Just Suck It Up; Otherwise The World Is Going To Be Destroyed By Global Warming

How long have we been hearing this kind of talk from alarmists? How often are we told that we have to make lots of sacrifices and give governments unlimited power – otherwise the earth will be destroyed? The answer is: almost everyday.

High energy taxes, loss of freedom, massive regulation, constant monitoring, surveillance over how we do things will be huge inconveniences; but it’s necessary, and so just suck it up.

Can’t you see all the destruction all over the planet? It’s spreading everywhere, and soon it will be at your doorstep, unless of course you suck it up and give them the power they need.

I ask,  just what kind of person does one have to be to heed that kind of advice? Pretty clueless I think.

 Just suck it up, otherwise the planet is going to be destroyed

I know as a climate-blogger I’m going out on a limb with this. But I got a feeling we have not heard the end of this story by any means. Where’s there’s smoke, there’s fire. My eyes and ears are perked.

I can understand the other climate blogs not wanting to touch this with a 10-foot pole, claiming whatever righteous reason. But I think someone has to observe and report on this. I got a hunch, and I#m going to follow it..

I happen to think Al Gore is not an okay person, and so it would not surprise me if this story turns out to be true. I’m not saying the story and allegations are true. Yellow journalism and the such are not what I draw my conclusions on. That’s for the IPCC to use (before asking us to suck it up).

The problem is that Al Gore unwittingly revealed a lot about himself and his movement when he made the film AIT. The film was carefully designed to mislead and manipulate its viewers in a mean kind of way. And it was carefully crafted to demonize anyone who refused to fall in line. It uses bully psychology.

Does AIT show any respect for the very element that is needed for science to progress? The answer is of course: none whatsoever!  There was absolutely zero tolerance for sceptical views. Sceptics were ridiculed, mocked and called flat-earthers, and other nasty things.

There are lots of other things in the film that are troublesome, which speak volumes about the persons involved in making it. Of course some involved were just gullible and innocently believed the rubbish.

And let’s not even discuss how Gore lives his life, his business ventures, and so on. These also speak volumes about what kind of guy he is. To me it’s crystal clear. Gore in the film is a pretty bitter and quite peeved chap and he’s capable of a lot of things. 

But we’ll see how the story turns out soon enough. I’m not going to stop blogging about it until the story ends and the (inconvenient?) truth is out.

And my feeling is that the other climate bloggers will be joining in with the commentary before too long. Like it or not, it’s a climate story. But, my hunches could be wrong.


Update: By yellow journalism, I don’t mean the Examiner, rather the Nation Enquirer, who broke the story, and whose website for whatever reason I can’t access from Germany.

Other Links:
Fox News video

Summary And Conclusions Of The Scientific Advisory Board Report Buried By Germany's Ministry Of Finance – English Translation

In my recent post here I wrote about a ZDF story on an Expert Assessment Report, led by Prof. Dr. Kai Konrad of the Max Planck Institute and a team of finance researchers, on Europe’s and Germany’s climate policy. The report is titled:

Climate Policy Between Emissions Prevention and Adaptation
Expert Assessment By The Scientific Advisory Board Of The Federal Ministry of Finance

Note: The report itself is not a product of the Max Planck Institute, as some have mistakenly believed. The lead author is Dr. Kai Konrad of the Max Plank Institute, who is also vice chairman of the Finance Ministry’s Scientific Advisory Board, the actual producer of the assessment report. The members of the Scientific Advisory Board participating in the expert assessment are listed below at the end of this post.

You’ll recall the assessment report was so damning that the Finance Ministry took it down from its website. When you read the following summary and conclusion you’ll see how it completely contradicts the government’s current policy, which is to prevent CO2 emissions and to subsidise alternative energy. This is a finding that was embarrassing for the government.

Note that the authors of the assessment report take the position that CO2 is bad for the climate, i.e. the more CO2 that is produced, the worse the climate will become. They are finance experts after all, and not climate experts – obviously.

I’ve translated the all-important Part 4, Summary and Conclusion (bold print is my emphasis), which is as follows:

4. Summary and Conclusion

Economic and political action on global warming can be categorised under two kinds of measures: 1) measures that aim to slow down global warming (prevention) and 2) measures that aim to react to global warming (adaptation).

With adaptation measures, the beneficiary and the cost-bearer are the same. Decisions concerning many adaptation measures can thus be decided by the private economy. In the cases where this is not possible, the extent of adaptation measures can be handled by the local, regional or national politics.

