Why there is no climate crisis by Neil Lock

One very significant difference between Reform UK’s policies and those of the other parties is that Reform intends to scrap so-called “net zero.” This refers to draconian restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions from human activities, enshrined in the “Paris Agreement” at the 2015 United Nations Conference of the Parties.

In the words of Reform’s Contract with You: “Net zero is pushing up bills, damaging British industries like steel, and making us less secure… We must not impoverish ourselves in pursuit of unaffordable, unachievable global CO₂ targets.” This is, of course, simple common sense. Yet, as one who has been studying the subject of CO₂ emissions in detail for almost two decades, I find a vital word missing from that second sentence: “unnecessary.”

For in reality, net zero policies are based on nothing more than scares about some “climate crisis,” that alarmists claim requires us to throw away our industry and our prosperity. But these scares have no basis in reality. This makes the conduct of those that have lied or deceived in order to fan the scares, or have promoted, supported, made or enforced such policies, most reprehensible. In my opinion, they have committed crimes against humanity.

Two years ago, I wrote a 7,300-word de-bunk of the climate crisis meme, and had it published at “the world’s most viewed site on global warming and climate change.” Here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/03/15/climate-crisis-what-climate-crisis-part-one-the-evidence/. This article is a much cut down, and slightly updated, précis of that one.

The six claims

To begin, I’ll ask: What are the specific accusations being made against us human beings under the moniker of “climate change” or “global warming?” I divide them into six claims:

1. It’s warming. It has been warming since at least 1880 or so. And the warming is global, not just local or regional.
2. This warming is unprecedented.
3. All or most of the warming is the result of emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) by human civilization. And CO₂ produced by burning fossil fuels is the main culprit.
4. This warming will have significant negative effects on the planet and on human well-being and prosperity.
5. The benefits from avoiding the negative consequences of this warming outweigh the costs of taking pre-emptive action to avoid them.
6. It’s a crisis! There’s a climate crisis, and we need to act NOW!

Is it warming?

It’s commonly agreed that the climate has been warming for centuries, as the world has come out of the “Little Ice Age,” which lasted from the 14^th century to the middle of the 19^th.

Now, there are many problems with assembling temperature measurements, made by different means over a long period of time, into a coherent whole. And even more problems with in-filling and extending them to places with no measurements, in the search to construct a global average. But there is general agreement that global temperatures have been warming since the 17^th century. And that they have warmed very close to 1 degree Celsius since 1880.

On the other hand, an issue which has recently gained attention is the possibility of temperature bias through the urban heat island effect (UHI). UHI is, simply, that it tends to be warmer in places which are more densely populated. Because cities form a very small proportion of the earth’s surface, UHI alone cannot account for anything like the warming we have seen. But since the places in which we make measurements tend to be the places where we have settlements, it is possible that extending these measurements over areas for which we have no data may produce an apparent warming, which is not there in reality.

Is modern warming unprecedented?

Past records show temperatures going up and down by large amounts, sometimes over relatively short time periods. For example, there was a huge dip into, and an even bigger rebound out of, the trough of the Little Ice Age.

Moreover, there have been periods in the past, when temperatures have been considerably warmer than in the times around them. For example, the Mediaeval Warm Period from about the 10^th to the 13^th century, during which commerce took off in Southern Europe. And the Roman Warm Period from about 250 BC to 400 AD, during which grapes could be grown in Scotland; suggesting it was warmer then than it is now. So, the idea that modern warming is unprecedented is, in Scottish parlance, “not proven.”

Is CO₂ from human activities the main cause of the warming?

There is a plausible scientific hypothesis that says that greenhouse gases, including CO₂, do cause some warming. This warming is what they call a “forcing.” It is relatively small; about 1 degree Celsius for a doubling of CO₂ is considered reasonable.

But the alarmists claim this initial, small warming then gets amplified by “feedbacks” such as evaporation from the oceans (water vapour is a far stronger greenhouse gas than CO₂!), and changes in cloud cover. The alarmists think the feedbacks are large, causing instability; skeptics think they are small, or even negative. But the science of feedbacks is in no way settled. No-one even knows whether, overall, more cloud cover causes warming or cooling!

We hear a lot about “attribution studies,” supposedly trying to work out how much of the observed warming is due to CO₂, to other human activities such as land use change, or to causes independent of human activity. But it is becoming increasingly obvious that virtually all these studies are being driven by politics, not by science.

Another issue, currently being looked at, is how far air pollution reductions over the last 70 years or so have increased the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface, and therefore the temperature. It seems plausible this may have had an effect. Perhaps, even, a big one.

Would warming be bad for the planet and for us?

Historically, human civilizations have tended to thrive during warmer periods rather than colder ones. Indeed, I for one would expect that a moderately warmer world – say 4 or 5 degrees Celsius warmer – would be better for us, not worse. But the alarmists keep on screaming about the TERRIBLE consequences if “we” don’t reduce CO₂ emissions and stop the warming RIGHT NOW! Who is right? That needs proper, objective cost-benefit analysis.

Is it worth taking pre-emptive action to avoid the consequences of the warming?

