« How Much Salt Is Healthy? | Main | Ecoadvice - Wash less. »

Wiltshire Carbon Cost And Benefit And Climategate 2.0

Bid to withdraw Wiltshire council from carbon-cutting agreement
12:50pm Thursday 10th September 2009
A GROUP of Wiltshire Council members have tabled a bid to withdraw the authority from a nationwide energy conservation scheme arguing that carbon emmissions do not cause global warming.
Nine councillors back the motion proposed by Cllr Rod Eaton (Con) and Cllr Christopher Newbury to withdraw from the Nottingham Declaration on Climate Change, which Wiltshire Council signed up to in May.

date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 13:06:48 +0100 from: "Laura Lang" subject: FW: Bid to withdraw Wiltshire Council from Carbon-Cutting Agreement to:

Dear Tim

Thank you very much for your time and helpful explanations. Many thanks for agreeing to
give me a few lines on the facts you mentioned explaining climate modelling graphs and the
reasons for levelling off/dips; also the current and predicted overall trend in global
temperature and link to carbon emissions. The email below will give you the context for
my enquiry should you wish to refer to it. I would be interested to hear your view on the
paragraphs highlighted if you have time but appreciate you are nearing term time.

Many thanks again for your time.

Best wishes.


Laura Lang

Teffont, Wiltshire

0172 xxxxx

From: roderick.eaton [mailto:roderick.eaton1@xxxxxx]
Sent: 13 September 2009 10:17
To: laura.lang@xxxxx
Subject: Fw: Bid to withdraw Wiltshire Council from Carbon-Cutting Agreement

Dear Ms Lang

Thank you for your email. As promised, I am writing to explain the position regarding the
group bringing this issue to council. For about three years, I have been researching the
climate change theories from an analytical and scientific point of view. Each person must
of course come to his/her own conclusions with or without a clear understanding of the
facts but I hardly think that the media has covered both sides (natural and man-made) of
the scientific debate in equitable measure. 'There's nothing like a good crisis (real or

There has been no increase in global average temperature since 1998 and temperature started
to reduce in 2005 and has continued to do so. The UN IPCC (Inter-governmental Panel on
Climate Change) models failed to predict this and carbon dioxide emissions have continued
to increase year on year (I have the figures and will send them if you require). Could the
models, based on a positively weighted conversion factor of CO2 forcing (not applied to
solar forcing), be barking up the wrong tree? I think this likely.

IPCC scientists themselves include many strongly worded caveats in their reports and some
oppose the IPCC conclusions altogether. As was accepted from Dr Richard Lindzen's (IPCC
Lead Author) evidence to the House of Lords Select Committee (2005): those who dissented
from the 'anthropogenic cause' (Man-Made Climate Change) theory were not given a full
hearing by the IPCC organisation. I would recommend reading the works of Lord Lawson ('An
Appeal to Reason') and articles by Lord Monckton (former scientific advisor to the UK
government) together with peer review papers by perhaps Dr Larry Vardiman (Professor of
Atmospheric Science at the University of Missouri) on Dr Henrik Svensmark's work (Dr
Svensmark is the Head of the Danish National Space Centre). You will quickly realise that
the science is by no means 'settled' on the MMCC theory. The cosmo-climatological theory is
very powerful and based on natural phenomenon relating to radiation effects on cloud

Over 31,400 science-based professionals signed up to the ongoing Oregon Petition and 800 to
the International Manhattan Declaration. I have details of 130 scientists listed in my own
database who oppose the MMCC theory e.g. Drs Fred Singer (the founder of the US weather
satellite program), Timothy Ball, Vincent Gray (IPCC expert reviewer and graduate of
Cambridge University) and Tim Patterson (Professor of Geology at Carleton University -
Canada) et al, not to mention Dr McKintrick who worked with Steve McIntyre to flaw the
IPCC's hockey stick curve (subsequently withdrawn by the IPCC as it omitted the Mediaeval
Warm period and the mini ice age in the past 1000 years to over emphasise the half a degree
Celsius global temperature rise of the 20th century). After Mann's Hockey Stick Curve was
withdrawn, I noted that the IPCC 2001 report made quite a startling admission as follows:

Chapter 1; page 97, concludes: "Climate has always varied on all time-scales, so the
observed change may be natural."

Having carried out considerable research on the topic, I am firmly of the opinion that the
balance of probability is that man-made emissions do not constitute any significant effect
on climate. In particular, there is a very poor correlation between man made carbon dioxide
emissions and global average temperature. The anthropogenic emission of all GHGs is well
below half a percent of the total greenhouse effect (which is predominantly natural) and
the greenhouse effect itself is but one aspect of the overall climatic system (one example
is El Nino warming caused by tectonic movement below the ocean).