But when it comes to measures for preventing CO2 emissions, the circle of beneficiary and the cost bearer splits apart. A meaningful reduction in emissions through uncoordinated, single country initiatives cannot be achieved. Effective emissions reduction with respect to global climate protection can be accomplished only through global coordination. In the past, global coordination has proven to be difficult and hardly successful. Despite various international attempts and considerable use of resources on the part of some countries, a worldwide climate policy has not been reached.
The theory of international public good offers an economic explanation as to why the international climate policy has not reached its ambitious goals up to now. That’s why suspicions that the current efforts will not lead to any success are being confirmed

This assessment yields the following results:

The uncoordinated, single-country go-it-alone approach leads to unachievable emissions reductions. Many polluters hardly participate in avoiding emissions. It has to be expected that only the more populated, economically strongest, environmentally aware and climatically threatened countries will make any notable efforts to undertake emissions reductions.

• Efforts by single countries to act as a leader in climate protection and to influence climate policy by imposing emissions reductions on itself can cause other countries to slack off in their own climate-policy efforts rather than intensifying them. As a result, taking a leadership role in climate policy leads to, as a rule, higher costs in that country without assuring any decisive improvement in the global climate.

• Special efforts and leadership initiatives made by individual countries also do not necessarily improve the situation for a global climate agreement, but rather can actually imperil an agreement. Diminishment of remaining benefits arising from worldwide climate agreements make the realisation of an agreement more improbable.

• Also unfavourable are agreements among groups nations of the international community of nations. Such agreements greatly burden  the participating countries economically, and serve to benefit the countries that do not participate. Despite the high costs, the positive climate effects of such group-nation agreements can end up being very small. Moreover, coalitions of nations can actually worsen the chances of an international worldwide climate treaty.

However, in no way do these arguments speak against continuing international negotiations. Effective international climate agreements are urgently needed. The arguments listed above do, however, speak against going it alone nationally, taking a leadership role, in preventing CO2 emissions.

When it comes to implementing measures for adaptation to climate change, there are no problems like those listed above. Measures for adapting to climate change do not have the problems that measures for prevention have. Adapting to climatically related environmental changes do not have the “free-rider” problem, where one incurs the costs and the other reaps the benefits. The circle of beneficiary and cost-bearer are mutual when it comes to adaptation measures. The strategy of adaptation thus offers opportunities for a unilateral, cost-effective national climate policy in a wide variety of impact areas (e.g. against flooding or storm damage). At the same time, such a policy augments the chances of an international emissions limitation.

The adaptation strategy leads to an immediate climate cost reduction in one’s own country, independent of  international agreements.

• If a country invests in national adaptation measures, it also improves its bargaining strength in negotiations for a climate treaty.

• When all countries take up adaptation strategies, it results in – when compared to an ideal, worldwide combination of both instruments – a strain that in the end favours adaptation instead of prevention. The economic-political result would be worse than the one from a non-existing prosperity-maximizing world government, but better than the result that would arise from foregoing an adaptation strategy.

• Without adaptation measures, more prevention measures would have to be undertaken due to reasons of precaution and in view of the uncertainty of climate impacts from irreversible CO2 emissions. Adaptation buys governments time to more precisely research climate impacts.

The way for some especially motivated industrial countries to use comprehensive unilateral early contributions and subsides for alternative energy is misguided with regards to a timely, binding and adequately scaled climate policy. Even worse, it is to be feared that this policy not only has been and is very expensive for Germany and Europe, but also that it is an obstacle to reaching an effective worldwide climate policy. In view of the fact that emissions reduction is an internationally public good and in view of strategy effects, the Advisory Board recommends options for adaptation to climate change be examined and pursued more vigorously by single countries than in the past. The strategy of adaptation does not only ensure immediate adaptation to climate change, but also increases the chances for an effective international agreement to reducing emissions.

