NASA (the father of greenhouse theory) and Richard
Lindzen of MIT (the most renowned climatologist in the world) agree that,
even if nothing is done to restrict greenhouse gases, the world will only
see a global temperature increase of about 1°C in the next 50-100 years.
Hansen and his colleagues “predict additional warming in the next 50 years
of 0.5 ± 0.2°C, a warming rate of 0.1 ± 0.04°C per decade.”4
• Evidence from satellite and weather balloon soundings suggests that the
atmosphere has warmed considerably less than greenhouse theory suggests.5
There is a disparity between the surface temperature measurements, which
cover only a small fraction of the Earth but show sustained warming, and
these measurements, which cover the whole atmosphere and show only a very
slight warming.
• The NAS has confirmed this disparity as real.6 Recent
studies analyzing data from the lower atmosphere suggest that temperature
anomalies fall by altitude when greenhouse theory suggests they should rise.7
• New research also suggests that the role of greenhouse gases in warming
has been overestimated, as factors like atmospheric soot,8
land use change,9 and solar variation,10
all appear to have played significant parts in recent warming.
Specific Scare Stories
• Europe is not in danger of plunging into a new Ice Age. While research
does suggest that the Gulf Stream has switched on and off in the past,
oceanographers are convinced that global warming does not present any such
danger.11
• The world is not in severe danger from sea level rise. Research from Nils-Axel
Mörner of Stockholm University demonstrates that current sea levels are
within the range of sea level oscillation over the past 300 years, while the
satellite data show virtually no rise over the past decade.12
The IPCC foresees sea-level rise of between 0.1 and 0.9m by 2100. The Earth
experienced a sea-level rise of 0.2m over the past century with no
noticeable ill effects.
• Recent extreme weather events have no provable link to global warming. In
fact, research by German scientists has demonstrated that the devastating
floods in central Europe in 2002 were perfectly normal when compared against
the historical record.13 Allegations that extreme weather
has been more damaging recently do not take into account the fact that
mankind is now living and investing resources in more dangerous areas. The
World Meteorological Organization has acknowledged that increases in the
recorded number of extreme weather events may well be due to better
observation and reporting.14 A top expert from the IPCC
resigned in January 2005 in protest that IPCC science was being
misrepresented by claims that last year’s hurricane season was exacerbated
by global warming.
• Climate is not a significant factor in the recent growth of vector-borne
diseases such as malaria. Most experts on this subject agree that other
factors are much more important in predicting future spread of these
diseases.15
• The Pentagon is not convinced that global warming represents a major
security threat to the United States. The “secret paper” that garnered much
publicity in Europe was a self-admitted speculative exercise that went
beyond the bounds of measured research and had been released to the press
long before the sensationalist stories surfaced in Europe. Nor did the paper
recommend “immediate action” beyond better climate modeling.16
• The news that Oxford University has found that temperatures may increase
by up to 11°C severely misrepresents the scientific findings. According to
the actual scientific paper,17 the frequency distribution
of the results suggests that the lower end of temperature rises, in the 2°C
to 4°C range, is the most likely.
• Claims that the scientific consensus is represented by a statement drafted
by the Royal Society of London and signed by the national scientific
academies of the G8 countries plus India, Brazil and China ignore the
politicized nature of the statement. The climate change committee of the
Russian Academy of Sciences says its president should not have signed the
statement, while the use to which it was put was condemned by the outgoing
president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, Bruce Alberts, who
called the Royal Society’s presentation of the statement “quite misleading.”18
Summary
There is scientific agreement that the world has warmed and that man is at
least partly responsible for the warming—though there is no consensus on the
precise extent of man’s effect on the climate. There is ongoing scientific
debate over the parameters used by the computer models that project future
climatic conditions. We cannot be certain whether the world will warm
significantly and we do not know how damaging—if at all—even significant
warming will be.
2. The Economics
• Predictions of global warming catastrophe are based on models that rely on
economics as much as on science. If the science of greenhouse theory is
right, then we can only assess its consequences by estimating future
production of greenhouse gases from estimates of economic activity.
