Scepticism in Europe: “The Tide Is Turning…Very Much Alive and Kicking”

Dr. Hans H.J. Labohm is an independent economist and author specialised in climate issues. He is former dpt. Foreign Policy Planning Advisor at the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, former dpt. Permanent Representative of the Netherlands to the OECD, former Senior Visiting Fellow and Advisor to the Board of the Netherlands Institute of International Relations (Clingendael) and former (critical) expert reviewer of the IPCC. Together with Dick Thoenes and Simon Rozendaal, he wrote: ‘Man–Made Global Warming: Unravelling a Dogma’, MultiScience Publishing Company, 2004.

(http://notrickszone.com) The opening sentences set the tone in no uncertain terms. He calls the notion of dangerous manmade global warming a “delusion”, a science that has been plagued by “cherry–picking, spin-doctoring and scare–mongering by the United Nations’ IPCC and other climate alarmists.”

In his analysis, Dr. Labohm analyzes the sceptic movement in various European countries and believes that

“the tide seems to be turning” and that it has “gained considerable ground”. But the obstacles in Europe are still huge, as almost “all political parties are toeing the global warming line”. 

Labohm writes that

“sceptical views – even from well-known scientists with impeccable credentials – tend to be ignored and/or actively suppressed by governments, academia and the media.”

However, it appears that the obstacles can be overcome. Labohm adds, citing a variety of recent public opinion surveys:

Over the last few years a disconnect has been growing between public opinion and official climate policy. Despite massive climate change propaganda, less and less people seem to be concerned about the putative threat of an imminent climate catastrophe.”

Labohm begins his look at Europe by first focusing on Russia, where he says Russian scientists aren’t at all timid about expressing their scepticism. Some Russian scientists openly say that a little ice age is imminent in the coming decades, and adds that “it was no surprise that the Russians have announced to drop out of Kyoto”.

Sweden also has a small but very vocal group of sceptics including: Göran Ahlgren, Jonny Fagerström, Per Welander, Tage Andersson, Per-Olof, Eriksson, Sten Kaijser, Wibjörn Karlén, Ingemar Nordin, Åke Ortmark, Carl-Gustaf Ribbing, Peter Stilbs, Maggie Thauersköld and Fred Goldberg. Another harsh critic of global warming science is Axel Mörner. In Denmark there are renowned researchers Bjørn Lomborg, Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen.

Labohm then looks at the German speaking part of Europe, where he writes that in Switzerland two associations are active in opposing AGW. One association is the Swiss branch of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, NIPCC Suisse, which makes use of the research work of the NIPCC and its associates under Fred Singer.” Other influential associations in the German speaking area include the Initiative Against the Climate Scam, IKLIS.8, the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE), which

“plays a central role” and “runs an excellent website and has organised successful climate conferences”.

Labohm’s report also looks at the development of Germany’s two most prominent and visible sceptics: Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt (green activist) and Dr. Sebastian Lüning (geologist) who published their “bombshell book ‘Die Kalte Sonne’ (The Cold Sun’)”, which was extensively covered by renowned media such as Bild, Die Welt, and Der Spiegel.

Moreover, the warmists recently took one to the chin, as Stefan Rahmstorf, who lavishly uses

“ad hominem attacks and insinuations that his opponents lack qualifications and/or are being paid by industry”,

lost a court case against science journalist Irene Meichsner, who had sued Rahmstorf “for spreading false accusations of inaccurate reporting”.

France also has vocal skeptics with Claude Allègre (former minister of education), Vincent Courtillot and Jean-Louis Le Mouël. Labohm also writes that in Great Britain “climate scepticism is very much alive and kicking”, thanks to the massive efforts of Lord Monckton, Benny Peiser, Martin Durkin and Andrew Montford, to name a few.

Fortunately, the climate science debate is not hopelessly polarized everywhere. Take the Netherlands for example. Labohm writes:

“In my own country, The Netherlands, the relationship between protagonists and antagonists of the AGW hypothesis has markedly improved over the last few years. In line with the Dutch tradition of consensus-seeking (‘polder culture’), it has been possible to establish something close to a real dialogue between the two camps, which is pretty unique in the world. Climate scepticism has even received official recognition, thus undermining the information monopoly of climate alarmists.”

At the end of the analysis, Labohm tells us why European diplomacy is creating “a convenient alibi to pull out of the Kyoto process at some point in the future, without losing face”. You’ll have to read his overview when it is published to find out why. So don’t expect much out of Doha.

Finally, Labohm also calls Europe’s emissions trading system (ETS) a failure: “Europe’s experience with ETS is dismal. The system is expensive and prone to massive fraud. Moreover it did not stop the increase in Europe’s CO2 emissions”.

Overall, the Energy and Environment report by Labohm is 7 pages chock-full with analyses of the skeptic movement in Europe. Best of all, it provides vast encouragement and motivation to those seeking to continue pushing the debate on climate science. The battle is definitely downhill.