Growing Criticism: Germany’s Transition To Renewable Energy Is Leading To All Pain And No Gain

And a project that involves the such can only be called one thing: really dumb. Before other countries dive into renewable energies, drunk on green fantasies, they should take a look at what is happening in Germany. Indeed, sobriety helps.

The online Die Welt had a piece on the spiraling electricity costs in Germany a couple of weeks ago.

Germany’s “moon-landing” energy project risks crash-landing on Earth. Photo credit: Andrew Marino at en.wikipedia.

Transforming the energy supply system to one that will be based on 80% renewable energy by 2050 is considered Germany’s moon-landing project. Unfortunately it risks crash-landing right here on Earth.

Skyrocketing costs and growing supply uncertainties are putting the German government under massive pressure. The project has been riddled by a complete lack of planning and management. The reason for that of course is because real planning involves honest analysis, which reveals what is feasible and what isn’t. The proponents of green energy simply did not want the answer to that question. So they skipped the planning altogether and dove into it blindly.

Today intermittent wind and sun are causing Germany’s power grid to fluctuate so wildly that the government is now forced to implement drastic measures. For example, industry will be compensated for damages, at the consumers’ expense, when they have to shut down their operations to in order to prevent a grid collapse (of the sort we saw in Munich some weeks ago).

Die Welt writes that chemical, aluminum and steel plants consuming massive amounts of energy will have to shut down or scale back during periods when the power supply is lacking. For the ‘capacity that can be shut down’ “experts have recommended the appropriate compensation of 2000 euros per megawatt and year. But industry will receive 20,000 euros/MW for shutting down. (…] ten times the amount. Thanks to a government that will make the consumers pay anything to keep the scam going.

While the politicians keep passing all the high costs to consumers, they turn around and have the gall to publicly insist that electricity has to remain affordable in Germany.

According to Die Welt, consumers will also be liable for the costs of offshore windparks in the event of construction delays or inabilities by the grid to absorb the power they produce. The result, writes Die Welt: “The price of electricity, now the second-highest in Europe, will continue to rise.” Germany’s attraction for business investment is losing its luster.

Even green energy producers see costs going out of control

The providers of green energy are waking up to the reality. Die Welt writes:

Also the Association of New Energy Providers (BNE), who actively promoted the end of nuclear energy and the switch to renewables, is sobering up. ‘Instead of constantly coming up with new fees, charges, subsidies, exemptions and other market-foreign cash flows, the German government must now boldly plan the switchover to the system,’ demands BNEChief Robert Busch: ‘Otherwise we are going to lose the battle against the costs and the energy transformation will drown in a sea of subsidies.'”

Die Welt predicts more continuing rapid cost increases for consumers, thanks to the Energieeinsparverordnung (EneV), which will go into effect in 2014 and mandates tough thermal insulation standards for buildings. “Rental costs will be driven higher and higher,” warns Axel Gedaschko, President of the Federal Association of German Apartment Companies (GdW). “Already now in large cities there’s a massive problem of offering affordable living space for low-income families.”

Little wonder 600,000 households have seen their power get cut off. The green revolution is producing social injustice that is casting the poorest out in the cold.


Poland, Czech Republic To Block Out Germany’s Unstable Green Electricity – “Coal To Play A Major Role A Lot Longer”

Some big energy developments in Germany lately.

Several readers pointed out an article appearing in the online daily Die Welt here. It seems that Eastern Europe has said “no” to hugely subsidized, unstable German green electricity flowing across the border into their power grids.

One reason is because Germany still has not installed the huge power transmission lines needed to deliver the sometimes massive wind and solar electricity directly to heavy industry in Central and Southern Germany. And it’ll be years before it can, if ever. Therefore Germany reroutes its intermittently massive amounts of wind and solar energy through the power grids of its Eastern European neighbors (mainly Poland and the Czech Republic) and then to its industry to the south.

The problem with this rerouting is that Poland and the Czech Republic now often find their power grids critically and unpredictably overloaded, and thus have decided to install equipment to keep German electricity out when certain levels are reached.

Die Welt writes:

Polish grid operator PSE has agreed to build together with grid operator 50 Hertz so-called phase shifters, with which excessive current flows can be blocked. Their use is planned to be ‘very soon’.”

So what happens if all the windparks and solar farms in Northeastern Germany cannot deliver their power to the industry ín the south via Poland? Stephan Kohler, Chief of semi-state-owned German Energy Agency (Dena) says.

The use of phase shifters will have the consequence that windparks in Eastern Germany will have to be shut down more often in the future because the power will have no way of being delivered to the markets.”

So the windpark operators in Eastern Germany will be getting the shaft, right? Wrong!

Germany’s Feed-In Act stipulates that windparks get paid whether or not their power gets bought. The costs for the electricity that never gets bought is simply gets passed on to the poor consumers.

Such is the world of the government centrally-controlled energy market. Is it any wonder that in just a few short years Germany’s electricity prices have risen to levels that are among the highest in the world?

Germans becoming fed up with green costs

Meanwhile Die Welt reports today that German consumers are fed up with the high prices of electricity, and are now loudly demanding a course correction with renewable energy.

The solutions to the problem now being proposed, however, are almost as lunatic as the idea of trying to power the country with renewable energy in the first place. Germany’s communist PDS party for example is calling for giving consumers incentives to purchase new, energy-efficient appliances. You see, consumers can solve their problem of not having enough money by simply forking out lots of money for new white goods. Make sense?

Another brilliant solution proposed by Greens and leftists is to force industry to pay more for electricity, and thus allow lower rates for little consumers. Of course the masterminds behind that idea still have not thought about what industry will do with the higher prices they’ll have to pay for their power. You don’t suppose they’d get the idea to pass the extra costs along to the consumers, do you?

Clearly we see in Europe that there is a creativity contest to see who can come up with the most lunatic ideas to keep the subsidized renewable scam going.

Amazingly, there are a couple of politicians who recognize the root of the problem, like CSU politician Gerda Hasselfeldt, who says “the SPD socialists and Greens are responsible for the rapidly rising energy prices. We have to try to control the transformation to renewable energy, and not do what Red-Green did: promote an uncontrolled expansion of renewable energy,” she said.

Well, at least she’s on the right track. The solution of course is to do away with the senseless, destructive subsidies altogether.

German coal will be around longer than you think

EU Energy Commissar Günther Oettinger told Die Welt that coal will have to continue playing a major role in Germany’s energy supply and to do so for “a lot longer than what some are prepared to accept.”

Wind turbine lifeime is only 10 – 15 years!

Finally, there’s another bit of bad news indicating that wind power is going to cost consumers a lot more. The Renewable Energy Foundation has published a new study, The Performance of Wind Farms in the United Kingdom and Denmark, showing that the economic life of onshore wind turbines is between 10 and 15 years, not the 20 to 25 years projected by the wind industry itself, and used for government projections. Read more here.

Tough times ahead for the renewable energy pipe-dream.


Higher CO2 Concentrations Will Feed A Billion More People

Ed Caryl today presents the latest of his essays. This one on CO2 and plant growth.

