Global warming is 'no longer a planetary emergency'

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, reporting from Erice, Sicily

ERICE, SICILY – It’s official. The scare is over. The World Federation of Scientists, at its annual seminars on planetary emergencies, has been advised by its own climate monitoring panel that global warming is no longer a planetary emergency.

The President of the Italian Senate, Judge Pietro Grasso, who was the judge in Sicily’s first maxiprocesso, a class-action prosecution of dozens of Mafiosi who were sent to prison for a total of 2600 years, gave the magistral lecture at the opening plenary session of the seminars, which ended this week.

Both Judge Grasso and the President of the Federation, Professor Antonino Zichichi, said that care should be taken to examine carefully the basis for concern about CO2 emissions as well as the relevance and cost-effectiveness of proposed mitigation measures.

Last year’s magistral lecture to the Federation was by Professor Vaclav Klaus, then president of the Czech Republic, whose talk was entitled The manmade contribution to global warming is not a planetary emergency.

President Klaus had said: “Current as well as realistically foreseeable global warming, and especially Man’s contribution to it, is not a planetary emergency which should bother us. … My reading both of the available data and of conflicting scientific arguments and theories allows me to argue that it is not global warming caused by human activity that is threatening us.”

This year Dr. Christopher Essex, Professor of Applied Mathematics at the University of Western Ontario and chairman of the Federation’s permanent monitoring panel on climate, gave the Federation’s closing plenary session his panel’s confirmation that “Climate change in itself is not a planetary emergency.”

clip_image004 clip_image006 clip_image008 clip_image010

Left to right: Christopher Essex, Pietro Grasso, Vaclav Klaus, and Antonino Zichichi.

Professor Essex pointed out that history had shown illegitimate political movements inventing false emergencies to bypass democratic constraints on their quest for absolute power.

The Earth’s climate, he said, is a dynamic and continually-changing system. “Human societies have lived and thriven under every conceivable climate, and modern technology makes adaptation to changing weather conditions entirely routine.”

The increasing fraction of CO2 in the air could be expected to result in some warming, but it had been accepted that “the benefits of food production and the relief of starvation overwhelm concerns about the potential climate changes induced by land-surface modification.” He said the panel thought it essential to ask whether similar reasoning applied to global fossil-energy production.

On behalf of the climate monitoring panel, Professor Essex also spoke up for scientists who have been bullied, threatened or even dismissed for having dared to question the Party Line on climate. He said: “Our greatest concern at present is that the intellectual climate for scientific investigation of these matters has become so hostile and politicized that the necessary research and debate cannot freely take place.

“Political constraints take the form of declaring the underlying science to be settled when it clearly is not; defunding or denigrating research that is perceived to threaten the case for renewable energy; or the use of odious pejoratives like “denialist” to describe dissent from officially-sanctioned views on climate science.”

Professors Bob Carter and Murry Salby, who had questioned the severity of Man’s influence on the climate, were both ejected by their universities this year.

Professor Essex called for “free and open debate on all aspects of climate science, even where hypotheses are put forward for examination that openly contradict the official positions of political entities.”

He said the panel found persuasive indications that climate models systematically understated natural climate variability and significantly exaggerated the impact of CO2 emissions. Accordingly, past, present and proposed policy measures could be shown not to provide net benefits to society regardless of the rate at which the planet might warm. Limited resources would be better devoted to more pressing issues.

================================================================

UPDATE: The WFS is revising their website on the subject, see below:

WFS_AGW_page

Source: http://www.federationofscientists.org/PMPanels/Climate/ClimatePMP.asp

According to the Wayback Machine, this is how it used to read:

Summary of the Emergency

The safety and well-being of human populations are threatened by the variability and change in both the climate and the composition of Earth’s atmosphere. Research into these trends is being significantly influenced by a number of factors:

