Proliferation of Climate Scepticism in Europe
d....@hotmail.com
By Hans H.J. Labohm : 05 Nov 2007
Climate scepticism has now gained a firm foothold in various European
countries.
In Denmark Bjørn Lomborg stands out as the single most important
sceptical environmentalist, defying the political correctness which
is such a characteristic feature of his home country, as well as other
Nordic countries. But wait! Bjørn Lomborg is not a genuine climate
sceptic. Real climate sceptics admire his courage, his scientific
rigour and debating skills, but beg to disagree with him on the
fundamentals of climate science. Lomborg acknowledges that there is
such a thing as man-made global warming, which is quite in line with
the mantra of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). He
'only' challenges the cost benefit relationships of the policy meas
ures, which have been proposed to do something about it. Massive
expenditures (often euphemistically called 'investments') in exchange
for undetectable returns. Real climate sceptics do not accept the man-
made global warming hypothesis. They are of the opinion that the human
contribution to global warming over the last century or so is at most
insignificant. But, of course, they are happy with the arguments
advanced by Bjørn Lomborg to bolster their case against climate
hysteria.
In Germany EIKE (Europäisches Institut für Klima und Energie, Jena:
http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/) has been established - still in its
infancy, but nevertheless. Moreover, a group of German climate
sceptics has written something which could be called a consensus among
many climate sceptics: Climate Manifest of Heiligenroth (See:
http://www.klimamanifest-von-heiligenroth.de/klimaman-e.html).
Furthermore there are many climate sceptical websites in Germany. For
those who like visual thrills and possess a basic command of the
German language, Konrad Fischer's website might be fun: 'Videos and
films concerning the greenhouse swindle and climate terror' (http://
www.konrad-fischer-info.de/7video.htm)
But the AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) belief is still
overwhelming in Germany. In newspapers and on TV, Stefan Rahmstorf,
the German climate Torquemada, -- comparable to Al Gore in the US,
George Monbiot in the UK and David Suzuki in Canada -- are constantly
attacking critics of the AGW hypothesis. Contrary to good scientific
practice, he lavishly lards his interventions with ad hominem attacks
and insinuations that his opponents lack qualifications and/or are
being paid by industry. Although decades of pro AGW indoctrination has
left its mark on the German psyche, even true believers are becoming
fed up with him.
In Sweden, despite its high standards of political correctness, there
is a very vocal group of climate sceptics, which regularly publish in
'Elbranchen'. In September 2006 they organised a seminar: 'Global
Warming - Scientific Controversies in Climate Variability'. This
meeting was hosted by the Royal Technical High School in Stockholm and
chaired by its rector, Peter Stilbs (See: http://gamma.physchem.kth.se/~climate/).
Even Swedish TV has aired a debate on the issue. For those who have
some command of the Scandinavian languages, see: http://webbtv.axess.se/index.aspx?id=229:
Veckans Debatt: Global uppvärming: Vad säger vetenskapen?
In Italy the Bruno Leoni Institute has espoused climate scepticism
(http://www.brunoleoni.it/). In Spain, the foundation Rafael del Pino
has paid attention to climate scepticism in the past, but because of
social and political pressure it has felt forced to keep a low profile
on this issue over the last few years. (http://www.libertaddigital.com/
index.php?action=desaopi&cpn=25151) In the French-speaking part of
Europe, individual scientists such as as Marcel Leroux could be
mentioned. Moreover, the Molinari Institute has joined the cause of
climate scepticism (http://www.institutmolinari.org/index.htm). In the
Czech Republic, President Vaclav Havel is single-handedly attempting
to instil some common sense into public opinion. In Austria the Hayek
Institute carries the torch (http://www.hayek-institut.at/english/1183/
termine/article/hayek/2035/), while Estonia is represented by Olavi
Kärner (http://www.aai.ee/~olavi/).
In my own country, the Netherlands, the situation has markedly
improved. In line with the tradition of consensus-seeking, it has been
possible to establish something close to a real dialogue between AGW
adherents and the climate sceptics. Personally, I have even been
invited by the Netherlands Royal Meteorological Institute (KNMI) to
become expert reviewer of the IPCC. As such, I have submitted many
fundamental criticisms on the draft texts of the Fourth Assessment Re
port of the Panel (AR4). What happened to my comments? To be honest, I
have not the faintest idea. Most probably, nothing at all.
