HANS LABOHM (Amsterdam)

The Cancun climate conference was much like Copenhagen.  The Cancun mountain gave birth to less than a mouse. But global warmers will persevere. They will continue their quest for the Holy Grail of legally binding CO2 reductions … ad infinitum. It is like the proverbial irresistible force colliding with an immovable object. Next stop will be South Africa.

Links after the jump.  (More on Cancun at CFACT.tv)

Richard Black: UN climate change talks in Cancun close in on deal

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11975470

The State of the Climate. A cool view of a hot debate (De staat van het klimaat. Een koele blik op een verhit debat)

This is the title of a new book of de Dutch science journalist Marcel Crok. It is generally hailed as the best and most comprehensive treatment of the issue in Dutch.

http://fp.dagelijksestandaard.nl/2010/11/simon-rozendaal-lees-dit-boek-echt-bijzonder/

http://video.elsevier.nl/11818914

http://fp.dagelijksestandaard.nl/2010/11/diederik-samsom-versus-marcel-crok/

http://www.staatvanhetklimaat.nl/over-marcel-crok/

How the Dutch minister of finance might save many billions

Gerrit van der Lingen explains (in English):

http://www.youtube.com/euxtv#p/u/4/phBygQLtQ5c

Climate realism in Berlin (EIKE)

Concise reports from the latest international EIKE conference on climate and energy in Berlin

http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/news-anzeige/klima-realismus-in-berlin-die-3-internationale-klima-und-energiekonferenz-erfolgreich-beendet/

http://www.science-skeptical.de/blog/berlin-berlin-wir-waren-in-berlin/003414/#comment-6982

(Unfortunately only in German)

Marc Morano’s updated list of climate sceptics – over 1000!

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPECIAL-REPORT-More-Than-1000-International-Scientists-Dissent-Over-ManMade-Global-Warming-Claims–Challenge-UN-IPCC–Gore

Kees de Jager and Silvia Duhau: updated projections of future solar activity, heralding a new Grand Minimum

http://www.cdejager.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/2010-Variable-solar-dynamo3.pdf

Washington Times: Climate change no longer scares Europe

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/nov/5/climate-change-no-longer-scares-europe/

German Section

- New postings on:

http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/

Swedish section

- New postings on

http://www.theclimatescam.se/

Dutch section

- New postings on

Climategate.nl

http://climategate.nl/

Klimatosoof

http://www.klimatosoof.nl/

Klimaatveranderingen: fabels en feiten

http://www.klimaatgek.nl/cms/

De dagelijkse standaard (‘The Daily Standard’, DDS – postings are in Dutch, but they often amply refer to foreign sources).

The tide has turned

HANS LABOHM (Amsterdam)

Bjorn Lomborg’s ongoing publicity campaign for his new film makes it obvious that the fight against the delusion of dangerous man-made global warming remains an uphill struggle.

For decades the climate debate has been obfuscated by cherry-picking, spin-doctoring and scare-mongering by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other climate alarmists, including the environmental movement and mainstream media. Their massive effort to overstate the threat of man-made warming has left its imprint on public opinion.

But the tide seems to be turning. The Climate Conference fiasco in Copenhagen, Climategate scandal and stabilization of worldwide temperatures since 1995 have given rise to growing doubts about the putative threat of “dangerous global warming” or “global climate disruption.” Indeed, even Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit and one of the main players in Climategate, now acknowledges that there has been no measurable warming since 1995, despite steadily rising atmospheric carbon dioxide.

People are paying attention, and opinion polls in many countries show a dramatic fall in the ranking of climate change among people’s major concerns. They are also beginning to understand that major rain and snow storms, hurricanes and other weather extremes are caused by solar-driven changes in global jet streams and warm-cold fronts, not by CO₂, and that claims about recent years being the “warmest ever” are based on false or falsified temperature data.

In various parts of the world, the climate debate displays different features. The US and other parts of the non-European Anglo-Saxon world feature highly polarized and politicized debates along the left/right divide. In Europe, all major political parties are still toeing the “official” IPCC line. In both arenas, with a few notable exceptions, skeptical views – even from well-known scientists with impeccable credentials – tend to be ignored and/or actively suppressed by governments, academia and the media.

Nevertheless, skepticism about manmade climate disasters is gradually gaining ground.

In my own country, The Netherlands, for instance, it has even received some official recognition, thus dissolving the information monopoly of climate alarmists. The Standing Committee on Environment of the Lower House even organized a one-day hearing, where both climate chaos adherents and disaster skeptics could freely discuss their different views before key parliamentarians who decide climate policy.

This hearing was followed by a special seminar organized by the Royal Netherlands Academy of Sciences, using the same format but focusing on scientific topics. The Academy will soon publish a report about this seminar.

