“Caught Red-Handed”: German Scientists Expose GEOMAR Institute “Conscious Deception Of The Public” On Arctic Sea Ice Trend, Misleading International Media

The following by German scientists Fritz Vahrenholt and Sebastian Lüning exposes yet another classic example why we cannot trust climate institutes.

Caught red-handed: Geomar omits crucial 1960s Arctic sea ice melt phase in press release

By Fritz Vahrenholt and Sebastian Lüning
(Translated/edited by P Gosselin)

The most well-known historical Arctic region melting period took place 1000 years ago when the Vikings sailed through the Arctic Ocean, which had little sea ice. Eventually they colonized Greenland and Iceland. Today no one wants to hear it because it doesn’t fit with the climate catastrophe storyline.

In 1887 the topic was less important. Back then the planet was emerging from the Little Ice Age and people were glad about the warming. Warm was good. There was no IPCC back then. For example in the New Zealand daily The Press on 8 November 1887 there was a story about the Viking journeys and a sharply reduced sea ice extent – something that would be unimaginable today (hat-tip Steve Goddard):

But one does not need to go back so far into history. Also between 1920 and 1940 there was a strong phase of melting in the north polar sea. Former Max-Planck director Lennart Bengtsson summarized the knowledge of the warm phase in the Journal of Climate in 2004. Already back then he saw a relationship with ocean cycles that influenced the climate with a 60-year period. What follows is the abstract of that paper:

The Early Twentieth-Century Warming in the Arctic—A Possible Mechanism
The huge warming of the Arctic that started in the early 1920s and lasted for almost two decades is one of the most spectacular climate events of the twentieth century. During the peak period 1930–40, the annually averaged temperature anomaly for the area 60°–90°N amounted to some 1.7°C. Whether this event is an example of an internal climate mode or is externally forced, such as by enhanced solar effects, is presently under debate. This study suggests that natural variability is a likely cause, with reduced sea ice cover being crucial for the warming. A robust sea ice–air temperature relationship was demonstrated by a set of four simulations with the atmospheric ECHAM model forced with observed SST and sea ice concentrations. An analysis of the spatial characteristics of the observed early twentieth-century surface air temperature anomaly revealed that it was associated with similar sea ice variations. Further investigation of the variability of Arctic surface temperature and sea ice cover was performed by analyzing data from a coupled ocean–atmosphere model. By analyzing climate anomalies in the model that are similar to those that occurred in the early twentieth century, it was found that the simulated temperature increase in the Arctic was related to enhanced wind-driven oceanic inflow into the Barents Sea with an associated sea ice retreat. The magnitude of the inflow is linked to the strength of westerlies into the Barents Sea. This study proposes a mechanism sustaining the enhanced westerly winds by a cyclonic atmospheric circulation in the Barents Sea region created by a strong surface heat flux over the ice-free areas. Observational data suggest a similar series of events during the early twentieth-century Arctic warming, including increasing westerly winds between Spitsbergen and Norway, reduced sea ice, and enhanced cyclonic circulation over the Barents Sea. At the same time, the North Atlantic Oscillation was weakening.”

Today in the press one hardly hears any mention of this melting phase. IPCC scientists would have us believe there has been only one single trend over the last 150 years, namely the steady death of Arctic sea ice.

In December 2013 in the journal PNAS a reconstruction of Arctic sea ice cover appeared for the past 650 years using algae as a proxy. The study was carried out by Jochen Halfar of the University of Toronto. Also involved in the study was Steffen Hetzinger of the Geomar Institute in Kiel, Germany. On November 19, 2013 a Geomar press release announced:

Since the end of the Little Ice Age around 1850, the archives of the red algae show a continuous decrease of the ice, a trend which continues through today. This decrease is stronger than anything we previously observed in the 650 year long history of the red algae record.“

The Austrian national daily Standard sounded the climate alarms, informing its readers:

For the first time a team of international scientists traced the development of sea ice in the Arctic all the way back to the Middle Ages. Here the scientists of the University of Groningen and others found out that the ice sheet has been melting continuously since the middle of the 19th century. They were helped by red algae which conserved the climate history of the last centuries. So far the data on the Arctic from satellites have gone back only to the late 1970s.”

The use of the word “continuously” leads us to understand that the ice is melting steadily, without any larger phases of ice growth in between. Only a very few readers have taken the time and effort to read the original paper. In press releases, authors certainly only tell the truth and nothing but the truth, right? One look at the publication, however, delivers a bitter disappointment. Figure 2b of the study shows the development of the sea ice curve for Newfoundland for the past 150 years in detail (Figure 1). The result: In the 1960s, in the pre-satellite era, sea ice had shrunk to levels seen today. However in the press release, that inconvenient condition never got mentioned.

Figure 1: The blue curve depicts the development of sea ice near Newfoundland for the past 150 years. High peaks indicate shrinking, low peaks depict growth. Source: Halfar et al 2013.

In the paper itself the authors correctly attribute the development to the impact of Atlantic ocean cycles:

Modeling studies have shown that the NAO exerts an influence on the spatial distribution of winter sea ice via wind-driven anomalies of sea-ice velocity, surface vertical heat flux, and possibly horizontal oceanic heat flux (7). There is strong observational evidence connecting Arctic sea-ice distribution with the positive NAO trend from the 1960s to the early 1990s.”

Conscious deception of the public

In the GEOMAR press release there is also not a word about the cyclic nature of sea ice. This is a conscious deception of the public. The ice is neither “shrinking continuously” nor is CO2 playing the only role as some scientists would like us to believe.

Does Steffen Hetzinger know what he is doing? He is a young man who probably is in search of a permanent position and thus has to play along with the climate panic game. Did the GEOMAR force him to write such a press release or what it his own idea to score big points with climate alarmism? One thing is clear: this has nothing to do with reputable science. Hardly a good way to begin a career.

What would the sea ice discussion be like today if systematic satellite-based measurement had begun already in 1960?

IPCC, German government removed 1960s melt

Measurements first began in 1979. The first IPCC report of 1990 was naively honest and openly revealed that shortly before satellite measurements began, there had been significantly less Arctic sea ice than there was during the measurement period beginning in 1979 (Figure 2). In the subsequent IPCC reports, they truncated the inconvenient start of the chart, thus taking it out of the readers’ view.

Figure 2: Development of Arctic sea ice from 1973-1990. Source: 1st IPCC Climate Report (1990).

Looking at the melt phase of the 1960s and 1970s shown in the above chart, one really has to wonder that the German Ministry of Environment is using a dubious IPCC chart which fails to show the melting of the 1960s (Figure 3).

Figure 3: IPCC chart that the German Federal Ministry of Environment has at its website for illustrating Arctic sea ice development. Shown is the supposedly “observed mean Arctic summer sea ice (July-September)”. Original source: IPCC.

The discovery of old Nimbus satellite images must have been very awkward for the Federal Ministry of Environment. The images document huge holes in the Arctic sea ice. Spiegel Online reported on November 4, 2014:

‘Nimbus': Nasa releases old satellite images
They were forgotten in NASA archives: Scientists discovered satellite images from the 1960s. A huge hole in the Arctic sea ice, large masses of snow, intact lakes – the images offer some surprises.”