Nevertheless, in my capacity as expert reviewer of the IPCC, I have
also received (a tiny) part of the Nobel price, which has been awarded
to Al Gore and the IPCC (yes, thanks for your congratulations). Should
I be grateful? I don't think so. Both 'An Inconvenient Truth' and the
latest IPCC report labour under cherry-picking, spindoctoring and
scare-mongering (Al Gore's movie more than the IPCC reports). Awarding
the Nobel price for such flawed science is a disgrace. But it should
be recalled that the Nobel Prize for Peace is being awarded by a group
of (five) Norwegian politicians and not by the Swedish Academy of
Science, which is always scrupulously investigating the merits of the
candidates. The Norwegians are piggybacking on the reputation of the
Nobel prizes for science and literature. The method of electing the
winner of the Peace prize ensures a political outcome reflecting the
current strength of Norwegian political parties. Four out of five
members of the parliamentary committee that selected Gore are former
cabinet members. The fifth, Mjoes, was president of the University of
Tromso. So the Democrat Gore owes his prize to a constellation of
Progressives, Social and Christian Democrats and Green socialists.
Little wonder Francis Sejersted, past chairman of the committee,
admits: 'Awarding a peace prize is, to put it bluntly, a political
act.'
Russian scientists are criticising very openly the AGW hypothesis.
They do it with a frankness which - in this particular field - is
still rare in the 'free world'. Usually scientists shroud their
statements in clouds of caveats. Even the IPCC follows this tradition
to a certain extent. But Russian climatologists do not. They simply
state that a new little ice age is imminent. Not so long ago it was
astronomer Khabibullo Abdusamatov of the Pulkovo Astronomical
Observatory in St. Petersburg, who declared that the Earth will
experience a 'mini Ice Age' in the middle of this century, caused by
low solar activity. Now it is the climatologist Olech Sorochtin,
member of the Russian Academy of Physical Science, who joins him. His
message was prominently disseminated by the Russian press agency
Novosti, which in the period of the Cold War was generally considered
to be a mouthpiece of the Kremlin. (http://de.rian.ru/analysis/
20071009/83073114.html). Therefore, it is perhaps not too far-fetched
to speculate that this might be a warning signal that the Russians
will drop out of Kyoto when its first phase expires in 2012.
But Britannia rules the waves. Stewart Dimmock, a Kent lorry driver
and school governor, took the government to court for sending copies
of Gore's film to schools. He was backed by a group of campaigners,
including Viscount Monckton, a former adviser to Mrs Thatcher. They
won a legal victory against 'An Inconvenient Truth'. Mr Justice Burton
ruled that the movie contained at least nine scientific errors and
said ministers must send new guidance to teachers before it was
screened. 'That ruling was a fantastic victory,' said Monckton. 'What
we want to do now is send schools material reflecting an alternative
point of view so that pupils can make their own minds up.' Monckton
has also won support from the maker of 'The Great Global Warming
Swindle'. Martin Durkin, managing director of WAG TV, which produced
the documentary, said he would be delighted for his film to go to
schools. I have become a proselytiser against the so-called consensus
on climate change ... people can decide for themselves,' he said.
And what about our kids? Well, they have survived the story of Santa
Claus without any visible scars. Wouldn't they survive the nonsense of
man-made global warming as well?
Hans Labohm is an independent economist. Together with Dick Thoenes
and Simon Rozendaal, he is co-author of 'Man-Made Global Warming:
Unravelling a Dogma'.
James
<d....@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1194308507.7...@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
Good post and very interesting.
kdt...@yahoo.com
The scientists of Europe better start fighting the AGW movement before
it gets passed in the US. As it is now, a scientist arguing against
this bullshit must defeat the status quo and is demanded burden of
proof. The AGW movement tries at every point to evade the burden of
proof they should have to pass such laws, which they cannot meet.
The European's goal has always only been to get the US to succumb to
significant reductions up to 90% of CO2, since their relative output
is small. The British are scarmongered with the propaganda that the US
use of fuel to heat and cool our homes and workplaces, is going to
flood London which is on a river near the sea.
If the US succumbs to this false postulate, the Europeans can expect
the whip to really be cracked over their head. As it is, the entire
goal is to bring the US to bear for it's use of fossil fuels. No
consideration is given to the fact that China surpassed the US by 10%
relative increase in 1 yr in 2006, and now is the greatest emitter of
CO2 and increasing very rapidly along with India, while US emissions
are steady.
It can be very factually proved, that the complete elimination of US
CO2 emissions, would have abolutely no effect upon increasing
concentrations in the air.
The AGW movement in Europe has succeeded by propaganda, bribery and
intimidation. This movement has billions of dollars in annual revenue
and cannot be expected to recognize the facts and desist. At some
point, whether it be after they entirely destroy the world economy,
this false science will be examined legally.
