HE Mrs. Margot WALLSTROEM
Privat: Zonienboslaan 16
You will agree with me that sound Politics must be based an sound science, and that science must not be corrupted by poliltics. Now, the only source for the alleged "climate disaster" is the INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE (IPCC) which is not a scientific body but - as already says its name - a political one. Its Members are not independent scientists but on the payroll of certain governments (or organisations dependent an there govemments) greedy for ecotax-billions and political Power. IPCC was charged with the political assignment to prove that there will be a dangerous "global warming", and having found no proof for this, they heavily biassed their "evidence".
Since more than 8 years the world is bombarded with gloorny forecasts of a "climate catastrophe provoked by CO2". When in 1992 IPCC predicted a heating-up of about 8 degrees Celsius by 2100, this led to the much trumpeted Rio "Summit". Only 4 years later, they reduced their forecast to about 2 degrees Celsius - which would not be a disaster but a blessing, meteorologically, an "ideal climate". And their then chairman, Prof. Bert BOLIN, a controversial personage even in his Swedish home-country, under pressure by the true science, had to admit at the World Energy Conference in Tokyo that they have (after 5 years of panic-spreading !) not the slightest proof for their allegations. This alone shows that IPCC is not an association of scientists but a bunch of charlatens.
Indeed, from the very beginning, the world's scientific elite is protesting violently against "decisions which are supported by pseudo-scientific arguments or false and non relevant data" ("Heidelberg Apeal" to Heads of States and Governments, signed in 1992 by 62 Nobel Price-winners and 463 other eminent scientists; meanwhile signed by more than 2000 prominent researchers; enclosure). Since then there is no month without recognized experts attacking the IPCC theories. In 1996, the WORLD ENERGY COUNCIL (WEC) wamed govemments not to accept IPPS's recommendations because they are "based an shaky evidence and could damage economic growth". The IPPC report was qualified "deficient and of little value to policy-makers" and its recommendations "unrealistic and influenced by academics seeking to attract funding for their work" (enclosure). The umbrella organisation of the world energy industry normally uses diplomatic language when they disagree. But here they did not want conceal their annoyance with IPPC's panic-mongering tactics.
And in 1998 more than 18.000 American climate experts criticized the
Kyoto Protocol as "unfounded panic-mongering based an flawed ideas". Professor
Frederick SEITZ, former President of the (US) NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
(NAS), explained in a cover letter: "Research data on climate change do
not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. The silent majority
of the scientific community has at last spoken out against the hype emanating
from politicians and much of the media about a "warming catastrophe". The
petition reflects the frustration and disgust felt by working scientists,
few of whom have been previously involved in the ongoing climate debate,
about the misuse of science to promote a political agenda."
The promoters of the anti-CO2 smear-campaign have been called "charlatans", "manipulators", "cheats" and "swindlers" but have never dared to bring the critics to trial for libel. They know they could not win in court. But the incredible political scandal is that all the evidence of true science, all the scientific refutation of the scare-mongers' exaggerations, manipulations and outright lies have been hushed up by interested governments and parties. The official witch-hunt against vital and beneficial CO2 as "climate poison" represents a stultification of the public and a multi-billion USD discrimination of the fossil fuels industries. Man is "emitting" C02 with every breath and is "drinking" CO2 with every sip of carbonated beverages. The human rate would have exterminated itself long ago if CO2 was dangerous. The contrary is true: More CO2 provokes up to 40 % higher harvests and therewith helps to fight the hunger in the world. Besides, anthropogenic CO2 is only ±4 % of total CO2 in nature. I wonder why IPCC has not yet demanded a stop of breathing...
Since Rio (1992) I quote in practically every issue of my fortnightly newsletter "International Coal Letter" the opinions of "sceptics" - all distinguished, intemationally estimated experts an climate. All this testimony is devastating for the "global warming" promoters. Please, find enclosed three recent issues.
I am, of course, with you in your engagement for a clean environment. I enclose a Speech I gave at the 1 st International Conference & Exhibition by the WORLD COUNCIL OF POWER UTILITIES an "Green Power - The need for the 21st century" in New Delhi (India) in 1997: "Coat Power can be green, too", and my address "AII future energy will have to be 'clean"' (which was even translated into Arabic) at the ENERGEX '98 conference in Bahrain. However, there is not a climate change worth mentioning, let alone a forthcoming "climate catastrophe". And CO2 is the wrong target.
I am aware that the European Commission is under pressure, before all from my dear fellow-countrymen in the German government where the ministers for environment from Mrs. MERKEL to Mr. TRITTIN, are proud to be "trail-blazers" worldwide for eco-taxes. So consider my Statements as "fuel for thought". In any case I am gladly at your disposal for any question you may have and for any evidence you may request.
Yours faithfully, Peter Doerell
Director of the former EUROPEAN COAL INFORMATION AGENCY (BEIC), Brussels