The Westminster Science and Technology Committee is undertaking a review of the CRU leaks, and has invited submissions. See below for my own submission:-
1. I am Roger Helmer. I am a Member of the European Parliament, representing the East Midlands Region since 1999.
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 not believe there is convincing evidence of significant human impact on the climate, or that proposed mitigation efforts will have any effect. I am a former member of the European parliament’s Temporary Committee on Climate Change (now disbanded). I have published books, pamphlets and DVDs on this subject. I have organised several conferences of climate realists in Brussels, and attended such conferences in the USA and elsewhere.
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. It is perhaps the greatest false proposition in science since the Piltdown Man hoax. More recently, the IPCC has been forced to admit that its prediction of the melting of 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 It was not peer-reviewed science, as we had been led to believe, but a recycled claim by a lobby group.
4 The CRU e-mails. The leaked CRU e-mails 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 the 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.
(A) 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).
(B) Your Committee should invite Lord Stern to re-work his analysis excluding the presumed additional costs of natural disasters “caused” by climate change. It should also invite a couple of distinguished independent economists to check and comment on Lord Stern’s analysis, and particularly on his choice of a discount rate to evaluate future costs.
Click source to read more at Roger Helmer's site