What Should We Do About CO2 Emissions?
By Ed Caryl

So, what should we do about CO2 emissions? The answer is: nothing. The evidence that Co2 is harmful, that it is raising the earth’s temperature dramatically, has been largely fabricated, and at the least, overblown. Surprisingly, when all the facts are in, CO2 is beneficial! It is an essential trace gas, and a fertilizer. The current increase has boosted growth rates of vegetation worldwide by 13 to 15% (see here).

CO2 is used as a supplement in greenhouses. In a closed greenhouse, growth slows or stops if the plants use it up and CO2 drops below 200 ppm as the plants absorb it. CO2 supplement systems are sold to greenhouse farmers to supply supplemental CO2. Levels up to 1000 ppm or more are often used (see here). Extra CO2 also reduces a plant’s need for water by closing the leaf stomata (see here). Leaf stomata are the ports on the lower side of a leaf that lets plants breath.

One of the most important crops in the world is rice. Studies have been done on Co2 enhancing rice production. If CO2 is increased 200 ppm above the current levels, (which have already increased production by the 13 to 15% cited above) production will increase by another 13 to 15% (see here and here).

Here is an illustration of growth over a range of CO2 levels:

Rice and a wild grass that is the antecedent of Foxtail Millet. Source: Susanne von Caemmerer, W. Paul Quick, and Robert T. Furbank (2012). The Development of C4 Rice: Current Progress and Future Challenges. Science 336 (6089): 1671-1672.

C3 and C4 refers to the chemical pathway used by the chlorophyll in plant leaves to produce sugar. C4 plants include many grasses and corn. It has been argued that C4 plants are immune to changes in CO2, but as you can see in the illustration above, this is clearly not true. They just don’t respond as dramatically as C3 plants. They do, however, become more drought tolerant due to the stomata response reducing water vapor loss.

Plants need 3 major inputs to grow: water, CO2, and nitrogen. From these they produce sugar for energy and proteins and cellulose for structure. Some have argued that increased CO2 produces protein-poor plants. This is true only if increased nitrogen is not supplied along with the increased CO2. A plant needs both in balance. Any greenhouse farmer knows this. But still, this increased growth with increasing CO2 assumes no improvement from fertilization, genetic engineering or plant breeding.

The experiments have been done holding all factors except CO2 constant. That increase from CO2 alone is about 100 million metric tons for each 15% increase in yield per year. That feeds about 700 million more people if one assumes 150 kg of rice per person per year. Imagine the gain if additional fertilizer was supplied along with the increase in CO2. Wheat production with double the current levels of CO2 increased by up to 38 percent (see here). Corn responds to elevated CO2 by needing less water (see here). It is clear that CO2 increases will greatly improve our ability to feed a growing world population.

If we try to limit CO2, we will dramatically limit the economic growth of the world with no effect on the climate. This is already happening in Europe. Taxing CO2 in efforts to limit production of it only makes money for the Al Gore’s of the world. It limits our use of the energy we need for economic growth and the CO2 that our crops need to flourish. Limiting CO2, even if we could, would literally mean the starvation of a billion people in the next 50 years.

What is more important? Feeding and lifting most of the world from poverty orr preventing a questionable slight temperature rise which would lengthen the growing season? The Global Warming crowd is trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.


German Scientists Shoot Down Recent Claims Of “Rapid Warming” In Antarctica – Overall Continent Is Cooling!

If you can’t find any real warming on the planet (which scientists haven’t been able to do now for 15 years), then you have to make up something that looks like warming, i.e. create dummy warming. This is precisely the case with a new paper on Western Antarctica.

Western Antarctica warms more quickly than thought – however, hardly at all in the last 25 years
By Dr Sebastian Lüning and Prof Fritz Vahrenholt
(Translated/edited by P Gosselin)

We recently got some hot news from Antarctica. According to a study by a team led by David Bromwich of Ohio State University in Columbus, which appeared just before Christmas 2012 in Nature Geoscience, Western Antarctica warmed up more quickly than first thought. This of course pleased alarmist newspapers like the online Süddeutsche Zeitung (SZ), who without hesitation wrote:

With a temperature increase of 2.4°C since 1958, the central region of Western Antarctica is among the regions that are warming up the fastest on the planet. […] There the temperature is rising three times faster than the global average.”

Now that really stirs up fear. Global warming is apparently advancing rapidly in Western Antarctica and temperatures are climbing and climbing. This is taking place year after year, and so it is only a matter of time before the catastrophe strikes. To underpin this claim, the Süddeutsche Zeitung presents a temperature curve of Western Antarctica going back 55 years (Figure 1…in the SZ article it is necessary to click on the figure to see the curve). An enormous temperature jump is obvious beginning in the year 2000, as the temperature skyrockted. With another jump like that, the ice in Western Antarctica would never survive, one might think.

Figure 1: January temperatures of Western Antarctica. Source: Süddeutsche Zeitung, 23 Dec 2012.

But wait. When it comes the the Süddeutsche Zeitung one has to be a little careful. It has long been known that the Süddeutsche Zeitung (SZ) is cozily cuddled together with climate alarmism (e.g. see our blog article“Schlimmer als befürchtet: Die Süddeutsche Zeitung verliert den klimawissenschaftlichen Boden unter den Füßen“ (Worse than we feared: The Süddeutsche Zeitung loses its scientific bearings). So let’s take a closer look.

Unfortunately we quickly discover mischief. The temperature curve for January readings used in the SZ does not even get mentioned or appear in the quoted paper. The warming value named by David Bromwich and colleagues has much more to do with the annual average temperature of the Western Antarctica, and whose curve is of course depicted in the paper (red curve in Figure 2). This curve, however, shows a completely different course than the one used by the SZ. Do you see it?

Crivens! In the last 25 years the West Antarctic has not gotten warmer! If anything, the temperature has remained flat. It is indeed quite a stretch to claim that Western Antarctica is among the most rapidly warming areas on the planet.

Over the last two decades temperatures in the region have gone nowhere.

Figure 2: Temperature development at Byrd-Station in Western Antarctica. Source: Realclimate.

And now if you look a little closer, you see that the warming is mainly concentrated in the period of approx. 1962-1980. Did mankind produce an extraordinary amount of CO2 during that particular period? No. The Co2 emissions were nothing different from what we had at other times. What is remarkable, however, is that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) during this time went from a negative cool phase to a positive warm phase (Figure 3). It cannot be ruled out that this nearby climatic oceanic phenomenon may have had something significant to do with the Western Antarctic 2.4°C warming until 1980 mentioned in the paper. Moreover, there is also the warming due to the increase in solar activity and atmospheric CO2 concentration. The 2.4°C can be divided up into natural (ocean cycles and sun) and anthropogenic share (CO2, soot, etc.). The SZ could have mentioned that.

Figure 3: Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) over the last 110 years.

Unfortunately the SZ reader is left alone with only the context of the article. According to new ICEsat satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet as a whole has increased in mass over the last years (see our blog article on this). The much larger Eastern Antarctica dominates, and that area has gotten colder over the last years. Also Antarctic sea ice reached a record high extent just a few months ago for the 30-year satellite era. Not a peep about both of these stories from the Munich-based SZ.