Already on October 21, 2014, Mashable had reported on the unexpected gaping holes in the north polar sea ice:

The Nimbus data provides the earliest known view of Antarctica’s sea ice, which has made headlines recently for setting a record for the largest ice extent, and spotted large breaks in Arctic sea ice where none were thought to have occurred. The modern satellite record of sea ice in the Arctic and Antarctic starts in 1979, so the added data gives scientists a longer-term view that informs their understanding of present-day events. […]  Sea ice extents in the Arctic were much larger in the 1960s than they are now, Gallaher said, which is consistent with the global warming-induced decline in Arctic sea ice. Still, even in years with higher volume’s of sea ice, the satellite spotted ice-free areas near the North Pole that were 200 to 300 miles across. “We found holes in ice at North Pole that we didn’t expect to find,” he said. “It’s a big hole,” said Garrett Campbell, who also works on the Nimbus project from the NSIDC.”


Associate Professor Kim Cobb’s Obsession…Ignores 95% Of Climate Models Running Too Hot

Cobb_GATechWhat About Climate Change?
By Ed Caryl

In last week’s on-line issue of the Georgia Tech Alumni Magazine (Volume 90, Number 4), Judith Curry and Kim Cobb contributed their thoughts on the issue of climate change in two short essays.

Photo: Kim Cobb; source: Georgia Tech.

These essays were obviously intended to oppose each other. As one would expect, Ms. Curry wrote a low-key, well reasoned opinion piece urging caution and a measured approach to a more efficient use of our energy resources. She emphasized the considerable uncertainty in climate science:

The climate has always changed and will continue to change. […]

There is growing evidence that the climate is less sensitive to adding greenhouse gases than has been predicted by climate models.  Solar variability, volcanic eruptions and long-term ocean oscillations will continue to be sources of unpredictable climate surprises.”

On the other hand, Ms. Cobb has NO doubt that disaster is at hand, and dismisses those who disagree with a wave of the hand. For example:

Nobody with any knowledge on the subject denies that carbon dioxide (CO2) derived from the burning of fossil fuels is measurably warming the planet.”

“Measurably”? Ms. Cobb, could you share that measure with us? Even the IPCC can’t decide this measure plus or minus 100%. That isn’t a measure! That is a wildly adventurous guess.

As Judith Curry implies, the measure of climate sensitivity is declining almost with each new paper on the subject. Even the IPCC acknowledges that. Studies based on data place climate sensitivity somewhere between zero and one degree. Only papers based on models put the number higher, all with huge uncertainty ranges. KC says:

Nobody denies that the risks of climate change will accelerate as greenhouse gas emissions accelerate.”

To that breath-taking statement I have a question. What are the “risks” of climate change? So far, those risks seem to be fewer hurricanes, fewer tornados, warmer winters, longer growing seasons, enhanced crop growth due to higher CO2 levels, and warmer nights due to urban heat islands. Those “risks” will also accelerate IF emissions accelerate. Emissions from the US and the EU are falling along with their economies. Emissions are rising and will rise in the developing countries as they pull their citizens out of energy poverty. Both the drivers of increased emissions and the chief “risks” all seem good things. Reduced emissions often result in bad things.

The down-side seems restricted to sea-level rise. For most of the world, subsidence and uplift govern local sea level and these factors have nothing to do with climate change. For the rest, if we judge from the past, 17 cm of sea level rise in the next 100 years should not be a big problem. For island nations, coral growth easily keeps pace. Cobb claims:

And nobody denies that, given the long lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere, the climatic response of our current emissions will play out over the lifetimes of our children and our grandchildren. They will inherit our generation’s climate debt, and its accrued interest, potentially in the form of irreversible impacts.”

“Long lifetime”? I wonder if she is as worried about the national debt? Each year only about half of the human carbon emissions remain in the atmosphere. This is called the CO2 “airborne fraction”. In the long term this fraction is falling (See Figure 3 in this link) as emissions increase, because the biosphere is greening and pulling out increasing amounts of CO2. With CO2 “half-life” at one year, if global emissions decrease, within a few years CO2 content in the atmosphere would begin falling. Then those “irreversible” positive impacts that I describe in my previous paragraph would begin to disappear. According to Cobb:

It is equally likely that future impacts will be less than or greater than those projected by climate models.”

Ms. Cobb has evidently not seen a comparison of the climate models and data. So far, 95% of the models are running too hot compared to real measurements. This is obviously not “equally likely”. The models have failed to predict reality, and will continue to fail because they are written with an over-estimation of warming due to CO2. Future impacts will be far less than the climate models indicate.

Ms. Cobb is an alarmist. All her opinions are biased by that alarm. Her lack of skepticism makes her resemble more an end-of-world preacher rather than a thoughtful scientist.


Climate Custers’ Last Stand…Top German Climate Scientists See No End To “Warming Pause”. Now Concede Oceans A “Major Climate Factor”

Germany’s so-called Climate Consortium here has published a telling statement on this year’s “record warm year” in Germany and the reasons behind it. The Climate Consortium represents the collective position of all Germany’s scientific climate institutes.

Although the statement claims the record year “fits very well in the picture of a long-term global temperature increase” it now concedes major natural fluctuations in the climate system. Less than 3 years ago, on February 6, 2012, the same site posted the following in a hasty response to skeptic book Die kalte Sonne:

Pure natural fluctuations ­- such as changes in solar activity – on the other hand cannot be mainly responsible for the global warming of the past decades.”

What a difference a couple of years can make. Now they are blaming precisely these “natural fluctuations” for the “warming pause”.

Yesterday’s statement was authored by Germany’s top appointed climate experts (some are well-known IPCC scientists): Jochen Marotzke, Paul Becker, Gernot Klepper, Mojib Latif and Monika Rhein.

Does anyone think they will do the honorable thing and admit that Die kalte Sonne authors Prof. Vahrenholt and Sebastian Lüning claims had merit after all? Professional and honorable scientists would certainly do so.

On the surface the latest German Climate Consortium statement does its best to give the façade of a warming planet, but in the text the truth comes gushing out. They write that at 10.3°C, Germany this year is set to break the previous 2000 and 2007 record (9.9°C) for the highest mean annual temperature since recording began in 1881. But the statement then cautions:

However, only the global mean temperature is a reliable indicator of global warming. If one takes the preliminary data for the months of January to November 2014 as a reference, then, since systematic data recording began, fourteen of the last fifteen warmest years occurred in the 21st century.

Moreover it is too early to talk about an end to the now 15-year long ‘warming pause’ and to assume an accelerating warming over the coming years. The global earth’s surface temperature is subject to year-to-year and decadal fluctuations. Only with the following years will it be possible to judge to what extent global warming of the earth’s surface will resume.”

This is an interesting statement. The scientists now concede that natural factors now dominate, and 2) that the upcoming years will answer the hotly debated question concerning the extent of man-made warming.

And we all thought it was all settled.

