4th ICCC in Chicago, May 2010

Less than four years ago, I went to Chicago to attend the 4th International Conference on Climate Change (4th ICCC), May 16-17, 2010, mainly sponsored by Heartland Institute. My previous note on this conference is here, Chicago, 4th ICCC, day 1.

Was able to have a photo with Dr. Henrik Svensmark (below, middle), a Danish physicist at Denmark climate research office, also among the pioneers of the Sun-Climate theory. Also in the photo is a friend from Germany, Wolfgang Muller.

With world famous climatologist, Dr. Roy Spencer of the Univ. of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH). He was among the keynote speakers in the 2nd and 4th ICCC. Fantastic theory on CO2, Cloud Feedback and Climate, among others.

With Steve Goreham (left), author of the book, Climatism, and Steve McIntyre (middle) of Climate Audit in Canada.

Portion of the audience, about 500+ people registered and showed up.

Our group, some members of the Civil Society Coalition on Climate Change (CSCCC) headed by the International Policy Network (IPN, London) then. From left: Barun Mitra of Liberty Institute-India, Jose Luis Tapia from Peru, Margaret Tse from Brazil, Julian Morris of IPN (now with Reason Foundation in the US), Martin Krause from Argentina, me.

Climate stupidity 8: Shoot the messenger, not the message

A friend in facebook, will refer to him here as HIM1, posted in his status last April 22, Earth Day. I commented on it, then his other friend, HIM2, came to support HIM1. Here are our exchanges, from April 22 to April 29, 2011.

HIM1: The first Earth Day worked because of the spontaneous response at the grassroots level. We had neither the time nor resources to organize 20 million demonstrators and the thousands of schools and local communities that participated. That was the remarkable thing about Earth Day. It organized itself.

Wake Up Earthlings!
How the First Earth Day Came About By Senator Gaylord Nelson, Founder of Earth Day What was the purpose of Earth Day? How did it start? These are the questions I am most frequently asked. Actually, the idea for Earth Day evolved over a period of seven y...

Nonoy Oplas Pare, the planet is never and was never in danger, it's all part of natural climate cycles of warming-cooling-warming-cooling, http://funwithgovernment.blogspot.com/2011/04/climate-cycle-and-forecasts.html

HIM2: Check tis out: 6th (of d six) global warming skeptic who changed his mind: http://resourceefficiency.wordpress.com/2010/11/09/6th-of-d-six-global-warming-skeptic-who-changed-his-mind/

if der s no problem w/ d planet den we can pollute more....waste more energy....hmmmm...very nice!

Nonoy Oplas: Pollution includes many other gases -- CO, NOx, lead, particulates, mercury, etc. The warming scam targets mainly CO2, hence the various regulations and prohibitions to control and tax CO2. I also don't like the emission of many other pollutant gases, but CO2 is not a harmful gas. It's the gas that you and I exhale, the gas that our pets and animals exhale, the gas that our plants and trees need for photosynthesis.

HIM2: here's d 5th (of d six) global warming skeptic who changed his mind: http://resourceefficiency.wordpress.com/2010/11/02/5th-of-d-six-global-warming-skeptic-who-changed-his-mind/

warming scam?????

Nonoy Oplas: Weird. I showed my article with lots of graphs and data, very updated data like the same week where I wrote that article, you reply with literature with zero graph or data. Ok, here's another article, 2 graphs of sea ice extent in Arctic and Antarctica, then 2 satellite pictures of the same polar region, data as of the other day, Apr. 21, 2011, http://www.thelobbyist.biz/perspectives/less-gorvernment/666-lent-and-the-crucifixion-of-climate-science

HIM2: here's d 4th (of d six) global warming skeptic who changed his mind: http://resourceefficiency.wordpress.com/2010/10/29/4th-of-d-six-global-warming-skeptic-who-changed-his-mind/
pple have a choice: either one become part of d solution or one is part of the problem.

my choice: “I wish 2b a catalyst in d quest 4an environmentally sustainable, spiritually fulfilling & socially just human presence in tis planet……”
EQ or IQ?

