Roger Helmer MEP: A different view on climate change

Nick Hurd MP has previously written for this site to warn against 'climate change scepticism'.  Today Roger Helmer MEP writes about his Counter-Consensual Climate Conference due to take place in the European Parliament with Lord Lawson next Wednesday, 18th April.  PDF flyer here.

Is the earth getting warmer? Slightly.

Is there good evidence that the rate of warming is increasing and becoming catastrophic? No.

Is it caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions? Probably not.

Do proposed policy responses like Kyoto make sense? Definitely not.

Climate change hysteria has become an industry, with scientists, lobbyists and journalists making a good living from it. Many politicians are happy to connive, seeing opportunities both for higher "green" taxes, and for the global governance initiatives close to their hearts. David Milliband suggests re-branding the EU as "The Environmental Union", and adds for good measure that you can't be both green and eurosceptic (see Neil O'Brien's rebuttal of that notion here).

Worse yet, there are all sorts of pressures being put on the scientific community to fall in line behind the alarmist consensus. Counter-consensual papers aren't published. Their authors lose funding. Even work with only a tangential relevance to climate change can increase its chance of funding with the addition of the phrase "in the context of global warming".

I believe that the case for man-made climate change has not been made. The evidence over very long periods shows that while CO2 levels are correlated with average temperatures, the CO2 levels lag behind the temperature. The inescapable conclusion is that temperature drives CO2, not vice versa.

Even if we accept the alarmist science, the measures proposed will do little to change matters. The effect of Kyoto, even if fully implemented, would be to reduce average global temperatures by 0.2'C by 2100 -- and less in the shorter term. We are being asked to decimate energy use, roll back the industrial revolution, and make heroic economic sacrifices, to achieve changes almost too small to measure. The resources that will consumed by these endeavours could much more usefully be invested in a wide range of life-saving humanitarian efforts as recommended by the Copenhagen Consensus.

Any CO2 reduction programme which fails to engage China and India is doomed to failure in global terms, which is why America's environmental initiatives are likely to be more effective than the EU's. Incidentally, over recent years the USA's emissions trend has actually been better than the EU's, despite the latter's moral posturing.

I have accordingly organised a conference in the European parliament in Brussels to give a platform to scientists, economists, industrialists and politicians who broadly share these views. The Key-Note speaker is former Chancellor of the Exchequer Nigel Lawson (Lord Lawson of Blaby). The Conference will be followed at 5:00 p.m. by a screening of the Channel 4 documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle.

I have been asked how this plan sits with David Cameron's new green agenda. But the Conservative Party is a broad church, and it is right that these issues should be thoroughly discussed within a party context. I believe my conference can be seen as contributing to the party's new focus on green issues.

I also believe that there are profound reasons why we should nevertheless seek to achieve major reductions in the use of fossil fuels, but those reasons relate to long-term resource management, and to energy security, not to mis-placed global climate alarmism. In this context, and while renewables have their place, there is no substitute for major new investment in nuclear capacity.

Further details of the Conference are available from my office via rhelmer@europarl.eu.int, and all interested parties are welcome.

Related video link: Lord Lawson Iain Dale that the Stern Report on climate change is fraudulent

Comments

[sjm]

Thank heavens for a voice of sanity!

I'm all in favour of using natural resources wisely not wastefully, and not polluting the planet. I'm also old enough to recognise the difference in today's climate from that of the 40's and 50's.

But I am also well-read in history, so I know that there have been constant and massive changes in climate over the aeons that can have had nothing to do with Man's activities.

More strength to your elbow, Mr Helmer!

[DavidDPB]

And of course lots of people are making a fortune by ignoring environmental concerns too.

[Londoner]

Not such a different view for this website!

Whilst the sceptics may be right, to accuse those of the contrary view of being motivated by self-interest is perverse. Lobbyists and journalists would just write about something else and it does not advance the search for scientific truth to accuse scientists you disagree with of insincerity - their professional reputations are at stake.

As for the EU, many of us thorough-going sceptics of most functions of the EU have long argued that the environment is one of its more valid competencies - this well pre-dates global warming coming to the fore, covering such things an acid rain, nuclear pollution etc. Miliband's comment was crass but it is not crass to deal with many environmental issues on a Europe-wide (or wider) basis.

