At your service for a new panel

The InterAcademy Council has finally released its report on the workings of the IPCC. Fine.

The review is not altogether clear, but the criticism of – in particular – procedures and methods, is strong. Many media have taken the shortcut reporting this as a criticism of the major mistake made by the IPCC; publishing unfounded data from WWF on the melting of glaciers. In fact, the report – though politely praising the mission and work of IPCC – criticizes the entire working structure of the panel, suggesting more peer review and new blood.

And before the tranfusion, most likely some bloodshed will occur.

At the same time, the report is mysterious in its working. On the one hand, there is a call for increased scientific discipline, on the other, you find references to “heated debate”, as if a scientific council should be driven by temporary public opinion.

The problem is that it is just that. And worse, that – presuming the panel’s standing as an infallable oracle – the so called public has tended to mindlessly follow these prophets.

There is nothing wrong in having a panel monitoring climate change. The problem with IPCC is that it is funded by tax payers, and worse, suggests draconian infringement on the wealth of nations and people, in consequence risking the whole world to collapse. Not by climate change, but by starvation, povertry and ensuing wars.

Anyone can have a climate panel. In a way, CFACT is, with our wast network of scientists. If, during the restrucuring of the IPCC process, you need any help, feel free to get in touch!

CFACT Europe President Holger Thuss

CFACT Europe’s President and co-founder Dr. Holger Thuss recently gave a lengthy interview in German Ökowatch; “Prosperity is the basis for higher environmental standards”. The full text will soon be available in English translation. Dr Thuss explains in particular the environmental work of CFACT and launches an attack on the Global Warming profiteers.

Meanwhile, we notice that a very impressive web site has been launched, and impressively developed, in Sweden (translation service available on line). The site Climatescam is a non profit platform for sound environmental debate among experienced scholars from various fields, and – naturally – any interested part.

Says the introduction: “The Climate Scam The blog was started just over two and a half years ago by Maggie Thauersköld Crusell. Today it is still run by Maggie, but has also been expanded to include four guest author: Lars Bern, Jonny Fagerström, Ingemar Nordin and Peter Stilbs.” Presentations are available at the site.

Following the suggestions of her strong emergency committee, WHO General-Director Margaret Chan now officially declares the swine flu epidemic to be over. This official statement was made 15 months after an allegedly new flu virus H1N1 was notified in Mexico and after having alerted a pandemic in June 2009. According to official data, 18,400 humans have fallen victim to the flu since spring 2009 in about 200 countries. That appears  impressing at first sight , but is however  little in comparison to the number of humans, who suffer with the cold season influenza-like infections year-in, year-out. To say nothing about the million-number of victims of a “real” influenza epidemic. The official statistics of the WHO thus confirms  the view that H1N1 is a rather harmless variant of the summer flu.

As I here have already analysed in detail, it was already clear at the beginning of this year that the European governments, who ordered substantially more inoculation doses than necessary for a reasonable inoculation ratio of the population from pharmaceutical companies with reference to the WHO and the ‘precaution principle’ embodied in the Lisbon Treaty of the European Union, would be stuck with 90% of their expensively paid vaccine. Because the authorities were not able to convince ordinary consumers of the danger despite fearmongering in the mass media. Rumors and conspiracy theories on purposeful production of the virus in US military laboratories or the felting of WHO advisors with the vaccine manufacturers GlaxoSmithKline and Roche were surely reasons for the attitude of the population. In addition, the lack of credibility of the World Health Organization seems to have existed already before.

Only a few years ago the critical US author James Surowiecki trained at Hayek had presented the decision-making processes within the WHO in his best-seller ‘The wisdom of crowds’ as an example of smart collective decision making. In the meantime however, the political cartelisation of medical science and pharmaceutical as well as food industry with their clear focus on the ‘precaution principle’ has progressed. Thus, more and more WHO decisions (not least within the ‘nutrition and health’ sector) meet the requirements of the Political Correctness, which however mocks the common sense of the majority. No wonder that the reputation of the WHO increasingly approaches the one of the UN.

Have you noticed the kicking around that CFACT Advisor Lord Christopher Monckton’s been getting lately?

Add to the title “Viscount of Brenchley,” “whipping boy du jour.”  Seldom a recent day goes by without some new name calling or conspiracy theory attacking Lord Monckton echoing through the left-wing blogosphere.

Why is Chris Monckton the victim of a global warming attack campaign?  Effectiveness.  Few have been so brilliantly effective at debunking the global warming scare as this compellingly articulate British Lord.

