Czech President Vaclav Klaus said he is ready to debate Al Gore about global warming. He has just presented the English version of his new book, “Blue Planet in Green Shackles - What Is Endangered: Climate or Freedom?” that argues environmentalism poses a threat to basic human freedoms.

“I many times tried to talk to have a public exchange of views with him, and he’s not too much willing to make such a conversation,” Klaus said. “So I’m ready to do it.”

Vaclav Klaus has long opposed climate alarmism, comparing it to the decades of communist rule he experienced growing up in Soviet-dominated Czechoslovakia.

“In the past, it was in the name of the Marxists or of the proletariat - this time, in the name of the planet.”

Read more…

It’s been long argued that environmentalism, and especially climate alarmism, is based more on faith that facts. According to the Greens, Man is a destroyer by nature, and his actions should be strictly controlled. It is often said that the Earth would in fact benefit if mankind was eradicated once and for all. On our quest to transform the nature so that it best suits our dirty needs, we pervert and pollute what’s pure and innocent.

Jonah Goldberg has written an interesting article about the difference between environmentalism and conservationism.

At its core, environmentalism is a kind of nature worship. It’s a holistic ideology, shot through with religious sentiment. (…) Environmentalism’s most renewable resources are fear, guilt and moral bullying. Its worldview casts man as a sinful creature who, through the pursuit of forbidden knowledge, abandoned our Edenic past.

Read the entire article on Townhall.com.

A great little woman has passed away. A true hero. Irena Sendler, who smuggled about 2,500 Jewish children out of the Warsaw ghetto in World War II, died on Monday in Warsaw. She was 98.

Sendler was a 29-year-old social worker with the city’s welfare department when Germany invaded Poland in September 1939 and all the Jews in Warsaw were forced into a walled-off ghetto. Seeking to save the children, Sendler masterminded risky rescue operations. She and her assistants smuggled out babies and small children in ambulances and trams, sometimes wrapped up as packages.

“Every child saved with my help and the help of all the wonderful secret messengers, who today are no longer living, is the justification of my existence on this earth, and not a title to glory,” Sendler said in 2007 in a letter to the Polish Senate after lawmakers honored her efforts in 2007.

For her efforts, Irena Sendler was nominated to the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007. Her nomination was supported by the International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW), Polish President Lech Kaczynski and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. It might have been the first time a Nobel Prize would be awarded in connection to the Holocaust. However, that didn’t happen.

Instead, the Peace Prize for 2007 went to Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

“For their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change.”

The following is a statement by IFSW.

“IFSW sends congratulations to Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on winning the Nobel Peace Prize 2007. The issue of climate change is affecting all individuals and societies and it is a more than worthy cause to help begin the change in our lifestyle to prevent destruction of our planet. Social workers know from daily experience that this is an immediate and pressing social and personal issue.

‘However IFSW is deeply saddened that the life work of Nobel nominee Irena Sendler, social worker, did not receive formal recognition’, said David N Jones, IFSW President. ‘Irena Sendler and her helpers took personal risks day after day to prevent the destruction of individual lives — the lives of the children of the Warsaw ghetto. This work was done very quietly, without many words and at the risk of their lives. This is so typical of social work, an activity which changes and saves lives but is done out of the glare of publicity and often at personal risk. IFSW recognizes her again and at the same time celebrates the commitment and dedication of thousands of social workers around the world who also bring hope and care to people often living on the edge of despair,’ David N Jones concluded.”

According to Alfred Nobel’s will, the Peace Prize should be awarded “to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”

So, here we have a woman who put her life on the line every day to save people with whom some might say she had only a country and a God in common, and she was passed over for a prestigious award in favor of a man who invented the Internet and whose goal will make billions miserable for the sake of bad science.

“A prerequisite for winning the Nobel Peace Prize is making a difference,” said Boerge Brende, former Norwegian Minister of Trade, when congratulating Al Gore on winning the Peace Prize.

Irena Sendler insisted she did nothing special. In an interview she said: “I was brought up to believe that a person must be rescued when drowning, regardless of religion and nationality. The term ‘hero’ irritates me greatly. The opposite is true. I continue to have pangs of conscience that I did so little.”

