Blog

Global Warming Policies and Farmers

by William Yeatman on February 3, 2004

in Blog

 “The Holstein Association USA, Inc. is opposed to attempts to cap greenhouse emissions and is concerned about the resulting increase in energy prices. Our membership is comprised of farmers and breeders who are not able to pass along the increased cost of business that will occur as energy taxes are raised.”

-Richard E. Nelson, Holstein Association USA, Inc., Executive Assistant of Domestic Affairs

Sea Level Rise Disproved; Soots Role in Warming Confirmed

by William Yeatman on January 6, 2004

in Science

 Sea Level Rise Disproved

Two new studies by Swedish scientist Nils-Axel Mrner in the journal Global and Planetary Change reveal that the much-hyped threat of sea level rise as a result of global warming appears to be illusory.

In the first paper, Estimating future sea level changes from past records, Mrner looks at sea level oscillation over the last 5000 years. He finds that In the last 300 years, sea level has seen oscillation close to the present with peak rates in the period 1890-1930. He goes on to state, Satellite altimetry indicates virtually no change in the past decade. From model runs based on these data, he concludes, This implies that there is no fear of any massive future flooding as claimed in most global warming scenarios.

In the second paper, New perspectives for the future of the Maldives , Mrner and his colleagues conclude that one of the island nations most cited in fears that they might vanish beneath the waves has experienced higher sea levels in the past: The people of the Maldives have, in the past, survived a higher sea level of about 50-60 cm. The present trend lacks signs of a sea level rise. On the contrary, there is firm morphological evidence of a significant sea level fall in the last 30 years. This sea level fall is likely to be the effect of increased evaporation and an intensification of the NE-monsoon over the central Indian Ocean .

Soots Role in Warming Confirmed

New research by James Hansen and his colleagues at NASAs Goddard Institute has confirmed the major part played by atmospheric soot in the recent warming trend. According to NASA, emissions of black soot alter the way sunlight reflects off snow, and may therefore be responsible for 25 percent of observed global warming over the past century.

Hansen and colleagues found that, Soot’s effect on snow albedo (solar energy reflected back to space), which has been neglected in previous studies, may be contributing to trends toward early springs in the Northern Hemisphere, thinning Arctic sea ice, melting glaciers and permafrost. According to the NASA press release, Hansen said that Soot’s increased absorption of solar energy is especially effective in warming the world’s climate. This forcing is unusually effective, causing twice as much global warming as a carbon-dioxide forcing of the same magnitude.

Hansen stressed that, in his opinion, greenhouse gases remained the primary cause of climate warming over the past century. The Associated Press coverage of the story (Dec. 23) revealed the emerging and uncertain nature of climate change: Scientists thought until recently that only carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases have global reach and effect. They now are finding the same thing with these microscopic, suspended particles of pollutants, generically known as aerosols, that settle on ground hours later.

The AP story also commented on the role of diesel engines in producing soot, noting that, The Bush administration in 2001 ordered pollution cuts from heavy-duty diesel engines and diesel fuel used in highway trucks and buses. This year it proposed requiring a 90 percent reduction in pollution from diesel-powered construction and other off-road equipment, starting with 2008 models. The European Union, by contrast, encourages the use of diesel fuel through tax and other policies.

Extinct Argument

An article published in Nature magazine (Jan. 9) garnered alarmist headlines all over the world alleging that the study warned that over a million species would be doomed to extinction by the middle of the next century because of global warming.

The study, Extinction risk from climate change, however, suggested no such thing (although some of the authors tried to promote it by making this outlandish claim). It found that 15 to 37 percent of species in its sample of 1,103 species in 18 habitats around the world might become extinct if global warming causes their habitats to shrink. Of the 1,103 species studied, 243 were South African evergreen plants.

This is an extremely small and non-random and therefore statistically insignificant sample from which to extrapolate the risks of extinction faced by the millions of species that currently exist. The modeling process was also suspect. The New York Times (Jan. 7) was careful to point to the pessimistic nature of the models, quoting emeritus professor Daniel Botkin of UC Santa Barbara as saying, The analysis was based on a lot of steady state assumptions that lead it to the most pessimistic forecast, including the notion that things will stay as they are in terms of the ways animals migrate and respond to temperature change.

The study also failed one important reality check. Although there have been several episodes of mass extinction over geologic time, it is thought that none has occurred as a result of gradual warming. Experts do not even believe that the onsets of ice ages in recent time have caused extinctions on the scale extrapolated from the current study.

Etc.

Cooler Heads Coalition to Move?

An article in London s Independent (Jan. 6) criticized the Cooler Heads Coalition for its location. Reporting on the threat supposedly posed to the island nation of Tuvalu by rising sea-levels, the article says, But there are sceptics, notably those running the globalwarming.org website – funded by the right-wing Cooler Heads Coalition, who think that global warming isn’t scientifically provable. (Notably, none of the Cooler Heads members lives in any of the threatened island states, or shows any signs of moving there; they’re all safely ensconced in the US. ).

Many a True Word

A Washington Post Style section article (Dec. 29) about the lack of worry Christmas shoppers felt over the threat of terrorism contained an interesting insight into exactly how the Kyoto Protocol is viewed by the general public.

