Bastardi: Detroit Sets All-Time Record Snowy Winter! … 5 Of The Snowiest Winters Occurred In Last 11 Years!

Veteran meteorologist Joe Bastardi tweeted here a chart showing Detroit not only has been struggling with a brutal, cold and snowy winter this year, but has been doing so for the last decade. Soon people won’t know what bare ground in the springtime is!

Bastardi_Detriot winters BlW9pDnCYAAiZmJ

Joe also adds that 6 of the top 15 snowy winters have occurred in the last 15 years.

No wonder the title of the fairy tale has been changed from global warming (a lie) to climate change. For meteorologist Joe Bastardi, it’s clear: “People around Detroit and everywhere (most snowy winters are also colder than normal) dont believe their lies.”


German FAZ Commentary On Global Cooperation To Stabilize Climate: “Not Going To Happen”

The online Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung  (FAZ), Germany’s leading national political daily, has a commentary on the IPCC’s WG III report. It’s also online here.

On the front page AGW believer Joachim Müller-Jung comments:

The solution appears so simple – but collectively it is so difficult to achieve.”

He adds that meanwhile

Climate policy is now changing course. [...] A global cooperation on stabilizing the climate is not going to happen.”

Never mind that Müller-Jung actually believes the IPCC’s already glaringly faulty crystal ball forecasts are going to come true if we don’t act. He sees a number of obstacles ahead in tackling the “climate problem” globally. He writes that coal and natural gas today are “so cheap that the ecological change to renewables will just have to wait” and that in respect to emission reductions “the IPCC has to acknowledge that rigid mandatory targets have little political value and are morally dubious.”

Müller-Jung sees no chance of a collective global agreement on reductions and that the best we can hope for are regional measures that take regional conditions into account. “Many climate activists have a hard time accepting that.”


University of Colorado Sea Level Rise Adjustment Appears To Be Unreasonable, Not Justifiable

Rebound and Sea Level
By Ed Caryl

During the peak of the last ice age, enough ice was collected in the great ice sheets that the global sea level was reduced by more than 120 meters. The ice sheets themselves were, in places, more than two kilometers thick. The great weight of that ice depressed the earth’s crust and mantle by hundreds of meters. In some places, ground that is now a hundred meters above sea level, was pressed down below the sea level that existed before and shortly after the ice melted. Because the earth’s mantle has a high viscosity, and the earth’s crust a high bending strength, these areas are still slowly rising after 12,000 years, and will rise for another 12,000, barring another ice age to press them down again. This “isostatic rebound” or “post-glacial rebound” (PGR) complicates sea levels worldwide because it continually changes the sea bottom and coastline shapes. The University of Colorado sea level measurements add 0.3 mm/year to sea level rise to “adjust” for this. Is this adjustment reasonable?

Locally, this rebound can be measured by precision GPS. Geological studies have also determined the prehistoric amount of rebound that has taken place. I will just mention three areas that have been and will be vastly changed by rebound: the St Lawrence Seaway area in Canada and northern New England in the U. S., an island beach in Nunavit, northern Canada, and Finland in northern Europe.


Figure 1 is a world map of PGR from the Wikipedia article on that subject, here.

The present day St. Lawrence River Seaway sits at the edge of the present PGR area that marks the boundary of the great Laurentide Ice Sheet of the last ice age. North of the river, the Provence of Quebec is rising. South of the river, southern New England is rising much slower or falling. This is apparent at Lake Ontario, where the tilting has resulted in the northern shore rising faster than the southern shore, and wetlands on the north draining and drying out, while on the southern shore, beaches are drowning and wetlands are being created from formerly dry land. The whole lake is very slowly rolling southward.

At the end of the last ice age, ice had blocked the St. Lawrence valley and formed the glacial Lake Candona, covering what is now the lower three Great Lakes, Ontario, Erie, and Huron. When the ice dam failed, the water level fell 300 feet (100 meters) in a few days. At this point, Lake Ontario may have been connected to the world ocean through the Champlain Sea. The Champlain Sea covered the whole area that is now Lake Champlain and all the St. Lawrence River Valley up to Lake Ontario. Pierre’s boyhood home in Northern Vermont was under seawater, or at the shore during this period. The Champlain Sea lasted from 12,500 years ago up to 9800 years ago, when the rising land finally cut off Lake Champlain from the waters to the north. The land has continued to rise in the Lake Champlain area, and now the lake is 29 to 30 meters above mean sea level.