So it would help Helmer's argument if he cut out some this background mud slinging.

[Kevin Davis]

Whether there is climate change or not is really of only passing interest but is a useful metaphore for doing something about changing the way we conserve and develop new energy supplies. Surely we should be doing something about developing renewable energy because we value the security of our energy supply. We get gas from Russia, oil from the Middle East and coal from South Africa and South America - probably the most unstable parts of the world. I would much rather we conserved what we have and developed new supplies that do not rely on importing energy.

[Londoner]

The article says "I have accordingly organised a conference in the European parliament in Brussels to give a platform to scientists, economists, industrialists and politicians who broadly share these views."

Fine, but wouldn't it be more constructive and useful to have a discussion involving both sides? Perhaps ConHome can branch out and organise such an event in London.

[Jonathan Sheppard]

Londoner - dont we here the views of the "other side" much more regularly anyway?

[RodS]

"Man made Climate Change" is the new hysteria. Political Correctness gone Green !!and a gift to the interferring, regulating left wing. Adapting to climate change and aviding waste of natural rescources for its own sake is sensible and valid.But why will not either side of the debate tackle the big issue - Population Growth deliberately induced by Goverment through tax and benefits and immigration policy. If People Pollute - then More People pollute More !!! And yet no politician will mention the 'P' word.

[Denis Cooper]

How can David Cameron say on the one hand that no more powers should be transferred to the EU, and some powers should be re-patriated, but at the same time want to let the EU loose on anything even remotely connected with possible climate change? Does he have no idea how the European project works, how the Commission will use this to vastly extend EU interference with our lives, and how the European Court of Justice will agree that they are right to do so? It's insane.

[Michael McGowan]

Londoner, the gist of Roger Helmer's article makes total sense to me. Martin Wolff made very similar points in an article in the FT several years ago. I don't think the man-made climate change lobby has exactly lacked exposure in recent months: Gore's film, for example, must have been more widely viewed than the Channel 4 programme. And while it is OK to criticise Roger Helmer for a bit of mud slinging, personal abuse and character assassination are well to the fore when the man-made climate change lobby get into gear. So maybe they should take the plank out of their own eye before they take the speck out of his.

[Mark Fulford]

"The inescapable conclusion is that temperature drives CO2, not vice versa."

Wrong. We know for a fact that CO2 traps energy in the atmosphere, causing warming. The inescapable conclusion is that global warming is a positive feedback system: warming causes CO2 and CO2 causes warming.

From there it follows that the initial trigger can be either man-made or natural.

[michael mcgough]

David Milliband,top scientist with a 'D' in 'A' level physics suggests re-branding the EU as "The Environmental Union", and adds for good measure that you can't be both green and eurosceptic.Wow,potential PM at his sharpest.!
Thank God for Roger and the other non lemmings at this conference.Remember, the pressures used to suppress counter-consensual opinion are the same as those used to support the EU,the Euro and the comprehensive schooling ,from which the young Milliband so clearly benefited.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

For once I agree with Roger!

[Sorry to be Anon but am at work...]

"Is it caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions? Probably not."

I am afraid that it "probably" is caused by human activity. This is the overwhelming scientific concensus. The only people who deny it are non-scientists and discredited academics.

There are no credible peer-reviewed scientific papers that deny the link between human activity and climate change. Those that have been published have ALL been discredited shortly after publication.

At the risk of repeating myself, it is no good non-scientists making assertions like this. It gives politics a bad name. Whether the readers of this site like it or not, there is a scientific consensus on climate change. If you don't trust a scientific consensus, then don't trust your GP.

Come on... why can't you lot debate how a centre right party tackles the problem?

Why we can do it without big state. Why local solutions work best. Why tax might not be the best way to reduce emmissions.

Simply denying the problem is lazy thinking.

[Richard Hyslop]

Roger,

Thank you for taking the time to write such a good article. I am in complete agreement with you on this issue. I hope your conference goes well next week.

