Hans Labohm writes in an email:
Pursuant to my earlier e-mail, I am sending you the translation of my posting on DDS.
The posting has been published now on:
See the translation below. (Feel free to improve my English).
Hans H.J. Labohm
Dutch parlementarian René Leegte (VVD, Classical Liberal Party) bells the cat
By Hans Labohm
The Daily Standard, June 27, 2011
In his intervention in a recent parliamentary climate debate, René Leegte (VVD) elaborated on the adverse effects of climate change on food security.
‘There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.
The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.
To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. .. Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. …. [..] the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.’
So far the usual climate alarmism, to which the we have become accustomed. So, nothing unusual – except that these words were spoken by a classical liberal. But then – surpise, suprise – René Leegte went on:
You may have noticed already that this quote comes from a Newsweek article of April 28, 1975. The world was mesmerized by climate change, because of global cooling. A new ice age was in the offing. And mankind had to prevent it. It was the era of the Den Uyl [Dutch socialist prime minister] government, which firmly believed in social engineering – climate being no exception. It is less than forty years ago. What have we learned since?
But now we talk about global warming. We pretend to have a better understanding, but the data on which we rely – the long-term temperature measurements – largely come from the same sources, which earlier told us that the earth would cool.
It is clear that many people begin to feel increasingly uncomfortable with the climate debate. Countries like Canada, Japan and Russia refuse to take part in a follow up of Kyoto. That makes sense, because while we witness a new record in the emission of CO2 (and believe me, every year we will break new records) the temperature curve has remained flat.
I call upon the government to come up – as soon as possible after the recess, but well before the budget debate – with an explanation of why the IPCC models project ever-increasing warming, while the measurements show a leveling off.
The current climate debate is the wrong debate. It’s the wrong debate, because the real problems of the moment are drought, health, biodiversity, food and energy.
We should not pretend that climate policy offers a solution to these problems. Climate is the wrong issue. We should not pretend that if we reduce human CO2 emissions, we might solve the real problems. I envy those who believe in those fairy tales. But I am very concerned about all the money we waste on pursuing the wrong priorities.
I would like to invite the Minister to promise that he will urge his European partners to pay equal attention to the views of climate realists, thus ensuring more balance in the discussion, so that we can find real solutions to problems where we can make a difference.
So far René Leegte.
Last minute news
On the front page ‘De Telegraaf’ posted the following article.
‘Met Office is partisan in climate debate’
VVD: Dissolve Met Office
by Inge Lengton
THE HAGUE, Tuesday
The Met Office must be dissolved. That is the position of the VVD [Dutch classical liberal party], which accuses the institute of bias in the climate debate.
According to Liberal MP Leegte, the Met Office is too much prejudiced in favour of the CO2-driven warming hypothesis. “Eighty percent of the scientists of the KNMI are honest, but 20 percent are not independent. That is unacceptable for an institute that receives every year 60 million euros of public funding.”
According to the VVD fraction the Met Office is exclusively focussed on CO2 as a culprit for the rise in global temperatures, while the real problem is probably wider, says Leegte.
“The Met Office seems to believe that if we solve the CO2 problem, we are solving the climate problem, but it does not work that way. The earth’s temperature fluctuates. To what extent this has to do with CO2, is uncertain.”
Leegte suggests that in the future the Met Office might outsource certain tasks, such as climate research and weather alerts. “Meteo Consult can do it, but also foreign universities or institutes,” says Leegte. “As long as they are independent.”
So far ‘De Telegraaf’
Could René Leegte picked up these ideas from the mainstream media? No way, Dutch newspapers like De Volkskrant, NRC/HB and Trouw, only publish articles which are conducive to spreading the climate gospel that man-made CO2 causes temperatures to rise. But maybe he has been a regular reader of The Daily Standard?
Readers who want information on alternative views, might consult the following links: