Sports Calendar

This is a long way from the projections of the hugely influential Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which saw temperatures going up by as much as 5.8C by 2100, with sea levels rising sharply as the polar icecaps melt.

Lindzen is not the only sceptic. The excellent House of Lords economic affairs committee, including former chancellors Lawson and Lamont, examined climate-change economics. “The scientific context was one of uncertainty,” it said, urging the government to encourage “a dispassionate evidence-based approach”. While acknowledging most scientists had signed up, it said “majorities do not necessarily embody the truth”. It was particularly critical of the IPCC’s lack of rigour.

Among the uncertainties the Lords committee had to grapple with was why global temperatures cooled from the 1940s to the 1970s, much of it a “golden age” for the world economy. The climate-change lobby says this was because of the cooling effect of sulphur in the atmosphere. So-called “hockey-stick” projections, where the recent uptick in temperatures is extrapolated, also raise doubts.

Defra’s own charts are similar to those used by the Lords committee. But it also appears to have uncovered a big, mysterious, temperature rise in central England.

Nor are doubts confined to temperature. America may still be a culprit when it comes to carbon-dioxide but the Pacific Research Institute’s index of leading environmental indicators, published last week, showed stunning falls in US emissions of carbon monoxide, down 56% between 1970 and 2004, nitrogen oxides, down 30%, particulates, down 79%, and sulphur dioxide, down 51%.

This should not be taken to mean there is no such thing as global warming. It does mean we should be sceptical about more alarmist statements, and seriously challenge the lack of precision in officially endorsed projections. It matters hugely if global temperatures rise by 6C over the next 100 years. It doesn’t matter much if they rise by between 0.5C and 1C. I don’t expect London and New York to be under water by 2100, or the Lake District turned into a tropical rainforest.

The climate-change lobby, and the politicians who have signed up to it, argue on the basis of the precautionary principle. Things might not be as bad as they say, but to get people to act, you have to stoke it up a bit. And just in case it is as bad, you have to act anyway.

But what should that action be? A chancellor determined to show he means business on climate change would look gleefully on the rise in international energy prices and add further tax hikes on top of them to cut consumption. A determined opposition leader would criticise him for not doing so. The price mechanism works rather well. Claiming to be green while only tinkering is just posturing.

Perhaps it is all posturing, but we should still question the naive economics of global warming. The best way to limit China and India’s impact on the planet is to encourage them to become more prosperous (richer people demand a better environment) — not limit their growth.

There’s also a lack of joined-up thinking. The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, under pressure to reduce carbon emissions from new cars — even after a big reduction in recent years — points out that EU regulatory pressure to fit heavy safety equipment only makes the task harder.

PS: One quarter doesn’t make a trend, but in the first three months of this year retail sales were weak, down 0.7% on a seasonally adjusted basis from the fourth quarter of last year. This was exactly mirrored by a rise in industrial production of 0.7%. Even manufacturing rose, by 0.5%. Will it last? The National Institute of Economic and Social Research sees 2.2% consumer spending growth this year, and a 6.1% rise in exports. But it expects manufacturing to trundle along at only 1%.

Meanwhile, my search for the best-value thing you can buy (I suggested the bicycle) continues. One strong candidate is international phone calls. A reader tells me he pays 1.5p for a three-minute phone call to Australia, compared with £5 (equivalent to more than £85 now) in the mid-1950s. Another interesting suggestion is petrol. It takes a lot to get a litre of petrol from deep in the ground to our forecourts. Yet the pre-tax cost, about 30p a litre, is lower than bottled water, olive oil, processed fruit juices and most other liquids. Keep them coming.

Explore Economics

• Pre-Budget Report 2009

• Budget 2009

• World Economic Forum

• The Times MPC

Times Recommends

• Lies and cover-up at MG Rover exposed by report
• High oil prices push manufacturing costs up
• Primark founder steps down as chief executive