Like others have suggested, it would be great if a similar event could be organised in the UK.

[comstock]

am afraid that it "probably" is caused by human activity. This is the overwhelming scientific concensus

Wasn't so long ago the scientific consensus was the world was gonna get colder.........

[Mark Wadsworth]

Perfectly fair and reasonable article, but would agree with sjm, kevin and others that we should still try to reduce our reliance on imported fossil fuels - apparently coal mining in parts of the UK has become profitable again - and use what we have sparingly and so on.

[Andrew Woodman]

One good thing to come out the cliamte change debate then. Jason and Roger have agreed on something. I must say that I'm very uncomfortable with the way the debate has been closed down.

Mark, I'm sure Roger will be the first to agree that fuel security is a big issue, and alternative forms of sustainable fuel need to be looked and investigated into.

[Alan S]

Does Roger know of any Tory MPs who are publicly supportive of his position?

[Denis Cooper]

Whether the conventional theory of man-made global warming is true or not, we should not allow it to be used as an excuse for widening the scope of EU rules.

[comstock]

A conservative said....

we should still try to reduce our reliance on imported fossil fuels - apparently coal mining in parts of the UK has become profitable again

I'm speechless and crying with laughter.

[Andrew Woodman]

If the market dictates that coal mining is profitable, then private companies will mine again. Nothing UnConservative about Comstock. If Scargill had accepted the market, then there may not have been so many closures in the first place.

[Mark Wadsworth]

Comstock, have you read about Hatfield colliery being re-opened?,/a>

[Mark Wadsworth]

That link looks a bit funny but it seems to work, here it is again for luck.

[Boris]

Sorry to be anon but at work, wrote: " I am afraid that it "probably" is caused by human activity. This is the overwhelming scientific concensus. The only people who deny it are non-scientists and discredited academics."

To me, the term "scientific concensus" needs some debate now. The 2500 scientists who supposedly endorse the various IPCC reports are the total number who take part in the research. If for example, 1000 of those scientists disagree, their names will still be listed as the 2500 that took part and then the media incorrectly report that they all agree as their names are listed!

Do some research on the IPCC. It is a political organisation, not a scientific one. There is a widely searchable article by a renowned climate scientist who took part in the initial IPCC report where there WAS NOT a scientific concensus on GW being man made. The IPCC (a political organisation) re-wrote the conclusion (done by polititians) to suit its new political agenda.

[comstock]

You can't turn mines on and off like a switch, Andrew.

[Mark Wadsworth]

Comstock, read the link, it cost £100m to get Hatfield up and running again, so what? I am sure that these people have done their sums.

[jorgen]

Excellent, Mr. Helmer!

[Andrew Woodman]

No Comstock, we have to trust business people who invest their time and money into mining. That way, if it fails the taxpayer doesn't have to pick up the bill.

[Martin Cox]

I'm puzzled by this CO2 business. As it is heavier than air, why does it go up instead of suffocating us? I'm only asking!

[Mark Wadsworth]

Martin, atmospheric CO2 is only about 0.03% of the atmosphere.

Even if it is more concentrated at sea level it is nowhere near enough to suffocate you - you need at least 1% CO2 before you'd even notice.

The total atomic mass of a CO2 molecule is 44, as against 32 for an oxygen molecule or 28 for a nitrogen molecule, so the difference isn't huge anyway and it all gets sloshed around.

[Andrew]

"Wasn't so long ago the scientific consensus was the world was gonna get colder........."

Urrm, nope, it never was. There was a vague theory postulated by a small number of scientists to explain certain poorly explained results they were getting, and was subsequently hyped by ignorant newspapers. It was disproven fairly rapidly, and was never anywhere remotely near a consensus.

As above - comments from politicians are meaningless. If they have some original r esearch, they can publish it. If they don't, it's just so much hot air.

A simple challenge: find one piece of original, peer-reviewed research that seriously questions that humans are causing global warming. Not a politician, not an oil industry lobbyist, not an economist, not a politics professor like Bjorn Lomborg, but a real scientist.