Directory of members of the Scientific Advisory Board at the Federal Ministry of Finance
Prof. Dr. Clemens Fuest (chairman)
Prof. Dr. Kai A. Konrad (vice chairman)
Prof. Dr. Dieter Brümmerhoff
Prof. Dr. Thiess Büttner
Prof. Dr. Werner Ehrlicher
Prof. Dr. Lars P. Feld
Prof. Dr. Lutz Fischer
Prof. Dr. Heinz Grossekettler
Prof. Dr. Günter Hedtkamp
Prof. Dr. Klaus-Dirk Henke
Prof. Dr. Johanna Hey
Prof. Dr. Bernd Friedrich Huber
Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Kitterer
Prof. Dr. Gerold Krause-Junk
Prof. Dr. Alois Oberhauser
Prof. Dr. Rolf Peffekoven
Prof. Dr. Dieter Pohmer
Prof. Dr. Helga Pollak
Prof. Dr. Wolfram F. Richter
Prof. Dr. Ulrich Schreiber
Prof. Dr. Hartmut Söhn
Prof. Dr. Christoph Spengel
Prof. Dr. Klaus Stern
Prof. Dr. Marcel Thum
Prof. Dr. Alfons Weichenrieder
Prof. Dr. Dietmar Wellisch
Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Wiegard
Prof. Dr. Berthold Wigger
Prof. Dr. Horst Zimmermann

Oreskes At Deutsche Welle’s Journalism For Dummkopfs Conference

Ulli Kulke of the German online Die Welt national newspaper has written a piece: How Sceptics Are To Be Converted. He reports on the recent Global Media Forum held by German public broadcaster Deutsche Welle dubbed “The Heat Is On – Climate Change and the Media”, see here for background and here. According to Kulke the real objective of the forum:

The media are to warn the public of the dangers of climate change even more effectively and powerfully than before, and of course to make it even more clear that it’s the fault of man.

One well-attended workshop was: How To Deal With Climate Scepticism. Its own stated objective:

This workshop aims to point out what journalists must know about climate change policy, whom to trust and when to question their own professional procedures.

and warned:

Falling back on a “neutral” journalistic position can mean playing into the hands of the skeptics at the expense of the basis of life.

According to the workshop’s moderator, Bernhard Pötter of the newspaper Tageszeitung,

For journalists, climate change is the most important topic of the 21st century.

The “How To Deal With Climate Scepticism” workshop was designed to provide assistance to frustrated editors, authors and other journalists on how to best deal with the unwanted confrontation with a climate sceptic.

Oreskes’s Propaganda

One notable speaker at the workshop was Naomi Oreskes, who, according to Kulke, requests journalists eliminate the use of the word “scepticism” from their reporting. Kulke reports on Oreskes:

‘Scepticism” is too positive, and is indeed even a virtue in science. It’s better to use the word “contrarian’, which one can translate as ‘adversary’ or ‘dissenter’, says Oreskes. “Also it’s a no-no to use the term climate debate’.

‘It’s no wonder,’ complained Oreskes, ‘that people think science is still debating climate change when everywhere in newspapers one reads about a ‘debate’. Debate has long been in the history books. Climate change is a scientifically proven fact.’ It’s important for journalists to stress that the debate is over.

Ulli Kulke wonders what newspapers Oreskes could be possibly reading out in California, which would lead her to conclude the press is playing down climate change. Kulke writes:

In the years leading up to and after the last IPCC assessment report in 2007, the press and television reported daily on the coming end of the world in America and Europe.

But this has changed over the last half-year. Inconsistencies, cover-ups, big blunders and, most of all, exaggerations by climate scientists have been exposed. Some have admitted their errors. Even plots by scientists against their sceptic colleagues came to light. As a result the media have toned down their alarmism a little. And one even gets the impression that, since Climategate, journalistic principles have made a comeback. But some people have got a problem with that.

Like Oreskes.

Much to her chagrin, parts of the German press, such as Ulli Kulke, are not ready to abandon the principles of journalism. That’s good news.

Expect scepticism contrarianism to grow in Europe.

Max Planck Institute Finance Researchers Call Europe’s Climate Policy A Failure

Hans von Storch’s blog brings our attention to an excellent German report by normally green ZDF public television.

The report takes a critical view of Europe’s energy policy and reaches the conclusion that it’s a failure. My last post Billions Of Euros For Nothing Called A Success Story illustrates this beautifully.

The ZDF interviews a leading finance researcher, Professor Dr Kai Konrad, and here’s what the ZDF report says:

– Start clip (German)-, content in English:

After 20 years of conference after conference after conference, a sort of traveling climate circus on a worldwide tour, Copenhagen became the highpoint of absurdity in December of last year – a political and media overkill with the aim of nothing less than to rescue the planet. The conference failed yet again. It all gets down to money.

Professor Dr. Kai Konrad is a distinguished finance researcher at the prestigious Max Planck Institute in Munich and a close advisor to the Federal Ministry of Finance. He and a team of researchers drew up an expert assessment of Germany’s climate policy.

