Meanwhile, while checking out Ican's latest group of new skeptics cited, I ran across this piece emphasizing that this refreshing new snowball is also gaining momentum elsewhere in environmentally conscious Europe:
Proliferation of Climate Scepticism in Europe
By Hans H.J. Labohm PhD: 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'.
LINK
