Conference: German Alarmists Alarmed Over Waning Alarmism – Growing US Scepticism

Doubt over the science of climate change goes beyond USA, Great Britain and Australia, and is now spreading into mainland Europe, in particular Germany. So much so, that the German Greens are getting alarmed about the waning alarmism.

This is why the alarmists in Germany, led by the Green Party and Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute For Climate Impact Research, are now all trembly-handed about it and have organised a pow-wow in Berlin in March on how to counter the growing climate scepticism. The event is called:

The Interest In Doubt – The Strategies of the So-Called Climate Sceptics

Below is a translation of the announcement. As you read it, you will find it confrontational and militant. It’s the paranoid “us against them” mindset.

The climate alarmists simply cannot accept that the catastrophe is not coming. I wrote about why this frightens them: ALARMIST PSYCHOLOGY.

Here’s the event announcement in English

Event Details
Type of event: Discussion round
Date & time: 18 March 2011, 1:30 – 5:00 p.m.
Location: German Bundestag, Jakob-Kaiser-Haus, Room 1.302
Address: Dorotheenstraße 101
10117 Berlin
Event held by: Alliance 90/The Greens Parliamentary Group
Contact: AK 2 Coordination Office (Koordinationsbüro)
Platz der Republik 1, 11011 Berlin, Germany
Tel.:  (49) 30/227 59406, Fax: (49) 30/227 56208

What’s it about?

Climate scepticism is not a new phenomena in the debate surrounding anthropogenic climate change. To obstruct an ambitious climate protection program and to hinder energy transformation, the seeds of doubt concerning the findings of science has a long tradition, especially in the USA, where it has reached a new dimension. In addition to spreading lies and untruths, the defamation of politicians and covert operations also belong to the repertoire of climate policy obstructionists. Also in Germany the activities of climate sceptics and climate deniers are increasing. At first these activities were restricted to the Internet and blogs, but have since reached the German Parliament. Politicians of the CDU/CSU and FDP parties even publicly welcome known climate sceptics, and thus provided a forum for their non-serious and unscientific assertions.

In our focused discussion, we wish to cast light on the background the current activities of the climate sceptics. What is the motive behind the current climate-sceptic activites and media attention? What are the strategies of the so-called climate sceptics, who is behind them and who finances them?

We warmly invite you to attend.

1.30 Welcome coffee

2:00  Introduction
Bärbel Höhn, Parliamentarian
Deputy Party Chairperson

2:20 Industry lobbying activities: How the flames of doubt on climate change are being fanned
Dr. Dieter Plehwe
LobbyControl/ Scientific Centre Berlin (WZB)

2:40 The influence of the fossil fuel industry in the USA, Strategies and successful counter-strategies
CAN Europe

3:00 Doubt without fuel: Methods and structures of the climate sceptics
Prof. Dr. Stefan Rahmstorf
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK)

3.20 Panel discussion
Dr. Dieter Plehwe
CAN Europe
Prof. Dr. Stefan Rahmstorf PIK
Moderation: Dr. Hermann Ott, Parliamentarian and spokesman for climate policy

16.45 Summary
Dr. Hermann Ott MdB

17.00 Get together

Directions to the conference
By S-Bahn, get off at station “Hauptbahnhof” or “Brandenburger Tor”. By bus…blah blah blah [Just take your car and follow your navigation system].

Important advisory:
To enter the Jakob-Kaiser-Haus, you’ll need your ID or passport and an additional photo ID. It is also required to register with your name, DOB no later than 11 March 2011.

I urge concerned German readers to attend if you can. Perhaps someone should tell them how much oil money sceptics get, and how much the green groups get. I have yet to receive a cent.

I can tell you what this is going to be about: Koch Industries, Fred Singer, Big Oil, Tobacco, etc. the usual crap that appeals to people who crave disaster. Of course German sceptic group EIKE will be a target as well. Incidentally, EIKE has sent a letter to the Green Party, expressing their wishes to attend this conference.

Does anyone believe the tolerant and progressive Greens will welcome them?