Reporter Joel Achenbach wrote that if you asked people about the terrorism risk and you’d get shrugs and head shakes and a few funny looks, as though you’d brought up something a little bit out of left field, like the Kyoto Treaty or the One-China Policy.

Cold Kills Hundreds in India and Bangladesh; New Zealand Nationalizes Carbon Credits

by William Yeatman on January 6, 2004

in Science

Cold Kills Hundreds in India and Bangladesh

South Asia has experienced a particularly cold winter this year, with the result that at least 380 people have died as a direct result, according to Agence France Presse (Jan. 4).

In India , 261 have died so far. AFP comments, Most of the cold deaths in India have been recorded in the northern state of Uttar Pradesh, which saw a weekend low of four degrees Celsius (39.2 F), registered at the Hindu holy city of Varanasi.

The causes of the deaths have mostly been linked to poverty and lack of access to energy it appears, Homeless people in Bangladesh lit waste to keep themselves warm, as the government and voluntary and political groups distributed warm clothes for the poor, officials said.

Hit by the Hand that Fed Them?

New Zealand s rent-seeking forest owners suffered an unexpected blow when the island nations government nationalized carbon credits at the end of last year.

New Zealands National Business Review reported (Dec. 30), A group representing the owners of forests planted after 1989, the only forests eligible to earn lucrative carbon credits under the Kyoto protocol, says the government is stealing $2.6 billion from them by fiat. In New Zealand , the government plans to hold the earnings for its own programmes and estimates the value of the credits during the first Kyoto commitment period, 2008 to 2012, to be worth $2.6 billion. Forest owners associations like the epyonymous Forest Owners Association (FOA) are on record as claiming that the decision to nationalise the income from carbon credits is an infringement of property rights, but the newly formed Kyoto Forest Owners Association (KFOA) says the decision is possibly the largest private property theft in New Zealands history.

The Review went on to relate how a KFOA spokesman had told a local newspaper exactly why his colleagues had sought these rents in the first place: A lot of investors had gone in partly because of this (carbon credits)and they had not expected to have the government take their return by fiat. After all, we grew them (the carbon sinks) in our trees–they are ours to do with what we like–they are not the Government’s, Mr. Dickie said.

News of Kyotos Death Spreads; UK Government Steps Up Pressure on Bush Administration; Lomborg Vindicated

by William Yeatman on January 6, 2004

in Kyoto Negotiations, Politics, Science

The realization that the Kyoto Protocol is as good as dead seems to be slowly spreading through the American media establishment.

For example, The New York Post ran an editorial on Dec. 28 that stated, The truth is that Kyoto is dead, and has been for some time. The article, entitled Kyoto Protocol, RIP, concluded, Kyoto was a bad idea in 1997, and it’s a bad idea today. If President Putin’s government scotches all remaining hope for its coming into effect, Russia will have done the whole world a favor. The Post echoed a Dec. 2 editorial in The Wall Street Journal.

First to break the establishment party line, however, was The New York Times, which on Dec. 31 forgot to assert that Russia was still moving towards ratification of the protocol, despite all evidence to the contrary (see last issue). In an article reviewing Russias drift away from Europe and towards America in many policy areas, the Times pointed out that, In recent negotiations over joining the World Trade Organization and ratifying the Kyoto treaty on climate change, Russia has clashed fundamentally with Europe’s vision on free markets and the environment, arguing in both cases that its unique geography merits exclusive consideration. By admitting that Russia has turned away from Europe on the issue, it basically admitted the protocol was no longer a going concern.

A few days later, The Denver Post actually used the d-word, but urged activists to fight on, writing, The Kyoto treaty is dead, but its demise must not end focused, concerted efforts to slow global warming (Jan. 4).

Even the Council on Foreign Relations got in on the act. In an interview for Newsday (Jan. 4), Council President Richard Haass admitted that Kyoto was the wrong approach from the start. The paper summarized his views as follows: Haass is critical of the administration for rejecting such diplomatic initiatives as the International Criminal Court and the Kyoto Treaty on global warming without offering alternatives. Even if those were proposals were flawed-and the facts suggest they were-the United States could have maintained a consensus by proposing better ways to accomplish the goals, Haass says.

Cooler Heads looks forward to reporting more obituary notices, as the news spreads among the protocols band of diehard supporters.

UK Government Steps Up Pressure on Bush Administration

In what now appears to be a two-pronged assault on the U.S. administrations position on climate change, the UK Governments Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir David King, published an article in Science magazine (Jan. 9) that asserted the reality of damaging global warming and attacked the administration for failing to act to prevent it.

Kings article began with a series of highly questionable assertions: Climate change is real, and the causal link to increased greenhouse emissions is now well established. Globally, the ten hottest years on record have occurred since 1991, and in the past century, temperatures have risen by about 0.6C. In that same period, global sea level has risen by about 20 cm-partly from melting of land ice and partly from thermal expansion of the oceans. Ice caps are disappearing from many mountain peaks, and summer and autumn Arctic sea ice has thinned by up to 40% in recent decades, although there is some evidence for stabilization.

