Madam, – It seems a number of climate scientists, environmental activists and others have devoted their careers to supporting the theory of catastrophic man-made global warming. They have a lot to lose if the theory which they have embraced turns out to be wrong or not as important as they think. The same observation can be made, with more certainty, in respect of those politicians (especially Al Gore, Barak Obama, Gordon Brown and David Milliband) who have climbed aboard the climate catastrophe bandwagon.
It makes me all the more sceptical of their claims when there is not clear evidence to back them up. I wouldn’t give two hoots about the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory if it weren’t being used to justify the introduction of foolish and extremely costly legislation now which will bring about virtually no discernible temperature change. In any case, most independent research reveals that a slightly warmer world (with a higher CO2 content in the atmosphere that is mostly a natural phenomenon) would not be a dangerous place to live, indeed it would most likely be beneficial to mankind.
As “climate alarmists” claim that their horror stories are based on the conclusions contained in the political summaries of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessments (much of which is in any case disputed by a large body of scientists), let’s be clear about what the IPCC scientific summary is predicting. The IPCC has six scenarios, each estimating the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere over the next 90 years based on population growth and economic growth projections.
Based on these projections the best estimates of the six scenarios is for temperature to rise by between 1.8 degrees and 4 degrees Celsius over the next 90 years. Four of the six scenarios have a best estimate temperature rise ranging from 1.8 degrees to 2.8 degrees. This is without mankind doing anything at all about CO2 emissions.The six scenarios also predict sea level rises of between 18cm and 59cm by 2100. That is, between seven inches and 23 inches over the century with a midpoint average of 36cm or 14 inches.
Let’s put these figures into some perspective. The rapid temperature changes between day and night, between summer and winter and between different parts of the globe are far greater than these projections, as are unpredictable differences in sea levels caused by storm surges and low atmospheric pressures. If man can cope with living in Helsinki, where the average temperature is 5 degrees Celsius, and Singapore, where the average temperature is 27 degrees Celsius, it is not apparent why man should not be able to adapt to a change of 3 degrees Celsius (the midpoint of the best estimates), if he has 100 years to do so. Even if we accept these figures are right, they are not that startling, nor do they indicate catastrophic climate change. Mankind has adapted to much more dramatic changes than these many times in the past.
There are a large number of low probability but possibly devastating catastrophes waiting to happen at some time in the future (all of which have happened many times in the past) - volcanic super eruptions, high intensity earthquakes and related tsunamis, disease pandemics, large asteroid, comet or meteor collisions with the Earth, or the onset of a new ice advance. If, in the name of risk aversion and the precautionary principle, we were to sacrifice 5 cent of today’s GDP (the suggested amount we should devote to mitigating the rise in atmospheric CO2) to try to guard against each of these, this would mean sacrificing 25 per cent of today’s GDP in the hope of avoiding all of them even though their combined likelihood is still very small. This would be plainly absurd.
I am appalled that any reasoned questioning of the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory is now being regarded as some sort of religious sacrilege by those in our society who have proclaimed themselves the saviours of the planet. Their attitude breeds an intolerance of dissent and reasoned argument that is both unattractive and dangerous and strongly reminiscent of the behaviour of the Catholic church over the centuries. I am determined to exercise my intellect so as not to be bullied into living in fear of threats which may never materialise or over which I have no control. I am also determined that my children shall not be bullied into growing up in fear. – Yours, etc,