The most famous bet in the environmental debate is probably the one between the Late Julian Simon and alarmist Paul Erlich in 1980, over predicted shortage in natural resources. As much as the story still amuses me, it also serves as a constant reminder of the optimism we all deserve more of.

In this proud tradition, the no less proud Dr David Whitehouse, found himself in a global warming bet,staged by the BBC. Reports Whitehouse:

 ”…eventually the BBC’s radio programme “More or Less” got in touch. The programme is about numbers and statistics and they set up a series of interviews. You can hear the programme here.

Almost at the last minute the programme-makers came up with the idea of a bet. It was for £100 that, using the HadCrut3 data set, there would be no new record set by 2011. It was made between climatologist James Annan and myself. His work involves analysing climatic data and validating climate models. He accepted enthusiastically as he has a perchant for taking on ‘sceptics.’ The presenter said that if the global temperature didn’t go up in the next few years, “there would be some explaining to do.”

Later today, January 13^th, “More or Less” returns to the bet,which I am pleased to say I won, though I note that this bet, or its conclusion, is not yet mentioned on Annan’s Wikipedia entry despite his other climate bet being discussed.”

Congratualtions! Considering the hilarious amounts of money circling around in the alarmist hemisphere, maybe serious gambling could be a solid way for realists to make a decent living.

Prof. Nir Shaviv at the 2010 International Climate and Energy Conference

For the 4th time, the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE), the Berlin Manhattan Institute, CFACT and a few others host an International Climate and Energy Conference, this time in in the Bavarian capital Munich, Nov. 25.-26 (program below).

Renowned scientists such as Professors Svensmark, Shaviv, Veizer and Patzelt, as well as bestselling authors such as Donna Laframboise, Andrew Montford and Christopher Horner confirmed their participation. As in previous years, the event is going to be Europe’s no.1 meeting and debating point for climate and energy realists, bloggers, and their friends from all over Europe and beyond.

Registration works through the EIKE-page, www.eike-klima-energie.eu, or by mail, info@eike-klima-energie.eu, or by fax: +49-2641-32 79 858. Regular participation fee for this 2-day-event is 140 Euro (including 3 meals, 4 coffee breaks, 1 evening reception, conference materials, and simultaneous translation English/German and German/English). More technical details below the program.

Program (updated 10th November)

Friday – November 25

08:00 a.m. Registration

 09:00 a.m.

Welcome

Wolfgang Müller

Berlin Manhattan Institute (BMI), European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE)

 09:10 a.m.

The IPCC – Almost nothing you’ve been told about this organization is actually true

Donna Laframboise

Blog nofrakkingconsensus.com

 09:45 a.m.- 12:30 p.m.

Panel: Measuring vs. Modelling

Real temperature measurements vs. climate alarmism

Prof. em. Dr. Horst-Joachim Lüdecke

Hochschule für Technik und Wirtschaft des Saarlandes

 Glaciers- and forest development in high altitude alpine areas during the last 10,000 years

Prof. em. Dr. Gernot Patzelt

University of Insbruck

 Anthropogenic sea level rise: from scenario to panic

Dipl. Meteorologe Klaus-Eckart Puls

Press spokesperson EIKE

 11:30 a.m. – 12.00 a.m. Break

 Mission impossible – geological facts of carbon capture and storage in Germany

Prof. em. Dr. Friedrich-Karl Ewert

Universität Paderborn

12:30 p.m.  – 2:00 p.m. Lunch – conference venue

 2:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.

Panel: Cosmic Rays, CO₂ and Climate

 Climate, water, CO₂ and the sun

Prof. Dr. Jan Veizer  

Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

The cosmic ray climate link – evidence and implications to the understanding of climate change

Prof. Dr. Nir Shaviv

Racah Institute of Physics – The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

 The impact of solar activities and cosmic rays on the world climate

Prof. Dr. Henrik Svensmark  

Centre for Sun-Climate Research des Danish National Space Centre

4:00 p.m. – 4:30 p.m. Break

 4:30 p.m. – 5:30 p.m.

Panel: Update on the CERN Study Cosmic Rays and Climate Change

Prof. Dr. Jan Veizer, Prof. Dr. Nir Shaviv, Prof. Dr. Henrik Svensmark  

 5:30 p.m. – 19:00 p.m.

Panel: How scientists and project developers deal with truth

 Climategate – The story of a cover up

Andrew Montfort

Bishop Hill Blog

Not at face value – tricky contracts in wind power investments
Tilman Kluge
Bad Sonden am Taunus

 Followed by dinner

Saturday – November 26

 9:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m.

