CHALLENGING CLIMATE POST COPENHAGEN

Vishwakarma Institute of Information Technology

&

Liberty Institute, New Delhi

Cordially Invite You a Symposium on

CHALLENGING CLIMATE POST COPENHAGEN

Speaker: Dr S Fred Singer on The Science of Climate Change

Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science, University of Virginia

Founder, Science & Environment Policy Project

Followed by a panel discussion on “The Climate Change Debate Post Copenhagen”

Panelists:

Dr S. Fred Singer

Dr R R Kelkar, Ex-Addl DG, Indian Meteorological Institute, New Delhi

Dr Uday Shankar De, ex-ADG of Meteorology & Research at IMD, ex-IITM

Moderator: Mohit Satyanand, Chairman, Liberty Institute

Schedule:

1010 hrs: Welcome & Introductions

1020 hrs: Dr Singer's presentation on 'The Science of Climate Change'

1050 hrs: Introduction of the panelists and a short presentation on 'Climate Change: Facts & Perspectives'

1055 hrs: Moderated Discussion on Climate Change Post Copenhagen, Post ClimateGate.

Alongwith Q&A from the audience

1200 hrs: Vote of Thanks

Date: 27th Feb 2010, Saturday

Venue: Sharad Arena, Vishwakarma Institue of Technology, Upper Indira Nagar,

Bibwewadi,

Pune

411037

Liberty Institute, New Delhi

LibertyInstitute@gmail.com

http://challengingclimate.blogspot.com/

Challenging Climate Post Copenhagen

India International Centre & Liberty Institute Cordially invite you to a discussion on Challenging Climate Post Copenhagen

Chair: Prof MGK Menon, former minister for science, and chair person of IIC.
Speakers:
Dr Fred Singer - Science of global warming
Dr Benny Peiser - Policy options post Copenhagen
Commentators:
Dr Prodipto Ghosh, senior distinguished fellow TERI, advisor to government of India on climate change policy, former secretary Ministry of Environment & Forest
Dr Dev Raj Sikka, former director, Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology

Date: 23 February 2010 Time: 5.30 to 8 pm Venue: India International Centre, (Conference Room 1, main building), Max Mueller Marg, New Delhi 110003.

Programme:

5.30 pm: Tea

6.00 pm: Welcome and introductions

6.10 pm: Presentations by Dr Fred Singer

6.30 pm: Presentation by Dr Benny Peiser

6.50 pm: Comments by Dr Dev Raj Sikka

7.00 pm: Comments by Dr Prodipto Ghosh

7.10 pm: Questions and Answers

7.45 pm: Chairman’s remarks by Prof MGK Menon

7.55 pm: Vote of thanks

BSVP: Liberty Institute, New Delhi

Email: libertyinstitute@gmail.com

Tel: 011-42815409

India International Centre, New Delhi

Tel: 011-24619431

Dr. S. Fred Singer is one of the most distinguished scientists in the U.S. He organized and chaired the NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change) and was lead author of its summary report "Nature, not human activity, rules the climate." He co-authored its full report "Climate Change Reconsidered" [2009] www.NIPCCreport.org.

In the 1960s, Dr Singer established and served as the first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, now part of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and earned a U.S. Department of Commerce Gold Medal Award for his technical leadership. In the 1980s, Singer served for five years as vice chairman of the National Advisory Committee for Oceans and Atmosphere (NACOA) and became more directly involved in global environmental issues. Since retiring from the University of Virginia and from his last federal position as chief scientist of the Department of Transportation, Singer founded and directed the nonprofit Science and Environmental Policy Project. www.SEPP.org

Dr Benny Peiser is the Director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (London) and the editor of CCNet, the world's leading climate policy network. He is the co-editor of the journal Energy and Environment, a scientific advisor to the Lifeboat Foundation and a fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society. A 10km-wide asteroid, Minor Planet (7107) Peiser, was named in his honour by the International Astronomical Union. The recently established Global Warming Policy Foundation is chaired by Lord Lawson, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer in the UK. http://www.thegwpf.org/

Liberty Institute

Julian L. Simon Centre

C-4/8 Sahyadri,

Plot 5, Sector 12, Dwarka

New Delhi 110078

Tel: 011-42815409

Email: LibertyInstitute@gmail.com

Websites:

www.InDefenceofLiberty.org
www.ChallengingClimate.org

By Pachauris law bad science drives out good

by Dipankar Gupta

Mail Today

Wednesday, 10 February 2010

The sloppiness of the IPCC has given science a bad name and set backefforts to control pollution

IT WAS a stupid act to follow but he did it again and again and again.

