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 Laura Lang Teffont, Wiltshire 0172 716 217 From: roderick.eaton [mailto:roderick.eaton1@virgin.net] Sent: 13 September 2009 10:17 To: laura.lang@virgin.net 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 imaginary).' 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 formation. 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@virgin.net Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2009 7:20 AM Subject: FW: Bid to withdraw Wiltshire Council from Carbon-Cutting Agreement ___________________________________________________________________________________________ From: Laura Lang [laura.lang@virgin.net] 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 ______________________________________________________