Václav Klaus: The EU is a foreign empire

Czech president Václav Klaus has again - rightly - warned about the danger to freedom created by he present "ever-closer Europe" ideology:

"First, Vienna ruled over us for three centuries, and then Berlin did for a few years. Then the four decades of Moscow followed, and then ten years of freedom. Now we have Brussels," Klaus told the European Forum held in Alpbach, Austria.
The president was answering a question about whether he regretted the fact his country had joined the EU.

"After the Velvet Revolution of 1989, there were graffiti on the walls reading, "Back to Europe", and in that situation, it went without saying that we belonged to Europe. That was before Maastricht, that was the time of the European Community," he explained.

According to him, Europeans should cooperate and live together, but that should be taking place through bilateral cooperation between governments, rather than through "supernationalism

Read the entire article here

It is useful to read what Klaus had to say about the EU in a speech he gave on July 22 in Perth, Australia:

A special case is Europe. In the 1950s, the leading idea behind European integration was to liberalize, to open-up, to remove barriers at the borders of individual European countries, to enable free movement of not only goods and services but of people and ideas around the European continent. It was a positive concept. The situation changed during the 1980s and the decisive breakthrough came with the Maastricht Treaty in December 1991. Integration had turned into unification, liberalization into centralization of decision making, into harmonization of rules and legislation, into the strengthening of European institutions at the expense of institutions in member states, into the growth of democratic deficit, into post-democracy.
It was shifted further in the same direction by the Lisbon Treaty in 2009. The EU has been gradually changing from community of cooperating nations to the union of non-sovereign entities. We see that the move towards an “ever-closer Europe” – without an authentic European identity and an European demos – leads to the accelerated formation of supranational bureaucratic structures. It tends to restrain freedom, democracy and democratic accountability, not to speak about economic efficiency, entrepreneurship and competitiveness.
The recent problems with the euro demonstrate it quite convincingly. When I had been criticizing the concept of the artificially created European common currency for the last two decades, no one wanted to listen. It does not give me any pleasure to see now that I was right. It would have been better for me – as for someone who lives in Europe – if I were wrong.
Let me conclude by saying that fighting for freedom remains the issue of the day even in the 21^st century. We should not become victims of new progressive “isms” dreaming about changing the world and perfecting the men defended and promoted by political correctness. We should stand up for our good old conservative beliefs and convictions. Both in Europe and in Australia.

Read the entire speech here

Princeton professor Happer: Increased CO2 levels "an overall benefit"

William Happer, professor of physics at Princeton University, explains why present and future levels of CO2 are NOT a threat to humans, animals or plants. On the contrary, increased carbon dioxide levels could actually be a benefit. The supposed ill effects of more CO2 are from flawed computer models:

What atmospheric levels of CO2 would be a direct threat to health? Both the United States Navy and NASA have performed extensive studies of human tolerance to CO2. As a result of these studies, the navy recommends an upper limit of about 8,000 ppm for cruises of 90 days and NASA recommends an upper limit of 5,000 ppm for missions of 1,000 days. We conclude that atmospheric CO2 levels should be above about 150 ppm to avoid harming green plants and below about 5,000 ppm to avoid harming people.

That is a big range, and our atmosphere is much closer to the lower end than the upper end. We were not that far from CO2 anorexia when massive burning of fossil fuels began. At the current rate of burning fossil fuels, we are adding about 2 ppm of CO2 per year to the atmosphere, so getting from our current level of about 390 ppm to 1,000 ppm would take about 300 years—and 1,000 ppm is still less than most plants would prefer, and much less than either the NASA or the navy limit.

Yet there are strident calls to immediately stop further increases in CO2 levels and reduce levels back to the 270 ppm pre-industrial value that was supposedly "the best of all possible worlds". The first reason for limiting CO2 was to fight global warming. Since the predicted warming has failed to be nearly as large as computer models forecasts, the reason was amended to stopping climate change. Sancta simplicitas. Climate change itself has been embarrassingly uneventful, so another rationale for reducing CO2 is now promoted: to stop the supposed increase of extreme climate events like droughts, hurricanes or tornados.
But dispassionate data show that the frequency of extreme events has hardly changed and in some cases has decreased in the 150 years that CO2 levels have increased from 270 ppm to 390 ppm. Other things being equal, doubling the current CO2 level in the atmosphere will increase the surface temperature by about 1 C. This modest warming, together with documented benefits to plant life, would be an overall benefit. The supposed ill effects of more CO2 are from computer models in which water vapour and clouds multiply the modest direct warming by factors of three, four even 10. Observations show no evidence for these large ``positive feedbacks."
Read the entire article here

PS
Warmists will most certainly try to attack anybody who dares to challenge their holy models. But they will not be able to use their usual "flat-earther" invective against professor Happer.

