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 It was not peer-reviewed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 (www.wattsupwiththat.com).
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.