More concessions, admissions soon likely

Given this year has been an El Nino year, and that such years are normally followed by the cooler La Ninas, and that current solar activity cycle is well into its second half, temperatures over the next several years may lead to even more difficult concessions and admissions from warmist scientists. Expect the 2015 – 2022 period to make or break the AGW science.

90% of the missing heat absorbed by oceans

The German Climate Consortium statement continues:

In addition to solar radiation and volcanic activity, the oceans are a major climate factor. Recent scientific results show that the world’s oceans have stored 90 percent of the energy resulting in the climate system from greenhouse gases over the past 40 years. Phases of increased heat absorption alternate with phases of less absorption. Thus connected with this are fluctuations of the sea surface temperatures.”

As an example the Climate Consortium paper then describes the effects of El Nino on global surface temperatures.

Here we see again that they concede the oceans are a major driver of the surface temperatures – a real natural fluctuation. And although they chose not bring it up, it only logically follows that they would also have to concede that both the Pacific and the Atlantic Decadal Oscillations (PDO and AMO) are major drivers of the global surface temperatures. But they did not bring it up. Maybe it’s because admitting this would necessarily mean that the strong 1980 – 1998 warming would have to be in large part attributed to the oceans, and NOT Co2. That medicine seems to be still too bitter to swallow.

The statement adds:

The interaction between the ocean and the atmosphere is an important reason for the decelerated rise in global surface temperatures since the start of the millennium.”

The German Climate Consortium statement ends by pointing out 2015 could also break a new global surface record (depending on the dataset one uses) because the impacts of an El Nino on global temperature lag by up to one year.

Warming now facing huge obstacles

Record or not, we can all safely assume that 2015 will be a warm one globally. But after that the warmists will really have to start sweating. Chances are good that a La Nina will follow, and its cooling effects will be further compounded by the death of SC24 and an AMO heading down towards its cold phase.

Right now it’s best to ignore all the day-to-day hollering and to just be patient. The next 8 years or so will decide the issue once and for all. After that there will be no excuses for not acting – in one direction or the other.


World’s Second Largest Reinsurer Swiss Re Sees Huge Drop In Losses From Natural/Manmade Catastrophes In 2014!

The online Swiss Handelszeitung (Trade News) reports on the world’s second largest reinsurer Swiss Re, and on the losses from natural catastrophes for 2014. Let’s recall that natural catastrophes are supposedly becoming more and more frequent due to the alleged man-made climate worsening from manmade CO2 emissions.

Hat-tip: Kurt

However the Handelszeitung writes that preliminary estimates show that the Swiss reinsurer saw “markedly less damage claims than in previous years” and far less loss of lives. Fortunately this is lots of good news, but the catastrophe-obsessed media are refusing to report it.

Deaths plunge almost 60%!

According to preliminary Swiss Re estimates, total economic losses from natural catastrophes and man-made disasters were USD 113 billion in 2014, down from USD 135 billion in 2013. Out of the total economic losses, insurers covered USD 34 billion in 2014, down 24% from USD 45 billion in 2013.

The 2014 loss amount is way below the annual average of $188 billion dollars for the past 10 years, 1.e. over 41% less.

The Swiss Re press release writes that disaster events have claimed around 11,000 lives this year – down almost a whopping 60% from the 27,000 fatalities in 2013.

“No major hurricane”

The Zurich, Switzerland based reinsurer attributes the reduced damage in part to “the mild hurricane season“. It adds: “No major hurricane made landfall in the US, the ninth year running that this has happened.”

“Very low temperatures and heavy snow”

Moreover, the major losses resulted from cold events. The Swiss Re writes that “2014 started with extreme winter conditions in the US and Japan and, as the year drew to a close, the Northeast US was once again gripped by very low temperatures and heavy snow. The storms in the US at the beginning of 2014 alone caused insured losses of USD 1.7 billion. This is above the average full-year winter storm loss number of USD 1.1 billion of the previous 10 years. In mid-May, a spate of strong storms with large hail stones hit many parts of the US over a five-day period, resulting in insured losses of USD 2.9 billion, the highest of the year.”

Another myth bites the dust.


The Great Cooling Of Arctic Sea Ice Projections: Having Been Burned, Scientists Far More Cautious With Projections

Dirk Notz of the Hamburg-based Max-Planck-Institute: Arctic sea ice could again expand in the coming decade

By Sebastian Lüning and Fritz Vahrenholt
(Translated/edited by P Gosselin)

Over the past 30 years Arctic sea ice has shrunk considerably. Although both in 2007 and 2012 negative records were reached, the ice recovered in the years that followed.

Former US Vice President and climate activist Al Gore was clearly impressed by the 2007 melt record and so in 2008 he declared the Arctic could be completely ice free by 2013. The year 2013 came and went, but the ice stayed. Using the same alarmist bullhorn, US Senator John Kerry also announced that the Arctic sea ice was set to melt away, read here:

The truth is that the threat we face is not an abstract concern for the future. It is already upon us and its effects are being felt worldwide, right now. Scientists project that the Arctic will be ice-free in the summer of 2013. Not in 2050, but four years from now.“

The idea of an ice-free Arctic from both politicians obviously had been whispered to them by IPCC scientists such as Wieslaw Maslowski. The BBC reported here on December 12, 2007:

Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice.
Their latest modelling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years. Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss.”

Looking back at these completely failed prognoses, one would at least expect a return to reason. But this has not been the case for some. There are still climate alarmist scientists who continue insisting that the Arctic sea ice only has a few years left. They’re dead sure. The same is true with the end-of-the-world. And when the predicted end of the world fails to happen, the goalposts get pushed back, or the focus switches to some other end-of-world scenario.

One of the more outspoken believers of the Arctic death spiral is Peter Wadhams of the University of Cambridge. In 2012 he announced to the world the prognosis that Arctic sea ice would disappear within four years. Today, two years later, the trend is in the opposite direction. It doesn’t look good for Wadhams and his prognosis. Now even some of the most obstinate alarmists think the same. For them the apocalyptic visions are really starting to get annoying. During a sea-ice conference in September 2014 in London, Gavin Schmidt had harsh words for Wadhams via Twitter:

“Some anticipation for Peter Wadhams. Audience members already crying,” “Wadhams still using graphs with ridiculous projections with no basis in physics,” “Wadhams now onto methane pulse of 50 GT. But no better justified than his previous statements,” and “Wadhams clearly states that there is no physics behind his extrapolations.”

The latest prognoses come from James Overland and Muyin Wang, who published them in the Geophysical Research Letters in May, 2013. Here they employ three prognosis approaches which look at the end of the ice in 2020, 2030 or 2040. What follows is the abstract:

When will the summer Arctic be nearly sea ice free?
The observed rapid loss of thick multiyear sea ice over the last 7 years and the September 2012 Arctic sea ice extent reduction of 49% relative to the 1979–2000 climatology are inconsistent with projections of a nearly sea ice-free summer Arctic from model estimates of 2070 and beyond made just a few years ago. Three recent approaches to predictions in the scientific literature are as follows: (1) extrapolation of sea ice volume data, (2) assuming several more rapid loss events such as 2007 and 2012, and (3) climate model projections. Time horizons for a nearly sea ice-free summer for these three approaches are roughly 2020 or earlier, 2030 ± 10 years, and 2040 or later. Loss estimates from models are based on a subset of the most rapid ensemble members. It is not possible to clearly choose one approach over another as this depends on the relative weights given to data versus models. Observations and citations support the conclusion that most global climate model results in the CMIP5 archive are too conservative in their sea ice projections. Recent data and expert opinion should be considered in addition to model results to advance the very likely timing for future sea ice loss to the first half of the 21st century, with a possibility of major loss within a decade or two.”

