A few days ago the Deutscher Wetterdienst, DWD, (German Weather Service) in a press release warned that Germany’s temperature were likely to rise 2 to 4°C by the year 2100 and that action was necessary. Like the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) the DWD too has been transformed into a propaganda mouthpiece for Germany’s powerful government-driven global warming movement.
But there’s a small problem at the DWD. Like the outlier sea level projections made by the PIK, the temperature projections made by the DWD just don’t match observations. For example Germany’s annual temperature over the last 11 years has shown COOLING, and not warming, see chart above produced by EIKE.
This has led scientists at EIKE to comment as follows:
This casts the DWD’s credibility into question.”
Sure many warmists will point to the latest press release issued by the DWD, which claims that the first 6 months of 2011 in Germany have been the second warmest on record.
But if the 2nd half continues on the same path as the July trend, then the DWD, may soon start find itself comparing quarter years, or even months to milk out any warming news from its statistics.
And in the meantime, in the real world, Germans will have to wait until 2050 or even 2100 for any real warming. The DWD should take a close look at what happened to the Met Office in England back when it tried to get into the global warming gig and so began issuing stupid press releases filled with fantasies and not meteorology.
Now that the science behind the threat of polar bear extinction has fallen to pieces too, it’s worth looking at how the German elite media has approached the story, at least those who have not chosen to ignore the inconvenient embarrassment altogether, as most have done.
Der Spiegel, to their credit, has given the story online, front page treatment here. But one notices that Der Spiegel couldn’t help making it sound like an intrigue involving environmentalists, power politics and oil companies lurking in the background pulling strings:
It is a mysterious story that a research suspense story needs: Powerful oil companies in the background, dead polar bears as icons of climate change – and a scientist under suspicion.”
Der Spiegel then goes on to explain why Monnett was suspended, first explaining how Monnett sees it:
In Monnett’s view, scientists like himself are standing in the way of the Obama-government to open up the ocean area off the coast of Alaska for oil drilling. That’s what the government of the state under Republican Sean Parnell wants. That’s what the oil companies, foremost Shell, want. And that’s what the White House wants.”
According to Der Spiegel, Monnett views himself as a lone victim of a conspiracy for having played a major role in getting the polar bear on the list of endangered species. Finally, past the half way point of the piece, Der Spiegel points out that Monnett’s scientific work was indeed sloppy and grossly lacked data:
Indeed the hated scientist had to admit last winter in a hearing that hardly any documentation for viewing the dead polar bears exists. There were no clear photos. The animals also did not show up in any official datasets of the expedition.”
Der Spiegel also noticed that the peer review was everything but rigorous, the paper sailed through the process with hardly any scrutiny:
In the publication of the Polar Biology article, it appears no one was disturbed by this. Even in-house reviewers in Monnett’s office as well as three anonymous peer reviewers of the journal simply waved the paper through with only slight modifications.”
Things are not expected to improve until Monday, with summer briefly returning on Tuesday. The Local writes:
Tuesday would be the pick of next week, with highs ranging from 24 to 29 degrees and plenty of sunshine right across the country.
Cold and wet for the next 4 weeks
Are the barbecue summer conditions going to persist? The Local writes:
And the good news? There isn’t any, said DWD [German Weather Service] meteorologist Andreas Friedrich.
‘A look at the meteorological crystal ball, meaning predictions for the next four weeks, offers nothing good for anyone who still hopes for steady and warm summer weather,’ he said. ‘For the period to the end of August, we can only infer trends but, well, this shows the arrow regarding temperatures pointing further downward’.
Long-term forecasts, Friedrich reminds us, are only 60% accurate, and so there is still some hope that we may end up getting some nice weather to salvage the summer before it ends.
Climate simulations show for Germany further warming of 2 to 4°C by the year 2100. Drier summers and wetter winters and more extreme weather events are anticipated.”
Here they are not talking about plain old longer-term weather forecasts over the next 4 weeks, but of “climate simulations” for the next 90 years. Their accuracy, scientists claim, with the DWD agreeing, are really worth taking to the bank!
Forget it folks. Nobody can make such predictions. That’s pure utter quackery.
Unfortunately, this year’s German summer is turning out to be just the opposite of heat and sunshine (once again!).
