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.”
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:
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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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:
- 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).
- Climatic extremes (e.g. droughts) to determine the extent of change and variability.
- Ways in which vulnerability to climatic disasters can be reduced (e.g. forecasting drought in order to avoid famine).
- Improved methods of forecasting variability and change (e.g. improved models for predicting El Niño) and the responsible issue of forecast products.
- The adequacy of climate-observing networks in light of the present and continuing deterioration of the current systems.
- Possible human influences on climate and on atmospheric composition and chemistry (e.g. increased greenhouse gases and tropospheric ozone).
- The possible effects of natural episodic influences on the climate (e.g. volcanic activity).
- 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:
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]
Next up! The new alien scare! What for it in a propaganda media source near you!
Hmm. If I were confident that the warming pattern over the next decade was going to be strongly asymmetric, then I’d gladly take an asymmetric bet.
If model predictions are to be believed, we should see a ~0.1 C increase by the end of the decade, while Lord Monckton’s source is predicting a 0.5 C drop. Can we meet in the middle, and place even odds at -0.3 C?
I am not confident of what temperatures will do, because they are stochastic. A fair bet (if I were a betting man, which I am not) would take zero change as the baseline.
– – – – – – – –
A gauntlet thrown down by the WFS that the environment /climate correspondents of MSM cannot pick up because they are told what storyline to report. Those correspondent’s intellectual leaders support 100% the storyline of the warming biased assessment that is the AR4 /AR5.
However, the WFS position is being told in spite of the MSM’s unspoken code of silence on the significant problems in the IPCC’s position of alarming anthropogenic climate change.
The IPCC has lost the pretext of scientific authority now. There are giggles in the scientific community about their absurd processes that are unscientific. The MSM is losing business in not reporting it.
John
To Redsox04:
You ask, “Why then is Obama appointing: Obama to Name Top
Climate-Change Regulator…”
Need you ask? President Obama sees the issue of climate change,
or whatever neologism it’s currently named, as a means of increasing
the scope and reach of the Federal government’s power.
Also, a means for raising yet more tax revenue–do a Google
search on the term “social cost of carbon”. This is clearly an
initial salvo in the effort to implement a so-called “carbon tax”.
The correctness, or not, of the science underlying climate
change has always been irrelevant to the politicians and activists
who are the foremost pushers of the theory. For example,
former Senator Tim Wirth, who also served at the UN, has been
quoted as saying:
Note the irrelevance of the correctness of the science to the desired
secondary effect.
Eli Rabett says:
Eli is looking perhaps for some smaller side bets on the proposition and what the good Lord’s reaction will be.
Just curious – is Eli related to Elmo? They seem to speak similarly. Elmo seems a bit less challenged, however.
@ur momisugly Tony G
I couldn’t agree more as from the inanity of the prose the rabett person appears to less resemble a rabbit and more and more to resemble a complete pratt.
@ur momisugly Stephen Rasey (9:55am today) — Thank for the update! lol
*********************
That Idiot Driver!!!!! I was behind you AAAAALLLL THE WAY into town this afternoon. Why did you not pull over when I flashed my lights? Why were you going 35mph in a 45??!! Thank you, though, for MAKING the green light you were slowing down for (grrrr) when I honked my horn.
LOL, seriously, fun name, TID and I enjoyed reading your fun post. Yes, Eire was never far from C. S. Lewis’ mind. It was home.
Monckton of Brenchley says:
August 29, 2013 at 12:58 pm
“I am not confident of what temperatures will do,”
I can give you weekly-monthly deviations from normals for the UK for the next 10 years, with very high certainty for timing, and a good idea of intensity, with around 90% deterministic. From that I can tell where the dry or wet periods are. I’ll be pleased to show you how this is achieved of course.
Waster of BlogSpace and OurTime-Yawn. The readers of this blog do their own homework and rarely view people inclined to use hyperbole and logical fallacies as bearers of “truth”.
Aphan,
“Waster of BlogSpace and OurTime”
LOL.
Precisely.
A Fan,
Janice #(:))
Lord Monckton,
Thank you for the write up. That step just may signal the beginning-of-the-end for the climate gravy train. Of course it will still take several decades to slowly fade into obscurity, but, I’m sure it will.
The WFS website ‘Climate’ page isn’t the only one that needs updating. I don’t know if it is important at this stage but the Summary of the Emergency section on the ‘Energy’ page of the website states: “.. Lastly, the burning of fossil fuels is the primary anthropogenic contributor to increased greenhouse gas concentrations. ” And, I would imagine such references are scattered throughout the site.
A lot of people like to claim that “Mr Monckton” claimed that he “created cures for multiple sclerosis, influenza, and herpes as well as reducing the viral load of an HIV”, and yet I can find no proof that Lord Monckton ever actually made such a claim. Which makes me skeptical about it.