The costs of Kyoto (Carbon Credit scheme) and the 'green obligation' for electricity
companies is passed on to the private, commercial and industrial consumer, of course.
Together with VED increases, fuel and other so called green taxes the costs are very
high but excusable on the back of the MMCC tenet. The support and furtherance of a belief
in MMCC at a local level is demonstrated by the Nottingham Declaration. We are unable to
support this 'blind science' approach, which, as the Lords select committee stated should
be based on evidence. What I have seen is IPCC scientists properly placing caveats on their
findings in the Climate reports and their expert reviewers who dissent from the
'orthodoxy' often being ignored. This is not so much by other scientists but rather by the
government officials who write the 'Summaries for Policy Makers'. These have a strong
tendency to omit the caveats and promote a 'done deal' on AGW despite the evidence. The
Stern Report (Nicky Stern is an economist) and more obviously, Al (alarmist) Gore
exaggerate further the IPCC conclusions. Perhaps the following quote from Dr Benjamin
Santer (a leading climatologist and author of the last IPCC Report's chapter on the
detection of greenhouse warming) will give you an insight to the lack of consensus in the
scientific community:

"It's unfortunate that many people read the media hype before they read the (IPCC report)
chapter "on the detection of greenhouse warming." I think the caveats are there. We say
quite clearly that few scientists would say that man-made climate change was a done deal."

Energy efficiency is a prudent and cost saving approach and, provided one continues to
be free to make one's own choices, one may indeed save oneself some money. I fully support
that of course. If some choose to change their lifestyles in terms of what they eat, riding
a bike or where they may take their holidays, then that is their own personal preference. I
simply do not believe that any government or council should be pushing these things on
people who have their own way of life and ideas on climate. If global warming were to
return for whatever reason, it could well be an encouragement for people to holiday in the
UK (rather than go abroad for the sun) and I would expect air conditioning sales would
increase. As Nigel Lawson writes:

"As to health, in its most recent report, the IPCC found only one outcome which they ranked
as "virtually certain" to happen - and that was "reduced human mortality from decreased
cold exposure". This echoes a study done by our own Department of Health which predicted
that by the 2050s, the UK would suffer an increase in heat-related deaths by 2,000 a year,
and a decrease in cold-related mortality of 20,000 deaths a year - something that ministers
have been curiously silent about. All in all, given that global warming produces benefits
as well as costs, it is far from clear that the currently projected warming, far from being
"catastrophic", would do any net harm at all."

Being signed up to the Nottingham Declaration gives government much opportunity to
introduce draconian measures, to tax, control, interfere and regulate on the back
of reducing CO2 emissions. I do not believe that withdrawal from it would do other
than free people to follow their chosen lifestyles and put the emphasis back onto council
providing services rather than control measures.

In context, if Wiltshire Council hit its target emission cut (50% in five years) right now,
China would have produced sufficient CO2 in 3 minutes to make up for it.
If the whole UK
carbon economy shut down right now, it would take under 6 weeks for China to fill the
gap. Climate is a very complex subject and I hope that this will help you understand that
the drastic measures you mention will not have any effect at all on climate
but just bring more drastic negative changes to our lives here and now.

Kind regards

Rod Eaton, MBA, DMS (Leeds), MCMI, FIET

----- Original Message -----

From: [1]Eaton, Rod

To: [2]roderick.eaton1@xxxxx

Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2009 7:20 AM

Subject: FW: Bid to withdraw Wiltshire Council from Carbon-Cutting Agreement


From: Laura Lang [laura.lang@xxxx]
Sent: 11 September 2009 22:02
To: Eaton, Rod
Subject: Bid to withdraw Wiltshire Council from Carbon-Cutting Agreement

Dear Mr Eaton

It would be helpful if you explain the rationale for withdrawing Wiltshire Council from the
Nottingham Declaration on Climate Change in the face of compelling scientific evidence on
the need for urgent and drastic reduction of carbon emissions.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Laura Lang

This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email

This email originates from Wiltshire Council and any files transmitted with it may contain
confidential information and may be subject to Copyright or Intellectual Property rights.
It is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error please notify the sender and delete the email from
your inbox. Any disclosure, reproduction, dissemination, modification and distribution of
the contents of the email is strictly prohibited. Email content may be monitored by
Wiltshire Council to ensure compliance with its policies and procedures. No contract is
intended by this email, and any personal opinions expressed in this message are those of
the sender and should not be taken as representing views of Wiltshire Council. Please note
Wiltshire Council utilises anti-virus scanning software but does not warrant that any
e-mail or attachments are free from viruses or other defects and accepts no liability for
any losses resulting from infected e-mail transmissions.
Receipt of this e-mail does not imply consent to use or provide this e-mail address to any
third party for any purpose. Wiltshire Council will not request the disclosure of personal
financial information by means of e-mail any such request should be confirmed in writing by
contacting Wiltshire Council.
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email

Wiltshire Council hit with £600,000 carbon emissions tax bill (From The Wiltshire Gazette and Herald)

25th January 2011

Wiltshire Council has been landed with a £600,000 environment tax bill after the county was left lagging behind in the race to reduce carbon emissions.
The hefty government tax, known as the Carbon Reduction Commitment, is based on the increasing levels of carbon the council, private businesses and the general public of Wiltshire are using.


Rod eaton should have asked Laura Lang for an equally detailed email outlining the compelling scientific evidence on
the need for urgent and drastic reduction of carbon emissions.

Ohhh!! Such a huge post it is but nice....!!

Post a comment