President Vaclav Klaus At The GWPF Inaugural Annual Lecture: Quasi-live Blogging

Since I couldn’t get enough connectivity in the conference hall tonight, here are my quasi-live notes about President Václav Klaus’ Inaugural Annual GWPF Lecture at The Great Room of Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufacturers and Commerce in London (UK):

(these notes are provided as they are, with very little corrections – I will post my own reflections later)

(UPDATE: see also Reuters)

(UPDATE: full text of the lecture at the GWPF website)

Atrocious weather getting worse…is Al Gore in town, by any chance?

Around 70 people. Klaus’ book free to all attendants.

I meet Rupert Wyndham of BBC’s Complaint Procedure fame

Packing up quickly. Many are diplomats, as I have later learned.

7:07 Lawson and Klaus

Peiser starts. There is a lectern this time and a microphone. Videorecording equipment.

Klaus introduced as political leader but also an intellectual, of the classical liberalism variety: individual liberty, limited government, freedom to dissent.

“couldn’t have chosen a more appropriate speaker”

Copenhagen failure, Climategate, IPCC debacle: change in the political atmosphere.

Pres Klaus has been calling for rational and freedom-loving people to respond to the threat posed by collective environmentalist hysteria.

7:10
Klaus’ accent sounds better than mine

Special thanks to Nigel Lawson. Large range of institutions that support those that doubt current-prevailing dogma. This is not enough. Bias, carefully-organised propaganda needs to be countered with rationality.

Cites Bob Carter. The issue is not the warming, but the “dangerous human-induced warming”. Scientific debate is not about the policy. Public-policy debate has enormous implications. Governments, politicians, lobbyists search to grab more decision power for themselves.

Response to climate change can become the most costly mistake in history after Communism.

Cites McKitrick. Nobody is an expert on global warming. Too many aspects. Every body is an amateur on many if not most topics.

There are many respectable but highly-conflicting scientific takes on the subject. We must resist the attempt to shut down the debate. Real risk is to end up renouncing democracy.

Need to separate environmentalist myths from theories.

Has followed the literature. Carbon dioxide is a minor player, not primary cause of global warming. Cites Nobel-laureate: carbon dioxide across geological scales. Planetary changes don’t ask for permission.

Dangerous public policy consequences: many have concluded the current hypothesis is very weak. Not sufficiently tested. Can’t be used for policy decisions without looking at alternatives, opportunity costs, etc.

That is why he wrote the book about “green shackles”. (humor: since you’ve all got it, no need to continue speaking). Published in 16 different languages including Japanese and Arabic.

A year after publication, “Appeal to Reason” by Nigel Lawson. Klaus wrote the preface.to the Czech edition.

We are not on the winning side yet, but looking back since the launching of the AGW propaganda at the Rio Summit in 1992 and subsequent general pickup of the hypothesis, things have been improving.

Reputation of the scientific integrity of some of the most prominent researchers has been undermined, eg the Hockey Stick that was the basis of the 2001 IPCC report: pseudoscientific mindset, faulty data selection, frenzied propaganda, unscrupulous campaign, dubious statistics, etc etc (it’s a citation)

Copenhagen 2009 showed heterogeneity of views,

Three simple facts GW armies should keep in mind

1- Global mean climate does change, has changed, and will undoubtedly change

Over last 10k years, climate has been much the same and average temperature has not changed. Long-term, slight cooling.
GW armies are presenting a few decades as a threat to the planet to respond to with a wholesale change of our lifestyles.

Why are they so successful? Doctrines usually take much longer. Specifics of our time? Constanlty online? Religions less attractive? Desire to refill the emptiness with a new noble cause, saving the planet?

Environmentalists discovered some “more noble” than our down-to-earth lives. Can’t be accepted by somebody that lived under “noble” communism.

2- Medium-term timescales, 150 years (joke about Keynes), temperatures have shown a warming.

This is since the Northern Hemisphere emerged from the LIA two centuries ago. Trend was repeatedly interrupted.

Warming is modest and everything suggests future warming and consequences are not a cause for concern and something to battle against.

3- CO2 in atmosphere sometimes precedes, sometimes follows temp increases. Not fully understood.

No need to dispute those facts. Dispute is when people claim the coincidence in time is a “proof” of AGW. This is the current doctrine. This has existed for centuries, always with nature as the “starting point” to go back to. People are considered a foreign element. But it makes no sense to speak of a world without people, because there would be nobody to speak to (laughter).