The world’s largest coral reef off the east coast of Australia is not going to disappear as fast as once previously thought, according to a new study. Warnings that the Great Barrier Reef could die off due to climate change over the next 20 to 30 years are exaggerated says Sean Connolly of the James Cook University.”
This comes to no surprise for skeptics. How many millions of years and through what ranges of temperature swings have the coral reefs survived so far? Indeed a few tenths of a degree Celsius of change over decades will have no impact on the reefs. And I seriously doubt the reefs are going to do what the models tell them.
…some current projections of global-scale collapse of reefs within the next few decades probably overestimate the rapidity and uniformity of the decline.”
Again, if the relatively sudden transition from ice age to optimum did not kill them, why would a few tenths of a degree over decades or centuries do it?
Wikipedia writes that coral reefs in the Persian Gulf have adapted to temperatures of 13 °C (55 °F) in winter and 38 °C (100 °F) in summer, i.e. 25°C change in 6 months. Like any species on the planet, reefs are always threatened by something. The press release writes:
However reefs are naturally highly diverse and resilient, and are likely to respond to the changed conditions in different ways and at varying rates.”
The James Cook press release, despite its obvious findings, still tries to convey an aura of alarm (for funding) yet admits that climate change is a natural process that has occurred time and again in the past.
Past extinction crises in coral reef ecosystems appear to coincide with episodes of rapid global warming and ocean acidification, they say. This has led some to predict rapid, dramatic, global-scale losses of coral reefs.”
The rapid changes they mention here were measured in degrees per decade and century, and not tenths of a degree as is the case with today’s relatively boring rate of change.
This is an oustanding work that the warmists’s will not want you to see. (Hat tip reader Ron de Haan).
585 A.D. “Western Europe was so rainy, that it could be confused with
winter. The bulk of the rains this year caused rivers to overflow their banks and flood the fields and meadows. These floods seriously compromised the crop yields.”
994 A.D. “A destructive storm struck London, England, blowing down fifteen hundred buildings and killing several hundred persons. The summers in the years 994 and 995 in Europe produced very high temperatures and a very persistent heat wave. Historians reported that the drought was so terrible that the fish died in the ponds, the trees caught fire, and the fruit and the flax harvest were destroyed. In 995 the greater part of Europe’s rivers were so shallow that you could wade through them. In 994 in Western Europe, the dearth of rain caused the rivers to dry up. It killed the fish in most lakes. It dried up thousands of trees and burned grassland and crops.”
1186 A.D. “In Germany the winter was warmer than had known for a long time. The vegetation was very advanced. The harvest took place in May and the grape harvest in August. In France, the trees were blooming in the middle of winter.”
Recall how alarmists would love have us believe that before man began emitting CO2 the weather was tame and friendly to all of the earth’s inhabitants, and that terrible storms and extremes began only after man embarked on industrialization and the burning of fossil fuels.
Well breadandbutter.com reminds us that extreme weather extremes occurred just as often in the past. Indeed today’s attempt to have us believe that every occuring weather extreme is a sign of man-made climate change just shows how bankrupt the AGW science has become.
German climate blog Readers Edition here has been keeping an eye on the winter in South America. While much of the news has been buzzing about the “record heat wave” hitting the US last week (a whopping 0.4% of the stations reported record highs! /sarc), Europe and South America for example are being left out in the cold.
In South America, dozens of people have died from the bitter cold in 7 countries so far, just when cold snaps were supposed to be getting rarer and the heat waves more frequent. The cold is repeat of last year’s brutal South American winter.
Readers Edition writes (paraphrased):
In southern Peru, temperatures in the higher elevations of the Andes fell to -23°C. Since the beginning of last week 112 people have died of hypothermia and flu.
Coldest winter in 10 years
In Argentina the lowest temperatures in 10 years were measured – the temperature dropped to -14°C. At least 33 people died, some froze to death and some from poisonous gases emitted from faulty heaters.
Thousands of cattle freeze to death in fields.
It was unusually cold in neighbouring countries. In the tropical regions of Bolivia where temperatures rarely fall below 20°C (68°F), the temperature hovered near 0°C. At least four people died because of the cold. Two homeless persons died in Uruguay. Thousands of cattle froze in the fields in Paraguay and Brazil.
Natural gas shortages
In some areas of Bolivia and Peru, school was cancelled for some kids at the end of the week. Emergency shelters were opened for the homeless in larger cities. In Argentina some provinces faced natural gas shortages.