Europe often brags about its emission trading scheme (ETS), regarding itself as the vanguard of an international climate policy. In the European view, the Copenhagen climate summit should have produced a worldwide extension and sharpening of its ETS. But the vast majority of countries in the world refused to follow Europe’s example, so the meeting turned into a fiasco. Its follow-up in Cancun at year’s end will surely produce a similar result. And for good reason.

Contrary to official claims, Europe’s experience with ETS is dismally bad. The system is expensive and prone to massive fraud. More importantly, it serves no useful purpose.

The European Environmental Agency tracks Europe’s performance regarding the reduction of CO2 emissions. Its latest report states: “The European Union’s greenhouse gas inventory report … shows that emissions have not only continued their downward trend in 2008, but have also picked up pace. The EU-27’s emissions stood 11.3% below their 1990 levels, while EU-15 achieved a reduction of 6.9% compared to Kyoto base-year levels.”

On the face of it, the scheme seems to be pretty successful. However, much of the downward trend was due to the global economic recession, not to the ETS. Moreover, both climate chaos proponents and climate disaster skeptics agree that the scheme will have no detectable impact whatsoever on worldwide temperatures – perhaps 0.1 degrees – though this crucial piece of information has been carefully and deliberately shielded from the public eye.

What about renewable energy as an alternative? Consider these EU costs for various sources of electricity in cents per kilowatt-hour: nuclear 4, coal 4, natural gas 5, onshore wind 13, biomass 16 … solar 56!

Obviously, the price tag for renewables is extremely high, compared to hydrocarbons. The additional costs can be justified either by imminent fossil fuel scarcity (the “oil peak”), which would send petroleum and coal prices through the roof, or by the threat of man-made global warming. But on closer inspection neither argument is tenable.

The authoritative International Energy Agency does not foresee any substantial scarcity of oil and gas in the near to medium future, and coal reserves remain sufficient for centuries to come. As to global warming, the absence of a statistically significant increase in average worldwide temperatures since 1995 obliterates that assertion.

Meanwhile, recent peer-reviewed studies indicate that increasing CO₂ levels in the atmosphere (natural or man-made) have minimal effects on climate change – while others demonstrate that, on balance, this plant-fertilizing gas is beneficial, rather than harmful, for mankind and the biosphere.

All this argues for a closer look at the cost/benefit relationship of investing in renewable energy projects, to prevent a massive waste of financial and natural resources on unreliable and thus uncompetitive forms of energy. Since every cloud has a silver lining, the ongoing economic crisis might give extra impetus toward that end.

Hans Labohm is an economist and co-author of Man-Made Global Warming: Unravelling a Dogma. He is a former professor at the Dutch Institute of International Relations and guest teacher at the Netherlands Institute for Defense Studies. He has been an IPCC reviewer and served in many international roles, including Deputy Permanent Representative of the Netherlands to the OECD.

HANS LABOHM (Amsterdam)

A serious dialogue has started between the crème de la crème of the Dutch climate sceptics and climate scientists of the Royal Netherlands Met Office (KNMI). It is focusing on the mechanisms underlying the greenhouse effect (radiation, evapo/convection) and the ensuing climate sensitivity. Profound differences of view still remain.

The decision of the previous government to sequester carbon in the densely populated area of Barendrecht (near Rotterdam) has been canceled by the present government.

The parliamentary energy spokesman of the VVD (the classical liberal People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy, the major partner in the present coalition government) has questioned the wisdom of additional investments in off-shore wind energy. Hij was seconded by Shell CEO, Peter Voser. It was the first time that a high-ranking Shell representative made such a statement.   Report (In Dutch)

American public opinions polls show a dramatic shift away from AGW among respondents.

The former U.S. vice-president Al Gore will receive a honorary degree by the University of Tilburg for his merits on the climate issue. Contrary to other universities in the Netherlands, including those of Wageningen and Utrecht, Tilburg does not possess a faculty in climate-related sciences.

http://fp.dagelijksestandaard.nl/2010/11/al-gore-krijgt-eredoctoraat-universiteit-tilburg/ (In Dutch)

The German EIKE will hold its third international climate and energy conference in Berlin, on 3 and 4 December.

http://fp.dagelijksestandaard.nl/2010/11/klimaatscepsis-rukt-op-in-europa/

http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/news-anzeige/iii-internationale-klima-energiekonferenz-in-berlin-3-4-dezember-2010-findet-in-berlin-die-iii-internationale-klima-und-energiekonferenz-statt/

(Unfortunately only in Dutch and German)

German Section

- New postings on:

http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/

Swedish section

- New postings on

http://www.theclimatescam.se/

Dutch section

- New postings on

Climategate.nl

http://climategate.nl/

Klimatosoof

http://www.klimatosoof.nl/

De dagelijkse standaard (‘The Daily Standard’, DDS – postings are in Dutch, but they often amply refer to foreign sources).