  1. What was once a relatively easy and low-cost task of obtaining data for studying and predicting these changes, is now becoming expensive, complicated and threatening as data are copyrighted and offered on a ‘for sale’ basis by international co-ordinating bodies.
  2. Global monitoring of trends requires inter-comparability and continuity of key observations, combined with the recovery of historical information. Unfortunately, observation systems for gathering climatic data are becoming increasingly costly and difficult to maintain. Furthermore, some of the standard systems upon which climate research depends (e.g. the international upper-air sounding system) are being eroded.
  3. The quality of the information provided to the lay public, industry and governments is critical to the public perception of this issue and the scientists studying it. This, in turn, affects the allocation of limited resources for research and, ultimately, to public well-being. Unfortunately, the quality and reliability of the information is highly variable and is sometimes distorted. Scientists need to do a better job of communicating such information to present an accurate and timely perspective on the significance of their research and its accomplishments.

Priorities in dealing with the Emergency

The priorities in dealing with the emergency are:

  • To encourage and support free access to data on climate change
  • To monitor the monitoring of the global environment
  • To stimulate the education of the public with regard to the causes and effects of climate change.

To monitor:

  1. The increasing vulnerability of human society to the effects of climate change (e.g. More and more people living on flood plains and in areas threatened by tropical cyclones).
  2. Climatic extremes (e.g. droughts) to determine the extent of change and variability.
  3. Ways in which vulnerability to climatic disasters can be reduced (e.g. forecasting drought in order to avoid famine).
  4. Improved methods of forecasting variability and change (e.g. improved models for predicting El Niño) and the responsible issue of forecast products.
  5. The adequacy of climate-observing networks in light of the present and continuing deterioration of the current systems.
  6. Possible human influences on climate and on atmospheric composition and chemistry (e.g. increased greenhouse gases and tropospheric ozone).
  7. The possible effects of natural episodic influences on the climate (e.g. volcanic activity).
  8. The effects of the commercialisation of national meteorological services on data and information services, observation networks and prediction research.

===============================================================

UPDATE2: 08-31-13

Ross McKitrick writes in comments:

Ros says:

I dislike it when a committee of larger groups like the AGU or the AMS express their personal views on a complex subject like global warming and claim to speak for the entire membership, and I would be no more fond of it when it happens at the WFS. However, that is not what happened here. The Erice Seminar on Planetary Emergencies covers a wide range of topics, such as nuclear power, infectious diseases, terrorism, etc. People are invited based on their involvement in one specific area. They participate in topic panels, as well as the general plenary sessions. One of the plenaries is devoted to reports from the topic panels (called Permanent Monitoring Panels), and Chris gave the summary for the climate panel. However, while he discussed what his summary would say and asked for input ahead of time, he did not presume to speak for the WFS, or even for the climate group, since everyone at such a meeting is capable of speaking for him or herself, and indeed is encouraged to do so. His comments were well-received and I suspect many in the room agreed with all of them, but it’s not correct to say that the WFS took a position.

[Note: Steve McIntyre writes in an email to me that he endorses this comment from Ross:

Monckton wanted the conference to make an official statement but it didn’t. Monckton’s post led many WUWT readers to conclude that the WFS had taken an “official” position, but this is not correct and unfair to WFS members who do not agree.

Dr. Christopher Essex, chairman, Monitoring Panel on Climate,

World Federation of Scientists, also writes:

I support Ross’s comment as a valid clarification.

– Anthony]

5 1 vote
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

148 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Chris
August 28, 2013 9:25 pm

I’m not going to bother to look it up, but I remember that the WFS is structured that way: there is only one person noted for each panel, and the choice rotates, although I cant remember when, for how long, or under what conditions (vote or otherwise). That person then works with all the other scientists around the world studying the subject.
Perhaps they’ve changed their structure. As recently as 2011, the climatology panel had 1 chairman, 5 members and 11 associate members:
http://web.archive.org/web/20110726051913/http://www.federationofscientists.org/PMPanels/Climate/ClimatePMP.asp

policycritic
August 28, 2013 9:27 pm

Chris, here’s another one that only has a chairman and a coordinator listed:
http://federationofscientists.org/PMPanels/Floods/Floods.asp
Two years ago when I looked into it, there were some panels that only listed a chairman’s name. If you click around their panels, you will see that the styles and info used in the description of each planetary topic vary (statement of purpose, emails, etc). It’s possible that each panel is responsible for that page, and the results are different as a result.