In the far north of Canada, where the center of the ice sheet was thickest, the land is currently rising at nearly 2 cm a year. In the past, when the last ice had melted, the rate was even higher, and the land will continue to rise into the future until the next ice age returns. The PGR uplift is constant, without fits and starts, in contrast to land in tectonically active areas like California and Japan, and other areas that are near plate boundaries where earth movements will abruptly change sea level.


Figure 2. At Bathurst Inlet, on the east side of Cockburn Island, Nunavit, northern Canada, is a wedge-shaped beach called Rebound Beach. Source.

Here at Rebound Beach are many fossil beaches, one above the other, preserved because for most of the year the ground is frozen and snow-covered, there is little rain, and very little tidal action. The beaches seen here are like a stereo tape recording (with a stream dividing the tracks) of rising and falling sea levels recorded on a steadily rising, evenly sloped land form. It appears that since the last time the tape was erased, when the ice scrubbed the slope clean over 12,000 years ago, there have been about 20 rises, falls, or hesitations in the sea level, where the rate was different from the steady PGR. A dating of each of these fossil beaches would result in a good record of sea level over the last 12,000 years.

C_3Figure 3 (left) is a map of Finland as of 11,000 years ago. Source. The blue area was water.

Finland 11,000 years ago was mostly sea-bottom with an archipelago of islands. Many place-names in Finland reflect this history with high ground that has island or other maritime feature names. As the land rose, lakes were cut off from the sea, and the Gulf of Bothnia became smaller. The current rate of uplift here approaches 1 cm a year in the northern Gulf. On this map, at the left edge just below center is a narrowing of the Gulf of Bothnia at Kvarken. This narrowing separates Bothnian Bay from the outer Bothnian Sea further south. The water at this point is only about 25 meters deep. Bothnian Bay is already nearly fresh water due to the number and size of the rivers flowing into it. The salt content is now too low to be tasted and there are many freshwater fish species. In about 1500 years uplift will create a further narrowing, reducing the depth to about 10 meters, creating a river flowing south across the Kvarken. At that time Bothnia Bay will be a freshwater lake.

The rising of the bottom of the Bay of Bothnia and the Baltic Sea in general will reduce the volume of the Baltic and force that water into the world ocean, raising the sea level generally. Just to estimate the amount of rise, if the average PGR is 5 mm/year for the Baltic, and the Baltic is roughly 1/1000th of the total ocean area, then the world ocean will rise 0.005 mm/year.

But the Baltic is small compared to Hudson Bay, and Hudson Bay is also rising. The tide gauge at Churchill is rising (sea level falling) at 1.2 cm/year. Hudson Bay is 0.34% of the World Ocean. The PGR here will contribute 0.041 mm/year to general sea level rise. The other waters around the islands of Nunavit in northern Canada will contribute about another 0.004 mm/year, making a total for the Baltic and Canada about 0.05 mm/year.

But the PGR rising is offset by sea bottom sinking. As the earth’s mantle rises, the mantle in the surrounding area must flow down and under to compensate. As can be seen in figure 1, the North Atlantic, the bottom between Newfoundland and Greenland, and the ocean bottom north of Canada, is sinking. These areas are totally under ocean, unlike the rising areas that are mostly land. The sink rate seems to be 3 to 4 mm/year over an area much greater than the rising sea bottoms, which would appear to more than cancel any sea level rise due to PGR. The 0.3 mm/year positive “adjustment” to sea level rise by the UC sea level group does not appear to be justified.

The source for tide gauge PGR data is here.

Much of the material for this article is drawn from Wikipedia here.

The University of Colorado Sea Level website is here.


Rapper’s Climate Science Critical Video Surpasses 100,000 Views…Blasts “Filtered” Message, “Massive Propaganda”

Not long ago Austrian social critic and rap musician Kilez More produced and posted a climate science skeptic video. I reported on this awhile back, see here and here. The video also has English subtitles to help get the overall message across.

The video, watched mainly by young people, has surpassed the 100,000 views milestone. Congratulations to a musician who is surely reaping lots of scorn for getting young people to question what they are told.