Other scientists have become more cautious, as they were burned too many times in the past with overly hasty projections. Sea ice scientist Dirk Notz of the Hamburg-based Max-Planck-Institute for Meteorology declared in September 2014, in response to a request made by Pierre Gosselin of notrickszone.com, that because of the variability over the coming decade the ice could just as well expand as it could shrink. Interestingly in the model graphics provided by Notz for the coming decades, there are no ice free polar seas to be seen. What follows is the exact wording of the notable e-mail from Notz to Gosselin:

Dear Pierre,

Thanks for being in touch, and sorry for the slow reply. I was at a meeting with surprisingly little internet access. Regarding the bet: I’d be very careful to place a bet in either direction, simply based on our understanding of the system from climate-model simulations. These basically say that on short time scales, such as from one decade to the next, internal variability can cause both an increase or a decrease of the ice coverage. To exemplify this, I’ve attached a slide that shows 30-year long trends from our climate-model simulations.

There you see 30-year long trends for different start dates in our simulations, which vary wildly. This would even more be the case for 10-year long trends. Hence, I wouldn’t put money on a further decrease of the ice cover in the years to come, nor on the opposite. I’ve also attached a plot showing two of the simulations with our Earth-System Model, which suggest that there might be slightly less sea ice in the next decade, but other simulations show a slight increase on these short time scales.

Hence, on time scales such as one decade, the ice cover could well increase a bit (as you are suggesting), but it might also decrease. This depends in my opinion primarily on weather patterns in individual summers – nothing we can predict at the moment. Having said this, however, one of the presentations at the meeting I’ve just been to by Andrey Proshutinsky went in the same direction as you’re suggesting, namely that because of ocean cycles there will be a recovery of sea ice in the years to come. However, I don’t believe this to be a very robust finding that I would put money on at the moment. It’s nevertheless certainly something that we’ll investigate more in the time to come. […] Please let me know if any further questions should come up.

Best wishes,


With all the long-term prognoses we are also naturally interested in how things will develop with Arctic sea ice over the coming year (2015). In her blog Judith Curry provided a forecast Blog in October 2014. She expects the ice in the summer of 2015 to at least reach the extent seen in 2014:

And finally, my prediction for 2015 sea ice minima. I predict minimum sea extent will be the same or greater than 2014, with a continued recovery of sea ice volume. I expect continued recovery in the Atlantic portion of the Arctic, with continued low sea ice extent in the Siberian Arctic. My decadal scale prediction is either no trend in sea ice minima or an increase (I do not expect continued decline in the coming decade).”

It doesn’t look good for Peter Wadhams and the followers of the climate-alarmism movement.


NTZ Stings A Nerve…Rockefeller Philanthropy’s “Climate Nexus” Lashes Out At Harvard Astrophysicist Soon

Recently I published an opinion by Harvard astrophysicist Willie Soon concerning the dubious “2014 hottest year ever” claim.

That post is doing very well and continues to be widely shared in the social media – so much so that the piece stung a sensitive nerve over at Climate Nexus. But instead of rebutting Dr. Soon point-by-point, Climate Nexus produced an openly sophomoric rant with the usual name-calling we are all accustomed to from alarmists who run out of arguments.

Here’s what Climate Nexus wrote at their “DENIER ROUNDUP”:

“Denier-for-Hire Preaches About Prostituting Science

While we would normally ignore the low-grade blogs like NoTricksZone as well as bottom-tier, fossil fuel spokesmen-for-hire like Dr. Willie Soon, the two have come together for a post that is just too good to pass up.

NoTricksZone wanted a comment from Soon about how 2014 is shaping up to be the hottest year on record. His reply was a perfect example of a classic defense mechanism identified by Sigmund Freud called psychological projection—where one projects a problem of their own onto others. We see this regularly in deniers who claim “alarmists” ignore or cherry-pick evidence and engage in ideologically driven groupthink, as well as in deniers who name their deceptive and misleading blog “NoTricksZone.”

In this case, it’s Dr. Soon implying that the World Meteorological Organization and anyone else who notes this year’s record heat is “prostituting science.” Which is interesting, considering all of Dr. Soon’s grants since 2002 have come from the fossil fuel industry! Together with Sallie Baliunas, Soon has received over $1 million from dirty energy interests since 2001, according to a number of documents uncovered by Greenpeace.

So here we have someone who’s taken literally hundreds of thousands of dollars from the American Petroleum Institute, ExxonMobil, Charles G. Koch Foundation and other fossil fuel interests with the express purpose of casting doubt on man’s influence on climate, saying independent scientists are “prostituting science.”

I think Freud may want a word with you, Dr. Soon. So have a seat on the couch, and tell us, how is your relationship with your mother?”

No surprise here that Climate Nexus kept the entire focus away from all scientific points made by Soon. Emotionally, it seems they never developed beyond puberty.

On the accusations of Dr. Soon being a “denier-for-hire”, we refer readers to the response Dr. Soon sent to the Guardian already years ago:

I do not write papers because ExxonMobil or Greenpeace pays me to, but because my academic researches demonstrate that the sun, not carbon dioxide, is the chief driver of Arctic temperatures, and that much of the ‘evidence’ for the bears’ imminent demise is speculative. Indeed the population has increased fivefold since the 1950s, mainly because of restricted hunting. Where the Arctic has cooled, bears dwindle: where it has warmed, they increase.

Polar bears evolved from brown bears 200,000 years ago and therefore must have survived the last interglacial period, when global temperatures were many degrees warmer than the present. More perspective and less prejudice, please.

Willie Soon”

Well, let’s not look at the BILLIONS in funding the IPCC alarmists get. Or Phil Jones taking money from Saudi Arabia…or Stanford taking from Exxon-Mobil. Although the list is long and lavish, funding is the popular instrument used to distract audiences from the shite-quality science underpinning alarmist claims. Under the bottom line, the real issue is the integrity of the science and observations, and not who funds it.

And even though skeptics are out-funded by several orders of magnitude, the alarmists are still losing the scientific debate. Running and hiding, dodging debates in public, and refusing to disclose data and code also hardly convince the objective audience.

On the subject of Freud, if he were alive today, I suspect he’d be really interested in psychoanalyzing the frustrated end-of-world-obsessed alarmist who only can derive satisfaction from crystal ball quality catastrophe scenarios.

“Low grade” sites?