Heavy snow in Chile
Unusually heavy snows have fallen in parts of Chile. States of emergency have been declared in 8 communities with some buried in up to 3 meters of snow. In the south of the country about 170 people have become isolated from supply lines.
Even Thomas Jefferson was worried about man-made climate change. The Smithsonian writes:
The date was 1799, not 1999—and the opposing voices in America’s first great debate about the link between human activity and rising temperature readings were not Al Gore and George W. Bush, but Thomas Jefferson and Noah Webster.”
Thomas Jefferson, we find out, was a warmist (who probably had not yet figured out how to make tons of money like Al Gore has done). According to the Smithsonian, Jefferson wrote:
Snows are less frequent and less deep….The elderly inform me the earth used to be covered with snow about three months in every year. The rivers, which then seldom failed to freeze over in the course of the winter, scarcely ever do so now.”
The cause of the climate change back then was man, though not from CO2 emissions, but through deforestation (ironically, today’s efforts to regulate climate are resulting in accelerated deforestation).
Author Samuel Williams claimed climate change back then was “so rapid and constant.” Unfortunately Williams’ observations are not reflected by Mann’s Hockey Stick chart, which indicates very little climate change back then.
Like today, there were skeptics too, with Noah Webster being among the most vocal in claiming that the conclusions were mainly based on anecdotes. The Smithsonian writes that Webster eventually prevailed, and quotes Kenneth Thompson, a modern environmental scientist from the University of California at Davis, who praises Websters saying:
,,, ‘the force and erudition’ of Webster’s arguments and labels his contribution to climatology ‘a tour de force.’
MDR (0:08): With respect to the current price spiral for energy, is it the right approach? Weimann: We’ve decided on an energy transition, and on a type of energy transition that is very very expensive. That means energy is going to be very expensive. It’s going to hit the poor very hard. That was to be expected- It was completel clear. That was easily predictable. It is indeed only the start of the price spiral. We have only begun to switch off the nuclear power plants and to start using renewable energy. It’s going to be very expensive.
MDR (0:57): You believe it’s going to impact a large spectrum of citizens. Weimann: It has to be clear that the supply of energy that we want, one that is without nuclear energy, preferably without fossil fuel and mostly from renewable energy, is an extremely expensive way of producing energy and to save CO2
MDR (1:32): Are there alternatives available that could have avoided these extreme prices? Weimann: Of course there are alternatives. Economists have been warning for years that subsidizing renewable energies just as we are doing is a bottomless pit that will have minimal effect. Just look at the fact that just for solar energy we have invested 100 billion euros without this technology having made any notable contribution to climate protection. This is going to cost everyone, especially gthe poor and also the working class – many are going to suffer immensely.
At the 2:24 mark, the Youtube clip then looks at veteran journalist Günter Ederer who 4 months ago in April warned of the exploding cost consequences of Germany’s shock energy transition. The pain is just beginning.
People are discussing the instructions made by CERN Head Rolf-Dieter Heuer not to interpret the results of the CLOUD experiment on cloud formation, read here.
What follows is a translation of the relevant text in the article that appeared in DIE WELT here.
Welt Online: Also the results of the so-called Cloud experiment are being awaited with much excitement, where cloud formation is being researched. These results could indeed be important for understanding global climate change?
Heuer: Indeed this is about better understanding cloud formation. In nature there are many parameters that influence this, among them temperature, air humidity, aerosols and cosmic rays. The Cloud experiment examines the effects of cosmic rays on cloud formation. The rays for studying this come from the accelerator. And inside the experimentation chamber it can be examined under controlled conditions how the formation of droplets depends on radiation and floating particles. The results will be published soon. I’ve requested my colleagues to clearly present the results, but not to interpret them. That would mean immediately entering the highly political arena of climate change discussion. You have to be clear that concerning cosmic rays it is only one parameter of many.”
Personally I agree with Dr. Heuer. CERN is not a climate research institute, and so the interpretation of results (with regards to impact on climate)ought to be left to experts of atmospheric and climate sciences. Last I heard is that CERN is a research institute for particle physics, and not climate. And we’ve all seen what happens when other kinds of physicists start acting like climate experts and start modelling future climates.
If they do not wish to interpret the results, other scientists from the appropriate fields certainly will. And if they don’t, the bloggers will.
