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.

So the European Science Foundation holds a conference on research integrity, to “foster responsible research”. And guess who’s not invited?

Granted, he’s Canadian, but since their research found he is British and his work to foster responsible research did get a mention, you’d have thought he’d crack an invite too. As a commenter at the ClimateAudit site writes: “How can you trust the integrity of a conference that lacks the integrity to include the person who discovered the very errors they are discussing?”

A statistical researcher who worked on the same issue, might have had some contribution to make on the subject of research disputes, and is really British, didn’t get a nod either. Neither did this Danish statistician, of whom the organisers of a conference on research integrity must at least have heard.

Omitting some of the most visible and public critics of research integrity — on whatever grounds — does nothing to allay suspicions that it was just a one-sided public relations exercise for the status quo, does it?

I’d say in the nick of time, but I’m neither sure if “nick” is a measure of time, nor if using it could land me in it. The nick, I mean. Having a pint may have presented a similar problem, but it is now officially legal. Yup, instead of just sneering at the yobs, they were going to ban it, the Eurocrats were.

Last week, the Wall Street Journal published an editorial by John Fund about Roşia Montană¹, a small town in Romania, where Western “environmentalists” such as George Soros and Vanessa Redgrave are trying to stoke up opposition to a proposed gold mine. This is a place with 70% unemployment, where the filthy remnants of Soviet-era mining remain a scar on the landscape, and where 80% of the population voted for a mayor who supports the project because it will create 700 new jobs. The mine will also clean up a lot of the damage done in the past, according to its backers.

The editorial contrasts two documentary films. Opposed is Gold Futures, by Hungary’s Tibor Kocsis, partly funded by Soros. In favour is Mine Your Own Business by Irish journalists and filmmakers Phelim McAleer and Ann McElhinney. No surprises which side I back. A Google search suggests that Gold Futures hasn’t exactly aired (on America’s PBS) to rave reviews either.

Read the rest of this entry »

1. Rosia Montana, if you can’t see funny characters [↩]

Sky reports that the flooding in England has led to sensational disaster-time perfidy. In the same ominous breath, it mentions looting and (gasp) the sale of bottled water for profit. Why is it that experienced journalists don’t undertand elementary economics? Rising prices for essentials in an emergency aren’t only natural, they’re actually good. They incentivise producers to increase supply, pay for enterprising individuals to get it to areas that are expensive to reach, and limit consumption by those who don’t really need it. The alternative is real shortages, bureaucratic costs and rationing. What would you rather have? Expensive bottled water, or no bottled water at all?

Pieter Dorsman offers a concise, clear overview of Dutch politics. Sadly, the overview is the only thing that’s clear. The murders of Theo van Gogh and Pim Fortuyn, along with many deep fears about the sustainability of the welfare state, European competitiveness in a global economy, and the failure to handle immigration fears, have conspired to a funfair teacup ride for politicians in search of consistency among voter support.

In the wake of communications minister Ivy Matsepe-Casaburri’s diktat that a single national mobile broadcasting network would be created in South Africa, based on the DVB-H standard, news from Europe appears to support her:

The European Commission Wednesday urged national governments and industry to take up DVB-H as the single standard for mobile television in the 27-nation bloc.

While Wednesday’s call isn’t a legal mandate to solely use DVB-H to broadcast TV over a wireless handheld device, the commission said it may in 2008 propose binding rules requiring the exclusive use of DVB-H in the European Union.

Amazingly, it goes on to claim:

The Brussels-based executive and regulatory branch of the E.U. “is not choosing a winner” but is simply giving “the market the clear signal that it should move voluntarily, but quickly, to a single standard.”

The DVB-H standard is based on Nokia Corp. (NOK) technology for mobile TV, which the commission said is the strongest standard for mobile TV.

Needless to say, the industry opposes such intervention. It believes the Eurocrats are disingenuous when they say the move will be “voluntary” and they’re not “choosing a winner”. Granted, there are drawbacks to the market fragmentation caused by competing standards, and competition is not guaranteed to pick the superior solution in the end. But there is no reason to believe that central planning is any better at choosing the right winner. Worse, eliminating competition can actually harm consumers because neither quality nor price will come under pressure. Why would anyone have a motive to improve DVB-H now that it’s been chosen as de jure winner? In agreeing that people can’t be trusted to make their own economic decisions, I guess Poison Ivy will feel vindicated by the mandarins of Europe.