Freud might also be interested as to why Climate Nexus characterizes NTZ as a “low-gradesite. According to Alexa (15 Dec), Climate Nexus global ranking is: 1,532,673. NoTricksZone global ranking is 148,886. Sort of like the Queens Park Rangers calling West Ham United a low-grade team in the Premier League. Who’s projecting here?

And who sponsors who?

NoTricksZone: private citizen Pierre Gosselin.
Climate Nexus: Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors.

Case closed.


Christian Schönwiese, Hans Von Storch: “2°C Target” Purely Political One…From “Politicians Disguised As Scientists”

Rainer Hoffmann of the German language Klimamanifest has produced a short clip on the 2°C target we keep hearing about.

According to activists the globe mustn’t be allowed to warm up more than 2°C over its 1900 level, otherwise it will tip into an irreversible and unstoppable spiral to climate catastrophe that will lead to “the end of civilization as we know it”.

Many of us have been misled to believe that the 2°C was established by leading climate scientists and even made to “international law” that now has to be strictly adhered to, and that CO2 emissions must start falling by 2020. Prof Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber (0:18 mark), Director of the ultra-alarmist Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, for example, claimed on German public television on July 3, 2011, that the 2°C target indeed was “international law” and that CO2 emissions needed to start falling by 2020 if humanity was to have any chance of reaching the 2°C target.

But these are two patented alarmist falsehoods. Don’t take it from me, but from the climate scientists themselves.

On December 3, 2014, Schellnhuber admitted that the 2°C target was not international law (0:53) and then postponed the year CO2 emissions would have to start dropping by an entire decade, to 2030. Suddenly we got goalposts that were not international law and had been moved out another 10 years.

2°C target is purely political

On the question of: Is the theoretical 2°C target a scientific one? The answer to that question is also a definite “no”.

On February 2, 2010, Prof. Dr. Christian Schönwiese (1:27) told FAZ journalist Christian Bartsch on German public television:

They formulated a 2°C target. It is not from a climate scientist, or a physicist, or a chemist, but from an outside person who simply plucked it out of thin air and said ‘2°C'”

Bartsch asks Schönwiese rhetorically:

“So it’s no scientific target?”

Schönwiese acknowledges: “Right.”

At the 2:03 mark of the video, Prof. Hans von Storch in a speech he made in January, 2011 confirmed Schönwiese:

We are in a time where scientists and politicians claim, or at least suggest, the science, in the form of the IPCC, or the German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU), has shown that the 2°C target is scientifically mandatory, and is thus no longer a political question that has to be negotiated by society, but rather a target that policymakers only must execute – quasi an order. However the IPCC has never in any way presented the 2°C target as mandatory. Rather this was done by a few scientists, or shall I say: politicians disguised as scientists.”


Lima’s UN Climate Conference The Most Disgraceful, Destructive Ever…Time To Disband The Traveling Parasitic UN Circus

It’s clear: none of the intended aims were reached during the two-week UN mega climate conference in Lima.

Some baby steps were made. And of course they are being sold to the public as important progress on the road to a binding treaty in Paris next year. No one believes it.

What was achieved, unfortunately, were some real tangible and permanently visible negative results: 1) another huge junket bill for the taxpayers, 2) one large carbon footprint from the hundreds of international flights, and 3) worst of all, one forever-ruined historical treasure, the Peruvian Nazca lines – all thanks to the IPCC emboldened environmental activist group, Greenpeace.


Lima’s permanent result: a trampled, ruined Peruvian historical treasure during a Greenpeace publicity stunt. Image: Greenpeace.

That’s the sorrowful result of this year’s climate conference. And no other has gone down as having been more destructive as this one. The ruin of the more than 2000 year old Nazca lines site was the icing on the IPCC cake.

Politically Lima finished with the same familiar result as usual – for the 20th time. The tens of billions of dollars that the UN and the IPCC have wasted on the climate issue, which is now unraveling as a grand hoax, could have done a heck of a lot more good for the environment had the money been invested directly in environmental protection technologies for smokestacks, clean water supplies, sanitation, medicine, and education in the third world. Instead, all the money is gone and the useless climate circus continues on its global tour.

The UN has failed miserably, abjectly. It’s time to disband the IPCC. The UN’s leadership performance and its trail of destruction, all punctuated by the Nazca lines, are an international civic disgrace that needs to be ended for good.

Regarding results on a climate treaty, they were almost non-existent. As I predicted here yesterday, the only result was an illusionary agreement with lots of intentions and back doors. Twenty conferences should be enough to tell any sane person that this is all a cynical charade by parasitic bureaucrats.

German Federal Environment Minister Barbara Hendricks, obviously fed up with the conference, left already on Friday.

WWF official Regine Gunther said: “The Lima Conference was a waste of time and energy.”

On the climate treaty results of the Lima Conference, what follows are some reactions from the German language media.

Axel Bojanowski at Spiegel:

Thus the Lima Conference failed to reach its decisive target: Actually a precise outline of a world climate treaty was supposed to be drawn up. It was supposed to become clear which measures could lead to a peak in CO2 emissions by the year 2030.”

The Austrian Der Standard writes:

The 195 countries agreed on a final text in Lima during the night into Sunday. It defined only vague criteria for national climate commitments, which are to be introduced in the Spring of 2015. Environmental groups spoke of a ‘dangerously weak text’.”

The Swiss Tagesanzeiger:

Climate conference with only a minimal target

The treaty countries have produced a document of about 40 pages that contain all the important elements that an effective climate treaty needs. However the document contains a long series of options that will lead to days of debate. At the forefront of the conflict points fairness, new order and trust, everything is indeed open as to whether or not an acceptable treaty will be reached in Paris.


Lima Conference Close To Collapse? German Enivironment Minister Already Departed Lima Yesterday…”Hangover Mood”

The Lima Climate Conference has been extended another day as countries are still unable to reach an agreement on how much to cut emissions and who has to pay how much. But there are mounting signs that the talks may have fallen apart.

This morning NTV German public television writes that German Environment Minister Barbara Hendricks already left Lima Friday evening, even leaving an hour before the official end. The title of the NTV article: “Sobriety in Lima – Hangover mood at the climate conference.”

The NTV first reports on all the hope and optimism that had led up to the Conference, but that the realities of clashing national interests and responsibilities quickly dampened the mood as the conference wore on during the second week.

NTV writes:

In Lima it was already clear on Friday that important questions still could not be resolved. ‘The road to success in Paris remains remains long,’ German Environment Minister Barbara Hendricks observed. The Treaty’s bindingness will first be decided in Paris in any case.”

Already it appears that negotiators in Lima may be headed only to a watered down document full of intents, declaring that the parties agree to try to agree in Paris next year.

Hendricks’s early departure

There are no details as to why the German Environment Minister left already on Friday with the business unfinished. NTV writes:

The German negotiation leadership is now in the hands of State Secretary Jochen Flasbarth. The environmental protection organization Greenpeace criticized the Minister’s departure. ‘I find it already remarkable that the German Environment Minister has departed early, after Germany had played a spirited and progressive role,’ said Stefan Krug, head of the political representative in Berlin. ‘At such moments, when the negotiations are so precarious, it is extremely important that ministers remain engaged with their colleagues behind the scenes in order to strive for a solution.'”