The article continues, In Britain, usage of the Thames Barrier, which protects London from flooding down the Thames Estuary, has increased from less than once a year in the 1980s to an average of more than six times a year (see the figure, below). This is a clear measure of increased frequency of high storm surges around North Sea coasts, combined with high flood levels in the River Thames. Last year, Europe experienced an unprecedented heat wave, France alone bearing around 15,000 excess or premature fatalities as a consequence. Although this was clearly an extreme event, when average temperatures are rising, extreme temperature events become more frequent and more serious. In my view, climate change is the most severe problem that we are facing today-more serious even than the threat of terrorism.

King concluded with an appeal to international solidarity: The United States is already in the forefront of the science and technology of global change, and the next step is surely to tackle emissions control, too. We can only overcome this challenge by facing it together, shoulder to shoulder. We in the rest of the world are now looking to the U.S.A. to play its leading part.

As this issue went to press, the Independent revealed the other part of the strategy on Sunday (Jan. 11), which said that, (Prime Minister) Tony Blair is persuading President George Bush to launch a new international initiative to fight global warming. The move, in part an attempt by Mr. Blair to shrug off the label as the President’s poodle, is the result of a series of behind-the-scenes meetings between high-level officials, the Independent on Sunday has learnt. The two leaders are close to agreement on combating climate change at the next two G8 meetings of the world’s most powerful leaders.

The article went on to explain the meetings referred to: Last month, Professor Sir David King Mr. Blair’s chief scientific adviserled a delegation to Washington to work out the details with senior members of the Bush administration. The President will concentrate in this year’s summit on how to develop new technologies. Senior scientists and environmentalists consulted by Sir David in Washington warned him that Mr. Blair would have to go far beyond merely endorsing these technologies if he wanted to avoid being seen as the Mr. Bush’s poodle. They stressed Britain must insist that more than enough is already known about the dangers of global warming to demand immediate action to cut the pollution that causes it.

It is not yet known to what extent the Independents coverage reflects wishful thinking on the part of Sir David and his colleagues. Such a major change in the Bush administrations position seems highly unlikely, especially after Sir Davids scathing attack on the administration in subsequent press interviews.

Lomborg Vindicated

On January 11 last year, the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD) found Bjrn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist, guilty of scientific dishonesty in writing the book. Alarmists hailed the decision as proof that the immensely popular work was flawed, while more careful observers who bothered to read the flimsy judgment excoriated it. The Economist magazine, for instance, commented, The panel’s ruling-objectively speaking-is incompetent and shameful.

The Danish Ministry of Technology, which oversees the DCSD, agreed on December 17. The Ministry quashed the judgment, declaring, amongst many other harsh criticisms, that, The DCSD has not documented where [Dr Lomborg] has allegedly been biased in his choice of data and in his argumentation, and… the ruling is completely void of argumentation for why the DCSD find that the complainants are right in their criticisms of [his] working methods. It is not sufficient that the criticisms of a researcher’s working methods exist; the DCSD must consider the criticisms and take a position on whether or not the criticisms are justified, and why.

Referring to the lack of solid evidence against him, Dr Lomborg commented that it has now been established that…mudslinging is not enough. You have to use solid arguments. The DCSD now have to decide whether to reopen Dr Lomborgs case.

Little Happens at Gloomy COP-9; EU Commissioner “Torpedoes” Kyoto; Russian Position Further Clarified; Joke on Kyoto

by William Yeatman on December 16, 2003

in Kyoto Negotiations, Politics

Little Happens at Gloomy COP-9

The ninth conference of the parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP-9), held in Milan, Italy, from December 1 to 12, was a low-key affair made gloomy by statements from Russian officials that Russia could not ratify the Kyoto Protocol in its present form and by an extraordinary announcement by Margot Wallstrom, the European Unions environment commissioner. Wallstrom warned that only two of the EUs fifteen members — the United Kingdom and Sweden — were on course to meet their Kyoto targets for greenhouse gas emissions.

Agreement was reached on several technical issues related to implementing the Kyoto Protocol. The most contentious issue was whether carbon sinks using genetically-modified organisms could be counted. Environmentalists denounced the use of “Frankentrees” on the grounds that one environmental catastrophe should not be used to precipitate another. But delegates finally agreed that each countrys own laws on GMOs would determine whether GMOs could be used in that country.

With prospects for Kyoto dimming, many side events put on by NGOs and governments were on the subject of what to do next. It seems unlikely that a second commitment period after 2012 can be agreed. Thus various alternatives were discussed, often with a fair degree of candor. It seemed to the editor that two broad camps were being formed at COP-9.

In the pragmatist camp were those NGOs that support a wide variety of future approaches to cutting greenhouse gas emissions. The working idea at present is that all these approaches could be part of an a la carte menu that nations could choose from in order to fulfil their second round commitments.

The idealist camp has settled on promoting the “contraction and convergence” model developed by Aubrey Meyer of Londons Global Commons Institute. Contraction and convergence assigns every person on Earth an identical emissions quota. Over time, this quota would be reduced to the level of average emissions in the poorest countries. In the meantime, richer nations could buy rights to emit from poorer nations. As the quota went down each year, the cost of buying them would go up, so that in theory national per capita incomes would converge at the level of the poorer nations.