It also would have been nice if the SZ had provided its readers another important piece of background information: Unexpected but true: the post Ice Age temperatures at the Antarctic Penninsula were at today’s levels for 7000 years (also see our blog article on this here). With this background, the temperature development of the last 55 years discussed by the SZ loses considerable relevance. And it was also a pity for the SZ that David Bromwich and his team dumped cold water on their results for sea level rise. With gnashing teeth, the SZ had no alternative but to report:

Because at the high elevation Byrd-Region mean temperatures of -10°C prevail in the summertime, the warming does not lead directly to large-scale melting, say the scientists.”

It is quite amazing that the SZ creates almost only dramatic climate stories. Sober, non-alartmist reports just don’t seem to be of any interest for SZ editors. There’s plenty of non-alarmist material out there. At our blog we present new scientific results almost daily. We welcome editors at SZ to help themselves to it..

Hat-tip to: Wolfhard Herzog.


University Of Graz “Death To Deniers!” Professor Richard Parncutt Calls For The Execution Of Pope Benedict

It’s nice to see that academia in Austria is getting more and more tolerant with every passing day. In fact we haven’t seen this level of tolerance in about 70 years.

University of Graz Professor Richard Parncutt. Photo source: Uni-Graz./

There’s been much buzz in the blogs recently about the seemingly psychotic music professor calling for the death penalty for skeptics of IPCC science. He claims that by being skeptical of climate science, we are hindering necessary policy measures that will supposedly prevent the deaths of hundreds of millions of future people. A figure the loony prof calls “conservative”.

Parncutt also wants to have the Pope executed

Reader Quinn over at WUWT now brings our attention to a report on how Prof Richard Parncutt has also called for the execution of the head of the Catholic Church, Pope Benedict. WND Faith website here writes:

‘The pope and perhaps some of his closest advisers should be sentenced to  death,’ wrote Richard Parncutt, a music teacher at the University of Graz,  Austria.

Parncutt must have an affinity for recommending the death penalty, as WND reported only a day earlier that  Parncutt was labeled the ‘Green Weenie of the Year’ for also recommending in a blog post that those who don’t believe in global warming should be executed.

Now, according to a report from,  Parncutt also has put the pope down on his list of those to be eliminated.

The report said Parncutt wrote, ‘I am talking about the current pope, because his continuing refusal to make a significant change to the church’s position on  contraception will certainly result in millions of further unnecessary deaths  from AIDS in the future.'”


University Of Graz Apologizes…Yet Left Parncutt’s Hate Speech And Death Penalty List Link Up At Site For 2 Months!

A reader sent an e-mail to the University of Graz concerning Prof Richard Parncutt’s call for the death penalty (see following figure) for those who dare to doubt IPCC climate dogma.

Snipped from:

Here’s the reply the reader got from the University of Graz by email today:

Die Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz ist bestürzt und entsetzt über die Ansicht und distanziert sich davon klar und deutlich. Die Universität legt größten Wert, dass die Wahrung aller Menschenrechte zu den obersten Prinzipien der Universität Graz gehört und menschenverachtende Aussagen mit aller Entschiedenheit zurückgewiesen werden. Die Universität weist zusätzlich mit Nachdruck darauf hin, dass eine rein persönliche Ansicht, die nicht im Zusammenhang mit der wissenschaftlichen Arbeit steht, auf universitären Webseiten nicht toleriert wird.

The University of Graz is shocked and appalled by the article und rejects its arguments entirely. The University places considerable importance on respecting all human rights and does not accept inhuman statements. Furthermore, the University of Graz points out clearly that a personal and individual opinion which is not related to scientific work cannot be tolerated on websites of the University.

Helmut Konrad

Dean, Faculty of Humanities and the Arts”

You can read the entire correspondence over at death-to-deniers/.

It is somewhat reassuring that the University of Graz is “shocked and appalled” by Prof. Parncutt’s views. But I have one little question: Why was this “inhuman” speech “tolerated” by the University for 2 months!

That is not very reassuring.

Parncutt’s “long list of climate change deniers” , i.e his designated candidates for the death penalty, he links to at the above shown site is happily provided by desmogblog.

Hate speech and this sort of incitement is illegal in some countries. Richard Parncutt and the University of Graz could be open to some serious legal challenges here, especially by those who find themselves on the “long list of climate change deniers” linked at Parncutt’s death penalty page. They may have grounds for a serious grievance here.

If I were on that list, I’d feel pretty damn threatened, let alone pissed off.

Parncutt’s site:

The only way out I see for the University of Graz is for them to clearly demonstrate that they welcome differing opinions and an open discussion on the subject of climate change. They could start by inviting professors and speakers who have views that differ from those of the IPCC and Prof Parncutt. That is what true academia is supposed to be about.

That’s only for starters.


German/Austrian Academia Descends Into Madness – A Reaction To Parncutt’s Death Penalty Calls For Science Critics

Parts of European academia have obviously lost their marbles, as one apparently crazed professor has called for the death penalty for people who disagree with the IPCC dogma. Call it an interesting case of budding extreme fanaticism.

University of Graz professor calls for the death penalty for people who question the IPCC.


Dire tones from the University of Graz: music professor calls for the death penalty for climate science dissenters

By Dr Sebastian Lüning and Prof Fritz Vahrenholt
(Translated/edited by P Gosselin)

Over the last 30 years huge progress has been made in natural and environmental protection. Exhaust today is being intensively scrubbed, waste-water is being cleaned and energy is being used ever more efficiently. We can consider ourselves fortunate to be living in a time and place where environmental hazards today are hardly a threat to the population.

But what started as a successful and well intentioned environmental movement, now appears to have careened totally out of control. The movement has not done itself any favors by hitching itself to the ideologically led fight against the supposed climate catastrophe. The climate catastrophe scenarios announced 10 years ago by a very convinced IPCC have not come to pass. In stark contradiction to the theoretical prognoses, global temperatures have not risen in 16 years. Over the last decade, the sea level rise has not accelerated, and weather extremes are well within the range of natural variability. A look at the real, measured data and the paleo-climatological reconstructions tells us there is no alarm.

Unfortunately, many media representatives have been unable to depart from their long-loved climate catastrophe. Catastrophes are interesting for readers, viewers and audiences, and they boost ratings and circulation. How on earth would the otherwise empty pages and radio shows be filled if the catastrophe disappeared? As we have been able to show in numerous analyses of recent media reports on the topic of climate at this blog, media reporting is often one-sided, tends to be and is even at times plainly false.

Many media reports would not stand up to any serious scientific review. Sensitized scientists are fortunately in a position to identify the deceit and confusion. Unfortunately many scientifically uneducated people lack the means to check over the science and simply accept the media reports as the truth. Some individuals even allow themselves to be so impressed by the dubious reports that, in their fear of the climate catastrophe, they actually adopt insane beliefs.

Unfortunately one of these people is Richard Parncutt, an Australian professor at the University of Graz. At his university website he seriously calls for “climate deniers” to be punished with the death penalty or life in prison. At his website the following appeared (emphasis added):

In this article I am going to suggest that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for influential GW [global warming] deniers. But before coming to this surprising conclusion, please allow me to explain where I am coming from.