• The economic modelling by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) is badly flawed (The Economist called it “dangerously
incompetent”), relying on economic forecasts that show much faster growth
rates for developing countries than is justified.19 The
IPCC economic scenarios show significantly greater economic development
globally than other recognized, comparable scenarios.
• The Kyoto Protocol, most observers agree, will have virtually no effect on
temperature increase, as it imposes no restrictions on greenhouse gas
emissions upon major developing nations like China and India. These nations
have publicly refused to accept any restrictions now or in the future.20
• Greenhouse gas emissions derive from energy use which in turn derives from
economic growth. Therefore, nations that restrict emissions are almost
certain to reduce their rate of economic growth.
• European models of the effect of greenhouse gas emission restrictions
(such as PRIMES) are sectoral models that look at the effects on only one
economic sector and therefore badly underestimate the negative effects of
emission restrictions on other economic sectors. General equilibrium models,
which take into account the effects of emissions restrictions on other
economic sectors, show much greater negative economic effects than sectoral
models.21
• Recent research from general equilibrium models suggests strongly negative
impacts on European economies from adopting Kyoto targets (or going beyond
the targets, as in the case of the United Kingdom). One model shows the
economic effects by 2010 of adopting Kyoto targets as follows (remember that
the Protocol achieves virtually nothing in reducing global temperature):22
Germany -5.2% GDP -1,800,000 jobs
Spain -5.0% GDP -1,000,000 jobs
United Kingdom -4.5% GDP -1,000,000 jobs
Netherlands -3.8% GDP -240,000 jobs
• Kyoto targets are unrealistic. Regardless of announced targets, 11 of the
15 pre-enlargement EU countries are on course to increase their greenhouse
gas emissions well beyond their individual Kyoto targets.23
Specific Economic Issues
• It is not the case that President Bush has unilaterally held up
ratification of the Kyoto treaty. The United States Senate must ratify any
treaty signed by a President. In 1997, during Bill Clinton’s presidency, the
Senate (including recent Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry) voted
95-0 not to accept any Kyoto-style treaty that would significantly harm the
U. S. economy and did not include participation by major developing
countries.24 The U.S. President has no power to impose
Kyoto, or any other treaty, on an unwilling Senate.25
• Russia agreed to ratify the Kyoto Protocol only after being pressured by
the European Union, which held out the prospect of endorsing Russia’s entry
into the World Trade Organization. Both the Russian Academy of Sciences and
several Duma committees reported that Kyoto has no scientific substantiation
and may harm Russia’s economy.
• The charge that global warming is worse than terrorism in terms of damage
to the world is hyperbole. The implausible and unsubstantial claim of many
deaths each year—the figure is often put at 150,000—owing to global warming
ignores the fact that most of those alleged deaths are due to diseases such
as malaria, which have historically existed even in cold climates and could
easily be controlled if the environmental lobby dropped its opposition to
the use of DDT.26 Moreover, that number is itself dwarfed
by the number killed by poverty, which will be increased if the world
decides to suppress the use of energy.
• Alternative sources of energy such as renewables are not yet cost
effective and come with environmental costs of their own (the veteran
British environmentalist David Bellamy is leading opposition to wind farms).27
The only currently cost effective alternative to fossil fuel use is nuclear
power, which environmental activists continue to oppose in direct
contradiction to their assertions that global warming is the gravest danger
the planet faces.
• “Cap and Trade” schemes that allow firms and governments to trade the
right to emit greenhouse gases up to certain limits are not economically
efficient. By creating rent-seeking opportunities, they promote the
development of a carbon cartel seeking to exploit the system to make
profits. A simple carbon tax would be much more economically efficient,
although likely to prove unattractive to voters in democracies.28
Summary
Europe and the world face severe economic consequences from currently
proposed strategies to deal with global warming. These approaches will
produce job losses and consume scarce resources that could be better spent
on handling other world problems such as AIDS or access to water.29
The economic consequences of global warming mitigation strategies
currently proposed will probably be worse than the effects of global warming
itself. Therefore, adaptive and resiliency strategies should be considered
as a more cost-effective alternative. In addition, “no regrets” strategies
that will provide benefits from greater economic growth whether global
warming proves to be a problem or not should be adopted at once.30
Notes
1 Professor
Richard Lindzen, testimony to the United States Senate, May 1, 200.