84 thoughts on “Conference: German Alarmists Alarmed Over Waning Alarmism – Growing US Scepticism”

      1. I tried but couldn’t get past ‘Morning Coffee’ on the Green agenda. Tell me, when did coffee bean growing make its way to Germany? Surely it isn’t transported via fossil fuels from outside the country. That would be hypocritical to say the least.

      2. It would be nice if the so-called “skeptics” would actually read the studies in question instead of going with their typical knee-jerk reaction.

        For example, look at the plant species migrating uphill vs. downhill papers. The first (IPCC) discusses examples of species moving uphill due to temperature increases.

        The second talks about plants *in California* tracking *regional changes* in water balance, which happens to move them downhill.

        “Similar downhill shifts can be expected to occur *where future climate change scenarios project increases in water availability that outpace evaporative demand.*”

        I guess expecting so-called “skeptics” to be skeptical and actually read some science is too much to ask.

        1. Not that long ago, they were migrating down.. but why? Where was the radiative forcing of CO2?

          “Telltale signs are everywhere — from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest.Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F.”


        2. I note that you only picked ONE fault and left the rest out. It’s called cherry picking. It would be nice of you to use the same process with all the rest of the links I posted.

          1. I suggest you look up the meaning of the word “cherrypicking”, jimbo. I picked one at random. I’m not going to do your work for you – why don’t you try reading the papers yourself instead of just looking for superficial inconsistencies to justify an ignorant knee jerk reaction?

    1. Jimbo… I notice that most of these links are to news sites. A few are to science magazines. So, basically the only argument you’ve put forth here is that the news media is messing things up.

      That’s a position I would agree on.

      Of course, you could do a little *real* research on each of these issues if you want. It means going in and reading every article and tracing it to the source, if there even is one. Then you have to go back and see what the actual research says on the issue. You have to look up peer reviewed papers and see what they actually say.

      It’s a very small amount of work (and a very weak-minded process) to just google around to find headlines that you find contradictory, and ultimately that tells you absolutely nothing.

      It’s a lot of work to go dig in to see what actual scientific research tells us. But that is the kind of effort a real “skeptic” would do. Anything short of that is confirmation bias.

      I challenge you to be a real skeptic.

      1. If you read the news sites very carefully you will read either a reference to a peer reviewed study or another wild claim from your own side. Read and you will learn.

          1. The lingering damage is the education of young people who won’t be trained to look farther or deeper than a single cause of observed phenomena.

            Or capable of distinguishing sophistry from the truth.

  1. This conference will backfire bigtime. It will only make people ask more questions. Yes, let’s raise awareness that there are skeptics. Let’s discuss where all the funding comes from, on both sides. Too bad it’s only four hours.

      1. Most of the climate “scientist” funding is coming from green groups these days, with a vested interest in promoting doomsday scenarios.

        Oil companies supported some “advantages of CO2 in the air” type of investigations maybe 10-15 years ago, no “oil company” has been within a mile of paying a cent for this for a long time. They know they are targeted for supporting this kind of activity and these companies stay a mile away from it

        1. “Most of the climate “scientist” funding is coming from green groups these days, with a vested interest in promoting doomsday scenarios.”

          That is an outright falsehood.

          1. If only it was true. I do know the climate science funding profile for the US Federal agencies, and I know it for many of the US States.

            I work for the US DOE.

            This public support is no where near the funding received by the investigators, mostly of US universities.

            They’re getting the money from someplace.

            There’s only one possible source, and it isn’t foreign governments.

          2. If Global Warming is really happening, why did Phil Jones at CRU-UEA have to fiddle the figures to try to deceive people it was happening?

  2. The Country that produced David Hilbert, Constantin Caratheodory, and Felix Klein resorts to this.

    When I was younger I would believe that the Soviet Union would drop an atomic weapon on Berlin before something like this would happen in Berlin.

  3. Australia has engaged the services of former Alarmist of the Year, Tim Flannery, to head up an “independent” climate commissioner. Reading the detail; he’s the PROPAGANDA KOMMISSAR.