Here’s to you, Irena. I hope you will be remembered by many.

A month has passed since the “Gang of Four” sent their letter to the IPCC demanding they reverse their view on global warming. Piers Corbyn, one of the four, said on May 11th: “We have as yet received no response from the IPCC which is astounding since the matter is of such great importance. I do not believe they can give an adequate response.”

Why am I not suprised?

UK Telegraph reports: “Global warming will stop until at least 2015 because of natural variations in the climate, scientists have said. Researchers studying long-term changes in sea temperatures said they now expect a “lull” for up to a decade while natural variations in climate cancel out the increases caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions. The average temperature of the sea around Europe and North America is expected to cool slightly over the decade while the tropical Pacific remains unchanged. This would mean that the 0.3°C global average temperature rise which has been predicted for the next decade by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change may not happen, according to the paper published in the scientific journal Nature.”

The UK Telegraph article by reporter Charles Clover noted the significant deficiencies in UN climate models: “The IPCC currently does not include in its models actual records of such events as the strength of the Gulf Stream and the El Nino cyclical warming event in the Pacific, which are known to have been behind the warmest year ever recorded in 1998.”

However, the effect of rising fossil fuel emissions will mean that warming will accelerate again after 2015 when natural trends in the oceans veer back towards warming, according to the computer model.

But if natural variations are able to offset the man-made warming, is then our contribution to climate change significant? Also, if nature now (temporarily) cools the Earth, why shouldn’t the recent warming be natural as well?

I think that Al Gore should plan for an alternative occupation.

Albert Gore in Vietnam.

“Despite persistent efforts, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has never succeeded in the task set to it by the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC), of supplying sound scientific evidence for the belief that human emissions of greenhouse gases are harming the climate. The evidence that has been supplied is based on unsound scientific methods and mathematics.”

This is the introduction to “Unsound Science by the IPCC”, a publication by Dr. Vincent Gray, which proves the main claims by the IPCC are scientifically unsound (the full report is available here). Dr. Gray is an expert reviewer for the IPCC and has submitted more than 1,800 comments on IPCC reports. I contacted Dr. Gray to get his view on global warming and here’s the exclusive interview.

Q: Dr Gray, you have stated that you consider IPCC as being corrupted. What is the basis for that criticism?

It is difficult to answer this in a few words. They were corrupt from the start, as they are a political organisation set up to provide evidence for “Climate Change”, defined by the Framework Convention on Climate Change as being exclusively caused by humans. The science is selected, distorted, and occasionally fabricated to support this view, and to downplay or marginalise any other climate influences. Their reports have to approved by the politicians who set them up and the Lead Authors are all chosen because they are willing to carry out their orders.

Q: I have read the comments to IPCC AR4. Your comments to the drafts have persistently been rejected. I imagine this is not the first time. Why do you continue to be Expert Reviewer? What is it that drives you?

It is immensely worthwhile. I consider that I have had a definite influence on them. For example, the first Report had a Chapter entitled “Validation of Climate Models”. When it appeared in the first draft of the next Report I commented that since no climate model has ever been validated the term was wrong. In the next draft they changed “validation” to “evaluation” no less than fifty times. They do not use the term or even discuss how it might be done.

The models are “evaluated” by seeking the opinions of those who are paid to produce the models. These are not “forecasts” but “projections” and they are no more than complete guesses from people with a conflict of interest, and thus worthless.

I have learned an unrivalled store of information about the climate while doing this and I know the attitude and activities of the IPCC scientists intimately. I am in a position to criticise them from the basis of this close knowledge.

It has been fascinating and immensely worthwhile.

Q: In your opinion, are we experiencing a global warming? What are your thoughts on the temperatures levelling off and even slightly falling since 1998? Has the warming trend stopped? Can we even anticipate a cooling?

The “climate” sometimes gets warmer and sometimes gets colder, and sometimes stays the same. I even believe it.

It is impossible to measure the average temperature of the Earth and even more difficult to find out whether it is increasing or decreasing. My studies, from all the data, indicate that the average temperature is passing through a cycle of about 65 years, and has reached the peak last seen in 1950. Since 1988 the average temperature has started to fall. 2007 was particularly cold and the IPCC people have even PREDICTED that 2008 will be cold. They are in deep trouble if it goes down much further for much longer. If the past trend continues it should continue to go down.