Heuer also admits that climate science is highly politicized, and so one can’t blame them for not entering this poisoned arena. After all, telling the truth would mean a cut-off in funding. Finally it doesn’t hurt to remind some us that a vast number of parameters are involved in cloud formation and climate change, and that it doesn’t all get boiled down to a single dominant factor (like CO2).
Germany’s leading political daily the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) published an open letter written by geology Professor Dr. Friedrich-Karl Ewert rejecting the claims made by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) that sea level rise is accelerating. The open letter is now available at the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE), read here (part after Schellnhuber).
According to the PIK:
“Due to global warming, sea level is rising today faster than at any time in the last 2000 years. Since the start of the Industrial Revolution, the curve is going ‘up steeply’.”
These claims are based on cherry-picked data from a single location at the North Carolina coast. In response Ewert’s wrote the open letter, excerpts of which follow. Ewert writes (emphasis added):
This claim must be refuted because the declaration made by the PIK is factually false. Correct is that scientists have determined just the opposite. The Journal of Coastal Research reported in journal 27/3 (May 2011).”
Here according to the journal, the global temperature increase during the last 100 years did not accelerate sea level rise, Indeed sea level rise has recently slowed down.
Ewert writes that there is a simple proof for the falsehood of PIK’s claim:
At the coral reefs in the Great Barrier Reef and also at the coasts of the Caribbean Islands one finds dry coral reefs which were about 3.5 meters over today’s sea level, When these reefs formed, the sea level was accordingly higher. No one knows how fast the sea level rose during the time before that.”
Ewert also rejects the PIK’s claim that the Western Antarctic Ice Shelf is about to tip and that global warming is racing ahead. Ewert writes in his letter:
Detailed evaluation of temperature data shows a completely other picture: In many parts of the globe a rewarming took place after 1700, after the Little Ice Age, and has reached its peak in the mid 1990s. During this long period a number of warming and cooling phases took place, and were earlier often much stronger; the last pronounced warming phase took place in the first half of the 20th century, before man made carbon emissions; and since 1998 a new cooling phase has started in many regions of the earth, and is still taking place and is at times quite stark. The results of the evaluation will be published after the conclusion of a comprehensive analysis. ‘Our CO2′ has not had any real impact on this development.”
The projection of sea levels has become quite the political football. So much hinges on the projections. Der Spiegel in an article titled IPCC haggles over data for sea level rise writes that 146 million people live in areas 1 meter or less above sea level. Tens of billions of dollars would be needed to expand dikes to keep the waters back, or to relocate citizens should seas rise too much. So the numbers are hotly contested.
To make things complex, there are hundreds of studies that offer a huge range of projections, up to 5 meters sea level rise by 2100. The job of deciding which sea level rise the IPCC should bank on in its next IPCC report rests on 18 scientists from 10 countries.
In the past each successive IPCC report lowered the sea level rise that is expected to occur by 2100. Critics pounced on the IPCC’s downward corrections, and so fears of rising seas diminished along with the IPCC’s credibility. Now the IPCC faces a dilemma (and irrelevance): Will it go back to alarmism? That may be real tough to do. Der Spiegel writes (emphasis added):
Now for the next IPCC report [due in 2013] the UN experts have to examine hundreds of reports – but indeed the selection is tougher than ever. The haggling over the results is like dealing at a bazaar: On one hand scientists have published alarming sea level prognoses, which surpass those given by the last IPCC Report. And on the other hand the actual sea level measurements indicate no detectable extreme increase.
4000 experts recently met at the IUGG Conference recently in Melbourne and Der Spiegel writes that the motto was: “Who bids the most!” NASA alarmist junkie James Hansen appears to have been the highest bidder at 5 meters. Currently sea levels are rising about 3 mm per year, which is just 1/17 of what Hansen projects.
Jim Houston and Bob Dean have a recent paper saying there has been no detectable acceleration, while Stefan Rahmstorf says there is (though measurements don’t show it). Der Spiegel then cites other experts:
Simon Holgate, sea level researcher at the National Oceanogrphy Centre in Liverpool: Likely the irregularities in data arising from the changeover in measurement instruments are responsible for the differences [in the recent results].
I believe that it is improbable that the sea level increase accelerated in the same year that satellites were put into service.”