    They think that they are so much better than the people over who they think that they rule, that they blatantly undertake these exercises. Slipping $5million into the pockets of their friends.

    How cheap is the man’s soul? His proclaimations will NO DOUBT be used to justify the government imposing a “carbon tax” which they promised, prior to the election, wouldn’t happen.

    1. Professor Flannery seemingly has some rather odd beliefs:

      “Flannery’s exact words: “I think that, within this century, the concept of the strong Gaia will actually become physically manifest.” ”

      This statement created quite a bit of mirth even in the main stream media here in Australia.

      I do not think Professor Flannery will be a fair arbiter or open minded to the arguments of science. On the other hand our Prime Minister has funded the climate commission for 4 years, which leads me to hope there will be a delay before a carbon tax is implemented. If so we have the excellent chance of Solar Cycle 24 related cooling to knock out any justification for that silly & unjustifiable tax.

  4. It’s good to know that they seem to be blaming their woes on the influence of “Big Oil etc etc” Discussing what to do about this imagined problem ensures that the event will be a complete waste of time and money for them!

    1. Ed… Now I know you’re kidding. Poptech? That guys is a raging lunatic. Even Pielke had it out with that guy!

      “Roger Pielke Jr.’s Blog
      16 November 2009

      Better Recheck That List

      Roger Pielke Jr.: “My attention has just be called to a list of ‘450 Peer-Revie wed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming.’ A quick count shows that they have 21 papers on the list by me and/or my father. Assuming that these are Hypothesis 1* type bloggers they’d better change that to 429 papers, as their list doesn’t represent what they think it does.”

      Andrew (aka ‘Poptech’) : “Roger, no one is stating you or your dad is skeptical of a human influence on climate. The papers listed support skepticism (my skepticism ) of the current alarmist position on climate… ”

      Pielke: “Andrew

      Please do tell the criteria used to decide what was on and what was off the list. the title of your post is:

      ‘450 Peer-Revie wed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming’

      There is nothing in my writing that fits in this category. . If they support _your_ skepticism then I suggest retitling the post to be:

      ‘450 Peer-Revie wed Papers Supporting My Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming’ ”

      [* Hypothesis 1: Human influence on climate variabilit y and change is of minimal importance , and natural causes dominate climate variations and changes on all time scales. In coming decades, the human influence will continue to be minimal.]

      continued. ..”

      1. No I am not a raging lunatic. You are quoting a post from the first version of the list. Since then the word “Alarm” has been added to the title to properly qualify the purpose of the list and a disclaimer to remove any sort of implied position to an author. The reason for this is a small minority of authors on the list would not wish to be labeled skeptical yet their paper(s) or results from their paper(s) support skeptic’s arguments against AGW alarm.

        Why you continue to misrepresent the list I have no idea.

      1. It works both ways, Rob. The alarmists do it all the time. And the papers show there’s lots of dissent against ALARMIST” science. We all know some people need the catastrophe. And bias is what RealClimate does. Good luck presenting a dissenting view over there. Here at least we hear you out.

      2. The list has nothing to do with confirmation bias as the purpose of it is explicit and clearly stated,

        Purpose: To provide a resource for peer-reviewed papers that support skepticism of AGW or the negative environmental or socio-economic effects of AGW and to prove that these papers exist contrary to widely held beliefs.

          1. No problem and please feel free to email me,

            populartechology (at) gmail (dot) com

            …regarding ANY questions about the list as alarmists continue to repeat the same debunked lies about it hoping no one will reference it. The most common ones are debunked in the notes following the list.

    2. Poptech is classic quantity over quality. The guy compiling the list expects that if he can make it long enough, nobody will check his claims.

      As Rob noted, the Pielkes have asked that their papers be removed from the list. They comprised nearly 5%, as I recall. An even larger fraction are papers from Energy & Environment (not peer-reviewed). As I recall, well over 10%.

      The Poptech list is the equivalent of the Oregon Petition. A large number of meaningless entries on a worthless list. Yet we have examined the list.

