Viking Climate Refugees – PNAS Paper Shows Rapid (Natural) Climate Swings And “Turns For The Bitter” In The Past

Der Spiegel today has a report here on why the Vikings left Greenland, hat-tip reader DirkH. Also read Brown University press release here in English.

Proxies from all over the world have shown that global climate was as warm or even warmer during the so-called Medieval Warm Period back around a thousand years. It’s not called a “warm period” for nothing!

William D'Andrea, right, and Yonsong Husang, left, with sediment cores. Photo credit: William D'Andrea/Brown University.

Der Spiegel writes about how scientists from USA and Great Britain examined sediment cores from two lakes near Viking settlements in Greenland and how the Little Ice Age hit and was one of the big factors that drove the Vikings off Greenland beginning in the middle of the 14th century. The scientists were able to produce a temperature reconstruction going back 5600 years. This is now reported in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.

Der Spiegel quotes William D’Andrea of Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island.

‘There really was a drop in temperature shortly before the Vikings disappeared.’ As a consequence the times for crop growing was shortened and little feed was provided to cattle.”

Yes, there really was a drop in temperature. How many more proxies is it going to take before the warmists abandon the fantasy that temperatures were more or less stable over the last 1000 years and shot up only when the Industrial Revolution began? D’Andrea adds:

“It is interesting to consider how rapid climate change may have impacted past societies, particularly in light of the rapid changes taking place today.”

Of course it’s plain to see where D’Andrea is headed. But there are big differences today. Firstly, society is much better equipped technically to adapt to climate change, and 2) climate gets nasty when it cools, and not when it warms. History shows that warm has benefited human and natural development, and cold always set it back. Indeed we are the first generation where we have a few whiners who constantly complain about warmer conditions.

There are also some non-differences. For example, the change we’ve seen over the last 100 years is no more remarkable than changes we had in the past. There is no more evidence of a significant human imprint today than there was 1000 or 500 years ago.

As another example of the misery brought on by cold, the Brown University press release writes:

The researchers examined how climate affected the Saqqaq and Dorset peoples. The Saqqaq arrived in Greenland around 2500 B.C. While there were warm and cold swings in temperature for centuries after their arrival, the climate took a turn for the bitter beginning roughly 850 B.C., the scientists found.

Yes – warm swings, cold swings, and turn for ther bitter, were all natural. The press release continues.

The Saqqaq exit coincides with the arrival of the Dorset people, who were more accustomed to hunting from the sea ice that would have accumulated with the colder climate at the time. Yet by around 50 B.C., the Dorset culture was waning in western Greenland, despite its affinity for cold weather.

Just how abrupt was climate change back then? The very beginning of the Brown University press release tells us (emphasis added):

Greenland’s early Viking settlers were subjected to rapidly changing climate. Temperatures plunged several degrees in a span of decades, according to research from Brown University.”

And today’s global temperature rise of 0.7°C over the last 100 years is supposed to be “unprecedented”? Yeah, right. Today’s climate change is no different than what we’ve seen in the past. If anything, some change-episodes in the past were considerably worse.

Note: Scanning the German headlines, centrist and conservative publications are reporting this Greenland story while leftist publications are ignoring it.

Temperatures Fall As Global CO2 Emissions Reach Record Highs

Much of the German media have been screeching and hyperventilating today about CO2 emissions reaching a record high, see FOCUS or TAZ here or Die Zeit here or Der Spiegel here, to name a few.

All the dregs are at it, making dire 100-year predictions based on silly climate models that have been proven to be wrong time and again. Warmists are gasping in panic screaming “time is running out and they we’ve got to act now!” Where’s the Valium? Take a look at the global temps:

Hadley shows cooling over the last 10 years, even though CO2 emissions have been climbing!

The International Energy Agency (IEA) reports that CO2 emissions rose 1.6 billion tons in 2010, the highest since record keeping began. Total CO2 emissions last year were 30.6 billion tons globally, up 5% from the previous record set in 2008.

Face it – the record emissions are good news and are an indicator of global economic growth and vitality. That’s what normally happens when the economy grows – more energy gets consumed to do more work. Let’s hope the trend continues. Don’t worry, CO2 will not cause the temperature to go up that much. The science behind global warming and tipping points is JUNK.

Indeed the temperatures are not cooperating, and they are not about to for a couple more decades. Time to go back and redo the science.

China To German Nuclear Engineers And Scientists: “Research And Work For Us!”

Germany will completely abandon nuclear energy and technology by 2022, this decided by Angela Merkel’s government. Merkel and German activist leaders think they can competitively power the country with windmills, biogas, solar, and blind faith. The last nuclear reactors so will go offline by the year 2022. Read here.China, seeing a golden opportunity, aims to capitalise on Merkel’s hasty, panicked decision and now hopes to lure German engineers and nuclear scientists to China in order to accelerate its own use of nuclear energy (hat-tip: The Liberale Institute here), so writes Der Spiegel here:

The People’s Republic wants to profit from Merkel’s nuclear power stop. Peking wants to attract researchers and employees from German power plants. The country has embarked without any hesitation on a path to nuclear energy – the Chinese all but exclude a disaster like that in Fukushima.”

China is not worried about nuclear accidents and safety issues. Gee I wonder why? I wonder if an unemotional look at the following graphic might have something to do with that:


China’s leaders are bewildered by Germany’s hysterical move. Der Spiegel quotes a CNEA deputy:

It is false that a country with so few resources of its own would abandon nuclear power, Deputy General Secretary of the Chinese Atomic Agency CNEA, Xu Yuming, told the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. His criticism also included an offer to the German nuclear specialists: ‘We invite the German specialists to research for us in China and to work. The German nuclear plants are mong the best in the world, the engineers and scientists have a great reputation’.”

China has ambitious nuclear energy plans for the future as it gets set to put the country on a rapid development course. According to the World Nuclear Association, 62 reactors are currently under construction worldwide, 27 in China alone. Here’s what the rest of the planet, outside of the Berlin Enviro-Wall, is doing.

Plants under construction (a few selected countries)
China: 27 reactors
Russia: 10
India: 5
Germany: 0

German nuclear engineers and scientists won’t have have any trouble finding work, that’s for sure. Many more reactors are being planned – 158 in total.

Reactors planned:
China: 50 reactors
India: 18
Japan: 12
Russia 14
USA: 9
Germany: 0

And many more are being proposed (324 reactors in all):
China: 110 reactors
India: 40
Italy 10
Russia 30
Ukraine: 20
Japan: 12
Russia 14
USA: 23
UAE: 10
Vietnam: 12
Turkey: 4
Poland: 6
Germany: 0

Not everyone is happy about Germany cutting and running on nuclear energy. Especially industry that relies on cheap and reliable energy are not pleased about it. For example, Daimler CEO Dieter Zetsche is not happy and is quoted in Die Welt here, calling it a “risky and emotional decision” that makes Germany a less attractive location for industry.

China has got to be laughing.

Mississippi State Professor: “Number Of Tornadoes Has Dropped Dramatically”. NOAA: “Related To Natural Fluctuations”

The German online Die Zeit here takes a look at the series of tornadoes that have ravaged the USA and conducted an interview with US meteorologist and Mississippi State University professor Grady Dixon.

Meteorology professor Grady Dixon: "Terrible mistake" to relate tornado up-tick to climate change. (Photo source: Mississippi State University)

Die Zeit asks the question: “Herr Dixon, is the number of such lethal storms rising in the USA?” Dixon replies:

No, to the contrary. Over the long term the number of deadly tornadoes has even dropped dramatically. […] However, we have to expect that more people will be hit by tornadoes in the future. Not because there are more storms, but because the population is growing and suburbs and cities are expanding. In any case, 2011 is an unusually violent tornado year and it is just a fluke.”

Dixon is also asked if climate change favors the creation of more tornadoes. Dixon answers:

Research results are mixed on this. […] But all indications show that it does not necessarily mean that tornadoes will be increasing in frequency.”

On the frequency of tornadoes, Dixon is also quoted by the English-language France 24 here:

‘It’s having to do with better (weather tracking) technology, more population, the fact that the population is better educated and more aware. So we’re seeing them more often,’ Dixon said.

But he said it would be ‘a terrible mistake’ to relate the up-tick to climate change.”

France 24 also quotes a FEMA official:

Craig Fugate, administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), also dismissed Thursday climate change as a factor in the deadly tornadoes: ‘Actually what we’re seeing is springtime,’ he said.

‘Many people think of Oklahoma as ‘Tornado Alley and forget that the southeast United States actually has a history of longer and more powerful tornadoes that stay on the ground longer’.”

Many weeks back I recall Joe Bastardi predicting a humdinger of a tornado season, and of course we now see that his warnings were spot on. This spike in tornadoes is not due to warmth, but to cooling brought on by La Nina, with cold northern air smashing into warm, moist southern air.

David Imy from the NOAA Storm Prediction Center in Norman, Oklahoma adds:

We knew it was going to be a big tornado year. But the key to that tip-off was unrelated to climate change: It is related to the natural fluctuations of the planet.”

A rare moment of sanity coming from the NOAA? Sorry Romm, but on this one you’re a lone fool (again) out in the desert.

Unrelated: Benny Peiser brings or attention to news that a Global Climate Treaty Is DOA. Looks like Europe will be joining Romm out in the desert.