Rajendra Pachauri used WWF documents as scientific evidence, not once, but at least twice.... The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report relied on the Wikipedia, student research papers, and, unbelievably, quoted an anti- smoking activist on the disappearing Amazon Forest.

...

...

Truth

It is easy to forgive a Greenpeacenik or an aging hippy; they often know not what they do. Pachauri is not that type. He sinned for he deliberately spoke for science and let it down.

...

When science is downgraded by populism, it undermines centuries of hard work: lonely, difficult, and against all odds.

In a real sense, scientists are subversive. They speak the truth and damn the expenses. Science has brought us unfathomable good: we live longer, we have more time for leisure and we dont have to cower with fear at thunder and lightning. Science also teaches us to respect nature, though some of its products have misused it.

But the ill effects of sci- ence can be fought by science alone, and not by political grandstanding.

...

...

Sadly, certified scientists are out of the loop. In a recent BBC discussion with 2009 Nobel Laureates, none of the assembled scientists wanted to talk about climate change. Why? Because there was practically no science in what was being bandied about. It was just a bunch of “ grey material”­ Palika Bazaar stuff, which should not be dignified as knowledge.

Professor Frederick Seitz, the former President of the United States National Academy of Sciences, said the same thing in a more formal setting, but nobody in the IPCC bothered to listen to him.

...Recently Toyota and Honda found they had produced defective cars. Did they complain about conspiracy or downplay the flaws? No! They recalled every single one of them and lost millions as a consequence. Much earlier when it was discovered that Tylenol bottles were not tamper- proof, its manufacturers swooshed every single Tylenol container off the shelves.

On the other hand, to get an admission from Pachauri is like dragging a pet to the vet. When confronted with the errors, he shifted the blame to his researchers and to the probability theory that with so many facts, its alright to go wrong on a couple. ...

Subversion

It has also given climate skeptics hooting rights.

Their claim that science has been hijacked by “ warmists”­ the 21st century, speaking in tongues of doomsayers, is suddenly ringing true. ...

... Monckton who delivered the much publicised open letter to Pachauri, minutes before the Copenhagen conference, shares many of Pachauris characteristics, which he actually sniggers at. Pachauri is no climate scientist, he is a Railway Engineer with a Ph. D in Economics. But then neither is Monckton. He has a degree in classics, and in his better days did journalism and Thatcherite politics.

So if Pachauri should be sent back to play with his choo- choo train, Monckton should be singing lullabies to children. Or take the flamboyant, and all too young, Bjorn Lomborg. He is the ultimate “ cool dude”. He actually believes that temperatures are going down and that the Kyoto protocol was hot air. And, yes, he is not a scientist either but teaches in Copenhagen Business School.

...

Ice

...

What really matters is the emergence of Pachauris Law. It says “ good science drives out bad science with the speed of melting ice cream.” If newspaper reports are to be taken seriously then Pachauri is also turning out to be a half flasher. He opens his jacket to reveal a downmarket label. This act of humility is to still gossip that he wears Armani suits with corporate earnings.

...

...
Will the real scientists please come out? They need to break the ice before it melts away.

The writer is a well- known sociologist who is currently a Fellow at the Nehru Memorial Museum and Library, in New Delhi.

Politics of climate change: Why India wants to support to IPCC now?

Barun S. Mitra

An edited version of this article titled “India should support a toothless IPCC”, appeared in the Wall Street Journal Asia, on 9 Feb 2010.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh expressed his support for the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and its leader, Rajendra Pachauri, at a local energy conference in New Delhi, on Friday February 5. The move has surprised many observers, but it may prove to be politically astute.

The IPCC’s credibility is undoubtedly in tatters today. From climategate to glaciergate, Amazongate, natural-disaster gate, Chinagate and now Africagate, the floodgates of bad science have opened. Given all that, plus the much-publicized flap between Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh and Mr. Pachauri over the science behind “melting” Himalayan glaciers weeks before the Copenhagen climate summit in December, it would superficially make sense for the government to jettison Mr. Pachauri as soon as possible—not back him.

But Delhi isn’t just backing him and the organization. At Friday’s annual flagship event of The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI)—which Mr. Pachauri has headed for almost 30 years—the Prime Minister offered to provide technical assistance through a newly established glacier research center. The government has also formed a network of scientific institutions to develop domestic science and research capacities on climate issues, the Indian Network for Climate Change Assessment.

There can’t be any more effective way to demonstrate one’s lack of confidence in the U.N.’s premiere clearing house for climate science than to offer scientific assistance to the beleaguered IPCC. Under normal times, lesser mortals could hardly have dared to offer support to the omniscient IPCC. But these are extra-ordinary times!