      1. Dana, you reject quite a number of working scientists and engineers with one sweeping statement.

        I did not sign that petition, not being an American, but I would sign such a petition should one be initiated. Furthermore as a scientist of good standing who has analysed the temperature record and independent climate data myself I can say that the ‘consensus’ CAGW hypothesis is falsified quite easily. I do not need 700 peer reviewed papers, I can do it myself with the data of record. Cuts out the middleman.

        As I have my own field to work in I don’t have the energy to publish in JoC or another climate journal, but if I wished to run the gauntlet of an unfair peer review system I have no doubt at all I could have a paper published along these lines. However life is too short to bother trying to convince vested interests, religious green believers and political operators who have a lot to lose by the overturning their cushy patches.

        1. If you disprove the AGW theory, you’ll win a Nobel prize. But you’re all talk. You’re not fooling anybody. I hope you’re not a poker player.

          1. Dana, you can give the Nobel prize to Lindzen, Archibald and Spencer since I don’t need the money.

            If you want to see my method for falsifying CAGW look at the conversation I had with Rob last week a few threads ago, and read Butler and Johnston’s paper. You will find the relationship between solar cycle length and temperature neatly describes the temperature record (the CET is the best to use, since it is at the same latitude as Armagh) if you take 2XCO2 to be 0.6 C and add a sinsoidal AMO signal. You can do this on a spreadsheet in a day or two and the trendlines match exactly over a period of centuries, including the last few decades. Use any IPCC’s GCM derived parameters and they don’t.

            This shows that solar influences cause most long term temperature variation, although CO2 has a noticeable effect (2XCO2 of 0.6 C gives only 0.29 C of warming due to CO2 since preindustrial times if you calculate it out). The cyclic AMO/PDO signal adds no warming but affects the temperature record and because it bottomed in 1900 and topped in 2000 it “adds” about 0.25 C tot he 20th C record when you take those endpoints as climatologists like to do.

          2. Dana, solar cycle length is an entirely independent variable. There is no way man can have any influence on it, and it is easy to accurately measure. If there is a strong correlation between solar cycle length and temperature then it is the onus on scientists to explain the correlation, and not to ignore it. To ignore such a correlation is to bury your head in the sand.

            I think there may be an explanation in the hypotheses of Svensmark and Rao, but as I have not read their papers I cannot vouch for it. At least they are looking.

            Meanwhile the global temperature record has turned down, exactly as the solar cycle length and cyclic AMO hypotheses predict.

      2. Incorrect, I have never received an email from either of the Pielke’s regarding the list and Pielke Sr. has never commented on it. Pielke Jr. simply did not want to be labeled an AGW skeptic nor did he want his papers to be implied to support rejection of AGW. They never were and the list has been qualified to address this as his papers are used to support skeptic’s arguments against AGW Alarm.

        There are only 23 papers on the list authored by the Pielke’s which represents 2% of it.

        Only 14% of the papers are from the scholarly peer-reviewed journal Energy & Environment. Which means there are over 700 papers from 236 journals other journals on the list.

        It is a lie that E&E is not peer-reviewed,

        Energy & Environment is a peer-reviewed interdisciplinary scholarly journal (ISSN: 0958-305X)
        – Indexed in Compendex, EBSCO, Environment Abstracts, Google Scholar, JournalSeek and Scopus
        – Found at 149 libraries and universities worldwide in print and electronic form. These include; Cambridge University, Cornell University, British Library, Dartmouth College, Library of Congress, National Library of Australia, Ohio University, Pennsylvania State University, Rutgers University, University of California, University of Delaware, University of Oxford, University of Virginia, and MIT.
        – EBSCO lists Energy & Environment as a peer-reviewed academic journal
        – “All Multi-Sciences primary journals are fully refereed” – Multi-Science Publishing
        – “Regular issues include submitted and invited papers that are rigorously peer reviewed” – E&E Mission Statement
        – “E&E, by the way, is peer reviewed” – Tom Wigley, Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)

        I intentionally fully cite and link to every paper so people can check the list. The reason the list is so long and continues to grow is because so many papers supporting skeptic’s arguments exist.

