There’s a lot of good news on the consensus front in Europe, noted by Hans Labohm, a Dutch economist and IPCC reviewer. It shows that skepticism on climate change is gaining a foothold throughout the countries of the EU. Far from buying the alarmist orthodoxy, opinion in Europe are divided about the truth and extent of global warming. It probably benefited more than any other continent from the medieaval warming period that permitted the expansion of agriculture and, some historians hypothesise, helped fuel the Renaissance. Russian scientists are even pointing to solar activity, which seems headed for another “Maunder Minimum”, and predicting a Little Ice Age, such as Europe experienced in the 18th century. Imagine what today’s efforts to prevent warming will look like if that happens. Our children will think we were insane. Imagine a world in which they ban hybrids and subsidise large, heavy gas guzzlers on safety and environmental grounds.

On the Nobel Peace Prize, Labohm notes the political composition of the Norwegian panel that awards it, and adds a telling quote:

Little wonder Francis Sejersted, past chairman of the committee, admits: ‘Awarding a peace prize is, to put it bluntly, a political act.’

Speaking of children, he answers the concerns of at least one commenter on my blog, who is convinced that we must all act immediately to help her children survive; to wit:

And what about our kids? Well, they have survived the story of Santa Claus without any visible scars. Wouldn’t they survive the nonsense of man-made global warming as well?

Labohm has written a useful and heartening roundup of which people and organisations aren’t meekly swallowing the politically-correct Gorthodoxy that dominates the media today.

Update: Link to comment pointed in the wrong direction. Fixed.

Johannesburg’s new place naming policy is worthy of praise. I’ve never seen the sense in removing names of people, only to replace them with names of other people. True, some names are less offensive than others, in a historical context, but the exercise always struck me as both a whitewashing (if you’ll excuse the pun) of history, and a glorification of present-day political figures.

The classic example is Jan Smuts International Airport, renamed Johannesburg International Airport, before it became O.R. Tambo International Airport. The middle option struck everyone I know as the most appropriate and clear, no matter how they feel towards either Oliver Tambo or General Smuts. Silliness.

According to the city’s website:

Proposed names should be under themes, like flora and fauna. Only in exceptional cases should people’s names be used, and submissions or petitions to name something after a person must be motivated, indicating why that specific person is worthy of the honour.

Granted, naming streets after flora and fauna is boring. I can’t count the number of friends who live in trees, or next to animals. But kudos to the City of Joburg for being sensible about what really is little more than a PR exercise, and not using it as an excuse for political point-scoring. There’s plenty enough to do about infrastructure and other municipal problems without indulging in costly cosmetics and petty grandstanding.