As host of the United Nations climate summit this December, the French government is pulling out all stops to make it a “success,” striving mightily to create the impression of unquestionable “consensus” on global warming — even if it means resorting to suppression of scientific dissent and freedom of expression.”
As UN’s Paris summit approaches, one of France’s top mathematics consultancies, a legendary physicist, and a former IPCC author have joined France’s best-known TV weatherman, Philippe Verdier, in delivering black eyes and severe body blows to the increasingly discredited global-warming alarm lobby. As host of the United Nations climate summit this December, the French government is pulling out all stops to make it a “success,” striving mightily to create the impression of unquestionable “consensus” on global warming — even if it means resorting to suppression of scientific dissent and freedom of expression.”
“We must have a consensus,” French President Francois Hollande declared this past May at the Business & Climate Preparatory Summit in Paris. “If within our own country, that’s difficult, imagine what it’s like with 196 countries. A miracle!” Nevertheless, he told the corporate executives, he was confident it would be achieved. For any UN agreement to work, Hollande said, the role of businesses would be “key.” Invoking the French Revolution, he declared: “We need a revolution in business.”
President Hollande, however, is not waiting for the miraculous to happen; he prefers the iron fist and the guillotine of the Revolution. That is apparent in the case of meteorologist Philippe Verdier, to whom millions of French viewers have turned to for years for their daily weather news. Verdier was sacked from his celebrity weatherman position on France Television (the government-owned station) earlier this month for the heresy of publishing a book challenging the apocalyptic “consensus” that claims that anthropogenic (manmade) global warming, or AGW, is a “crisis” demanding global draconian action.
Will the same iron fist be applied to the prestigious Société de Calcul Mathématique (Society for Mathematical Calculation), which recently issued a detailed 195-page White Paper that presents a blistering point-by-point critique of the key dogmas of the global warming? The Société de Calcul Mathématique (SCM) study, entitled, “The battle against global warming: an absurd, costly and pointless crusade,” relentlessly exposes the flaws in the so-called science of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other institutional members of the AGW alarmist choir. The SCM, founded by renowned mathematician and professor Bernard Beauzamy, does mathematical modeling for companies and governments (including the French government), as well as providing “mathematical tools for fraud detection.” The SCM white paper also exposes the devastating economic, social, and environmental costs of continued implementation of the alarmist agenda, referring to it as a “mad obsession.”
In addition to these blows, the alleged science behind the proposed UN accord received another devastating setback recently from a study by one of the IPCC’s founders, Dr. Indur M. Goklany. Entitled, CARBON DIOXIDE — The good news, the report is all the more hard-hitting for boasting a foreword by world-renowned theoretical physicist, professor, and author (and longtime liberal Democrat) Freeman Dyson.
“Indur Goklany has done a careful job, collecting and documenting the evidence that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does far more good than harm,” Dyson wrote in the forward. “To any unprejudiced person reading this account, the facts should be obvious: that the non-climatic effects of carbon dioxide as a sustainer of wildlife and crop plants are enormously beneficial, that the possibly harmful climatic effects of carbon dioxide have been greatly exaggerated, and that the benefits clearly outweigh the possible damage.”
“I’m 100 per cent Democrat myself, and I like Obama,” Professor Dyson said in a recent interview. “But he took the wrong side on this issue, and the Republicans took the right side.”
Retribution for Climate Heresy
On October 14, Britain’s Telegraph reported on Philippe Verdier’s abrupt dismissal from France Television:Every night, France’s chief weatherman has told the nation how much wind, sun or rain they can expect the following day.
Now Philippe Verdier, a household name for his nightly forecasts on France 2, has been taken off air after a more controversial announcement — criticising the world’s top climate change experts.
Mr Verdier claims in the book Climat Investigation (Climate Investigation) that leading climatologists and political leaders have “taken the world hostage” with misleading data. In a guest essay on the popular climate blog site WattsUpWithThat, climate researcher Eric Worall commented:Frankly I’m shocked. Just a few months ago, January this year, in the wake of a horrifying terrorist attack on their offices, France rallied to support Charlie Hebdo’s freedom of expression, their freedom to satirise and speak out on sensitive issues such as religion. France prides herself that no subject is taboo. But apparently offending the Climate Taliban is a step too far – that gets you suspended from your government job.