    1. Because Europe is at a relatively high latitutde. That’s why the study shows that Southern Europe will be hit relatively hard (over 1% welfare loss) while Central Europe won’t be hit very hard, and Northern Europe may even come out ahead. Basically the higher the latitude, the lower the impact – which we already knew.

      1. When did the warmists change that? They used to say Global Warming would be most pronounced in cool regions. Must have missed the memo. Also, why is Greenland and Siberia a hotspot in the GISTEMP maps then? Are these places not far north?

        Is this another case of making the theory a little bit more unfalsifiable?

        1. Warming is most pronounced at high latitudes. That doesn’t mean the effects will be worse for human society at high latitudes. Warming in Scandinavia means they’ll have more viable agricultural land. Warming near the equator means their agricultural land will dry up.

          1. Dana,

            I thought the IPCC said that the net higher world temperature would be focused more in the higher latitudes but not affect the Equator to any significant degree. So farmers in northern latitudes would get longer growing seasons (good) and higher night-time temperatures (good) rather than comparably higher day-time temperatures (also good). The effect in southern latitudes would be more tempered and less extreme. So what’s the problem?

    1. It must have been hard on the British Royal Family (and the UK!) to have suffered his senility ever since he was nineteen years of age.

  5. Rob,
    You challenged me to be a real sceptic. I am a lay man in physics but made as a good ‘housewife’ some calculations. Perhaps you can check my results.

    We need an old-fashioned physics laboratory, with a vacuum chamber. The walls of the latter are painted black. In the middle we have an upright iron rod A, heated by an electric current, and connected to a thermometer by which we can continuously monitor its temperature. At some distance there is a cold upright iron rod B. When A has reached maximum temperature, the current is shut off, leaving a thermodynamically isolated system.

    A emits thermal (IR) radiation by which it cools. This is its only way of cooling because we have a vacuum. The thermometer will show decreasing temperatures according to Newton’s cooling law. Part of its radiation hits B, making that B’s temperature goes up. The higher B’s temperature, the more IR radiation B emits. Part of B’s radiation hits A. This is also called back radiation or ‘down’-welling IR radiation.

    It does not matter how we call it, whether B’s radiation warms A or prevents A from cooling. This is only a play with words since mathematically it does not make a difference.

    Finally, we may insert a small black screen between A and B, blocking IR radiation from A to B and from B to A. This screen is fixed on a device, rotating about A. So, in every rotation, the screen blocks the mutual IR radiation for a while. Consequently, the descending temperature curve of A will show periodic wobbles of decreasing and increasing cooling rate, or decelerations and accelerations, if B’s back radiation does something with A’s temperature. This can be verified by measurement. While waiting for the results, I have done some math.

    Let TA(t) be A’s temperature and TB(t) B’s temperature at time t. Let RBA(t) be the contribution to TA(t) by B’s back radiation. If B’s back radiation does not contribute anything to A’s temperature, RBA(t) = 0. We don’t say that B does not emit radiation, since it does. The question is of whether this radiation does something to A’s temperature. Therefore, I use the word ‘effectively’.
    By hypothesis that back radiation effectively exists:

    RBA(t) > 0, for all t. [1]

    Let t be the moment the screen totally blocks the radiation between A and B. Let the screen be gone at (t+x). Define the difference

    DA(t+x) = TA(t) – TA(t+x). [2]

    By substitution the following can be easily proven from (2)

    (RBA(t+x) > DA(t+x)) equivalent ((TA(t+x) + RBA(t+x)) > TA(t)). [3]

    However, the latter part of (3) contradicts the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, since it says that A’s temperature at (t+x) is higher than its temperature at t. Therefore,

    RBA(t+x) <= DA(t+x). [4]

    During equilibrium A's temperature does not change any more, or

    DA(equilibrium) = 0. [5]

    From (4) and (5) we have

    RBA(equilibrium) 0. [7]

    We have a paradox between (6) and (7) and need a miracle to get out.