HANS LABOHM (Amsterdam)

The draft Memorandum of Understanding of the new Netherlands government coalition (including the classical liberal party, VVD, plus the Christian Democrats, CDA, with parliamentary support by Wilders’ Party for Freedom, PVV, – the so-called ‘Danish Model’) contains only two – obligatory – references to climate change. Climate sceptics opined that backtracking from AGW did not go far enough. Nevertheless, it could be argued that this is, so far, the most important political victory for climate scepticism in the world.

Environmentalists, like the Netherlands ‘Climate Ambassador’, Wijnand Duyvendak, and leading figure in the Dutch 10:10 campaign, were disappointed. For a – lively – radio discussion (with video!) with Wijnand Duyvendak see and hear:

http://fp.dagelijksestandaard.nl/2010/10/klimaatambassadeur-wijnand-duyvendak/

(Unfortunately only in Dutch)

German Section

- New postings on:

http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/

Swedish section

- New postings on

http://www.theclimatescam.se/

Dutch section

New postings on

- Climategate.nl

http://climategate.nl/

- Klimatosoof

http://www.klimatosoof.nl/

- Klimaatverandering: fabels en feiten

http://www.klimaatgek.nl/cms/

- De dagelijkse standaard (‘The Daily Standard’, DDS – postings are in Dutch, but they often amply refer to foreign sources).

• Kenniseconomie
• Groen PR-drama: 10:10-campagne verslikt zich in Al Qaida-humor
• Andermans boeken zijn duister te lezen – opnieuw Pachauri
• Heartland Instituut: mondiaal centrum klimaatscepsis
• Censuur bij klimaatlemma’s Wikipedia
• Klimaatterrorisme
• Klimaat in het concept-regeerakkoord
• Verschuiving positie Royal Society ten aanzien van klimaat
• In memoriam Ernst-Georg Beck
• Brrrr … ‘peer-reviewed’ afkoeling in plaats van opwarming

The Dutch authorities would like us to know they are not sinking, at least not yet. The most recent report from Newsvine (quoting AFP) says:

“The Netherlands has asked the UN climate change panel to explain an inaccurate claim in a landmark 2007 report that more than half the country was below sea level, the Dutch government said Friday.

According to the Dutch authorities, only 26 percent of the country is below sea level, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will be asked to account for its figures, environment ministry spokesman Trimo Vallaart told AFP.”

To avoid further misunderstandings, below sea level also does not mean being under water. The lowest place on earth, the Dead Sea, is surrounded by desert. Holland is one of the most crowded countries in the world, and has for centuries, in spite of the risky proximity to the sea combined with flatland, also been one of the most prosperous. Prosperity has helped to finance necessary precautions against the sea.

After this detail, the increasing Arctic ice, the resurrected polar bears and the miraculously constant Himalyan claciers, the IPCC report seems more and more like a house of cards. Maybe the loads of money pledged in Copenhagen should be changed into small coins before being thrown in the sea. It just might help a little to reach the sea level predictions.

For some carbon millionaires, lining their pockets legally through taxpayer subsidies and hand outs is not enough.  They choose to cheat even though they’re playing a game that’s already rigged.

The Financial Times reports that:

Oreste Vigorito, head of the IVPC energy company and president of Italy’s National Association of Wind Energy, was arrested on Tuesday in Naples. Vito Nicastri, a Sicilian business associate, was arrested in Alcamo, Sicily.

Two other men were arrested in Sicily and the Naples area, while 11 others were charged but not arrested.

Oreste Vigorito: Arrested Nov. 11

FT reports that these saviors of our planet were building wind farms that were “built with public subsidies but had never functioned.”

Vigorito had ties to Brian Caffyn, founder of the controversial “Cape Wind” project planned for Massachusetts’ Nantucket Sound, which has been criticized as a poor investment for taxpayers for the energy it will produce.  Vigorito was not an investor in Cape Wind.

According to the Boston Herald:

“What we found was quite remarkable,” David Tuerck, the institute’s executive director, said at the time. “Cape Wind stands to receive subsidies worth $731 million, or 77 percent of the cost of installing the project and 48 percent of the revenues it would generate. The policy question that this amount of subsidy raises is whether the project’s benefit is worth the huge public subsidies that the developer gets.”

The Herald reports that Mr. Caffyn’s 2007 divorce records reveal that “he amassed an $82 million fortune building wind farms around the world.”

Wind power remains an interesting and potentially useful technology.  However, if taxpayers are forced to pay for it they must receive a viable return on their investment.  Conservationists should not be forced to endure wind farms spoiling undeveloped places of natural beauty.  We should not allow wind farms to ruin the habitats of birds and other wildlife in ways we would never permit to established efficient methods of power generation.

It’s time politicians require the “green” business people who will reap fortunes from wind power to bear the financial costs and risks.   It’s time government zoning and environmental regulators ban wind turbines where they threaten wildlife and spoil human enjoyment of natural beauty.

Wind yes, but only when economically viable and only with respect for the quality of life both human and wild.

This article was amended slightly in response to a request from the Cape Wind Project.