2 Committee on
the Science of Climate Change [Cicerone et al.], Climate Change Science: An
Analysis of
Some Key Questions, National Research Council, Washington D.C., 2001.
3 See testimony
of Prof. Richard Lindzen to UK House of Lords Committee on Economic Affairs,
January
21, 2005. Available at
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/lduncorr/econ2501p.pdf
4 Sun, S., and
J.E. Hansen 2003. Climate simulations for 1951-2050 with a coupled
atmosphere-ocean
model. J. Climate 16, 2807-2826.
5 Christy, J.R.,
and R.W. Spencer, Global Temperature Report: April 2003, UAH Earth System
Science
Center, May 9, 2003, Vol. 12, No. 12.
6 Panel on
Reconciling Temperature Observations, Reconciling Observations of Global
Temperature
Change, National Research Council, Washington DC, 2000.
7 Douglass et al.
2004. “Altitude Dependence of Atmospheric Temperature Trends: Climate Models
versus
Observation,” Geophysical Research Letters, Vol.31, L13208.
8 Sato, M. et
al., 2003: “Global Atmospheric Black Carbon inferred from AERONET,”
Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, vol. 100, no. 11: 6319-6324.
9 Pielke et al.
2002, “The Influence of Land-use Change and Landscape Dynamics on the
Climate System:
Relevance to Climate-change Policy beyond the Radiative Effect of Greenhouse
Gases,” Phil. Trans. R.
Soc. Lond. A (2002) 360, 1705-1719.
10 Friis-Christensen,
E. & Lassen, K. 1991. “Length of the Solar Cycle: An Indicator of Solar
Activity
Closely Associated with Climate,” Science 254, 698-700; Thejil, P. and
Lassen, K. 1999, Solar forcing of
the Northern Hemisphere Land Air temperature: New Data, DMI-report #99-9,
Danish Meteorological
Institute, Copenhagen 1999.
11 Weaver, A.J.,
and Hillaire-Marcel, C. 2004, “Global Warming and the Next Ice Age,”
Science, Vol 304,
Issue 5669, 400-402; Wunsch, C. 2004, “Gulf Stream Safe if Wind Blows and
Earth turns,” Nature 428,
601.
12 Mörner, N.-A.
2003. “Estimating Future Sea Level Changes from Past Records,” Global and
Planetary
Change 40: 49-54.
13 Mudelsee, M.,
et al., 2003. No upward trends in the occurrence of extreme floods in
central Europe.
Nature, 425, 166-169.
14 The Director
of the World Climate Program for the WMO, Ken Davidson, replied to a
questioner in
Geneva in 2003, “You are correct that the scientific evidence (statistical
and empirical) are (sic) not present
to conclusively state that the number of events have (sic) increased.
However, the number of extreme
events that are being reported and are truly extreme events has increased
both through the meteorological
services and through the aid agencies as well as through the disaster
reporting agencies and corporations.
So, this could be because of improved monitoring and reporting,” quoted at
http://www.john-daly.com/press/press-03b.htm
15 Reiter, P. et
al, “Global Warming and Malaria, A Call for Accuracy,” Lancet Infectious
Diseases 2004
Jun; 4(6):323-4.
16 Schwartz, P.
and Randall, 2003, An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications
for United
States National Security, paper submitted to Pentagon October 2003.
Available at
http://www.ems.org/climate/pentagon_climate_change.html#report
17 Stainforth,
D. et al., “Uncertainty in predictions of the climate response to rising
levels of greenhouse
gases,” Nature, 433, 403-406.