What follows is a short interview with Kilez on the video’s success so far:

How do you feel about the video getting over 100,000 views so far?

I’m glad to see the video climbing over the 100,000 views mark – and it shows, that there is a need for a critical point of view on this topic! It’s still one of the most viewed (and of course most discussed) videos of mine.

Have you gotten a lot of criticism or any threats because of the video?

Indeed the video has brought me a lot of criticism. Some bad articles have been written, some nasty insults have been made, some artists even refused to work with me because of that. Really unbelievable how the massive propaganda works on people’s mind – and especially with this topic the mass media does its best to manipulate the thinking. Its just too important for too many things – like lots of taxes, many many laws etc. - to let it go.

But the reactions where not just bad. Also a lot of listeners have been open to the argumentation, starting to dig right through the mass of information. So the video is doing its job! That’s what I want to reach with my music – to get people to start thinking by themselves and searching for information on their own – not through the filtered television-screen in their living rooms.

Do you feel there are attempts being made to marginalize you?

There have been some attempts to marginalize me – and even today. But its not only because of the climate-change music video, which has been a part of the whole story. A political rapper has his difficulties because the media either first try to black-out my music or insult me and try to marginalize me before they get to the topics. It’s always the same story – try to discredit the speaker to prevent people from listening to the message.



Has The Broader Institution Of Science Been Overun By Greedy, Swindling Crackpots?

Those of us following climate science are all familiar with the hockey stick hoax and NASA’s readjustment of past temperatures that have the effect of making it look like the globe is warming.

Not only climate science seems to have been corrupted by unscrupulous scientists, but so has the food and nutritional sciences in what appears to be in a way that immensely benefits Big Pharma and swindles the consumer. Hat-tip DirkH

“You need to get scientists that are not paid by the drug companies to determine what the cholesterol guidelines should be”.

Not long ago I did a report on a study showing that meat-eaters are much healthier than vegetarians – coming from the University of Graz in Austria. I didn’t expect the story to attract so much attention. So far it has been shared over 8000 times and may reach 10,000 shares. The study contradicts everything we’ve been told about what a healthy diet is.

I used to have a lot of respect for the scientific community. But the more I look into things like climate, and now nutrition and medicine, the more I’m realizing that much of it is rotten to the core and has long been overrun by greedy, swindling bastards who crave money and/or power.

My advice: Don’t trust any of today’s “renowned scientists” claiming the science is settled. Chances are they are profiting at the expense of others.

Other worthwhile presentations on the subject of nutrition:


Light Blogging Over The Next Few Days…

Dear Readers,

Blogging and approving comments will be on the light side for the next few days as there are important matters to take care of. I’ll be getting a story in, here or there.

It’a also a good opportunity to to step back a bit and refocus. :)


German AfD Protest Party Calls For Complete Abolishment Of Green Energy Feed-In Act, Citing “Cost Burden”

Britain has the UKIP party; Germany has got the Alternativ für Deutschland (AfD) party, translated: Alternative for Germany. Both are equally hated by the establishment. The media do all they can to portray them as dangerous, right-wing, beer-hall populists.

In a nutshell: they are a threat to the cozy establishment.

Last September the AfD party barely missed reaching the 5% hurdle in Germany’s national elections, and thus just missed taking seats in Parliament. Some claim the results were tampered with in order to keep the enfant terrible party out. No matter the result, the party did send a clear message, and it continues to send such messages today.

In it’s latest press release, the AfD announces its position on Germany’s renewable energy feed-in act, calling for its abolishment.

The energy summit last Tuesday at the federal Chancellor’s Office missed its targets. The planned, low-impact slowdown in the expansion of wind and solar was softened considerably using tricks. The rise in the renewable energy feed-in act (EEG) subsidies will continue to gallop on ahead unhindered, so concluded even a proponent of the transition to renewable energies, Holger Krahwinkel, of the consumer associations. Share prices of wind energy plant builder Nordex at times shot up by 7%.

‘The EEG charges is driving the electricity costs dramatically upwards,’ explains Dr. Alexander Gauland, spokesman for the Alternative für Deutschland. ‘Already they are among the highest in Europe. Since the start of the EEG act, the payments made by power grid operators to the owners of renewable energy plants have totaled to be more than 120 billion euros – paid by the consumers. Just in 2013 the figure was 23 billion euros – the tendency is strongly upwards.’