The assessment was so damning that the Ministry quickly removed it from its website.

The assessment took a hard look at the 1st Commandment of climate policy: reduce CO2 emissions, and how a relatively small group of countries decided – unilaterally – to reduce CO2 emissions. The researchers writing the assessment deemed this a grave error. Professor Konrad says:

When a small group of countries sit down and say they want to  do something good for the climate, and reduce their emissions, it has practically no effect on the total amount of emissions worldwide. It means the rest of the world picks up the slack and just emits more.

In effect it means that the countries who cut emissions incur all the costs but no benefits. And the countries that don’t cut emissions, profit. So it’s highly worth it for these so-called “free-riders” who don’t sign on. What has the Kyoto protocol produced?

Since 1990 worldwide CO2 emissions have increased 36% and the few countries that have reduced their emissions have had immense costs, estimated to be $150 billion.

When it comes to CO2 emissions, the European Union is a global power. Especially Germany has been a leader in cutting emissions – already 20% less than 1990. Professor Konrad says:

The fact that Europe is a leader in cutting emissions will only lead to other countries slacking off, and thus the costs are merely shifted from the countries that don’t play along to Europe. So whatever progress Europe makes in cutting emissions just gets lost to countries like USA and China.

And so the circus goes on. The other countries are happy about the cuts, and the EU carries all the costs. Europe’s Climate Commissar estimates the costs will be:

€500 billion ($620 billion) in the next 10 years.

Germany is the leader in this craziness, and is expected to cut emissions by 40% by 2020. This is to be accomplished by Germany’s EEG Gesetz, or Energy Feed-in Act, which forces power companies to purchase renewable energy at exorbitant prices from anyone who produces them and to deliver them to consumers, who then must pay through the nose. Professor Konrad says (in summary):

From a theoretical point of view, the EEG brings no benefit. It brings nothing because the system of buying CO2 emissions certificates doesn’t work.

All the certificates do is ensure that the CO2 gets produced elsewhere. Professor Konrad:

The Feed-in Act is to be criticised in my view because it is no longer transparent as to what an enormous redistribution it creates and the huge subsidies that flow out of the pockets of consumers and into the hands of those who profit from it.

By the end of the year German consumers will have paid €62 billion ($75 billion) without seeing any CO2 reduction. In Professor Konrad’s and his colleagues’ view:

The policy of avoiding the production of CO2 is a failure, nationally and globally.

As a result, Professor Konrad’s recommendation is to use a different strategy (one that even the earliest and most primitive of man used):


The researchers say this policy would be much more successful, and certainly much cheaper than the current CO2 elimination policy.

– End clip –

Now, I wonder if our clever politicians will muster the intelligence that even our early Neanderthal ancestors had millions of years ago, and adopt this strategy?

Don’t hold your breath.

Minister Tanya Gönner Calls Hundreds Of Billions Of Euros For Nothing A Success Story!

Like in many countries in Europe, politcal parties in Germany, whether right or left, are big boosters of re-engineering society in order to save it from the fantasized self-inflicted climate catastrophe. People who speak up face risk feeling the wrath of the many climate-doctrine-following drones and zombies. And as the level of absurdity reaches intolerable levels, people are indeed speaking  up.

One such person is mayor Hans-Martin Moll of the town of Zell am Harmersbach in Germany. He has written a letter addressed to Tanya Gönner, Minister of Environment in the state of Baden Wuerttemberg and a member of the conservative CDU party.  The European Institute For Climate and Energy (EIKE) features Moll’s letter here in German.

Mr Moll, who is also a CDU member,  has become very concerned about the CDU’s aimless drift, led by Angela Merkel, in the direction of “green illusions” over the last years. Chancellor Merkel is advised by alarmists like Hans Joachim Schellnhuber and Stefan Rahmstorf.

What takes the cake for Mr Moll is Tanya Gönner’s declaration that Germany’s EEG Act is a complete success, and that it ought to be continued. The EEG Act forces power companies to buy renewable energy from anyone who produces it at fixed, exhorbitant prices that are guaranteed for years. (More info on the EEG Act here). Moll writes:

Producing power with coal or nuclear reactors costs between 2.5 and 4 cents per kwh. The EEG forces the consumers and the economy to pay 43 cents per kwh for photovoltaic power, or about 15 times more than the reliable, steady supply, conventional power.

And to make this hugely subsidised power of any use, billions of euros more are needed for expanding the power grid, for adding necessary over-capacity, and for “imaginary storage technologies”, which are physcially and geographically completely illusionary.