Panel: Forecasts vs. Scenarios

 Climate change between statistics, models and substitute religion

Prof. Dr. Werner Kirstein

Institute of Geography, Leipzig University

 Accurate long term weather forecasts are possible

Piers Corbyn

Weather Action, London

 11:00 a.m. – 11:30 a.m. Break

 11:30 a.m. – 12:15 p.m.

The urban legend of the Hockey Stick

Andrew Montfort

Bishop Hill Blog

 12:15 p.m. – 13:00 p.m.

Investing wisely– opportunities and dangers in alternative energy   

 13:00 p.m. – 2:30 p.m. Lunch – at conference venue

 2:30 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.

Panel: Climate- and Energy Policy – Wish and Reality

 The green economy: Crony capitalism’s newest big idea

Dr. Christopher C. Horner

Center for Energy and Environment – Competitive Enterprise Institute, Washington, DC

The costs of Germany’s green energy agenda – plan vs. reality

Prof. Dr. Gerd Ganteför

University of Konstanz

4:00 p.m. – 4:30 p.m. Break

 4:30 p.m. – 5:30 p.m. Covering their tracks: the IPCC and transparency

Dr. Christopher C. Horner

Center for Energy and Environment – Competitive Enterprise Institute, Washington, DC

 5:30 p.m. – 6:30 p.m.

Climate policies – a threat to liberty

Prof. Dr. Gerd Habermann

Universität Potsdam, Hayek Society

 6:30 p.m. – 7:00 p.m.

Closing remarks

Dr. Holger Thuss

President Europäisches Institut für Klima und Energie (EIKE)

7:00 p.m. Reception and end of conference

7:00 p.m. Reception and end of conference

Venue: Maritim Hotel München, Goethestr. 7, 80336 München, Germany

Registration Fees:

80 € Day Tickets

140 € Private Individuals (2 days)

290 € Company Representatives (2 days)

Registrations after November 18, 2011 are subject to a surcharge of 30 € per Ticket.

All prices include VAT.

The registration fees include the conference materials, meals and coffee breaks.

Registration

Via the EIKE Website or with your full name, address and institution via fax or email.

Email: info@berlinmanhattan.org

Fax: +49(0)30 69 20 800 39

or via mail:

Registration EIKE

P.O. Box 110111

07722 Jena

Germany

Please make your registration payment payable to EIKE e.V.

Bank: Volksbank Saaletal Rudolstadt

Account: 42 42 92 01

BLZ: 830 944 54

IBAN: DE34 8309 4454 0042 4292 01

BIC: GENODEF1RUJ

Yesterday, I watched that widely acclaimed movie by Nora Ephron about Julia Childs and her later follower. Marvelous. And somehow, all about butter.

I seldom use butter, as I prefere olive oil, but for certain dishes it’s the best option. All sorts of fish, for example.

How interesting then that there is a current butter crisis in the stores. The cows to blame? Some people have actually suggested that.

But then there is this peculiar thing called the Butter Mountain in the EU. Simply put, a surplus (according to the politicians), calling for regulations within the CAP system, and – surprise – you suddenly have a shortage.

Let’s see what comes next. In Venezuela, one of the largest coffee been producers in the world, there is currently a coffee shortage.

In all cases of shortages, my Professor once told me, look for the price mechanism. And if a politician has meddled with it.

Sure, I can live without butter (after all there are substitutes), maybe even coffee, but there are worse situations out there, where regulations, or simply playing around with the market, cause real starvation.

When London submitted its bid to host the 2012 Olympic Games, it sweetened its offer with a promise “to purchase emission reduction credits and to invest directly in clean energy projects in the developing world to offset … emissions.”  Organizers estimated that “international travel to London by competitors, officials and members of the Olympic Family would generate an estimated 35,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions.”

The scheme called for large transfers of funds from London to the developing world.  “Our approach goes beyond merely offsetting emissions,” London 2012 Environmental Project Manager David Stubbs promised, “and aims to spread environmental and social benefits beyond London to countries where the impacts of climate change are most acutely felt.”

These promises were made in 2005, when climate propaganda stood unchallenged — before the specter of economic crisis, joblessness and government spending came to haunt Britain as they do today.   London is a city recently set ablaze by a no longer hidden underclass of voluntarily uneducated and unemployed wards of the state.

Harsh reality has sounded a wake up call for Londoners and the prospect of shipping millions of pounds overseas to finance projects with no connection to the Olympics (that will have no meaningful impact on our climate) no longer seems so sporting.

Bloomberg Business quotes Green Party member of the London Assembly Darren Johnson as saying, the decision to drop the offsets is “not fair … Obviously we want the Olympics to benefit London, but environmentally they should be a green Olympics to benefit the whole world as well.”