Lord Monckton does his homework.  He scours the scientific literature.  He devours every word and graph.  He is in constant contact with a vast network of leading scientists throughout the world.  He wades past the executive summaries and masters the details.  He checks the math, checks the logic, and checks the consistency of what is claimed about our climate.  He synthesizes global warming science and policy raising vital questions that provoke thought in the mind of any expert or layman with an open mind.

Despite the nearly unimaginable sums available to the global warming folks – despite their command of the media, the politicians in their thrall and the carbon profiteers lining up at the taxpayer’s trough, Lord Monckton and his allies are winning.  Like the child who revealed that the Emperor had no clothes, Lord Monckton wakes the good sense of those who hear him.  The public has caught on.

The warming propaganda machine has lost its momentum and is desperate to get it back.  They want to silence Lord Monckton and remove him from the field.  To that end they’ll say anything.  They attack his title hoping we won’t notice that every British Viscount has a right and by long tradition is called “Lord.”   They attack his graphs and charts, hoping we won’t bother to learn that most of his data comes straight from the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the sources it cites.  Lord Monckton had hoped that by using the IPCC’s data warming advocates would be forced to debate the merits.  Sadly, they continue to alternate between mocking the data and restating their conclusions as received wisdom.  Yet when granted a fair forum for debate, it is Monckton who triumphs.  Just weeks ago his team of experts were voted the winners in a warming debate at the Oxford Union – a treasured haven of free thought.

Last year Lord Monckton gave a presentation on global warming in St. Paul Minnesota that became a sensation on YouTube.  This inspired Prof. John Abraham of the University of St. Thomas to attack his presentation in a lengthy video.  Lord Monckton has refuted Prof. Abraham using his own medium.  The first of a series of videos setting the record straight are being released today and we invite you to view them.

As CFACT has said before , the chain of logic behind global warming claims does not hold up.  Lord Christopher Monckton will neither be silenced, nor ignored.  As Mahatma Gandhi told us, “first they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.”

Monckton refutes Abraham

Click  to view

Maybe we should just skip this project

The preparatory climate talks of BASIC, the coalition of Brazil, South Africa, India and China, just ended in Rio. The UNFCCC has the courtesy to link to some of the reports of the apparent fiasco. Reuters here and Xinhua.

As was apparent at the latest Bonn meeting, developing countries are getting more and more anxious to get those hand outs, promised in the non binding babble in Copenhagen. Further, the BASIC countries are far from anxious to commence any drastic emission cutting programs before other countries do.

Of course, you could – and should – argue that the four countries are not really representative of the third world. Developing, yes, but economically powerful and not possible to compare to the real developing world in desperate need of energy, development and industrialisation.

Non the less, it’s another sign that Cancun also will be a stalemate. But at least, all the delegates will collect more frequent flyer’s points. Just to make sure, BASIC will hold another meeting later this fall, in China. Another Bonn meeting will start in just a few days, so all the professional negotiators will keep busy for the rest of the year.

Looking at facts, and the development in the debate over the past eight months, you would think that everyone will sit down in Cancun and decide that maybe all this was not such a brilliant idea. And move on to something else. Given the mechanisms of politics however, they will be united by the only common interest, to continue looking busy. Likely however, is that some of the big wigs among Presidents and PM’s used up their arsenals of pompous statements last year, and might consider some caution this time.

In Europe, the record breaking cold winter (irritatingly, or amusingly coinciding with the Copenhagen meeting) has now been followed by a heat wave. As the alarmists love to point out, climate is not the same thing as weather. How true. Apart from causing dizziness however, real life – away from the AC at the UNFCCC conferences – can lead to some reflection.

During the recent top in the summer warming, even the refrigeration department of my local store broke down. The costs must have been enormous, but luckily they had stocked up on at least bottled water. Non chilled. And should we really dare to drink bottled water?

Refrigeration has been under attack by environmentalists for the past decades. First, it was the ozone layer, then the scrapping, currently the so called GWP (Global Warming Potential) as defined by UNEP. Industry meanwhile, has developed the technology, which is not that old to start with, partly by adapting to the new trends, partly by substantially increasing efficiency. The latter probably being one of the best deeds in development work in the third world imaginable, as electricity tends to be scarce and the need for food preservation can be desperate.

Some things are taken for granted. The most likely fact however, is that if the same people who are now running around at UNFCC conferences (or the hooligans outside demanding that they do more), arguing for drastic reductions in development and standard, had been in charge less than a hundred years ago, the refrigeration technology would never have been invented. That’s something to contemplate when you stand there, being sent on a mission from that relative, very ill and  desparate for that particular chilled fruit drink, and it’s closed. Luckily there is also competition. Still.

Here is Lord Monckton’s freshly issued, detailed written response to Prof. Abraham in PDF form.