World Ignores Imminent And Bigger Threat Of Global Cooling As It Fights Non-Existent Global Warming

By Matt Vooro

The current year 2011 is a good example of what happens when global temperatures drop and we have cold and snowy winters that stretch well into spring. The current La Nina and the cold PDO brought colder temperatures and extra amount of snow during the past winter to many parts of North America, which means significant spring flooding like we just had in Central US and many parts of Canada.

Even Hadley shows cooling over the last 10 years. Yet policymakers all believe it's getting warmer!

The late and extra snow pack in the Rockies and the colder Pacific air, generally due to the colder North Pacific Ocean surface temperatures as measured by the PDO, also caused extra spring rain and even more flooding as well as severe tornadoes. As the quite cold air from the Rockies (due to the significant snow pack still in the mountains) meets the warm moist air coming from the Gulf of Mexico, severe and frequent tornadoes are spawned in the US tornado alley. This was also the pattern in the 1970’s.

Moreover, there could also be a loss of annual crops this year due to a shortened growing season from the extra wet soil and late planting because of the flooding and cold spring, This pattern could repeat itself many times in the decades ahead similar to the climate we had in the 1970’s. Both the Atlantic and Pacific oceans show strong indications of heading for cooler SST levels.

These alternating cold and warm phases typically last for 20-30 years, as reflected in our past climate records. We just came out of the warm phase and appear to be now headed for a cooler phase. The winters started to get cooler for some parts of the Northern Hemisphere already after 1998, but more noticeably and significantly in many regions including Europe and Asia during the last for 4 years. 

Wasteful anti-global warming policies have resulted in badly needed funds being diverted towards very expensive and unsustainable green energy projects and carbon dioxide storage or sequestering. Without major government subsidies most of these projects would not be viable. Indeed their implementation worsened the financial situation of several poorer European nations. In some countries, fossil fuel plants are being shut down prematurely rather than being converted to cleaner fossil energies resulting in 100 % increase in energy costs due to the more expensive green energy replacements.

These very expensive policies to fight global warming have little effect on global temperatures, if any. These misguided policies divert valuable funds from other vital areas of our global life, like helping nations experiencing natural disasters, job creation, better health care, improved flood control, rebuilding homes and infrastructure after tornadoes and major flooding and extra food storage for emergencies. In my judgment this problem could get much worse in the coming years.

Like the Pacific Ocean, the North Atlantic Ocean is also cooling again and by 2015 we could begin to feel even cooler weather during the winter and spring especially along the North American eastern coasts and western Europe. Food and energy could be in short supply unless we all adjust our national and global focus from a non existing global warming threat to a much bigger and very current threat from global cooling for the next 20-30 years.

The events like cold and snowy winters, extra flooding and severe tornadoes have very little to do with man generated carbon dioxide or global warming as, to the contrary, the global temperatures have been cooler than normal this year and global temperatures have actually been declining since 2001 (see chart above).

A Grid Manager’s Nightmare

By Ed Caryl

The California Independent System Operator (ISO) manages the high-voltage wholesale power grid for the state of California. On their web site, they have several links including one to yesterday’s hourly breakdown of power usage and sources. The figures below are for May 25 2011.

Figure 1. The hourly breakdown of renewable power fed to the California grid. Source: California ISO.

In California, most wind power is generated in three high wind locations: Altamont pass east of San Francisco, Tehachapi pass east of Bakersfield, and San Gorgonio pass near Palm Springs. Notice the huge drop in the wind farm output centered on 10 AM local time. The wind power output at all the wind farms dropped from over 1800 Megawatts to less than 200 Megawatts in less than six hours. Solar power picked up about 400 Megawatts of that, but solar had a glitch of it’s own at about 5 PM, when a cloud obscured the sun at the major solar plant in the Mojave Desert. The grid had to replace this power, just when the load was reaching maximum in the middle of the day. Where did the backup power come from? As you can clearly see in figure 1, none of the backup power came from a renewable source.

Figure 2. The hourly breakdown of all electrical power production in California on May 25th 2011. Source: California ISO, same link as above.

California must import up to 33% of its power, most from thermal and nuclear plants in other southwest states, and some from hydroelectric dams in the Pacific Northwest. As you can see from the plot in figure 2, most of the slack when the wind died came from thermal power plants in California and imported power from other states. Nuclear plants are difficult to throttle up and down, so most of that make-up power came from thermal sources (fossil fueled).

To be available on a moments notice, (or even on a few hours notice) thermal power plants are on “standby” status. In most cases this means that they have turbines already turning, feeding minimal power to the grid, so that they can be “throttled up’ quickly. The fastest responding are the natural gas powered plants. Coal powered plants take a bit longer to be fired up.

Planning is a big part of managing a power grid. The load can be predicted with good accuracy. Even fluctuations in temperature affecting load are predicted more than 24 hours in advance. But wind is more difficult, and clouds over solar plants more difficult yet. Today’s wind, for instance, is fluctuating over a scale of minutes, giving power output fluctuations of 200 Megawatts in 30 minutes. This must be giving the operators headaches.

California plans to build renewable power resources to the tune of 33% by 2020. The Pacific Northwest already has grid problems with Oregon and Washington wind farms. California will need three to five thousand Megawatts of reserve fossil fueled or hydroelectric plants to back up the renewable power resources. Given the May 25th 2011 wind power glitch, that may be low.

Documentary On The German “Waldsterben” Hysteria – Looking Back 30 Years

30 years ago Waldsterben (forest dieback) was probably Germany’s first post-war environmental hysteria to grip the country. Today we see that all the prophecies of doom were completely wrong.

The excellent Michael Miersch brings our attention to this oustanding arte Franco-German documentary called “The Forests are Dying Again (in German, and here in French), which takes a look back at one of the greatest environmental hysterias ever to grip a population: Waldsterben (forest dieback), a.k.a. acid rain.

The documentary also exposes the dirty tricks the media used to keep the hysteria alive (see 24-min. mark). There are so many parallels to today’s modern climate hysteria.

Again, back then there was “consensus”, all the scientists agreed, there was no denying the catastrophe, and politicians called it a grave threat that required immediate action. Fear gripped Germany. Environmentalists, union leaders, church leaders, citizens, politicians, etc. marched on the streets and demanded the government take action. The culprit was clear: emissions from industry and man were producing acid-rain that was chemically searing forests. At the 1:29 mark of the documentary:

The early 1980s, thousands of people took to the streets, an entire country is in panic, the German forest is dying. That’s for sure. But we alone are at fault due to our unbridled efforts to attain prosperity and progress. We treated nature like crap, and now there is nothing left to do but take it to the grave.”

Der Spiegel triggers the hysteria

The scare was first set into motion by Der Spiegel’s November, 1981 front page story called: “The Forests are Dying. Acid Rain Over Germany“. Soon all other media outlets fell over themselves to see who could produce the most sensational stories.

Der Spiegel wrote that the forest had only 5 years left. Stern, not to be outdone,followed with: “Acid Death” and claimed that the forest had only 3 years left.  Waldsterben remained the hottest story for years in the German press. The scare even served as one of the major springboards that launched Germany’s Green Party.

At the 3:08 mark, the documentary cuts back to present-day 2011 Allgäu, 30 years later, where we see the forests look completely healthy. “How can that be?” the documentary asks.

Rudy Holzbergercollected 150 media clippings about the tree-dieback hysteria, and has gone back and analyzed them. While some media outlets like Stern claimed the forest would die in as little as 3 years, all agreed on one thing, Holzberger says:

All of them said the forest would be dead at the latest by the year 2000.”

Holzberger then goes on to explain that the science behind the scare was flaky and thin. Sound familiar? Most of the forest dieback junk-science is traced back to University of Göttingen professor Bernhard Ulrich, who says at the 6:36 mark:

“There’s no doubt for those who are involved in the science the cause is air pollution, acid rain, and everything that comes with it.

We have to expect that after a warm and dry year it will lead to widespread forest damage and death.”

According to Professor Ulrich, German forests would soon appear as dead as those shown at the 7.50 mark of the documentary.

Later in the documentary, tree rings reveal that an even more widespread tree die-off occurred in 1947, and that the tree die-off in the early 1980s was nothing unusual and part of the natural cycle. The 1980s episode, however, showed how the media for the first time could drive an entire nation into mass panic.

Happening faster than anyone expected

The panic eventually spread into France (but to a lesser degree) thanks to assertions made by Professor Josef Reichelt, who claimed that French trees were dying off as well. But the French press ignored the story as a whole. Yet, there were still some kooks like Richard Kletty who claimed:

“It’s happening unbelievably fast. We know the resistance that trees have, and so it really surprised us how fast the damage is taking place and the trees are dying.”

Joschka Fischer

Today we hear the same about sea ice melt. Yet, the scare never took off in France as it did in Germany, where the topic was emotionalized rather than being based on science and reason. At the 14:20 mark the documentary tells us how the German Greens made the jump into the German Parliament, with a young Joschka Fischer (looks like him, anyway) marching in carrying a dead tree.

The all-knowing, bearded Greens protested the inauguration of Helmut Kohl, claiming he was dealing with the problem irresponsibly. The political payoff for the greens was handsome. As the forests appeared to be dying, Germany embarked on the path of turning “green”.

