Good!
If the skeptics ever needed the stamp of success for their efforts to curb the climate agenda, this is it.
Ernst Ulrich von Weizsäcker, a prominent warmist scientist and politician in Germany, appeared on ZDF television and provided his assessment of today’s international climate policy. If any among us think that climate policy is a major threat to democracy and freedom, well then you can all take heart. Though the battle is far from over, skeptics are clearly winning the debate, despite being out-funded a million to one. Von Weizsäcker confirms it’s a mess.
Solar Server, an internet portal for solar energy reports on von Weizsäcker’s comments in an interview with ZDF German public television.
In an interview with ZDF news portal heute.de, scientist and politician Ernst Ulrich von Weizsäcker describes the bleak picture of international climate policy. ‘Climate protection is considered a disturbance in the noise of growth,’ says von Weizsäcker in the interview. At the international level, he sees no common thread on how the policy of climate protection is to be moved forward.”
‘People don’t want any climate protection, they want economic growth, driven by over-exploitation,’ he says.”
In plain language: The warmists are in utter disarray and exasperated. The movement is in panic mode.
Von Weizäcker: penalize efficiency to save energy!
Solarserver.de reports that von Weizäcker frets that “massive Europe-bashing is being carried out”. Solarserver.de quotes von Weizäcker:
We’ve got to make climate protection really profitable and finally implement energy efficiency techniques, which have been sitting in the drawer already a long time.”
Really? And so what must be done? Weizäcker proposes an economic idea that only a nutty professor could possibly concoct:
Every year, energy and raw materials have to be made more expensive – to the same extent that efficiency increases.”
Boy, now that’s a great incentive if I ever heard one – punish people for being more efficient! Clearly von Weizäcker’s loony ideas would also lead to energy starvation for the poor in developing countries. Poor countries can ill-afford today’s prices of energy and natural resources, let alone even higher prices. They need much cheaper sources. Solarserver.de writes:
He citicizes that world events are decided by mainly Brazilians, Indians and Americans – in the countries where climate issues are ranked very low.”
No word on whether or not von Weizäcker hopped into a chauffeured limousine to ferry him to a private jet waiting on the tarmac after the interview. Just another blowhard, pampered European aristocrat who can’t find anything to be happy about.
Silly idea:
“Every year, energy and raw materials have to be made more expensive – to the same extent that efficiency increases.”
This would mean nobody would have an interest to reduce it, if the effort doesn’t bring anything – at least for Germany. Other countries could do it and Germany would fall back.
The “heute journal” also used a comment from Guenther Oettinger’s “European Commissioner for Energy”, “the energy and raw material cost is more important than the labor cost”.
Industry vs Climate Policy !
Btw.: Agreement Reached On German Solar Feed-In Tariff – June 2012
http://solarindustrymag.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.10598
“cuts to the country’s solar feed-in tariff”
“Every year, energy and raw materials have to be made more expensive – to the same extent that efficiency increases.”
Well, China *does not care* for market prices. What they do is they strike a deal with Iran and deliver nuclear technology for access to gas and oil fields. They don’t pay in cash.
They strike a deal with Chavez. Same thing. What you need, Hugo, airplanes? you get them. We get the oil.
Same in Africa.
von Weizsäcker, and with him the rest of the warmists, live in a fantasy world in which China is still a commun1st backwater under Mao. They have never understood why skeptics do what they do, they still think we all get bribed by Big Oil, now, that’s stupid enough… but not knowing what China has been doing over the last decade? Can it get any stupider?
ZDF and von Weizsäcker, a match made in heaven.
This may demonstrate that intelligent people may have obstacles preventing critical thinking or realizing what they are doing. Once I had a short discussion with a chemist and convinced warmist. It was about sequestration of CO2. I did not use that word but said that they were burying plant food. Plant food? He was shocked and could not talk for a minute. He must have realized that both he and me learned in the first year of High School how plants grow. We now have the fashion-word of ‘meme’ but the ‘CO2 is a pollutant’ meme is a strong propaganda tool. Intellect does not make people immune to propaganda as the history of Germany may show.
Well said. It’s propaganda and a lot of people don’t realize it until someone screams “The “The King Has No Clothes”.
The history of Germany is such a thing. My father was 17 years old when he was was a soldier in Berlin in 1945. He was captured by Russian soldiers but luckily didn’t had to go to Siberia. His next experience with propaganda was East Germany, but this time he didn’t gave in and the STASI got him once (6 month prison) but not a second time.
Either you are in or you are out.
I believe quite a few scientists have this problem, today. Some follow blind and some don’t ask stupid questions as they have to loose something.
There is something that is decidedly bass’ackwards in his approach, indeed, I don’t believe I have ever heard a sane person say this type of thing without a straightjacket on. Tah tahe and tu da lu Ernst. Have a Happy!!