Mentions his studies of econometric modelling. No conclusion can be based on correlation of two or more time sequences. So simple correlations do not exist.

Eg CO2 emissions did not start to grow visibly until 1940s. Temperatures at times moved in the opposite way of CO2.

Statistical analysis doesn’t demonstrate anything. Two Chinese scientists used random walk model for global temp variations. Result shows the model perfectly fits the data. No need to add human effects. No other model has given a btter fit.

There are other aspects of the doctrine, not just the simple relationship between temps and CO2. Another is the idea that increasing temperatures will be detrimental to the planet.

Many environmentalists don’t want to save man, but nature. Economics for them is irrelevant. For example the Stern review and its unreasonably low discount rate (that was what prompted Klaus to join the debate). The choice of discount rate is critical (cites Lawson). High discount rate=little meaning in any intervention.

We should use the market rate, as it is the “opportunity cost” of climate mitigation. Stern and others do not want to do that.

Klaus doesn’t deny increasing temps will see losers and winners. Even if overall is going to be detrimental, with proper discount rates the consequences are too small to worry about.

Why do many people think differently? Many have invested too much in GW alarmism. Fear of losing out on the political and professional side. Biz people hoped to make a fortune and are not ready to write it off. There is a coalition of powerful special interests endangering us. (hence the subtitle of his book.

We need to stand up against all attempts to undermine our democratic society.

We need to be prepared to all kinds of future climate changes but never accept to lose our freedom

ends at 19″43

room is packed. >100

there is a video being taken

Peter Glover: Arctic forum. No engagement at all on the two sides. The “other side” never seems to have thought things through logically.

Klaus: Many scientists are engaged Journalist in The Times keeps receiving articles and books about the dogma. The fact that the other side doesn’t listen is not new to people that lived under Communism.

Q: Roll back the ETS in Europe?

Klaus: Cap-and-trade is one of the policy measures in the hands of the environmentalists. It’s not just the USA staying away from it. But the EU is post-democratic (laughter)

Hartwell (metallurgic engineer): Presentation is political. Royal Society published paper on climate change. Many scientists there are seriously interested. We should manage the risk of future rises in temperatures

Klaus: Not impressed by science established by committee or vote. Remember nobody is an expert in GW. Another quote from Bob Carter: wide range of disciplines among “climate” scientists. Most alarm from scientists from meteor and computer modelling. Geologists see no cause for alarm.

(argument ad providentiam)

Klaus says he has used computer models too. Computer modellers are not climatologists.

Q: Ecological modernisation used by many groups to look for environmental problems to push for technology. Amount of money in the academic community is very strong. WG-III is real push for IPCC.

Klaus: can’t understand sustainable development. Environment should be differentiated from GW.

Physicist: Comment on RS. Previous head didn’t’ give space to “deniers”. current document requires further revision. Draft Copenhagen agreement deals with putting together a world government (57? 58?). Why didn’t you use that?

Klaus: Only retirees dare write against AGW. COP-15 was so confused there was no point to go there. Details impossible to follow and not relevant. Documents have no writers and no readers

Q: Bloggers have changed the nature of the debate

Lawson: Yes. Extremely-expensive decisions should not be taken without a proper debate and there hasn’t been one. The RS has been obliged to move a little bit, not much, but more than nothing. Even the BBC says dissenting voice ought to be heard.

My questions

What would convince Pres Klaus that there is something to worry about? What would he choose, climate disruption or liberty?

Klaus: Empirical evidence is what is needed. Starting point still remains. Quality of measurements for example is important. Models are not convincing, too many mistakes in the methodologies, statistics, I am not convinced

Philosopher: The psychological side. Green lobbyists want to have cars and dirty industries banned. They found the scientific reason in AGW. Political agenda feeds on fear.

Klaus: One reason for scaring us disproved, another one pops up. My interests at the beginning of the 1970a. Could get only economical reviews and scientific publications. Couldn’t understand Club of Rome and Limits to Growth. That’s total nonsense. Same computer modellers of LtG continued with AGW. Same people.

Q: AGWers are organised by somebody?
Piers Corbyn: Prepare for extreme events…ask the UN to do that?

Klaus: Anybody controlling? People that have outlived communism are oversensitive regarding the issue of getting controlled

Q: Oxford Union debate, victory. Other side went for ad-homs. Wind farms are completely useless and evidence is transparent. How do rational politicians live with that knowledge?

