The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia - Science and Technology Committee Contents

Memorandum submitted by Godfrey Bloom MEP (CRU 18)

  1.  I am Godfrey Bloom. I am a member of the European Parliament, representing the Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire region since 2004.

  2.   Declaration of interest: I have no financial interest in the climate debate. But for several years I have been involved in the debate, arguing against Climate alarmism and in favour of a realistic approach. I believe that current changes in climate are not exceptional compared to previous periods, and are driven largely by natural terrestrial and astronomical cycles. I do to believe there is convincing evidence of significant human impact on the climate, or that proposed mitigation efforts will have any effect. I am a member of the European Parliament's Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee and the Environment Committee. I have published pamphlets and DVDs on this subject. I have organised several conferences in London and Brussels and attended such conferences in the USA and Copenhagen.

  3.   Confidence in climate data: There has been a series of revelations which cast huge doubt both on currently available climate data, and on the credibility of the UN's IPCC. The IPCC's pin-up chart, the Hockey Stick graph, has been comprehensively debunked by independent statisticians. More recently, the IPCC has been forced to admit that its prediction of the melting of the Himalayan Glaciers by 2035 is entirely without foundation, and clearly wrong. Days later, we learned that the IPCC claim linking the increased cost of natural catastrophes with global warming was equally false. It was not peer-reviewed science, as we had been led to believe, but a recycled claim by a lobby group. Material is now coming from New Zealand to show statistical corruption on a grand scale.

  4.   The CRU emails: The leaked CRU emails appear to show a deliberate and systematic attempt by leading climate scientists to falsify data, to "hide the decline", and to exaggerate warming. The CRU climate data in any case is at variance with satellite data showing a much more moderate rise in temperature. The CRU scientists are closely linked with scientists in other leading climate institutions, casting a huge doubt over the basic data which the IPCC has been using.

  5.   The Stern Review: In reaching its estimates of the costs and benefits of climate mitigation attempts, the Stern Review, regarded by the government as a definitive economic analysis on the issue, relies heavily on the discredited link between global warming and natural catastrophes. So the conclusions of the Stern Review, and especially the claim that the costs of inaction exceed the costs of mitigation, can no longer stand.


    — Your Committee of Enquiry should appoint a team of independent statisticians, with no established position in the climate debate, to study the source data used by the CRU, and to validate the global temperature data. Your committee should listen not only to CRU scientists, but also to those who have studied and criticised the data collection methods on which the CRU analysis is based, for example Anthony Watts (

    — Your Committee should invite Lord Stern to explain his analysis and invite distinguished independent economists who can check and comment and cross examine him, particularly on his choice of a discount rate to evaluate future costs.

February 2010

previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2010
Prepared 31 March 2010