In place of offsets, organizers will look for local ways to “reduce their carbon footprint.”  CFACT expects that as disappointed as investors who had sought to profit from the overseas carbon offset schemes may be, there are others with schemes rooted closer to home who will be all to willing to cash in.

We can no longer afford the waste and abuse that are part and parcel of feel-good schemes like offsets and subsidies.  CFACT calls on London to blaze a path to an environment where large scale public and business enterprises can proceed with no obligation to pay baksheesh to radical green campaigners and carbon profiteers.

We’ve reached a new tipping point.  Henceforth use of the term “carbon footprint,” where tongue is not planted firmly in cheek, identifies a scheme unlikely to pass rigorous examination.  Policy makers, accountants and fraud examiners take note.

Photo: http://www.freeimages.co.uk/

Last time I had to visit the hospital, the first thing I noticed, apart from the hilarious waiting line, was the rather outdated, but proudly displayed ISO14001 certification. This seemed to be the great pride of the place and apparently, the certification had nothing to do with the – just reported in media – lack of proper daily cleaning for the past five years, all the nurses quitting because they could not stand the working environment, some doctors who never should have been admitted to medical school, a new – thus crashed – medical record system, numerous – sometimes fatal – cases of maltreatment, and an epidemic flu spreading in some departments. The facility is considered one of the top university hospitals in Europe, and – rightly – renowned for it’s infant and cancer care, but the rest was in real crisis. Don’t know how they established their EMS, or was it a matter of cutting down on cutlery for the food no one dared to touch.

Guess most patients would have been more comforted by a certificate for quality.

The problematic thing with an EMS as such is really the E. On the one hand, it’s used for cost control, appreciated by all interested parties, as long as quality does not suffer, but also something carried out without an EMS. Secondly it’s used for marketing, with disputable impact. For the hospital mentioned above, they did not need any marketing, being both governmental and overcrowded. In the private sector, it’s a good communication tolls with the financial analysts, who on the other hand are only interested in the costs, and in risk awareness and control.

But I don’t doubt that the ISO people are doing a good job. It’s just that maybe they are taking it a bit too far. The most recent introduction on the certification market – ISO 14005- is tailor made for small and middle sized business. Guess some people will buy this, but my prediction is that the certificate will only serve as an excuse for restricting the use of daily necessities, like office material, fuel, electricity and water. Guess some people still can see though that, but next time you stay in a hotel, consider the sign in the bathroom asking you to think about the environment and reuse the towels. I don’t mind saving some time and money for the busy personnel, but please don’t treat your guests as imbeciles.

A screwdriver often comes in handy. But not as a soup ingredient. Black pepper is essential in any cooking. But don’t try repairing your bike with it.

Calculation of GDP is, not only among laymen like myself, but also among skilled economists, regarded as a tricky tool indeed. Still, it’ very useful, also for the general public, in trying to grasp all sorts of economic facts and development.

Since the mid 90′s, scientists, but predominantly politicians, have been playing with the concept of a Green GDP, expanding the data to include environmental costs. This process is now gaining speed, e.g., in the World Bank.

This is a questionable path. Even as, naturally, growth and hardship can be linked to environmental factors, it’s not the same thing as to say that environmental factors should be regarded as exclusive data in their own right. Further, changing the calculation methods is difficult for several reasons. You need an international consensus, otherwise comparisons will be meaningless. GDP figures are used to calculate changes over time. If you mess with it, you will have to – somehow – compensate against historical figures.

And including “climate change”, as is being more and more talked about? Careful here. This is an ongoing debate and predictions are all but clear. And how do you intend to translate the virtual lack of global warming over the past decade into economic figures?

GDP, with all it’s shortcomings, is at least useful for showing the development of the GDP/Tax pressure ratio, over time, and in comparison with other countries. Adding new, rather shaky variables seems like little more than inventing another tool for the politicians to polish their statistics.

Just think again, before you pour those extra spices in the soup, try to fix the brakes on your bike. Or try to fix international, economic statistics.

The Guardian reports that “world-class research into future sources of green energy is under threat in Britain from an environmental tax designed to boost energy efficiency and drive down carbon emissions.”  Researchers at the Culham Centre for Fusion Energy complained to The Guardian that, “considering our research is aimed at producing zero-carbon energy, it seems ironic and perverse to clobber us with an extra bill…  We have to use electricity to run the machine and there is no way of getting around that.”

We sympathize.  The power of taxation and control to thwart human  progress is no surprise to CFACT.  However, unlike The Guardian we do not restrict our sympathy to those on the receiving end of carbon funding.  We’re sure that there are still some hardy UK folks making useful products (their jobs as yet, not outsourced to China) who also need “electricity to run the machine” and can find “no way of getting around that.”