KDeatherage
The ship of fools of the belief in anthorpogenic global warming, sails
on.
Next stop, the marina on 'No Paddle Island', up Shit Creek
Ouroboros_Rex
"James" <king...@iglou.com> wrote in message
news:472fd25f$0$22863$d94e...@news.iglou.com...
Sure. One problem.
"The Great Global Warming Swindle" is a pile of lies:
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/news.asp?id=6089
http://www.swindonclimate.org.uk/200703GGWS
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/
http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/0313pure_propaganda_the.php
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/david_adam/2007/03/envirocon.html
http://www.jri.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=137&Itemid=83
http://climatedenial.org/2007/03/14/stuff-and-nonscience/
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,,2031117,00.html
Lloyd
> Proliferation of Climate Scepticism in Europe
>
> By Hans H.J. Labohm : 05 Nov 2007
>
> Climate scepticism has now gained a firm foothold in various European
> countries.
Really? Which national scientific societies say GW isn't real? Name
one.
>
> In Denmark Bjørn Lomborg stands out as the single most important
> sceptical environmentalist,
He's a statistician.
>defying the political correctness which
> is such a characteristic feature of his home country, as well as other
> Nordic countries. But wait! Bjørn Lomborg is not a genuine climate
> sceptic. Real climate sceptics admire his courage, his scientific
> rigour and debating skills, but beg to disagree with him on the
> fundamentals of climate science. Lomborg acknowledges that there is
> such a thing as man-made global warming, which is quite in line with
> the mantra of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). He
> 'only' challenges the cost benefit relationships of the policy meas
> ures, which have been proposed to do something about it. Massive
> expenditures (often euphemistically called 'investments') in exchange
> for undetectable returns. Real climate sceptics do not accept the man-
> made global warming hypothesis.
Nor the earth going around the sun.
>They are of the opinion that the human
> contribution to global warming over the last century or so is at most
> insignificant. But, of course, they are happy with the arguments
> advanced by Bjørn Lomborg to bolster their case against climate
> hysteria.
>
> In Germany EIKE (Europäisches Institut für Klima und Energie, Jena:http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/) has been established - still in its
> infancy, but nevertheless. Moreover, a group of German climate
> sceptics has written something which could be called a consensus among
> many climate sceptics: Climate Manifest of Heiligenroth (See:http://www.klimamanifest-von-heiligenroth.de/klimaman-e.html).
> Furthermore there are many climate sceptical websites in Germany. For
> those who like visual thrills and possess a basic command of the
> German language, Konrad Fischer's website might be fun: 'Videos and
> films concerning the greenhouse swindle and climate terror' (http://www.konrad-fischer-info.de/7video.htm)
>
> But the AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) belief is still
> overwhelming in Germany.
Like the earth going around the sun.
>In newspapers and on TV, Stefan Rahmstorf,
> the German climate Torquemada, -- comparable to Al Gore in the US,
> George Monbiot in the UK and David Suzuki in Canada -- are constantly
> attacking critics of the AGW hypothesis. Contrary to good scientific
> practice, he lavishly lards his interventions with ad hominem attacks
> and insinuations that his opponents lack qualifications and/or are
> being paid by industry.
If the shoe fits...
>Although decades of pro AGW indoctrination has
> left its mark on the German psyche, even true believers are becoming
> fed up with him.
>
> In Sweden, despite its high standards of political correctness, there
> is a very vocal group of climate sceptics,
We call them "flat-earthers."
>which regularly publish in
> 'Elbranchen'. In September 2006 they organised a seminar: 'Global
> Warming - Scientific Controversies in Climate Variability'. This
> meeting was hosted by the Royal Technical High School in Stockholm and
> chaired by its rector, Peter Stilbs (See:http://gamma.physchem.kth.se/~climate/).
> Even Swedish TV has aired a debate on the issue. For those who have
> some command of the Scandinavian languages, see:http://webbtv.axess.se/index.aspx?id=229:
> Veckans Debatt: Global uppvärming: Vad säger vetenskapen?
>
> In Italy the Bruno Leoni Institute has espoused climate scepticism
> (http://www.brunoleoni.it/).
I guarantee you, the Italian scientific community has not.