Even mass murderers should not be executed, in my opinion. Consider the politically motivated murder of 77 people in Norway in 2011. Of course the murderer does not deserve to live, and there is not the slightest doubt that he is guilty. But if the Norwegian government killed him, that would just increase the number of dead to 78. It would not bring the dead back to life. In fact, it would not achieve anything positive at all. I respect the families and friends of the victims if they feel differently about that. I am simply presenting what seems to me to be a logical argument.

GW deniers fall into a completely different category from Behring Breivik. They are already causing the deaths of hundreds of millions of future people. We could be speaking of billions, but I am making a conservative estimate.


If a jury of suitably qualified scientists estimated that a given GW denier had  already, with high probability (say 95%), caused the deaths of over one million future people, then s/he would be sentenced to death. The sentence would then be commuted to life imprisonment if the accused admitted their mistake, demonstrated genuine regret, AND participated significantly and positively over a long period in programs to reduce the effects of GW (from jail) – using much the same means that were previously used to spread the message of denial. At the end of that process, some GW deniers would  never admit their mistake and as a result they would be executed. Perhaps that would be the only way to stop the rest of them. The death penalty would have been justified in terms of the enormous numbers of saved future lives.

The original page at the University of Graz has been been taken down in the meantime. However copies of the page were first made, for example at, Google Webcache and over at tallbloke. The crazed thinking that Mr. Music Professor here demonstrates is truly frightening. Does he really believe what he is writing or is this pure provocation? Or perhaps it’s a just a nasty hoax, with someone hacking into the university website and slipping in the text? Unlikely. But anything is possible. For Parncutt that would be the best variant, as one does not need to be a psychic to predict that the University of Graz will not simply let this go and that this could have serious personal consequences. It is also unlikely that his colleagues are going to stand up for him. He was never really highly regarded to begin with, as Parncutt himself admits at other locations of the University website.

The media is in a way partly responsible for this. Through their sloppily researched and non-objective articles, radio reports and TV shows, they inflict with their climate alarmism plenty of damage with gullible and emotionally unstable people. It is high time that balanced science finds its way back once again into media reporting, and that the media learn to suppress their zeal for climate alarmism.

Especially in Germany and Austria facts today should count more than ideological convictions.


Record Cold Grips Vast Area Of Asia – China Sees Temperatures Drop To – 37°C!

If you search enough, you’ll eventually find some news about the massive cold gripping a vast area of Asia. Those reporting it are calling it the worst cold snap there in decades.

More cold is the forecast for Eastern Asia. Source: (Dec 25).

German public television network NTV has a video report about the Asian cold wave:

Frigid cold claims lives
Down to minus 57°C is Siberia

As warm records are set in germany, people over a vast area of Asia are moaning under a record cold. Russia is gripped by the worst winter since 1938, where already more than 90 people have frozen to death. Also in India and China people are suffering from the extreme cold.”

The video says Russia’s winter has been far too cold so far, with temperatures 15°C below normal. District heating systems have frozen up, people’s homes have lost heat. Many are forced to melt snow to get drinking water.

The cold extends to India, where 26 people have died. In China the mercury has plummeted to – 37°C. Snowstorms have snarled traffic.

Although relief has arrived in Eastern Europe and Moscow, none is in sight for Siberia, Mongolia, India, China for the week ahead (also see above chart):



German Media Portray Yesterday’s Record High Temperature In Germany As Ominous Sign Of Global Warming

This December for much of Germany and Central Europe has been a pretty cold month so far, with lots of snow and cold weather. At least that was the case until this past weekend when a warm southerly air mass swept across Germany and elevated temperatures well above normal, just in time for Christmas.

Yesterday, Christmas Eve, the mercury climbed to 18.9 °C in Freiberg in southern Germany – a new national record for the date. Spiegel writes that it was even warmer in Munich – but unofficially:

The thermometer at one measuring station at the university showed 20.7 °C. However, the German Weather Service (DWD) pointed out on Tuesday that this was not one of its official measurement stations. The reading measured in Munich will not be included in the official statistics of the DWD.”

Yet that didn’t stop the media from running with the reading as if it were an official record. Everywhere they reported the unofficial 20.7°C reading as a new record. For example online weekly Die Zeit here reported the 20.7°C reading as if it had been an official high (and good enough to qualify for the Die Zeit “Science” section):

With 20.7°C, a national temperature record high for Christmas Eve was measured since the beginning of the instrumental record.”

Indeed it would be interesting if a reader photographed that unofficial university station. Who knows what heat sources may be nearby. And I guess the media think that the German Weather Service can be just ignored nowadays.

Once again Die Zeit demonstrates an overzealous tendency of not checking the facts before printing, read here. No matter, the unofficial reading, which had never been accepted by the German Weather Service, was good enough for the broader German mainstream media to declare as the new record – and yet another sign of man-made climate change.

Record cold in Russia claims over 120 lives

Not surprisingly, much of the media refuses to report on the record cold gripping Russia, Siberia and large swaths of Asia, i.e. an area thousands of times larger than the isolated southern regions of Germany.

Spiegel, however, covers the massive northern hemisperic cold here, with an online piece titled: “Record cold in Russia claims more than 120 lives”. Read latest Russian cold here!

To be fair, Die Zeit reports on the record cold in Russia, but buries the story in the “Weather” section. Real propaganda meisters they are. I had to use their “search” function to find it.

At Die Zeit, weeks of record cold over a large swath of the northern hemisphere, with hundreds of lives lost, is less newsworthy than one unofficial record warm day in the city of Munich.


“Merry Christmas” From NTZ!

Thank you readers for visiting NTZ over 2012. Merry Christmas everyone!

Photo source: Jeff Weese, Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.

I noticed Google Germany today is wishing everyone a “Frohes Fest” (Happy Holidays), and not “Merry Christmas”. I guess some prefer blurring the origins of Christmas and the very foundations of their modern society and prosperity.


But from NTZ, it’s:

Frohe Weihnachten!

(Merry Christmas). Have a good one everybody!



Die Zeit’s Slovenly Climate Journalism – How They Totally Botched The Story Of The Missing Wheat

What follows is the story of how editors at renowned German weekly Die Zeit completely botched the translation of English text passages to German, thus making their German story completely erroneous, and far more sensational.

Climate change threatens the global supply of noodles, Die Zeit claims. Source:


Embarrassing translation blunders in climate-alarm article by Zeit online: A welcome distortion of meaning?
By Dr Sebastian Lüning and Prof Fritz Vahrenholt
Translated/edited by P Gosselin

The climate catastrophe is known to be responsible for almost all of the world’s ills. Supposedly it will also be responsible for the demise of the noodle. At least that’s what our favorite newspaper Die Zeit told its readers in a recent online article.

The Die Zeit article is a translation of an English-language article by Mark Hertsgaard which appeared a week earlier at The Daily Beast, an Internet news page associated with Newsweek.