Pentagon: China´s military build-up exceeds forecasts - Taiwan still the main focus

China´s military growth exceeds all forecasts and democratic Taiwan remains its principal focus, according to a fresh Pentagon report. Although the report does not explicitly state it, the study makes it clear that Taiwan is in desperate need on modern weaponry. However, there are clear signs that the Obama administration is not going to let Taiwan buy the F-16 fighters it would need. Obama is afraid of the reaction from communist China, and seems prepared to let down one of the oldest US allies and friends:

Its aircraft carrier program, cyber warfare capabilities and anti-satellite missiles have alarmed neighbors and Washington, the long-delayed comprehensive 84-page report says.
While the report contains nothing that is startlingly new, it is dominated by references to Taiwan. And it comes just weeks before the administration of US President Barack Obama has promised to provide an answer to Taipei’s request to buy 66 advanced F-16C/D aircraft.
This potential arms sale is not mentioned, but without actually spelling it out the study makes it abundantly clear that Taiwan is in desperate need of new weapons.
Titled Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2011, the annual report to Congress from the US Department of Defense makes chilling reading.
The Obama administration continues to deny that a decision has yet been made on whether or not to sell the F-16s, but unofficial sources in both Taipei and Washington are signaling that Obama will bow to Chinese pressure and not allow the sale. Instead, he seems likely to offer to modernize Taiwan’s dated F-16A/B aircraft — a move that is less objectionable to Beijing.
---
In Taipei, the Ministry of National Defense again urged the US government to speed up the sale of defensive weapons to Taiwan.
Ministry spokesman David Lo (羅紹和) said the report again highlighted the cross-strait military imbalance.
Based on this reasoning, Ma has repeatedly called on the US to supply defensive arms to Taiwan in accordance with the TRA, Lo said.
He said the ministry has continued in its efforts to persuade Washington to provide F-16C/D aircraft, F-16A/B upgrades and diesel-electric submarines.

Read the entire Taipei Times article here

The "Water footprint" - warmists want to stop imports from developing countries

Soon to be banned in Europe?

The tentacles of global warming alarmism have now reached water companies:

Attention to our 'water footprint' must be given a higher profile in global climate negotiations, say speakers at a conference marking World Water Week in Stockholm, Sweden, or the world will suffer.

Hannah Stoddart from the Water Climate Coalition added that "the water community and climate community speak different languages,” therefore there is a need to link policy with those working on the ground.
We look at droughts in developing countries such as the current one in East Africa and think that it has nothing to do with us. But in fact our consumption patterns have a direct effect. Behind all of our consumer goods, countless litres of freshwater have been used in agriculture, production and transportation, most of which happened in another part of the world.

Whenever we buy cut flowers from Africa, we are complicit in the diversion of water from domestic use to serve our wish for flowers. These could instead be sourced locally or satisfied by pot plants, which are far more sustainable.
Global Action Plan's CEO, Trewin Restorick, observes that: "One of the countries affected is Kenya, which contains the third largest lake in Africa, Lake Naivasha. Around this lake is a flower industry which exports 30% of its flowers to the UK and which provides 23% of Kenya’s GDP. The industry is massively water intensive. The cut flowers we are importing are using essential local water resources, draining their own natural resources for some short-term cash."
Our footprint widens in other ways. Producing one burger requires 2,400 litres of water. A pair of imported jeans will have used another 10,000 litres. Like coffee? 140 litres of water will have been used in making just one cup - in bean growing and processing

The EU climate-industrial lobby is probably already busy planning the next steps. Expect a ban on importing flowers and other high "water footprint" products from Kenya and other developing countries. 23% of the Kenyan GDP is for the alarmists only "some short term cash". Of course, the EU must make up the loss of Kenyan (and other) revenue by increasing the already huge climate change "aid". The whole idea is probably to make developing countries even more dependent on foreign "aid".

The coupling of water and climate change offers the climate-industrial lobby endless possibilities to regulate and forbid. Why, indeed, not also ban the import from developing countries of high "water footprint" coffee, tea, meat, spices, jeans, electronics ... (you name it)? Warmists will probably find a way to forbid Big Macs, too.

Libya: No reason for too much NATO celebration in Europe

James Joyner, managing editor of the Atlantic Council notes that there there is not very much to celebrate for the European members of NATO after the recent events in Libya:

The fighting in Libya demonstrated just how hollow most European militaries are. Despite President Obama's continued assurance that the U.S. role would last "days, not weeks" and that the European allies would take the lead, the fact of the matter was that they simply lacked the resources to do so. Yes, Europeans eventually flew the bulk of the "strike sorties" in Unified Protector. But the Americans provided virtually all of the intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; suppression of enemy air defenses; and aerial refueling missions.
Reeling from ten years of fighting in Afghanistan, most NATO forces are spent. Libya hastened the decay, using up resources to such an extent that several allies were literally out of ammunition and fuel and had to beg others for resupply. And, with austerity a way of life for the foreseeable future, few are prioritizing necessary replenishment, much less retooling for future fights.

Read the entire article here

PS
Joyner is, of course, right. And, regrettably, there are no signs that the key European NATO member countries intend to strengthen their defense capabilities in the near future. So, in spite of the modest success in Libya, the future of NATO does not look very good.

