The party season has started. In about a month, Rio will be crowded by politicians and hooligans for the mega environmental gathering, but allready next week, good old Hotel Maritim in Bonn will fill up with the usual bunch for yet another climate conference.

Nothing wrong with Bonn, or Maritim for that matter, but don’t people get bored? From the UNFCCC invitation:

“The 36th sessions of the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) and of the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA), the fifteenth session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action…”.

That’s just for starters, but it seems like the same show again. 36th session! And over the past decade, when these meeting have intentsified, there has been no significant global warming, and certainly not any man made climate change. Should be pointed out, to avoid misunderstandings, that we have indeed seen tradegies that could fit into the environment chategory, Tsunamis, earthquaqes, starvation and war, but none of these are adressed neither under the roof of Maritim. Or by the usual Tibetan vegans traditionally entertaining visitors outside.

And you easily start getting the feeling that even the organizers are feeling that this is just business as usual. After all, some years have passed since the global hysteria in Copenhagen, a bunch of climate gates for example (though the first erupted right before the meeting), and things that people in general really do care about. Some wars, economic crisis in Europe, a couple of elections, to mention a few.

But Bonn is nice, and though even the lunch burger at Maritim is rather tasty, I would rather recommend some really nice restaurants to enjoy after a stroll along the Rhine.

Might appreciate some real support - not corruption and stupidity

The heroic boy scouts collected money, went to a village in deepest Africa and helped develop a well. A few month later, excessive use had dried it up and the final result was an extension of the desert.

Examples of unintended consequences (and sometimes plain stupidity) in development aid are numerous, some probably myths by now. Distributing loads of pork to Muslim countries. Rushing factory building until the installation collapse on top of people. The literature is also quite extensive. A useful introduction, or summary may be this.

Important to remember is that humanitarian catastrophes are seldom, if ever, caused by real villains in these cases, hence the words unintended and aid. Wars, planned famine and genocides are indeed orchestrated by evil, but they are never intended by the do-gooders.

The problems occur both with voluntary help and government programs, though the latter, for natural reason, tend to be more dangerous. As a matter of fact, lot’s of people working with government aid are smart, caring people, but often trapped in the system. One such hazard is the idea, launched some decades ago, and implemented in some countries, to legislate allocation of a minimum level of GDP to the foreign aid budget. Both the government, and the associated authorities are then forced to spend the annual funds.

Some countries try to make the best of the situation, for example by allocating funds to emergency help rather than budget support. Pouring money into a corrupt countries state budget most often leads to, in the less evil scenario, the money going straight into a Swiss bank account, or, which is worse, into buying weaponry used against neighbours or the country’s own population. On the other hand, budget support can also be the only way to boost investments in infrastructure. An alternative to building governmental roads and airports is of course to let private companies both develop, build and own. Such investments tend, if they are even allowed, however to be quite risky for the entrepreneur, facing the constant threat of both war and plain nationalization. The only simple solution, if not sufficient, seems to be to, to the extent possible, minimize governmental aid and let the not so small private, international networks do the job.

CFACT did have some other activities in Copenhagen as well

At the COP 15 in Copenhagen, remember, when the whole world was in hysteria over global warming and the last chance to halt it, one of the things that came out of the – otherwise generally considered catastrophic – meeting, was a pledge by developed countries to help third world countries, that somehow would be hurt the worst by weather changes. And not aloud to burn fossil fuels to develop, you might add. The discussion then moved to a hassle over if this, quite substantial sum, could be included in the budgets for foreign aid, or if it should be earmarked on top of these.

I spent most of the time in on of the cafeterias in the middle f it all. A great place both to write, go through collected material and listen in on the neighbours. Working was out of the question when a quite substantial African delegation nicked most of our chairs (luckily not the one I was sitting in) and started a loud meeting. It was in French, but I can tell you that it was not about global warming, or about the environment at all. It was about how to get as much money as possible from the naive tax payers up North.