Gauland summarizes: ‘That’s why every ‘correction’ or ‘reform’ amounts only to a senseless doctoring of the symptoms. The cost burden on the German consumer is already very immense and is no longer bearable for more than 600,000 households. At the same time more industrial jobs are moving to cheaper foreign countries. That number is already tens of thousands, and also here the trend is strongly upwards. This is why the AfD is requesting the immediate abolishment of the EEG act. It has made this request an official position in its European election program.“


“100 Billion Euros For Nothing! Germany’s CO2 Emissions Haven’t Dropped In 10 Years!”

That’s the title Die Achse Des Guten here bears at its website.

Few countries have spent as much as Germany on measures to reduce CO2 emissions. Today German website Die Achse Des Guten here links to a blurb appearing in German “intellectual” weekly Die Zeit here which unwittingly tells readers what Germany has gained for its 100-billion-euro investment in green energies so far: nothing!

DIE ZEIT writes:

Actually, the German government wanted to decrease the emissions of CO2 – also through the transition to renewable energy. However our chart shows the opposite is the case.

Greenhouse gas emissions have been increasing for three years in Germany, 1.2 percent for last year.”

The DIE ZEIT chart shows Germany emitted 913 million tonnes in 2009 (due in large part to the global financial crisis) with emissions rising steadily to 951 million tonnes in 2013. The lion’s share of Germany’s post 1990 reduction stems from the shutdown of dilapidated communist East Germany and it’s dinosauric industry.

For the taxpayers who may be angered by the lack of return on investment, 2014 may post a slight emissions drop…but not because of anything the government and the 100 billion euros have done, but because of the warm winter Germany saw this year.


The Start Of Censorship? Climate Depot Gets Called “Unsafe Site” By Microsoft Germany

UPDATE: Now working!


If you’re like me, you drop by Marc Morano’s Climate Depot daily to get the latest on what is happening within the climate science and politics scene. But today, at least here in Germany, I’ve been getting the following message after being on the site for about 10 seconds:

Climate Depot unsafe

In English:

This website has been reported as unsafe.

It is recommended that you do not switch over to this website.

Instead you should change to your own start page

This page has been reported to Microsoft as an unsafe site that

possibly publicizes personal or financial information.

More information”

Clicking the “more information” link we get:

For this website, the following threats were reported:

Threat of malware: This site contains links to viruses or other software programs through which personal information that is stored on your computer or which you enter, are made public to unauthorized persons.”

Likely it’s just a temporary technical glitch. I don’t know enough about this to speculate what could trigger this. Are other German readers having problems accessing Climate Depot?


Zurich’s Leading Daily Calls EU’s Emission Trading Scheme “A European Debacle…2.2 Billion Surplus Certificates”!

NZZThe latest Sunday print edition of Switzerland’s flagship Neue Zürcher Zeitung (NZZ) has a story blasting Europe’s failure in curbing CO2 emissions through the implementation of its CO2 emissions trading scheme (ETS). See right image.

Hat-tip Hajo Smit

The NZZ story bears the title:

Why the dreck doesn’t cost anything.

With its emissions trading, the EU wanted to be a leader in global climate protection. However it has contributed nothing to lowering greenhouse gases. A European debacle.”

Soviet-scale debacle

The NZZ reports that the emissions trading scheme started out “as a good idea” but never got anywhere. From the NZZ’s portrayal, one easily concludes that the ETS debacle is on a scale of a major Soviet central planning implosion.

The program was supposed to involve 11,000 companies, among them the worst emitters, and to get them to pay real money for each tonne of emitted greenhouse gas. But the trading scheme failed to function as hoped and the price ended up falling to the paltry 5 euros per tonne level that it is at today. Companies have no incentive to invest in energy saving technology when carbon certificates are so cheap.

The NZZ writes:

The targets for reducing greenhouse gases that the EU set to achieve by 2020 will be reached mainly because the economy in many European countries crumbled.”

With certificate prices so low, the EU is a long way from the 40 euros per tonne price level it needs to get power companies to move away from burning coal, says BP chief economist Christof Rühl.