Klaus`; Times journo asked if other leading politicians are against AGW? Many have similar views but are afraid to say it openly. Anecdote. Some nonsense is very evident. Solar energy during the night. Wind farm generation by electrical motors.

Lawson concludes. Mentions Klaus’ bravery as he is still in office.

end at 20:29

.

Advertisement

Royal Society Inspires Numerically-Proven Self-Debasement At Shameful BBC News Website

I know it’s hopeless, but today I have sent a complaint to the BBC for the shameful, biased coverage of the Royal Society’s “new short guide to the science of climate change”.

For unfathomable (ahr ahr!) reasons, much is made of the association between two Fellows of the Royal Society and the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF). One is left to wonder if the remaining 41 Fellows “who called for” the new Royal Society pronouncement, are just stooges of the GWPF. Who knows, perhaps Pallab Ghosh believes the whole Society including Lord Rees are zombies manipulated by Lord Lawson?

Actually, it’s not just a matter of opinion. Keep in mind that the article is titled “Royal Society launches new climate change guide“. Therefore one would expect it to be dedicated to the Royal Society and its stance on climate change. Keep also in mind that journalists are painfully aware of the importance of dedicating the right number of words to the right topic.

Now, there are 419 words in Mr Ghosh’s piece. Of those, 83 are dedicated to Bob Ward’s likely slanderous innuendos against the GWPF, a topic that is removed as far as it gets from the Royal Society and its stance on climate change:

“…Lord Lawson’s Global Warming Policy Foundation […] campaigns against climate researchers and promotes inaccurate and misleading information about climate change“

That’s 83/419=19.81% of the total. Now add the words in the previous paragraph in the article, just as well irrelevant to what the article was supposed to be about, and you get 125/419=29.83%.

In other words, 30% of Mr Ghosh’s writing has little to do with the Royal Society and its stance on climate change. Can anybody imagine what would happen at the BBC if, say, 30% of any political article were blatantly irrelevant?

Funny to see such a shameful behaviour in their “science” section of all places.

Live Microblogging Of GWPF – Montford – Bishop Hill Climategate Enquiries Presentation

I am at the House of Lords for the GWPF / Montford / Bishop Hill presentation of the climategate inquiries report

Follow @mmorabito67 on Twitter for live updates from 10am GMT

UPDATE: here the relevant Twitter entries in chronological order

• Delingpole, Warehouse in attendance
• Lord Lawson, Benny Peer, Lord Turnbull, Andrew Montford ready to go
• Benny Peiser of course – curse you, Android!
• And that was Whitehouse 😛
• Starts right on time. Turnbull first
• Turnbull: so far boys-will-be-boys defence. ButBritish science reputation important.
• Turnbull: climate policy ipcc-based in UK demands almost complete decarbonisation
• People questions if science is solid enough to warrant these sacrifices
• Climategate enquiries timely but did they answer the original questions? New parliam commit looking at things again
• Missing is review of science that select committee thought would be done by Oxburgh and was not
• Montford reads. Starts with lack of independence
• Panels full of campaigners, no skeptic selected
• Serious allegations overlooked, selected papers by UEA and Jones themselves
• Known fraud evidence not considered at all
• Sir Muir Russell informed of FOI breach but did nothing about it
• Curry, von Storch critical of the enquiries too. Reputation of British science is on the line
• Peiser underlines it’s the enquiries that are under scrutiny, not the original allegations
• Times journo challenges Montford on Jones’ selection claim. Good answer.
• Turnbull: flaws from day one, prejudicial remarks, little representativity, flawed processes
• I asked: enquiries give free hands to fraudsters as long as it’s not too serious a fraud: Bishop is more optimistic
• Telegraph journalist asks Lords’ own opinion. Lawson mentions huge cloud of doubt when emails came out
• Inquiries are the expertise of Lord Turnbull -these ones failed to close the debate on Climategate
• They may be right about the science, so why did UEA engage on disreputable behaviour?
• Guardian journalist asks how report was written (desktop job)
• Why the Bishop? Lawson asks to judge report on merits
• Turnbull: parliament is listening to Sir Muir and the others too
• Montford: plenty of citations in my report if anybody is looking for them
• Telegraph: new info? Russell minutes on website, recently available
• UEA head of IT: Briffa took home some emails. Russell did not even mention this
• Turnbull: can we really do AR5 as if nothing had happened
• Lawson: there is no indication the ipcc will implement the recommendations
• The ipcc hid the decline – very disreputable – even if Jones mentioned it in the original articles
• Montford: only mention of hiding at the very last moment in AR4
• Whither the IPCC? Lawson: doubts undermine its purpose
• MP already in Sci Tech committee: our outcome not influenced by our chairman remarks
• Continues: surprise by huge gaps when we asked none there would be
• More: Jones and Briffa cannot reproduce their work. “Very disturbing”
• Meeting closes at 10:53am Gmt

Live Microblogging Of McIntyre and Holland At Climategate GWPF London Event

I just came out of tonight’s GWPF event in London, chaired by Benny Peiser and with Lord Lawson in the audience.  Guest speakers about Climategate were David Holland and Steve McIntyre.

