Realist or Alarmist?

During my years in the climate debate, I’ve been called all sorts of things. Climate Hater, Weather Denier, to mention a few. Apparently all climate realists are now also “Anti-Science”, and according to Robin McKie, writing for the Observer, though this article  was found in our fanzine The Guardian, people are getting scared.

“Most scientists, on achieving high office, keep their public remarks to the bland and reassuring. Last week Nina Fedoroff, the president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), broke ranks in a spectacular manner.

She confessed that she was now “scared to death” by the anti-science movement that was spreading, uncontrolled, across the US and the rest of the western world.”

 If they had asked me, I could have delivered quite a few speakers, not very hateful, and certainly scientists. As a matter of fact, this service is constantly offered and provided by CFACT and our vast network of scholars.

To my disappointment though, CFACT Europe is not even mentioned by name, but the theme seems to have been that this plague is spreading into Europe too.

According to the article, the conference does not seem to have been a lot about science, just about being scared, so probably my services would not have been of great use. Never mind Climategate. Never mind the lack of significant global warming. Never mind that man can’t control the sun. We are here to share the horror stories. But my offer stands, and until we meet, feel free to browse our web site, quite full of not so hateful science and reflections.

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.

Click to play Methane Madness!

“Put a cork in it, Al!”

That’s the message students are sending Al Gore, radical climate campaigners and assorted other bohemians, grant-seekers and profiteers cashing in on the global warming craze.

Al Gore is calling on folks to make September 14th a day of climate action through a series of propaganda videos he will be broadcasting worldwide.  CFACT calls for a day of genuine “climate realism” instead. CFACT Collegians are spreading the word with a bit of online levity.

CFACT’s Methane Madness game trains online players to help “Pal Gore” control the climate by corking cows and watching them float away. Methane is more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas but less than 1% of atmospheric greenhouse gases come from cattle. Even so, radical climate campaigners call for shutting down our cattle and dairy industries along with much of the rest our economy. They’d like us to go vegan.

However, climate science IS NOT SETTLED; computer models are not all that; observations don’t fit the models; man’s impact on climate and atmosphere is dwarfed by nature’s; Climategate is just the tip of the corrupt science iceberg; more scientists find the courage to match their analysis every day and declare against the scare; offsets are a scam; alternative energy is inefficient; citizens can now spot warming propaganda; economies in crisis can’t afford the waste; carbon profiteers rake in tax dollars but don’t affect the climate; consensus is not science; there has never been a consensus; freedom and prosperity are the proven path to cleaner environments; our meat and dairy industries are home-based, thriving industries that feed multitudes and employ the nicest people you’ll ever meet; developed nations have enough to eat for the first time in history; etc; etc; etc; etc….

WHOA! All those dreary, inconvenient facts! Gore won’t enjoy those. As Scarlett O’Hara said, “I can’t think about that right now. If I do, I’ll go crazy. I’ll think about that tomorrow.”

If they succeed in corking all the cows, Methane Madness players can move on to further levels and put a cork in Gore and company’s hot air.

Don’t worry, CFACT’s always been about free speech. Corks come out. Gore and his celebrity buddies can go right back to spewing their hot air. It will take cold facts for realism to triumph over alarmism on climate. CFACT wouldn’t have it any other way.

“Jobs just aren’t waiting for us when we graduate the way they used to,” said Methane Madness player Josh Smith, a student at University of Wisconsin.  “Al Gore preaches we should live with less, while he flies from mansion to mansion.  I don’t even know how I’m going to pay my student loans.  Put a cork in it, Al!”

If levity’s not your bag, there’s always plenty of global warming facts and analysis debunking the scare here at www.CFACT.eu,  www.CFACT.org and at www.ClimateDepot.com.

Maybe we should just skip this project

That it was fairly good for preventing colds I knew, but now apparently garlic is the way to prevent global warming.

Reports euractiv:

Hope the cows will like it. Personally, I a fan, especially when I’m eating cows, but I don’t want it in my milk.

And the report does not mention the smell. And not any other potential side effects. What about the bugs? At least on humans, garlic is believed to be a repellant. Will this in turn affect the bird life? Guess a new bunch of money would be welcome, before the entire idea is picked up by the Comission, for a garlic cow directive.

Guess the five millions were well spent so far. At least the garlic growers and distributors will think so.