The forests then recovered, but the media ignored it

At the 23-minute mark, the documentary tells us that eventually by 1993 the trees, which go through natural cycles of losing needles and greening again, depending on rainfall, were back in a state of ruddy health and that there was no longer any danger of the once feared massive forest die-off. How did the media react to this news? At the 23:55 mark, Helmut Schulz says:

We made an analysis of the press to see how they reported on this. Of 54 daily newspapers, only 4 reported on the positive news. All the others, 50 newspapers, reported negatively.”

The media had no interest in an improving forest health – they wanted to remain stuck on Armageddon. Instead they rolled out more apocalyptic headlines. At the 23:42 mark, Holzberger shows some of the headlines: Stern in 1994: The Death Struggle of the Trees which included words like: “If Trees Could Scream, which described the death of trees in human terms.“It was complete nonsense”, says Holzberger.

Tree-dieback deniers got smeared

It was also a difficult period for scientists who did not share the apocalyptic views of mass forest die-off. In 1996 Professor Heinrich Spieker published a scientific assessment of European forests commissioned by a Finnish forestry institute. The report was called: Growth Trends of European Forests, which reached the conclusion: “The forest in Europe is growing faster and they are healthier”. This is not what the media wanted to hear. It contradicted prevailing dogma. The reaction from the media was harsh.

Here were some of the claims made by the media (see 26.46 mark), the Süddeutsche Zeintung:

EFI study is superficial and fundamentally flawed.”

and called the deniers:

Witch doctors and charlatans”

and one German activist group wrote:

Half of the financing came from the Finnish government, and that Spieker was married to a Finnish woman.”

Today, it’s clear that Heinrich Spieker was right, and that it is the slimy media who have egg on their faces. Indeed German forests are expanding 170 sq km annually. And again today in climate science, the very same newspapers and groups are at it again.

Ironically, today’s forest die-off is due to the green biofuels craze

At the 27-minute mark, the documentary focuses on today’s claims that climate change is threatening yet another forest die off. But as the documentary shows, forests are adapting as they always have, and that the Sahara is getting greener. The science shows that the warming temps over the last 30 years (likely due to ocean cycles) is making the planet greener, and not browner.

In the last segment of the documentary we see the real threat to forests – especially tropical forests. It is deforestation to make way for green bio-crop plantations – to grow crops that allegedly will save forests from climate change.

“Gateway To Hell” Under Extreme Pressure – Eruption Expected Soon, Writes Der Spiegel

The eruption of Grímsvötn on May 20, 2011 has produced a cloud of volcanic ash that shot up over 50,000 ft and has drifted over parts of Europe closing a number of major airports and creating air traffic havoc.

Now the online Der Spiegel reports today that another volcano, Hekla, is on the verge of exploding as well. Satellite altimetry measurements show that the mountain has swollen – more than it did right before it exploded the last time in 2000. Der Spiegel writes what scientists have found:

On the Hekla volcano they have discovered a 20 km wide swelling. Magma has risen up under the ground and is pushing the ground up, reports a group around Benedikt Ofeigsson of the University of Iceland in Reykjavik in the magazine ‘Journal of Geophysical Research. An eruption soon is ‘very likely,’ confirms vulcanologist Birger-Gottfried Lühr of the PotsdamGeosciences Research Centre.”

Hekla is right now under extreme pressure.

Is Hekla next? ‘If it keeps its rhythm of the last decades, then it is now due,’ says Lühr.

Instruments on the mountain show that Hekla has swollen up more than it’s last eruptions in 2000 and 1991.”

According to Wikipedia, during the Middle Ages, Icelanders called the volcano the “Gateway to Hell.” In January 2010 there were reports of patches near to the summit not covered with snow. Hekla had massive eruptions in 5050 BC, 3900 BC, 2310 BC and 950 BC, which threw about 7.3 km of volcanic rock into the atmosphere, placing its Volcanic Explosivity Index (VEI) at 5. This would have cooled temperatures in the northern parts of the globe for a few years afterwards.

After being dormant for 250 years, Hekla erupted again in 1104 AD with os VEI of 5. Hekla has also erupted every 10 years since 1970. Some eruptions had a VEI of 3, which sent ash 15 km into the atmosphere. If the scientists today are right, it could be a disruptive year for European air travellers.

Deadly E-Coli Bacteria Spreading And Bringing Death To Germany – Suspected To Originate From Organic Farming

Instead of utopia and paradise, Germany’s green dreams are delivering an ecological nightmare, turning the country into a toxic cesspool of lethal man-made biocides: botulism and now E-coli bacteria. Millions of consumers are now at risk.

A few days ago I wrote about how biogas plants are producing and distributing deadly botulism throughout Germany and how a thousand farms and thousands of heads of cattle have been infected, along with wildlife. Even humans have been infected.

Worse, the media and authorities are choosing to ignore the problem completely – and thus are putting thousands of lives at risk. Veterinary officials even refuse to ban the slaughter of botulism-infected cattle (to avoid the compensation of farmers by the state), and so the meat of the botulism-infected cattle is being marketed to consumers!

Now E-coli bacteria – likely from organic farms

Now there’s a new deadly bacteria released that is rapidly spreading rampantly all over Germany – E-coli bacteria. So far it has infected and sickened hundreds of Germans and has claimed the lives of 2 people. The online Bild daily here reports that on Saturday an 83-year old woman died of the “Killer-Bacteria E-coli” and that a 25-year old woman died yesterday in Bremen – showing the symptoms (tests must still be done to confirm the E-coli). Bild writes:

The E-coli bacteria are spreading at a rapid speed in Germany. About 300 people have been infected thus far, over 40 patients are suffering from the life-threatening hemolytic-uremic syndrome (HUS), which is caused by the intestinal bacteria. It leads to kidney failure, damage to blood vessels and anemia.


A spokesman at the Hamburg Health Dept.: ‘The situation is serious!’ “

The news of the E-coli epidemic is making headlines everywhere; authorities are in a state of alarm.

The bacteria cause bloody diarrhea and intestinal bleeding, and can lead to death if not treated in time.

Origin of the deadly bacteria

Officials are searching feverishly for the origin. Media reports and experts say the source is very likely from raw, unwashed vegetables. I immediately wondered if all that healthy organic food grown in nature without industrial processing could be the source. My suspicions seem to be well-founded. Bild writes:

The horrible suspicion: Contaminated manure, often used as fertilizer for organic vegetables could be the source!”

The Federal Institute for Hazard Assessment warned already back in January: ‘Through contact with feces, for example manure fertilizers, food plants could be burdened with E-coli.’ Martin Hofstätter, Greenpeace agriculture expert: ‘The manure is spread by the wind and lands on also on fruit and vegetables of neighbouring fields.’

It is quite possible that the contaminated manure is still finding its way onto fields.”

Someone ought to tell that Greenpeace “expert” that industrial food at least gets washed and cleanly processed according to strict quality standards, and not picked and handled by soiled hands and sold directly to consumers as “fresh and healthy”.

So much for the green paradise. Add this contamination to the list, which now includes mercury from  energy saving lights, botulism from biogas plants, and cadmium in solar panels. And let’s not forget the bird-shredding windmills that litter the landscape.

Also read here:

The German Greens’ Ultra-Useful Political Imbeciles

If you support your enemies, then you ought not wonder why they grow stronger and soon defeat you.

The early results of the Bremen state elections are in, and once again the conservative CDU Party took one on the chin, and in the gut, and again the Greens soared, read here. The German state of Bremen will now be governed by a solid majority coalition of socialist Reds and environmental Greens. As for the conservative CDU party, it has tumbled behind the Greens to 3rd place, picking up only a measly 20% of the vote.

A similar election debacle took place just weeks earlier in the German industrial state of Baden Wurttemberg, where the Greens, who were once just a fringe party, swept to power after 60 years of conservative CDU rule. Angela Merkel’s conservative CDU party is now a collapsing house of cards.

Even the CDU’s coalition partner, the business-friendly FDP Free Democrats, have been reduced to a mere asterisk in the polls, falling well below the 5% hurdle and are now an insignificant political force.

Why are the Greens flying high and the Conservatives and Free Democrats plummeting?

To answer that question, it is helpful to play out a scenario in your mind. Imagine if the Angela Merkel’s conservative CDU one day adopted a new plank in its platform: “Jobs for Germans” and “Foreigners stay out!” What would be the result?

This would tantamount to a mainstream party endorsing and legitimising an extreme fringe ideology, an ideology that deserves defeat and not support. Such an endorsement however would be an immediate boost for Germany’s far-right brownish parties, who would be propelled and zoom in the polls overnight. The CDU on the other hand would deservedly go into a tailspin.

This is what happened with the CDU and the Greens. The Greens in Germany 15 years ago were a just minor party that struggled to reach the 5% hurdle in state and national elections. But over the years, the big parties like the conservative CDU began adopting and endorsing politically-correct green positions on energy and climate change rather than opposing them. The green political-correctness, they thought, would make them more appealing. The result: green fringe positions became viewed by the public as having been legitimised, and so people began to view the Greens as mainstream. Acceptance grew.

Today many people are green to a certain extent – it’s hip after all. So when going to the polls, why vote for the CDU when you can vote for the real deal: the Greens!