Nonoy Oplas: That's why man-made warming is a new religion. Based on faith and belief, not science. Even if climate data show there is warming-cooling-warming-cooling cycles, people just keep their faith. And the UN, governments are too happy to impose new environmental regulations, new carbon taxes, carbon cap and trade, climate bureaucracies, get new climate loans, etc.

HIM1: Pareng Nonoy, you want graphs and data debunking the deniers of global warming. Here it is: www.durangobill.com/Swindle_Swindle.html. It's the same old story of how so called global warming skeptics or climate change deniers fraudulently misrepresented both the data involved and scientists who have researched global climate just to support their warped view that global warming is a myth.

try watching this video and maybe you'll be enlightened on the urgency for adopting decisive solutions to climate change: http://youtu.be/zORv8wwiadQ

BTW, is your organization, Minimal Government, a member of the Civil Society Coalition on Climate Change (CSCCC)? Based on reports, the CSCCC was organized by the International Policy Network (IPN) which is a well known recipient of Exxon funding. IPN has received $390,000 from Exxon. Here's the link: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/04/outsourcing-skepticism.php#ch03 Just asking lang, Pareng Nonoy.

Nonoy Oplas: Thanks for the links, pare. Those are old data. Let me give you a link of pure data, updated weekly or daily. Zero discussion, just plain, hard data and graphs. (1) Arctic, Greenland, Antarctica, other polar ice data, http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/ocean/ (2) sea surface temperature data, el nino southern oscillation (ENSO), http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/enso/, and (3) solar activity, solar flux, cosmic rays, ap index, etc., also updated daily, http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/solar/.

About Exxon funding, etc., pls don't start the ad hominem criticism pare. It is easy to dig dirt about Al Gore, Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC, FCCC, Jim Hansen, etc. So let us focus on data. Prove, zero doubt, that climate change is NEVER natural, that there is no such thing as warming-cooling-warming-cooling cycles.

HIM 2: here's 3rd (of d six) global warming skeptic who changed his mind: http://resourceefficiency.wordpress.com/2010/10/18/3rd-of-d-six-global-warming-skeptic-who-changed-his-mind/

itz odd pple r still debating if we need 2help save d planet....man u guys r late....famous skeptics already changed deir hearts...

hmmmm...i didn't know i'm into a new religion...i just wanted 2have better world....been tryin 2stop d pollution since early 90's.....didn't know am brainwashing young & old pple???? duh, am such a bad guy...

Nonoy Oplas: In religion, people don't need graphs, tables, statistical data. They just believe on something, like the existence of a God, it's fine. In the warming religion, people just believe in "man-made warming". Even if you show several dozens, even hundreds, of graphs, charts, tables and satellite pictures, that there is also global cooling occurring in cycle with wwarming. Belief in a particular religion makes people feel good about themselves. Amen.

HIM2: here's d 2nd (of d six) global warming skeptic who changed his mind: http://resourceefficiency.wordpress.com/2010/10/10/2nd-of-d-six-global-warming-skeptic-who-changed-his-mind/.

a lot of pple who believe dat climate change is a joke r very influential in deir fields...some even feel superior & discriminate others....some think they know better coz they know d truth....some loves just love 2argue...

i remember wen a fellow apec workin member on low carbon society told me dat he can interpret his data depending on who is paying him or funding his research....hmmmm he's really cool eh? 4me, i don care as long as he don't discourage pple fr stopping pollution. yes i feel good wen i do d right thing, e.g. saving d planet! i hate polluters...even mind polluters....of course specially those trashing our planet!

HIM1: Pareng Nonoy, the source of your "pure data" is whatssupwiththat.com. Its editor is Anthony Watts, awarded late last year as one of the World's Most Heinous Climate Villains. Here's the reason why AlterNet gave Anthony Watts the notorious award:

"Overnight, went from local TV weatherman to a climate 'expert,' constantly attacking scientific reports for groupthink, grant-seeking greed, and phony data. Sent his minions to photograph those US temperature stations which he claimed were too close to heat sinks, skewing temperature readings.