Let’s take a look at what’s going on with the noodle catastrophe. Die Zeit writes in German:

Wissenschaftler haben starke Belege für einen direkten Zusammenhang zwischen den steigenden Temperaturen und den weltweit sinkenden Erträgen in der Weizenproduktion. Allein in den vergangenen 50 Jahren sank die Weizenproduktion um 5,5 Prozent, während die durchschnittliche Temperatur anstieg.”

Which in English is:

Scientists have strong evidence of a direct relation between rising temperatures and falling worldwide yields of wheat production. In the past 50 years alone wheat production fell about 5.5%, while the average temperature rose.”

Oh man. That doesn’t sound good. The world’s population is growing and growing and wheat production over the last five decades has dropped. And that despite the ongoing mechanization, genetic improvements of seeds and well-designed irrigation systems. That half degree of warming since 960 is a real wheat killer and CO2 is a really bad noodle pestilence!

Yet, something appears fishy about the whole thing. That’s what an astute reader at the Wetterzentrale forum thought, and so he took the time to compare the Die Zeit German text to the original English text. In doing so, he discovered gross translation errors, which obviously somehow escaped the attention of the climate-activist editorial office. Here’s the original English:

Already, a mere 1 degree Fahrenheit of global temperature rise over the past 50 years has caused a 5.5 percent decline in wheat production compared to what would have occurred in the absence of global warming, according to a study published by David Lobell, a professor at Stanford University’s Center on Food Security and the Environment.”

Wheat production over the last 50 years namely has not decreased at all. To the contrary, global wheat production actually tripled during that time period (see Figure 1). The original English text says the rise in wheat production was 5% less than what it would have occurred had there been no climate warming. This is like a millionaire complaining that he made only 500,000 euros last year, and not the 525,000 euros he would have made had the lousy euro-crisis not interfered. Of course, we don’t need to feel bad about the “loss” the millionaire had to take. The same is true with the “missing” wheat. If anything we should feel bad for the translator who mangled the meaning, and for the climate editorial team at Die Zeit, who, because of their religious zealotry, have long abandoned the standards of science (see for example our blog report “The Climate Mercenaries: Investigative Reporters of  ZEIT Join In On The Holy Climate War“).

Figure 1: Global wheat production of the last 50 years. Data: FAO, (Willis Eschenbach)

Let’s read more of the quality translation from that quality weekly Die Zeit, which wrote in German:

Überall auf der Welt ändert sich gerade die Art und Weise, wie der Weizen angebaut werden kann. Drei Viertel der weltweiten Weizenproduktion kommen aus der Mittelmeerregion. Der Klimawandel wird Südeuropa sogar noch härter treffen als North Dakota.”

In English this is:

Everywhere in the world, the methods of how wheat can be planted are now changing. Three quarters of the worldwide wheat production comes from the Mediterranean region. Climate change will hit Southern Europe even harder than North Dakota.”

Wow, three quarters of worldwide wheat production comes from the Mediterranean region. That’s really heavy. China, Russia, India and die USA are left way behind in the dust of the Mediterranean wheat powerhouse. What’s the secret of the Mediterranean wheat farmers?

Utter nonsense. This couldn’t be more embarrassing. The climate quality assurance of Die Zeit had failed once again.

The reality is that wheat production is pretty much distributed all across the globe. China, Russia, India and the USA are all in the same league as the EU (Figure 2). In the real figures there’s not a trace of any wheat dominance. And certainly not when one considers durum wheat, which is especially important for noodle production.

Figure 2: Global overview of wheat producers. Source:

Author Mark Hertsgaard then plays the climate-catastrophe card, predicting a great number of droughts and heat waves by 2050, based on dubious IPCC models. That would strongly and negatively impact wheat and noodles at the Mediterranean. Die Zeit writes:

Allein in Italien und Frankreich werden die Ernten bis zum Jahr 2050 um bis zu 15 Prozent zurückgehen, weil Hitzewellen und Dürren die Regionen heimsuchen werden, schätzt die Europäische Umweltagentur.”

Which in English is:

Alone in Italy and France, harvests will drop by up to 15% by the year 2050 because heat waves and droughts will afflict the regions, estimates the European Environment Agency.”

But even the European Environment Agency indeed meant something different from what Die Zeit wanted to understand:

As the frequency and intensity of heat waves and drought increase, yields of nonirrigated crops are projected to decline by 5 to 15 percent in Italy and southern France by the 2050s, according to a new report by the European Environmental Agency. Yields in Spain and Portugal could fall by 15 to 25 percent.”

Have you noticed? In the original English text, they are discussing  ‘non-irrigated areas’. Die Zeit simply leaves out this seemingly unimportant detail. Here the share of irrigated areas in the Mediterranean region is today already significant and will continue to gain. These areas are impacted far less.

So how could this series of errors, misinterpretations and distortions happen? Has the Die Zeit editorial board thrown every journalistic ethic overboard? Is the climate-activist urgency so great that all means are justified?

Perhaps the end of the year is a good occasion for the editorial board to think about a wise saying by Hanns Joachim Friedrichs: “A good journlaist is one who does not become subjective with any topic, also with a good topic.”

Also


Charts Of IPCC 5 AR Draft Completely Refute The Alarmist Scenarios Of Master Curve Designer Stefan Rahmstorf

Now that the preliminary draft of the IPCC Assessment Report 5 (AR 5) is available online, thanks to Alec Rawls, readers have had the chance to analyze it in detail.

Michael Krüger at Readers Edition here takes a look at some of the charts and graphics for temperature and sea level rise development, and compares the IPCC charts to those from alarmist Stefan Rahmstorf.

As Krüger shows, scientists have very different perspectives and everything but consensus exists:

IPCC Draft vs Rahmstorf’s Manipulations

Stefan Rahmstorf, one of the most well-known and influential climate scientists in Germany, and a lead author for the last IPCC report, announced at his KlimaLounge blog in 2008 that the temperature development at the time was at the upper limit of those of the IPCC scenarios:

Chart from Stefan Rahmstorf: Global annual mean temperatures using datasets from NASA (red) and the Hadley Center (blue) through 2007. The heavy line is the 11-year smoothing. The gray area with the dashed lines beginning in 1990 depicts the range of the IPCC scenarios. Here the temperature development is at the upper range of the IPCC scenarios.

But much to our astonishment, the recent draft of the IPCC AR 5 contains a completely different graphic. In this chart the temperature development is not in the upper range of the scenarios, rather it is barely at the very lower range of the IPCC scenarios:

Temperature development depicted in the draft of the coming IPCC AR5. The range of the scenarios for the four previous IPCC reports are shown along with the observed temperature development, which is depicted by black dots (with error bars). It is clear to see that the current temperature development lies in the lower range of the IPCC scenarios and that the temperature increase has not accelerated over the last years.

The same is true with sea level rise. Stefan Rahmstorf announced at his KlimaLounge blog in 2011 that sea level rise had accelerated and that it was in the far upper range of the IPCC scenarios:

Figure from Stefan Rahmstorf: Global sea level relative to 1990 in tide gauge data (red) and satellite data (blue), compared to the scenarios of the IPCC (gray area and dished lines).