18 Sam Knight,
“Anti-Bush gibe by Royal Society sparks climate change row,” Times Online,
July 5, 2005,
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22649-1681145,00.html
19 Ian Castles,
“Greenhouse Emissions Calculations Quite Wrong,” Canberra Times, August 29,
2002,
available in Castles, I. & Henderson, D. 2003: “The IPCC Emission Scenarios:
An Economic-Statistical
Critique,” Energy & Environment, Nos. 2 & 3: 166-168.
20 Cooler Heads
Newsletter, Nov. 12, 2003. See
http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=233
21 Canes, M.,
Economic Modelling of Climate Change Policy, International Council for
Capital Formation,
October 2002.
22 Thorning, M., Kyoto
Protocol and Beyond: Economic Impacts on EU Countries, International Council
for Capital Formation, October 2002.
23 Press
Release, EU15 greenhouse gas emissions decline after two years of increases,
European
Environment Agency, 15 July 2004.
24 S.98
Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the conditions for the United
States becoming a
signatory to any international agreement on greenhouse gas emissions under
the United Nations, 1997.
25 U.S.
Constitution, Article II, Section 2, Clause 2.
26 Reiter et al.
27 Schleede, G.
2004, Facing up to the True Costs and Benefits of Wind Energy, paper
presented to he
owners and members of Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc., at the 2004
Annual Meeting in St. Louis,
Missouri. Available at
http://www.globalwarming.org/aecifa.pdf
28 McKitrick, R.
2001, What’s Wrong With Regulating Carbon Dioxide Emissions?, Briefing at
the United
States Congress, October 11, 2001. Available at
http://www.cei.org/gencon/014,02191.cfm
29 See the work
of the Copenhagen Consensus:
http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com
30 See, for
example, Adler et al., Greenhouse Policy Without Regrets; A Free Market
Approach to the
Uncertain Risks of Climate Change, Competitive Enterprise Institute, 2000
Global gas tax
Down on the Farm - Courtesy of
Private Eye
An Irish scientist, according to the Sunday Times, has discovered that his
country's biggest single contribution to global warming is the methane given
off by the burping and farting of its cows. Agriculture accounts for 29 per
cent of Ireland's greenhouse gas emissions, more than half of which emerge
from the front and back ends of the animals which give us Irish beef and
Kerrygold butter. And methane, as every good little greenie knows, is 20
times more effective at trapping the heat in the atmosphere than CO2.
One
country where this is very stale news is New Zealand, which like Ireland is
mainly agricultural and which discovered some years back that its 30m sheep
and 10m cows were giving off 37m tons of methane a year - more greenhouse
gas than any other part of its economy. Since New Zealand, unlike its
neighbours, had signed up to the Kyoto treaty, how was it to meet its
commitment to curb those emissions?
Its Labour government came up with the
brilliant idea of imposing a "flatulence tax" on every sheep, cow and deer
in the country. Not even the islands' politicians (just as thick as our own)
imagined that this would in itself persuade the animals to hold back their
wind. But at least it would be pretended that the purpose of the tax was to
raise £14m a year to subsidise research into ways of getting the animals to
give off rather less of the noxious gas sometime in the future.
Unsurprisingly, the response was, first, a nationwide guffaw of incredulity,
followed by a roar of protest from New Zealand's 130,000 farmers who
immediately launched a campaign called FART (Fight Against Ridiculous Tax).
Polls showed that only 12 percent of the population were "green" enough to
think the "fart tax" was anything other than a bad joke. On behalf of the 84
percent opposed to the tax, farmers blocked the streets of Wellington, the
capital, with 200 tractors. One MP even drove a tractor up the steps of the
parliament building in protest, thus earning himself a bossy reprimand on
health and safety grounds from the country's tight lipped female prime
minister, Helen Clark. A local newspaper gave out free baked beans to the
demonstrators, so they could make up for all the cows and sheep which could
not be present.
Until then New Zealand's farmers had been best known for the
fact that, alone in the developed world, they receive no subsidies. Since
these were abolished, agriculture has become the fastest growing sector of
the country's economy. Its farmers are now so efficient they can transport
their lamb and butter half way round the world to Britain and still compete
on price with their lavishly subsidised EU counterparts.