Dr. R. K. Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, tried to liven up the proceedings by putting out a press release attacking Ian Castles and David Henderson, who have published a devastating analysis of the IPCCs climate scenarios. The claims made in the press release will only sound plausible to those who have not read Castles and Henderson.

The United States sent a large delegation of approximately sixty officials, headed by Under Secretary of State Paula Dobriansky and Senior Climate Negotiator Harlan Watson. They made presentations on the U. S.s technological research initiatives. In addition, a congressional delegation headed by Senator James Inhofe (R-Ok.), chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, spent December 10 and 11 at the meeting. Senator Inhofe did create a stir at a briefing when he gave a 45-minute speech on the flawed science supporting global warming alarmism. He and two of his colleagues, Senators Larry Craig (R-Id.) and Craig Thomas (R-Wyo.), were immediately denounced in a multi-page press release complete with photos of the three put out by the National Environmental Trust, an NGO pressure group of questionable trustworthiness.

The big event for the World Wildlife Fund, Greenpeace, the United Nations Environment Programme, and several other groups was the launch of the “international climate symbol.” It consists of a blue and green Earth with a candle flame on top dripping white wax down the side. This symbol can be viewed at www.saveourclimate.org.

EU Commissioner “Torpedoes” Kyoto

At the same time as the European Unions intergovernmental summit on the proposed EU constitution was dissolving in acrimony, cracks began to appear at the commissioner level in EU unity over its approach to the Kyoto Protocol.

EU Energy Commissioner Loyola de Palacio told a meeting of member state energy ministers in Brussels that it would be “suicide” for the EU to follow the Kyoto treaty if Russia did not ratify. “The time has come for us to face reality,” dePalacio said. “We can’t go on pretending that everything is fine when it’s not.”

Italian Industry Minister Antonio Marzano, whose country currently holds the rotating EU presidency, added further fuel to the fire when he said the EU could suffer competitively if it was alone in implementing Kyoto. According to Reuters (Dec. 17), he went on, “Clearly we (energy and environment ministers) are going to have to pool our resources on this…if we are going to find a balance.”

Environmentalists have reacted angrily to the Commissioners stance. “(She) is actively torpedoing the EU’s efforts to keep Kyoto alive,” Stephan Singer, head of the World Wildlife Funds climate and energy policy unit, said in a statement (Reuters, Dec. 18).

Russian Position Further Clarified

Russias position on ratifying the Kyoto Protocol continues to baffle those who do not follow the Russian press. Following the statement of President Putins chief economic adviser, Andrei Illarionov, on Dec. 2 that Russia would not ratify Kyoto “in its present form,” environmentalists and their allies have clung to the words the next day of Deputy Economics Minister, Mukhmed Tsikanov, who said that Russia was continuing “to move towards ratification.”

These interpretations ignore the fact, clearly evident from reports from Novosti, the Russian Information Agency, and the Moscow Times, that Dr. Illarionov was actually repeating a statement made at a private meeting by President Putin himself. As Novosti said, “At the meeting Vladimir Putin stated a position regarding Russia’s ratification of the Kyoto Protocol: it cannot be ratified in its present form as limiting the development of the Russian economy.” Dr. Illarionov himself underlined this when he told a news conference on Dec. 4, “The statement I made two days ago repeated word for word what the Russian president said at his meeting with EU representatives.” The statement by Minister Tsikanov was directly dealt with when Dr. Illarionov told Heritage Foundation fellow Ariel Cohen, “When Deputy Minister of Economy said recently that Russia is still negotiating, I corrected him saying that he reflected the Russian position in August. Things are different in December.” (Tech Central Station, Dec. 16).

Although not as widely reported as Tsikanovs statement, some have pointed to the comments of Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov during a visit to Kyoto on Dec. 16, when he said that Russia was moving towards ratification, but that Moscow needed to weigh the consequences of the protocol’s ratification and be convinced that other countries would take on similar burdens.

Dr. Illarionov clarified the position further on Dec. 17, according to the Interfax news agency, when he said that, “Only 32 out of 210 countries have ratified the protocol and committed to lowering greenhouse gas emissions”. Russia could join the protocol if more countries did, he said. Moreover, Russia should be excluded from the addendum listing the countries for which reduction of greenhouse gas emissions is mandatory when they sign the protocol. . . Another option would be excluding the emission reduction commitments from the protocol, he said.” None of these options is likely to be attractive to Kyoto enthusiasts.

Joke on Kyoto

As COP-9 opened, Joke Waller-Hunter, executive secretary of the U. N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, gave her vision of the future of the Kyoto protocol (BBC News Online, Nov. 29).

