Science and Technology CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by Dr Phillip Bratby (CLC006)
I have a first class honours degree in physics from Imperial College and a PhD in physics from Sheffield University. I am retired and have no interests to declare. My interest is that of a physicist with vast experience of complex systems involving heat transfer, fluid flow and thermo-dynamics (of which the climate system is an example) and computer modelling of such complex systems.
My evidence is based on a lifetime experience of working in the real world of engineering, which relies on hard evidence. My evidence thus calls into question the vague and unsubstantiated hypotheses of those who call themselves “climate scientists” and the poor state of the evidence on which they appear to rely for their forecasts.
A rational person would have thought that, after 16+ years (16 to 23 years, dependent on which metric is chosen) of no global warming, some doubt and questioning of the flawed hypothesis of the “atmospheric greenhouse effect”, might have crept into the consciousness of the members of the committee.
What is the current state of public understanding of what is meant by climate change? How has this changed in recent years?
1 There is no definition of “climate change” as used by the Government, the media and all official bodies, so how can the public be expected to understand “what is meant by climate change”? It seems that there has been a deliberate policy to confuse the public into thinking that the climate didn’t change until recently. The problem is that the climate has always changed and always will. Mankind has always had to adapt to living with a changing climate, be it an ice age or benign warm conditions. So the Government declaring that “climate change is the biggest problem” we face is pure nonsense. The public is quite reasonably getting fed up of all the propaganda about climate change, which is not borne out by their everyday experience. If the Government sees the problem as “man-made global warming”, it should say so and stop using the term “climate change”, which is meaningless.
2 Any unusual weather event is now widely blamed by politicians and the media as caused by “climate change”. The public includes people who have a longer memory than politicians and know that there is nothing new under the sun. If severe weather has existed in the past and was not then caused by “climate change”, then the public’s understanding is only going to become more sceptical, as it has, of all the propaganda. One minute the public is told we are in a drought due to “climate change”—a few months later we are suffering floods and we are told this is due to “climate change”. Then heat waves are due to “climate change” and then severe winters are due to “climate change”. No wonder the public distrusts politicians.
3 If the Government wants the public to understand what is meant by the mythical “atmospheric greenhouse effect” then it should provide an explanation based on physics—noting that the atmosphere does not behave like a greenhouse. There is no basis in physics for the “atmospheric greenhouse effect”, it was something dreamt up by “climate scientists” who don’t seem to have an understanding of the laws of physics—for them to say that a gas such as carbon dioxide “traps heat” is just laughable and shows their ignorance.
Which voices are trusted in public discourse on climate science and policy? What role should Government Departments, scientific advisers to Government and publicly funded scientists have in communicating climate science?
3 The public quite rightly distrusts organisations such as the BBC, which blame every weather event on “climate change” and introduce “climate change” in virtually every programme they produce. Politicians are, quite understandably because of all the recent scandals, trusted by very few members of the public. Scientific and engineering institutions are not trusted because of their perception as Government propagandists being funded by Government (he who pays the piper calls the tune). Most members of the public who have an interest in “climate change” get their information from widely trusted internet websites and a few independent media correspondents who do not have vested interests and tell the truth about how the political obsession with “climate change” is damaging the economy, ruining peoples’ lives and leading to an acute problem with regard to our future energy supplies.
How could public understanding of what is meant by climate change be improved? What are the main barriers to this? Does the media have a positive role to play?
3 It would help if “climate change”, “man-made global warming” and all the other phrases such as “climate disruption” “catastrophic climate change” etc were not used as if they have some defined meaning. A simple definition of the problem should be provided and the terminology should then be exclusively used. Labelling anybody who disagrees with Government propaganda as a “climate change denier” or even “climate denier” (who would deny that the climate changes or that there is climate?) does not help public understanding. The media should tell the truth; that would make a positive change.
How important is public understanding in developing effective climate change policy?
4 There will always be public resistance to “climate change” policy as long as the public are not convinced that “climate change” is a problem and as long as they see that a few are hugely benefiting from “climate change” policy, whilst the vast majority of the public see themselves and the economy getting ever poorer. The cure is seen to be far worse than the disease. A bit of honesty about the fact that Government-funded “climate scientists” don’t have a clue about what the future climate will be, because the computer models on which they rely are based on false physics, would help public understanding. It has to be remembered that the IPPC has said “In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible”. The public is aware that all long term forecasts are wrong and no amount of propaganda will change this fact.
What evidence is there that public attitude to climate science affects their engagement with energy policies or initiatives?
5 The fact is that anybody who understands “climate change” can see that the energy policy measures and initiatives put in place to tackle the supposed problem are counter-productive and are slowly ruining the country. The fact that energy policies have been virtually non-existent for 16 years and that all policy measures that have been put in place increase energy costs, increase fuel poverty, enrich a few with vested interests and damage the countryside, all in the name of “tackling climate change”, cannot be helpful.
Does the Government have sufficient expertise in social and behavioural sciences to understand the relationship between public understanding of climate science and the feasibility of relevant public policies?
6 Until the Government continues to have this religious, non-scientific belief in “climate change” (aka man-made global warming), against all the scientific evidence to the contrary, then no amount of propaganda and brain-washing will affect public understanding. The public are not fools and can see through the “climate change” scam. Continual propaganda from Prime Ministers and other Ministers that “the science is settled” and “we have X days to save the planet” are not believed by the public, who are not as stupid as politicians think. Statements like “snow is going to be a thing of the past; children aren’t going to know what snow is” just add to the public rejection of the propaganda. Social and behavioural “sciences” are quite rightly seen by the public as just more nonsense; using the advice of such people for more propaganda purposes will be counter-productive.
Can lessons about public engagement with climate change policy be learned from other countries?
7 Those countries that put the interests of their citizens and their economy ahead of the attempts to “tackle climate change” should be emulated by the UK Government. The public knows that a “low carbon” economy is a third world economy. The public knows that copious cheap energy provides wealth and the wealth can be used to adapt to whatever form the future climate happens to take—whether it’s warmer and more benign or colder and harsher (as in the Little Ice Age).
April 2013