Climate science is anything but settled.

For years, physicist Henrik Svensmark of the Danish National Space Institute (who has presented at conferences organized by CFACT and EIKE) has been asking inconvenient questions about the relationship between the sun, clouds and climate.  He demonstrated in the lab that cosmic rays from the sun affect cloud

Henrik Svensmark

formation.  Cosmic rays are a factor not meaningfully considered in the computer climate models which global warming proponents have declared to be so robust that they are beyond discussion.

To the vexation of true climate believers, Svensmark’s work has been confirmed at CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research.  CERN is home to the Hadron super conducting super collider near Geneva.  CERN simulated the effect of cosmic rays in the earth’s atmosphere and found that it does indeed influence cloud formation.

This is very inconvenient science for the global warming campaigners, researchers and myriad carbon carpetbaggers, all of whose incomes have come to depend on government willingness to accept the authority of climate models as gospel.  The more people know about computer climate models, the less they are willing to curtail the freedom and prosperity of the developed world.

Can European scientists like Svensmark and the researchers at CERN restore rigorous scientific questioning to climate science?  Will scientists again research, question, write and speak without fear of political reprisal?  Is this the beginning of a new enlightenment?  Europe’s done it before.

Not yet a Tornado

Please tell me that we are beginning to see signs that otherwise alarmist journalists are beginning to both listen to science and to make the distinction between cause and effect. Even the crusader Susanna Baltscheffsky manages to write an interesting article (in Google translation) on weather phenomena. She points to why Tornadoes are more powerful in the US, than in Europe, because of geographic factors, and even acknowledges that solar activity is a major force in our sometimes irregular climate and weather. Some commentators still point out that she babbles a bit over CO2, but I’m more positive. Honor as due.

Because as all media outlets constantly need to comment on the climate debate, in most of the cases – everywhere – the reports are sloppy and filled with standard assertions, presented as facts. That Global Warming is increasing (on the contrary, if you look at current statistics). That the sole force behind this is human activity (simply a myth, as you probably know), that extreme weather has increased enormously (it has not, rather tornadoes, tsunamis and more tend to be cyclical and dependent on the geography), all polar bears are dying (the population has increased) and that we are running of oil (supplies are likely to increase if only people are alloud to drill for it, even if some middle east dictator decides to set fire to the fields in his country).

The above is just sloppiness, but it’s important, when hearing environmental statements to also try to look for causality. In the words of Bastiat: There what you see and what you don’t see.

To pick an example. Having an allergy my self, I’m always intrigued when I hear that due to environmental pollution, allergies have increased rapidly during the past century. Is there really a link? Well, possibly a small one, how about some other factors!

First of all, pollen is not a pollutant (except for me and my fellow sufferers) and it does not increase because of industrial activity.

Diagnosis has increased. That is not the same as increasing occurrence. What a hundred years ago was perceived as a normal cold, is today allergy.

Infant mortality has decreased. There is a reason why allergies are uncommon, sometimes never heard of in developing countries. And, sad to say, I would probably not have survived, maybe not even until being born, a couple of hundred years ago.

Thanks to industrialization, I am able to write this. And I’m rather grateful for that.

Soon Enough

Reading weather forecasts this season has been like reading horoscopes in tabloids; you can be certain that it will be the reverse.

The only time so far, when the prediction really was correct was when CFACT Europe President Holger Thuss and I visited the Imperial Funeral in Vienna. The papers said it should be 30 plus Celsius. It was. The event became memorable in more than one way, considering the funeral attires we were wearing.

Now, in the high season, apart from the obvious focus on the tragedy in Norway and the US economy, the occasional, but usual comment surfaces in the media, pointing out that it’s – aha - global warming.

Meteorology is apparently not a science to be trusted for what to wear tomorrow, and we all know that. But for the general discussion, this also shows that the long term historic perspective is essential if we want to grasp the climate change debate.

The general summer plague of algae blooming is on again in the Baltic. Say some experts. According to others, it’s a lot better than earlier

Your memory from last summer is probably as clouded as mine. Either you remember the water temperature, the sun, the rain, because you were by the water, or even sailing. Or maybe you had a love affair and remember everything as sunny. Or was stuck in your office, with AC and mineral water as your only postcard.

For mor information on both the Vienna Funeral and historic research visit the same site you are on: cfact.eu.

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.

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.