Dear Sir,

 The letter last week criticising Nick Herbert MP’s expenses prompted me in an idle moment to look at his website. I was shocked to read his thoughts on the environment and global warming (He is Tory party Shadow spokesman on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs).

  Herbert accepts the full Stern report/Al Gore - we-are-all-guilty-and-we’re-all-going-to-die-unless-we-bike-not-drive - idea. Critics say the Stern report on climate change simply listed the scariest possible scenarios to scare us into submission. The Al Gore movie, “An Inconvenient Truth”, does the same, and was criticised by a British High Court judge as being “alarmist”, and plain wrong on 9 important scientific points.

  I’d like to issue this challenge to Nick Herbert.

  In the U.S. and Australia, there is a gathering movement of sceptics challenging the conventional wisdom that human activity is changing the climate. In Australia, there is a bill pending in its Parliament seeking to impose a so-called Cap and Trade measure for CO2. One Australian Senator, Steve Fielding, concerned about the economic impact of the bill (similar to legislation supported by our Labour government and backed by the Tories seeking an 80 per cent cut in CO2 by 2050) decided to ask some basic questions of the government.

1)   Is it the case that CO2 increased by 5% since 1998 whilst global temperatures cooled over the same period? If so, why did the temperature not increase; and how can human emissions be to blame for dangerous levels of warming?

2)   Is it the case that the rate and magnitude of warming between 1979 and 1998 (the late 20^th century phase of global warming) was not unusual in either rate of magnitude as compared with warmings that have occurred earlier in the Earth’s history? If warming was not unusual, why is it perceived to have been caused by human CO2 emissions; and, in any event, why is warming a problem if the Earth has experienced similar warmings in the past?

3)   Is it the case computer models projected a steady increase in temperatures for the period 1990-2008, whereas in fact there were only 8 years of warming followed by 10 years of stability and cooling? If so, why is it assumed that long-term climate projections by the same models are suitable as a basis for public policy making.

I’ll give Mr Herbert a break by telling him that the replies from the Australian government didn’t convince Senator Fielding. His scientific advisers said the government answers could be summed as –

1)   Global temperatures have remained steady since 1998, despite a 5 per cent increase in atmospheric CO2.

2)   No strong evidence exists that human CO2 emissions are causing, or are likely to cause, dangerous warming on top of natural trends.

3)   No scientific consensus exists.

Presumably, if Mr Herbert, and the Conservative Party, holds such strong views on global warming, this is based on strong scientific evidence. Perhaps he would care to share those findings with his electorate which is about to be taxed until the pips squeak, by answering these 3 questions?

Yours sincerely

Neil Winton