She began by ignoring reality in praising Chinas “progress” on greenhouse gas emissions. Apparently unaware of recent re-estimates of the amount of Chinas CO2 emissions and Indias recent announcement that it will accept no restrictions on emissions (see the Oct. 30 edition of the newsletter), Ms. Waller-Hunter said, “Countries like India, China and Cuba are all waiting for the protocol’s clean development mechanism to start working — that will let richer countries invest in projects to cut greenhouse gases in the developing world. The rapidly industrializing countries see their environmental and economic interests coinciding. China is really decoupling energy use from GDP.”

Ms. Waller-Hunter went on to admit that the Kyoto Protocol would have very little effect beyond preparing the world for much harsher restrictions. She said, “It’s wrong to think the protocol will do so little that it’s insignificant. It’s a very important first step that can lead to much more far-reaching measures. Yes, it’s a peanut, but a vital one in the long run.”

“At the moment only the industrialized (Annex One) countries have to cut their emissions, but within a few years these cuts will be obligatory for every country. We have to look at a future of increasing carbon constraints.”

Waller-Hunter then admitted that to get poorer countries to sign up would entail a form of massive redistribution of wealth from developed to developing countries when she said, “We shall have to find ways of making the principle of equity a reality, or it will be very hard to get the poorer countries involved.” Equity in emissions means equal per capita rights to emit greenhouse gases, which would require the developed world to buy the capacity it needs to sustain its economies from the developing world.

WHO Blames Preventable Deaths on Global Warming; Insurers Claim Global Warming Cost $60 Billion in 2003

by William Yeatman on December 16, 2003

in Blog

WHO Blames Preventable Deaths on Global Warming

The World Health Organization used the occasion of COP-9 to issue an alarmist estimate of 150,000 deaths in 2000 caused by global warming.

Although the data purportedly related to 3 years ago, the WHO researchers had no problem referring to the 20,000 deaths caused by this years heat wave in Europe (where for many of the deaths cultural and economic aspects were contributory factors). The researchers also ignored concerns that they had not counted any lives saved by warmer winters, saying, “There will be winners and losers. . . In a tropical city like Delhi, an increase in temperature is probably not going to save a lot of lives” (Associated Press, Dec. 11).

Most of the deaths were attributed to recent rises in preventable tropical diseases, such as malaria. Many observers actually attribute the rise in malaria to the decrease in the use of the pesticide DDT under pressure from environmentalists. Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute in Paris told Reuters (Dec. 11), “It is naive to predict the effects of global warming on malaria on the mere basis of temperature . . . Why don’t we devote our resources to tackling these diseases directly, instead of spending billions in vain attempts to change the weather?”

Insurers Claim Global Warming Cost $60 Billion in 2003

Also presenting tales of doom at COP-9 was the “Finance Initiative” of the United Nations Environment Programme. Using primary data collected by reinsurance company Munich Re, UNEP calculated that global warming-triggered natural disasters cost the world $60 billion in 2003, up $5 billion from 2002.

The biggest single element was the European heat wave, which cost the agricultural industry $10 billion, closely followed by floods in China that cost $8 billion and US tornadoes that cost $3 billion.

As is usually the case with these calculations, the alleged costs ignore the fact that more and more people are living, working and investing in areas historically susceptible to extreme weather conditions. They also ignore the fact that, as the head of the World Meteorological Organization has admitted (see the July 23 issue of the newsletter, there is not enough evidence to demonstrate that such extreme weather events are caused by global warming, or have increased in frequency (rather than being an artifact of increased reporting).

Urban Heat Island Effect Still an Issue; McIntyre and McKitrick Praised; More Fiddling with Paleoclimatology

by William Yeatman on December 16, 2003

in Science

Urban Heat Island Effect Still an Issue

British scientist Phillip Stott reports on an intriguing new piece of research on his highly-recommended EnviroSpin Watch web log (http://greenspin.blogspot.com). Canadian researcher Dr. Ian G. McKendry (University of British Columbia) has compiled a progress report on the question of the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect for the latest issue of Progress in Physical Geography: (PIPG 27[4], 2003, pp. 597-606).

Stott quotes him as saying that, “UHIs continue to present a problem for the detection of changes in the global surface temperature record (the so-called greenhouse effect). Typically the urban bias is removed from climate records on the basis of relatively simple regression models that utilize population size as an indicator of the urban excess…. Several studies have recently exploited long historic records to illustrate that such methods may not be sufficient to adequately correct for the urban bias.”

According to Stott, McKendry “further points out that recent studies have also begun to examine more closely the effects of UHI intensity on meteorological conditions, a topic first considered in 1951. Some of this new work indicates that the UHI effect may well be implicated in changes in both precipitation and storm patterns.”

Stott calls the article an “extremely well-referenced review.” McKendry concludes: “Recent studies suggest that attempts to remove the urban bias from long-term climate records (and hence identify the magnitude of the enhanced greenhouse effect) may be overly simplistic. This will likely continue to be a contentious issue in the climate change community.”

McIntyre and McKitrick Praised

The careful investigation of Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick into Michael Manns “hockey stick” data has received praise from sources not usually friendly to climate science skepticism.

Writing in Londons Observer (Dec. 7), influential British left-winger Will Hutton castigated the reception given to McIntyre and McKitricks paper, saying, “An important and neutral paper by Canadians Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick suggests that the best guess is that, while temperatures are currently rising, they probably lie within the range for the past 600 years. Environmentalists, just as in a battle over a new runway, are being as partisan in their use of science as their opponents.”