But, as if
terrified that this gave their country the reputation of being a bastion of
the free market, New Zealand's politically correct Labour ministers seemed
determined to make their country the laughing stock of the farming world. At
least Ireland as yet hasn't announced any plans to do the same. But the
really terrifying thought, is that when Defra works out that Britain has
even more sheep than either of these countries, our own Labour government
may come up with the bright idea that Britain must save the planet by
following New Zealand's example.
'Muckspreader'
Reach out by Steve Reed, assistant to Godfrey Bloom MEP
Get out of REACh! - The E.U.'s REACh (Registration, Evaluation and Accreditation of Chemicals Directive) will require new tests on tens of thousands of substances, many of which have long been in use, to describe exactly what effect each has on living tissues - and not just on cell-cultures.
The cost of these tests, and of the vast "European Chemicals Agency", to which the results of these tests will have to be reported, will be borne directly by the businesses, which market these substances, and indirectly by their customers.
Rabbits Against REACh - This directive will require a huge increase in the number of experiments being carried out on live mammals, because the systemic (whole-body) effects of exposure to "substances" cannot be gauged from experimenting on disconnected bits of animals. Computer-simulation too is usually unsuitable, and even more costly.
This directive refers frequently to "the need to keep experiments on vertebrates to a minimum", but that minimum will inevitably be an astronomical quantity. Exempting substances for use in cosmetics will make no significant difference. REACh shows this exemption to be just a cosmetic exercise.
Free Enterprise Against REACh - This directive is an exemplary instrument of the alliance between big government and big business, whose object is to eliminate all, genuine competition. Only the greatest, multinational combines, with their specialised legal departments and analytical facilities, will survive the REACh. They will then profit from soaking up the markets, which smaller firms will have been forced to abandon. This is the unacceptable face of capitalism, which, together with institutions like the EU, is busily creating a politico-commercial, monolithic, global state. It has nothing whatever to do with free enterprise.
Democracy Against REACh - This directive is a peculiarly direct instrument for creating the global, politico-commercial state, consisting of big business and big government, which is the enemy of democracy, freedom of thought and benign public services. As with the WTO's "GATS" (now enshrined in the Nice Treaty) - whereby all, presently tax-supported, public services are to be run for profit by mega-corporations - this directive will transfer costs, by stealth, from taxation to consumer-spending, and responsibility, from elected representatives to plutocratic boardrooms and secretive bureaucrats.
Environmentalists Against REACh - The excuse for this directive rests entirely upon the fears, about pollution, which have been inculcated, with much justification, in the population, over recent decades. No-one will deny that we must take care of our ecological base, by examining the effects, on ourselves and on our environment, of new substances, and of suspect old ones. However, to demand an evaluation of all substances will be not only politically poisonous and economically disastrous, as indicated above, but also environmentally-unfriendly. Green policies will be discredited, as mere tools of autocracy, and the economic base will shrink below the threshold, above which responsible environmentalism can be practised. Also, the abrupt changes, which REACh would bring about, in land-use and industrial practices, and which would outpace the adaptability of flora and fauna, would militate directly against biodiversity. Sudden changes of any kind are always catastrophic for the biosphere.
Standing to gain from REACh are
Big government (gets a Stalinist grip on industry)
Big business (snuggles up to Big gov and eliminates competition - both passively, as smaller firms go bust, and by actively patenting substitutes for those chemicals, which will be artificially priced out of the market)
Bureaucrats, Inspectors, Commercial Lawyers and Consultants (a feeding frenzy of sinecures, fees and corruption)
Busybodies, NGO's, Universities and Eco-charities (empowerment as informers and grants for "monitoring")
Experimental-animal breeders and Testing Labs (expansion bonanza!)
Quisling trade-unions, trade-associations and their umbrella-groupings (rewarded - for delivering industry to Biz-Gov - with admittance to the status of, or enhancement of their status as, Biz-Gov's "social and economic partners")
Standing to lose from REACh are
Everybody else
Especially rabbits
|