The carbon reduction commitment scheme is a prosperity destroying mistake and should be abandoned.  Only those seeking a direct handout or competitive advantage over British industry have reason to love the perverse CRC.

Bureaucracies and weed have the thing in common that when not controlled, they grow beyond control. The same goes for governmental organisations, supra national or others, with the addition that it’s most often difficult even to find out who’s in charge, what the mandate is, not to mention the plan. Delegates and functionaries, as well as paid scientists seem to be on a constant world tour, with one only goal in common, to grow and find enough solid ground and symbolic conflicts to justify next year’s tour. The only thing certain is that someone else will have to foot the bill.

So, what to do, when all the old topics have been carefully transferred to – also growing – sub organizations? Where’s the new new mission to pay for next year’s lunches?

One suggestion from French President Sarkozy is already on the table for the 2012 environmental conference Rio+20. Here’s a good update with links to various documents.

“The Rio Earth Summit in May 2012 will try to set a global vision on greening the economy, with France leading European calls to establish a brand new World Environmental Organisation (WEO).”

The amount of documentation – and what will follow during the year – is more than enough to keep everyone busy, but some of the wordings are already rather intriguing.

Goals first: “A major goal of the initiative is to address market failures in tackling the environmental fall-out of economic activity (applying the ‘polluter pays’ principle or the so-called ‘internalisation of externalities’). It also addresses social goals, such as jobs, the overall macroeconomic framework and development policy.”

A sub goal in this is said to be the, from an economic perspective more than intriguing, ambition to “Getting prices right”. 

And the wording: “The current talks are mainly focused on the establishment of a specialised UN agency for the environment or upgrading the existing UNEP, which lacks the authority to push ambitious policies.”

The authority. Think about the implications for a bit. Where are we really heading?

Is the fear for the secret establishment of a world government really justified?

“To ensure consistency at global level, French President Nicolas Sarkozy has championed the idea of a World Environment Organisation (WEO) that would be responsible for ensuring coherent and effective action across multiple levels of decision-making.”

I rest my case. ET, come pick me up. We are out of here.

ROGER HELMER, MEP

Senator Harry Reid has repeatedly denounced opposition to carbon trading as “dangerous.” Senator Reid is wrong. It is the House and Senate climate and renewable energy bills that are dangerous. Fortunately, the recent elections and the ongoing dissension at the Cancun climate summit could bode ill for carbon trading, any successor to Kyoto – and renewable energy standards.

Carbon trading is wrong on so many levels. First, there is a growing realization that the small changes we are seeing in Earth’s climate are entirely consistent with well-established, long-term natural climate cycles, and that CO₂ (a minor trace gas in the atmosphere) has a trivial effect on climate.

Second, many studies have shown that plans to slash fossil fuel use, even if fully implemented, would have a trivial impact on the trajectory of climate – perhaps a tenth of a degree by 2100. And that assumes carbon dioxide really is the driving force in climate change. If it’s not, we get zero benefits, at a huge, economically devastating, wealth-redistributing price tag.

Third, most of the authoritative economic studies on carbon trading demonstrate clearly that its costs always greatly exceed any conceivable benefits. As far as I know, the UK’s Stern Review is the only major study that concludes “the cost of inaction exceeds the cost of mitigation” – and Stern has been comprehensively and authoritatively refuted. The recent collapse of the Chicago Climate Exchange further underscores the corruption, futility and would-be profiteering inherent in all carbon trading schemes.

A number of commentators, including notably former UK Finance Minister Lord Nigel Lawson, have argued that if any action is called for in the face of climate changes, adaptation is the best and most proper precautionary approach – as and when the need emerges. It is also far cheaper than mitigation, avoids massive up-front costs to deal with a highly speculative problem, and improves our ability to respond to the natural climate changes and extreme weather events that have always battered human civilization.

If we want to reduce emissions (and the case for doing so is increasingly doubtful), then trading in carbon dioxide molecules is simply a bad way to do it. Those who are still tempted by the Siren call of carbon trading should look at the EU’s Emissions Trading System (ETS).

The ETS has clearly failed to reduce emissions. Indeed, the ongoing recession has done a much better job. However, as studies by the London think-tank Open Europe (www.openeurope.org.uk) and other respected analysts have documented, the ETS has created massive unintended consequences and perverse incentives that have imposed great costs on European economies, consumers, taxpayers and employers.

ETS/ carbon trading also depends enormously on initial conditions, which are set by bureaucrats, and it creates a huge lobbying industry, as businesses seek to influence the conditions to enhance their competitive advantage. Consider these fundamental questions.

Who measures the emissions? What is the cut-off point for the minimum emissions that trigger mandatory trading for emission credits? What grandfather rights do we offer to existing emitters?