NTV also writes of disappointment by German socialist EU Parliamentarian Jo Leinen: “Unfortunately it looks like we will be going home with a document that will contain many vague and soft formulations.”

That may very well be the case. But don’t expect the coming UN press releases to say so. Expect them to declare a breakthrough and success.

UN Climate Circus no. 20.


Harvard Astrophysicist: 2014 “Hottest Year” Claim A “Prostitution Of Science” …Global Warming “Sorrowfully Exaggerated”

Harvard Astrophycist Willie Soon asks if hottest year ever claim is “a joke”.

NoTricksZone sought out astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon’s opinion on the claim that 2014 is the “hottest on record”. What follows is his reply:

2014 hottest year a manipulation

Is this a joke or simply my BAD dream? Prostituting science like this is now consider a virtue. It is no wonder that science writer Lord Ridley said that he has lost his faith on science as an institution.


Why would anyone even bother with claims and insistence of the globe in 2014 being the hottest to a relative colder years all within a few hundredths of a degree Celsius? Poor Anders Celsius should be dancing in his grave.

The claim is based on just one (from a half dozen or so) thermometer-based products whose measurement quality is fraught with uncertainty and with actual error bars at least ten times larger than those claimed “effects”. WMO and others simply pick and choose the “data” that produces the press news they want in time for the Lima, Peru political pow-wow.

In truth the datasets taken as a whole clearly show that the global temperature has been flat-trending for nearly two decades now and that the theory of rising CO2 leading to global warming is sorrowfully exaggerated.

This kind of manipulative science, exemplified by IPCC, WMO, NOAA and what have you, is serving its master in the realm of politics and policy, and is indeed very sickening.

All of them are essentially behaving in ways we would never want any of our school children to behave: cheating and manipulating that are accompanied by careful wording and clever rhetoric.

Of course as a philosophy we all hold science dear. But if we continue to keep silent and do not express outrage like the one I now feel, the notion of science as a philosophy and way of life will soon be reduced to computer games and animation for the mind-controllers and beauty-contest institutions.

If folks reading NTZ still need a bit of fact on how stinky this CO2-global warming ideology has become, you only need to consider reading the blog by Willis Eschenbach on how the UN’s own survey of over 6 million votes show climate change a non-issue.

Willie Soon”

Dr. Willie Soon is Astrophysicist and Geoscientist at the Solar and Stellar Physics (SSP) Division, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

Photo source: Heartland.

Additional reading here.


Activist Idiots At Work…Greenpeace Officials Shirk Responsibility… Spiegel: Peru Says Publicity Stunt An “Insult”

CFact RuckerMany outlets are reporting on Greenpeace’s desecration and exploitation of ancient Incan and Nazca historical sites for political and fund-raising purposes. See here.

Photo: Craig Rucker questions Greenpeace spokesman. Photo cropped from C-Fact video.

Today the online Spiegel covers (instead of buries) the story: “Nazca Lines in Peru: Greenpeace apologizes for cultural contamination“.

That apology of course comes only after a huge wave of negative publicity. When asked by C-Fact’s Craig Rucker at a press conference about what the activists had done, a Greenpeace spokesman seemed completely indifferent about having used the site for their stunt, and even thought that everyone just loved Greenpeace.

Well, I’ve been with them. I’ve been in the village and we were basically in the village for a day and everybody loved them, there was no problem.”

Indeed here it appears that the Greenpeace higher-ups were actually there at the site and aware of what the activists were doing. It seems as if the stunt even may have been orchestrated by the higher-ups. Will Greenpeace officials take responsibility for the actions of their activists members? Spiegel writes:

“On their homepage Greenpeace showed themselves as demonstratively proud about the stunt even still on Thursday morning. […]

However in the meantime Greenpeace no longer considers the spectacular action as a good idea.”

Note how Greenpeace officials quickly backpedalled once the massive backlash became undeniable. Greenpeace higher officials are (suddenly) acting as if they had nothing to do with it, and that it had been carried out solely by the activists on their own.

It’s a pity that Greenpeace officials always distance themselves from the actions of their activists whenever they go awry, but are always quick to collect the cash donations that flow in afterwards when the actions succeed. Spiegel adds:

Also the head of the Greenpeace delegation at the climate conference, Martin Kaiser, said he expects that the activists to always take the responsibility for their actions.”

Unbelievable. What about Greenpeace officials taking responsibility for once?

Greenpeace chief Kumi Naidoo will personally fly into Lima by jet and apologize. But that may be too little, too late. Spiegel writes:

Peru’s Deputy Cultural Minister Luis Jaime Castillo is requesting the state attorney to file charges for ‘the attack on archeological monuments’, a crime that is punishable by as much as six years in prison.”

Of course European governments and other organizations will express disgust at the Greenpeace activists’ action for awhile, but behind the scenes they’ll be working out a deal with the Peruvian government to get them off…probably in exchange for cash and support.


Goal Post Migration Alert! Father of 2°C Target Schellnhuber Postpones CO2 Emissions Peak 10 Years: From 2020 To 2030!

Reader Kurt in Switzerland points out that Germany’s Climate Pope John Schellnhuber, Director of the end-of-times Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), has just postponed the timepoint when man’s CO2 emissions must reach a peak and start their (rapid) downward trend.

Two days ago I quoted Professor Schellnhuber, who said:

At the latest by 2030 Co2 emissions must reach their peak and start downward.”

That deadline appeared to be new, so Kurt in Switzerland checked if that was the deadline Schellnhuber had given in the past. Kurt writes:

In 2011, Schellnhuber insisted that the emissions curve needed to peak no later than 2020 in order to meet the 2 degree warming target. http://www.wbgu.de/wbgu_jg2011_ZfE.pdf (See p. 7 of 34).”

Indeed in 2011 here Prof. Schellnhuber wrote:

The global emissions trend reversal must occur no later than 2020 [in order to assure compliance to the 2-degree C limit].”

Three years ago Schellnhuber was warning we had to turn things around by 2020 at the latest, or else we would be doomed. Now suddenly we’ve just been given 10 more years?

Now what could have possibly compelled Prof. Schellnhuber to recalculate a new peak time? Perhaps it was the sudden the realization that his expectation of a possible trend change by 2020 was one of Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds? Global CO2 emissions have not even yet started to slow down, and a trend reversal point is nowhere near in sight. Major emerging industrial countries like China and India are still seeing rapid, accelerating CO2 emissions growth.

Even Schellnhuber’s home country of Germany, supposedly a model for cutting CO2 emissions, has not managed to reduce CO2 emissions since 2000 – despite more than tripling its renewable energy capacity at a cost of hundreds of billions of euros, as EIKE shows here today:


 CO2 emissions from electricity are depicted by the red line. Renewable energy capacity by the blue line. It’s not working! Source: BDEW

 The story is the same in neighboring Austria. Die Presse here quotes Austrian Green Party spokeswoman Christiane Brunner:

According to an evaluation by participants of the UN Climate Conference in Lima Peru, Austria has not ‘saved a single gram of CO2.’ […]

In 1990 Austria saw CO2 emissions of 78 million tonnes; in 2005 it was 82 million tonnes. ‘When one calculates the EU2020 taregts, Austria will end up once again at only 78 million tonnes in the year 2020 – and that only if additional measures get implemented,’ Brunner criticizes.”