Guy Wöppelmann of La Rochelle in France, Der Spiegel writes:
The increase sea level rise since 1993 is nothing unusual, as the sea level during the 20th century accelerated before, only then to decelerate.”
The sea level rise rate has slowed down during the last 8 years. What happens in the future is unknown.”
Of course there are also a number of alarmist scientists who insist that sea level is accelerating and that Greenland and Antarctica pose a serious risk. But so far data measurements don’t show it.
Obviously the risk is all in the modeling (and not the actual measurements).
=================================== UPDATE 1: Schellnhuber now offering 70 m! Does anyone offer 80m? http://stevengoddard
I was in transit over the last day and so moderation was absent. Blogging in the days ahead will also be reduced and stories shorter.
In the news Poland is holding firm against all the EU-climate rescue nonsense. According to the German site http://klima-der-gerechtigkeit.de/ (Climate of Justice!), climate protection is going to be increasingly problematic with Poland, who are now suing the EU Commission because of the EU’s conditions that will mean charging emitters for rights to emit greenhouse gases. After 2013, companies will have to pay for certificates. 95% of Poland’s electricity is generated using coal, and the country plans to build an additional 13 coal-fired power plants in the future, READ HERE, which writes:
Its heavy dependence on coal for electricity production is highlighted by a plan to build 13 new coal-fired power plants, for which the country obtained free “carbon permits” from the European Commission the day before it assumed the Presidency. ClientEarth, an environmental NGO, is reportedly attempting to bring the matter to court, arguing that such free allocations under the EU-ETS are not legal.”
Let’s hope Poland sticks to its guns and doesn’t cave in to the green suicide energy-pact that is being rammed through in Europe.
The scam is falling apart, bit by bit like a cake out in the rain. Hat-tip: http://climatedepot.com/. No wonder some “climate science” characters are resorting to desperate acts. I wonder how the media feels about all this. They used to view themselves as so high and mighty, and now nobody is listening to them.
Three-quarters of Americans say natural disasters are on the increase, but fewer than ever believe the climate is heating up, a new poll finds.
Only 44 percent say they ‘believe the theory‘ that carbon dioxide emissions are warming the Earth, down from 51 percent in 2009 and 71 percent in 2007, but most movement has been into the “not sure” column.”
That means the number of people who believe the theory has dropped a whopping 27% in just 4 years. After all that indoctrination and disinformation, this is their result. And to think that us skeptics are only getting warmed up!
One way to indoctrinate children on living green is to teach them in a green passive school that requires little energy consumption. This is what they are attempting in East German Schwarzheide, as reported at the online Lausitzer Rundschau daily.
There’s only one small problem: The lesson in living repsonsibly to protect the climate has backfired. The school’s ventilation is so bad that it is making students and teachers get ill by the score. Hat-tip: EIKE.
In general, a passive building typically has very low air infiltration from outside and is heavily insulated to ensure low thermal heat loss. Indeed heating requirements can be as low as 15 kwh per square meter of occupancy space per year. In the wintertime air intake is heated, and in the summertime the building uses the cool night air along with lots of shading for cooling. These types of buildings, at least in north Germany, are not equipped with air conditioning.
Unfortunately at the Schwarzheide SeeCampus school in Niederlausitz, the climate system in the school building doesn’t work like the architectural models thought it would. According to the Lausitzer Rundschau:
Pupils and teachers dread every school day at the SeeCampus. If the deodorant of just one person fails to work, then half the classroom goes into a coma. The ventilation in the exemplary passive building is a catastrophe. There’s an extreme lack of fresh air on hot days. Because of concern over the health of the children, who complain about headaches and fatigue, parents are threatening to stop operation of the school through legal action.
The school building SeeCampus in Niederlausitz becomes completely overheated on summer days and is badly ventilated. Headaches and cardio-respiratory problems with pupils and teachers are the result. The number of sick days is climbing rapidly.”
According to the website of the proud window and door supplier, Wiegand, the 3-storey €23 million school was built in 15 months and was dedicated during a party-like ceremony in February 2011 by Brandenburg State Minister President Platzeck, and State Council member Heinze accepted the Certificate from the Passive Building Institute.