You call this a success story? I call it a political swindle of the citizens. Only in a communist centrally planned economy has such a thing ever been done.

Consumers and the economy had to fork out already 12 billion euros in 2009 for a completely useless and ideological nonsense. This EEG Act which you call a success story will cost hundreds of billions of euros.

Moll does not mince any words. Indeed the amount of CO2 that Germany may save by 2020 will be offset by Chinese economic growth within just a few months. It amounts to nothing. But it is a very expensive nothng.  CO2 reductions in Germany will have zero impact on the climate, assuming that added CO2 has a noticeable impact on climate. Moll writes:

With this kind of politics, the only thing that is sustainable is the harm done to the consumer, the economy and the jobs for our future generations.

This swindle must not only be reduced, it has to be eliminated completely. The same is true for wind energy.

Energy policy is going precisely in the Green parties’ direction. Their target is not the environment, rather it is the dismantling of industry.

Mr Moll concludes with:

I do hope the conservative CDU party will wake up soon, recognise this huge error, and that it will endeavour to pursue a real energy policy that is based on natural science and common sense.

I couldn’t agree more with Mr Moll. As people start speaking up, other people will start listening.

Pachauri Should Step Down, Say Leading German Scientists

The German Readers Edition reports that 3 leading scientists, among them alarmist Stefan Rahmstorf, are calling on Rajendra Pachauri to step down as Chairman of the IPCC because of management errors and the recent attacks on the IPCC and climate science.According to Stefan Rahmstorf’s blog Klimalounge:

I’m not calling for an end of Pachauri, but I could certainly imagine a better Chairman because in my view, among other reasons, he reacted in an unfortunate manner with respect to the media attacks on the IPCC. The role of the Chairman is not to decide the contents of the report (he should not get involved with our work). Rather he ought to well represent the IPCC externally.

Calls for Pachauri’s resignation are nothing new. In February director emeritus of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, Prof. Hartmut Graßl, told the Frankfurter Rundschau newspaper that Pachauri should clear the table and leave the job in other hands.

Hans von Storch, director of the GKSS coastal research center in Geesthacht, Germany, said the IPCC director was a burden because he permitted sloppiness in the reviews and checks of the 2007 climate report.

Readers Edition quotes the current issue of zeo2 titled: The zeo2 Climate Summit, which states:

“Pachauri should throw in the towel.”


Media: No Evidence, No Crime. Let's All Move Along.

I must admit I’m in a bit of shock reading this stuff, especially full police report about Al Gore’s alleged behaviour. I’m not going to draw any conclusion right now. It’s all too stunning, if it’s true.

The other climate blogs have not written a word about it so far. Maybe they want to be extra careful, which is understandable. But then again, Drudge plasters the story as its big headline for the day. Matt Drudge has been in business for years, and surely he’s done his homework. Maybe it’s to encourage other victims to speak out, if there are any.

I read the entire police report and it is shocking – really. Will other women come forward? Is it all a hoax? We’re not talking about Mike Tyson or Kobe Bryant here. We’re talking about the former VP of the USA and the prophet of AGW.


UPDATE; Germany’s top tabloid Bild reports here (German).

Al Gore: Massaging More Than Data?

I know I shouldn’t go here, but the temptation is just too strong. I’ll let the readers make up their own minds. Here are some links to read. But do research more.UPDATE 1: Oh! Oh! Drudge has got Gore as the big headline.

1. Serious accusations
2. 3 reasons not to believe the accusations
3. $540 massage(?) at ritzy hotel
4. Gore assault NYT

This eventually will boil down to the question: Can we really trust Al Gore? We saw how far he took the level of propaganda in his AIT film, which was carefully crafted to pull at the heart-strings and to mislead viewers. It was slammed by a British High Court. His jet-setting, mansion-buying lifestyle is in complete contradiction to what he preaches. He constantly ducks debate and keeps his head in the sand.
Not long ago he separated from his wife, indicating possible breach of trust in the relationship. He once claimed to have invented the internet. Just how believable is this guy?

My personal opinion is that Gore is as great a fraud as one will ever find, and he’s living high on the hog because of it. But that’s just my opinion, which is based on the so many words that have come out of his mouth and on his actions.

Indeed this has the potential to be much bigger than Climategate.

“But what does that have to do with the science,” one may ask? Gore is not a scientist, but he is a big messenger who has a message he wants (demands) everybody to believe. And it so happens that he has a huge interest in that message.