Meanwhile, University of California Berekeley physics professor Richard Muller, a long-time supporter of global warming alarmism, wrote in MITs Technology Review (Dec. 17), “Last months article by McIntyre and McKitrick raised pertinent questions. They had been given access (by Mann) to details of the work that were not publicly available. Independent analysis and (when possible) independent data sets are ultimately the arbiter of truth. This is precisely the way that science should, and usually does, proceed. Thats why Nobel Prizes are often awarded one to three decades after the work was completed — to avoid mistakes. Truth is not easy to find, but a slow process is the only one that works reliably.”

Muller continued, “It was unfortunate that many scientists endorsed the hockey stick before it could be subjected to the tedious review of time. Ironically, it appears that these scientists skipped the vetting precisely because the results were so important.”

More Fiddling with Paleoclimatology

There is further evidence for the existence of the Little Ice Age– in Europe at least — in new research on the history of violins, of all things. Two researchers believe they have found the answer in paleoclimatology to why Stradivariuss violins are so good.

The Associated Press reports (Dec. 8), “Grissino-Mayer at Tennessee and Dr. Lloyd Burckle at Columbia suggest a Little Ice Age that gripped Europe from the mid-1400s until the mid-1800s slowed tree growth and yielded uncommonly dense Alpine spruce for Antonio Stradivari and other famous 17th-century Italian violinmakers.

“The ice age reached its coldest point during a 70-year period from 1645-1715 known as the Maunder Minimum, which was named after the 19th century solar astronomer, E.W. Maunder, who documented a lack of solar activity during the period.

“Stradivari was born a year before the Maunder Minimum began, and he produced his most prized and valued stringed instruments as the period ended — his golden period from 1700-1720.

“We would suggest that the narrow tree rings that identify the Maunder Minimum in Europe played a role in the enhanced sound quality of instruments produced by the Cremona [Italy] violinmakers,” Grissino-Mayer and Burckle write, noting that “narrow tree rings would not only strengthen the violin but would increase the wood’s density.”

“The onset of the Maunder Minimum at a time when the skills of the Cremonese violinmakers reached their zenith perhaps made the difference in the violin’s tone and brilliance,” they conclude.

AGU Issues Statement on Climate Change

The American Geophysical Union has issued its long-awaited new position statement on climate change (available on the internet at http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html). The position paper is the usual blend of carefully-worded scientific platitudes used to back up alarmist rhetoric.

For instance, the statement says, “Model projections of future global warming vary, because of differing estimates of population growth, economic activity, greenhouse gas emission rates, changes in atmospheric particulate concentrations and their effects, and also because of uncertainties in climate models.” In other words, lots of non-scientific factors are essentially guesswork, compounding the scientific uncertainties.

The statement goes on to stress investment in “education of the next generation of climate scientists.” Could the AGU be worried that some scientists might not naturally incline towards study of climate science without the lure of research grants? Why ever not?

Announcements

Federal Government Seeks Contributors for IPCC Report

The following announcement appeared in the Federal Register on Dec. 12:

United States Climate Change Science Program

ACTION: Request U.S. nomination of experts for consideration as coordinating lead authors, lead authors, contributing authors, expert reviewers, and review editors for the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

SUMMARY: The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis, the scientific, technical, and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts, and options for adaptation and mitigation. The IPCC has three working groups: Working Group I assesses the scientific aspects of the climate system and climate change; Working Group II assesses the vulnerability of socio-economic and natural systems to climate change, negative and positive consequences of climate change, and options for adapting to it; and Working Group III assesses options for limiting greenhouse gas emissions and otherwise mitigating climate change. The IPCC provides scientific, technical, and socio-economic advice to the world community, and in particular to the parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) through its periodic assessment reports and special reports. The IPCC has decided to continue to prepare comprehensive assessment reports and agreed to complete its Fourth Assessment Report in 2007.

The U.S. Government has received a request from the IPCC to nominate experts for consideration as coordinating lead authors, lead authors, contributing authors, expert reviewers, and review editors for the different chapters and volumes of the Fourth Assessment Report.

Further information on this request — such as the IPCC request for nominations, the approved outlines of the three IPCC working groups for the AR4, a description of the roles and responsibilities associated with them, and a nomination form that must be completed for each nominee — may be found at either the IPCC Secretariat (http://www.ipcc.ch/ar4/nominations/nominations.htm) or CCSP (http://www.climatescience.gov)

DATES: Completed nomination forms for each nominee should be returned to the Climate Change Science Program Office (ipcc_nominations@usgcrp.gov) by noon Monday, January 5, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Allen, U.S. Climate Change Science Program, Suite 250, 1717 Pennsylvania Ave, NW., Washington, DC