Few things make me as happy as innovative solutions to environmental, and thus human, problems. The most recent innovation that caught my eye was the prototype for Ezystove, an an ultra simple stove, now being tried in Namibia. Production will probably take place in Namibia and Kenya, and the idea is that it should be locally manufactured, that it could run on different fuels and that it should be possible to install it using only a screw driver.

Might sound like a simple thing, but it will provide inexpensive cooking facilities in areas where electricity is scarce, if existent, and cut the need for fuel, compared to an open fire, by approximately 40 percent.

Another company developed low cost. as simple as possible, equipment for radio therapy in battling cancer in poor areas with a scarce supply of electricity. Naturally, the machines are not top notch, but they can provide care and improved quality of life, where this was not possible before.

A friend of mine found out how to not only recycle, but recycle PET bottles in a profitable way.

These examples are not that similar, but they share two things in common: They are beneficial to the environment, at least if you count human living conditions into that. And they were not developed by the delegates at the endless UNFCCC conferences.

Please Stay There Dear Friend

One of the major news of the week has, strangely, been that we are subject to a solar storm. Beautiful to watch the following weather phenomena, but not dangerous, as it’s not strong enough to penetrate the atmosphere. Good so, but an enlightening reminder that the planet’s best friend – and worst enemy – is the sun. Eventually it will blow, or fade out. Predictions, not to mention possible precautions, are difficult, at least today. Maybe not in 3000 years time.

However, in a way insignifant alarms like this, serve as a constant reminder, that indeed we cannot control the climate. There’s a more powerful – and unpredictable – force out there. And it’s name is not carbon dioxide.

After studying these news, however, eyes are immediately drawn to the proposed “Weather Law” in South Africa. Only the governmental weather bureau will be permitted to issue reports and warnings. Consequently, a friendly warning from a fellow sailor – or a neighbour, would be prosecuted.

At least the Durban COP 17 conference would have been banned.

Wiser from the Copenhagen hysteria, all sides – except President Zuma, who is forced to show some enthusiasm, and in a way The Holy Father, who wants a “credible” outcome (nothing wrong with credibility) - seem to agree that COP17 in Durban wont accomplish anything. As for me, I’m content with that, but it’s still fun to watch the show, including side appaerances from all places. Guess we can look forward to a lot of that.

In the UK, PM Cameron’s “Green Guru”, Steve Hilton suddenly comes out as a realist, saying he doubts the entire Global Warming idea.

Reports the Daily Mail:

‘I’m not sure I believe in it,’ he announced at a meeting of the Energy Department, prompting one aide to blurt out: ‘Did I just hear that correctly?’

Meanwhile, Canada seems to abandon ship as far as Kyoto goes.

“[Environment Minister, Peter] Kent said in the House of Commons on Nov. 22 he won’t sign a document at the Durban conference that extends the Kyoto targets.

‘Canada goes to Durban with a number of countries sharing the same objective, and that is to put Kyoto behind us,’ Kent said.” according to CTV News.

And this is just the beginning. Roughly, on the table is: Kyoto, expiring next year. The EU, not having any problems with the obligations, are for an extension, and the big players never joined. A global binding treaty that was hoped for in Copenhagen and now, if ever, might appear at least as a draft resolution in three years.

Remains the 100 billions, pledged, but still unclear how, to be spread over the earth. This is COP17. Guess the by now professional summit globerotters find that a fair sum for others to pay, in order to continue the circus.

All the players are gearing up for the Durban festivities in a month. Though only accounting for about 11 percent of the worlds carbon emissions, the European Union, not surprisingly wants to play a major role.

Euractiv gives an update:

DAVID ROTHBARD & CRAIG RUCKER - The Washington Times

As the United Nations wrapped up its recent climate conference in Bonn, talks organizer Christiana Figueres proclaimed that climate change is the “the most important negotiation the world has ever faced.” Faced with real problems – financial meltdowns, unemployment, war and genuine human suffering – the world no longer agrees.

It’s a good thing human productivity doesn’t threaten the global thermostat the way the U.N. would have us believe. If it did, we’d be cooked. Countries rich and poor are backing away from commitments they made years ago during rosier economic times, before the public became aware of Climategate, renewable energy costs and genuine debate.