Look for the media to build a massive bulwark around Gore, and to come out blasting with everything they’ve got.

Frustration At Deutsche Welle Forum

H/T: Benny Peiser

This is the final day of the Deutsche Welle’s Global Media Forum, this year’s conference is titled “The Heat is On – Climate Change and the Media”. If any conclusion can be drawn, it is that elite warmists are extremely frustrated. Read here.

Bob Ward:

British journalists don’t know difference between fact and fiction.

Peiser’s GWPF report reads: “But he also concedes that there have been grave mistakes made by researchers”. And Ward called for scientists to handle their findings and knowledge responsibly. Ward goes on to say:

The IPCC is too slow in correcting the faults.

Naomi Oreskes, non-consensus denialist:

The statements from scientists are so greatly disconnected from the media in the USA because the journalists unknowingly and inaccurately repeat what was said.

…so-called climate skeptics are nothing but “contrarians” and can’t be taken seriously because their critique isn’t scientifically based.

Can you hear their teeth gnashing?

Research Institutes Predict Arctic Sea Ice To Remain Steady in 2010

The June SEARCH report of September sea ice outlook here shows the predictions of 16 research institutes for 2010:

According to the report:

 A quick calculation (leaving out the outliers of 3.2 million in 2009 and 1.0 million in 2010) shows an average prediction of 4.72 in June 2009, and 5.05 million this year.

On average their predictions for 2010 are 300,000 km² more than last year’s average prediction. This is probably due to the embarassment they had to endure last year, when ice melt was far less than all the institutes had predicted. Last year sea ice area bottomed out at 5.4 million km², see below:

As you can see from the above chart, they all fell short. This year they probably thought twice about making headline-grabbing claims like they did last year.

Alfred Wegener Institute: 80% Probability Arctic Ice Will Bottom Out Between 4.7 and 5.7 Million Km²

We recall last year how projections of new lows in Arctic sea ice extents were boldly made, and eagerly publicised by the catastrophe-obsessed  media. It made for good headlines, but they were all wrong. See here June Outlook Report.


This year Germany’s Alfred Wegener Institute AWI here and the KlimaCampus of the University of  Hamburg are taking another shot at it, along with a dozen or so other fortune tellers. The AWI press release states:

The projection of the KlimaCampus of the University of Hamburg is 4.7 million sq km, which is more negative than the 5.2 million sq km made by the AWI scientists. Yet both research centres do not exclude a record low of 4.3 million set in 2007 being reached.

Decisive factors like ice thickness and how the rest of the summer develops are unknown and do not allow for accurate projections. Yet the AWI is projecting a sea level that is almost a million sq km over 2007. They know that the ice in the central Arctic is thick, but probably don’t want to say it publicly. Indeed, most of the sea ice fortune tellers are projecting 2010 to finish higher than 2008.

Both teams used different methods for their projections. Prof. Rüdiger Gerdes and his team at the AWI worked out a model together with the scientific companies OASys and FastOpt that uses oceanic drift buoys and satellite data for measuring the movement of ice. The projection will be revised each month during the summer. Dr. Gerdes says:

Currently we calculate with 80% probability that the sea ice extent will be between 4.7 million and 5.7 million sq km in September. The projections will become more precise as summer progresses.

Meanwhile the KlimaCampus-Team of Prof. Lars Kaleschke takes satellite photos of the Arctic sea ice for each day of 2010 and compares them to the same day of each year from 2003 to 2009.

The number and size of the ice-free areas are indicators for subsequent ice developments. These dark spots store more solar energy in early summer and thus enhance ice melt during the polar summer, as the sun does not disappear until September.

German Solar Energy Gravy Train – The Coming Meltdown

Other blogs have mentioned today a report from the German financial daily, Handelsblatt here, but didn’t provide many details, and so I’ve decided to shine a little more light on the article. It is indeed frightening.

The German government has been generously subsidising renewable energy sources for years now, and it’s going to cost the German consumer a bundle – and soon.

The big price driver is solar energy. Year after year more and more panels are getting installed on German roofs and far surpassing even the most optimistic projections. But that shouldn’t be a surprise because Germany’s Energy Feed in Act (EEG Gesetz) guarantees solar energy system operators a fixed tariff for 20 years, making solar energy systems extremely lucrative for those who have them.

According to the Rhine Westphalia Institute for Business Research (RWI) the net costs of all photovoltaic system installed between 2000 and 2010 add up to a whopping $107 billion, Subsidies for renewable energy are going out of control.