Successful politics is not about supporting the kooky fringe positions of your opponents and so legitimising them. No – it is about exposing them for what they really are, and then hanging them around the necks of your opponents and parading them through the public. But if you stupidly support the positions of your opponents, then you ought not wonder why they they keep getting stronger.

The CDU naively believed green voters would gravitate to their ranks if they adopted fuzzy green positions. But that didn’t happen. Indeed the opposite occurred in that the green positions looked more attactive, and so voters migrated to the Greens instead.

The same happened in the USA when Newt Gingrich gave the climate movement his stamp of approval by cozying up with Nancy Pelosi on a sofa. Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger did the same by adopting extreme green beliefs, and even became more green than a number of Democrats. In the end, along with a host of other RINOs, they only became extremely valuable useful imbeciles for the Democrats. The GOP paid a heavy price.

Endorsing the kooky climate positions espoused by Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats neither strengthened Newt nor the Republicans. To the contrary, it glorified the freak positions of the Democrats, who only grew stronger at the GOP’s expense.

“Thanks for the climate support Newt!” —- “Thanks for all the help Arnie!”

German useful political imbeciles for the Greens

Chancellor Angela Merkel took her endorsement of green to an extreme by having Hans Schellnhuber of the crackpot Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) act as her close advisor on climate change. Merkel even once said that climate change is humanity’s greatest threat and challenge.  Merkel’s Environment Minister Norbert Röttgen (CDU) is also a huge proponent of going green – in order to save the planet.

What better way to make the Greens look like genuine heroes?

Today CDU leaders are scratching their heads wondering why the Greens have passed them in the polls. How much more clueless can one get?

Even the FDP’s new party leader Philipp Rösler has been exposed as a political punk with no qualms about prostituting himself and his FDP party to green industry lobbyists. Where is the FDP today? The party is reduced to just an asterisk in the polls – a political laughing stock. They can’t figure it out.

It’s your constant endorsement of the opposition, stupid!

Getting back to success

To get back to successful politics, the first step is to stop endorsing the absurd positions of your opponents. Then you have reject them and expose the fraud and the corruption that is the science of climate change, and the utter folly of controlling climate by fiddling with one single trace gas. Now is the time to expose the green filth, the junk science, the web of cronyism, and the dead-end it is all taking us to. The first party that does that will be the first to climb back to prominence.

German Skeptics Finally Breaking Into The Discussion – Germany Says Auf Wiedersehen To Climate Science Consensus

While German politicians, alarmist scientists, activists, and media are staying super-glued stuck on stupid, i.e. remaining mired in the stupidity of dogmatism and closed-mindedness, the climate debate and controversy in Germany is, well, shall we say, heating the hell up.Mark the following time and place on your calender:

Wednesday, 25 May 2011, 10 pm.

Once facing a hostile climate of intolerance and threats, German climate-catastrophe-skeptic scientists are increasingly coming out and choosing to exercise their human right to express themselves freely, without fear of mobbing and bashing. Good for them I say. It’s past high time.

“Do politicians really know what they are talking about?”

Hans von Storch’s Klimazwiebel site here informs us that German MDR public radio station will broadcast a special on climate change, Wednesday evening at 10 p.m. The show is produced by Kai-Uwe Kohlschmidt and according to the MDR website here, its description (emphasis added):

The show looks at just how much is climate change caused by man, or is it more a cyclic phenomena? The science is everything but in agreement when it comes to the interpretation of the huge number of facts, theories and model predictions of weather. There are plenty of loud and serious voices out there claiming climate swindle. The mainstream media are purveying a clear picture of coming catastrophe that is freshened up on a daily basis. When politicians call on us to prevent climate change, do they really know what they are talking about?

Kai-Uwe Kohlschmidt provides a look into the jungle of science, the media focus and political correctness, and invites you on a playful science expedition to Spitzbergen, Masdar, the Brandenburg Lindenberg and other locations.

Directed by: Kai-Uwe Kohlschmidt; Holger Kuhla
Production: RBB 2011

In Germany, on the subject of climate change, “do they really know what they are talking about” is one of the most provocative questions that’s been posed in a long time. Let’s hope that this show is really serious about being fair and balanced. I have no reason to doubt that they won’t be, and look forward to listening in.

I can almost hear Messieurs Schellnhuber and Rahmstorf screeching, at high pitches, to MDR in a bid to get the station to drop the skeptics and to stop spreading Big Oil’s and Fred Singer’s “disinformation”. But what else should we expect from zealot dogmatists who are hopelessly super-glued on stupid.

Klimazwiebel has a list of scientists who will be featured on the show:

Prof. Hauke Trinks (Sea Ice Researcher)
Prof. Steve Coulsen (UNIS Terrestial Ecology)
Prof. Jørgen Berge (UNIS Marine Biology)
Andreas Umbreidt (Terra-Polaris)

Abu Dhabi / Masdar City
Joachim Kundt (CEO Abu Dhabi Siemens)
Rene Umlauft (CEO Renewable Energies Siemens)
Dolf Gehlen (CEO International Renewable Energy Agency)

Christoph Hein (Writer)
Mike Kess / Udo Schulze (Citizens’ Initiative “CO2 Endlager”)
Dr. Franz Berger (Weather Station Lindenberg )
Prof. Hartmut Grassl (Hamburg Max Planck Institute)
Dr. Wolfgang Thüne (Meteorologist)
Prof. Dr. Werner Kirstein (Institute for Geography, University of Leipzig)
Prof. Friedrich Wilhelm Gerstengarbe (Potsdam Institute For Climate Impact Research)
Michael Limburg  (European Institute for Climate and Energy)
Dr. Joachim Bublath (Science Publicist)
Prof. Hans von Storch (Institute for Coastal Research, Geestacht)
Prof. Jan Veizer (Evolution Geologist, University of Ottawa)
Dr. Nico Bauer  (Potsdam Institute For Climate Impact Research)
Prof. Dr. Claudia Kemfert (German Institute for Economics)

Plenty of warmists, but still with a number of skeptics. MDR has framed the description in a way that tells listeners that not all is well in climate science. It’ll be interesting to see if they deliver on this. Let’s hope so.

Hope to have interesting results to report on Thursday.

German Green Parliamentarians Stuck On Stupid – Taxpayers Now Waiting 6 Months For A Reply

Dr. Hermann Ott, German global warming mobber who not long ago called for a science pogrom aimed at skeptics of dubious global warming science, brings our attention here to a planned conference at the Bundestag in Berlin on June 10, 2011.The conference is designed to attack skepticism in science, and is hosted by the German Green Party faction.

It is dubbed: Strategies of the so-called climate sceptics and who is behind it. Here’s an excerpt of the conference description:

In the USA skepticism has had a long tradition, and with the recent congressional elections it has reached new dimensions. The ‘arguments’ of the climate change skeptics have found fertile ground there, and also in Germany. […] At our conference we wish to shine light on the background of the climate skeptic activities. What are the strategies of the so-called climate sceptics, who is behind them and who finances them?”

Yes, the Greens have to go back to the old worn out pages of its propaganda playbook and rehash all the old drivel about “climate change deniers”, evil industry funding, Fred Singer and Big Oil conspiracies as being behind the skeptic movement.

They’re stuck on stupid. They don’t have the science, so they keep using the old stories.

Unfortunately, Ott, Rahmstorf and the rest of the green supremacists have forgotten that all these questions concerning skepticism in Germany have been already answered, see see here in German and here in English.

Yet in response, many of us have questions of our own for the Greens, and we sent them a list. For example, the Free Democrats of the Friedrich Naumann Institute and other freedom and science-friendly organizations prepared a list of questions for the Greens to answer and sent it to the Green Parliamentarians – way back in November – more than 6 months ago.

Questions to the Greens still unanswered – 6 months and still waiting

The list of questions was even signed by thousands of taxpaying citizens with a copy posted in the Internet. After 6 months – still no sign of a reply. In case the Greens have forgotten, here is the list of questions once again, in short form.

1. Are the Greens aware of the 800 900 peer-reviewed papers that question AGW?

2. Are the Greens aware that climate science is a relatively new science that still entails lots of uncertainty, and that there is no consensus?

3. Will the Greens even send a representative to the 3rd 4th International Conference on Climate and Energy?

4. If the Greens think the question of climate change is already settled, then why spend billions more for financing of climate research work?

5. Are the Greens aware of any other institution, except for the Pope and their own party, that claims to be infallible?

6. Are the Greens aware that scientific papers questioning man-made climate change were suppressed, and are they aware of Climate-gate, Himalaya-gate, Glacier-gate, Amazon-gate?

7. Are the Greens aware of the scientific achievemnts of Prof. Fred Singer’s distinguished scientific career?

8. Are the Greens aware that Prof. Dr. Judith Curry said: “Man made climate change is a theory and is highly uncertain”, and that distinguished professor Willaim Happer called it: “The dubious science of the climate crusaders”?

9. Is it the Greens’ view that serious, scientific work is only so if it supports the political aspirations of your party?

10. Why is it that no journalist has ever gotten the idea to check up on the scientific reputation of experts that are paid by the Greens?

11. What is the Greens’ position on the fact that your politics accompanies the profligate subsidies to solar and wind energy, bought by donations from, among others, IBC Solar AG, SMA Solar Technology AG, Ostwind, Umweltkontor Renewable Energy, EWO Energietechnologie GmbH, Conergy AG, Pro Vento, Nordex AG, Windpark G. W. Meerhof GmbH & Co. KG, Ersol AGder Windpark GmbH & Co. KG, Wind Project Development GmbH, Solarworld AG, SMA Technologie AG, Solon AG fir Solar Technology, AGU Energy and Electrotechnology GmbH?

