The WWF does not mention the hundreds of polar bears shot for hunting tourism annually, but advocates 'saving' the species in the most expensive and ineffective way
Last week, the Dutch biggest national newspaper De Telegraaf printed a frontpage-article on 2 reports that investigative nature and sciencejournalist Rypke Zeilmaker published for De Groene Rekenkamer, also receiving wide attention on national radio and television newsshows. The reports are now translated with the title ‘World Wide Government Fund’. We feel some of it’s key findings are relevant for an international audience.
English Version: The World Wide Government Fund Media attention in Holland focussed mostly on Dutch WNF’s (25 percent) higher spending on marketing than claimed and it’s very broad definition of ‘conservation’ to reach it’s ambitious target. And WWF’s dishonesty in campaigns on flag ship species like the Giant Panda, whose population halved in the period that WWF is active in China, while WWF Australia claims it halted the decline and calls it’s work ‘reason to celebrate’.
Contrary to it’s claims WWF’s spending cannot be tracked to ecological nor scientific criteria it advertises with, with only 6 percent of it’s annual budget arriving in African Conservation projects after overhead correction of around 20 percent. (an overhead that is not ‘high’ compared to other NGO’s)
The English workingtitel of the reports ‘The World Wide Government Fund’, is ironic and both serious: the network behind WWF DOES use all means available for more international control, but their strategy through international (ever failing) conferences, lobbying for more governmental control and failing predictions never truly works. And their deals with business have various effects, as the German Der Spiegel already noticed.
Key findings in this blog and reasoned criticism appreciated For the lazy reader (which means most of you), in this blog some of it’s key findings are summed up. Due to a limited budget the quality of the translation of part 2 will not win an English literary prize. But the facts are there for anyone to test on it’s credibility with all claims made supported by footnotes and irrevertable proof. I hope some of my work here is not too dissappointing for the more critical readers, and well reasoned criticism on the reports is highly appreciated. Lees verder »
One of the many troubles plaguing the European Union, is the selection of their unelected officials. Once in place, they police on dossiers on which they combine the intellectual laziness of the urban-socialist with a perfect lack of practical knowledge. To maximize civilian, economic and ecological damage, they overcompensate mentioned disabilities with the secular evangelism of ´saving the earth´. The goal in their policy-doctrines: to win their own war to end all wars, by firing their silver bullet that leaves their mark on the world.
The Reform to end all Reforms So much more for former Greek Communist-party member Maria Damanaki, also regarded as ‘the Gucci-communist’: for combining her elite urban lifestyle, with 19th century ideas on economic revolution and being mentally immune to it’s century-long historical rebuttal.
By some Eurocratic accident, ‘Maria the Red’ happened to land on the longstanding dossier of the Common Fisheries Policy, CFP, with a ‘reform to end all reforms’. To reach the utopia of the ill defined ´sustainability´. The fact that fisheries are there for thousands of years is not sustainable to the greens that define this utopia.
Silver Bullet of landing bycatch, rebranded as ´discard´ In Damanaki’s CFP the proletarians have been replaced by the ‘ecosystems under pressure’, with the enemy remaining as evil and unchanged as ever: capitalist exploitation. Her silver bullet for the five year plan: a ban on bycatch in fisheries. Which to her is ‘at the heart of the CFP-reform’. Bycatch-rebranded ´discards´ by green activists to make it sound more of an ethical question- is a problem that the same CFP of the EU itself formerly stimulated through their distribution of quota.
Landing all bycatch by obligation is a silver bullet that – by ignoring fisheries differing practices through it’s 22 member states, economic viability and the law of unintended consequences- is prone to do more damage then good. The question i pose here is, whether we need more do-gooders after the damage has been done.
Success in the US For the sake of fisheries, there are many effective counterexamples, that show endemic troubles in CFP need not be ecological, nor the fishermen’s fault, though they share responsibility. Countries like the United States have been succesfull in last decade in curbing problems with overfishing, removing more stocks from the ‘overfished’list every year. Lees verder »
On climategate.nl I have been writing about many subjects, so far in over a hundred blogs, but I hardly touched on climate science: the way radiation, convection and clouds determine our climate, and the ways to calculate the climate sensitivity of the forcings, i.c. CO2.
Of course this is an important subject, and I have spent a lot of my rare free moments trying to fathom the mechanisms of climate, mainly because it irritates me that there is so much talk about it, although nobodyhas been able to explain or prove anything. We are just supposed to believe the climate models.