[Andrew Lilico]

I have no problem if Helmer wants to give a platform to climate change sceptics, any more than it was a problem for a platform to be given to global warming alarmists in the 1980s. Everyone is entitled to his say in a democracy. But the plain fact is that (even if, when wearing my scientist's hat, I had some sympathy with Helmer's point of view) the scientific consensus on this topic is comfortably above that point at which politics must respond to it. Scientists tell us that the earth is warming and that it is our fault, and even if they are mistaken about that (which is of course possible - though my own view would be that the consensus view is probably correct) we must listen and respond - somehow.

On the other hand, it does not follow from the fact (if, as I presume, it is a fact) that the earth is warming (at least partly) because of human use of fossil fuels, that we must stop. Prior to the Stern Review, all the most authoritative analyses by economists had suggested the reverse. That is to say, even if the world is indeed warming as the scientists warn, these previous studies told us that we should not try to prevent it. The Stern Review turned this result on its head, but there is still nothing even vaguely close to a consensus amongst economists working in this area on this point. It is far from obvious that we are better to try to prevent global warming that to adapt to it.

For myself, I don't have a settled view. Stern is, I think, the first really serious attempt to grapple with this question, but like most first attempts is not entirely successful or convincing on many points. That's not any particular criticism of Stern himself, but it does mean that we couldn't hope to use it as the basis for policy-making.

As a Conservative, my view is that unless and until there is a really convincing case to be made why government intervening is better than government not intervening, government should not intervene. However, I accept that there is another strand to Conservatism, which would say that unless there is a convincing case to be made for why we should allow things to change (in this case, the climate), we should do our best to keep them the same. So within Conservatism itself there is a natural tension on an issue of this sort.

[hot air]

Is there anyone who actually believes that Roger Helmer is organising this conference -- led by a politician, not a scientist, and featuring a C4 documentary of the balanced viewpoint we expect from that channel -- because he's truly interested in understanding climate change? It must be warmer than I thought. I overheard Roger Helmer on a bus a few weeks ago, holding forth on this and other topics, at a volume that broached no dissent. Prior belief of his rigidity requires a lot more evidence to be altered than does that of a neutral observer.

[sjm]

Ah the green and environmentally-sound EU that is forcing all the old-style lightbulbs out - bringing in the 'energy efficient' ones that have more mercury, so need special kinds of waste disposal because mercury is so poisonous; bringing in windfarms that require humungous amounts of environmentally-unfriendly concrete for their construction, and need 24hr back-up fossil fuel or nuclear power stations anyway......

[Roger Helmer]

"Hot Air" asks if anyone believes I'm organising this conference because I'm interested in climate change. Why the hell else would I be doing it?

[Jonathan Sheppard]

Roger has done a few very interesting podcasts which are well worth a listen including:-

http: / / toryradio.podbus.com/ RogerHelmer7Environment.mp3

[Peter Turner]

My biggest disappointment was to see the Conservative Party go green. By doing so the party embraced emotion rather than logic as the path to follow. More and more evidence of the importance of solar factors in climate change are being recognised but seem to be ignored by our policy makers.

[Soupy Twist]

"The evidence over very long periods shows that while CO2 levels are correlated with average temperatures, the CO2 levels lag behind the temperature. The inescapable conclusion is that temperature drives CO2, not vice versa."

Mr Helmer -- this is not an inescapable conclusion. Any warming effect triggers CO2 release as a result of melting permafrost etc. The released CO2 causes further warming i.e. a feedback effect. This helps explain why ice ages end so rapidly.

Nevertheless you conclude that this phenomenon somehow invalidates the global warming hypothesis (which in any case concerns changes occuring on an entirely different timescale).

You are of course entitled to disagree with the majority of the world's scientists say on climate, but at least make the effort to properly understand what you are disagreeing with.

[Andrew Lilico]

Andrew@16.58: "find one piece of original, peer-reviewed research that seriously questions that humans are causing global warming...[by]... a real scientist. "

There won't be any difficulty finding such a thing. But that wouldn't prove anything. For example, I know of serious peer-reviewed articles that argue that Jesus Christ was stoned to death rather than crucified. That some academic produced a wacky-but-interesting-enough argument that he gained access to a peer-reviwed journal does not prove that he was *right* or that many people *agree* with him. That isn't how science (or any other branch of academia) works. Papers are not published because the journal editors believe their arguments to be decisive, but merely because they consider them worth reading.