But now take a look at the observed data and scenarios shown in the draft of the upcoming IPCC AR 5. It shows the opposite is true:

Sea level development depicted in the draft of the upcoming IPCC AR 5: The overall range of the four previous IPCC reports is shown along with the actual observed sea level plot (shown by the black dots with error bars). Clearly the current sea level rise has not accelerated and is in the lower range of the IPCC scenarios.

Summary: These examples show that data can be bent one way or the other. Some climate scientists, such as Mr. Rahmstorf, intentionally use such methods in order to suggest to the readers that we are actually in the middle of a crisis. And the climate protection allegiance is ready and willing to believe it. I believe the charts in the draft of the IPCC AR 5, which did not succumb to alarmism.

By the way, within climate protection circles, the new graphics of the IPCC are already being discredited as the works of skeptics. It’ll be interesting to see what changes will be made in the final draft of the IPCC report.”

I expect to see both graphics disappear entirely.


– 61°F in Siberia…Gee, Now I’m Really Worried About The Permafrost Melting!

I like checking the temperatures in Siberia using the map at Joe Bastardi’s Weatherbell. Today I found a real extreme reading.

Eastern Siberia, -61°F, see center. Source:

Now we know it’s been pretty damn cold in Eastern Europe and all over Russia, but this is getting ridiculous. This has been going on for weeks now!

I remember 2010 when there was the big heat wave in Central Russia in the summertime when temperatures soared over 100°F. “An unmistakable sign of global warming!” the media shrieked for days and days.

But now that it is deadly cold. with dozens freezing to death every day, there’s not a peep about that in the warmist media. No, we don’t want to report that.

Don’t ask me where that reading was recorded. That area is just as foreign to me as Mars.

Hansen will probably just chuck out that reading anyway.


Cold Blast Claims Over 600 Lives Across Eastern Europe/Russia…”Death Toll Keeps Rising…State Of Emergency”

It’s the worst cold snap in Russia in over 70 years. Hundreds have already frozen to death across Eastern Europe. But you won’t be hearing about this in the mainstream media.

More deadly cold is forecast for Eastern Europe. Source: (12/20).

The political site reports:

The spate of cold weather that has lasted for weeks in many parts of Europe has now claimed at least 600 lives. Eastern Europe is the worst affected. […]

In the Ukraine, more than 150 deaths have been registered. Sixty-eight people have reportedly died in Poland from the cold, 64 in Russia and an estimated 70 in Belarus. In Romania, the official death toll has risen to 68. In Lithuania, 23 deaths have been reported, 24 in the Czech Republic and 10 in Latvia. At least 16 people have died so far due to the cold in Bulgaria, 13 in Hungary, and a total of 50 in the successor states of Yugoslavia.

Italy has also been severely affected by the cold, with 40 registered victims.”

Live Science here writes:

…the farthest reaches of Siberia to downtown Moscow, the Russian people are being pummeled by a winter so brutal it’s shattering cold-weather records across the continent — and it’s only December.”

The Russian RT reports:

­The country has not witnessed such a long cold spell since 1938, meteorologists said, with temperatures 10 to 15 degrees lower than the seasonal norm all over Russia. Across the country, 45 people have died due to the cold, and 266 have been taken to hospitals. In total, 542 people were injured due to the freezing temperatures, RIA Novosti reported.

The Moscow region saw temperatures of -17 to -18 degrees Celsius on Wednesday, and the record cold temperatures are expected to linger for at least three more days. Thermometers in Siberia touched -50 degrees Celsius, which is also abnormal for December.

The Voice of Russia reports:

The temperature in Russia’s Sakha (Yakutia) republic has reached minus 50 degrees Celsius. In some districts of this Far Eastern region the temperature has fallen to minus 54 degrees Celsius.”

and reports here:

Temperatures of up to minus 45 degrees Celsius in the Altai region in southeast Siberia have prompted the authorities to declare a regionwide state of emergency.”

The Moscow Times reports:

Health officials said Wednesday that record-breaking cold weather caused the deaths of 21 people the day before.”

and today the Moscow Times reports that the “Death Toll From Cold Keeps Rising“:

…more than 50 people have died from weather-related illnesses. During the cold snap, which started over a week ago, 722 people have been injured, 371 have been hospitalized and 56 have died, RIA-Novosti reported Thursday…”

Not only Eastern Europe and Russia are being battered, but so is the US and Canada. The USA Today reports that so far a storm has left “at least eight people dead, clogged highways and forced hundreds of flight delays and cancellations at airports. The storm was blamed for deaths in at least five states, with parts of Iowa and Wisconsin hit with more than a foot of snow.”


IPCC 5 AR Now Claims Anthropogenic Warming Is Offset By Anthropogenic Cooling! You’ve Got To Be Kidding!

Ever wonder why IPCC scientists are losing credibility?

Rudolf Kipp in a reader comment here points out an interesting claim being made by the IPCC 5 AR Summary for Policymakers (SPM) on page 10. It states:

The greenhouse gas contribution to the warming from 1951–2010 is in the range between 0.6 and 1.4°C. This is very likely greater than the total observed warming of approximately 0.6°C over the same period. {10.3.1}

What they are saying here is that the warming due to CO2 may have been as much as 1.4°C, but some external factor may have cooled the globe and offset much of that warming. According to the IPCC it is actually 0 to 0.8°C cooler than it should be. Chapter 10 (Page 15) mentions aerosols as the likely cooling factor:

Over the 1951–2010 period, greenhouse-gas-attributable warming at 0.6–1.4 K is significantly larger than the observed warming of approximately 0.6 K, and is compensated by an aerosol-induced cooling of between 0 and –0.8 K (Figure 10.4b) (Jones et al., 2012).”

That means that the man-made global warming is actually more than what the temperature rise shows. This is because man-made aerosol cooling offsets a part of the warming. Kipp surmises:

If it doesn’t get warmer over the next years, then it likely will be blamed on the increased share of anthropogenic cooling.”

Obviously the IPCC is giving itself a back door for an escape should temperatures continue to stay flat or fall. No matter what happens, the IPCC will blame man-made climate change.

Kipp writes:

Is it any wonder that the credibility of climate scientists within the public has fallen to levels we usually associate with used car dealers or politicians?

With this latest wishy-washy claim, the IPCC  is thus admitting their models have huge uncertainty. This is hardly the kind of science that policy should be based upon.


New German Film Blasts Green Climate Movement…”Climate Protection = Environmental Crimes”

This week’s print edition of FOCUS includes an interview with the producer of a new environmental film to be shown in German cinemas beginning in January: Climate Crimes – Environmental crimes in the name of climate protection. It will premiere soon in Vienna.

Here’s the trailer (in German): The pictures tell the story…

If you are one of the skeptics, much of the film probably will be familiar to you. But if you’re a devout environmentalist who has been reading and believing all the climate propaganda put out by “environmental” and “climate protection” groups and institutes, then you may want to have an ambulance ready outside the cinema. It might be really tough to take.

Be sure to bring your environmentalist friends to see this film. Their reaction will be most interesting as it will reveal if they are truly open to the truth. Face it, there’s a huge industrial lobby behind the “green” movement too.

