David Bamber is a member of the Federal Executive Committee of the CPA. His background is in the oil industry; he has worked on green energy projects and made a deep study of the viability of alternative energy sources. CPAX is agnostic on the subject of global warming; we are not qualified to judge whether his comments on global warming are valid or not; in fact, David is far more qualified in the field than we are, so we'll just shut up and let you read.

As a convinced climate change sceptic, I am appalled by the alarmism being put out by the 'quality' broadcast media, especially the BBC. Perhaps I may redress the balance in this propaganda war through this web site.

There is no correlation between carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and global average temperatures. There is similarly no correlation between sea level rises and carbon dioxide either. In Roman times the earth was warmer than it is today yet somehow we managed to survive and indeed prospered. At that time Greenland was green and cereal crops were grown there.

Man is maybe responsible for between 10% and 40% of global warming, the remainder being due to various natural phenomena. This means that shaving the odd 10% or 20% off carbon dioxide output by the developed world (allowing the developing world to increase its output without limit) will achieve nothing - Kyoto is pointless. My thanks go to the USA and Australia for dodging the Kyoto bullet.

The Kyoto protocol does not allow carbon dioxide emission reductions due to the use of nuclear power to be included. This gives us a clue as to the real political forces behind this 'green' treaty. The International Climate Change Industry also receives considerable income while climate change fears remain.

And what of the advantages of a warmer climate: increased agricultural production due to a longer growing season, increased rainfall due to increased water absorbed in the atmosphere (possibly reversing desertification in some parts of the world), a reduced probability of storms as the extent of the temperate zones is increased and the impact of jet streams is reduced.

If we are serious about beating world poverty then we must allow developing world countries to strengthen their economies and build their infrastructure. This will require the use of fossil fuels and production of more carbon dioxide. Should we suppress developing countries by inflicting a 'Kyoto 2' on them?

If we consider the costs due the worst realistic consequences of climate change, they are a fraction of the costs due to the world's economy of complying with the more demanding 'Kyoto 2' proposed after 2013. It is hard to see how worldwide reductions in carbon dioxide output are achievable. Even if they were achieved they probably would not have any significant effect.

In this article I have only very briefly pointed out the political and technical issues concerning the climate change propaganda war. It is a subject that demands far more balanced attention than it has received to date.