12. Which renewable energy industries and to what extent have Parliamentarians of the Green Faction invested?

13. Do the Greens intend to continue their constant use of the expression “climate denier”?

14. Will the Greens continue to use public money to encourage and incite others to commit criminal acts such as vandalizing railways?

15. Do the Greens call protests at nuclear waste storage facilities only when they are in the opposition, and do the opposite when they are not?

16. Are you Greens aware of the point you’ve reached today, when you are asked such questions?

How about answers to our questions, Mr Ott? With us as taxpayers and you as a Parliamentarian, it is only fitting that you provide a reply. Why are you and your faction, along with Drs Rahmstorf and Schellnhuber, always hiding from open debate? Why do you and the scientists at PIK insist in remaining mired in the narrow-mindedness of dogmatism?

What are you afraid of?

Duh! Oceans Drive Climate (Not CO2), Says New Nature Study

More evidence of the obvious now revealed in a recent Nature article from research conducted by the IFM GEOMAR and Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. Believe it or not, they are slowly finding out that the oceans play a role in climate.

Once again climate scientists, who often claim the science is settled, are running into “surprises” and finding out that there is so much they don’t know. Here’s the press release from the IFM GEOMAR (emphasis added):

Oceanographers from Kiel document the effect of equatorial deep currents on West African rainfall

May 18, 2011/Kiel. Our climate is affected by the ocean in many ways.
The most prominent example is the El Niño phenomenon in the Pacific, a well-documented interannual climate signal. Oceanographers from the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences in Kiel (IFM-GEOMAR) and Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI, USA) have recently documented the effect of deep equatorial currents in the Atlantic on rainfall and climate over West Africa.

Precipitation associated with the West African Monsoon is of major significance to agriculture, water resources and health concerns in one of the more densely populated regions in Africa. The timing and amount of rainfall each year in the countries along the northern coast of the Gulf of Guinea are determined in part by the sea surface temperature of the tropical Atlantic. The details of this interaction between the ocean and the atmosphere are not fully understood at this time. Previously it was thought that effects from the Pacific and North Atlantic were the main source for climate fluctuations in the equatorial Atlantic. Oceanographers from the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences in Kiel (IFM-GEOMAR), in collaboration with their colleagues from the USA, were now able to demonstrate the existence of regular interannual temperature fluctuations which have an effect on the rainfall of the region but cannot be traced back to the previously known sources.  Even more astonishing for the scientists is the fact that all measurements indicate that these fluctuations are caused by deep currents of the equatorial Atlantic itself. “To date, when trying to explain tropical climate variations, we have always looked upwards, specifically to the atmosphere. Our new data, for the first time, direct our attention towards the depths of the ocean, thereby opening new perspectives for our scientific approach,” explained Dr Peter Brandt, professor at IFM-GEOMAR.

In a large-scale, international research programme, the Tropical Atlantic Climate Experiment (TACE), experts have attempted for years to track the causes, effects and potential periodicities of climate fluctuations in the tropical Atlantic. The German contribution to this programme also includes deep-sea moorings along the equator. These moorings consist of several km of mooring wire held upright in the water column by flotation and buoys. Instruments are mounted along the wire to continuously record current speed and direction, salinity and temperature, thereby allowing the observation of long-term changes of parameters in the deep ocean. Furthermore, the scientists obtain current data from freely drifting deep-sea buoys, so-called Argo floats, and also information on the sea surface itself and the atmosphere from various satellite-based sensors. “The time series obtained over the past ten to twenty years have revealed previously unknown fluctuations of currents and temperatures at the surface of the tropical Atlantic which have a regular cycle of 54 months, or 4 ½ years,” explained Peter Brandt. The scientists were able to document similar fluctuations of the “Deep Jets”, deep currents down to 3000 m with speeds of 10-20 cm/sec. They flow along the equator, crossing the entire Atlantic, with flow reversals every few hundred meters. “These jets are generated in the deep ocean, and their energy apparently propagates upwards through the water column. Once near the surface, this energy affects currents and temperatures,” stated Dr Brandt.

On the other hand, sea surface temperatures are among the deciding factors for rainfall fluctuations over West Africa. “How large the effect of these deep jets is, and how they are generated is still somewhat of a mystery,” said Dr Brandt, “we still have a lot of work ahead of us.”


We keep hearing that CO2 is the main climate driver, yet so much research has come out showing that it’s the sun and oceans.

German “Green” Biogas Plants Producing Deadly Botulism – “Could Be Catastrophic To Wildlife”

German sporting and dog magazine Wild und Hund reports that thousands of domestic and wild animals are falling ill from tainted waste from green “climate-friendly” biogas plants, which is then used as an agricultural fertilizer in fields.

Hat tip: Dirk Maxeiner here (in a commentary titled: “Gross negligence in green”).

Wild und Hund has put out a press release announcing a report appearing in its latest issue, now available at news stands today. The Wild und Hund press release reads as follows (slight editing added for international readers):


There’s been a terrible suspicion for years. The residue from biogas plants that produce “clean” green electricity is causing a deadly disease among domestic and wild animals, and humans – chronic botulism.
Wild und Hund not only examines the disease, but also looks into the background as to why such a hazard has not been publicly discussed for 10 years. In the aftermath of Fukushima, the public wishes to shift to renewable energy sources. Today in Germany already over a million acres of land are producing corn for biogas plants. German Agriculture Minister Ms Ilse Aigner announced on 27 April 2011 that land used for growing plants for producing energy will be significantly expanded to an area anywhere between 4 to 6 million acres. Today biogas plants are sprouting everywhere in the countryside.

However, the supposedly environmentally friendly supply of energy is likely hiding a lethal bacteria in its waste. Christoph Boll of the hunting magazine WILD UND HUND has investigated the disease, whose existence has been denied by the industry, and whose impact on wildlife could be catastrophic to wildlife. In the German region of Vogtland in Saxony, 600 cows and the farmer himself fell seriously ill. Diagnosis: chronic botulism. And that was no isolated incident says Professor Dr. Helge Böhnel of the University of Göttingen. The scientist reveals that the number of sick animals observed runs to 4-digit numbers. Dr Böhnel is convinced that chronic and visceral botulism could impact all birds and mammals  – including humans.

In general botulism is a lethal type of poisoning. But chronic botulism can also stealthily drag on in small quantities for years. Dr. Böhnel believes that biogas plants are “very likely” the source. How is it caused exactly? In early spring when harvesting biomass plants, foremost green rye, young wildlife end up getting minced by harvesters and end up as an ingredient in the biogas plant brew. In a addition slaughterhouse waste and other meat, such as old hens, along with manure slurry, get thrown in as raw material. At a brewing temperature of 40°C, bacteria multiply with abandon, which in turn leads to the production of enormously resistant botulinum spores that survive the hygienisation process (heating to 70°C). The waste material that is left at the end of the biogas process then gets used as fertilizer for agriculture, and so the spores wind up spread all over the landscape where they get ingested by grazing animals (domestic livetsock, wildlife, birds, etc.). Once in the digestive tract they then convert into the bacteria that produce the deadly toxin. Often the amount of toxin is not sufficient for a quick death, rather the poisoning is slow and chronic.”

So add another to the list of wonderful things delivered by the green revolution, which already includes a mercury contaminated environment from energy saving lights, birds getting shredded by windparks that have devastated the local landscape, biofuels that drive up the price of food and so lead to hunger for millions more, etc.

Finally, I wonder if they use this all-natural fertilizer from the “clean” biogas plants as a fertiliser for the organic food farms?


Cause of the suffering and dead cows: chronic botulism. Worse! The infected cattle shown that are still alive are being slaughtered and sold as fresh meat to supermarkets! The moderators says:

“The state veterinary officials say chronic botulism does not warrant the cattle be stopped from being slaughtered. ‘For the delivery of cattle for slaughter…there are no restrictions.’ “


Experts say up to 1000 farms may be affected – thousands of dead animals are the result.”

In the meantime, the infected cattle are being sent to slaughterhouses, and the meat to the supermarkets. The German health officials don’t want to hear about it, the report says. The Green movement keeps moving. This is a scandal.

Schellnhuber: Carrying Capacity Of The Planet Is Less Than A Billion – Earth Will Explode With 9.4 Billion in 2050

Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, German architect of the masterplan, dubbed the Great Transformation, warned back in 2009 that unless the world heeds his message, 6 billion people would perish. This was reported in the New York Times here, which wrote: 

Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, the director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, said that if the buildup of greenhouse gases and its consequences pushed global temperatures 9 degrees Fahrenheit higher than today — well below the upper temperature range that scientists project could occur from global warming — Earth’s population would be devastated.

According to the New York Times, Schellnhuber also said at a plenary session at the international climate change conference in Copenhagen (emphasis added): 

“In a very cynical way, it’s a triumph for science because at last we have stabilized something –- namely the estimates for the carrying capacity of the planet, namely below 1 billion people.”

What Angela Merkel’s climate advisor is saying is that there are billions of us too many on the planet and that more lebensraum is needed. He then adds:

What a triumph. On the other hand do we want this alternative? I think we can do much, much better.”