France’s motto, Liberté, égalité, fraternité — except when you want to talk about climate change. The Climate Taliban have indeed declared jihad on all infidels who refuse to adopt the UN’s green gospel, and they appear to be desperately ratcheting up the terror tactics. As The New American has reported, the global-warming jihadists in the major media, universities, and government agencies are not only censoring and intimidating climate realists, but actually proposing to prosecute these “deniers” for dissenting from the sacred AGW “consensus.” (See here, here, and here.)
AGW Pseudo-science: “Absurd,” “Stupid,” “Pernicious,” “Mad Obsession”
“All public policies, in France, Europe and throughout the world, find their origin and inspiration in the battle against global warming,” declares the aforementioned SCM White Paper. (An English version of the French report can be found here.) It continues: “The initial credo is simple: temperatures at the surface of the planet have been rising constantly for the past thirty years, and human beings are to blame. This is leading to all sorts of discussions, conferences and regulations, which are having an enormous impact on our economy. Every area of activity is affected: transport, housing, energy — to name just a few…. The impact on the entire field of scientific research is particularly clear and especially pernicious. No project can be launched, on any subject whatsoever, unless it makes direct reference to global warming…. Your research will be funded, approved and published only if it mentions the potential for geological storage of CO2.It is appalling.”
The “mad obsession” of the UN, governments, media organizations with global warming has become “an absurd, costly and pointless crusade,” notes the SCM study. “The crusade,” it says, “has invaded every area of activity and everyone‘s thinking: the battle against CO2 has become a national priority. How have we reached this point, in a country that claims to be rational?” The answer to that question is plain, says the paper: “At the root lie the declarations made by the IPPC, which have been repeated over the years and taken up by the European Commission and the Member States.”
Here are extracts from the opening statements of the first three chapters of the SCM White Paper:
Chapter 1: The crusade is absurd
There is not a single fact, figure or observation that leads us to conclude that the world‘s climate is in any way ‘disturbed.’ It is variable, as it has always been, but rather less so now than during certain periods or geological eras. Modern methods are far from being able to accurately measure the planet‘s global temperature even today, so measurements made 50 or 100 years ago are even less reliable. Concentrations of CO2 vary, as they always have done; the figures that are being released are biased and dishonest. Rising sea levels are a normal phenomenon linked to upthrust buoyancy; they are nothing to do with so-called global warming. As for extreme weather events — they are no more frequent now than they have been in the past. We ourselves have processed the raw data on hurricanes….
Chapter 2: The crusade is costly
Direct aid for industries that are completely unviable (such as photovoltaics and wind turbines) but presented as ‘virtuous’ runs into billions of euros, according to recent reports published by the Cour des Comptes (French Audit Office) in 2013. But the highest cost lies in the principle of ‘energy saving,’ which is presented as especially virtuous. Since no civilization can develop when it is saving energy, ours has stopped developing: France now has more than three million people unemployed — it is the price we have to pay for our virtue….
Chapter 3: The crusade is pointless
Human beings cannot, in any event, change the climate. If we in France were to stop all industrial activity (let’s not talk about our intellectual activity, which ceased long ago), if we were to eradicate all trace of animal life, the composition of the atmosphere would not alter in any measurable, perceptible way. To explain this, let us make a comparison with the rotation of the planet: it is slowing down. To address that, we might be tempted to ask the entire population of China to run in an easterly direction. But, no matter how big China and its population are, this would have no measurable impact on the Earth‘s rotation.
The IPCC’s “research” methods are so contrary to genuine science and have been so thoroughly discredited, says the SCM study, that “no sensible, high-quality journal would publish the IPPC’s work.” It charges: “The IPPC‘s conclusions go against observed facts; the figures used are deliberately chosen to support its conclusions (with no regard for the most basic scientific honesty), and the natural variability of phenomena is passed over without comment. The IPPC’s report fails to respect the fundamental rules of scientific research and could not be published in any review with a reading panel.”
IPCC Expert Goklany: CO2 Is Beneficial, Not Bad
Dr. Indur Goklany’s new study, CARBON DIOXIDE — The good news, points out: “Empirical data confirms that the biosphere’s productivity has increased by about 14% since 1982, in large part as a result of rising carbon dioxide levels.” Moreover, he notes, “Thousands of scientific experiments indicate that increasing carbon dioxide concentrations in the air have contributed to increases in crop yields,” and these increases in yield “are very likely to have reduced the appropriation of land for farming by 11–17% compared with what it would otherwise be, resulting in more land being left wild.”