>In Spain, the foundation Rafael del Pino
> has paid attention to climate scepticism in the past, but because of
> social and political pressure it has felt forced to keep a low profile
> on this issue over the last few years. (http://www.libertaddigital.com/
> index.php?action=desaopi&cpn=25151) In the French-speaking part of
> Europe, individual scientists such as as Marcel Leroux could be
> mentioned. Moreover, the Molinari Institute has joined the cause of
> climate scepticism (http://www.institutmolinari.org/index.htm). In the
> Czech Republic, President Vaclav Havel is single-handedly attempting
> to instil some common sense into public opinion. In Austria the Hayek
> Institute carries the torch (http://www.hayek-institut.at/english/1183/
> termine/article/hayek/2035/), while Estonia is represented by Olavi
> Kärner (http://www.aai.ee/~olavi/).
>
So why are you citing groups that have nothing to do with science? If
a scientific group said Chekov wrote bad plays, would that matter?
> In my own country, the Netherlands, the situation has markedly
> improved. In line with the tradition of consensus-seeking, it has been
> possible to establish something close to a real dialogue between AGW
> adherents and the climate sceptics. Personally, I have even been
> invited by the Netherlands Royal Meteorological Institute (KNMI) to
> become expert reviewer of the IPCC. As such, I have submitted many
> fundamental criticisms on the draft texts of the Fourth Assessment Re
> port of the Panel (AR4). What happened to my comments? To be honest, I
> have not the faintest idea. Most probably, nothing at all.
>
Right. Just as if you had commented that the earth is the center of
the universe.
> Nevertheless, in my capacity as expert reviewer of the IPCC, I have
> also received (a tiny) part of the Nobel price, which has been awarded
> to Al Gore and the IPCC (yes, thanks for your congratulations). Should
> I be grateful? I don't think so. Both 'An Inconvenient Truth' and the
> latest IPCC report labour under cherry-picking, spindoctoring and
> scare-mongering (Al Gore's movie more than the IPCC reports).
So why are you a member of something you find so repugnant?
>Awarding
> the Nobel price for such flawed science is a disgrace. But it should
> be recalled that the Nobel Prize for Peace is being awarded by a group
> of (five) Norwegian politicians and not by the Swedish Academy of
> Science, which is always scrupulously investigating the merits of the
> candidates.
Check what the Swedish Academy of Science says about GW.
>The Norwegians are piggybacking on the reputation of the
> Nobel prizes for science and literature. The method of electing the
> winner of the Peace prize ensures a political outcome reflecting the
> current strength of Norwegian political parties. Four out of five
> members of the parliamentary committee that selected Gore are former
> cabinet members. The fifth, Mjoes, was president of the University of
> Tromso. So the Democrat Gore owes his prize to a constellation of
> Progressives, Social and Christian Democrats and Green socialists.
> Little wonder Francis Sejersted, past chairman of the committee,
> admits: 'Awarding a peace prize is, to put it bluntly, a political
> act.'
>
> Russian scientists are criticising very openly the AGW hypothesis.
Not all. Not even most.
> They do it with a frankness which - in this particular field - is
> still rare in the 'free world'. Usually scientists shroud their
> statements in clouds of caveats. Even the IPCC follows this tradition
> to a certain extent. But Russian climatologists do not. They simply
> state that a new little ice age is imminent.
Yeah, the Russians were so right about communism taking over the
world.
>Not so long ago it was
> astronomer Khabibullo Abdusamatov of the Pulkovo Astronomical
> Observatory in St. Petersburg, who declared that the Earth will
> experience a 'mini Ice Age' in the middle of this century, caused by
> low solar activity. Now it is the climatologist Olech Sorochtin,
> member of the Russian Academy of Physical Science, who joins him. His
> message was prominently disseminated by the Russian press agency
> Novosti, which in the period of the Cold War was generally considered
> to be a mouthpiece of the Kremlin. (http://de.rian.ru/analysis/
> 20071009/83073114.html). Therefore, it is perhaps not too far-fetched
> to speculate that this might be a warning signal that the Russians
> will drop out of Kyoto when its first phase expires in 2012.
>
Because 2 Russians control science there?
> But Britannia rules the waves. Stewart Dimmock, a Kent lorry driver
> and school governor, took the government to court for sending copies
> of Gore's film to schools. He was backed by a group of campaigners,
> including Viscount Monckton, a former adviser to Mrs Thatcher. They
> won a legal victory against 'An Inconvenient Truth'. Mr Justice Burton
> ruled that the movie contained at least nine scientific errors and
> said ministers must send new guidance to teachers before it was
> screened.
And guess what? The "new guidance" is verbatim what the IPCC says.
>'That ruling was a fantastic victory,' said Monckton. 'What
> we want to do now is send schools material reflecting an alternative
> point of view so that pupils can make their own minds up.'
That alternative point of view is the IPCC's, not the denialists'.