Even more bizarre, one year earlier in a Nov. 13th, 2008 interview with news television PHOENIX TV he reveals his thoughts on growing human prosperity and population, see this Youtube video link here:

The video text caption at the start reads:

Already with the current world population of 6.6 billion people, an overuse of resources is taking place. In the year 2050, 9.4 billion people will be living on the planet.”

Well that is simply too many and all very frightening for Schellnhuber. In the video he says with somber tones:

The earth likely will be populated by at least 9 billion people by 2050. You have to imagine that these people will reach an average level of consumption that Portugal has, one of the poorer countries in Europe. When you imagine that if all these 9 billion people claim all these resources, then the earth will explode.”

Of course Paul Ehrlich made similar absurd predictions 40 years ago, and the exact opposite happened. Ehrlich was exposed as a charlatan. So far all the model projections that his Potsdam Institute For Climate Impact Research have produced in the past have turned out to be all wrong.

Skeptics And Alarmists Clash At Climate Conference – German Scientists Call PIK Scientific Position “Weak”

This is a look into a climate science debate conference between skeptics and warmists that took place last month in Potsdam, Germany. The skeptics are scientists from the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE) and the warmists from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK).

In October 2010 PIK Director Prof. Hans Joachim Schellnhuber invited (reluctantly after some controversy) the skeptic EIKE scientists for a scientific colloquium on the subject of climate change with the aim of clearing up misundertandings that had flared up earlier. For years skeptic scientists had been denied the opportunity to debate the issue, and so thus advance science.

EIKE requested that I translate their conference report.

While PIK, which is massively funded by the state, is convinced of an approaching climate catastrophe, EIKE, on the other hand, views the science behind man-made catastrophic climate change with deep skepticism, and has acted as Germany’s spokesman for skeptic or non-alarmist scientists. EIKE has been the targeted and often denied a voice by the media and warmist scientists. It is run on a shoestring through private funding.

The following is a translation of EIKE’s protocol, see here for the original German (Note: some parts were condensed to remove clutter).


PIK: Dr. Georg Feulner, Eva Gaigg, Prof. Dr. Friedrich Gerstengarbe, Dr. Veronika Huber, Dr. Brigitte Knopf, Claudia Köhler, Prof. Dr. Jürgen Kropp, Prof. Dr. Anders Levermann, Dr. Jörg Pietsch, Prof. Dr. Stefan Rahmstorf, Prof. Dr. Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Dr. Thomas Schneider von Deimling, Mareike Schodder, Jonas Viering. External participants for PIK: Tanja Fröhlich, Prof. Dr. Uwe Ulbrich

EIKE: Dr. Siegfried Dittrich Prof. Dr. Karl-­‐Friedrich Ewert, Michael Limburg, Prof. Dr. Horst-­‐Joachim Lüdecke, Klaus-­‐Eckart Puls; EIKE guests Dr. Alexander Hempelmann, Dr.Rainer Link, Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt, Prof. Dr. Werner Weber

Date: April 2011
Location: Potsdam Telegrafenberg

The conference began with a presentation by Dr Feulner of the PIK, and then was followed by four presentations by EIKE scientists. All participants were aware that great differences existed beforehand between PIK and EIKE on the development of the global climate, reliability of models, interpretation of datasets, greenhouse effect, extreme weather frequency, sea level rise etc.

Before the conference, information exchanges mainly took place indirectly via media publications, the Internet and events like conferences and symposiums.  These discussions were often extremely heated, and so this face-to-face meeting was to serve as a professional way of exchanging information to avoid misunderstandings and to discuss controversial topics directly.


Prof. Schellnhuber opened the conference with a short statement at 1:40 pm and spoke about the circumstances that leading up to the invitstion [1]. He then explained why PIK, acting as the host of the event, wished no media attention although this had been suggested by EIKE, and expressed astonishment that EIKE planned to hold a press conference after the conclusion of the conference. He then opened the conference.

Michael Limburg (EIKE Vice President) expressed his thanks for the invitation and the opportunity to discuss scientific knowledge among each other.

State Of Climate Science

Dr Feulner then started his presentation: “State of Climate Science“ (see  Feulner). He presented the development of trends, as to PIK. The discussion after the presentation was lively. Dr Vahrenholt doubted the presented influence of solar activity (Feulner pegged at 0.1°K and so called it slight) referring to the newest findings from (Shapiro et al 2011) where the TSI-increase from the Little Ice Age until today was possibly 6 times higher than assumed in AR4. Also a paper from January 2010 from Solomon was referred to, where the cooling over the last 10 years has something to do with the 10% reduction in water vapour in the stratosphere.

It was also pointed out that GISS, in generating a “global temperature”, showed Arctic temperatures even though there exist nowhere near enough measurement stations there, as is also the case in Antarctica.

Dr Rainer Link also pointed out that the temperature oscillations of the oceans like the AMO, PDO, El Nino etc. are not accounted for in the models, and that the models cannot predicts them. But Dr Rahmstorf objected. Dr Feulner explained his claim that no decreasing trend in the recent global mean temperature can be discerned because a short-term look of less than 30 years doesn’t allow it. The climate models would not have a fine enough resolution to allow it. EIKE disagreed with this view by pointing out public data like from Hadley Center and UEA, which show no temperature increase since 1998.  Although it is correct, said EIKE, that a climate reference value of at least 30 years should be used, one has to recognise that the models used so far cannot appropriately show the last 10 – 15 years.

“Sun and Climate“ 

Dr Weber then started his presentation “Sun and Climate” at 2:20 pm (see short version here). In the brief first part, he showed the expected saturation of CO2 by the atmosphere. Today about 50% of anthropogenically emitted CO2 remains in the atmosphere, while at the start of the industrial times all CO2 emitted by man remained in the atmosphere because of the equilibrium that existed between ocean and atmosphere. Then Dr Weber introduced the resulting differential equation that leads to an exponential saturation of atmospheric CO2 absorption in the most simple model with constant CO2 emission. At approx ca. 4 ppm annual CO2 emission, which is what we have today, saturation is at about 500 ppm CO2. Weber also pointed out that it is scientific practice to use the simplest models for public showing and then discuss subsequent tweaking and corrections. The necessary corrections and model limits would then be added.

In the main part of the presentation, Dr Weber looked at the indirect influence by the active sun on climate, caused by an up to 20% reduction in cosmic radiation by the solar magnetic field, which in turn eventually leads to an increase in solar radiation reaching the earth. These trends, which Weber had found in earlier solar data, had been doubted by Dr Feulner (PIK) in a paper. Then the presentation went on mainly about the quality of analyses on both sides. Unfortunately Dr Weber only had a preliminary and unclearly formulated version of Feulner’s paper at his disposal, and as a result Mr Weber assumed a technical error by Mr Feulner. Misunderstanding resulted and eventually the accusation of a technical error was cleared up. It was agreed that the final version of Feulner paper would be discussed in detail by Dr. A. Hempelmann, who had started a cooperation in this field with Weber.

“Climate Sensitivity of CO2 “

Next Dr Rainer Link made his presentation on “Climate Sensitivity of CO2“, (see short version), beginning with the well-known saying about science: “Every theory in science is accepted only when it is confirmed by observation. A single observation that contradicts the theory is sufficient to refute it. The postulated water vapour positive feedback in the models is the essential part of the alarmist forecast for temperature increase by the climate model cannot be confirmed by a single observation. To the contrary, it has been refuted on multiple times.“A Hot Spot in the middle to upper troposphere in the tropical regions could not be found by hundreds of balloon measurements. That therefore eliminates the possibility that the climate system would go out of control because of CO2 and the subsequent water vapour positive feedback. That also impacted the so-called 2°C target. Link calculated the temperature increase from a doubling of CO2 at a max. of 1.6°K ; however, it is probably significantly less (quoted Lindzen, Paltridge, Harde and others). Thus there is no reason for climate alarmism. Taking part in the controversial discussion in addition to Dr Link, were Dr Schellnhuber, Dr Rahmstorf, Mr Puls, Dittrich and Dr Huber. Dr Rahmstorf pointed out that the ice ages could not be explained by Milankowitch cycles alone and had to have been caused by the CO2 induced water vapour feedbacks, but could not deliver the evidence. The rise in temperature after each ice age is not the consequence of higher CO2 concentrations, but rather the higher CO2 concentrations result from the warming oceans. The arguments presented by Dr Link could not be convincingly refuted by the PIK participants.

 “Extreme weather and sea level“

After the coffee break, meteorologist Klaus-Eckert Puls made his presentation: “Extreme Weather and Sea Levels“ (see Presentation – long version). Mr Puls talked about how the public had been bombarded by countless, and at times absurd, warnings on weather and climate over the last 10 years. These warnings were aimed at producing the impression of an already started climate catastrophe. Moreover: In the public (media and politicians!) results from climate models from climate institutes are often presented as prognoses without the advisory that they are in fact only scenarios that entail large uncertainty. Puls suggested –  analogous to the Hamburg Declaration on long-term weather prognoses made by meteorologists – that PIK and EIKE draw up and agree on a so-called “Potsdam Declaration” with the objective of mutually setting the record straight concerning false or exaggerated statements in the media. No reply from the PIK with respect to this suggestion, and no mention of it in the conclusion (Schellnhuber).