Do you have an issue with Michael Mann claiming that he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize? (Seems like someone else was skeptical about that and did some homework)
http://www.examiner.com/article/professor-mann-claims-to-win-nobel-prize-nobel-committee-says-he-has-not
Best comment after that article is “Mann made global nobeling”
Christopher Essex
Well there goes the vast majority of climate change commentary on all sides of the debate.
Waster of Space and Time (coined by Aphan) provides an example of Algorizing (coined by JM) at 6:16pm.
[snip -off topic – mod]
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.
Ros is correct that personal opinions have no place in science. However, the head posting did not state or imply the World Federation of Scientists had taken a position. It did, however, fairly, accurately and contemporaneously name four individual speakers – one from last year, three from this year – who had described global warming as not being a planetary emergency, and had done so at public sessions of the Federation at which journalists had been present. The journalists had chosen not to report what was being said, so I wrote up this surely blameless report for WUWT, which often carries news that the once-mainstream media sullenly refuse to report. I hope that readers enjoyed the news.
– – – – – – – – –
I really thank Steven Kopits wholeheartedly for his comprehensive comment that tries to over view the WFS meeting in the session on climate.
NOTE: The following is not intended to imply criticism per se of the WFS panel’s deliberation nor of Steven Kopits’ much appreciated efforts in overviewing.
I would like to make a few generic observations on a certain category of lists which is like the list of four (4) points he provided. I have highlighted his specific list in bold in his comment above.
First, these kinds of lists with very similar climate focused statements are common here on both WUWT and many blogs. One finds similar lists on profoundly pro CAGW sites and on profoundly con ones and on blogs committed to openness with well moderated mixed discussion of pro / con (and ‘luker’).
Second, such lists are often presented as having some sort of a logical progression of thought down through the items such that, when taken as a whole, they are either explicitly or implicitly assessed to be more significant than the individual statements themselves. A conclusion from the list is often assessed to exist. Often a conclusion is unmerited when viewed with formal logic.
Third, the context in which such lists are presented is sometimes defensive in the sense that the authors are showing that they do not deny some level of ‘orthodoxy’ in climate science. And sometimes when the context of making such lists is an attempt to demonstrate how the IPCC has purposefully understated its uncertainties and how the IPCC assessment teams manipulated the exclusion of skeptical research, then in that context we see questions about the possibility of a insignificant or non-detectable anthropogenic effect on climate. Also, when the context of such lists is to show that pseudo-science is involved in them then we get a discussion that goes to the most fundamental underpinnings of the Western Tradition in physical science and the philosophy of reason/science.
Fourth, the lists are profoundly incomplete in offering any reasonable treatment of the Earth-Atmospheric System’s: complexities; orders of magnitudes of many (some unknown) factors; lack of sufficient data; etc; etc . As a shorthand place marker in a blog dialog there may be limited justification for the lists. But I think the lists are more misleading than they are useful.
Fifth, the lists do not contain even rudimentary statements of essential premises nor basic relevant additional statements or corollaries; ones that even a reasonable brief presentation of our climate situation can offer.
John
I also attended the WFS Erice conference and agree 100% with Ross McKitrick’s comments (Ross two comments above). Despite the opening sentence in the above post (“It’s official”), no such position was officially taken by the WFS. Indeed, many participants in the conference hold diametrically opposite views.
What’s a magic gasser to do without there being any evidence there’s a “heating component” to the refrigerant, in a phase change refrigerated, gas bath?
Quibble over semantics.
Monckton of Brenchley says:
August 30, 2013 at 2:29 pm
Ros is correct that personal opinions have no place in science. However, the head posting did not state or imply the World Federation of Scientists had taken a position. It did, however, fairly, accurately and contemporaneously name four individual speakers – one from last year, three from this year – who had described global warming as not being a planetary emergency, and had done so at public sessions of the Federation at which journalists had been present. The journalists had chosen not to report what was being said, so I wrote up this surely blameless report for WUWT, which often carries news that the once-mainstream media sullenly refuse to report. I hope that readers enjoyed the news.
The head posting implied that the climate monitoring panel had come to this conclusion, and in a later posting Monckton stated ” yes, its climate monitoring panel consists of a dozen eminent scientists from all parts of the globe.” Where is the list of the dozen eminent scientists? Surely the chances of this announcement receiving coverage would be increased if the conclusion was associated with a dozen eminent scientists.
Regarding the lack of press coverage, unless I missed it, the WFS site contains no mention of the recent conference. There are no press releases online publicizing the event, no conference proceedings, no press releases highlighting conference presentations – nothing. If the WFS can’t be bothered to promote their own conference, is it any wonder it received scant to no coverage by journalists?