Dr. Goklany was a member of the U.S. delegation that established the IPCC and helped develop its First Assessment Report. He subsequently served as a U.S. delegate to the IPCC, and an IPCC reviewer. He is also a member of the Global Warming Policy Foundation’s Academic Advisory Council. “Compared with the benefits from carbon dioxide on crop and biosphere productivity,” writes Goklany, “the adverse impacts of carbon dioxide — on the frequency and intensity of extreme weather, on sea level, vector-borne disease prevalence and human health — have been too small to measure or have been swamped by other factors.”
As we have reported previously, Dr. Goklany’s earlier studies have shown that policies resulting from the AGW hysteria are having a horrendously destructive impact on the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people, who desperately need access to the vast energy provided by fossil fuels, not the piddling amounts available from wind and solar, the favorite hobby horses of enviro-activists in the rich countries.
Dr. Goklany’s new study also takes aim at the climate computer models that have proven themselves to be fatally flawed and always wrong. “Models used to influence policy on climate change,” he says in summary, “ have overestimated the rate of warming, underestimated direct benefits of carbon dioxide, overestimated the harms from climate change and underestimated human capacity to adapt so as to capture the benefits while reducing the harms.” “It is very likely that the impact of rising carbon dioxide concentrations is currently net beneficial for both humanity and the biosphere generally. These benefits are real, whereas the costs of warming are uncertain. Halting the increase in carbon dioxide concentrations abruptly would deprive people and the planet of the benefits of carbon dioxide much sooner than they would reduce any costs of warming.”
President Obama, President Hollande, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, Al Gore, and other apostles of the AGW apocalypse lobby will not be dissuaded from their destructive course by Philippe Verdier, the French SCM study, Indur Goklany, Freeman Dyson, or the rational arguments, and overwhelming evidence presented by the thousands of notable scientists who stand in the climate realist (versus the climate alarmist) camp. However, millions of American voters and activist patriots can force Congress to stop the massive taxpayer-provided funding stream to the global-warming bandwagon and stop the U.S. government from approving the UN climate treaty that will be unleashed at the upcoming United Nations confab in Paris.
Related articles:Top French Meteorologist Persecuted for Debunking Climate Hysteria Pseudo-scientists Demand Obama Prosecute Climate RealistsU.K. Lawmakers Seek Extreme Crackdown on Climate RealistsReddit Joins LA Times in Banning Skeptics from Climate “Debate”Intolerance: Global-warming Fanatics Intimidate Swedish Scientist “Lysenkoism” at OSU?WikiLeaks Reveals U.S. & EU Climate Bullying, Bribery, EspionageCooking Climate Consensus Data: “97% of Scientists Affirm AGW” Debunked Desperate Dash of Global Warming
Murray N. Rothbard was the father of what some call Radical Libertarianism or Anarcho-Capitalism which Hans-Hermann Hoppe described as “Rothbard’s unique contribution to the rediscovery of property and property rights as the common foundation of both economics and political philosophy, and the systematic reconstruction and conceptual integration of modern, marginalist economics and natural-law political philosophy into a unified moral science: libertarianism.”
This book applies the principles of this “unified moral science” to environmental and natural resource management issues.
The book started out life as an assigned reading list for a university level course entitled Environmental and Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian View.
As I began to prepare to teach the course, I quickly saw that there was a plethora of textbooks suitable for universal level courses dealing with environmental and natural resource economics. The only problem was that they were all based in mainstream neo-classical (or Keynesian) theory. I could find no single collection of material comprising a comprehensive treatment of environmental and natural resource economics based on Austrian Economic Theory.
However, I was able to find a large number of essays, monographs, papers delivered at professional meetings and published from a multitude of sources. This book is the result. It is composed of a collection of research reports and essays by reputable scientists, economists, and legal experts as well as private property and free market activists.
The book is organized into seven parts: I. Environmentalism: The New State Religion; II. The New State Religion Debunked; III. Introduction to Environmental and Natural Resource Economics; IV. Interventionism: Law and Regulation; V. Pollution and Recycling; VI. Property Rights: Planning, Zoning and Eminent Domain; and VII. Free Market Conservation. It also includes an elaborate Bibliography, References and Recommended Reading section including an extensive Annotated Bibliography of related and works on the subject.
The intellectual level of the individual works ranges from quite scholarly to informed editorial opinion.