(links added – most of them… I will put all the links tonight)

As usual, here my notes as published live on @mmorabito67 (my “main” Twitter account remains @omnologos):

(for clarity, my own remarks are in italic)

1. Around 35 in the audience so far. Holland already seated
2. Lord Lawson and McIntyre in the room
3. There we go. Attendance around 50
4. Peiser quotes damning article by Harrabin in December (and here’s the quote “unless the UEA inquiry is demonstrably impartial it will fail, and a new fully independent enquiry will almost certainly have to be formed“)
5. Holland first, about his data requests
6. Holland details how nobody could have checked the data before Kyoto’s
7. Holland “no poor soldiers, only poor generals”
8. Holland’s tells a tale of obfuscation by MetOffice reminding me of opening chapter of HHGTTG
9. Holland: Russell report full of factual errors, no investigation of effort to delete emails
10. Room almost full now
11. McIntyre’s title slide “The ‘Inquiries'”
12. McIntyre: 98% emails about Hockey Stick
13. McIntyre: independent temp reconstructions not so – same names keep appearing
14. McIntyre: Jones, Mann, Briffa prodigious writers of HS-related articles also reviewing each other
15. McIntyre: CRU secretive to protect funding without investing on quality control
16. FOI at stake on this but many don’t get how important it is
17. McIntyre: first upload of emails was to RealClimate, as if a prank
18. McIntyre makes fun of counterterrorism involvement
19. McIntyre: UEA not investigating in the open – parliamentary reporters too clever compared to environmental ones?
20. McIntyre: parliamentary committee left science to Oxburgh
21. McIntyre: “trick” needed to “preserve the message” by IPCC
22. It all sounds like propaganda reports before the Vietnam war opened eyes of journalists to the now-obvious lies
23. McIntyre: independent science Oxburgh commission sent email from UEA
24. McIntyre: Oxburgh left no notes or any documentation – no science examined – articles chosen by UEA
25. Why would Lord Oxburgh want to associate his name to such a disaster?
26. McIntyre: mention “sleight of hand” quote by UK MP
27. McIntyre: Russell’s findings not based on anybody else but UEA, (slightly nutty) reference to “natural justice”
28. McIntyre: mentions Harrabin referring to him as the most knowledgeable about CRU science outside UEA
29. McIntyre: Muir Russell did not go to Jones’ interviews – no rigour, no due diligence
30. McIntyre: odd that interviews conducted by climate activist with years of UEA work
31. McIntyre: Jones’ request to delete emails a day later FOI request
32. McIntyre is steadily destroying Sir Muir Russell’s credibility
33. McIntyre: no accountability in the system
34. McIntyre: climate science is being depreciated among public by hiding of adverse data
35. McIntyre: climate sensitivity an issue. We can’t wait for absolute certainty
36. First q: did MWP happen?
37. I asked about consequences on democracy and why bother at all. Upbeat answers by Peiser and Holland
38. Peiser speculates scientists’ jobs at stake, grandees took credibility hits as no gross misconduct apparent
39. IPCC is not following most/any of the recommendations
40. McIntyre: grudging consensus against preventing the release of data – would be idiotic strategy in civil lawsuit
41. McIntyre: EPA has hockey stick among evidence – very unwise (I can’t find where and when that happened)
42. Climategate has put the EPA in “uncomfortable position”
43. Peiser: GWPF’s push for effective policies is gaining ground
44. Peiser: GWPF report by Andrew Montford out end of Aug 2010
45. Sunday Times enviro journalist: have scientists tried to present a clean narrative where knowledge still fuzzy?
46. Holland hopeful science community understands things have to change
47. McIntyre sees no change, grand statements, critics being blamed
48. McIntyre: if hockey stick won’t matter, get rid of it. Plenty of PhD’s in readership, IPCC should focus more
49. Peiser concludes hoping Climategate has changed Science and made it more open and transparent