>Monckton
> has also won support from the maker of 'The Great Global Warming
> Swindle'. Martin Durkin, managing director of WAG TV, which produced
> the documentary, said he would be delighted for his film to go to
> schools. I have become a proselytiser against the so-called consensus
> on climate change ... people can decide for themselves,' he said.
>
Well, geez, the producer of a TV show! How can scientists argue with
him?
> And what about our kids? Well, they have survived the story of Santa
> Claus without any visible scars. Wouldn't they survive the nonsense of
> man-made global warming as well?
>
> Hans Labohm is an independent economist. Together with Dick Thoenes
> and Simon Rozendaal, he is co-author of 'Man-Made Global Warming:
> Unravelling a Dogma'.
And obviously clueless.
Roger Coppock
> Proliferation of Climate Scepticism in Europe
>
> By Hans H.J. Labohm : 05 Nov 2007
>
> Climate scepticism has now gained a firm foothold in various European
> countries.
>
>
> Hans Labohm is an independent economist. Together with Dick Thoenes
> and Simon Rozendaal, he is co-author of 'Man-Made Global Warming:
> Unravelling a Dogma'.
Amazon.com has this book written in 2004 sales ranked
at 1,289,436 and still in its 1st edition after three
years. If climate skepticism is proliferating, then
why isn't this book selling?
Meanwhile, "An Inconvenient Truth" has several editions
and probably has sold more copies in few hours than this
book has in three years. That is true proliferation.
Paul E. Lehmann
Sweets, Sex and FEAR sell. You should know that
from dabbling around with statistics.
paulus
"Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:1194387861.3...@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Amazon.com has this book written in 2004 sales ranked
> at 1,289,436 and still in its 1st edition after three
> years. If climate skepticism is proliferating, then
> why isn't this book selling?
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Man-Made-Global-Warming-Unravelling-Dogma/dp/0906522250/ref=sr_1_1/104-8913212-8497538?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194386839&sr=8-1
>
> Meanwhile, "An Inconvenient Truth" has several editions
> and probably has sold more copies in few hours than this
> book has in three years. That is true proliferation.
>
>
One volume a rather dreary sounding book, the other a Hollywood style
spectacle publicised by the luvies of the left.
It would have nothing to do with Algore having been a rather prominent
politician prior to finding his true calling either, would it?
No requirement for honesty in that respect.
Paulus
Al Bedo
The bible, Dyanetics, and Harry Potter are also popular.
And about as factual.
chemist
By Hans H.J. Labohm
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=110107A
An extract
"But Britannia rules the waves. Stewart Dimmock, a Kent lorry driver
and school governor, took the government to court for sending copies
of Gore's film to schools. He was backed by a group of campaigners,
including Viscount Monckton, a former adviser to Mrs Thatcher. They
won a legal victory against 'An Inconvenient Truth'. Mr Justice Burton
ruled that the movie contained at least nine scientific errors and
said ministers must send new guidance to teachers before it was
we want to do now is send schools material reflecting an alternative
point of view so that pupils can make their own minds up.
The next project is to demonstrate to the UK education
authorities what a travesty the GHG warming demonstrations
are.
Ouroboros_Rex
"paulus" <o...@request.com> wrote in message
news:4730f...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
So why isn't the skeptic book selling?
Ouroboros_Rex
"Al Bedo" <c...@dark.side.of.the.moon> wrote in message
news:473116a7$0$3576$815e...@news.qwest.net...
Got nothing but lies, I see. lol
Lloyd
> By Hans H.J. Labohmhttp://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=110107A
> An extract
> "But Britannia rules the waves. Stewart Dimmock, a Kent lorry driver
> and school governor, took the government to court for sending copies
> of Gore's film to schools. He was backed by a group of campaigners,
> including Viscount Monckton, a former adviser to Mrs Thatcher. They
> won a legal victory against 'An Inconvenient Truth'. Mr Justice Burton
> ruled that the movie contained at least nine scientific errors and
> said ministers must send new guidance to teachers before it was
> screened. 'That ruling was a fantastic victory,' said Monckton. 'What
> we want to do now is send schools material reflecting an alternative
> point of view so that pupils can make their own minds up.
>
Yep, that "alternative point of view" is the IPCC statements. Not
your denialist pack of lies.
HangEveryRepubliKKKan
<kdt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> It can be very factually proved, that the complete elimination of US
> CO2 emissions, would have abolutely no effect upon increasing
> concentrations in the air.
Then do so Roofer Boy. You are a source of endless laughtere here, and
your attempt will only add more laughter to the newsgroup.
The only good KKKonservative is a dead KKKonservative