Q: Why do you believe that CO2 is not a major climate driver?

Because there is no evidence that it is. The models are worthless, as I have said. No model has successfully predicted any aspect of future climate. They completely failed to predict the measured temperature of the upper part of the atmosphere.

Q: Why don’t you believe in climate models?

The “weather” cannot be predicted more than a week or so ahead. If you call it “climate” the same applies; the system is too complex.

All the models are based on the “Flat Earth” theory of the climate where a quarter of the sunlight falls on all parts of the earth all the time and the temperature is constant. I regard this assumption as completely unrealistic. I might change my mind if they could show convincing predictions, but their “projections” are always so far ahead that they will have enjoyed their generous salaries and pensions before they are found out.

Q: What do you think is needed to turn the media and public opinion against climate alarmism?

A prolonged period of cold weather possibly combined with the economic downturn they have forced on the world.

Q: Some of the readers of my blog persist that there is no evidence that the current climate change is purely natural. Do you think that human activities affect the climate in any significant way?

I am a scientist and I like to be supplied with evidence. There is no question that humans influence the climate. Every city is warmer than the surrounding countryside. Shelter Belts modify the wind. Agriculture of all kinds has an influence. There is even such a thing as “pollution”. But I know of no evidence that it is, overall, harmful.

Q: In your opinion, what major environmental threats are we facing today?

The “Environment” has become a God who “threatens” us and demands constant sacrifice.

Humans, like other organisms have to work to set up surrounding circumstances, which are favourable to our prosperity, health and development. The greatest “threats” today are to the lives and existence of people in many countries, and response to these threats should have priority over the supposed threats to other creatures. Most of these are grossly exaggerated. Did you ever hear of an “Endangered Species” that actually became extinct?

I would like to thank Dr. Gray for answering my questions. It has been an honour.

Dr. Vincent Gray is a New Zealand-based climate scientist and an official expert reviewer of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scientific reports.
Dr. Gray has a Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry from Cambridge University, England and has had a long career as a research scientist in Britain, France, Canada, New Zealand and China. Dr. Gray has published over 100 scientific papers on energy and materials, plus a dozen in climate science.

Watch a brand new interview with Professor Bob Carter, shown in New Zealand TV on Friday, April 18.

Marc Morano, a climate skeptic from the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee minority staff, says to OneNewsNow that the IPCC is scaling back on its previous dire predictions of catastrophic climate change. With each successive report, there is less cause for alarm than previously thought. Morano points out that in the recent 2007 report, man’s alleged impact on “global warming” was scaled back by 25 percent while ocean-level rise was also reduced.

At the same time on the other side of the Atlantic, Lord Nicholas Stern concludes that the situation is far worse than the assumptions that formed the basis of his Review on the Economics of Climate Change released in October 2006.

We badly underestimated the degree of damages and the risks of climate change. All of the links in the chain are on average worse than we thought a couple of years ago.

Now how’s that compatible? Don’t the AGW people talk to each other anymore? I though the IPCC and Stern were in consensus?

A group of four scientists has sent a letter to the UN’s IPCC asking them to “admit that there is no observational evidence in measured data going back 22,000 years or even millions of years that CO2 levels (whether from man or nature) have driven or are driving world temperatures.”

This is reprint of the letter sent to the IPCC on Monday, April 14

14 April 2008

Dear Dr. Pachauri and others associated with IPCC

We are writing to you and others associated with the IPCC position – that man’s CO2 is a driver of global warming and climate change – to ask that you now in view of the evidence retract support from the current IPCC position [as in footnote 1] and admit that there is no observational evidence in measured data going back 22,000 years or even millions of years that CO2 levels (whether from man or nature) have driven or are driving world temperatures or climate change.

If you believe there is evidence of the CO2 driver theory in the available data please present a graph of it.