Pupils and teachers being used as human guinea pigs to test the green experiment. Despite all the complaints, authorities have taken no action and are playing down the problems. According to teacher and administrator Andrea Eisenblätter:
The air is dry. Because of the lack of oxygen, many students constantly have headaches. Concentration is near zero. How is anyone supposed to get proper grades?“
Parent Frank Klonowska from the town of Lauchhammer says:
It is suffocatingly warm, you can hardly breath. I was completely drenched in sweat after just 3 minutes. It is simply incomprehensible that the technical design of the ventilation system at the SeeCampus even got approved.”
In the end expect hundreds of thousands of euros more to be spent on proper ventilation and climate control, and expect much more than the ballyhooed 15 kwh/m²/year to be consumed. Or, in the worst case, expect the place to be taken over by the weeds soon.
I’ve often thought about writing a weekly summary of the week’s climate news. But fortunately someone is doing that already. You can get an excellent summary of all the news from Fred Singer’s SEPP “The Week That Was” (TWTW). You can subscribe here:
Good News! Fred Singer will be spreading the joyous news that humanity and the environment do not face eminent destruction. The claim of unprecedented and dangerous global warming is scientifically false.
The European Environment Agency recently (March 2011) updated their European temperature data by adding the data for the years 2010 and the winter of 2011. The data can be found at EEA 2010, KNMI (http://climexp.knmi.nl), based onClimate Research Unit (CRU) gridded datasets HadCrut3 (land and ocean) and CruTemp3 (land only) from http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk
WINTER TEMPERATURES 1948-2011
European winters seem to have gone through an alternating warm-cool –warm- cool cycle since the 1940s and now appear headed for a cooler cycle like the 1962-1987 period.
A LOOK AT THE MORE RECENT WINTER TEMPERATURES 1998-2011
European winter temperatures have been cooling more recently since 1998, and especially 2009-2011.
European annual temperatures warmed from 1998-2007 but have started to cool over the last 3 years in a row since 2008.
SUMMER TEMPERATURES 1998-2010
On the surface, European summers seem to be getting warmer since 1998. However the higher warming summers of 2003, 2006, and 2010 were all preceded by or affected by an El Nino, just before or as the El Nino partly happened during these summers. So the extra warming may be due to a natural El Nino cycle. If one discounts these El Nino years, the summer temperatures are quite flat and show no real base warming due to global warming. For more detail information on El Nino years see the NOAA site http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov.
HISTORIC MEAN WINTER TEMPERATURES FOR BERLIN, GERMANY – IMPACT OF THE NORTH ATLANTIC OSCILLATION
For those Europeans who still believe that their climate is primarily affected by human generated carbon dioxide, the graph below illustrates that the NAO level seems to be a much more significant cold winter factor affecting temperatures in Berlin, Germany. The temperature data is from GISS Station Temperature Data and NAO data is from CGD’s Climate analysis Section of Jim Hurrell http://www.cgd.ucar.edu. According to the NOAA:
The NAO consists of a north-south dipole of anomalies, with one center located over Greenland and the other center of opposite sign spanning the central latitudes of the North Atlantic between 35°N and 40°N. The positive phase of the NAO reflects below-normal heights and pressure across the high latitudes of the North Atlantic and above-normal heights and pressure over the central North Atlantic, the eastern United States and western Europe. The negative phase reflects an opposite pattern of height and pressure anomalies over these regions.”
There is nothing in the above graphs and figures that would warrant the drastic reductions being planned for carbon dioxide emissions and the extremely expensive green energy options being planned by Europe in light of the most difficult economic environment that exists in Europe and the globe. Surely there are much more pressing problems that confront the world and Europe than solving an apparently non-existing problem that is only speculated to exist 100 years from now.
Wolfgang Mueller of the European Institute For Climate And Energy (EIKE) conducted an interview with Prof. em. Dr. Horst Malburg at the Gegenwind [Counter Wind] Conference at the German North Sea island of Sylt. A translation of the entire interview follows the video below:
Mueller: We are here on the island of Sylt at the conference “Gegenwind” and I have with me Professor Dr. Malberg from Berlin. Professor Malberg, what do you say about wind power with regards to the climate discussion? Prof. Malberg: Wind power plants cannot be justified by the climate issue. I examined in detail what drives the climate and I looked at all the available data, from Europe, from USA, from Japan – all data were evaluated, and naturally the global data. It clearly shows that the climate is dominated by the sun, and then on top of that by the oceans, and then a little bit by the CO2 effect. I would estimate it has a magnitude of 10%, for Co2, and not more. More than 80% of the climate change is driven by the sun. That means relative to natural climate change, the influence by CO2 is very small, and so it does not justify any action for climate protection, where wind parks are built in order to save CO2. Sure you can do it, but it won’t have any impact on our climate, at least no real impact.
