Garth George: Copenhagen blabfest is a load of hot air

Buried on a far back page of world news in this newspaper on Monday was an item recording that an international carbon credits scam worth more than $2.2 billion is being investigated by detectives in at least five European countries.

The fraud, covering Britain, Italy, Spain, Denmark (scene of the upcoming Copenhagen international climate negotiations conference in December) and Sweden involves the buying and selling of emission allowances across borders to avoid value added tax.

For those of us who have known for years that man-made carbon dioxide emissions have nothing to do with global warming, and who recognise that an unnecessary international carbon trading scheme would be wide open to abuse, this comes as no surprise.

We go along with Bjorn Lomborg, director of Copenhagen Consensus, a think tank, who, writing in the Wall Street Journal, pointed out that some business leaders are cozying up with politicians and scientists to demand swift, drastic action on global warming.

"This," he wrote, "is a new twist on a very old practice: companies using public policy to line their own pockets. This is certainly true of climate change.

"We are told that very expensive carbon regulations are the only way to respond to global warming, despite ample evidence that this approach does not pass a basic cost-benefit test.

"We must ask whether a 'climate-industrial complex' is emerging, pressing taxpayers to fork over money to please those who stand to gain.

"The partnership among self-interested businesses, grandstanding politicians and alarmist campaigners truly is an unholy alliance ...

"Spending a fortune on global carbon regulations will benefit a few, but dearly cost everybody else."

So the European scam is probably only the first of many, for when vast sums of money are at stake, you can guarantee that opportunists are already laying plans to rort the system.

The irony is, of course, that man-made carbon dioxide emissions make no difference to the climate, which has been going from cold to hot and back again ever since time began, and certainly long before man ever produced any CO2.

So, with the Government setting its mind to trying to solve the problem of agricultural emissions, and linking up with the United States to do so, it's time once again to make these salient points, courtesy of Australia's Carbon Sense Coalition:

There is no global warming crisis. The world is just emerging from the Little Ice Age, so naturally temperatures will be above those of last century.

There is nothing unusual about today's temperature levels or their trends. There were several periods since the Big Ice Age ended that had temperatures above the present.

Man's emissions of CO2 are beneficial, not dangerous. And today's levels of CO2 are low by historical standards. All life would benefit from an increase in CO2 content.

Extreme weather events are a permanent feature of the world's climate. Weather extremes occur at any time and in all climate phases. All we can do is be prepared.

Humans cannot control the climate or the weather. They must learn to adapt to whatever the future holds, or disappear and be listed among many species extinguished by climate change.

"Climate change" is the natural condition on Earth - climate and weather are never still. If we have anything to fear from "climate change" it is not warming, whose effects are almost wholly beneficial. What we need to fear is a return of the cold, dry, hungry ice ages.

It is clear that the theory that CO2 causes dangerous global warming is false. It predicted increasing warming as the CO2 content rose. But temperatures fell, twice in the past 100 years. Now, in another fraudulent about face, they will try to say that man's CO2 is now causing the cooling. In other words, no matter what happens, they will adjust the theory to claim it proves their failed thesis. This is pseudo-science.

An alternative theory that phases in climate change are affected by solar cycles has been proved to largely agree with observations. Those forecasts came before the event, suggesting that the theory may be correct.

There is no need whatsoever for an economically dangerous and scientifically discredited emissions trading scheme with its taxes, bureaucracy and disruptions.

And as for the Copenhagen talkfest, even Helen Clark is downplaying the likelihood that it will be the final step in negotiating a successor to the Kyoto Protocol.

The UN development chief told London's Financial Times: "Copenhagen has to be viewed as a very important step. Would it be overoptimistic to say that it would be the final one? Of course.

"If there's no deal as such, it won't be a failure," she said. "I think the conference will be positive but it won't dot every i and cross every t."

What a disgraceful waste of time, resources and money this whole business is.