He sounds like someone two hundred years ago complaining about how filty and smelly the streets are. He has a point, of course, but technology has yet to catch up with desire.. ergo, we’re just going to have to wait a little while longer and grin and bear it (and hold our nose;-)
Maybe, just maybe, some wiz kid will crack the bubble, solve the problem, and Zippppppp we’ll be off in a shot into a new era. As I recall, governments seem to occassionaly do a bang up job during wars. Anyone up to starting another World War? Hummmmmm.. that is a might extreme isn’t it?
PS: Now that the Cold War is long since over, isn’t it time to trash the UN and get back to business as usual? The League of Nations didn’t stop WWII; why waste another penny on more idealism and stupidity –money is getting a little tight down here in the Real World. Let’s save a penny and rent the building to some kid with an idea to turn a Delorian Sports Car into a Time Machine and get back to, and on with, the future. Anyone got a Flux Capacitor?
“He has a point, of course, but technology has yet to catch up with desire.. ergo, we’re just going to have to wait a little while longer and grin and bear it (and hold our nose;-)”
No, he hasn’t. Read Julian Simon’s The Ultimate Resource
(here: http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate_Resource/ )
and Björn Lomborg’s Skeptical Environmentalist. Weizsäcker’s “over-exploitation”, what does that even mean. Progress DEMATERIALIZES functionality. 4 years ago many people in Germany bought a handheld navigation device, e.g. from Tomtom, for their cars and/or a GPS receiver, e.g. from Garmin. Today these markets have largely transformed into pure software business as smartphones take over this functionality.
With dematerialization comes less resource usage. von Weizsäcker’s ideas are backwards. Think about the resource usage you need for erecting thousands of wind turbines, millions of PV panels, then some millions of batteries or thousands of Methane synthesizing units to store the excess electricity for bad days, and the massive increase in transmission lines.
Green technologies are more expensive than viable technologies BECAUSE and ONLY because they INCREASE the resource usage. THE PRICE SIGNAL DRIVES EFFICIENCY. Subsidies increase INefficiency. Just wait for more wealth transfer from Germany to the broke Eurozone nations and you’ll see WHAT inefficiency is. It works every time.
…and as we can see in von Weizsäcker’s remark “We’ve got to make climate protection really profitable” he doesn’t understand that distorting prices by price-fixing does NOT magically make them any less resource-intensive – it only removes the price signal, replaces it with an artificial one, and leads actors in the market to misallocate their capital into economically harmful investments. Examples are the housing bubble in the US, the ghost cities in China, the over-investment in infrastructure in Japan, a lot of the infrastructure in the Ex DDR (a lot of the inhabitants moved to the West, seeking jobs; what remains is a thinly populated region with the best highways in the world), and of course the solar panels in cloudy Germany.
“Every year, energy and raw materials have to be made more expensive – to the same extent that efficiency increases.”
eems the politicians are beginning to worry about what the VOTERS think
“Green Energy Panic: German Government Fears Voter Anger About Electricity Price Explosion”
http://thegwpf.org/international-news/6200-green-energy-panic-german-government-fears-voter-anger-about-electricity-price-explosion.html
“Subsidies Row: Green Energy Is Turning Into A ‘Political Risk’ ”
http://thegwpf.org/uk-news/6196-subsidies-row-green-energy-is-turning-into-a-political-risk.html
As our electricity supply is becoming LESS efficient all the time, it therefore follows that according to Lex Weizsäcker electricity has to become CHEAPER (through price-fixing) every year.
Now what did I do? I applied his rule consequential. The madness becomes more obvious this way.
Or to turn it around again: His rule DESTROYS all inventives to become more efficient.
Another example, wow, this is so rich, I can’t stop it.
Apply the rule to computers. I’m buying a new one every one or two years as I need the computational power. Under Von Weizsäcker’s Weird regime, the new computer, being twice as powerful as the last one, must cost twice as much.
This destroys the reason why I would buy a new one. Ergo no improved computers would ever be developed as there would be no market.
this might help the disarray – by me at WUWT
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-did-the-97-of-scientists-say/
————
feedback from scientists that took part inthe Doran Survery ‘97% of scientists say’ from the appendi of the actual cited paper and survey….
—————————
I would really recommend taking a look for yourselves – (<$2) I have just scraped the surface of methodology. http://www.lulu.com/shop/m-r-k-zimmerman/the-consensus-on-the-consensus/ebook/product-17391505.html
but my main criticism remains those that misuse the 97% soundbite.
just throw a few soundbites back, then maybe it will be posible to have a discussion (more from scientists that took part in the survey) just a few more quotes.
