The whole climate change issue is rapidly degenerating into confrontation and collapse
on a number of levels from local to international. Prospects of international cooperative
measures to reduce undesirable greenhouse gas emissions (GGEs) are receding by the
day. The decisions will have an impact on the future prosperity of South Africa in
particular and Africa in general. The situation could easily lead to the outbreak of
economic warfare between the developed and the developing nations. The following are
First – our paper
Our joint paper Linkages between solar activity, climate predictability and water
resource development has been refereed and accepted for publication in the Journal of
the South African Institution of Civil Engineering. The analyses of a large and
comprehensive hydrometeorological database, consisting of routinely observed data
published by the responsible national authorities, provided irrefutable evidence of a
synchronous linkage between rainfall, river flow, flood peak maxima, and solar activity.
Despite a diligent search, no evidence could be found in the data of a linkage with the
postulated consequences of anthropogenic global warming. I will distribute a summary as
soon as I have the formal reference.
The study completely undermines the foundation of the IPCC position that insists that
global warming and its postulated consequences are dominantly the result of human
activities. It also undermines the position adopted by the South African Department of
Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT).
Our analyses are based on a wealth of routinely collected and published data. This is in
contrast with the approach followed by climate alarmists that is based on process theory
and mathematical models. They have not been able to produce a shred of analytically
verifiable evidence of increases in droughts, floods, threats to water supplies or damage
to the natural environment that could be attributed to unnatural climate change.
I will provide more details in my next memo.
Second – Zimbabwe
The election of Zimbabwe to head the UN Sustainable Development programme was a
slap in the face of the environmental groups that have been pestering the African
countries to implement conservation measures that must inevitably clash with national
welfare. It is almost certain that similar insistence that African countries implement the
GGE control measures will meet the same fate. The African countries still carry the scars
of European colonialism.
Third – European Union
At the outset it must be appreciated that at international level there is a fundamental
difference between asking nations to volunteer to do something, and applying pressure to
force them to do something against their will.
Until now the EU has been exerting pressure on developing countries, principally China
and India, to implement the GGE control measures at the same time as the EU. The
obvious intention is to prevent the developing countries from obtaining an economic
advantage while the changes are implemented. Now India is striking back. For the first
time the word ‘war’ has been introduced. The developing countries are moving towards
insisting that the GGE control measures should be proportional to the historical levels of
pollution caused by the developed countries. These countries were directly responsible
for the present high levels of atmospheric pollution. This is a reasonable demand
following the polluter pays principle.
An interesting situation is developing between the developed and the developing nations
with Africa in the middle. Why should South Africa and the African countries volunteer
to implement these measures when their historical contribution to global warming was
close to zero, and future contributions minimal.