« Record Rain? From a reader. | Main | Of Kites and Coneheads »

Launch of The Global Warming Policy Foundation

Copenhagen will fail – and quite right too | Nigel Lawson - Times Online

.... I have no idea whether the majority scientific view (and it is far from a consensus) is correct. Certainly, it is curious that, whereas their models predicted an acceleration in global warming this century as the growth in emissions accelerated, so far this century there has been no further warming at all. But the current majority view may still be right.

Even if it is, however, that cannot determine the right policy choice. For a warmer climate brings benefits as well as disadvantages. Even if there is a net disadvantage, which is uncertain, it is far less than the economic cost (let alone the human cost) of decarbonisation. Moreover, the greatest single attribute of mankind is our capacity to adapt to changing circumstances. By adapting to any warming that may occur over the next century, we can pocket the benefits and greatly reduce the disadvantages, at a cost that is far less than the cost of global decarbonisation — even if that could be achieved.

Moreover, the scientific basis for global warming projections is now under scrutiny as never before. The principal source of these projections is produced by a small group of scientists at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU), affiliated to the University of East Anglia.

Last week an apparent hacker obtained access to their computers and published in the blogosphere part of their internal e-mail traffic. And the CRU has conceded that the at least some of the published e-mails are genuine.

Astonishingly, what appears, at least at first blush, to have emerged is that (a) the scientists have been manipulating the raw temperature figures to show a relentlessly rising global warming trend; (b) they have consistently refused outsiders access to the raw data; (c) the scientists have been trying to avoid freedom of information requests; and (d) they have been discussing ways to prevent papers by dissenting scientists being published in learned journals.

There may be a perfectly innocent explanation. But what is clear is that the integrity of the scientific evidence on which not merely the British Government, but other countries, too, through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, claim to base far-reaching and hugely expensive policy decisions, has been called into question. And the reputation of British science has been seriously tarnished. A high-level independent inquiry must be set up without delay.

gwpf.jpg.jpg It is against all this background that I am announcing today the launch of a new high-powered all-party (and non-party) think-tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation (www.thegwpf.org), which I hope may mark a turning-point in the political and public debate on the important issue of global warming policy. At the very least, open and reasoned debate on this issue cannot be anything but healthy. The absence of debate between political parties at the present time makes our contribution all the more necessary.

Comments

> ...the majority scientific view (and it is far from a consensus)...


- The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
- Every national science academy of every major industrialised country on the planet confirms recent climate change is due to human activity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
- 97% of active climatologists agree that human activity is causing global warming: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/97_of_active_climatologists_ag.php + http://www.miller-mccune.com/news/scientists-public-drift-apart-on-climate-change-948
- The Consensus on Global Warming: From Science to Industry & Religion: http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensus.htm
- If this is not consensus, what would consensus look like? http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/13/221250/49
- World's largest scientific society of Earth and space scientists - the AGU: http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/prrl/2008-03.html
- The Scientific Consensus: http://cce.890m.com/scientific-consensus/
- A survey of all peer reviewed abstracts on the subject "global climate change" published between 1993 and 2003 show that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused. 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way (e.g. - focused on methods or paleoclimate analysis). http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

The scientific consensus has been very cleverly created. Almost every week a new climate institute is formed by members of the same warming groups. They are invariably from Tyndall, CRU, Hadley, Oxford, Cambridge and others in the network and the same names keep cropping up. They share the same data, mostly the stuff just outed in the CRU heist, and in many cases the same staff, but when they produce yet another dire report it is presented as from yet another climate institution, thereby giving the mirage of a rapidly growing consensus. They also cross-fertilize, for example Diane Liverman, a Stephen Schneider pupil and Head of the Climate Change Institute at Oxford, has recently jointly formed a new Climate Institute at the University of Arizona, with non other than Jonathan Overpeck, now receiving rave reviews in the CRU "e-mails-you wish you hadn't sent" story. Arch hysteric John Schellnhuber at Potsdam is an "advisor" at Tyndall, where former Al Gore adviser Bob Watson, is Director of Strategy.

Include the Greenpeace activists and IPCC authors, Hare and Meinshausen embedded at Potsdam and it is still only the tip of the iceberg! http://forum.junkscience.com/index.php?topic=288.0

The list is endless and the network diagram is beyond me, but it would require a full blank wall at the Science Museum.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
450 peer reviewed papers that are skeptical of AGW.
Also suggest YouTube. Cooler Heads presentation by Dr Richard Lindzen 6parts.

David C,
Yes, it's an impressively tall house of cards! As in all fields, you defer to the "experts" despite your own impressions, assuming your view to be vastly inferior to those of people spending the majority of their time on this issue. You also don't want to look like an idiot, quixotically tilting at windmills.
Memo to David: We just pulled two cards out from the bottom of the house of cards. Whether it topples or not will depend on what happens when an impartial group re-runs the numbers, and let the chips fall where they may - no massaging away anomalies, no bullying of skeptics, no filling in blanks (except with dotted lines), no re-re-re-running the program until it works.

Dear Sir,

Bangladesh is my country. In my country 70% people lives under poverty level. Today my countries have got several vector created diseases specially malaria and dengue fever due to present humidity and climate change. Recently investigation have proved that flood and water transportation problems have increased diarrhea cases. Climate change can increase it more. Temperature during summer can rise more due to increase in present humidity. These will cause rise in heat stroke and water will increase. For which several health problems will increase. On the other hand diseases like black fever and typhoid can spread and new diseases are becoming more huge in size.
For which agriculture, food, fuel, water and life specially people health is in danger.

I am an honest person, that’s why with your help I want to work with climate change along with the government approved organization Association for Agronomy Development (AD).If you want I can provide you the profile of this association.


M.A.B. Siddique
Secretary General
Association for Agronomy Development (AD)

Dear Sir,

Bangladesh is my country. In my country 70% people lives under poverty level. Today my countries have got several vector created diseases specially malaria and dengue fever due to present humidity and climate change. Recently investigation have proved that flood and water transportation problems have increased diarrhea cases. Climate change can increase it more. Temperature during summer can rise more due to increase in present humidity. These will cause rise in heat stroke and water will increase. For which several health problems will increase. On the other hand diseases like black fever and typhoid can spread and new diseases are becoming more huge in size.
For which agriculture, food, fuel, water and life specially people health is in danger.

I am an honest person, that’s why with your help I want to work with climate change along with the government approved organization Association for Agronomy Development (AD).If you want I can provide you the profile of this association.


M.A.B. Siddique
Secretary General
Association for Agronomy Development (AD)

Post a comment