Not only have many citizens in EU countries been burdened by the hardships of economic collapse, which has have led them to reach their emission targets, the subsidies spent on supporting completely ineffective green technologies are costing consumers an arm and a leg as well. The NZZ writes the Germany alone is paying 20 billion euros annually in feed-in charges: “Under the bottom line, this money has done very little for the climate.”

The NZZ blames the failure of the emissions trading scheme on the EU’s “fear of damaging it’s own economy with climate protection“.

In 2008, the global economic crisis led to reduced industrial production in Europe, and thus acted to dampen CO2 certificate prices further. The market was flooded with emission certificates which could be had at dirt-cheap prices and thus having no impact in getting industry off coal.

Experts blame the design of the emissions trading scheme for its downfall, saying that it never had anything to do with climate protection to begin with. What made matters even worse, the NZZ writes, was that as more and more green energy came on line, the demand (and the prices) for CO2 emission certificates dropped further, thus allowing Europe’s industry to easily skirt costly CO2 reduction measures.

The NZZ writes that Germany alone has a surplus of 2.2 billion certificates and experts say it’ll take 15 years to work them off. According to WWF Germany climate expert Regine Gunther:

Thus the flagship of the European climate protection is as good as sunk and the EU as a protector of the climate will be AWOL for the entire time.”

The NZZ writes that before anything changes, Europe has to somehow get over its fear of damaging its economy.

Imagine that. The NZZ and green climate rescuers seem to view economic damage as a sort of irrational fear. For them a rational fear is the world coming to an end in 2099.


Max Planck Institute Economist: Germany’s Energiewende “Bordering On Suicide”…”Unimaginably Expensive Folly”

Richard Tol tweeted here a link to an article appearing at the Deutsche Wirtschafts Nachrichten (German Business News) about the country’s much ballyhooed Energiewende, in English: transition to renewable energies. The title:

Max Planck economist: ‘Transition To Renewable Energy Borders On Suicide’

Leading economic experts are firing harsh criticism at the energy policy of federal super minister Sigmar Gabriel. Germany as a friendly location for business is not only being weakened, the transition to renewable energy even borders on suicide and is an unimaginably expensive folly.”

Recently Angela Merkel’s grand coalition government just decided they would water down the scale-back in renewable energy subsidies. The Deutsche Wirtschafts Nachrichten quotes Max Planck Institute researcher Axel Börsch-Supan, who has fired harsh words at Federal Economics Minister Sigmar Gabriel:

With their policy, the grand coalition is weakening Germany’s location as a place to do business. This is especially true when it comes to the Energiewende, which is bordering on suicide.”

According to the Deutsche Wirtschafts Nachrichten, other experts are also slamming Germany’s “Energiewende”. For example Ifo Institute director Hans-Werner Sinn calls it an “unimaginably expensive folly“. Marc Tüngler director of a German financial association, calls it “a planned economy without a plan” that makes the Energiewende “unbearably expensive“.

The Deutsche Wirtschafts Nachrichten concludes:

According to experts, the big losers are the consumers, who will have to expect continued increasing electricity prices.


Paging George Clooney…99% Of All Doctors Agreed On Cholesterol. Now It’s Turning Out They Were All Wrong!

Climate alarmists like to claim there’s a 97+% consensus that CO2 is driving our climate…a claim that is patently false, of course. But even if it were true, it wouldn’t mean the science is settled and that they are right.

Having been on the subject of meat-diets and nutrition over the last few days, here too we have another long held belief supported by a overwhelming consensus of doctors and experts that is turning out to be completely wrong. It is the claim that cholesterol is bad for you. Data is showing the opposite is likely true.

It turns out that there’s no data supporting the hypothesis that that it leads to heart disease. In fact it is being revealed that patients have been misinformed by doctors, medical associations and their governments for decades now. The consequence of this false information has been a mass pandemic of obesity along with all the killer diseases associated with it.

Note “Michael Mann” hockey stick at 25:00-minute mark…stunning parallels with climate science.

Let’s all recall how the science was settled and that 99.9% agreed that cholesterol was dangerous and would kill us if we allowed it to reach levels over 200. It is emerging that this long-supported claim may very well all be completely wrong. In fact there is a massive growing volume of new literature that shows cholesterol is beneficial, and thus it’s only a question of time before medical science will soon be forced to admit to the greatest medical debacle of all time.