My researches have shown consistent failure by the UK government, over two decades, to do any proper cost-benefit analysis on “net zero” or related policies. Indeed, at several points, they have gone out of their way to prevent any such analysis being done! This is very suspicious indeed.

To avoid this article becoming over-long, I’ll write up those researches in a separate article.

Is there evidence for a climate crisis?

What evidence is being presented that there is a “climate crisis?” Or, indeed, that there is any problem with the climate at all? Here is a list of some of the things the alarmists are howling about. In almost every case, they claim that these things are happening now.

(Cue wailing and gnashing of teeth). Weather disasters are becoming worse and more frequent! We’re facing more and worse storms and hurricanes! More and worse floods! More and worse droughts! More and worse wildfires! More and stronger heatwaves! More and more people are dying from heatstroke! There are millions of climate refugees! Arctic sea ice is disappearing fast! Because of this, thousands of polar bears are dying! Sea levels are rising fast! And the rate of rise is accelerating! Because of this, islands like Tuvalu and the Maldives are being submerged! Antarctica and Greenland are losing ice fast! This will lead to melting of ice sheets, and catastrophic sea level rise! Hundreds of thousands of square kilometres of coral reefs are dying! We soon won’t be able to grow enough food to feed the population! All these things, so they claim, are our fault for emitting so much CO₂.

OK, so let’s look at the record.

Are weather disasters becoming worse and more frequent? No. Global deaths from disasters such as droughts, floods and extreme weather have gone down dramatically in the last century or so. The drops in deaths from natural disasters have been even more spectacular when looked at in terms of death rates per 100,000 people.

More and worse storms and hurricanes? No. No trend is evident in global hurricane frequency. And cyclone energy in the Northern Hemisphere has not been increasing in the last 30 years.

More and worse floods? No. Even the United Nations’ IPCC cannot say whether flooding on a global level is increasing or decreasing.

More and worse droughts? No. Deaths from droughts, floods and extreme weather have gone down dramatically in the last century or so. And even the IPCC has low confidence in attributing changes in drought over global land areas since the mid-20^th century to human influence.

More and worse wildfires? Not proven. A 2016 peer-reviewed paper had this to say: “Many consider wildfire as an accelerating problem, with widely held perceptions both in the media and scientific papers of increasing fire occurrence, severity and resulting losses. However, important exceptions aside, the quantitative evidence available does not support these perceived overall trends.”

More and stronger heatwaves? No. In the USA, heatwaves in the 1930s were an order of magnitude stronger than in any of the previous or subsequent decades. There is no apparent trend in the rest of the data.

More and more people dying from heatstroke? No. Deaths reported as caused by “extreme temperatures” peaked around the 2000s, but have gone down since. In any case, they are only a small proportion of deaths from all natural disasters. Moreover, a recent paper analyzing data from around the world concluded that deaths caused by cold were approximately ten times as many as deaths caused by heat.

Millions of climate refugees? Not that I am aware of. I certainly haven’t met one. Have you?

Is Arctic sea ice disappearing fast? No. It did reach a low minimum in summer 2012. But by 2021 and 2022, the minimum had rebounded to around 50% above that value.

Are thousands of polar bears dying because low sea ice means they can’t find food? No. According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature, the world-wide polar bear population has risen from about 10,000 in the 1960s to 26,000 now. One expert has estimated 32,000 bears.

Are sea levels rising fast? No. As measured by tide gauges, the rate of sea level rise varies a lot by location. This is as you would expect, since some coasts are rising, others falling. But a rise of 1-3 millimetres per year is typical. While in some places better sea defences are advisable (the Dutch have been doing it for centuries!), this is not concerning overall.

Is the rate of sea level rise accelerating? Not proven. Satellite measurements seem to show an acceleration of sea level rise in the last 20 years or so. Tide gauges, in general, don’t. The discrepancy needs to be fully explained before anyone can reasonably claim that an acceleration of sea level rise exists and is a problem.

Are islands like Tuvalu being submerged? No. In a recent survey on a multi-decadal scale, 80 per cent of all the islands surveyed (including Tuvalu) were either growing, or staying about the same size.

Are Antarctica and Greenland losing ice fast? No. The Antarctic continent has not warmed in the last seven decades. Last I heard, it was gaining ice, not losing it. As to Greenland, at the current rate of melting, to melt the whole of the ice cap would take 20,000 years.

Are hundreds of thousands of square kilometres of coral reefs dying? Not really. The poster child for coral reef bleaching, the Great Barrier Reef, seems, after an iffy period around 2012, to be doing fine. And coral reefs elsewhere are a lot more resilient to changing conditions than they are often given credit for.

Can we grow enough food to feed the population? Yes. Yields of most crops per area farmed have risen over the last 60 years. Meanwhile, more carbon dioxide in the air has had a beneficial effect of “greening” the Earth!

I rest my case, m’lud. And if perchance you are not convinced by any of these statements, please refer to my article at Watts Up with That, which gives links to data and scientific papers on these subjects.

(Neil Lock is interim campaign manager of Reform UK Godalming and Ash branch).