Mueller (1:33): Germany is a leader in installing wind-parks, and so are the German efforts sensible? Prof. Malberg: It’s naturally a political decision, that’s clear. But it is also an economic decision because we know it is very expensive. And when we have to transmit the power from wind parks at the coast and into the country all the way to south Germany. Then it is going to be a very expensive transmission. Here at the conference we have seen that it is much cheaper to transport coal or oil than it is to transport electricity. And I believe one day there’s going to be an ugly awakening when we realize how expensive electricity has become.
Mueller (2:25): One reason we should expand wind energy, as you mentioned, is climate change. How true is it that yes, there always has been climate change, but the increase over the last years is especially frightening? Prof. Malberg: That is in no way based on anything. That is really a huge myth. During the last 13 years, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen more than at any time since the last Ice Age, especially since the start of the Industrial Revolution. But since the last 10 to 12 years, we have not had any more global warming. The temperature has reached a plateau and has even shown a slight declining trend. That means that while CO2 has increased strongly, the temperature has not reacted at all.
Mueller (3:24): And what do you say to politicians and media who tell us every day to be active for the climate? Prof. Malberg: My conclusion is one that is completely different: I say it is a basic human right to have clean air, clean water, uncontaminated soil and an ecological system that is intact. That means the highest priority is environmental protection. But humans do not have “a right to a stable climate”. That just does not exist. It never has existed. What is natural about the climate system is that it is not constant, it always changes. When people speak so often about species dying, then one has to address environmental protection, and not assign everything to climate protection, and to blame it all on a phantom. The temperature increase we have had over the last 150 years of about 0.7°C has occurred multiple times since the last Ice Age, and nature repeatedly withstood it. Today there would be no polar bears if nature was unable to cope in balancing out the natural temperature fluctuations.
Mueller (4:50): What can you take home [from this conference] here in Sylt? Prof. Malberg: We’ve had an interesting spectrum here. We discussed the climate behaviour. We’ve discussed the clearly measured non-acceleration of sea level. Of course there is a natural sea level rise, but it has not accelerated. We’ve discussed legal topics here at this conference. And finally we have learned from an energy expert that if we go ahead with wind and solar energy, then we have to understand that these two forms of energy depend on the weather. The wind doesn’t always blow, and very often the sun doesn’t shine here. And building solar plants in the desert would mean huge losses of energy because of the long transmission distances. That means we looked at a very broad spectrum of issues that absolutely belong in the public debate.
Mueller (6:00): Professor Mahlberg, thank you for the discussion.
– End –
What follows is a translation (with some minor editing) of the German report appearing here.
Heartland Institute’s 6th International Climate Conference Concludes
While climate tourists were meeting for the zillionth time to talk about rescuing the Kyoto Protocol and spreading a party-atmosphere at the taxpayers’ expense in Berlin, elite climate scientists met in Washington for the 6th time (privately financed), and agreed: The global climate is as normal as it has ever been – only the politics in a few countries (foremost Germany) is getting more and more out of whack.
In Berlin concerned German Environment Minister Norbert Röttgen was doing his best to encourage the stalled and disappointed UN climate rescuers, and demanded they not relent in their attempts to avert the imaginary climate catastrophe. After all climate change is “a crisis for humanity”. For Röttgen and his Climadonna Merkel it’s nothing less. In contrast, everything at the 6th International Climate Conference in Washington was factual and based on science, and not fear and emotions. What follows are some impressions by EIKE’s President, Dr. Holger Thuss”
“About 250 participants and media representatives made their way to Washington to the 6th International Conference on Climate Change of the Heartland Institute (ICCC-6), a think-tank in Chicago. Organizers set out to challenge the so-called consensus on man-made global warming. The most important result of the conference which ended on the first of July was that such a consensus does not exist.
The most important presentations were made by Dr. Patrick J. Michaels (George Mason University / Cato Institute), Prof. Dr. S. Fred Singer (Emeritus of the University of Virginia) and Prof. Bob Carter (Queensland University, Australia). In his presentation Michaels concentrated on the historical background of the climate debate, where the organisational prerequisites were created already back in the 1940s. A big problem, says Michaels, is especially the existing combination of science funding with political-strategic planning by politicians.