The film was produced by Ulrich Eichelmann. It is “The story of unique ecosystems, rare species, and people who are living with nature. They are all threatened – not by climate change, but by climate protection.”

Eichelmann believes that what is being sold as “climate protection” is not stopping global warming, but is actually accelerating the destruction of the environment and harming humans.”

We are able to show that many supposedly ‘green energies’ such as hydro, biodiesel and biogas are neither ecologically sensible nor sustainable, but are in fact crimes against nature and defrauding customers.”

Eichelmann cites Germany’s biogas and biodiesel sectors as examples. He claims that ‘on all continents large natural areas are now threatened’, all in the name of climate proection. “In Indonesia 2 million hectares of forests are wiped out annually and replaced with palm oil plantations so that we can fill up with bio-diesel.”

Eichelmann reminds us that hundreds of thousands of people are losing their homes because of “climate protection projects” like huge dams. Thousands of species are also threatened by monoculture-agriculture. Eichelmann says:

Many German companies and banks, often with the support of politicians, are involved in environmental crimes in other parts of the globe.”

While Eichelmann presents many examples of climate protection destroying the planet”, the alternatives he offers are hardly convincing:

We have to alter our lifestyles and drastically cut back our consumption. It is not that we are not producing too little energy – we are consuming too much.”

But getting people to consume less means increasing the price of energy. That in turn becomes a major threat to the world’s poor. And nothing is a bigger threat to the environment than human poverty.

Although I haven’t seen the film, I suspect there is little in it about the threats from wind parks, which involve widespread deforestation and altering of the landscape. never mind the threat they pose to birds.

If I had to infer Eichelmann’s underlying message, I’d say he’s advocating a very fundamentalist position like: No fossil fuels – and also forget most of the renewables like hydro, biogas and bio-diesel. Scale back industry as well. Learn to go without!

That of course would end up making lots of people very poor, limit their access to energy, and so they would have no way to keep warm – except, that is, to burn trees.

In summary, Eichelmann concludes the green movement has been a total environmental disaster so far.

If you consider all the environmental horrors caused by “green” energy, fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas are beginning to look real attractive again.


Good News – Growing Consumption Of Coal Continues To Eradicate Poverty Worldwide – With No Impact On Climate!

The International Energy Agency (IEA) has issued a press release on global coal consumption. Many claim that last decade’s rapidly rising coal consumption is causing global warming. I beg your pardon:

 While coal consumption has “risen rapidly” over the last decade, the linear global temperature trend has dropped at a rate of 0.7°C/century! Source:

The IEA press release (emphasis added):

Coal’s share of the global energy mix continues to rise, and by 2017 coal will come close to surpassing oil as the world’s top energy source, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said today as it released its annual Medium-Term Coal Market Report (MCMR).

The IEA expects that coal demand will increase in every region of the world except in the United States, where coal is being pushed out by natural gas.

“Thanks to abundant supplies and insatiable demand for power from emerging markets, coal met nearly half of the rise in global energy demand during the first decade of the 21st Century,” said IEA Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven. “This report sees that trend continuing.

In fact, the world will burn around 1.2 billion more tonnes of coal per year by 2017 compared to today – equivalent to the current coal consumption of Russia and the United States combined. Coal’s share of the global energy mix continues to grow each year, and if no changes are made to current policies, coal will catch oil within a decade.”

China and India lead the growth in coal consumption over the next five years. The report says China will surpass the rest of the world in coal demand during the outlook period, while India will become the largest seaborne coal importer and second-largest consumer, surpassing the United States.

The report notes that in the absence of a high carbon price, only fierce competition from low-priced gas can effectively reduce coal demand. “The US experience suggests that a more efficient gas market, marked by flexible pricing and fueled by indigenous unconventional resources that are produced sustainably, can reduce coal use, CO2 emissions and consumers’ electricity bills, without harming energy security,” said Ms. van der Hoeven. “Europe, China and other regions should take note.”

She noted that the report’s forecasts are based on a troubling assumption, namely, that carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) will not be available during the outlook period. “CCS technologies are not taking off as once expected, which means CO2 emissions will keep growing substantially. Without progress in CCS, and if other countries cannot replicate the US experience and reduce coal demand, coal faces the risk of a potential climate policy backlash,” she said.

As US coal demand declines, more US coal is going to Europe, where low CO2 prices and high gas prices are increasing the competitiveness of coal in the power generation system. This trend, however, is close to peaking, and coal demand by 2017 in Europe is projected to drop to levels slightly above those in 2011, due to increasing renewable generation and decommissioning of old coal plants.

Amid concern about the impact of Chinese uncertainty on coal markets, the report offers a Chinese Slowdown Case. This scenario shows that even if Chinese GDP growth were to slow to a 4.6% average over the period, coal demand would still increase both globally and in China – indicating that coal demand is not likely to stop growing even with more bearish economic perspectives.

 Who knows, maybe burning coal is actually causing global cooling.


Damning German Study Confirms Renewable Energy Feed-In Act Redistributes Wealth – From The Poor To The Rich!

A new, damning study published by the Cologne Institute For German Economics confirms what critics of renewable energy feed-in acts have been saying, and quite loudly, all along for years: The poor are getting screwed and the rich are benefiting. Redistribution from bottom to top.

The cost in euro-cents per kw-hr that renewable electricity in Germany has added to the price of electricity. Source: BDEW, 2012

That’s why we at NTZ decided to install solar panels on our home. We prefer being on top, and not always the ones getting screwed. My decision had nothing to do with “rescuing the climate”.

Here are some excerpts of the press release by the Cologne Institute:

Poor households are especially burdened

The redistribution effect of the Renewable Energy Act (EEG) is producing a socially precarious situation, a study by the Cologne Institute For German Economics (IW) has determined. Low income earners are burdened by the extra costs stemming from green electricity just as much as rich households.

This is mainly due to the fact that energy consumption changes very little as income rises. That means the financially strained households are significantly more burdened. The planned power price increases will exacerbate this effect even more: The poorest 10% by income have to pay about 1.3% of their income in order to finance the feed-in of renewable energy. With the top 10% by income, they only need to pay 0.2%.

The redistribution effect is further enhanced by the installation of private photovoltaic systems. There are very few solar households among low-wage earners. Among the rich, however, 20% of the households operate a solar power system. In total the approximately 1 million solar households (about 2.5 percent of the more than 40.4 million private households in Germany) received in 2011 a surplus of about 1 billion euros. More than half of this amount flowed to the top three income deciles.”

Summary: When it comes to generating electricity with wind, solar and biogas, it’s the rich, high-income property owners who benefit. The people who end up picking up the tab are the very poor.

It’s no wonder 600,000 households had their power shut off last year because they were unable to pay their electric bills. Welcome to Europe’s compassionate green socialism.


Science Skeptical On AR5: “Temperature Stagnation Officially Confirmed By IPCC…Models/Projections Shaken”!

German skeptic blog Science Skeptical reacts to the early release of the IPCC 5th Assessment Report – written by Dr. Peter Heller.