Report from COP-9 – December 12, 2003

by William Yeatman on December 11, 2003

in Kyoto Negotiations

Milan — The last day is devoted mostly to “Plenary Roundtables,” which slight previous experience has taught me are tedious beyond bearing, but I had to miss them anyway to catch my plane out of Milan. Luckily, I’ve saved up bits and pieces on the big topic of COP-9. Whither Kyoto? What do we do now? Or what do we do next? A number of side events, and the best ones in my view, were on these most interesting questions. The wheels may have come off the Kyoto bandwagon, but there has been quick agreement behind the scenes on one conclusion: whether the Kyoto Protocol goes into force or not, let all proclaim to every people in every land that it has already succeeded. The world has been set by Kyoto on an inevitable course of energy deprivation. Beyond that, there’s not much agreement. Oh, there’s one more thing that everyone from so-called developing countries agrees on. Developing countries are eager to join the second round of commitments after 2012. By that they mean that they are eager to receive money from rich countries. Not economic growth, but cash transfers to governments. The Kyoto round has been disappointing in terms of wealth re-distribution, but hopes remain for the future among officials from poor countries.

I don’t have the attention span necessary to recount and analyze all the proposals and suggestions I’ve heard over the last few days, but they fall into three broad categories. First, there are those who think that targets and timetables have a future in a second round of commitments and beyond. With the U. S. out, Australia out, Russia probably out, Japan with no way to meet its target, the EU failing to meet its targets, and no enforcement mechanism in the protocol, this is not a very robust camp at the moment. But it is still the official line, at least until such time as a new official line is agreed upon.

Second, there are those who are advocating an a la carte approach after 2012. Put a number of approaches on a menu, including targets and timetables, technology-forcing projects, voluntary commitments, and technology and financial transfers to poor countries. Then let each nation choose some of these and call whatever results compliance. This approach to Kyoto round two gets around the problem that no one is doing much to meet their commitments, besides creating a lot of offices and programs and institutes. It sounds rather a poor thing right now, but no doubt the clever people at places like the Pew Center on Climate Change (which I must remind everyone is an industry-front group funded by the Pew family’s fortune derived from owning the Sun Oil Company) can work it up into something most impressive. It’s too bad that Enron is no longer the leading business member of the Pew Center because conjuring grand appearances out of thin (or perhaps I should say hot) air was Enron’s specialty.

The third approach is to decide that every person on the Earth has a right to emit the same amount of greenhouse gases. So the way to do it is to assign everyone an equal emissions quota. If people in America or France want to use more energy, then they will have to buy quotas from people who wish to live a more authentic way of life-that is, from poor people in poor countries. The kicker to this truly zany idea is that the emissions quota to which each person has a right will keep going down until it’s at the level of a poor person in a poor country. Then those who wish to use more energy will be out of luck. No more quotas to buy! Everyone will then be blessed with an authentic lifestyle and get to go to sleep when the sun goes down. This so-called “contraction and convergence” approach appeals to both unreconstructed communists and to human rights absolutists. It has a certain moral force for those lost souls who have completely lost their bearings in the world. So it ought to be the winner in these darkening times. Alas, contraction and convergence has some practical problems that will confine its popularity to the chattering classes. The individual emissions quotas would be too small to make it worthwhile for each person to buy and sell-the problem of high transaction costs. Thus the quotas will have to be bundled up and sold by larger entities, such as nations. France may want to buy emissions quotas from, say, the tyrant Mugabe, but I just don’t see Lori Wallach at Public Citizen allowing such unethical trade. There is a more fundamental practical problem. People in poor countries won’t tolerate it. They want to become wealthier and therefore to use more energy. They won’t agree to living forever in an artificially energy-poor world.

I’ve said that the wheels have come off the Kyoto bandwagon. Don’t conclude therefore that Kyoto is dead and the sun is shining again. Kyoto is dying and will almost certainly die. But the Rio Treaty-the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change-lives on and is really the problem. Rio is a noose around our necks, and Rio created the process that is beginning to tighten that noose. The global warming establishment has become overwhelming in its size and resources and ambitions. There are hundreds of NGOs, hundreds of institutes and university programs, and hundreds of government agencies that are spending billions of dollars to figure out how to make tomorrow poorer and darker than today. Rio is the noose, and we must figure out how to cut the rope.

[My apologies for the delay in sending these reports.]

Report from COP-9 – December 11, 2003

by William Yeatman on December 10, 2003

in Kyoto Negotiations

Milan — R. K. Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, addressed the key question in the Framework Convention on Climate Change, namely what level of greenhouse gas concentrations constitutes “dangerous interference” with the climate system. That’s what the Rio Treaty and its Kyoto Protocol are supposed to prevent, so it’s an important question to answer. I don’t have Pachauri’s text in front of me, but his answer seems to be that whatever feels dangerous to us is dangerous for us. To put it less flippantly, because it is a legitimate point, each region and country will be affected in different ways by global warming; therefore what level is considered to reach dangerous interference will vary according to these effects. Of course, Pachauri didn’t mention that large parts of the world will find many of the effects beneficial.