NOAA decided to take him up on his claim and analyzed the station data from all 1218 sites, and found no evidence of bias or distortion. Anthony instantly dropped the project with no mention of his error and simply began shouting, "Climategate!" -- the oil company e-burglary and nontroversy, which ultimately offered no evidence of scientific wrongdoing. People contribute to the "cookie jar" on his loony blog, but oil and coal companies support him through former pro-smoking "researchers" at the Heartland Institute. Anthony Watts' Most Egregious Lie: "The Hockey Stick is Broken!" Really? The hockey stick has been duplicated in over 20 charts from climate scientists, and vindicated in an exhaustive study by the National Academy of Sciences.”

Source: http://www.polluterwatch.com/category/freetagging/anthony-watts

Nonoy Oplas: Pare, mahilig kayo to focus on personalities and adhominems. Eto, adhominem attack and I have basis for saying this: ALL warming leaders in this country are cowards, duwag, when you challenge them to a public debate on climate. I have written to the top honchos of Earth Hour and WWF, calling their EH campaign as lunatic, showed them my paper why I said so, they only have 1 answer: sound of silence. I have challenged several warming leaders like Tony LaVina, Greenpeace, Oxfam Manila, etc. to a debate, all of them duck. I have written many articles in my blog,http://funwithgovernment.blogspot.com/, arguing why man-made warming is a joke and a scam, ALL with climate data to prove. Now, if you can produce any sensible, ready to square off in a debate on climate science and policy, thank you, you can disprove that not ALL warming leaders here are cowards. But my challenge remains, anywhere anyday. We debate data vs data, graph vs graph, satellite picture vs satlelite picture, of (a) air temp, lower troposphere, (b) land surface temp, (c) sea surface temp (SST), (d) polar ice, ARctic and Antarctica, (e) sea level height. Produce the latest data possible, preferably as of 1 day or 1 week before the scheduled debate.

In the US, Heartland organized 4 intl. conf on climate change (ICCC), 2 of which (1st and 2nd ICCC) were held in NYC in 2008 and 2009. NYC is the HQ of the UN and all its climate bureaucracies (IPCC, FCCC, UNEP, etc.). About 700 participants worldwide attended each of those ICCC, mostly scientists (physicists, meteorologists, climatologists, geologists, biologists, etc.) who openly and explicitly challenge the IPCC reports. Al Gore, IPCC head Pachauri, other key authors of the IPCC reports were all invited. And ALL of them chicken out, no show cowards. If the IPCC is so sure of its position, why didnt it send 100 or 500 of their "thousands of warming scientists" to debate face to face with those who question their reports? Only cowards and those unsure of their position duck off from debates. A topic as divisive as man-made warming shd be debated openly. Those who are cowards to open, public debates show that they know they are holding on to political science, not climate science.

HIM2: now i get it....ur a bully! just like d oder climate change skeptics who thought dey r a better human being....anyways here's d 1st (of d six) global warming skeptic who changed his mind:http://resourceefficiency.wordpress.com/2010/10/02/1st-global-warming-skeptic-who-changed-his-mind/

sir nonoy oplas....der r lotz of earth warriors around...pls don't call pple cowards...u might regret it afterward....

Nonoy Oplas: Bully ba yon manghamon ka lang ng debate, fair debate? Tapos yong hinamon mo, palaging nasa dyaryo, sa tv, sa radyo, sa kalsada, so sure of what they are saying that the earth is in crisis and they are the saviors of the planet? Pag hinamon mo sa debate, parang kuting at tuta na ayaw magsalita? sus ginoo. Sabi nga ni Dong Abay ng Yano dati eh, "banal na aso, santong kabayo, natatawa ako, hehehehe"
-------

See the trend? Ask them to produce graphs, tables, data, the most updated ones (say, data as of yesterday) that produce definite, unequivocal warming. And they give you literatures how bad, how corrupted by big oil money, etc. the people are who question their religion. And the funniest thing there is when I asked for a debate, square public and transparent debate, I was accused of being a bully. Really strange.