Today there is even an international association of cholesterol skeptics. Like climate skeptics, they too were and are being labeled crackpots and so cannot be taken seriously. And as is the case with climate skeptics, it’s emerging that the skeptics are right.

 USDA food guide pyramid

USDA food guide pyramid based on junk science. Source:

Tree-Hugging Vegetarian Environmentalists Think They Know What’s Best For Us. Yet, Just Look At Their Kids!

I’ve gotten a few emotionalized, angry e-mails from veggie readers on the story about how meat-eaters are by far much healthier in every respect than vegetarians. They insist that their nutrition is superior and that the University of Graz study is “bullshit”. It’s bought and paid for by the bacon industry!

Yet, nothing better illustrates the fallacy of vegetarianism than looking at the children of vegetarians. The vegetarians, you will recall, like to make it a moral issue in that they blame climate change and animal abuse on meat-eating. They claim it’s the healthiest diet.

But vegetarianism for kids is turning out to be even worse than smoking for adults. One example of the impacts that vegetarianism has on children is vividly illustrated in an article appearing in the Daily Mail here. (There are many on this subject).

Rotting teeth, bone wasting…some excerpts:

…”‘I couldn’t work out what was going on,’ says Holly, who lives in Totnes, Devon. ‘We all ate exceptionally healthily, with plenty of vegetables, nuts and seeds.’”

…”I was assured by the people who devised the diet that we would get all the protein we needed from nuts and seeds, and we also took a daily supplement to replace the nutrients found in animal foods.”

…’But then I started noticing that something wasn’t right. … Bertie and Lizzie’s muscles seemed weak and they had problems seeing at night. … I couldn’t understand why this well-fed child was behaving like this. I was so brainwashed that the fact our bodies were craving dairy products had passed me by.’

…”Her parents, ‘well-known figures in Glasgow’s vegan community’, had unwittingly starved her of necessary nutrients found in fish and meat, causing her to develop the bone-wasting disease usually associated with 19th century slums.”

…’”is mother’s mistake was to follow a fad diet, hyped up by magazines and endorsed by celebrities, to a growing child.”

Sound familiar?

Thankfully, the mothers of the children realized they had been duped by junk science peddled by fashionable fanatics, and eventually brought a responsible diet back to their kids.

Yet, there are many tree-hugging vegetarians out there who insist their way of life has to be imposed on others and demand we stop eating meat. These happen to be the very people who want to tell us what’s best for the climate and the planet…based on, as is the case with vegetarianism, crackpot science peddled by charlatans experts.

If you want the entire human civilization to end up with rotting teeth, brittle bones, weak muscles and blind, then let the nutjob alarmist environmentalists run the show.

It’s clear: Bad science leads to bad results. Example: Greenpeace and golden rice.

The problem with climate science is that it is even worse than vegetarian science! And even scarier, the two are merging.

The calls for a shift away from meat because “it is bad for health and climate” are growing louder by the day.


Europe Disses IPCC Horror Scenarios…Postpones Non-European Airlines Carbon Emissions Charges Until 2017

After Monday’s April Fool’s release of the IPCC WGII SPM and the subsequent gasps of horror coming as a reaction from top government officials, you’d think little time would be wasted in taking clear, decisive actions to “protect the climate”. Recall how the situation is urgent and that decisive, immediate action needs to be taken quickly!

It turns out that the gasps of horror were mere show – designed to appease green activists. In reality, it turns out governments really aren’t that alarmed by the IPCC’s science and don’t take it that seriously after all. As you are about to read, actions speak much louder than words, no matter how quietly and discreetly the actions are carried out.

The German DPA press agency has just released a report: EU postpones climate fees on international flights until 2017.

“Climate protection”, no matter how urgent it is said to be, will just have to wait.

For a number of years the European Commission threatened to force all airlines flying into, out of, and over Europe to pay carbon emission charges, or else face being locked out of it’s busy airspace. Background info: here, herehere and here. But countries like the USA, Russia, China protested loudly and threatened to retaliate massively.