———————————————————–
"I feel that the research is skewed. The research is funded almost exclusively to 'find evidence for' and 'causes of' global warming." (zimmerman feedback)
"The techniques for determining a global 'average' temperature are open to question. Consequently, the actual amount of change is difficult to determine. This has to be considered in regard to: Since we are coming out of the 'little ice age' (I will note that Mann's 'hockey stick curve' has been demonstrated to be incorrect)it is difficult to know exactly what factors are driving the slow rise in temperature." (zimmerman feedback)
"I fail to see how such a survey could possibly improve our knowledge. Last time I checked science worked on facts/data, not opinions. However, global warming seems to be an exception." (zimmermann feedback)
"I do not trust consensus views and bandwagons as they are frequently wrong. It is irresponsible for a scientist to make a judgment without personally conducting a critical analysis of the data and the arguments." (zimmermann feedback)
"I'm afraid that your very first question was already ill-posed since it left open what pre 1800's means. After all, most of the preceding 4.5 billion years of earth history was warmer than the present." (zimmerman feedback)
"I am sorry, but I cannot answer some (most actually) of your questions with a simple "Yes" or "No"answer. The area is not clearly black-and-white, I am afraid that it is more complicated than that….I have nothing against the survey, but oversimplified answers can result in distorted outcome…." (zimmerman feedback)
"I appologize, but as an objective scientist I do not communicate "opinions" or "attitudes". These donot belong on the scientific adjenda and certainly not in the classroom. Thus I decline to contribute to your survey." (zimmerman feedback)
"Personally, I think we are returning to something akin to the Little Optimum (climate regime of
circa 950-1350)" (zimmermann feedback)
"I'm afraid I have to bail out of your survey. I find the issue too complex for multiple choice
answers. As an example, Question 1 (comparing current global temps to "pre-1800" levels) is openended – and my answer would differ depending on the beginning as well as the ending point of the time frame. Are we talking about only the 18th century (which, of course, included the Little Ice Age)? The 14th through the 18th? Pre-1800 through the beginning of the Wisconsin Glaciation? Or since Pre-Cambrian time? On the average, current global temperatures are definitely cooler than the average over the entire lifespan of the earth." (zimmermann feedback)
"Was this designed to be ambiguous with respect to time? What do you mean
"pre-1800s?" You mean compared to all Earth history prior to industrialization? If you are asking
geoscientists then you really need to be more specific. Obviously global Earth temperatures are
colder now than much of Earth history, but warmer compared to Little Ice Age temperatures.
Surveys with imprecise questions have meaningless results." (zimmermann feedback)
"Your first question is a poor one.
Temperatures have had an overall positive trend since the Little Ice Age of 350 years ago. There
have been shorter cycles (approximately 32 years) of warming and cooling superimposed on that
trend. Temperatures now are cooler than 800 years ago and cooler than 5000 years ago. So
temperature trends largely depend on the starting and ending points." (zimmermann feedback)
"In my opinion humans can influence climate change but is it the dominant effect, absolutely not. The geologic time scale shows periods of cooling and heating with out the impact of humans being present." (zimmerman feedback)
"Other factors are obviously at play. I have no doubt that humans are influencing global temperatures, but whether we are a 'major' contributor is little more than guesswork." (zimmerman feedback)
"I find it interesting that geoscientists tend to be influenced by their career position. My friens in academia are almost all convinced of the anthropogenic influence, my friends in the energy and minerals sectors seem to think it is natural" (Zimmerman feedback)
"Climate proxies from the even more distant past indicate that global climate is
comparatively cool now, and that many factors besides greenhouse gases contribute to global climate change. When I hear ridiculous suggestions that we build satellites to block out solar radiation or pump CO2 into deep ocean sediments to try to combat anthropogenic global warming I am filled with irritation and trepidation at man's audacity – to assume we can fix a problem that might not exist, within a system we have only just begun to study. As a scientist I
neither 'believe' nor 'disbelieve' in anthropogenic global warming – I am waiting for solid evidence. Mea" (zimmerman feedback)
"This is a nonsense question because it isn't black and white. Human activity affecting climate is a hypothesis in need oftesting, and what we think is somewhat irrelevant" (zimmerman feedback)
"the increase in temperature does not correlate with the increase in CO2. It appears more tied to some kind of natural cycle." (zimmermann feedback)
"Based on 32 years of geologic experience, I am quite certain that the impact of any anthropogenic increase in Co2 is very minor when compared to geologic and astronomic causes." (zimmerman feedback)
—————————–
Remeber ALL the above comments (and many many more) are from scientists that ACTUALLY took part in the survey, and are quoted from the ACTUAL paper that the Doran 97% of scientists' phrase/conclusion is cited from.
I haven't even quoted much from appendix F or Appendix D (where scientist give reason why they did not answer yes – Or queried q1 and q2) very very sceptical voices (hundreds of comments)
But dont take my word for it !! 😉 – download it yourself (cost £1.25)
PLease remember my criticism is those that overste the 97% in the media, the politicians, environmentalist, etc. who use it as a soundbite to make other claims and to shut sceptics up These are the people we should be criticising. NOT Doran, Zimmerman, Anderegg, etc (please leave them alone)
The above quotes are NOT in the WUWT article.
———————-
the methodology and responses from scientist that believe, is well worth a look at.. I was mainly focussing how politicians misuse the 97% soundbite..
Ie it shows that most of the consensus scientists see correlation as being evidence of AGW!
Picked out from the comments..
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-did-the-97-of-scientists-say/#comment-1036542
My standard response to the 97% claim is this article. Makes warmists go away and not come back.
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/01/03/lawrence-solomon-97-cooked-stats/#ixzz1A5px63Ax