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:

Last Tuesday, University of Leipzig science faculty dean Prof. Dr. Jürgen Haase barred a climate seminar organized by (his own) geography professor Werner Kirstein, as well as the use of an auditorium of his own institute (!) and participation by European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE) Vice President Michael Limburg as one of the the main speakers. Fortunately the ban was later relaxed and the seminar was allowed to go ahead.

The reason for originally having banned the seminar was a dissertation authored by Michael Limburg, which was critical of climate-science and was submitted to the faculty in March 2010. Two reviewers rejected the dissertation claiming, among other points, that it was inadequate. This is why Limburg was not welcome as a speaker, according to a letter from the Dean. The fact that the same dissertation had been recommended for acceptance by 4 other renowned professors went unmentioned by Haase. Limburg immediately challenged the ban.

What was so inconvenient about Limburg’s dissertation?

Under the supervision of Prof. Werner Kirstein, Limburg had written a dissertation that examined the quality of historical global temperature and sea level data in detail. His conclusions were damning. Using accepted rules for science and measurement, Limburg’s results showed that the datasets did not allow sea level and temperature change over the last 120-150 years to be determined anywhere near the alleged accuracies of millimetres or tenths of a degree Celsius respectively as claimed by the IPCC. The range of uncertainty, in both global mean temperature and sea level, is considerably greater than the total respective changes given by the IPCC. Every factor in attributing the possible causes of the changes was, at best, scientifically questionable.

Naturally, the faculty searched – and found – the “right” reviewers for assessing Limburg’s dissertation. In his decision to ban Limburg from speaking, Haase quoted only the objectively unfair and negative assessments. The fact that four other university professors had recommended the dissertation be accepted got no mention by Haase. Limburg officially contested the assessment delivered by the two reviewers, but they have taken their time to respond. Up to today there is still no response. Now a legal battle appears inevitable. Science has again been cast aside.

The high point of the whole affair is the open attempt by the University of Leipzig to silence Lim¬burg – even though he had been officially invited by a full professor. The Leipzig University faculty appears to be completely oblivious to this unworthy conduct.

Open debate is essential for the progress of science

This brings up Voltaire, the most famous philosopher of our time, and his words to his harshest opponent: ‘Sir, I do not agree with your opinion and I fully oppose you. But I would give up my life to assure that you will always be allowed to publicly express your opinion’. At the University of Leipzig, there has to be some colleagues among the philosophy faculty who are familiar with those words. But it looks as if the University leadership is not among them.

Sources: Press release by EIKE, www.eike-klima-energie.eu, originally translated from German by Pierre Gosselin, http://notrickszone.com

CFACT is proud to partner with the Heartland Institute to bring you the 6th International Conference on Climate Change. Heartland continues to do a real service to science with these conferences which we all should appreciate.

 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.

CLICK TO VIEW NOW

This morning CFACT & EIKE presented a scientific briefing at the UN conference on climate change in Bonn, Germany.  The briefing was introduced by Wolfgang Müller of EIKE and Berlin’s Manhattan Institut and featured Professor em. Friedrich Karl Ewert a geologist from Paderborn University and Dr. Horst Borchert of the Johannes-Gutenberg Universität in Mainz.  The presentations build upon the analysis of Professor S. Fred Singer and provide information on the geological record, solar activity and the big question — is our climate governed by man or nature?

Here We Go Again

 Bonn, Germany, June 2011

 The view is awesome, the food is great, the historic monuments are impressing, but the delegates are bored – in other words: we are in Bonn, Germany, where 3500 delegates meet for just another UN Climate Change Conference. The meeting is the second in a row of meetings leading to the grand climate conference in Durban, South Africa, where the next Kyoto-styled climate agreement is supposed to be adopted. However, the big news from Bonn is there is no news, despite the earlier announcements of Christiana Figueres that there is “hope” for a second Kyoto treaty and that many governments expressed their interest in promoting a “low carbon economy”. For reasons unknown so far, the UNFCC, the climate body of the UN, of which Ms. Figueres is the Secretary General, was unable to convene the opening plenary session until the evening of the first conference day. Thousands of government and NGO delegates were waiting in the grand meeting room and in the hallways – and nothing happened so far.