We can certainly expect Professor Schellnhuber to make yet another recalculation in the year 2018 or so, pushing back yet again the deadline for a trend change to 2040 or even 2050. This of course is as remote from science as one could possibly get. Professor Schellnhuber and his scientists in Potsdam are rapidly making themselves to a laughing stock.


“Energiewende” Takes A Massive Blow…Top Green Energy Proponent Concedes: “Blunder With Ugly Consequences”!

German national weekly DIE ZEIT writes in its latest hard copy edition that one of Europe’s leading green energy thinkers now concedes Germany’s much ballyhooed Energiewende (transition to renewable energies) has been a “filthy blunder”.

Die Zeit 4 Dec 2014

Page 4 of December 4, 2014, edition of DIE ZEIT. “Filthy Blunder”

When the green movement itself makes such an admission, then you know Germany’s once highly ballyhooed Energiewende is truly in deep trouble, if not a basket case.

“Germany will not even come close to reaching targets”

Moreover, DIE ZEIT, an influential publication among Germany’s green centre-left, writes, “Germany will not even come close to reaching its climate target despite the massive investment in wind and solar energies.

The admission is a massive blow to Germany’s renewable energies movement, whose troubles have long been played down or denied by its proponents.

So what has finally compelled Germany’s top greens to make such an astonishing admission? The facts show that although the Energiewende has led to a rapid expansion of wind and solar energies, it has also led to the unexpected increase in coal-fired power. Renewable energies have had the unintended effect of revitalizing coal as a source of energy. A horror for climate protection activists.

The 180° U-turn begins with Patrick Graichen, Director of the Agora Energiewende thinktank, which according to DIE ZEIT, is “the most influential school of thought for energy policy in Germany“. Graichen himself was formerly responsible for energy at the Federal Ministry of Environment.

Making the air dirtier

The DIE ZEIT feature article explains how Germany’s original plan had been to expand wind and solar so that they would first replace the country’s unwanted nuclear power plants, and then later the filthy coal power plants. The idea was to use natural gas power plants to even out the huge irregularities that come with the weather-dependent solar and wind power. And as green and power grid technology developed further, even gas eventually would be throttled down to a bare minimum, and so Germany would be propelled from being the world’s worst villain to a most loved hero – in less than a 100-year span. That was the dream.

But now green energy dreamers are being rudely awakened, and the reality looks very different. More CO2 is being produced. Die ZEIT writes:

It’s a blunder with ugly consequences. The Energiewende, as it is now set up, is not making the air cleaner, but dirtier.”

The problem, DIE ZEIT explains, is that the coal is much cheaper than natural gas. As a a consequence power generators are opting to even out the green power supply fluctuations with coal power instead of gas. But because coal power plants cannot be driven up and down quickly to respond to fluctuations in supply, power producers no longer even bother throttling them down when too much power is fed in by wind in sun. The coal power plants just keep on humming and emitting anyway – even when the power is not needed. In the end it’s still cheaper than operating gas plants. Result: gas plants are being closed down, coal is coming back.

Grotesque market distortions – negative prices

The requirement to feed in green power and all the extra unneeded coal-fired electricity are now causing grotesque distortions on the electricity markets. To illustrate the perverse market conditions, DIE ZEIT describes the events of Sunday, May 11, 2014, when so much wind and solar power was fed into the grid that the power became worthless on the market and at times caused negative prices on the electricity exchanges, as DIE ZEIT illustrates:

The price on the market fell to nothing. A little later before noon, there was so much green power on the market that the German power companies were paying money to get rid of it. By early afternoon when solar power was flowing plentifully, the so-called negative power price rose to 60 euros per megawatt-hour.”

Negative prices due to an uncontrolled supply into the grid is no longer an isolated event that rarely occurs. DIE ZEIT continues:

And that is no isolated incident; it’s the future of German power production. In the first half of 2014 power prices were negative for 71 hours. But already in just a few years that number could be one thousand hours per year, according to the think tank Energy Brainpool. One quarter of the entire green energy production would be energy garbage.”

Skyrocketing electricity prices for consumers while the price on the exchanges go negative: This has got to be one of the 7 wonders of German energy management.

“An Act of God”

Clearly the German electricity market has careened out of control and is in a state of chaos. Now even the strongest denier greens can no longer stomach the deplorable electricity market situation and are conceding it has to change.

DIE ZEIT then asks how it all came to this in the first place. Patrick Graichen blames what he terms the “collective miscalculation by the experts in the branch” who falsely assumed green energies would crowd out dirty coal plants. Graichen claims that “no one could have foreseen the development.”

“Nonsense,” says Michael Limburg, Vice President of the Germany-based European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE), a critical climate science and energy policy think-tank. He wrote NTZ by e-mail:

They are starting to confess what is not longer deniable because it’s so obvious to everyone else…typical for politicians in action. Yet, rather than taking responsibility for the damage they have created, they are now trying to act as if it were an Act of God when in reality it was completely foreseeable and they had been warned on many occasions.”

No one can say all of it was unexpected. Early warnings of disaster have been frequent and since quite a long time. The rubric “Alternative Energy” at the NTZ side bar is chock-full of articles on the troubles in the renewable energy sector. What follows are just a few examples:

notrickszone.2012/09/23/renewables-drive-is-turning-to a-disaster/


Teutonic Power Grab…Schellnhuber & Co. Tell World To Do As They Say, Or Globe Gets 230-Foot Sea Level Rise!

They’re back.

Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber and his WBGU have just released their latest Special Report: Climate Protection as a World Citizen Movement. The 126-page report is the 9th of its kind since the first one was published in 1995.


Professor Schellnhuber telling German Parliamentarians to act as he and his WBGU recommend, or else sea levels will rise 230 feet. Photo cropped from bundestag.de.

Totalitarian designs

The latest Special Report is shrill and the underlying message is: Time is running out and unless policymakers do as us German scientists say, the world will end in catastrophe. The Special Report suggests that the normal democratic processes are failing and that governments must start heeding the instructions of the elite German group of Potsdam scientists. Schellnhuber, a person who openly admits having no background in sociology, insists that he and his fellow WBGU scientists be given the helm in all decision matters concerning climate policy.

Schellnhuber, the WBGU Chairman and Director of the alarmist Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), once recommended a watering down of democracy and more policy-making power being placed in the hands of far-sighted “experts”.

4 recommendations

The alarmist, climate doomsday obsessed site Klimaretter here writes that Hans Joachim Schellnhuber not long ago appeared before German Parliamentarians to present the “impending climate catastrophe” up close and “to explain the four recommendations of the Council”.

The climate alarmist Klimaretter gives their four recommendations:

First recommendation, Klimaretter writes:

First the expertise of climate science must be securely anchored in the political process of climate action. Also when, as Schellnhuber emphasizes, policy making and science are of two different realms, science is essential for keeping the world climate policy on course: ‘Without a compass, you cannot steer a ship.'”