Brussels shoots kneecaps of European airlines

Today the DPA announces that Brussels has backed off and decided to postpone charging international airlines for emission permits until 2017. News of this loss of face is being buried in the back pages of the internet and media outlets. But Internet site CO2 Handel here writes:

In the view of the aviation industry, the postponement is only going to be a burden on the airlines in Europe. The president of the German Association of Aviation (BDL), Klaus-Peter Siegloch, spoke of a European-island-solution. ‘It distorts competition, does not help the climate, and weakens the aviation companies in Europe.’”

What better present could foreign, non-European airlines possibly dream of. Now they have a nice competitive advantage - served to them on a silver platter, courtesy of Brussels.

The Greens are fuming – not because of the unfair competition, but because Europe has decided once again that the climate isn’t really that much in trouble. It can wait, after all.

European green Parliamentarian Rebecca Harms of Germany called the move “irresponsible”:

Originally the law was supposed to cover one third of the global aviation emissions. It’s lunacy to considerably weaken this effective climate protection instrument now.”

The move to postpone this “effective climate protection instrument” just goes to show you what Europe really thinks of the IPCC’s latest warnings. Not much!


Germany’s Research Minister Sees “Advanced Development Of Climate Models” …To Be Used For “Regional Adaptation Strategies”!

Judging by the German government’s own press release (from the Ministry of Environment) regarding the release of the new IPCC report, one could easily argue that it is in a state of complete confusion.

Federal Environment Minister Barbara Hendricks and Federal Research Minister Johanna Wanka see the latest IPCC report “as further proof that urgent action on climate change” and are therefore “advocating ambitious, rapid climate action in order to slow down the global increase in temperatures.”

Federal Environment Minister Hendricks commented:

Climate change is happening every day. This is why we have to do two things: firstly to combat climate change and make sure that global warming does not exceed 2 degrees Celsius, and secondly to prepare for the consequences of unavoidable climate change.”

The press release states that the government is “taking the risks very seriously” and has “already developed an adaptation strategy and an action plan“.

The press releases outlines a range of actions, “from developing early warning systems for extreme weather events to adaptation concepts for urban planning and specific changes to building legislation“. Then the press release boasts about all the money it is going to spend in “honoring international commitments like funding climate and biodiversity projects in newly industrialising and developing countries with a total of 1.4 billion euros” and allocating “more than 250 million euros for adaptation-related projects.”

If that were not enough of a waste of money, the press release also writes that German Research Minister Johanna Wanka will be using climate models to prepare regionally for the future:

In recent years we have considerably advanced the development of climate models. We will now focus on using and implementing our findings at regional level, for example to back up local investment decisions or develop targeted regional adaptation strategies. Climate and adaptation measures are particularly effective when planned regionally and implemented with scientific support.”

Unfortunately, news of the performance of the climate models have yet to reach the German government:

 73 climate models_reality

Germany’s Research Minister Johanna Wanka is impressed by the climate models’ performance.

The Federal Research Ministry is so impressed by the climate models that it boasts having “spent a total of 750 million euros on projects and research institutions in the areas of climate and energy in 2013 alone“.

Moreover, the press release keeps talking about adaptation measures, and makes no mention of curbing greenhouse gases.

Adapting to climate protects climate?

Federal Research Minister Wanka then states that its ”KLIMZUG funding programme facilitates the testing of strategies for adaptation to climate change and related weather extremes in various regions“.

Minister of Research Johanna Wanka adds:

Education and research can make a difference in changing climate awareness worldwide. If people are successfully adapting to climate change at home, in their communities, this will make an important contribution to protecting our climate in general.”

So adaptation is climate protection? I’ve always understood it as our protection from the climate. Germany’s Ministry of Environment didn’t do itself any favors making the press release public. One would be hard pressed to find a press release that is more confused. She seems to be mixing up adaptation with mitigation.

Also the German government is pledging more money for climate research in order to close the “knowledge gaps” and for “understanding how climate change works” in a field where it is claimed everything is already understood and the science is settled. Federal Research Minister Wanka:

The report shows that there is a further need for research on climate change. Closing knowledge gaps and understanding how climate change works will help us develop more effective adaptation strategies and protect ourselves better against the effects of climate change.

On the surface the press release tells us that the German government’s plan is all about adaptation and shows no plans to knock down CO2 emissions 80% by 2050. There’s no mention of rapidly expanding renewable energies nor of scaling back fossil fuels.