The Kyoto Protocol, the only binding international agreement signed since the global warming scare began, expires after 2012. Canada, Russia and Japan have declared they will not renew; China and the United States never signed it, and the U.S. has made it plain it is not about to. And poor countries are becoming less enamored about signing on, as they realize hard economic times mean there will be little climate “mitigation” and “restitution” money coming their way from (formerly) rich countries.

Even die-hard warmists increasingly recognize that bureaucratic solutions hatched at these conferences are rife with waste, fraud and abuse. They may enrich a few, but they are powerless to control Earth’s climate.

In March, German investigators reported that 850 million euros disappeared when shady companies swarmed into carbon trading, emissions and energy businesses.Criminal enterprises raked in tens of millions, fended off regulators with delaying tactics and then announced bankruptcy or vanished. An Italian sting operation resulted in arrests of wind-farm developers who billed the country for subsidies but never produced a kilowatt of electricity.

London’s liberal Guardian newspaper was aghast to learn that the World Bank’s Biocarbon Fund had arranged to pay European “entrepreneurs” $1 million to establish a system under which 60,000 Kenyans would restrict themselves to farming under rigidly controlled, inefficient, “sustainable” techniques. For that they will receive $1.4 million over 20 years.

That’s right, the beneficent World Bank will enrich more Europeans so 60,000 Kenyans can receive $23.83 apiece for 20 years of drudgery, poverty and misery – a princely $1.19 a year.

Even the European Union finally understands how little bureaucracy and energy deprivation dictates the climate. “It is not enough for the EU to simply sign up for another commitment period,” EU climate representative Jurgen Lefevere admitted. “We only represent 11 percent of global emissions.”

Burning fossil fuels contributes only a fraction of total annual atmospheric carbon dioxide buildup, and the EU contributes just 11 percent of that. The EU’s commitment to slashing CO2 emissions by 20 percent invites corruption, has no control over Chinese or Indian emissions and has no effect on the climate.

The biggest divide evident in Bonn was between the United States and large emerging economies. Even Obama administration officials who are thoroughly committed to man-made global warming catastrophe claims finally recognize the fraud problem. In Bonn, the U.S. insisted that all countries subject their emission reduction claims to verification.

However, China will accept only an agreement that lacks verification – and guarantees the right to cheat. Meanwhile, the Chinese are happy to be “the world’s leader” in manufacturing wind turbines – 95 percent – which they gladly sell to guilt-ridden Western countries.

China and other nations support the notion that prosperous countries owe the world restitution for the “sin” of engaging in the Industrial Revolution and becoming prosperous. We can only hope some nation’s representative will have the courage to remind China and its fellow climate travelers that the West never forced them to spend 50 years mired in communism, bureaucracy and stagnation.

While it is encouraging that the global warming camp no longer has things entirely its own way, celebration would be premature. For all the gnashing of teeth and complaining about corporate influence we hear from global warming bureaucrats and campaigners, the truth is that, today, the warmists are the establishment.

Billions are being redistributed to researchers, developing nations, carbon speculators, alternative energy investors and other carbon profiteers – who would like to turn billions into trillions. Pity the poor carbon traders whose markets expire with Kyoto. Not all have their villa in the sun yet.

But rest assured, they will do whatever is necessary to get theirs. Big Warming will not surrender its hold on Western taxpayers without a fight.

The warmist camp plans to retake the initiative at the December U.N. conference in Durban, South Africa. It intends to turn back the clock to the time when the media would attribute any weather or nature event to global warming, without question or critical examination. Al Gore’s recent RollingStone diatribe essentially calls on the media to censure climate disaster skeptics and adopt a one-sided man-made warming narrative.

The NewYorkTimes may go along, but the huge and growing alternative media will not. This week’s Heartland Institute international conference of climate-alarm skeptics in Washington will only reinforce the lack of evidence for man-made Armageddon, and the disastrous consequences of staying the current U.N. course.

Many believe the last-minute appearance by dozens of world leaders crippled the Copenhagen climate conference. But with the big names absent from Cancun, Mexico, and now Bonn, the U.N. wants them back.