See related article, Climate stupidity 3: Cowards to face public debates

Warming Hysteria: Climate Extortion and Mayon Volcano

It is too common. When one cannot argue with data and facts, they attack the people or institutions that bring the idea. That is, they shoot the messenger, not the message.

This practice is very visible in the anthropogenic [man-made] global warming (AGW) claims. Many campaigners of such claim are too impatient to hear any opposing idea, so they douse any dissenting voice as "that's big oil lobby" and similar statements.

One article from mother jones has pathetically attacked the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, the International Policy Network (IPN), the Civil Society Coalition on Climate Change (CSCCC), and other think tanks and coalitions/network that do not agree with the AGW claim, see here.
http://motherjones.com/environment/2009/12/climate-deniers-atlas-foundation

The author is Mr. Josh Harkinson. The science and data behind AGW claim is highly suspect. I wrote a few papers on this, the latest of which is "Warming lies", http://www.minimalgovernment.net/media/mg_20091201.pdf.

Atlas is helping small think tanks around the world that advance individual liberty, not because they are questioning AGW. Most or all of those think tanks are fighting dictatorships, corruption, trade protectionism, high taxation, private property rights confiscation, among others. Questioning AGW is a small part of their work.

The CSCCC is a big international coalition of independent think tanks and institutes in more than 40 countries that don't believe in ecological central planning. Since there is no consensus yet about the science behind AGW, there should be no global coercion on environment and energy policies.

Talking about money, I think that while it is true that some oil money like Exxonmobil's was mobilized to help some "skeptics" groups, another big oil, Shell, is on the side of the warmers and most likely be giving them money too.

One estimate of lobby is goes like this:
against AGW, about $2m/year.
pro-AGW: $4 billion/year from the US federal government alone.
This is for climate researches that support the man-made warming conclusion. See for instance, http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_money.pdf
--------

My related short papers recently:

(1)  Winterstorm and Climate Extortion

December 20, 2009

I saw in my facebook account, pictures just a few hours ago, of my Filipino and American friends in deep snow in front of their houses in DC-VA and NYC. In this picture, my good friend Jo Kwong of the Atlas Economic Research Foundation in DC.

That's one day after the conclusion of the Copenhagen meeting to "fight unequivocal global warming."

US President Obama was forced to cut his trip in snowy Copenhagen to head back to DC because of the winter storm. But before flying, he and State Sec. Hillary Clinton promised "$100 billion a year starting 2020", all to fight global warming. The agreement in Copenhagen was to "limit global warming to only 2 C". The IPCC AR4 warned of "best case" 4 C rise in global temperature, with worst case of 6.4 C rise by 2100.

I would say that the Copenhagen meeting was an event of irony and hypocrisy. Let me enumerate a few points why I say this.

1. The $100 B/year promise by Mr. Obama will be made long after his term in the White House has ended, by 2020. It's the typical "promise everything" or "scare everyone with scenarios" long after you yourself is gone from your office or from the face of the Earth. The IPCC scientists for instance who predicted in 2007 of "up to 6.4 C rise by 2100" will all be dead by then.

2. Extortion by poor country governments. There was high political heat and bickering among poor country govts. vs rich country govts. vs. big environmental NGOs, in pressuring how much carbon emission cuts by whom and by when. In the end, they talk about money, money, money. European government initially said $10 billion/year, poor country governments said "No, We want $300 to $400 billion/year!"
Haggling and bickering, they end up with $100 B/year promise by Obama, plus contributions by EU and other rich governments. So in a sense, it was a meeting for extortion by poor country govts. But the leaders of those poor countries are ALL rich.

3. Venezuelan socialist President Hugo Chavez spoke in Copenhagen, lambasted the evils of capitalism and how capitalist corporations destroyed the planet. And many government representatives and NGOs applauded and gave him a standing ovation! Last time I checked, it was capitalism which gave them all commercial airlines, private jets, expensive limos and sedans, that brought them to capitalist Copenhagen. And they stayed in capitalist hotels, ate in capitalist restaurants in the city. Capitalist power plants gave them uninterrupted power and electricity for their meeting, and capitalist media outlets broadcasted their meetings and riots all around the world. And those politicians and bureaucrats say "capitalism is evil."