I decided that I needed to really understand at least the principles of the greenhouse effect and the energy balance of the earth, in order to be able to assess the quality of the claims made by climate scientists.
Energy Balance This energy balance was quite hard to make, because the physicists and climatologists I asked for information did not know how the basic radiation mechanisms worked. Finally, with the help of the late Dr Noor van Andel I have managed to get the basic physics right, and I was able to make a simple energy balance spreadsheet.
Still missing were the ratios that determine how much energy is radiated into space and how much is absorbed by the surface, from the energy that is emitted from the earth surface, the solar IR irradiation, and the latent heat after condensation. This was not easy to solve!
But I managed to construct a theory that made it possible to quantify these ratios, enabling me to finish my modelling. I call it the Fireworks Theory. The results appear to be astonishingly accurate, in the sense that they give really realistic values, close to what was measured in the atmosphere. I see this as evidence that the Fireworks theory could not be all wrong. Lees verder »
The meaning of pattern recognition in a complex system seems to be lacking it's due attention in climate research
Herewith I bring to your attention a working paper on perspectives of the continuation of climate change discussions that seems so far to have escaped the attention of scientific institutions and policymakers.
It is entitled: Post-modern science and the scientific legitimacy of the IPCC’s WG1 AR5 draft report with the major recommendation:
“that assessment studies on climate change should be undertaken by individual nations, quite independently from the IPCC, as India has already foreshadowed. These reviews would best be undertaken by senior and established scientists whose reputation rests on the traditional [enabling] disciplines upon which climate science is founded that underpin(underpin is a favourite IPCC term and not very meaningful) climate science, specifically physics, chemistry, geology astronomy, solar physics and meteorology. The audit assessments should adhere to the traditional principles of science, and should focus on the scientific methodology and empirical evidence that bear on hypothetical Dangerous Anthropogenic Global Warming (DAGW).” Lees verder »
Today The Wall Street Journal published a strong appeal to the US presidential candidates to choose for a rational stand on climate policy, signed by a group of distinguished climate scientists. Amongst them some well known sceptics, like Lindzen and Kininmonth, some American hero’s like astronaut and senator Schmitt, and Burt Rutan, the builder of SpaceShipOne. No less than six of the scientists are from outside the US.
We had our own “coming out” of scientists as a reaction to the misleading climate brochure of the Dutch Academy of Science KNAW a few months ago, and there are more similarities between both events than just the subscription of Henk Tennekes, former director of the Dutch Meteorological Service KNMI. In both cases the subscribers insist that the threat of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is over exaggerated by scientists related to the IPCC, and plea for a return to solid and independent science, after years of stealth advocacy science.
There is also a difference: the article published today, points a strong finger at the habit of many influential alarmist scientists of suppressing unwelcome opinions, by practices that can only be considered as unscientific and morally doubtful. This very practice, by the way, accounts for the limited number of scientists speaking out publicly about their doubts concerning the mainstream view on global warming.
Although its effectiveness can be doubted (president Obama will not change his stand, and the republicans do not need any encouragement to dismiss climate policy), the article is a positive “sign of the times”, that will hopefully inspire many other scientists, who have so far been silent.
For the entire article, read here: Lees verder »
The last days of 2011 bring us one more nice present: even inside the climate-infatuated BBC things start to rumble. The subjoint column of BBC anchorman Michael Buerk illustrates the wider movement in public opinion, resulting in ever more people getting fed up with being patronised and infantilized by the medea. It is an honest, impressive cry of heart by a genuinely worried man.
(copied from this blog by Hans Labohm on De Dagelijke Standaard)
Verrassend betoog van BBC anchorman over de infantilisering van de burger door de alarmistische media
Het einde van 2011 brengt ons wederom een mooi cadeau: ook binnen de klimaatverdwaasde BBC begint het te rommelen. Onderstaand betoog staat voor de brede beweging in de publieke opinie van het laatste jaar, waarbij men het zo zoetjesaan zat begint te worden om door de media betutteld en infantiel behandeld te worden. Een eerlijke, indrukwekkende en emotionele oproep van een oprecht verontrust man.
Verplicht leesvoer voor wie een begrijpelijke en persoonlijke benadering van de klimaatdiscussie zoekt.