In much the same way it is totally unconvincing for George Monbiot and others to rubbish the views of the small-and-probably-rightly-dwindling group of scientists that believe the sunspots are dominant in driving climate change on the grounds that after their initial articles producing arguments and evidence for the role of sunspots, later researchers had pieces published arguing that they were wrong. So what? Lots of stuff that is wrong gets published all of the time. And so do lots of alleged "refutations" that don't decisively refute at all. That is how academic debate proceeds. (For a typically unpleasant example of Monbiot's form of argument, see his 13 March 2007 Guardian article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,2032571,00.html.)

[comstock]

Yopu'll never win another general election. Get in there bug gordy BROWN.

oh yes,,,,,,

[comstock]

wsorry i'm so me what the worse for beer tonight. good british beer mind ;)

pedigree roks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Adam]

What a bizarre article. We can't trust the climatologists and environmental economists, and what they're saying. However, we can entirely ignore resource economics literature because apparently we need government (rather than the natural workings of the market) to save us from oil running out.

[Keith Standring]

Roger Helmer is to be congratulated on his call for a considered and balanced approach to global warming and its causes. Some of the reaction to his postings is typical of the hysteria and hyperbole with which this subject is being addressed. There is a concerted effort now in train to impose a fanatical orthodoxy on us all.

As usual, in considering such cases, it pays to ask who benefits. A complete list would be too long here. The politicians, of course, would be included because of the stealth tax opportunities which already they are now beginning cynically to exploit.

Then there are those major developing countries who would love to give the developed world a kicking, especially the United States and ourselves, and would ignore environmental restrictions adopted here.

There are unholy alliances , too, such as the pointless wind farm industry which is diverting resources from the more effective power generation methods and destroying our coastline and countryside.

Then, of course, there are all the other usual suspects, including failed ex-Presidential candidates, seeking an influence which they are unable to obtain by other means!

Given all this, it seems perfectly rational, and indeed essential, as Roger evidently has, to adopt a sceptical position regarding the cause and nature of the current global warming cycle.

Such scepticism is total justified when Brown, for example, imposes “global warming” flight taxes quite shamelessly to raise general revenue or when Cameron insults our intelligence by stupid stunts on his bicycle or photo-opportunities with huskies.

Rest assured it will be all of us in Middle England who will pay for the foolishness now beginning to be perpetrated on us in the name of global warming, unless we are vigilant and rigorous in our assessment of the problem and the subsequent development and application of solutions.

What we do not need is blind adherence to an imposed orthodoxy based on distorted science, envy and self-righteousness which so shrilly permeates the current debate. I wish your Conference every success Roger!

[ukfirst]

Time for Roger join the political party that agrees with what he says on this, as on much else. He's wasting his time in Cameron's party.

[Fred Baker]

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/carbontracker/overview.html

is the site to obtain a no nonsense view of the problem.

[ROGER HELMER]

Londoner asks why I didn't give space to both sides of the climate debate at my Brussels Conference. But I did. I invited Swedish Green MEP Carl Schlyter to make the alarmist case, which he did in great style. So I had a token Green. How many alarmist conferences allow space to a token sceptic?

[Ivor]

Wow! Political sanity! What's next? A fair and effective local representation by a system where not only one elected MP has the imposible task of serving 70,000 people? I wouldn't hold my breath! "Man made Climate Change? Here's my problem: This myth is Political not Science. What makes it more unforgiveable is that the news media, who I previously trusted more than the Politics, have joined forces with the Politicians on this one, hence not democratic debate on TV. A thought to remember: On Iraq Jon Snow of Channel4 news held a type of Judicial style televised debate that was welcomed by many. Now in matters when we are told "man is facing the greatest threat?" Where is our televised debate that should include David Milliband, Scientish from both sides of the fence and the "people?" What I don't understand is why we "the people" remain gullible and tolerate this from our Politicians. Why? Maybe our high cost of Living isn't quite high enough ...maybe??