There are various theories what is going on behind closed doors. Since Ms. Figueres greatest concern was the “deadlock” of the international climate negotiations as the main result of the Bangkok meeting earlier this year, it must be exactly this “deadlock” that is preventing Ms. Figueres from officially opening the conference. Major nations such as China, India, Russia and Brazil are apparently not at all ready to follow the way to the very restrictive “carbon economy” drafted by UN bureaucrats and green gurus. Meanwhile, some hundred “premium” delegates convene behind closed doors in a room called “G77 and China” since the early morning. The public and NGOs are excluded.

CFACT, that is observing the conference with delegates on the ground, was however able to obtain at least some information: key players behind closed doors – as the group name indicates – are China and the EU under the leadership of the German government. While the former is the strongest opponent of further restricting economic development and “poverty eradication”, the latter has a lot to loose in case the entire project of internationally binding carbon emission targets is falling into pieces. While some British and US delegates were seen waiting in the grand plenary hall, none of the senior German and Chinese officials has been seen. And www.busnessgreen.com quoted chief US negotiator Todd Stern arguing that extending Kyoto was “unrealistic”, and “legally binding international obligations to cut emissions are not necessary”. Other features show in the same direction: it is obvious that the numbers of government officials went down dramatically. It is no longer difficult to find accommodation in Bonn during the climate talks – which was unthinkable during the same talks a year ago. Media coverage and the number of accredited journalists went down as well. The most obvious is however the small number and the negligible visibility of green NGOs. What we see is however a shift of the focus and an adjustment of their strategy. Green NGOs are still influencing the governments all over the “western” world big time. From their perspective, anti-carbon policies can be far easier implemented through “like-minded” governments and government agencies such as EPA. Former green street activists have over the years evolved into white collar activists and are much lesser dependent on the output of UN conferences. With close relations to the mainstream media, the UN is also no longer needed to influence the public debate. On the other hand, it isn’t of course totally impossible that some kind of deal eventually leads to another agreement Kyoto-style. A first step in this direction would be an agreement on the continuation of the international climate talks. These so-called commitments of the Annex-1-parties under the Kyoto protocol are discussed by a special ad hoc working group. But it is yet to early for a critical review.

Holger Thuss, Executive Director, CFACT Europe

The UN climate conference in Bonn opens today and CFACT has partnered with EIKE to send a delegation led by Dr. Holger Thuss.  The UNFCCC is banking on these subsidiary conferences to set the stage for major agreements in Durban South Africa in December.  The global warming scare and the inept and corrupt nature of proposed solutions have fallen far out of favor with the public and policy makers are taking notice and defecting.  CFACT has scheduled a  UNFCCC hosted press conference for Wednesday, 14:00 CET in the Hotel Maritim’s room Haydn.  The press conference may be webcast live by the UN.  Stay in touch with CFACT Europe for further updates from Bonn.

It’s strange. Once again, a UNFCC conference coincides with a natural catastrophe.

As usual, the delegates and the NGO are lining up for another preparatory meeting in Bonn. If they can, that is, as another volcano erupted on Iceland and – though it seems calm today – disrupts flight to, in particular, Germany.

As all sensible people know, and as I’ve been writing before, a volcano is not man made, it’s a dangerous force of nature. This will not hinder the people in Bonn from pondering over the sign of Armageddon and that maybe, after all, it’s natures revenge for CO2 emissions.

A striking observation is that in the media I’ve been able to follow the past days, in Belgium, Sweden and international press, the focus is entirely on the effects on – especially – air traffic in continental Europe and cross Atlantic transports. Anyone heard from the Icelanders? My friends there are rather sturdy people, so you mostly get rather rough jokes, but it’s no joke living in the shadow of an erupting volcano.

A good idea for the idealists going to Bonn, (presumably taking the train) is to skip the conference and go as a cleaning patrol to Iceland. If they are serious about the environmental mission that is.