Dear Roger Harrabin,
Re-reading your memo below reminds me that there is now a considerable debate as to whether the BBC have been even handed, or not, regarding the all important issue of Climate Change, or more accurately the extent that CO2 emissions have on any such change.
In the interests of the impartiality that the BBC desperately wish to show, so as to be conforming with the Royal Charter that guarantees your independence, would you please give publicity to the following:-
I have no commercial or vested interest whatever in these issues but, as a scientist trained by ICI in the 1950s I merely seek for a true presentation.
We are being told to sacrifice our standard of living to reduce the quantity of CO2 in our atmosphere. How big a factor is CO2 in our atmosphere?
It surprises everyone I ask when they learn that this beneficial trace gas is 0.037% of our atmosphere. The line would be so thin on a pie chart as to be near invisible. Not only is CO2 a benign gas it is essential for all pant life and we need 7% of it in our lungs to live. Furthermore it is at an historically low level. So how can this minuscule quantity of trace gas affect our climate? As common sense and real science tells us it cannot and does not!
So how did the myth arise in the first place? Since when out of curiosity the atmospheric constituents were measured a hundred and fifty years ago and subsequently monitored a 10% rise in CO2 has been recorded. In other words one tenth of 0.037% over 150 years. This does not in any way surprise those scientists who study climate change and attribute such change to solar activity; the sun being our only source of heat and energy. They know from recorded history we had a warm period at the time of the Romans – a very warm period with grape bearing vines under Hadrian’s Wall. This was followed by the bitterly cold Dark Ages of plague and pestilence; then the Medieval Warm Period when human endeavour flourished again, which we call the Renaissance, a period of great warmth with winemaking grapes grown around Newcastle. The Mini Ice Age followed with the Thames freezing in winter with ice between twelve and fifteen feet thick.
It is our good fortune to be enjoying the peak of a warm cycle soon to end. It will not get warm enough to grow grapes in the north, let alone Scotland. Sunspot activity would indicate a Dalton or Maunder minimum in the near future. These historically recorded climate change cycles very neatly coincide with the known revolution of the Sun’s magnetic field end for end every nine hundred years.
So how did CO2 ever come to be blamed for this warming cycle? Well possibly it was started by Professor Lovelock of Gaia fame, it had to be the wicked human race that was responsible for all ills. CO2 was rising and this could only be accounted for by human activity.
As a point of fact one good volcanic eruption produces more CO2 than humans in a decade. Volcanoes are the greatest producers of CO2 and there is almost continuous volcanic activity in the deep oceans. In the marvellous way our world balances itself the oceans are the greatest holder of CO2. However, as the solar warming cycle takes effect, the oceans will release CO2 which more than accounts for the measured increase. You can see this effect for yourself in a fizzy drink. The CO2 bubbles will stay until the drink warms then they will be released. In other words CO2 increase, small though it is, is the result of cyclical warming not the cause.
Professor Lovelock has stated in the last few days that he got it wrong. As Professor Lovelock and others of his ilk influenced the politicians of his day including Mr Blair it stands to reason they “got it wrong” too with quite horrendous consequences for us all.
It is not a moment too soon to repeal the disastrous Climate Change Act.
Will the BBC give publicity to this alternative view?