Chinese Academy Of Science Publishes Climate-Sceptical NIPCC Report
UN Climate Talks Collapse Amid Acrimony In Bonn
Breitbart News can exclusively report on Tuesday night that the Chinese Academy of Sciences has translated and published a Chinese edition of two massive climate change volumes originally published by The Heartland Institute in 2009 and 2011. Together, they represent the most comprehensive rebuttal of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change findings, which have been the basis of the climate change legislation movement across the planet. The Chinese Academy of Sciences is set to present the publication on June 15 at a major ceremony in Beijing. --Breitbart News, 11 June 2013
A vital track of the UN climate talks in Bonn has collapsed after nations failed to resolve a dispute over the meeting’s agenda. Eight days into the two week meeting, a proposed addition by Russia to the agenda of the session dealing with the UN’s decision-making process was not accepted. A compromise deal presented to governments in the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) meeting this morning was rejected by Russia, Ukraine and Belarus. It means sensitive discussions on climate compensation, adaptation and finance will now not be discussed within the process until the main summit in Warsaw this coming November. --John Parnell, Responding to Climate Change, 11 June 2013
Mounting optimism that the UN's long-running climate change talks were making good progress in the run-up to the crucial Paris Summit in 2015 were dealt a major blow yesterday as a key negotiating track was suspended at the latest meeting in Bonn. The UN's climate change secretariat, the UNFCCC, confirmed the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI), which advises on the implementation of UN climate change agreements including commitments on climate funding and adaptation, had suspended talks after failing to agree an agenda for the talks that will be carried out in the run-up to this year's annual COP summit in Poland. –-Business Green, 12 June 2013
Should the Liberal Party (Venstre) form the new government after Denmark’s general election, it will abandon current energy policies. And one of the first to be removed would be the financial support for onshore wind turbines. The party’s plan is backed by the Danish People’s Party and the Conservatives. --Dagbladet Børsen, 12 June 2013
Why did you set up a Global Warming Policy Foundation? Benny Peiser: Well, it was important because there was simply no debate whatsoever in Britain. At the time when we started, in 2009, all parties were completely in agreement. Almost all sections of the media were in complete agreement. We thought this is unhealthy. We thought there needed to be a very vigorous debate and that is the main goal of our organization. --Benny Peiser, Frontier Centre for Public Policy, June 2013
1) Chinese Academy Of Science Publishes Chinese Edition Of Climate-Sceptical NIPCC Report - Breitbart News, 11 June 2013
2) UN Climate Talks Collapse Amid Acrimony In Bonn - Responding to Climate Change, 11 June 2013
3) Mugged By Reality: Liberal Party Promises To Abolish Wind Subsidies After Danish Elections - Dagbladet Børsen, 12 June 2013
4) Benny Peiser On Europe’s Green Energy Crisis - Frontier Centre for Public Policy, June 2013
1) Chinese Academy Of Science Publishes Chinese Edition Of Climate-Sceptical NIPCC Report
Breitbart News, 11 June 2013
Breitbart News can exclusively report on Tuesday night that the Chinese Academy of Sciences has translated and published a Chinese edition of two massive climate change volumes originally published by The Heartland Institute in 2009 and 2011.
The volumes, Climate Change Reconsidered and Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report, are chock full of 1,200 pages of peer-reviewed data concerning the veracity of anthropogenic climate change. Together, they represent the most comprehensive rebuttal of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change findings, which have been the basis of the climate change legislation movement across the planet.
The Chinese Academy of Sciences is set to present the publication on June 15 at a major ceremony in Beijing. The Academy employs approximately 50,000 people and hosts 350 international conferences each year, and is one of the most prestigious scientific academies in the world, ranked ahead of every Ivy League school save Harvard.
Jim Lakely, director of communications at the Heartland Institute, told Breitbart News, “Translating and publishing nearly 1,300 pages of peer-reviewed scientific literature from English to Chinese is no small task, and indicative of how important CAS considers Climate Change Reconsidered to the global climate change debate. That CAS has invited the authors and editors of Climate Change Reconsidered to a conference this Saturday in Beijing to introduce the studies is yet another indicator of how important it is to get this information out to a wider audience.”