    By hypothesis that back radiation effectively exists, we don’t have to assume that the temperature contribution is always positive. Let RBA(t) be a decreasing function of time. However, the higher B’s temperature, the more IR radiation B emits. Therefore, with increasing radiation from B, its influence on A’s temperature decreases, whereas A’s temperature also decreases. This is miraculous, especially in the beginning when A is very hot and B may be frozen at about zero Kelvin. Therefore, RBA(t) must be a function starting and ending at zero, with a top in the middle. While A cools, this rod becomes more and more sensitive to B’s radiation but looses this sensitivity while it cools further. At which temperature is A the most sensitive? We may heat A up till 500 or 1000 Kelvin, to start with. Is there a law of physics telling that around 300 Kelvin the rod becomes the most sensitive? Does it depend on the temperature difference TA(t) – TB(t)? But this difference is strictly decreasing with time. I have the impression that we are in the middle of a fairy tale. But AGW needs this, since without effective back radiation, CO2 forcing is zero.

    Have a nice day.

    1. Mindert… That’s not skepticism. That’s confirmation bias. Again, you’re looking for the conclusion you want to find.

      If you were truly skeptical you’d go find a physicist in your area (someone who won’t automatically agree with you) to go over your calculations.

      That would be skepticism. Trying to prove YOURSELF wrong, fixing it, improving it, and then trying to prove yourself wrong again. All you’ve done is found a way to agree with yourself.

    2. Mindert… And if your calculations are all correct after going through all that… you should buy your plane ticket to Oslo and go pick up your Nobel Prize.

      1. Dear Rob,
        My calculations are correct, but I don’t want a Nobel prize for this silly stuff. In stead of me going to Oslo, you may come to Amsterdam and lodge with me. I will show you some nice places in this beautiful city. But I have to warn you that the temperaures here are more than three degrees Celsius below the global level.

        1. How typically un-skeptical of you. Throw out a few equations that you think overturn 150 years of established physics and you’re done.

          1. The theory of back radiation says that by radiation a cooler object can influence the temperature of a warmer object. This can be experimentally tested. I have shown the consequence. Proof that I am wrong.

  6. How would you explain “activities of the climate sceptics”
    using the official definition on CLIMATE (WMO, IPCC etc) namely: average weather, or the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time (e.g. 30y, up to millions of years.) details: p. 2/3 here:
    __activities average weather sceptics, or
    __statistical description sceptics.
    Both sound meaningless. It is meaningless, as WMO, IPCC and all the experts are not able an willing the say what they mean with WEATHER, which actually can comprise hundreds terms, meanings, and descriptions, as explained at:

    Unfortunately SCEPTICS seem to like to work with these terms as the ALARMISTS do, as they grew up with these layman words, but they should not allow scientists to work with scientifically meaningless terms.
    Regards Arnd Bernaerts

  7. I try it again since the essental step is not transmitted:

    From (4) and (5) we have

    RBA(equilibrium)<=0 [6]

    1. Mindert, as i see it, equilibrium can only be reached when both rods reach T=0; ceasing all radiation. Rod A is warmer than rod B all the time, as it was the one which was heated in the beginning. So both of them cool down after rod B’ temperature has reached its maximum , which is still smaller than rod A’s max temp. There’s nothing paradoxical going on; your equations are fulfilled – you just constructed a dynamic system where rod B is warmed up, then cools down, while rod A cools down during the entire time.

      No, the real flaw in the AGW theory is not that back radiation doesn’t exist, it is that they are hell-bent on finding positive feedbacks. Remember the MPI study that showed that there is no tipping point in arctic ice melt, and the researcher, Steffen Tiesche, who was “surprised” because it was “so obvious” to assume that there was a tipping point?

      They have this mindset. They have been selected for it; the IPCC always wanted high figures. The institutes these days are 100% percent populated by warmists. People go into climate science *because* they are warmists. Non-warmists don’t take that career path.