When we watched Prof. Abraham’s video we were mainly struck by Prof. Abraham’s making much of Lord Monckton not always labeling his graphs with their source.  This was not a valid critique.  Lord Monckton was doing a power point presentation in which time or type size would not have made source labels legible to his audience.   Lord Monckton has always been completely willing, indeed eager to provide background information to his viewers and readers.  The graphs in question were mainly those most commonly used in the warming debate and were largely taken from the IPCC fourth assessment report.  They were familiar to those who follow the debate closely and we were surprised that they were not equally familiar to Prof. Abraham.  Former Vice President Al Gore often did not include source information when showing graphs during An Inconvenient Truth (not even when on a scissor lift) and unlike Lord Monckton hides from critics, avoids interviews and will not participate in open discussion.

Abraham’s other tactic is to go back to the IPCC’s sources and obtain emails from them stating their disagreement with Lord Monckton’s conclusions.  Lord Monckton faithfully presented the most commonlhy used graphs and makes his own interpretations relying on his discussions with climate scientists.  This data must be free for all to assess if sound science is to take place.  What did Abraham expect to get when he asked the warming folks for their interpretation and did not bother to contact anyone critical of their assessments including Lord Monckton?  Simply stating the conclusions of warming proponents as received wisdom no longer cuts it.  Too much propaganda has been exposed, too many scandals have rocked their foundations for anyone to take the warming argument on faith or authority again.

Lord Monckton raises essential questions that need to be raised.  His points should be fully debated.  Doubling down on the warming argument without substantive thought will not suffice.  Sorry Professor, time to move past worshiping your warming heroes and give your analytical training a go.  Do you really think the warming computer models will hold up?

…and the famous/infamous hockey stick got stowed away long before the latest world championship even started. Then occasionally picked out again.

The IPCC took out the hockey stick graph from two of their last reports. Somehow, it managed to creep back into the report submitted before Copenhagen, apparently picked up by one of the assistants, from Wikipedia.

Now, even the inventor of this symbol, Michael Mann, concedes that it was, if not altogether wrong, at least “misplaced”. In an BBC interview  summarized in the British Daily Telegraph by reporter Louise Gray, he concludes that “I always thought it was somewhat misplaced to make it a central icon of the climate change debate.”

So, it’s misplaced in the debate? Thought for a while that it was misplaced on the chart.

There are a lot of things to say about this symbol, or myth, make your pick. In the original chart, it takes off at the same time as the country with roughly 1/4 of the world’s weather stations collapsed. And though there might have been a trend during the 90’s, this has certainly not continued during the current millennium.

But symbols and myths are powerful things with their own lives. So the stick will most likely be there, together with the poor polar beers (whose population is increasing) and those mysteriously melting mountain top ice caps that maybe someone sometimes spotted. And even if the dutch win the soccer finals on Sunday, they are probably drowning.

…or maybe don’t.

As fun as you can have, in the company of all sorts of people, there  is something depressing over these climate conferences. Delegates looking serious while spending other people’s money on down-right dangerous schemes, young people, who ought to be either in school, or out partying, or protesting the real injustices in this world, standing outside telling the lunch-eaters to spend more. Often financed by government. The police working overtime, and those fringe groups who travel around the world just in order to pick a fight with the former. A sort of holiday, I presume, like inter-railing or camping. Most of these elements, both in Copenhagen and at the recent G8/G20 summit, would probably go to the international congress of scrapbookers, if it meant they could get into trouble – and media – along the way.

In Cancun, the drug war is dragging on, with recent victims in the shootings. The hurricane season has just started, and will probably end right in time for the summit. If the so called world leaders decide, which is most likely, to both turn up and to help spread climate hysteria during the months to come, this will – just as in Copenhagen – make life really difficult for the local population.

But maybe that is just as well. Far from wishing anyone any harm, I am somehow looking forward to the next debacle. On a side note, one of the key players, the European Union, got their new presidency today. It’s Belgium, and Belgium currently has no government, since the recent elections.

I keep telling myself, it’ll be fun. At least to see the naked emperor walking down the streets of Cancun.

DENNIS AVERY

I can’t help but praise Michael Specter’s new book: Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific Progress, Harms the Planet, and Threatens Our Lives. Specter warns that we live in a world where the leaders of African nations prefer to let their citizens starve to death rather than import genetically-modified food grains. Childhood vaccines have proven to be the most effective public health measure in history, yet people march on Washington to protest their use. Fifty years ago pharmaceutical companies were regarded as vital supports for our good health and lengthening life spans; now they are seen as callous corporate enemies of health and the environment.  READ MORE