Using charts, graphics, statistics and quotes from a variety of institutes, Mr Puls showed that after 150 years of global warming, weather agencies worldwide have found no 100-year trends in middle latitude cyclones, tropical storms, tornadoes, flooding and other weather events. Moreover, using a series of sea level measurements and satellite data from their own institutes and from the IPCC, the expected acceleration in sea level rise is nowhere to be found. Dr Rahmstorf noted that there are other datasets out there. Puls and Rahmstorf agreed to exchange their data. Concerning the 100-year trends documented at the German North Sea coast by K.-E. Behre (B., NIHK Wilhelmshaven), Puls in a debate with Dr Kropp pointed out that Behre did not take temperature into account and that Behre detected a deceleration in sea level rise over the last 400 years, particularly during the 20th century.

Global long-term temperature series

Dr Horst-­‐Joachim Lüdecke began his presentation “Global Longterm Temperature Series“ (see short version here). At the start, the various versions of the Mannian temperature reconstructions over the last 1000 years were clear. Dr Lüdecke and others termed them as clear falsification, whereby Dr Rahmstorf demanded proof of that claim. He was then refered to the comprehensive works of McIntyre and McKitrick. And it is very well summarised in Andrew Montford’s book: The Hockeystick Illusion“.

The core conclusion of the studies by Lüdecke and Ewert – backed by comprehensive statistical analysis intensive of auto correlation (persistence) on thousands of temperature series is: “There is nothing unusual about the warming of the 20th century.“ After a drop in temperature in the years before, there was a mostly naturally caused warming once the man-made influences of the UHI are removed. It is easily recognizable. Similar and often times even more pronounced fluctuations can be observed in the past over the last 2000 years. They were all caused naturally. Dr Schellnhuber and Dr Kropp both engaged in the lively discussion that followed. Dr Schellnhuber noted that the paper quoted by Dr Lüdecke (which Schellnhuber himself co-authored and confirmed missing warming) was a paper where Dr Kropp was the project leader with the University of Giessen. Dr Schellnhuber remarked that the result was in any case no smoking gun (against CO2-induced warming?). Dr Rahmstorf added that the statistic was “blind“ to the physics. This was rejected by Dr Lüdecke and Dr Link. Dr Kropp then pointed out that the methods that were used are still in development.


It is obvious that the participants were for the most part in agreement with the perception of the facts – the absence of increased weather extremes being unchallenged by PIK speaks volumes. The methods for assessing these facts however appear to differ. While the participants from EIKE put unconditional priority on physical measurements, climate impact research has to rely on models calculations for future orientation. It would be desirable if this difference were better known among the generally uninformed public. For the truthful informing of laymen, it is not helpful when popular presentations are made by scientists in which catastrophic weather extreme increases are reported as being attributed to anthropogenic climate change, in contradiction to measured facts.

Conclusion: Thanks and return invitation:

On behalf of the guests Mr Limburg expressed thanks for the open discussion and that they would gladly like to continue as the debate, as in EIKE’s view they were especially fruitful. Mr Limburg invited the PIK colleagues for an orderly meeting for late summer of this year – to which there was no objection.

The conference was ended with a short speech by Dr Schellnhuber somewhat behind schedule at 5:50 pm. He thanked the participants for their work and for the almost always factual discussion. He also remarked that he assumed there would be a fair treatment of PIK at the ensuing press conference. In response Mr Limburg invited him to join it. Mr Schellnhuber declined as he had another private matter to attend to, but named some of his colleagues to attend.

Michael Limburg EIKE

– End of translation –

Some additional notes: Michael Limburg has informed me that PIK scientists have turned down EIKE’s invitation to continue the exchanges. And it is rather peculiar that the PIK objected and refused the presence of the media, and expressed reservations that EIKE held a press conference afterwards.

From the report one gets the impression that PIK puts a lot faith in climate models and is suspicious observations that do not conform to their models. In real science one ought to be suspicious of models that do not conform to real-life observations. Michael Limburg also added in his e-mail:

The scientific position and ability of PIK scientists during that meeting was rather weak. Whenever they had to agree that observation do not show any special increase neither in extreme weather, temperature nor sea level and so on, they mentioned: ‘But our models show…’ “

That their science is weak ought not be a surprise. What else could one possibly expect from a science that ignores observations and relies on models?

Edenhofer Expects Kyoto Successor To Be Buried In Durban! Bemoans Cost Uncertainties Of Renewables

The online Der Spiegel here reports on Ottmar Edenhofer, who once admitted that reducing CO2 emissions was really all about redistributing global wealth.

Edenhofer is a UN economist and researcher at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) and is responsible delivering the economic arguments for conducting the Great Transformation to a decarbonized society.

How much is it going to cost? According to Der Spiegel and Edenhofer, so far except for lots of wild ass guesses, there are no real reliable figures available.

Recently it was reported that it would require only a “mere” 12 trillion by 2025, read here. That IPCC WG3 report, read here contains a lot of “ifs” and “maybes” scattered over a broad spectrum. Even Edenhofer sees a huge information deficit. Der Spiegel writes:

‘Everyone talks about renewable energies, but no one knows the costs exactly’, he said on Monday at a press meeting in Berlin. He too was amazed at how bad the state of information was.

In the report 120 researchers tried to derive an estimate of the costs of renewable energy. They rummaged through studies and databanks, and what they found was hardly satisfactory. ‘The data have a wide range and are often not critically checked over’, Edenhofer reported.”

So the proponents of the Great Transformation have no ideas how much it is going to cost. Yet we can be sure that energy will be much more expensive, and much more expensive energy and food are going to cost the poor lots of money and so many lives. So what does one do when there is such broad uncertainty? Der Spiegel writes:

In the end the IPCC scientists could only present numbers accompanied with error bars, said Edenhofer. Politicians, who expect clear recommendations, were aggravated by this.”

For Germany, switching to renewables also means revamping the entire power transmission grid. For example windparks in the North Sea will need power lines to bring the power inland and to the south. Everything would have to be integrated with the current system. There’s very little literature available to show how much this would cost. Edenhofer says:

The integrations costs cannot be determined from the literature. There’s a large factor of uncertainty. Whoever converts systems has to anticipate many surprises.”

Edenhofer also sees no reduction in CO2 emissions without a binding global CO2 treaty. As long as there is no treaty with teeth, CO2 emissions will continue to rise.

Kyoto successor will be buried in Durban

So what are the chances of getting a treaty in Durban next year? Der Spiegel quotes Edenhofer:

I have the impression that the successor to Kyoto will be buried there.”

Let’s hope he is right – permanently. But Edenhofer has not lost all hope. According to Der Spiegel, he belives the chances of getting a climate treaty will be good in 2014 – after the release of the next IPCC assessment report.

Flagship German Political Daily: “A Green Tyranny Is Growing In Germany – Losing Patience With Democracy”

The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ), Germany’s flagship political daily, has a stinging commentary on the “growing green tyranny” in Germany. Its piece titled The Affectionate Ecological Dictatorship takes aim at the Potsdam Institute For Climate Impact Research (PIK), headed by Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, NASA’s James Hansen, and German policymakers. The usually staid and measured FAZ uses a tone that is uncharacteristically harsh.Germany’s first (hardline) green state minister gets sworn in

The article comes at the heels of last Thursday’s swearing into office of Winfried Kretschmann – Germany’s first Green Party state minister in the industrial state of Baden Wurttemberg, home of automotive giant Mercedes Benz and sportscar manufacturer Porsche. The new State Minister Kretschmann means green business, and warns companies will have to change the way they do business.

If one should doubt that Kretschmann and the Greens really mean business, read some of the quotes the FAZ reports:

His words are neither to be taken as political-tactical provocation, nor as lip service to the base, but as dead serious: ‘We have to bring our model for living in agreement with the fundamentals of the planet. With our business and economic practices, we are harming the planet. For the automotive industry: ‘If the automobile industry fails to green up, then it will not have a future’.”

Kretschmann is not mincing any words as Germany begins to get a taste of the country’s first Green authoritarian hardliner, a harbinger of what may be in store for Germany if it continues on its current path to Green tyranny.  The country’s mad rush into ecological dictatorship is underpinned by science from the über-alarmist Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, a science that is packaged and uncritically disseminated to the public by a green cheerleading mainstream media.

“Ecological tyranny is growing”

As Germany rides a wave of environmentalism in the wake of Fukushima, the public as a whole is hardly voicing any opposition to the bold state intrusion into corporate management and private lives. And not only the Greens are spurring on the enviro-movement, but all of Germany’s political parties. Opposition to the green movement is weak, and political leaders feel embolden to grab power. The FAZ writes (emphasis added):

For a long time now it is no longer just the Greens who are intruding into private and company freedoms with the aim of cutting the people down for an ecological lifestyle. An ecological tyranny is growing in Germany; it leans on a large majority. And the German federal government is leading the pack.”

The FAZ then cites a number of examples: the government mandating ethanol fuels that no consumer wants, reducing rental rights of tenants when landlords do ecological renovations, mandating energy saving lights and chimney filters, forcing homeowners to insulate their homes, forcing consumers to buy expensive green electricity, plans to massively subsidise electric cars – to name a few. In a nutshell, property owners are now being told by the power-obsessed state what to do with their property and how to spend their money.