      1. Thanks Dirk, but both rods go to the same equilibrium temperature. I have proven, I think, that back radiation cannot contribute more to A’s temperature than the difference between two point on its cooling curve, in order not to violate the 2nd Law. Because the difference goes to zero, so does the contribution of back radiation. Claes Johnson tries to do the same and concludes that back radiation is an unstable process which cannot exist. Back radiation is the corner stone of AGW. Without it, the whole theory is lost.

  8. Bärbel Höhn a speaker? I’m impressed, I’ve never heard a person defend a point of view with as much passion and at the same time as much ignorance like her. Her high-pitched voice doesn’t help either.

  9. Holland openly announces that they will not follow the 20:20:20 EU directive,
    but go for only 14% share of renewable energy in 2020.

    By now, the story told by the EU was that member states who miss the goal will be severely punished financially. Looks like this story collapses even faster than i expected.

    Meanwhile, Portugal is going to the wall, about to join Greece and Ireland.

    Of course the ftd never connects the economic collapses with the energy policy; but Julian Simon called energy the master resource for a reason… at least the ongoing misallocation of billions of Euros will not help these economies but burden them. The wind turbines don’t grow all by themselves.

    So the collapse of the Eurozone proceeds as i expected. Still 5 months to go, time enough for Spain and Italy to join the club.

  10. I am afraid that many of the European nations may experience what Nassim Nicholas Taleb in his well publicized book called THE BLACK SWAN, a highly improbable event, or a “black swan” experience which carries a massive unexpected impact and which after the fact is made to look more predictable by concocted explanations to make it look less random. Economic, energy and financial planning based on warming only worst scenarios may soon receive a sudden jolt like UK did in December 2010 when Mother Nature did not behave as the million dollar computer models said it should. Until Europeans seriously warp their minds around the possibility of global cooling as opposed to unprecedented warming only , there are bound to be many future such meetings to find out why the skeptics are saying what they are saying, namely, that we are headed in the wrong direction for the wrong scientific reasons and unless we change course, we are headed for disasters much sooner and bigger than any minor warming would ever bring.

  11. For those bloggers who think that our experts [or scientists] never make mistakes, I recommend two other books ,

    FUTURE BABBLE by Dan Gardner [about why expert predictions fail and why we believe them any way]

    SWAY by Ori and ROM Brafman [about irresistible pull of irrational behaviour , also about past scientific cover ups ]

    1. To these global warmers, Berlin doesn’t count. Neither do the other places.

      Only seemingly forlorn looking polar bears count. They’re all that matter

  12. Dana,

    It is really too bad you can dismiss the learned opinions of 23,000 engineers and scientists. Its quite obvious you are not one or the other; and wholly untrained in any science. It is understandable.
    [-snip, no such name-calling please PG].

    An Oregon Petioner.

  13. I keep emphasizing, that the risks associated with global cooling will have a much greater impact and much sooner than those associated with any minor global warming 100 years from now. This is the message that I think the Green parties in Europe are failing to clasp. Here are just two examples. Some 2011 crops could again be in danger with an extended cool spring like 2008 [La Nina year also]

      1. “The planet isn’t going to cool so this is irrelevant.”

        I grow vegetables (small scale) in the UK, right slap bang in the middle of the CET area.

        Temperature is THE biggest problem we have, we can, with ingenuity, will, and hard work overcome all other issues, but we cannot affect the temperature. Plants just like homo sapiens (I don’t know about the new homo superbus breed) enjoy and thrive with warmth.

        Last year’s growing season in the CET area – April through October was 0.6C lower than the previous year, which was its self a whole 1.0C lower than 2006.

        So our growing season (not winter) has dropped 1.6C in 4 years, fact, not spin, not interpretation. You will find the data here:-

        The effect on yields is considerable, can’t quote exact but we are at least 10% down and it could well be double that. The last few cold winters are a pain, they make life difficult, that we can cope with, and we just work harder. But colder growing seasons have a substantial effect and there is nowt (old English word) we can do about it.