A December 2012 UN meeting designed to provide climate change regulations ended in failure after China refused to sign a global climate change treaty. China was joined by the United States, as well as Canada, India, Japan, Russia, and Brazil. “Opposition to a new climate treaty is justified based upon the real science presented in Climate Change Reconsidered,” explains Heartland Institute President Joseph Bast.
While some critics have charged that China may be fostering research on climate change that facilitates its political positions, Lakely pointed out, “China doesn’t need an excuse. The country can (and is) doing what it thinks is in its best interests — as are many countries in the developed and developing world.”
The New York Times noted this week that global CO2 emissions have “accumulated in the atmosphere at a record pace” over the last 15 years, but global temperatures have remained flat. The Times notes “the slowdown is a bit of a mystery to climate scientists,” but Lakely said, “it becomes less mysterious when one reads Climate Change Reconsidered. The timing for CAS publishing its translation could hardly be better for the advancement of climate science understanding.”
Lakely said that this could mark the turning point in the climate change debate, and that a global consensus was beginning to form against regulation of emissions.
“The latest observable climate data, new studies from scientific academies around the globe, the peer-reviewed studies one can find in Climate Change Reconsidered, and its translation and publication by the prestigious Chinese Academy of Sciences is making life difficult for those who declare with certainty that man is causing catastrophic global warming,” he explained.
“That's the way it should be. No scientific discipline is ever ‘settled’ — especially a discipline as young, as complicated, and as diffuse as climate science. The Heartland Institute is proud to support and promote the pursuit of the classic scientific method that follows the data and continually asks questions about what is happening to the climate of our planet.”
2) UN Climate Talks Collapse Amid Acrimony In Bonn
Responding to Climate Change, 11 June 2013
A vital track of the UN climate talks in Bonn has collapsed after nations failed to resolve a dispute over the meeting’s agenda.
Eight days into the two week meeting, a proposed addition by Russia to the agenda of the session dealing with the UN’s decision-making process was not accepted.
A compromise deal presented to governments in the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) meeting this morning was rejected by Russia, Ukraine and Belarus.
It means sensitive discussions on climate compensation, adaptation and finance will now not be discussed within the process until the main summit in Warsaw this coming November.
The SBI session of the UN climate talks in Bonn failed to agree an agenda (Source: Flickr/UNFCCC)
The issue stems from the Doha meeting last year when an extension to the Kyoto Protocol was pushed through despite concerns from those three countries. Russia now wants to reappraise the talks’ rules of procedure. In an interview with RTCC, Russia’s negotiator Oleg Shamanov said the process was “nonsense” if it ignored the rules.
Following a short break delegates returned to the hall to hear Russia compare the process to a “melting glacier” and a “haunted house”.
Governments have less than three years to agree a new universal climate treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol, the world’s only binding climate agreement.
A sit became clear no compromise would be found, Chair of the SBI Tomasz Chruszczow reminded delegates that the UN’s climate change convention’s main objective was to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
“This was agreed 20 years ago. We are no closer to this goal today. I won’t let this process jump from one obstacle to another. The Chair is in the service of the Parties, but it is up to the Parties to save the world,” he said.
The session will resume on Friday with the sole purpose of officially closing it.
3) Mugged By Reality: Liberal Party Promises To Abolish Wind Subsidies After Danish Elections
Dagbladet Børsen, 12 June 2013
Should the Liberal Party (Venstre) form the new government after Denmark’s general election, it will abandon current energy policies. And one of the first to be removed would be the financial support for onshore wind turbines.
Photovoltaics subsidies show that current energy policy is unsustainable, the party’s energy spokesman, Lars Christian Lilleholt, told this newspaper.
“We need to stop the current regime and instead use the market as an instrument so that we promote those energy sources that are the cheapest,” he says.
Soon after the summer, the Liberal Party plans to launch a discussion on post-2020 energy policy.
Lilleholt stressed specifically that the Liberals will drop support for onshore wind turbines which, in a few years time, are expected to be able to cope with market conditions.
The party’s plan is backed by the Danish People’s Party and the Conservatives.
4) Benny Peiser On Europe’s Green Energy Crisis
Frontier Centre for Public Policy, June 2013
Europe’s Green Energy policies have promoted inefficient wind and solar power, imposed carbon taxes and emissions trading systems across that continent which have caused soaring energy prices, economic decline and plunged millions of families into fuel poverty. Dr. Benny Peiser is the founder and editor of the world’s leading climate policy network and one of Europe’s most influential climate policy analysts recently outlined story during his recent visit to Canada. Dr. Peiser was interviewed after his speech to the Friends of Science/Frontier Centre luncheon in Calgary, 14 May 2013
Frontier Centre: Why did you set up a Global Warming Policy Foundation?