(Overgenomen uit dit blog van Hans Labohm op Dagelijkse Standaard)
Michael Buerk is fed up with the one-sided climate policy of his own BBC
The Fifth Column – Michael Buerk (BBC) on the Climate Summit
The latest so-called Climate Summit, that’s been taking place in Durban, hasn’t made many waves. It could be because global warming seems less daunting if you can no longer afford heating bills. It could also be that we’re getting fed up with the bogus certainties and quasi-religious tone of the great climate change non-debate.
Now, I don’t know for certain that man’s activities are causing the planet to heat up. Nobody does. We simply cannot construct a theoretical model that can cope with all the variables. For what it’s worth, I think anthropogenic warming is taking place, and, anyway, it would be a good thing to stop chucking so much bad stuff into the atmosphere.
What gets up my nose is being infantilized by governments, by the BBC, by the Guardian that there is no argument, that all scientists who aren’t cranks and charlatans are agreed on all this, that the consequences are uniformly negative, the issues beyond doubt and the steps to be taken beyond dispute. You’re not necessarily a crank to point out that global temperatures change a great deal anyway. A thousand years ago we had a Mediterranean climate in this country; 200 years ago we were skating every winter on the Thames. And actually there has been no significant rise in global temperatures for more than a decade now.
We hear a lot about how the Arctic is shrinking, but scarcely anything about how the Antarctic is spreading, and the South Pole is getting colder.
Droughts aren’t increasing. There are fewer of them, and less severe, than a hundred years ago. The number of hurricanes hasn’t changed, the number of cyclones and typhoons has actually fallen over the last 30 years. And so on. Lees verder »
(Adapted from this Dutch blog on December 13th)
Seminar in the Dutch parlemental press center Lees verder »
(English version of this blog in Dutch, with credits to Albert Jacobs for the initial translation)
Last week the Dutch academic counsel presented a report to the Dutch parliament, stating that it contained impartial, detailed, scientific and accurate information about the present state of climate science. In reality the report portrayed the IPCC claims als being scientifically proven, and did so embedded in a tsunami of scientific errors.
I will discuss the most striking ones.
The hard facts
The premise of the brochure is clear:
(P. 8 ) …. With this brochure the Academy, as an “honest broker” in knowledge, wants to give you as reliable a picture as possible of the situation on climate change. What do we know, and how sure are we of that? Where are the real controversies, and why are they there? ….This brochure puts the scientific, “hard” facts about our climate in a row, and highlights the controversies and uncertainties in climate research at issue which you also encounter in the media. ….The final section contains seven related propositions on climate change – issues which science agrees on.
(P. 8 ) …. With this brochure the Academy, as an “honest broker” in knowledge, wants to give you as reliable a picture as possible of the situation on climate change. What do we know, and how sure are we of that? Where are the real controversies, and why are they there? ….
This brochure puts the scientific, “hard” facts about our climate in a row, and highlights the controversies and uncertainties in climate research at issue which you also encounter in the media. ….
The final section contains seven related propositions on climate change – issues which science agrees on.
So, the authors claim to present hard, scientifically proven conclusions. But this claim does not hold. Lees verder »
English remake of this blog (in Dutch) from september 10th, 2010
“Despite all I will talk about tonight regarding carbon capture and renewable energy, I am expecting a continued failure to achieve a global CO2 reduction”
This remarkable caveat was the opening statement of Dr Mark Jaccard, IPCC author and renewable energy expert. Jaccard has been an advisor to the Chinese government for over 15 years, and is involved in the planning of the future Chinese energy mix.
Dr Jaccard spoke at a seminar on the topic of “The Chinese energy revolution” and the very important lesson that can be learned from his lecture is that there is a solid connection between China’s energy policy and worldwide CO2 reduction. Lees verder »
(Published earlier in slightly different form in O2 Magazine, June 2011, and on this website, in Dutch, June 27th)
Mankind currently uses so much energy that it escapes every imagination. The rounded figures for 2010 can be found below, and whether it would be a thousand times more or a thousand times less, would not makes any difference for your perception. This lack of sense of scale, quite often tends to lead to the easy assumption that a certain sympathetic energy source, or reducing our energy footprint, is the solution to all our energy problems. This makes it hard to have a meaningful discussion about the world’s energy supply.
In this article I will try to identify the real options for the world’s energy supply in 2050.
Lees verder »