Ido not believe in global warming as it is advertised.

In the September 27 edition of Scientific American magazine, we read the following: “Sea levels are creeping up at the fastest rate in 2 000 years”, “human influence on the climate system is clear” and “continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming”.

These are some of the key messages in the Summary for Policymakers of the physical science of global warming from the Inter- governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), released on September 27. Swiss climate scientist Thomas Stocker, co-chairperson of the IPCC Working Group responsible for this summary, noted at a press conference: “The world is warming. And the list of impacts just grows longer. Ice all over the world is melting . . .”

Let us analyse these statements. One measures sea levels using tidal gauges and, more lately, satellites. Measurements go back to about 1807. A worldwide maximum of 213 tidal gauges is being used. It is correct to state that gauge measurements show that the maximum sea level rise rate ever measured occurred between 1993 and 2009 (2.8 mm/y) but the error in these measurements (from those publishing the data) is about 0.8 mm/y.

So it could be as little as 2 mm/y or as much as 3.6 mm/y. What this means is that, at abso- lute worst, according to 213 tidal gauges, the sea is rising by the thickness of two toothpicks every year.

US National Aeronautics and Space Administration (Nasa) satellites indicate a rise of between 1 mm/y and 2mm/y. Do we accept Nasa satellites as being accurate (being able to resolve sea level, which includes storm surge, waves and spring tides, down to 1 mm accuracy from 1 370 km out in space)?

Right now, the satellites are, on average, ten years old (maximum) and, for all we know, may be just recording their own precession into deeper orbit. The point is that we are fed the alarmist rubbish that we should be concerned about a sea level rise the thickness of three paying cards. Rather, we should question if the satellites could possibly be so accurate or if 213 tidal gauges can accurately measure sea levels worldwide.

What about “the world is warming”? According to the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change, the global temperature in 1990 was one-fifth of 1 ºC more than the average from 1961 to 1990. In 2005, the global temperature was two-fifths of 1 ºC more. But, guess what? There has been no change since, no warming, for the last seven years.

But Stocker said last month: “The world is warming.” And the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change records there have been no temperature changes in the last seven years. Who do you believe?

What about “ice all over the world is melting”? Apart from it being in the nature of ice to melt, should we care? The National Snow and Ice Data Centre (October 15, 2013) states: “This summer, Arctic sea ice loss was held in check by relatively cool and stormy conditions. As a result, 2013 saw substan- tially more ice at summer’s end, compared with last year’s record low extent . . . Mean- while, in the Antarctic, sea ice reached the highest extent recorded in the satellite record.”

Get it? Arctic ice increasing again, Antarctic ice at its highest in the satellite record.

To my mind, the IPCC no longer cares what it says, unless it can add a spin of gloom and doom. It is disappointing. However, I do think that Europe is getting warmer. It is the emissions from passenger jets. Take a look at http://www.flightradar24.com/FA7X , a real-time record of all aircraft flying worldwide, at any one time. Note the astonishing flight density over Europe. The European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol) states that there are 10.5-million passenger jet flights in Europe each year. This produces 567-million tons of carbon dioxide a year. That is about 100-million tons more than the total emissions of South Africa. You know, if we stopped flying environmentalists from conference to conference, it may solve the whole darn issue.