Seif el-Gaddafi - once lauded by the NYT for his views on global warming

Saif al-Islam, who received his PhD from  the London School of Economics, also gave the LSE  a grant of £1.5 million

It is worth remembering that Seif al-Islam el-Qaddafi, 38, son of Muammar el-Gaddafi was until recently the darling of the liberal establishment in Europe and the U.S. In 2007 for example, the New York Times, an ardent promoter of the human induced global warming myth, run this adulatory portrait of of Seif:

A Son Radiates His Own Light in His Father’s Libya


The thin man with a shaved head smiled slightly as he made his way to a podium erected amid Greek ruins, a serious presence in a boisterous crowd that gathered last week to celebrate plans for an eco-development region near this town in the deserts of eastern Libya.
In a skullcap and white tunic with a gold-trimmed vest, the man talked slowly, deliberately, even a bit nervously, presenting data in English about desertification, oil and carbon emissions. He corrected even the smallest grammatical errors in the printed speech he was reading.
“Climate change is a global problem, but global solutions start with local solutions,” he said in faintly accented English.
Societies, he said, should be built in a way that allowed them to reduce greenhouse gases. “The day will come when oil will run out, and if we wait for that it will be too late,” he said.
The man — part scholar, part monk, part model, part policy wonk — was Saif al-Islam el-Qaddafi, the powerful 33-year-old son of Libya’s extroverted and impulsive president, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi. He is, in short, the un-Qaddafi.

Read the entire article here

Of course, the reporting has lately changed:

When the Libyan uprisings began in February 2011, the younger Mr. Qaddafi backed his father's violent crackdown from the start, promising "rivers of blood.''
In June 2011, the International Criminal Court in The Hague called him Libya's "de facto prime minister'' as it issued arrest warrants for him, his father and the country's chief of intelligence

PS

Seif is still on the run, but if he is captured alive, he will not become the "green" leader of Libya that New York Times expected him to become. He will have to address some more serious questions than dubious climate change when facing the International Criminal Court in the Hague. Al Gore and the IPCC warmists have lost a leading supporter in Africa.

"A tremendous recovery in world wheat production" - warmists wrong again

Flasback May 2011:

A new study published in Science today by researchers at Stanford University, Columbia University and the National Bureau of Economic Research has found that the warming of the planet over the last few decades have already led to a measurable reduction in crop yields for major staple grains.
Read the entire article here

Reality check:

If you look at the USDA forecast for wheat output in all of the big wheat producing countries and put those all together;
Bange: “You see a tremendous recovery in world wheat production.”
In fact Agriculture Department Outlook Board Chairman Gerry Bange says this year’s world wheat production will be close to a record 672 million tons, about 24 million tons more than last year.
Bange: “Its paramount to adding another Canada or another Australia to the world in terms of production. So we are seeing a very strong increase in wheat production this year, which is good I think.”

Read the entire article here

Russia’s projected wheat production is up 3.0 million tons this month to 56.0 million, with winter wheat yields at the second highest ever, 2008 being the record. The winter wheat harvest has been more than 75 percent completed in the South and North Caucasus Districts, and reports indicate exceptionally strong yields. Also, spring wheat growing conditions have been favorable in most of the country’s regions, especially in the Urals, upper Volga Valley, and most of Siberia with good timely rains, though parts of Siberia (Altai) and the Central District have suffered from dryness.

According to the government agency responsible for grain quality evaluation in Russia, this year the quality is expected to be better than average, with the share of food wheat at 75 percent. Ukraine’s wheat production prospects are also increased 3.0 million tons this month to 21.0 million.

India’s wheat production for 2011/12 was increased 1.9 million tons this month to a record 85.9 million, based on revised government estimates. Most of the crop was harvested months ago, and the government estimate should be close to final.
China’s wheat production is increased 1.5 million tons to 117.0 million.

Read the entire article here

PS
No doubt the Stanford, Columbia and NBER researchers will declare that this years bumper wheat harvest is just an aberration - soon global warming will seriously decrease harvests... 
Warmists will always have an easy explanation when reality disproves their models. Fortunately they have lost their credibility long ago.

PS 2
I am pleased to note that my blog has reached the heights of the "scientists" at RealClimate:

@405 Septic Matthew says:Here is another pothole on the road to civilizational collapse:http://newnostradamusofthenorth.blogspot.com/2011/08/tremendous-recovery-in-world-wheat.html
Septic, really, if you’re going to do your reasoning like the do at WUWT, why bother posting at all? You are seriously touting grain production from one year as the savior of humanity? Year-to-year variation in crop production of all kinds is as variable as the weather. I guess last year, when Russia lost 30% of it’s grain crop, was just a mirage.
Bore hole material: nothing but propaganda (not the data, the post) and ignorant of scientific process.

Last year warmists were busy claiming that the drought in Russia and the bad harvest was a result of global warming. Now, when we have a global bumper harvest, these people are arguing that it is only "year-to-year variation" in crop productions. One wonders, why did the warmists not use the same reasoning last year with regard to the harvest in Russia? Besides, nowhere have I been "touting grain production from one year as the savior of humanity".Still, I am quite confident that farmers also in the future will be able to increase grain production, as they have done so far, in spite of all doomsday predictions from the RealClimate bunch and their predecessors.