Benny Peiser: Well, it was important because there was simply no debate whatsoever in Britain. At the time when we started, in 2009, all parties were completely in agreement. Almost all sections of the media were in complete agreement. We thought this is unhealthy. We thought there needed to be a very vigorous debate and that is the main goal of our organization.
FC: So why has Europe and Britain so strongly embraced the idea of man-made climate change?
BP: It’s not just Britain. It’s all over Europe. The climate change fear has become a collective obsession for a number of reasons. The media hyped it up for obvious reasons, scientists hyped it up, and it captured the imagination of vast sections of the society, but no one was willing to scrutinize the very basic assumptions of the scare. We thought we had to do both: a) Look very carefully at the claims and the predictions, not so much on the science but more on the kind of claims, like what’s going to happen in the future, and in particular on the economic costs of the policies that were being promoted and introduced.
FC: You mentioned that the policy involves the largest wealth transfer between the poor and the rich in history during your talk. Can you just expand on that?
BP: We are talking about a wealth transfer in the order of about 600 billion euros in the last eight years. Subsidies paid to green investors, mainly land owners and very wealthy families who put up large solar panels on their farms or roofs. These 600 billion euros are being paid by ordinary families and small, medium sized businesses to the most privileged members of European society. That is [one of] the biggest wealth transfer in modern Europe for a very, very, long time if not ever.
FC: You highlighted the irony of the U.S., which has no climate change policy, lowering its greenhouse gas emissions while Europe raises its emission with its own very interventionist policy.
BP: It is obviously a little bit of geological luck that America discovered all these huge reserves in shale gas and it wasn’t government policy. In fact, government perhaps would’ve been more reluctant than the private sector to exploit the shale reserves, but as a direct result of finding this hugely abundant form of natural gas it made gas cheap so that it could compete with coal. There is a strong move in the U.S. from coal-fired power plants to gas-fired power plants. That in itself is mainly responsible for the significant drop in CO2 emissions in the U.S. Europe, on the other hand, so far has opposed shale gas extraction and is going for coal. Therefore the opposite result.
FC: It has been said that ‘green is the new red’. In fact one of your countrymen has written a book about the watermelons. There seems to be also a correlation between this kind of movement and the obsession with planning. As a social scientist, has this been part of your observation?
BP: Well, it would be much easier for everyone if it just were a case of the Left taking on this issue. Unfortunately, in Europe almost every party of all political persuasions is advocating central planning and has turned green. It’s not a left-right issue at all in Europe. It’s completely and utterly embraced by all parties and the right is just as keen on central planning as the left.
FC: Just a follow up on that. One of the many things that struck folks from your presentation today was this analogy to religion. You talked about crucifixes and shale gas. It has connotations of Norman Cohn’s “The Pursuit of the Millennium”. Could you elaborate a little on this?
BP: Well, obviously there is a lot of similarity between the global warming hysteria, including its Salvationist arm of the scare. On one hand, you have the fear that we face doomsday. On the other hand, the salvationist solution proposed is to build wind farms. So it has very many similarities to a millennial movement which throughout history, including secular movements like communism, where the fear is hyped up and a salvationist and utopian solution is being proposed. In almost all of these cases it is the elite driving the fear and proposing the solution and it is the elite that benefits from these solutions. The only people in Europe really benefiting to a huge extent are green investors. We’re talking less than the 1%. To talk in the Occupy Wall Street terminology: it is less than 1% of the population who is making huge amounts of money on the back of this scare.
FC: The climate models are not working and there is this awkward silence out there about that. They’re predicting 2 degrees warming and it’s not happening. CO2 is rising, but we have very cold weather. Do you think the media will eventually acknowledge that the facts just don’t fit the theory?
BP: The media in Britain is split. I don’t think any other country has such a vigorous media than Britain. The media is extremely split. You have the centre-right media, some of the national papers, the Murdoch publications, that are much more skeptical and that make the point you were asking about the discrepancies between the models and the predictions and reality. Then you have the center-left media, including the BBC, who have always been very reluctant to report anything that contradicts the green narrative. So it’s very split, but the fact that you have very significant sections of the media who are very critical has made all the difference. That has swayed MP’s, a lot of MP’s, that something needs to be done about the costs.