While each of us may think that it us up to us to make a personal decision about what is dangerous interference with the climate system for us, it turns out that the environmentalists have already decided for us. I’ve heard this at several side events from several NGOs and government research institutes. “Dangerous interference” is whatever level of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere will lead to a two degrees Celsius warming. So now you know. Since two degrees Celsius is near the low end of the predictions for 2100 in the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report, this means that the alarmists can now define whatever predictions the next IPCC report comes up with as all being beyond the level of “dangerous interference.” It’s a pretty neat trick, especially since most of the ecologists and economists who’ve studied it, such as are found in the two volumes of essays edited by Robert Mendelsohn, predict that a two degree warming will be beneficial on the whole for humankind.

The International Policy Network held a press conference this afternoon to launch their new book, edited by Kendra Okonski of IPN, and formerly my colleague at CEI. Adapt or Die: the science, politics, and economics of climate change is a rather unfortunately-titled collection of essays on themes subversive of the Kyoto orthodoxy. Kendra, Julian Morris of IPN, Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institut, Martin Agerup from a Danish futurist think tank, and Andrew Kenny from South Africa’s University of Cape Town all said sensible things in a low-key way. Paul Reiter mentioned that on the subject of vector-borne diseases, the IPCC had managed to conjure up a case for global warming leading to more malaria, dengue fever, etc. by relying on people who didn’t know anything about the causes of the spread of vector-borne diseases. He said that six “experts” on the Third Assessment Report had published nine scholarly articles on the subject between them, while his group of three experts who were not consulted had published 635 scholarly articles (forgive me, Paul, if I haven’t gotten the numbers exactly right). The response was long counter-speeches from the floor by the usual assortment of professional bores who populate these meetings.

The official ministerial meeting has produced one agreement–on how to count carbon sinks toward meeting Kyoto targets. It’s complicated and I don’t know all the details, but I do know that the environmentalists have been defeated or partially defeated on one key issue. The environmentalists insisted that one environmental catastrophe, namely global warming, not be used to precipitate another environmental catastrophe. Thus they opposed allowing genetically-modified organisms to be used as carbon sinks. In the end, the conference of the parties agreed that each nation could follow its own laws on GMOs. So get ready for a big fundraising campaign against Frankentrees.

[My apologies for the delay in sending these reports.]

Report from COP-9 – December 10, 2003

by William Yeatman on December 9, 2003

in Kyoto Negotiations

Milan — This year’s COP is a subdued affair, with little on the official agenda besides endless technical discussions about exactly how best to make the world a darker and poorer place. There is also considerable gloom and frustration among the delegates and NGOs caused by the dysfunctional negotiating process, by the real possibility that Russia won’t ratify the Kyoto Protocol, thereby preventing it from coming into force, and by the presentation last week by Margot Wallstrom, the EU’s commissioner for the environment. According to Wallstrom, only two of the EU’s fifteen member provinces (the United Kingdom and Sweden) are on a path to meet their Kyoto targets. This may cause only a few mild expressions of regret in Berlin and Paris, because after all the protocol no longer contains any enforcement provisions, but risking the wrath of Wallstrom will cause some sleepless nights in at least the lesser capital cities of Europe.

Today, however, there was at least one political spark to liven up the dreary routine. Within a couple hours after arriving with the U. S. congressional delegation on an overnight military flight from Washington, Senator James Inhofe was giving the kind of speech that just isn’t given at polite diplomatic functions. For forty-five minutes, the Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee laid out the case against global warming alarmism and the Kyoto Protocol to a packed briefing room. It was a shorter version of the memorable speech he gave on the Senate floor last July. He even brought along thirty or so of the charts and quotations blown up on large styrofoam poster boards that he had used on the Senate floor. Or, rather, I should say that a loyal staff member, Aloysius Hogan, lugged them on the trip and had just about enough energy left to hold them up while Senator Inhofe was speaking.

The U. S. congressional delegation also included senators Larry Craig, Jeff Sessions, and Craig Thomas and Representatives Fred Upton and Chris Cannon. Representatives Jim Greenwood and Chris Shays came on the same plane, but for some reason didn’t participate in the briefing. Afterwards, Senator Larry Craig confided that he really wanted to win one of the coveted Fossil of the Day awards, but that he didn’t know what he could say to top Inhofe. The U. S. delegation has won a lion’s share of this year’s Fossil of the Days.

The National Environmental Trust (a group which has little do to with the environment and nothing at all to do with trust) responded with a multi-page press release with photos of the leading climate criminals-Inhofe, Craig, and Thomas-on the front. Large posters with a color photo of Inhofe and a quote from his Senate floor speech (Global warming is the “greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people”) appeared up and down the halls. Clearly, the alarmists know who their principal opponent is. Most of these posters were quickly torn down by someone who didn’t want to give Inhofe any free publicity, but I managed to save one and plan to bring it back to Washington.

That was the big excitement for today and possibly for the whole week at COP-9. It’s a sad sign of the low level of activity that the big event for WWF and Greenpeace was the launch of–get this–the International Climate Symbol. It’s a blue and green Earth with a candle burning on top and white wax dripping down the side. I got one of the pathetic little pins and also a pamphlet about how NGOs, businesses, and individuals can sign up to use it on their stationery and products. You can sign the climate loyalty oath online at www.saveourclimate.org and thereby qualify to use the symbol.

[My apologies for the delay in sending these reports.]

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →