‘The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft, at Bergen, Norway.

‘Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice are being replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.

‘Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds. Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.’

I must apologise, because I neglected to mention that this report was from 2 November 1922, as reported in the ‘Washington Post’. Yes, you all saw it coming, didn’t you? But it doesn’t make this statement any less powerful and, hopefully, thought-provoking. I brought it to your attention, this article, because I want the Members of this Assembly to critically examine the data upon which the so-called climate change debate is based. It is often quoted that the overwhelming opinion of the scientific establishment is in agreement that climate is warming due to man’s activity. What is not divulged is that the vast majority of this scientific body are not climatologists at all and that amongst true climatologists, the percentage of believers falls dramatically.

There is also a great deal of evidence to prove that anti-global-warming scientists do not get funding and their work is rarely published, whilst anyone who puts the appendage ‘due to global warming’ at the end of their work invariably gets into print. There can be no doubt that there are huge vested interests, both in the scientific and the commercial world, in promoting this global warming agenda—to say nothing of the political agenda. However, a true appraisal of the scientific data shows empirical knowledge based over a tiny historical period. Facts about the longer historical evidence are fastidiously ignored, as is evidenced by the article I have just presented.

It takes just a glance at climatic history, with unbiased perspective, to see that climate change is, in fact, cyclical. In Roman Britain, grapes were grown as far north as Newcastle, whilst, in Victorian times, the Thames froze over regularly. We are told time and time again that the ice in the Arctic is melting to critical levels. Yet, even a cursory look at the history shows this happens on a regular basis. In 1962, for instance, two American submarines met at the North Pole, crushing up through the ice, which was said to be just 2 ft thick. Submarines have been able to repeat this exercise on many occasions since. Incidentally, this would not be able to be achieved at this present time.

Looked at objectively, there is a huge amount of scientific evidence to prove the cyclical pattern of world climate, a great deal of it far more dramatic than that which we are experiencing at the present time. I leave you with one last observation: there has been no discernible temperature rise for the last 15 years—a rather embarrassing admission by no less a body than the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Global warming proponents put this down to a short hiatus, and I quote one article here—just a pause in this global warming cycle.

I put this paper to you for just one reason: it’s to let you know that you cannot accept, without questioning, scientific evidence that’s put before you by interested bodies. I ask you just to look at this—I will agree with all of you, and all Simon has said, and all Bethan said, with regard to us having renewables. I am a great believer in renewables. I think, in fact, that Wales should look at water-generated energy, rather than a wind-generated energy—after all, we’re one of the wettest places on earth. So, this is not to say that we shouldn’t carry on with this business, it’s simply to make you question the reasons we are doing it. Thank you.