“Forced feeding of ecologically correct products”

Still, for the greens, things are still moving far too slowly. And the federal government is committed to putting Germany on the Great Transformation fast-track, where the state would have full power to decide the future course of its citizens. Guidelines are already being drawn up for deciding what consumers will be allowed to eat and how much energy and water they will be allowed to consume.

On all the government’s intrusion on personal sovereignty, the FAZ writes:

‘Forced feeding with ecologically-correct products’ is what economist Carl-Christian von Weizsäcker called the government’s style of not taking the citizens’ consumer sovereignty and freedom to decide seriously. Those who don’t cooperate, get defamed.”

and (emphasis added):

‘It’s bad enough to be oppressed by a minority, but it’s worse to be oppressed by a majority,’ formulated British liberal Lord Acton more than 100 years ago. ‘We are moving towards an ecological dictatorship,’ Weizsäcker says today.”

Hans Schellnhuber has little patience with democracy.

Losing patience with democracy

Much of the science underpinning the Green tyranny comes from the overzealous and dogmatic Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, led by Hans Schellnhuber. The FAZ appears to be realising this. I don’t know how often I’ve warned how dangerous this Schellnhuber and his greenshirts are, e.g. read here. For them things are not moving quickly enough. The FAZ is beginning to notice and takes aim at both James Hansen and Schellnhuber. The FAZ on Hansen:

Foremost, climate scientists are losing patience with the slow moving democratic processes. The world renown climate researcher James Hansen, who heads the renown NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, regularly expresses doubt on whether democracy can stop climate warming. Recently he praised China’s autocratic regime as hope. There, sustainable living could be ordered.”

The FAZ reports on how Schellnhuber once said that the German Parliament needs to be supplemented by a “Council for the Future” – which would have a 10% say on passing laws. The FAZ focuses on Schellhuber’s 32-page Social Contract For Sustainability, writing:

 It is full of moralization and revolution.”


It overrides ‘interests groups’ and ‘veto players’ who hinder ‘the transition to a sustainable society’.“

This is written by the FAZ – the WaPo of Germany! Clearly the author is spooked, and the rest of us ought to be as well.

Hans von Storch: “quite arrogant”

Now even some renown German warmist climate scientists appear to be concerned by Schellnhuber’s bold master plan to transform the world and the government’s enthusiasm for it as they rush to implement it. The FAZ writes and quotes Hans von Storch:

‘The tenor of the paper reveals a problematic understanding of democracy,’ says climate scientist Hans von Storch. Moreover: ‘The authors reduce the world’s problems to carbon. That is one-dimensional and even quite arrogant.’ There’s global hunger for example, but that is not in fashion today.”

Indeed it is not. Green policies, particularly those promoting biofuels, are about to profoundly exacerbate the problem.

This is the real deal – the rise of green supremacism. This green malignancy will not remain confined to Europe. Make no mistake – it is a global endeavour. This is no time for Neville Chamberlains.

Alternative Energy – Solar Power

By Ed Caryl

Can we provide enough energy to power the world using alternative sources, such as wind, solar, or bio-fuels?

This is a question that has largely been ignored, in hopes that the answer will prove to be in the positive. This article is the first in a series, taking the question one technology at a time.

      Figure 1. Solucar PS10 solar concentrator power plant near Seville, Spain. Source: Wikipedia Commons

Four problems with wind and solar power are: the area needed for the plants, energy storage when the wind or the sun is not available, transmission costs, and energy losses in storage and transmission. For solar power in the U. S., the power is available in the southwest of the country, and the power is needed in the northeast. In Europe, sunshine is abundant in Spain, but not so much in Germany. In general, environmentalists oppose additional transmission lines nearly everywhere. But let us assume that the transmission problem is solved. Is there enough area to collect sunlight to support all the energy needs? Let us take the area where this author lives as an example.

New Mexico – area 314,460 km2 – insolation 7 kWh/m2/day

Not all of the area is usable. Mountains, forest, wilderness, National Monuments, farm and urban areas, military training areas, bombing and missile ranges, are off limits. Perhaps 10% of the land area might be available for solar if all the ranchers are bought off and the environmentalists are bound and gagged. That likelihood seems very remote, considering that every patch of sagebrush seems to harbor an endangered lizard. (In California the animal holding up solar plants is the Desert Tortoise).

The power available on 10% of the area of New Mexico is:

31,446,000,000 m2 X 7 kWh/m2 X 365 = 80,344,530,000,000 kWh or 80.345 PetaWatthours (PWh)

This sounds like plenty of energy. The U. S. currently uses about 30 PWh per year. But there are problems. This figure is for a two-axis solar concentrator if it runs at 100% efficiency. The real efficiency of a solar thermal plant is in the range of 8 to 15%, about the same as photovoltaic panels. The Sierra SunTower plant in Lancaster California generates 5 MW peak, with no thermal storage, occupies 20 acres of land, about 81,000 m2, or about 62 W/m2. It is in a zone with 7 to 8 kWh of solar radiation available. That is an efficiency of about 8%. The Andasol 1 and 2 plants in Spain claim 15% annual average efficiency with 8 hours of thermal storage.

So, using the above efficiency figures, 10% of the area of New Mexico would supply 6 to 12 PWh of electricity or 20 to 40% of the energy needed for the US. We would need to build the same number of plants in at two or three more states, California, Nevada, and Arizona would be candidates.

Storing the heat for use at night is the next biggest problem. With current technology the most efficient thermal storage (molten salt) stores heat for about 8 hours. The salt used is a mixture of sodium and potassium nitrate (fertilizer). It takes about 28,000 metric tonnes of salt to support the Andasol 1 plant for 8 hours of heat storage. Sodium and potassium nitrate are also known as saltpeter, the oxygen source in gunpowder. Now visualize a terrorist-driven airliner full of jet fuel (the carbon source) crashing into the storage tanks at one of these plants. It would be the equivalent of a small tactical nuclear bomb.

The total world production last year for nitrate fertilizers was 154 million tons, but most of that was ammonium nitrate. Chile, the chief supplier, only produced about a million tons of sodium and potassium nitrate. If all one million tons were used for energy storage, that would supply thirty-six 50 MW plants, or 0.018 PWh of electricity annually, 0.06% of that needed for the whole US, and less than 0.15% of that needed for all the above plants in New Mexico. One hundred years of Chilean production would build 6% of the needed solar plants for the U. S. alone.

There are other heat sinks that can be used, but they have problems of their own. The most efficient heat storage is the above described nitrate salts. The other proposals are more costly or have less volume specific heat capacity. One of the cheapest is concrete blocks with embedded pipes. But the structural stability of the pipes and concrete over many temperature cycles is a problem, and the mass needed is 250% of that needed using nitrate salt. For a plant the size of Andasol 1, 70,000 metric tonnes of concrete would be required. That volume takes up ground area, lowering the overall plant efficiency, and requiring more area for a given power output.

Let’s say we have beaten the above problems. We have paved 10% of four western US states with solar plants of 15% efficiency and are providing more than 30 PWh of electricity to the US, all the power we need. The problem then is that we are dumping nearly 200 PetaWh of heat into the environment, almost seven times what we are dumping now, and twice what the whole world is producing. What will happen to the temperature? The southwest US will be uninhabitable at something like 10 or 15°C hotter than at present. If the same thing is done in Europe, the rain in Spain will no longer fall anywhere. It will bring on the catastrophe that Hanson et al have been warning us will happen.

A solar power solution requires vast areas, with a high environmental cost that probably cannot be paid, and the waste heat load would make any projected CO2 warming look benign. Solar plants are not the long-term solution to our energy requirements. 

Elitist Power – And Submission To Will

Clearly there is a pattern. We’ve seen it with Bill Clinton, allegedly Al Gore, and now we have the IMF head Dominique Strauss-Kahn of the Socialist Party France.They are all proponents of a powerful, domineering state that demands citizens bend to its will. Submit to the state and all shall be well, the statists tell us.

It’s all over the news today. But unlike Al Gore, Strauss-Kahn is not that central to the global warming religion, and so there’s much less at stake with him getting arrested.

What is it about some people that leads them to believe everyone else has to bend to their will? They are so convinced of themselves, elitist, all-knowing, believe they have all the answers and expect everyone to follow their instructions.

In climate science, they (politicians, activists like Al Gore, and a number of scientists) demand everyone else fall to their knees and start acting according to their instructions. “Don’t do this, don’t do that – do this and do that. Stop resisting – you know you want it…”

Giving instructions while being the beneficiaries of the consequences of the instructions is fun. But notice how they rarely ever follow their own instructions. They continue their lives of private jets, mansions and pleasure. They sure do like it on top, don’t they?

I’m not passing blanket judgement. But I am saying beware of people who constantly and habitually demand we bend and submit to their will – especially when the science is bad and it serves to satiate a personal need. Throw in power, arrogance, and a lack of checks and balances, and soon you get disaster.

Of course we have to wait and see the results of the investigation before concluding. Clearly it’s another case of the weak up against the very powerful. The political deck is firmly stacked against the young woman – good luck reaching justice. The bearer of truth here once again will probably come out of this smeared, ruined – a victim for a second time.

If a smear campaign is launched against the victim, or if a huge amount of hush money gets paid, then we’ll know the truth. Rules for you, but not for me.