So, today it is in the Indian government’s interest to perpetuate a weak IPCC and a toothless Mr. Pachauri at its helm. Given the recent scientific scandals, the IPCC is hardly in a position to influence Indian policy making. The group’s continued presence will be a constant reminder of its folly and lack of credibility. No one from the IPCC can again cavalierly dismiss their critics as promoting “voodoo science” or “vested interests,” as was Mr. Pachauri’s wont. By cementing a weak IPCC in place, the Indian government may appear to be a knight in shining armor before its own constituents, having subdued a potentially threatening international agency.

Mr. Pachari is now in his second term as the head of IPCC. He is not a climate scientist—or even a scientist at all. He is an able science administrator who has built his institute from scratch. Influential governments in the rich world probably accepted Mr. Pachauri not just for his redoubtable skill in institution-building, but also in the hope that by placing an Indian like him at the head of IPCC, he might be able to influence Indian policy. The Nobel Prize awarded to IPCC added a further coat of gloss.

That’s important because after all, if countries like China and India do not subscribe to any commitment to reducing emissions, developed countries’ best efforts will not have any significant impact. Having bought the idea of man-made global warming, rich countries had to try and ensure that developing countries fell in line. And it seems the hope among policy makers in the developed world was that Mr. Pachauri may be the man to deliver India to the altar of global warming.

But the real realpolitik of today’s democratic India is such that no one can dare to be blind to the developmental aspirations of the people, least of all the political leaders, who have to face the population at elections every few years. Even if some Indian elites and political leaders wanted to sell the future of the country by agreeing to some form of restrictions on energy usage—and thus on economic growth—in the fiercely competitive world of Indian politics they would stand no chance.

The IPCC was created as a way to make the world, particularly the poor, fall in line and support expensive climate-change initiatives by overwhelming them with the apparent authority of the world’s leading technical body on the subject, backed by alleged scientific consensus. This attempt was doomed to fail, primarily because scientific inquiry does not respect consensus, and orthodoxy is anathema to scientific progress. So the fall of IPCC was inevitable, and that seed was laid at the time of its conception, in the very nature in which IPCC was sought to be built.

There is some poetic justice in this whole drama. Countries like India, which were always apprehensive of institutions like the IPCC, now might prefer the shadow of that institution. They might believe that a weak IPCC will have to allow them to draw up their own science and pursue their own interests. The rich countries that gave birth to the idea of IPCC cannot afford to disown it without exposing their own underlying design. They could try and replace its head, in the hope that the new face might be able to rebuild the credibility of the institution. But having tested blood, there is no reason why the other set of countries will let the current advantage pass so easily.

The IPCC has been checkmated, as have so many other U.N. institutions before it. This is the inevitable consequence of the desire for global government under the misguided belief that ordinary people may not know what is in their own interest and for their own future. With the deepening of democratic ideals, people power can no longer be overturned so easily. The failure of the IPCC shows that sovereignty still lies with the people, not with the aspirants for global government.

Mr. Mitra is director of the Liberty Institute, an independent think tank in New Delhi.

Europe catches cold after climate talks

Pallavi Aiyar, correspondent of the Business Standard, based in Brussels.

Business Standard

5 February 2010

http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/europe-catches-cold-after-climate-talks/384714/

In Brussels, the seat of the European Union, the New Year has begun with much sombre soul searching. Already struggling to combat high unemployment and revive its sluggish economy, the outcome of the United Nations climate change conference in Copenhagen has deepened the sense of crisis that has come to pervade the European project.

...

In Copenhagen, the EU thus attempted to play the mediator, finding ways to bring the US on board, while persuading the major emerging economies to commit to more than they seemed willing.

...

Ignored by the US and disparaged by the developing world, Europe is now left struggling to devise ways in which to revive its lost influence and, thereby, restore a sense of purpose.

...

China is the easiest target and has correspondingly been put up as the chief fall guy in the European media, with the UK climate secretary, Ed Miliband, openly claiming that China “hijacked” the Copenhagen summit.

The US’ less-than-edifying role in the process has also caused a few low grumblings in Brussels’ corridors of power, but these are kept from getting too loud. To point the finger squarely at the US is politically difficult for the EU, which, despite chafing against many of the actions of its trans-Atlantic ally, remains tied to it both militarily and ideologically.

...

In her hearing before the European Parliament last month, the new European commissioner-designate for climate action, Connie Hedegaard, blamed the EU’s lack of efficacy on its inability to speak with one voice.