FC: We have politicians in Canada that are still pushing carbon taxes and even cap and trade but your story from Europe is one where the results have not been encouraging. What’s happened with Cap and Trade and Carbon Taxes in Europe?
BP: Well, it has essentially collapsed. The whole emissions trading scheme has completely collapsed to the extent that the members of parliament of the European parliament are no longer willing to rescue it. An important event happened only four weeks ago – it was like a wake-up call: Europe is no longer willing to support – no matter the cost – Europe’s dying flag ship climate policy, that is the emission trading scheme. It has completely and utterly failed. So the message today to the Canadian audience, whoever wants to listen, is: you have to look at what’s happening in Europe and not repeat the same mistakes. Be more careful, don’t rush into things, wait and see and take some lessons from Europe’s failure, the utter failure of European climate policy.
FC: We have a few provinces, British Columbia in particular, that have a Carbon Tax. It’s politically correct and many politicians seem to be embracing it. Are you a skeptic on the idea of a Carbon Tax?
BP: No, not as a matter of principle. In fact we are publishing a report soon on a carbon tax written by Ross McKitrick. If you wanted to really tackle the issue of global warming seriously you would actually link the tax to temperature and you would say: look, if there is a real issue with global warming the tax goes up, and if there is no issue there is no tax. So both sides of the argument should in principle be happy with this idea. Obviously no government [is likely to] introduce a tax where the temperature rather than the treasurer has the handle on that tax but this policy would certainly challenge the green lobby to show that their policy approaches make little sense and that you actually have a cost-effective solution to tackle global warming. In short, I’m not against a Carbon Tax as a matter of principle, but it has to be adopted in ways that make economic sense and that actually addresses the issue. Alright you want to address global warming? Then the tax has to be a) linked to the problem and b) if there’s no problem then there’s no tax; secondly, is it has to be done internationally. It’s no good to go it alone. What’s happening in Europe, and in Britain in particular, with our emissions is that we have essentially exported manufacturing to China. They are doing all the CO2 emissions. We are then importing the products ready-made, but have essentially exported the emissions. We have outsourced the emissions by outsourcing manufacturing. It has no effect on CO2 emissions which is just putting the CO2 emissions somewhere else.
FC: You mentioned today that 30,000 extra people now die every year because of these policies in England.
BP: Not because of the policies. They die because their homes in England aren’t heated properly. That happened before these green energy policies were introduced but these policies are making it worse. It makes the fuel poverty problem much worse. So more and more families, I said around 7 million families, are already struggling with huge rises in energy prices which makes it harder for them to heat properly during cold winters. That’s where the winter deaths come in.
FC: Canada’s federal government continues to work with the warmist narrative that CO2 is a problem and we need to reduce our emissions. We call it a knife to the gun fight strategy where you simply can’t do that well if the discussion revolves around a false narrative. Do you have any other approach to suggest to the government?
BP: The key approach that the GWPF has adopted is to say: look this is not about the science. The science is secondary. It’s mainly about climate policies and the costs of these policies you introduce. In short, they have to make sense. So if you want to tackle global warming, the first thing is you have to have an international agreement. If you don’t have an international agreement your unilateral policies will have no effect on emissions or CO2 or climate change whatsoever. So don’t adopt any unilateral targets that hurt you unilaterally. If you want to have polices that are environmentally friendly, do things that are beneficial to people. Not something that is hurting people. So that is a different approach.
We are not saying: look don’t do it because the science is dodgy, because no policy maker today – with very, very few exceptions – would go for that argument. It takes a very, very eccentric politician to say: ‘look, I’m not listening to the science advisor and the scientific community because I know better. I know that the science is dodgy, therefore I will change policy.’ That’s not a good enough basis for a rational policy maker to take that view. You have to have very logical and economically sound arguments why you adopt certain policies and why you reject certain policies – irrespective of what the state of science is. After all, it might take another ten or twenty years before we know much better how solid the science is. For all I know, it could go either way. I’m not saying the skeptics are right and the conventional wisdom is wrong. Who am I to make that decision? It’s possible that either of them is wrong but we are not at a point in my view where this is obvious and manifest.