Rumpy Pumpy on Global Governance

Herman Van Rompuy, the newly selected president of the European Council, has been quick to give us an idea of how he plans to run Europe. 
He had an early opportunity to quell the fears that he was nothing more than another Brussels bureaucrat dedicated to federalist expansion of the EU whilst diminishing the autonomy of member states.  He failed to take it.  Instead, Rumpy-Pumpy announced that the UN’s climate conference in Copenhagen will be a “another step forward towards the global management of our planet”.  At least we now know where he stands.  Global governance, with all its anti-democratic overtones, is central to his agenda.
There has been some confusion, both in the media and here in the halls of the European Parliament, as to what exactly the responsibilities of the new President of the European Council are as defined by the Lisbon Treaty.  Perhaps Rumpy believes his job is to direct the continent towards government homogeny, to weaken democracy and create a totalitarian state?  But there’s no surprise there.  The European “Government” has been on a path towards a unified, centralised régime for decades now.  The closed-door selection of an unrecognizable, 62-year-old Belgian parliamentarian fits in perfectly alongside the unchallenged candidacy of Jose Manuel Barroso for a second term as President of the European Commission, and with the Lisbon ratification process which rode rough-shod over the voice of the people, in Ireland and elsewhere.  Authoritarian governance is on the march. 
The most alarming aspect of Rumpy Pumpy’s statement is the context in which he made it: global governance to “combat climate change”.  I expected it might take a while for the realities of the scandalous leaked e-mails from the University of East Anglia (which exposed climate alarmism as the red-herring that it is) to seep into the public dialogue, but in his first declaration as President-elect Rumpy seems to be singing the old song as if nothing had happened.
What we need in Europe is a flexible association of independent, democratic nation states linked by free trade and voluntary inter-governmental cooperation.  What we have instead is a bureaucratic oligarchy packed with political apparatchiks who are less and less concerned with representative democracy.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Rumpy Pumpy on Global Governance

  1. ChrisP says:

    I have just recieved an E mail from my MEP in the European Parliament, Mr Bill Newton….Who E mails me as a ‘friend’.
    Strange then that I have so much to disagree with him about, on the two subjects he wishes to inform me of. The Lisbon Treaty, and the Copenhagen Treaty. (Possibly you have read a copy of this E mail? I imagine I am not the only ‘friend’ he has sent this too.
    I mention this, because he mentions you, in this E mail, thus…

    Is our planet warming-up due to gas emissions caused by human activity ?

    Nothing is certain. Until the planet boils, nobody cannot be 100% certain. The scientific consensus is that it is warming up and the warming is 90% likely to be caused by human beings. If experts tell you that “your airplane is 90% likely to crash but you are free to ignore our warning and go ahead and board”, what do you do ? Two MEPs in our region, the Tories’ Helmer and UKIP’s Clark say it is not caused by humans.. Helmer called me a liar on live tv in June for revealing his stance – yet this week in the parliament he is publicising a seminar called “Nature, not Human Activity, rules the Climate”.

    ….Strange that he should have this disagreement with you? I thought your position and views on this subject were well known. What is the nature of the misunderstanding?….I’m assuming it is about the extent, to which Humans contribute, as opposed to Nature. Not about absolutes, as mr Newtondunn implies?

  2. Philip Burrows says:

    The CRU hack: Context

    * Trenberth: You need to read his recent paper on quantifying the current changes in the Earth’s energy budget to realise why he is concerned about our inability currently to track small year-to-year variations in the radiative fluxes.

    * Wigley: The concern with sea surface temperatures in the 1940s stems from the paper by Thompson et al (2007) which identified a spurious discontinuity in ocean temperatures. The impact of this has not yet been fully corrected for in the HadSST data set, but people still want to assess what impact it might have on any work that used the original data.

    * Climate Research and peer-review: You should read about the issues from the editors (Claire Goodess, Hans von Storch) who resigned because of a breakdown of the peer review process at that journal, that came to light with the particularly egregious (and well-publicised) paper by Soon and Baliunas (2003). The publisher’s assessment is here.

    * HARRY_read_me.txt. This is a 4 year-long work log of Ian (Harry) Harris who was working to upgrade the documentation, metadata and databases associated with the legacy CRU TS 2.1 product, which is not the same as the HadCRUT data (see Mitchell and Jones, 2003 for details). The CSU TS 3.0 is available now (via ClimateExplorer for instance), and so presumably the database problems got fixed. Anyone who has ever worked on constructing a database from dozens of individual, sometimes contradictory and inconsistently formatted datasets will share his evident frustration with how tedious that can be.

    * “Redefine the peer-reviewed literature!” . Nobody actually gets to do that, and both papers discussed in that comment – McKitrick and Michaels (2004) and Kalnay and Cai (2003) were both cited and discussed in Chapter 2 of 3 the IPCC AR4 report. As an aside, neither has stood the test of time.

    * “Declines” in the MXD record. This decline was hidden written up in Nature in 1998 where the authors suggested not using the post 1960 data. Their actual programs (in IDL script), unsurprisingly warn against using post 1960 data. Added: Note that the ‘hide the decline’ comment was made in 1999 – 10 years ago, and has no connection whatsoever to more recent instrumental records.