Prof. Singer introduced the updated progress report of the 2009/10 NIPCC Climate Report of the independent scientists. Prof. Bob Carter reported on the detailed study of the New Zealand temperature data, which also showed a strange upward jump in temperatures very similar to the famous hockey stick manipulations (Climategate), where experts were able to find major flaws. Also here raw data “disappeared”.
Special emphasis has to be placed on the contributions by Marc Morano (ClimateDepot.org and CFACT) and Anthony Watts (Wattsupwiththat.com), who run 2 of the most important skeptic websites globally. While Morano delivered a large quantity of new information on the status of climate policy, Watts provided the unmistakable many and wide range of error sources when recording and measuring of important weather data. Moreover Morano, Watts and other speakers emphasized that the politicization of the climate climate debate has continued to increase since the last conference. In all western countries it is being attempted to drive climate-change education into the minds of young children at schools by incorporating a binding curriculum – but only with minimal success. In contrast, there are questionable scientific facts which are being also legally challenged in countries like the USA and Australia. Also information on the status of this was provided.
The most problematic country in the west concerning the subject of climate change remains – this became clear during the conference – Germany. Especially during the breaks observers from Germany were again and again asked worried questions about the German “Sonderweg“, i.e. different path.”
More about More. Below is a short interview with Austrian rapper Kilez More.
More, 22, recently released a rap song/video called Climate Change (Climate Lies, Climate Swindle…), which features the IPCC, CRU and the hockey stick. Now how does a young rap artist know so much about such a complex issue, let alone write a skeptic rap song about it for the youth?
The song indeed is mobilizing the youth, not in masses, but it is a budding challenge. For that Kilez is becoming a sort of enfant terrible, persona non grata in Europe – who dares speak truth to power. I’ve since translated the German text to English, and Kilez has added the English subtitles to his Youtube video:
Of course it doesn’t rhyme in English – but it gives you the gist of what he’s rapping about.
The following is an interview with Kilez, about what motivated him to “take on the establishment”. He is an environmentalist fighting for cleaner air and water, eradication of poverty, animal abuse, etc. Some of his positions may be off the wall for some of us, but most of us will agree with his position that authority needs to be questioned, and that we ought not be complacent – especially young people on the subject of climate change.
NTZ: Most young people your age aren’t interested in climate change. What sparked your interest? KM: Like with many issues, I approached it by questioning the “official stories”. I do my best to research and make sure I get both sides of the story. When I did this with “climate change” I realized it’s mostly a hoax.
NTZ: When did you have your first doubts? KM: It was years ago I think when I read a few lines about it in a book – and this increased my attention. It was written that the “Club of Rome” decided a long time ago already, before anyone ever heard about it, that “climate” would be the thing for the future. So I started to search for answers on my own and this quickly got me really to what I think is now the truth. We had scares before in Germany and Austria – like with acid rain and forests dying. Here the scientists and mass media said all forests would die by the end of the century. Now it’s 2011 and everybody knows they were completely false.
NTZ: What led you to write a rap song about climate change? KM: The topic is everywhere around and it’s crazy what’s going on, so I decided to do something, because no alternative story gets shown. Also in the school-books the children are learning this stuff. I think music is a good way to reach young people – so they maybe start to question the world around them and not to take everything implicitly. Up to now, I’ve read books about the climate-topic, and I pursued the “climategate” story. It all guided me to make a song about it.
NTZ: How does the public in Austria and Germany view climate change? Are people questioning it? KM: I dont know how the situation is in your country, but in Germany and Austria different opinions don’t exist – it’s really weird how everyone thinks the same – everywhere it is accepted as a fact without any doubt.
That’s why people look at you as if your an idiot (or whatever) when you question it – but yes, critical thinking is increasing here. I recognize it myself, through my music and the resonance I get from listeners.
The music also leads me to very interesting people, journalists, politicians, and so on, and they all try to do their best to get people to think critically.
NTZ: When you perform, what is it you want your listeners to do? Why should they believe you? KM: I always say with my songs I don’t want the listeners to believe everything I say – no,
that’s the wrong way. That would be the same wrong way as believing everything the newspapers or TV-shows are saying. The message is to think on your own, to search the truth by yourself and to speak out loud against unfairness and lies.