Chris
August 28, 2013 10:47 pm

Policycritic, sure, that’s understandable, though you’d expect it to be updated at some point in time, if for no other reason than to give credit to the panelists for their time and efforts. There don’t seem to be any conference proceedings online, so it’s not possible to see the panel list there.

August 28, 2013 11:32 pm

Now some, not Eli to be sure, thought that it would be most pleasing if the good Monckton of Brenchley made John Abraham put up, but Sadly No.
Instead, as the Bunny proposed but a few days ago, we are treated to an entertaining essay in avoidance. To watch Lord Monckton as his mind works at an astonishingly furious pace, whinging about the ills done to him, the difficulty of confronting his tormentors, and the cruel law which forbid him to pounce upon them, but, of course he could if he really wanted to and they should be more cautious, when shunning a chance to do same, is indeed a show Eli feels privileged to have played a minor part in.
Such humor is found only in our pale memories except for YouTube. We have Chris.

JPeden
August 28, 2013 11:40 pm

@Monckton
But, since I am a public figure and he is not, I cannot sue him. Not in the U.S., at any rate. I visited the Court of Session in Edinburgh yesterday …
“Run Rabett Run” — 1970’s James Cann movie

JanWaalwijk
August 29, 2013 1:12 am

I think the new “climate change/global warming” will be toxins (or “poison” as the Greens like to call it). No matter what you think about the great bee decimation or which direction the papers about that point, they got it all figured out that Big Chemical is to blame. Next up are herbicides since the greens want every farmer to go sustainable and thus lower his crop yield, which according the greens is “simply not true according paper/study by Greenpeace et al blabla”. City councils are at the moment already being pestered about the use of herbicides on weeds, the greens making claims (which they can do ’cause they never have to proof anything sitting on their moral high horse) that it causes cancer and genetic defects if you use Roundup a herbicide which has been used for years. Apart from the fact that we will have a backlog of 15-20 years of Earth Hour, taxation based upon assumptions, scares about the supposed oil and gas supply shortage and fracking scares to water aquifers.

That Idiot Driver
August 29, 2013 2:40 am

They meet in Erice Sicly every year? I’m ready to join that organization but have no scientific credentials. Are there exceptions….loopholes to membership? For instance, I have LOTS of scientific theories and use of practical applications (part Cherokee) but no credentials. Just looking for any excuse to get back to Europe. And CS Lewis was raised in Belfast? I’d forgotten that. Though I did know about McDonald! My idea is that if a working knowledge of Wind in the Willows is sufficient to give me some basis for application…to ultimately be a WF of S member….Then “next year in Sicily.”

steveta_uk
August 29, 2013 2:41 am

http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/global-warming-natural-says-expert
The above link shows that the president of the fedeation has held this view for some years.

M Courtney
August 29, 2013 3:06 am

Gail Combs,
Thank you for your answer. This organisation does sound like a legitimate and respected group.
Then this is the first time that a significant scientific organisation has expressed doubt about the application of the Precautionary Principle with respect to Climate Change.
Big news.

Glacierman
August 29, 2013 5:23 am

Uhh…doesn’t that mean it never was an emergency?

richardscourtney
August 29, 2013 5:25 am

Chris:
At August 28, 2013 at 9:06 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/28/global-warming-is-no-longer-a-planetary-emergency/#comment-1402515
You say

My point is that a panel should be more than 1 person. If it’s just one person, then the conclusions should not be presented as those of a panel – it’s misleading.