Here we see Schellnhuber & Co. are not content with simply supplying governments with data, but they also insist on being the ones guiding future policy for global society. But how can we know that their science is not being tainted by their political convictions? We can’t. This is why it is so dangerous to put so much into the hands of such a tiny group…who happen to be the most alarmist at that.

The second recommendation, Klimaretter writes:

Secondly there should be the right for countries to file climate protection lawsuits in constitutional courts in order to increase the societal pressure on the governments. A strong involvement by the civil society is decisive in pushing climate protection forward. The ‘global societal contract for climate protection’ does not only manifest itself in demonstrations such as the recent one in New York, but also in the strengthening of the Divestment Movement.

Not only do the WBGU scientists want to be the ones running planetary policymaking, but they want it institutionalized.

Third recommendation:

Thirdly the two-degrees Celsius target has to be established as international law because only by limiting global warming to two degrees Celsius can the consequences for the societies in many countries be managed. A continued business-as-usual CO2 emission would not only lead to a melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, but also of the East Antarctic. That would bring about a sea level rise of 70 meters.”

Here the scientists, who to many readers, by now are surely beginning to appear as the quintessential mad scientists, are claiming that sea levels will rise and drown large parts of the planet if their requests do not become binding international law. Hard to be believe they’ve made it this far.

Fourth recommendation

Schellnhuber warns that time is running out and is calling for “flat zero” global carbon emissions already by the year 2070 in order to reach the 2°C target. “At the latest by 2030 Co2 emissions must reach their peak and start downward.”

That demand, and their seemingly complete unawareness of the 18-year pause and growing scientific literature showing only moderate CO2 sensitivity, suggests that the WBGU are very remote from reality.

Since the WBGU was established in the early 1990s, they’ve published 9 lengthy special reports and 14 even lengthier flagship reports…all pushing for radical societal transformation. Seems the Potsdam scientists are more preoccupied with being the architects of social adventurism than serious scientists objectively looking at the recent data and findings.


Germany’s Electricity Price More Than Doubles…Electrocuting Consumers And Markets!

Michael Krüger of the German climate blog Science Skeptical here has an analysis of Germany’s electrical power cost development since its renewable energy feed-in act was enacted in 2000. Germany’s Feed-in Act, the so-called EEG Gesetz, requires power companies to buy at exorbitant rates all renewable energies produced. Result: sky-rocketing prices.

I’ve shortened the text somewhat while translating.

Germany’s electricity price just behind leader Denmark in the EU: Since the introduction of its Feed-in Act in 2000, the electricity price has more than doubled!
By Michael Krüger
(Translated, edited by P Gosselin)

Since the EEG renewable Feed-in Act took effect in 2000, it has been promised by green energy proponents time and again that the power price would fall in Germany. So what does the reality look like today? On this subject I have found the news from the Bundesnetzagentur (Federal Network Agency) on the latest power prices in the daily media.


The first chart above is a comparison of the per kilowatt-hour price of power for all EU countries. Germany (Deutschland) now has the second highest electricity prices after Denmark. The second chart shows the per kilowatt-hour feed-in surcharge levied on consumers. The final chart shows the cost of one kilowatt-hour of electricity households must pay – currently at 29.13 cents per kilowatt-hour.

In 2000, when the Feed-in Act was introduced, Germans paid only 13.94 cents per kilowatt-hour, which at the time had hardly changed since German reunification in 1991. After the liberalization of the power market in 1998, the price of power even dropped some. Today, in 2014, the price is now 29.21 cents per kilowatt-hour, i.e. it has more than doubled in 14 years. The cost-driver is the EEG Feed-in Act surcharge, which has risen from 0.41 cents in 2003 to 6.24 cents today. It represents 22% of the cost of a kilowatt-hour.

Conventional power plants inefficient in standby mode

Because of the expansion of renewable energies and because they must be bought first by the power companies, the conventional power plants no longer operate at full-capacity. If the wind blows briskly and the sun is shining, then the conventional power plants must reduce their production. And when the wind dies down and the sun doesn’t shine, then the conventional power production must ramp up again. As a result the capacity utilization and the output of the conventional power plants is substantially reduced and generation becomes inefficient and more costly. A businessman who is only allowed to sell when the weather is bad of course cannot earn anything and would soon go bankrupt. The very same is true today with conventional power in Germany.

Moreover, the situation is getting worse as renewable energy continues to expand. Conventional power plants have since become so uneconomical that power plant operators prefer not to build any new ones and to switch off the old ones. New plants are no longer being planned and old power plants are being left on because the federal government has made it illegal to shut them down in attempt to keep the supply intact. Naturally all the added costs ultimately have to be borne by the power consumer.

Windparks to nowhere

Renewable energy producers are paid compensation to the full amount – even when their power is unneeded and cannot be fed into the grid because no line is available to feed the power into the grid. This is the case because grid expansion is progressing too slowly to keep up with the expansion of renewable energies. There exists windparks for example, that are located away from any grid feed-in point and are unable to feed in the power. However, the consumer still has to pay for the power they never feed in. Other costs that need to be passed on to the consumer are the expansion of the power grid, which is necessary for transmitting the renewable energy, for example to bring the wind power produced at the North Sea to southern Germany and to deliver solar energy produced in the south to northern Germany.

Another cost driver is the Emissions Certificates Trading introduced for CO2 in 2005. Currently CO2 emission certificates cost about 5 euros per tonne, but were as high as 30 euros. These were costs that naturally got passed on to the consumer. German environmental activist group BUND announced with glee that expected rising costs of emissions trading certificates would add another 2-4 ct/kwh. Super.

Cost of green energies: social and environmental blight

Summary: The points listed above have resulted in Germany’s electricity prices more than doubling since 2000. An end to the rising price spiral is nowhere sight despite more promises from the renewable energy proponents. Power consumers in Germany now have to pay almost twice as much as the consumers in neighboring France (which relies heavily on nuclear power) and more than double than consumers in the USA. The EEG renewable energy Feed-in Act does not decrease the prices, rather it causes them to skyrocket. It is only a question of time as to how long Germany can keep this up.

Proponents of renewable energy often like pointing to the social costs of conventional energy, but they ignore the social costs of renewable energies, which take up lots of natural space, crowd out wildlife and litter the landscape. Then there are the economic costs and social damage that high power costs inflict. Production and jobs move to foreign countries where energy and labor are cheaper.

Electricity is increasingly becoming a luxury

Consumers are seeing less money in their wallets, which in turn impacts buying power. Electricity is increasingly becoming a luxury, and energy poverty is spreading. The number of consumers getting their power shut off is on the rise in Germany. Just in 2011 in Germany, 6 million households (15% of all German households in Germany) were threatened with a power cut-off. The energy supply cut-off to 1 million households had already taken place. The power was turned off for 300,000 households. The trend is upwards.

The blame of course for all the misery gets placed on the evil power companies, grid operators, and the former conservative-free democrat government of the previous years.