We draw your attention to three observational refutations of the IPCC position (and note there are more). Ice-core data from the ACIA (Arctic Climate Impact Assessment) shows that temperatures have fallen since around 4,000 years ago (the Bronze Age Climate Optimum) while CO2 levels have risen, yet this graphical data was not included in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers (Fig. SPM1 Feb07) which graphed the CO2 rise.

More recent data shows that in the opposite sense to IPCC predictions world temperatures have not risen and indeed have fallen over the past 10 years while CO2 levels have risen dramatically.
The up-dated temperature measurements have been released by the NASA’s Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) [1] as well as by the UK’s Hadley Climate Research Unit (Temperature v. 3, variance adjusted - Hadley CRUT3v) [2]. In parallel, readings of atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have been released by the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii [3]. They have been combined in graphical form by Joe D’Aleo [4], and are shown below.

These latest temperature readings represent averages of records obtained from standardized meteorological stations from around the planet, located in both urban as well as rural settings. They are augmented by satellite data, now generally accepted as ultimately authoritative, since they have a global footprint and are not easily vulnerable to manipulation nor observer error. What is also clear from the graphs is that average global temperatures have been in stasis for almost a decade, and may now even be falling.

A third important observation is that contrary to the CO2 driver theory, temperatures in the upper troposphere (where most jets fly) have fallen over the past two decades. [Footnote 2]

IPCC policy is already leading to economic and unintended environmental damage. Specifically the policy of burning food - maize as biofuel - has contributed to sharp rises in food prices which are causing great hardship in many countries and is also now leading to increased deforestation in Brazil, Malaysia, Indonesia, Togo, Cambodia, Nigeria, Burundi, Sri Lanka, Benin and Uganda for cultivation of crops [5].

Given the economic devastation that is already happening and which is now widely recognised will continue to flow from this policy, what possible justification can there be for its retention?

We ask you and all those whose names are associated with IPCC policy to accept the scientific observations and renounce current IPCC policy.

Yours sincerely,

Hans Schreuder, Analytical Chemist, mMensa, hans@tech-know.eu

Piers Corbyn, Astrophysicist UK, Dir. WeatherAction.com, piers@weatheraction.com

Dr Don Parkes, Prof. Em. Human Ecology, Australia, dnp@networksmm.com.au

Svend Hendriksen, Nobel Peace Prize 1988 (shared), Greenland, hendriksen@greennet.gl

Cc: IPCC’s yu.izrael@g23.relcom.ru christy@nsstc.uah.edu spencer@nsstc.uah.edu dy.pitman@gmail.com

Tim Yeo MP (Chairman Environmental Audit Committee) Lord Martin Rees (President Royal Society)

Gordon Brown MP David Cameron MP Nick Glegg MP

Footnote 1: Two heavily publicised quotations which emerged from your organisation, respectively in February and December last year, are:

Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations. It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctica) (Figure SPM.4).{2.4} [6] and

The 2007 IPCC report, compiled by several hundred climate scientists, has unequivocally concluded that our climate is warming rapidly, and that we are now at least 90% certain that this is mostly due to human activities. The amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere now far exceeds the natural range of the past 650,000 years, and it is rising very quickly due to human activity. If this trend is not halted soon, many millions of people will be at risk from extreme events such as heat waves, drought, floods and storms, our coasts and cities will be threatened by rising sea levels, and many ecosystems, plants and animal species will be in serious danger of extinction. (Summary statement, Bali Conference.) [7].

Footnote 2: “Data over the past two decades indicates that temperatures have actually declined in the upper troposphere, even though there has been some minor upward trends in temperature at sea level and lower altitudes. This completely contradicts conventional global warming models. Before we radically rearrange the political economy of the world because some scientists claim anthropogenic CO2 is the cause of climate change, it might be worthwhile for anyone taking a position on the topic to consider whether or not this is indeed “well settled science.” Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT, March 2008.

References:

1. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/msu.html

2. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature

3. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

4. http://icecap.us/index.php/go/experts Joseph D’Aleo, Certified Consultant Meteorologist,

Fellow of the American Meteorological Society (AMS), Executive Director Icecap.us

5. http://rainforests.mongabay.com/0801.htm

6. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf

7. http://www.climate.unsw.edu.au/bali/