OK. But your point is germane to every organisation which has made a statement on climate change; i.e. RS, AGU, etc. Indeed, the scientific institutions have been usurped by a handful of activists who make pronouncements which they assert as being official policy statements.
Lindzen details how this usurpation has been achieved in a shocking and very readable paper which ‘names names’. It can be read here
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/lindzen-on-climate-science-2010.pdf
Richard

Margaret Hardman
August 29, 2013 5:27 am

That Idiot Driver
I think they let you in if you have a degree in Classics too
Margaret

highflight56433
August 29, 2013 6:14 am

Rather than spending billions on saving man from the weather, which apparently over the ages we have been so vulnerable and ever increasingly so, maybe redirect to saving man from politicians and politically driven climate science.

jbird
August 29, 2013 6:48 am

Whew! Sure dodged a bullet there.

njp
August 29, 2013 6:57 am

“They didn’t get around to doing it yet. Check the wayback machine:
http://web.archive.org/web/20110719173325/http://www.federationofscientists.org/PMPanels/Climate/ClimatePMP.asp
How does that help? Different time, different chairman. Perhaps nobody credible wants to work with Dr Essex, and he really is “the panel”. Certainly the Nobel prize winning Mario Molina, who appears in that old list, is hardly going to agree with Essex:
http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/pressroom/newsreleases/2012/august/nobel-prize-winning-scientist-cites-evidence-of-link-between-extreme-weather-global-warming.html

John Whitman
August 29, 2013 7:18 am

Christopher Monckton,
Have you considered attending the AGU’s annual fall meeting in San Francisco this December?
John

John Whitman
August 29, 2013 7:29 am

The WFS position leads me to think that major climate science funding shifts will occur towards more skeptical balance and dry up the biased alarming researcher’s funds.
There is no more effective means to make a biased alarming climate researcher skeptical than to fund scientists exhibiting normal skepticism.
John

August 29, 2013 7:48 am

JPeden says:
@Monckton
But, since I am a public figure and he is not, I cannot sue him. Not in the U.S., at any rate. I visited the Court of Session in Edinburgh yesterday …
“Run Rabett Run” — 1970′s James Cann movie
Yes, more droppings along the bunny trail.

bluegrue
August 29, 2013 8:00 am

Lord Monckton, allow me to go off-topic.
[Yes, it is off-topic.
Very far off-topic.
No, don’t go there with this blatant baiting tactic.
Mod]

John Whitman
August 29, 2013 8:14 am

A bet to consider would be on the % change in per capita income in the next 5 years of current scientists who uncritically endorse all significant warming biases in the forthcoming the IPCC AR5.
I think their income will drop by at least 50%.
John

August 29, 2013 8:17 am

To answer a few questions from commenters: yes, the World Federation of Scientists exists (it has existed for half a century); yes, its climate monitoring panel consists of a dozen eminent scientists from all parts of the globe; and yes, the chairman of that panel announced to the closing plenary that global warming is not, in itself, a planetary emergency; and no, the world’s mainstream media will do their utmost not to report that conclusion, because it does not accord with the Party Line.
The troll named “Rabett” is snide about my not taking an asymmetric bet. Well, I’m not going to give the joke figure who offered the bet any publicity: indeed, it would be improper for me to have a bet with him at present, given the likelihood that he will face court action once the trail of evidence is complete. Interesting how the trolls will talk about just about everything except the science, on which events are proving them to have been so spectacularly wrong.

John Whitman
August 29, 2013 9:13 am

Christopher Monckton,
Troll? No, I think he has rather more insignificance.
More like:
Troll A habitual illeist with an inept mercenary style.
: )
John

Redsox04
August 29, 2013 9:27 am

Why then is Obama appointing: Obama to Name Top Climate-Change Regulator
http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/obama-to-name-top-climate-change-regulator-20130828

August 29, 2013 9:55 am

@Janice Moore 3:26 pm
UPDATE! 😉
“Summary of the Emergency”
Being revised. There is none.
🙂 “…Never mind….”

BLACK PEARL
August 29, 2013 10:09 am

Redsox04 says:
August 29, 2013 at 9:27 am
Why then is Obama appointing: Obama to Name Top Climate-Change Regulator
http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/obama-to-name-top-climate-change-regulator-20130828
****************************************************************
Because he looks to Europe and sees all those lucrative CO2 taxes that are getting raked in and he wants a taste.
Also wouldn’t be supprised hes following his parties / election major donators requests
Would Mr Gore be one ?

Verified by MonsterInsights