4. Blizzard in Copenhagen and upcoming winter storm in DC and surrounding states while they are meeting to "fight global warming". This time, it's the Earth telling them, "Get real guys. I got no fever. I'm chilling, and so are you."

Readers, feel free to add your list of irony and hypocrisy in all those lies and alarmism.

(2) Mayon Volcano and Climate

December 19, 2009

Mayon volcano, the most active of the Philippines' 21 active volcanoes (and several dozens inactive ones), has been very active recently. In the last century, it was exploding every 10 years on average, I think. This decade and century, this will be it's 3rd explosion. First was February 2000, 2nd on August 2006, and now December 2009. That volcano is contributing lots of CO2 and other gases into the atmosphere.

Contribute to global warming? No. Exploding volcanoes release lots of gases, CO2 among them; also dust and smoke, into the lower and upper atmosphere. Such gases and particles tend to block sunlight from reaching the Earth's land and ocean surfaces, resulting in cooling.

When Mt. Pinatubo erupted in 1991, that event alone caused global cooling by at least 0.4 C for nearly 3 years. Thick volume of ashes, smoke and gases that navigated around the globe several times, blocking sunlight. When it erupted, certains hours of the day in Metro Manila, Pampanga and nearby provinces became dark.

One friend, Winthrop Yu, wondered how much cooling a Mayon eruption would contribute. Should be small, maybe by only 0.0__ C, but cooling, nonetheless.

And we go back to the IPCC 4th Assessment Report (AR4). On its "analysis" table, 8 out of 9 factors are anthropogenic (man-made), only 1 was natural, solar irradiance.

Whaaattt??? Galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) don't contribute to the earth's climate? Volcanoes, water vapor, clouds, biosols, pacific decadal oscillation (PDO), other natural factors, do NOT contribute to the EArth's climate?

PDO cycles of cooling and warming average about 25 years. The warming phase is over, we're now entering the cooling phase.

Last September, NASA reported that there were 19 percent more GCRs in the Earth's atmosphere than last year. GCRs come from exploding stars from across the universe, within and outside our galaxy. They help create aerosols that become the "seeds" for more clouds.

The IPCC relied 100 percent of their climate predictions for the next 100 years on their global computer models (GCMs).

Seriously, anyone believes those computer models' predictive capacity of what will happen in the Philippines' weather, US weather, Europe weather, the world's weather, 1 or 2 weeks from now? For instance, the temperature range of hi-low, by Dec. 31, 2009? Because the IPCC's GCMs say they CAN predict the Earth's temperature range 90 or 100 years from now! And they have the figures, "best case" prediction of 4 C rise, max range of up to 6.4 C, by 2100!

Russian Astronomer in 2006 Predicted Global Cooling

A Russian astronomer 3 yrs ago predicted about global cooling. And if he is proven to be correct further, then the current cooling is still "mild" compared to the cooling that will happen in 2012-2015. But January this year already saw "record lows" in temperature in some parts of Germany and UK.

Here in the Philippines, the early onset of rains in mid-April (vs. June or July in earlier years) should also be a record. Today we're in 7 days straight of thick clouds and daily rains, though it was a bit sunny for a few days before that.
------------

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20060825/53143686.html

Russian scientist issues global cooling warning
15:53 25/08/2006

ST. PETERSBURG, August 25 (RIA Novosti)- Global cooling could develop on Earth in 50 years and have serious consequences before it is replaced by a period of warming in the early 22nd century, a Russian scientist said Friday.

Environmentalists and scientists today focus on the dangers of global warming provoked by man's detrimental effect on the planet's climate, but global cooling - though never widely supported - is a theory postulating an overwhelming cooling of the Earth which could involve glaciation.