    * CRU data accessibility. From the date of the first FOI request to CRU (in 2007), it has been made abundantly clear that the main impediment to releasing the whole CRU archive is the small % of it that was given to CRU on the understanding it wouldn’t be passed on to third parties. Those restrictions are in place because of the originating organisations (the various National Met. Services) around the world and are not CRU’s to break. As of Nov 13, the response to the umpteenth FOI request for the same data met with exactly the same response. This is an unfortunate situation, and pressure should be brought to bear on the National Met Services to release CRU from that obligation. It is not however the fault of CRU. The vast majority of the data in the HadCRU records is publicly available from GHCN (v2.mean.Z).

    * Suggestions that FOI-related material be deleted … are ill-advised even if not carried out. What is and is not responsive and deliverable to an FOI request is however a subject that it is very appropriate to discuss.

  3. Grant Perkins says:


    Much one could comment on I suppose but the world seems to have moved on in the last few days and organisations, such as the EU, through its new figurehead, seem more comfortable about mentioning global governance rather than climate science. Indeed the ‘science’ part seems to be disposable now. I have suspected for some time that it would be.

    However you made this point that I feel is worthy of comment – if only because the principle behind it seems to be accepted in your replay and is always going to be a current theme for any sort of support of political debate.

    “* HARRY_read_me.txt. This is a 4 year-long work log of Ian (Harry) Harris who was working to upgrade the documentation, metadata and databases associated with the legacy CRU TS 2.1 product, which is not the same as the HadCRUT data (see Mitchell and Jones, 2003 for details). The CSU TS 3.0 is available now (via ClimateExplorer for instance), and so presumably the database problems got fixed. Anyone who has ever worked on constructing a database from dozens of individual, sometimes contradictory and inconsistently formatted datasets will share his evident frustration with how tedious that can be.”

    Yes it can be tedious. Indeed some of the most simple database concepts, name and address records for example, can be extremely tedious to get even 80% correct and matching a single format form the many formats in use. Things are fudged, usually on the basis of reviews that weight up the gains and losses of effort versus cost vs a future user’s ability to work around any shortcomings. Then add in the ‘churn’ factor and decide how critical a 100% perfect result is. 90% certainty would be great, though it won’t remain at that level long anyway.

    However there is one hell of a lot riding on the results of the temperature reconstructions of the last 30 years or so and to find someone struggling with the historic data source interpretations at such fundamental levels so far into the process is of concern. Such issues have never been hinted at before. Historic temperature records are always presented as being a matter of well researched and validated FACT.

    “Harry” suggests otherwise. I personally don’t think such concerns can be shrugged of with “and so presumably the database problems got fixed.

    Nor can we assume that they only exist in this work that you seems to imply is just a sub-product of the main set.

    What has been at issue for some time, pre-dating the official use of FOI requests of course as I am sure you are aware, is a validation of the methods (and sources and the methods of those who compiled the sources if we want to do it correctly) used to generate the published results. After all they are not simply numbers to which simple arithmetic has been applied although at point of consumption by the public the terminology traditionally used does not suggest anything like the apparent level of ‘adjustment complexity’ that Harry’s notes seem to suggest – and I doubt that Harry has had a personal need to note everything as he worked, just the ‘new to him’ problems.

    And then there is the question about how you ‘fix’ something. If it have something that does not work as I want it to and gives result A when I want result B I may be able to work out how to ‘fix’ the process to get the desired result. In the context of the project Harry was working on that would imply he was programming against a desired output. I would accept that one could ‘fix’ something where the value was clearly outside realistic bounds but playing around with adjustment factors primarily to shape the data to fulfil pre-ordained requirements that others are then expected to accept as ‘fact’ without question is a little, er, questionable.

    Of course an attempt to provide an independent verification of the process and methods might be a usefully positive step to take. For some reason this seems to have been resisted for a long time, possibly up to 30 years. Why was that?

    CRU would probably claim that they could not make all the data available. But then they say all but a small percentage is available anyway. Why could Jones not offer that guidance before given how much time it would have saved him (or so he seems to be claiming if you invert his FOI resistance logic). So why all the other ‘excuses’?

    Moreover if so many of the data sets are already in the public domain presumably people could achieve results that would show little difference to the CRU results using what was available publicly if only that information had been made available to them in a clear and concise fashion. Given enough data points the last few percent of records should not have made much difference to an averaging process and this point could have been made in a simple briefing document. Instead CRU (et al) decided to put up the shutters and go for martyrdom. Why would they do that? Is there something special about the data they feel unable to release or advise about alternative sources for them? If so, what?

    Ah well, no matter. That phase is over and the game has clearly (and recently publicly) moved on to the field of politics and finances where the debate can be framed in terms of US Dollars rather than fractions of a degree of temperature.

    My guess is that G. Brown Esq. is secretly rather pleased that the onus for the financial discussions has been taken under EU ownership thus saving him the trouble of having to make a decision and allowing him time for Grandstanding the way that Tony always did. Or at least his attempt at emulation.

    I see that Al Gore is reported to have cancelled his presentation in Copenhagen despite sell out ticket sales. Are we seeing a politician turned ‘scientist’ now trying to distance himself from the science part for a while while he prepares a return to full politician mode? No doubt we will soon find out.

  4. John Morton says:

    Good to see you finally waking up to the New World Order conspiracy Roger.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s