Latest analysis proves CO2 has no causative effect on global warming. The costs of achieving net zero will more than double the national debt. The UK is on verge of "monumental folly".
There is no man-made 'climate change'. There is no climate crisis
There is no need to cut-out carbon dioxide
For 30 years the world has been subjected to ever more strident claims about 'catastrophic' global warming. We have been told that we have been guilty of crimes against future generations by causing irreversible and imminent acceleration of temperature of Mother Earth. Each time these catechisms of disaster are repeated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change they come with the dread prediction that we have only a few years 'to save the planet'.
Those behind the IPCC demand that we abandon the energy basis that has brought humanity greater welfare and prosperity than our grandparents could ever have imagined. To do what they demand will cost £3 trillion - that is the advice of the UK National Grid on cost of Net Zero.
Time to cool down the debate
Are we to commit ourselves to such a colossal folly as doubling of our national debt? Must there not be an overwhelming case for otherwise catastrophic consequences to justify the overthrowing of the very foundation of the miraculous progress we have made over 150 years towards a fairer and more prosperous future?
What is the absolute authority that dictates to us such irreversible damage to our economy and ways of life?
For 25 years many distinguished professors of geology, of physics, of meteorology and of paleoclimatology have sought to express the truth about the impact of CO2 on Earth's temperature. They have exposed the fallacies of the IPCC dogma and the falsehoods it propagates. There is no scientific basis for the claim that existing or increased density of CO2 in the atmosphere has any effect on global warming. Doubling CO2 would make no difference. CO2 in the atmosphere cannot absorb more radiation as it is already saturated.
Nor has there been any abnormal warming – the Earth is just 0.37 degrees C higher than 1980 – and that is in a period when we were emerging from the 500 year long Little Ice Age ending in 1850.
So, what then is the compelling scientific authority for the IPCC's apocalyptic predictions?
Hot air
The IPCC has published its latest Summary for Policymakers – intended to intimidate governments now assembling in Glasgow for the so-called Climate Conference. It is produced by the United Nations Environment Programme run by one Inger Andersen headquartered in Nairobi, Kenya. She is an environmentalist – she specialises in nature conservancy. She is almost uniquely disqualified from offering any opinion on climate and the causes of rise and fall in the Earth's temperature. She is not a professor of physics, or of meteorology, or of geology, or of paleoclimatology. She has a degree from 1981 in an undisclosed subject from the North London Polytechnic.
There is no climate crisis
The scandalous aspect of the IPCC gospel of catastrophe is the fabricating of the graphs set out at page 7 of the Summary. They exclude all record of sharp changes of climate both over 2000 years and over the last century in order to show a rise in heat in line with the rise in CO2. They have no resemblance to the true climate record. These false depictions are made knowingly. They are intended to be relied on by governments of the World.
Graph a) is fallacious. The true record over 2000 years is set out in the left-hand graph below. Graph b) is also false. The true record of the last century is shown in the right-hand graph below.
Had the Summary for Policymakers been a prospectus, including such representations, which invited public investment in a project involving expenditure of £3 trillion the promoters would have been liable to prosecution under Financial Services legislation.
The truth of the matter is that if we spend £3 trillion on overturning our energy base it will make no difference to Earth's temperature since we emit only 1% of global CO2. If we do nothing it will make no difference as there will be no impact on global temperature. There is no climate crisis.