"On the basis of our [solar emission] research, we developed a scenario of a global cooling of the Earth's climate by the middle of this century and the beginning of a regular 200-year-long cycle of the climate's global warming at the start of the 22nd century," said the head of the space research sector of the Russian Academy of Sciences' astronomical observatory.

Khabibullo Abdusamatov said he and his colleagues had concluded that a period of global cooling similar to one seen in the late 17th century - when canals froze in the Netherlands and people had to leave their dwellings in Greenland - could start in 2012-2015 and reach its peak in 2055-2060.

He said he believed the future climate change would have very serious consequences and that authorities should start preparing for them today because "climate cooling is connected with changing temperatures, especially for northern countries."

"The Kyoto initiatives to save the planet from the greenhouse effect should be put off until better times," he said, referring to an international treaty on climate change targeting greenhouse gas emissions.

"The global temperature maximum has been reached on Earth, and Earth's global temperature will decline to a climatic minimum even without the Kyoto protocol," Abdusamatov said.
-------


China vs. rich countries' arrogance in climate talks

There was a news report yesterday in the Financial Times,

"Climate change focus shifts to Beijing"
By Fiona Harvey
2 June 2009

The United Nations, the US and European governments have all stepped up their diplomatic efforts to woo Beijing in recent days, emolliently brushing aside the hardline stance it has taken. Beijing late last month called on rich countries to cut their emissions by 40 per cent by 2020, far more than any has agreed, and to give 0.5 per cent to 1 per cent of their gross domestic product to poor countries to help them cope with climate change....

A fellow member at our CSCCC coalition (www.csccc.info), Daren, commented,

If I were China, I’d be laughing at the UN and the “green” counties. I’d have the leverage and not sacrifice a thing—instead I’d get the other countries to pay for nuclear development and whatever I could think of. Sure I’d pretend to care about global warming, but I’d make these countries pay big-time for their arrogance and desire to somehow keep us from obtaining the wealth and prosperity that they have enjoyed for decades.

I feel that all those climate change "talks" are full of contradictions and ironies. Consider the following:

1. Rich countries to provide climate aid of around $300 billion/year, even $200 B/year -- at a time that those countries are heavily indebted because of their current borrowings for fiscal stimulus, then future borrowings to "fix" their health care, Medicare, medicaid, other welfare entitlement programs. Where will those rich countries to borrow from to finance their additional aid commitment -- China? Yes, from China!

2. While global temperatures are falling, the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmos phere is rising (now around 390 parts per million I think, it was 385 ppm about 3 years ago). The reality between falling temperature and rising CO2 -- said to be responsible for rising(!) temperature -- is 180 degrees apart.

3. All those "renewable" energies the rich countries and climate alarmists are pushing -- wind and solar specially -- produce the lowest (sometimes zero) electricity at a time the temperate countries need energy the most. At winter, the sun seldom shines and the wind seldom blows. Sometimes there is almost zero wind speed in winter time. I read this in the exeperience of wind farms in Scotland. So where will rich and cold countries get huge energy? You guess it, from "non-renewables" like coal and natural gas power plants!

So I agree with Daren. China should drag its butt on those "climate talks" by the UN and rich countries. Let them beg if they have to, but China should proceed its break-neck economic growth using cheap energy sources. It is not possible to grow fast if your energy sources are very expensive, if not very unreliable and very small.

The worst "revenge" that the rich countries can get back at China is trade protectionism. Imposing huge "carbon tax" on all China exports. Fine. Let those countries suffer hyper-inflation with buying their own expensive products and services produced from expensive energy sources, made more expensive by carbon caps passed on to consumers, made more expensive by high taxes and fees.

China has hundreds of millions of alternative market. ASEAN countries alone (Indonesia, Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia, Cambodia, Singapore, Myanmar, Laos, Brunei) is almost 600 million people, or almost the combined population of US and EU. Then there are rich neighbors like Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, with almost 200 million people. And India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, etc. with nearly 1.5 billion people, And China's growing trade relations with Brazil, S. Africa, other countries in Latin America and Africa.