An open letter written by Johannes Lackmann, former director of the German Association of Renewable Energy, caused many to take a closer look. Lackmann warns:

Companies are positioning themselves on the same square as the old industries, who failed to modernise and keep up with the market demands because they came to rely on generous subsidies paid by governments to survive. The EEG Act must not be allowed to be misused as cushion to sleep on.

Indeed the extreme comfort of the EEG subsidies will lead to an additional 9000 MW of solar energy capacity to be mounted on roofs this year alone in Germany. It’s a run-away train that will have serious consequences.

Recall that solar energy generators are guaranteed payment for 20 years. For systems going online this year, an average of almost $0.40/kw-hr is guaranteed by law until 2031. By comparison conventional energy is traded on the EEX  exchange for just over 6 cents. The huge difference is passed on to the German consumer.

According to the RWI the net costs for all photovoltaic systems installed between 2000 and 2010 over their 20 year operating life will add up to $107 billion. According to the Handelsblatt:

This sum is more than one quarter of the entire German annual federal budget. Yet the amount of solar energy as a share of the total energy produced is still puny despite the huge subsidies. It is only 1 percent.

Just the photovoltaic systems installed this year will lead to an additional $33 billion dollars in costs over their 20 year operating life. Electrical energy rates will climb 10% in 2011. Energy giant RWE just announced it will increase rates by 7.3% in August.

Sure Germany has cut back the subsidies – some, but the prices of solar panels and systems have fallen even faster, and so as a result they are even more lucrative. Lackmann thinks reductions in subsidies are long overdue, and the industry will not be doing itself a favour attempting to fight them off.

They don’t provide any incentive for investment in R&D. Leading German solar companies invest less than 2% of their sales turnover in R&D. This is far below what a company like Siemens invests in R&D.

EIKE Replies To Deutsche Welle's Letter Of Denial

In yesterday’s post I wrote about Deutsche Welle’s  letter to European Institute for Climate Energy (EIKE). where it denies being one-sided in holding an alarmist conference for journalists called: The Heat Is On – Climate Change and the Media, which has workshops like: How to professionally deal with climate scepticism. The conference’s own stated objective:

This workshop aims to point out what journalists must know about climate change policy, whom to trust and when to question their own professional procedures

And the panelists at the conference warn: 

Falling back on a “neutral” journalistic position can mean playing into the hands of the skeptics at the expense of the basis of life. 

Despite the obvious one-sidedness of the conference, Deutsche Welle’s Intendant Erik Bettermann sent a letter to EIKE denying it completely. Remember that Deutsche Welle is a publicly funded broadcaster that is required by law to remain fair and balanced.

Now here’s a translation of EIKE’s response to Deutsche Welle’s denial:

Dear Herr Bettermann

Thank you for your reply dated 9 June 2010. You state at the start of your letter concerning the conference that: 

“…Deutsche Welle neither influences the global discussion on climate development in a one-sided manner, nor does it intend to, through its reporting or through the international convention: Global Media Forum..” 

However your website announcement itself states: 
Global warming presents grave problems for the world. Climate change not only has impacts on geo-political peace, regional conflicts, social well-being and human rights, it also impacts our very existence – whether or not the planet will be a hospitable place. Starvation, mass movement of refugees, flooding, lost harvests, extreme storms, droughts and pandemics weaken the foundation of our collective home. The Deutsche Welle Global Media Forum 2010 will put the main topics concerning climate change at the centre of focus and search for a practical way out of the current situation, whereby the role of the media at the international, national and local levels are considered. To prevent the catastrophe, drastic instruments and measures are required.”

This is indeed state doctrine that DW is describing. But it is factually false and moreover it involves the massive, forbidden influence of public opinion. Furthermore, you deny influencing of participants with seminar speakers. But the web announcement itself states, for example: “For journalists it is almost impossible to check over each and every statement for factual accuracy…,“ and: “Falling back on a “neutral” journalistic position can mean playing into the hands of the skeptics…This workshop aims to point out what journalists must know about climate change policy, whom to trust and when to question their own professional procedures.“ And further: “That’s why it simply cannot be said that Deutsche Welle is promoting in any way, within the framework of the Global Media Forum,  a one-sided view on the problem of climate development.”

That the single pages of the seminar cannot be called up does not change in any way the publicly made Deutsche Welle objective of influencing public opinion.