Dr. Peter Heller sees the IPCC in a difficult position as the body confirms global temperature stagnation. Photo source:

Heller first welcomes the transparency allowed through the early, though unauthorized, release of the report, writing that “transparency in the past had been sorely missed”. Heller then describes the purpose of the report and summarizes that the authors more or less have pretty much stuck to their opinion that man is changing the energy budget of the atmosphere though the emission of greenhouse gases, and adds:

That’s not surprising, as spreading this claim and searching for scientific evidence of this have been the purpose of the IPCC since it was founded 20 years ago.

First of all, such a temperature increase is not remarkable at all. The question is what will the consequence be. In its reports, the IPCC attempts to answer this. Here the results of model computations are used.

The problem, Heller reminds us, is that many physical and socio-economical assumptions here have to be made, and that is far from being an exact science. Heller then summarizes that there are little differences between the 4th and 5th assessment reports:

  • We expect fewer cold and more warm days and nights in most regions of the world.
  • Correspondingly, we expect more heat waves and less cold waves in most regions of the world.
  • Also we expect an increase in heavy rainfalls in more regions, and a reduction in fewer.
  • Regarding the strength of tropical storms, in AR5 they are less certain if they will increase.
  • While in AR4 it was assumed that more regions would be impacted by profound droughts, the scientists in AR 5 are markedly more unsure and careful about this.

Despite the similarities, Heller points out that the current version of the AR 5 has one fundamental admission: temperature has stagnated while CO2 has climbed. THE MODELS ARE IN TROUBLE!

Heller summarizes:

Five years have passed since the last assessment report, and the basis (particularly the scenarios and projections) of AR 4 are now older. Now is a good time to go back and check to see just how good the projections of the past match up to the developments of the present. AR 5 here has nicely added some details.

Figure 2: CO2 concentration in reality and in the model. Source: IPCC AR 5.

When one compares the real development of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere with the assumptions of the four previous IPCC reports (Figure 2, Page 41 in Chapter 1). The match is good. But it would have been bad if there had been larger deviations, as this would have meant gross false estimates already with the fundamental socio-economic start scenarios.

Next let’s take a look at the temperature development compared to the projections (Figure 3, Page 39 in Chapter 1).

Here no further comment is necessary. The stagnation of the last 15 years is clearly visible, and thus officially confirmed by IPCC, though only indirectly. The model calculations had never showed a stagnation, which us skeptics have long been showing. The trust in the abilities of the models to project the temperature development of the future thus have been shaken to the core.

Figure 3: Temperature development in reality and in the models. Source: IPCC AR 5.

Or at least it should be. We have to wait and see how politicians and media will go about handling this message. Foremost it will be interesting to see the changes and supplements in the coming report. While in the past it had been possible to remove or edit unwanted content (like the above diagram, for example) before final publication, this is no longer a simple matter. Alec Rawls has put the IPCC under pressure. Also the upcoming steps until the planned publication in September 2013 will have to be done transparently and publicly.

After all, we know that climate alarmism is a matter of faith. And one only believes what one trusts.

Additional links: Spiegel Online, Spiegel Online, Watts Up With That?

And as is the case with temperature development, us skeptics also suspect a similar development is also occurring with sea level rise, polar ice melt, storms – to name a few. Real temperatures actually match up precisely with Vahrenholt and Lüning’s projection:

Source: Die kalte Sonne.

Peter Heller is a regular contributor to Science Skeptical and a consultant on energy and climate.


Germany’s Environment Minister Stoops To The Energy-Saving Campaigns Of Old, Failed Regimes

Communism and all forms of tyranny are incurable cancers. All you can do is hope to put them into remission, and the longer the better. But they always come back.

Altmaier’s latest climate-saving campaign: “Put the lid on your electricity consumption.” Source: www.bmu.dep

Now that cancer is threatening to return to Germany – this time in the mutated form of radical environmentalism. A recent campaign by Environment Minister Peter Altmaier reminds us of the propaganda campaigns used by old German regimes to manipulate public behavior.

At Die Achse des Guten Dirk Maxeiner and Michael Miersch write that German Environment Minister Peter Altmaier has slipped and stooped to resurrecting the old campaigns of failed regimes in order to get people to save energy.

Back in the old East Germany days, the system wasn’t even able to supply the people with the most basic products and services – like electricity. And so they launched campaigns to stigmatize their consumption. Today, as Germany rushes madly into renewable energy from the intermittent sources of wind and sun, demand is beginning to outstrip the ever increasingly precarious supply. Once again the government is now pleading that its citizens save energy (to save the climate).

Maxeiner and Miersch report on Altmaier, who recently provided his latest energy saving cooking tips:

‘When you cook food with the lid on, you can save up to 30% electricity,’ announced Environment Minister Altmaier in an advert. ‘Switch off the cooker and oven before the end of the cooking time and allow to simmer.’ Hooray, this is how we can succeed in achieving the transition to renewable energy.”

This is the latest PR campaign by the Federal Ministry for Environment, Nature Protection and Reactor Safety: A smiling Peter Altmaier (see above) is shown giving cooking tips, with slogans like: “Put the lid on your electricity consumption.“

In the 1950s, to help overcome the electricity supply bottlenecks resulting from Communist mismanagement, the East German regime also rolled out a campaign to get its citizens to cut back on electricity consumption. The campaign was called the Blitz contra Wattfraß” (blitz against the Watt-Eater).

Communist East Germany’s “Watt-Eater” electricity saving campaign. “Do you know him? It’s the Watt-Eater. Hunt him down! It’ll pay off!”

In 1958, Spiegel described that campaign as follows:

Lab-worker Waltrud Peter was just getting ready to brew herself a cup of coffee at the Buna-Werk in Schkopau near Merseburg when suddenly she got a visit. In her laboratory a so-called special unit of the “Freien Deutschen Jugend” (FDJ – Free German Youths) appeared and switched off Waltraud’s electric cooker.”

This was all part of the SED communist party’s new campaign designed to stop citizens from wasting electricity. It turns out that the Watt-Eater campaign is just the child of the Nazi propaganda campaign: the “Kohlenklau“ (coal-thief), which was designed to get citizens to save energy by severely stigmatizing those who consumed energy “needlessly”.

“Who is the KOHLENKLAU? He’s a miscreant from whom we have to especially protect ourselves against because he threatens us and our wartime economy.”

Other Kohlenklau posters and propoganda wrote:

He brings cold into warm rooms, Lights are on in empty rooms, The radio is playing without any listeners around…everywhere valuable coal, electricity and gas are wasted, the Kohlenklau has a hand in it!”

The old Nazi campaign implied that anyone who wasted energy jeopardised the Fatherland’s war machine – and that was punishable by death. Today it’s getting so that people who waste energy are now jeopardising the climate-rescuing energy transition to renewable energy.

Of course Minister Altmaier cannot to be compared to the old miscreants of the past, and is surely a good guy. But he needs to ask himself what has become of a country that finds itself resorting to the old campaigns from failed regimes.

A government’s duty is to provide its people with a secure and reliable supply of energy, and not to diminish it.