The £150billion Question Part 2

Dear Mr Butler

Many thanks for making us aware of your article and offering an opportunity for us to respond. I am afraid we cannot speak for the Lord Young in your email title, however we supply a response below, which we request you publish in full:

'It is unfortunate your article starts by asserting that the Committee on Climate Change 'has failed to produce a solitary piece of scientific evidence' on anthropogenic global warming. If you read our report, you will see that the whole of chapter 1 is devoted to some of the key scientific evidence underpinning our advice.

Perhaps you will be relieved to hear that the evidence we present makes no reference at all to Al Gore's film 'An Inconvenient Truth'. The issues that remain, such as whether or not the planet has warmed in recent decades, we address directly in the chapter.

The entire report is freely available to you and your readers at http://www.theccc.org.uk/reports/fourth-carbon-budget

Kind regards, CCC Enquiries Team

I replied:

Thank you CCC Enquiries Team for your response, but what a shame that chapter 1 uses the same ice-core graphs and assumptions as did AL Gore in his film.

According to the graphs in your report, the ice cores show that rises in atmospheric CO2 result in similar rises in global temperatures, a scientific impossibility.

The ice cores actually show that rising global temperatures are followed 800 - 2,000 years later by similar rises in the levels of CO2.

The science is simple: The Sun warms the planet and rising global temperatures gradually, over 800 -2,000 years, warms the oceans causing them to create more CO2.

The Government's own scientists conceded the truth of this in the British High Court, as did the makers of Al Gore's, 'An Inconvenient Truth.'

Do you seriously expect anyone, who is not being paid to do so, to believe that anthropogenic CO2, which is just 1/33rd of the 4% total of atmospheric CO2, is responsible for warming the planet, while nature's 32/33rds do not?

The science is simple: The Sun warms the planet and rising global temperatures gradually, over 800 -2,000 years, warms the oceans causing them to create more CO2.

The Government's own scientists conceded the truth of this fact, regarding the ice-cores, in the British High Court, as did the makers of Al Gore's, 'An Inconvenient Truth.'

Do you seriously expect anyone, who is not being paid to do so, to believe that anthropogenic CO2, which is just 1/33rd of the 4% total of atmospheric CO2, is responsible for warming the planet, while nature's 32/33rds do not?

96% of greenhouse gases are water vapour and neither the CCC, NASA, nor the IPCC have any idea, what effect it has on climate change. 

Please rectify the ice core errors contained in Chapter 1, it is incorrect.

As a courtesy I will work through the rest of the book, as F.O.C. and check out the science, but as the basis of all your policies is the incorrect information published in Chapter 1, it’s rather pointless.

If CO2 does not cause global warming, you entire policy is pointless.

Obviously, you will now, knowing that CO2 levels are dictated by the historic global temperatures of 800 - 2,000 years ago appreciate that CO2 is the product of historic global temperatures and not the cause of them, stop the idiotic policy of carbon capture, wind turbines, and green taxes, which are all based on the UN's deliberate deception over CO2.

I refer you to the UN's own African Review, when they discussed imposing a carbon tax as a means of wealth redistribution.  They also discuss how they can use the greenhouse gas theory, as a way of disguising the true purpose of the taxes.

Please send me the corrected version of Chapter 1 as soon as possible.

Kindest regards,

Tony Butler.

As the Christmas Holidays have intervened I have taken another look at the CCC’s Fourth Budget Document.

Chapter 1:
Revisiting the science of climate change

In our 2008 report ‘Building a low carbon economy – the UK’s contribution to tackling climate change’ we reviewed the scientific evidence [T1] on future climate risks. Based on that evidence we proposed a climate objective: to limit central estimates of global temperature increase by 2100 to as little above 2°C over pre-industrial levels as possible, and limit the likelihood of a 4°C increase to very low levels
(e.g. less than 1%1). [T2] 

We assessed emissions pathways to meet this objective and concluded that global emissions of Kyoto greenhouse gases must peak by 2020, then
decline rapidly so that they are halved by 2050, and continue to decline thereafter.

From these global pathways we assessed an appropriate contribution for the UK, and recommended that the aim should be to reduce emissions by 80% in 2050 relative to 1990 levels. The resulting UK emissions in 2050 of around 2 tCO2e per person [T3] would, if replicated around the world, deliver a 50%
cut in global emissions[T4] , consistent with our climate objective.

• We review the basic science of climate change.

• We consider recent inquiries, notably concerning the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC).[T5] 

Our aim is to set out the science which underpins our advice on carbon budgets. We do not present a comprehensive review; more detailed introductions are available from specialist science groups2. There are five key messages in the chapter:

• There is a robust scientific case for human-induced climate change[T6] , supported by a vast body of theory and observation developed over many years. Although gaps and uncertainties in understanding remain, the case for action remains strong:

– Global climate change is already happening.

– It is very likely that this is largely a result of human activity.[T7] 

– Without action, there is a high risk ofglobal warming well beyond 2°C, with significant consequences for human welfare and ecological systems over the course of this century and beyond[T8] .

1 ‘less than 1%’ should be taken as indicative in the context of limiting extreme warming. We set 1% as the maximum allowable likelihood of 4°C arising from the modelling . . .

5. Remaining uncertainties and implications for our approach to mitigation

The overall case for human induced climate change is underpinned by a vast body of theory and observation [T9] which forms a coherent picture, and where
we can be confident about several basic tenets:

• Atmospheric concentrations of GHGs have increased during the 20th Century and are still rising as a direct result of emissions from human activity.[T10] 

• Over the last decades the climate system has warmed, with rising temperatures, ocean heat content and sea levels, and melting glaciers, snow and ice.[T11] 

• A continued rise in emissions is likely to cause sustained global heating of a magnitude and rate unprecedented in the course of human

The admission in December 2010, by New Zealand’s climatologists, that they, like other climatologists around the world, had been doctoring the temperatures to
show a warming trend, although New Zealand had not really shown any warming for fifty-years, in order to convince politicians of the fact of global warming.

This mirrors the activities of Prof. Phil Jones and his team at East Anglia University, and the UN’s IPCC team, Al Gore in his grossly distorted film on anthropogenic global warming, ‘An Independent Truth’.

The entire catastrophic energy policy of the CCC and The Department Energy is based upon a lie, the fraudulent science of anthropogenic global warming, a nonexistent upward surge in global temperatures, and the now disproved theory  of CO2 being the cause of global warming.