In addition you write:  “…through presentations, discussions and debates, the Global Media Forum is a conference for journalists, politicians, scientists and many others in dealing with the question of what role the media have in sharpening people’s awareness regarding the complex topic of climate change.” 

Yet, to the contrary, the stated objective of the conference is to sharpen the fear of climate catastrophe. That’s a big difference. 

You further confirm your denial of public fact, and contradict your own website announcement: 
“Deutsche Welle offers a forum for these discussions , and as a publicly funded broadcaster, does not represent a pre-decided opinion in one direction or another…”

For any normal German reader, it is obvious that the statements made in your letter are in direct contradiction to the publicly stated objective of the forum.  The forum Deutsche Welle is conducting does not in any way comply to the requirements for publicly funded media outlet, paid by the German taxpayer.

Thus we request once again that you cancel this one-sided, catastrophe-promoting conference. The public will be kept informed by us in the appropriate ways.

Yours sincerely,
Dr. H. Thuss,         Dipl. Ing M. Limburg, 
Präsident               EIKE Vizepäsident

Of course the conference began yesterday, and ends tomorrow. No word if some of the conference’s content has been removed in order to comply with the law. Don’t hold your breath. One can now safely say that one publicly funded media arm in Germany has officially gone from journalism to state-sponsored propoganda.

Deutsche Welle Gone Rogue – Pushes One-Sided Journalism, But Denies It

Here’s a story on how a publicly funded broadcaster in Germany has abandoned obeying the laws of the Land, and succumbed to the temptation of practicing activism instead of journalism (a violation of German law). All of this of course on the premise of the fantasized urgent need to rescue the planet.

On June 9 the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE)  based in Germany sent a Letter of Protest to the Intendant of German public broadcaster Deutsche Welle demanding that it refrain from the illegal use of public funds by canceling its one-sided alarmist conference for journalists called: The Heat Is On – Climate Change and the Media.

Background here:
1. Journalism For Dummkopfs
2. From Journalism To Thought Control
3. Protest Begins To Mount!
4. EIKE Sends Letter Of Protest

Well, EIKE has received a reply from Deutsche Welle Intendant, Erik Bettermann, and the reply couldn’t have been more mind-blowing. Certainly makes one appreciate the frustration Steve McIntyre must feel at times.

First recall one workshop at the conference: How to professionally deal with climate scepticism, has the stated objective:

This workshop aims to point out what journalists must know about climate change policy, whom to trust and when to question their own professional procedures.

The panelists at the conference go on to warn:

Falling back on a “neutral” journalistic position can mean playing into the hands of the skeptics at the expense of the basis of life.

Obviously this conference has nothing to do with balanced journalism, rather just the opposite. So how did Intendant Bettermann respond to EIKE’s request they obey the law and return to balanced journalism?

Easy – Bettermann simply denied any one-sidedness, and asserted they are being fair and balanced. Bettermann’s letter starts with:

In response to your letter dated 9 June 2010, we would like to inform you that Deutsche Welle neither influences the global discussion on climate development in a one-sided manner, nor does it intend to, through its reporting or through the international convention Global Media Forum.

That’s a flat-out lie. And later writes:

As we have already mentioned, we enable representatives of a wide range of viewpoints and opinions to discuss in an international forum. And we will report on these discussions with our media in an honest, comprehensive and balanced manner.

That’s untrue as not a single non-alarmist view is included in the conference. He then adds:

In these discussions Deutsche Welle is only offering a forum and does not represent a decided point of view in one direction or the other.

Yet, just compare the contents of the conference announcement with the statements made by Bettermann. They could not be more diametrically opposed. The conference’s own program announcement is proof of its total one-sidedness, which means publicly funded Deutsche Welle is actively violating German law by not remaining balanced in its journalism.

Let’s be honest. Bettermann is no fool. He knows exactly what he’s doing. He has no intention of being fair and balanced on the climate issue. He’s hoping EIKE will give up trying to take on the state-funded Deutsche Welle and all its legal counselors, and simply go away.

Deutsche Welle has de facto gone rogue. It has long since abandoned journalistic principles. Rather, the broadcaster intends to shape political opinion and public policy in Germany. Now that’s real power! Boring journalism be damned.

But EIKE is not about to back down, and has sent a reply and intends to turn up the pressure. It’s a battle between David and Goliath. It’s a battle they will probably lose, but it’s certainly worth fighting. There’s simply too much at stake.

Tomorrow, EIKE’s reply to Bettermann’s denial.