Ms. Figueres capped the Bonn conference with a call for “high-level political attention.” If she succeeds, just imagine the mischief a gathering of heads of state, foreign ministers, bureaucrats, researchers, green campaigners and carbon profiteers can do at an African beach resort.

Then imagine how nearly impossible it will be to repair the harm they inflict. Action must be taken to avert such a result.

David Rothbard is president of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow. Craig Rucker is CFACT’s executive director.

by Einar Du Rietz

Just like Icarus, the UNFCCC and several NGO’s attempts at controlling the climate sometimes feels like the height of pretentiousness. When this permanent crowd is flying around the globe telling ordinary people to change their lifestyles and pay more for necessities, like electricity, it’s nice to find some other perspective.

Madhulika Guhathakurta, a solar physicist at NASA and Daniel N. Baker, the director of the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics at the University of Colorado, highlights the, for a long time seldom mentioned, impact of something we definitely can’t control; solar activity.

Most informed readers probably know this, but it feels important to highlight these observations:

“Modern society depends on a variety of technologies that are susceptible to the extremes of space weather. Spectacular explosions on the Sun’s surface produce solar storms of intense magnetism and radiation. These events can disrupt the operation of power grids, railway signaling, magnetic surveying and drilling for oil and gas. Magnetic storms also heat the upper atmosphere, changing its density and composition and disrupting radio communications and GPS units. The storms’ charged particles can be a hazard to the health of astronauts and passengers on high altitude flights.

Severe storms in 1989 and 2003 caused blackouts in Canada and Sweden. In 1859, a solar super storm sparked fires in telegraph offices. Such storms are predicted every century or so, and perhaps we’re overdue. According to a 2008 National Academies report, a once-in-a-century solar storm could cause the financial damage of 20 Hurricane Katrinas.”

But, there is hope.

“The more we know about solar activity, the better we can protect ourselves. The Sun is surrounded by a fleet of spacecraft that can see sunspots forming, flares crackling and a solar storm about 30 minutes before it hits Earth. NASA and the National Science Foundation have also developed sophisticated models to predict where solar storms will go once they leave the Sun, akin to National Weather Service programs that track hurricanes and tornadoes on Earth. Thanks to these sentries, it is increasingly difficult for the Sun to take us by surprise.”

Sounds a lot more important than the recent conference in Bonn. And a reminder that climate can change and that we should be prepared, by letting industry develop and manufacture. Not take every opportunity to curb development.

 It doesn’t help that the view is awesome or that the food is great, and that you are surrounded by great historic monuments, if you attend a 2-week-mega-meeting, and nothing happens. That is just boring. And that is in fact what you see if you come to the conference hotel of the UNFCCC Climate Conference in Bonn these days: bored delegates, sipping coffee with a sour face, sleeping somewhere in the corner on one of these red silk sofas, or surfing in the Internet. Delegates are so busy looking at their computer screens, any uniformed visitor of the conference would think he witnesses some kind of game convention. And – I repeat myself – close to nothing has been achieved so far.

Today, at a meeting of the “Subsidiary Body for Implementation” – one of the many sub-groups of the UNFCCC – a lot of dissatisfaction has been expressed. Even the representative of the over-optimistic European Union expressed concerns. The EU expected a road-map or something similar to enable the upcoming COP/MOP – another big climate conference foreseen for Durban, South Africa, for December this year – to adopt another Kyoto-styled agreement. But she had to admit, that the one and only result of many and endless “informal meetings” since Monday was the adoption of the agenda. Yes, that’s correct. The only item adopted too far in four days is the agenda! Which is neither sustainable nor eco-efficient? Another concern, this time expressed by a delegate for the “G77 plus China” group from Argentina was funding. His wording was very diplomatic, but the bottom line was, richer countries should enable developing countries to send large delegations to UN-meetings. Because only this would secure their participation. And yes, including “Palestine”.