        So back to the beginning – “The planet isn’t going to cool so this is irrelevant.”

        Well Dana, my little bit already has and do you know what? It isn’t good!

        PS. I do not like the noises the “solar jockeys” are making, not about Cycle 24, we know about that. But they seem to think that 25 will, at best be the same and could be even quieter?

    1. I see someone else who does not understand how Google Scholar works. Simply searching for phrases in Google Scholar will bring results from non-peer-reviewed sources such as books, magazines, newspapers, patents, citations, duplicate listings and all sorts of other erroneous results. Such as 21,000 from the Guardian, 84,000 from Newsweek and 140,000 from the New York Times. There is no “peer-reviewed journal only” search option in Google Scholar. Unless you have confirmed every single result, your “search” is meaningless. Not only do you have to confirm every single result to be from a peer-reviewed source but you have to confirm that they explicitly support AGW theory.

      Epic Fail.

    2. Picture of the “terminator” all right.

      He “terminated” California’s economy on behalf of his compulsion to be “admired” by the A-listed in Hollywood

      (who thought he was a dolt anyway, all the good it did him)

    3. Google Scholar Illiteracy at Skeptical Science

      In a desperate attempt to diminish the value of the list of peer-reviewed papers supporting skeptic’s arguments, Rob Honeycutt from Skeptical Science not only lies but puts on a surprising display of his Google Scholar Illiteracy. It is clear that not only does he not understand how to properly use Google Scholar, he has no idea of the relevance of any of the results he gets.


      Managing the Process of Engineering Change Orders: The Case of the Climate Control System in Automobile Development
      (Journal of Product Innovation Management, Volume 16, Issue 2, pp. 160–172, March 1999)
      – Christian Terwiesch, Christoph H. Loch

      Why is Rob counting results about climate control systems in automobiles?

  14. -Wollen sie das totales klimat?
    -Ein tausendjähriges stabiles klimat demands sacrifice! [-snip, sorry but that’s going too far]]

  15. ” If you disprove the AGW theory, you’ll win a Nobel prize. ”

    Yeah, right, like that politically motivated prize giving would be that honest.
    Anyways, was anyone rewarded for proving the world was NOT flat.

    ” The planet isn’t going to cool so this is irrelevant. ”

    Soon to be hung by his own petard.

    In the end no one knows whether the planet WILL warm or cool, OR WHY.
    The real problem is that the politicians have believed only one side and are only planning for warming,
    THAT is the real harm of the “climate debate”.

    Computer climate models are ONLY that, computer models.
    We can not even predict economics with computer models,
    what chance have “we” got with climate, NONE.

    Apparently according to Associate Professor Mark Diesendorf,
    ” Well, there is a lot of evidence, and, the best evidence comes from the earth’s evolution of temperature.
    So, if you look at the last 150 years since the industrial revolution you can see a steady, an average rate of growth of warming.
    If you average over the last hundred years it’s a higher rate,
    average over the last 50 years even higher,
    the last 25 years we can really see a rapid acceleration in global warming.
    So, it’s the temperature history of the earth that is the strongest data. ”

    Given GHCN, GISS, CRU, Climategate, etc, etc, etc,
    Nope, we don’t have a reliable temperature record “evolution” either.
    But the temperature record/s we do have have undeniably “evolved” towards one view…
    Which is why we DO have sceptics of the supposedly “settled science” of AGW, unsurprisingly….

  16. Apologies, I meant to include this,

    To put this quote of Associate Professor Mark Diesendorf into context,
    ” So, if you look at the last 150 years since the industrial revolution you can see a steady, an average rate of growth of warming.
    If you average over the last hundred years it’s a higher rate,
    average over the last 50 years even higher,
    the last 25 years we can really see a rapid acceleration in global warming.
    So, it’s the temperature history of the earth that is the strongest data. ”

    Please see,
    For warming episodes during the Holocene,

    For cooling episodes during the Holocene,

    I don’t know what is coming next, but cooling MAY WELL be a DISTINCT POSSIBILITY that we should consider.

Comments are closed.