Tom Brooks, managing director of the European Climate Foundation’s (ECF) Energy Strategy Centre, points out that strong disagreements among the 27 members of the EU resulted in its inability to “move forward itself, while asking other parties to do so”.

...

...

The EU stuck to its 20 per cent emissions reduction offer in its notification to the United Nations last week. The idea that by unilaterally increasing its emissions cut target, the EU will regain its moral leadership on climate change is thus a strategy that looks dead for the time being.


Europe’s main strategy going forward, according to ECF’s Brooks, will be to focus less on the grand sweep of global leadership and more on the less glamorous but pragmatic work of “getting on with the internal processes of low carbon prosperity”.

“The Copenhagen Accord has ensured that the foreseeable future will be about national actions,” he says.

The greatest hope for the EU’s claims to leading the climate change fight, other analysts say, is for it to focus on developing low-carbon technologies and figuring out how best to reduce conflicts between economic growth and environmental sustainability.

...

“Why does Europe define climate change, which may or may not have effects in the future, as the burning issue of the day rather than the 1.8 million children who die of diarrhoea every year?” asks a negotiator from one of the BASIC countries.

...

These are issues that remain largely unaddressed or even acknowledged in the rash of post-Copenhagen post-mortems that Brussels continues to host. But, until the EU addresses these effectively, its ambitions to climate change leadership are not likely to succeed on the basis of technological innovation alone.

The end of the IPCC: One mistake too many!

S. Fred Singer

A slightly modified version of this article was published in the Hindustan Times, 5 February 2010, with the title “The end is not near”
http://www.hindustantimes.com/The-end-is-not-near/H1-Article1-505317.aspx

IPCC has acknowledged they made a mistake in their projection of 2035 as the date when all Himalayan glaciers were said to melt. But the Himalayan blinder is not a one-off mistake; it is only the latest of the litany of errors that have dogged IPCC over the past ten years. …

In their 2001 report, IPCC had claimed that the 20^th century was “unusual” and blamed it on human-released greenhouse gases. … Two Canadians exposed the bad data used by the IPCC and the statistical errors in their analysis.

And since then, the litany of errors continues to grow.

• In mid-August 2009, after repeated requests for such data under the Freedom of Information Act, the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (CRU), one of the three international centers that publish global temperatures, announced that it discarded the raw data used to calculate global surface temperatures. …

….

• In November, emails from the CRU were leaked to the public, creating what became known as “Climategate.” These emails reveal efforts to suppress independent studies that are contrary to IPCC conclusions of human-caused global warming. …
• In mid-December, the Russian Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) reported that the Hadley Center for Climate Change of the British Meteorological Office (Met Office) had probably tampered with Russian climate data and that the Russian meteorological station data do not support human-caused global warming. …
• In January, Joe D’Aleo and E. Michael Smith reported that the US-National Climatic Data Center (NOAA-NCDC) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (NASA-GISS) dropped many meteorological stations from their data bases in recent years. …
• On January 23, 2010, the Sunday Times (London) reported that the AR4 wrongly linked natural disasters to global warming. …
• In January, 2010, Dr. Murari Lal, the coordinating lead author of the AR4’s chapter on Asia, stated that the IPCC deliberately exaggerated the possible melt of the Himalayan glaciers. …
• This past week, additional reports reveal that IPCC’s claims that warming will cause extensive adverse effects in the Amazon rainforests and on coral reefs came not from science studies but from publications by environmental groups, such as the World Wildlife Fund and Greenpeace. More scandalous even, the IPCC based their lurid predictions on anecdotal, non-peer-reviewed sources – not at all in accord with its solemnly announced principles and scientific standards.

These events showed not only a general sloppiness of IPCC procedures but also an extreme ideological bias….

…

… Hundreds of billions have already been wasted -- most of this in transfers of tax revenues to a favored few.

These sums pale, however, in comparison to the trillions that would have been spent in future if some of the mitigation schemes had come to fruition. Fortunately for the world economy, these schemes all collapsed at the Copenhagen conference. …Copenhagen was mostly about transfer of money from rich to poor countries – or more precisely, from the poor in rich countries to the rich in poor ones.

“Climategate” now makes it unlikely that such mitigation and transfer schemes will ever be carried out.

Dr S. Fred Singer, an atmospheric physicist, professor emeritus at the University of Virginia, and former director of the US Weather Satellite Service, is the organizer of NIPCC (Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change) and coauthor of its reports “Nature, not human activity, rules the climate” [2008] and “Climate Change Reconsidered” [2009].