Another concern was how to secure the financial and technical means of governments of developing countries to participate even before the UN-meetings – which they can better prepare themselves. But that was not all: The delegate also emphasized the importance the “Special Climate Change Fund”, the “Adaptation Fund” and quite a few other “financial mechanisms” allegedly needed to stop climate from changing, and last but not least, of having even more climate conferences before the end of the year. In 2001, some of the “financial means” allocated to the UNFCCC were used to set up an Executive Board supervising CDM-projects (clean development mechanisms). The objective is industrialized countries financing projects in developing countries of which the UN believes they would help to prevent carbon emissions. In return, they get “emission reduction units” helping them to achieve their own carbon reduction goals. But how, one wonders, do they find out how much CO2 was saved? The magic word is “baseline scenario”. In other words, the prevented CO2 emissions are hypothetical emissions, based on the imagination of green NGOs. Nobody knows if a coal fired power plant was really prevented by a wind park, or if it was just an idea of a smart government to get some project money.

At a presentation of CDM projects the audience was informed of thousands of such CDM projects supervised by the UN in 71 countries that helped saving 620 mio tons of CO2 (which were not there before either, but which were in the making, somehow…). The only observer organization skeptical of the entire agenda of the UNFCCC present at the Bonn Climate Conference was once more CFACT. At a press conference hosted by CFACT on Wednesday in Bonn, German scientists Prof. Friedrich Karl Ewert and Dr. Horst Borchert presented their latest research on the true driving forces of climate change, the sun and solar radiation. This research was after all not based on computer models and “baseline scenarios”, but long term measurements and thorough evaluation of data. During the press conference as well the updated NIPCCC report compiled by Prof. Fred Singer (Univ of Virginia) was presented as well, confirming that human activities can’t be the reason for climate change and that there is no effect that can be traced to greenhouse gases, such as CO2. In other words, any of the 3000 or so delegates and of the journalists at the UN-meeting eventually had the chance to listen to serious science. Unfortunately, few did, while many others preferred to sip coffee in the lobby of the hotel or to surf around in the World Wide Web.

A picture tells more than a thousand words, people say. And if you have something to say affecting scientific or political debates, a movie is even better. Thus, the European CFACT team believed it is a good idea to invite delegates, observers and media at the UN Climate Change Conference in Bonn, Germany, to a movie night on Saturday, June 11, 2011. The prior aim of this official UN side event was presenting the true driving forces behind climate change and our whether: solar and cosmic radiation.

 The movie presented by CFACT at was a documentary by Lars Oxfeldt Mortensen from Denmark titled “The Cloud Mystery”, telling the story of Danish Professor Henrik Svensmark. The physicist is the actual discoverer of the true forces changing the world’s climate. Further more he was able to deliver experimental evidence for is findings – in a ten years effort, sometimes without any funding. By this, he helped solving one of the most important questions of the climate debate, the mystery of cloud formation. The documentary also demonstrates that science is a rough place to be if you are in opposition to the established “truth”. During the research process, Svensmark started a collaboration with other distinguished scientists such as Prof. Jan Veizer (Ottawa, Canada) and Prof. Nir Shaviv (Haifa, Israel), delivering the empirical evidence for his theories.

Since then, non of these scientists has been spared of unsubstantiated criticism and ad hominem attacks by alarmists. Svensmarks findings – that the galaxy and the sun are the main driver of the world’s climate – is still ignored by large parts of the UN elites, even though the evidence is overwhelming and other researchers meanwhile support his conclusions. Already on June 8, at the CFACT press briefing during this year’s Bonn climate talks, German scientists Dr. Borchert and Prof. Ewert presented their research showing the significance of Svensmarks revolutionary approach. And in the last years, other scientists from Denmark, Israel, Canada, the USA, and Norway spoke out in favor of Svensmark. The movie was preceded by an introduction by Dr. Holger Thuss, Executive Director of CFACT Europe and followed by a reception. Again, CFACT provided an opportunity to learn and to discuss by hosting an UN side event. However, most of the UN crowd preferred to go to stay away – it was the night of the UNFCCC staff party (food and drinks!). But they can no longer say they haven’t had the opportunity to know the truth.