Another Showcase Example Of Fake Science, Climate Propaganda By Germany’s SRF Public Radio

Correction: Reader Fred informs that the SRF is not a German radio station, but instead belongs to Switzerland: “And yes, all people living in Switzerland are forced to pay around 300 US dollars a year for that crap, even if you never watch or listen the SRF […] it is just another leftwing propaganda machine.”
==================================================

The German public radio and television network is funded by mandatory annual fees made by every German citizen. It is massive and it dominates the country’s media landscape. Unfortunately it is not at all objective and balanced, though it may be claimed to be so at Wikipedia and elsewhere.

German public television, for example, works closely with CNN. It is unabashed totally anti-Trump. On November 9 when it became clear that Trump would be the next president, total shock and meltdown spread across all of the German public media.

Like the BBC, German public media are also very much universally climate alarmist, insisting the science is settled (even though it is less so than ever today). Some have argued quite convincingly that Germany is now firmly under a media-political opinion dictatorship – but that’s a topic for another day.

The latest example of climate propaganda and fake science purveyed by the elitist German politico-media comes from SRF German public radio, so reports Africa-geology expert Dr. Sebastian Lüning at his Die kalte Sonne site.

===========================================

SRF Africa correspondent gets it all wrong in Ghana: Embarrassing mixing up of coastal processes and climate change

By Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt
(German text translated/edited by P Gosselin)

On December 7, 2016, Patrick Wülser at Radio SRF went off on weepy sea level climate alarmism:

Climate change in Ghana: The ocean is swallowing Totope piece by piece
What climate scientists are predicting is already happening in Ghana: The fishing village has already in part sunken into the sea.

Rising sea level and ever more powerful tidal waves are eating away at the coast of West Africa and threatening fishing villagers. The consequences of climate change and the construction of deep-sea harbors and dams have accelerated the erosion of the coastline over the past 20 years. The fishing village of Toto in Ghana has already in part sunken into the sea.”

A rather cheap piece of propaganda theater, as just a critical glance at the map will clearly shows that this village is located in the Volta Delta on a typical coastal sand dune island, which because of the sand dune shifting and sea erosion — also without sea level rise — is always undergoing change naturally. The sediment-transport processes in the region were already comprehensively described in detail back in 1998 by Nairn et al. (pdf here).

Back then coastal protection measures were proposed, but obviously were never implemented.

But there’s more to the story as the huge Volta-water reservoir is pressing down the entire area of the Volta-Delta and its Akosombo dam is preventing the Volta’s land mass from reaching its old Delta area. This means sea erosion can no longer be compensated. Therefore it is easy to demonstrate that the situation described in Totope/Ghana has very little to do with climate change and rising sea level rise, and in fact has much more to do with changed land-use and natural coastal erosion processes.

Moreover, this new SRF propaganda piece is only a rehash of an older Zeit article from 2012.

When one looks at the Wikipedia entry on Song(h)or-Lagune, one cannot find the claimed huge danger through climate change anywhere. Rather the concerned focus is much more on unsustainable use, e.g. through over-fishing, cutting down of the mangroves and drainage in order to create more farmland:

Threats and possible consequences

The main threats to the site exist as varied forms of excessive utilization. Some common cases are over-fishing, extreme harvesting of mangroves, extensive drainage and cultivation for farmland, heavy grazing by cattle and livestock, and an unsustainable level of salt winning. These threats are difficult to neutralize because the human communities surrounding the lagoon are largely poor and over-populated. In effect, the local people are dependent upon their harvesting of the lagoon for survival. Although ecotourism provides an ecologically friendly source of income, the practice is not extensive enough to sustain the local communities. Additional threats originate from the use of pesticides and herbicides, the damming of creeks and channels for the purpose of expanding infrastructure, and rubbish dumping.[16] These threats can and, in some instances, have had dire consequences. The breeding cycles of nesting species, like the several sea turtle species hosted by the lagoon, can be disturbed by exaggerated human activity. Furthermore, the eggs of such species are often trampled by grazing cattle and livestock. Another realized effect of human exploitation is the apparent shrinking of the lagoon, which can be easily observed in the satellite photo comparison shown at the opening of this article. Further disturbance of the lagoon could result in not only the loss of species that inhabit the site, but also the loss of nutritive and moderating benefits provided by the site. Aside from purifying ground water, acting as a reservoir for nutrients, and supporting the local food chain, the lagoon regulates water flow, staggers and lessens the effects of flooding, and disperses the extreme erosive forces exerted on the shore by the Atlantic Ocean.[17]

re

60 responses to “Another Showcase Example Of Fake Science, Climate Propaganda By Germany’s SRF Public Radio”

  1. John F. Hultquist

    Akosombo dam is preventing the Volta’s land mass from reaching its old Delta area.

    The words “land mass” means, in this case, the millions of tons of sediments that naturally are deposited by large rivers as the water spreads out and slows.
    Some rivers have deposited thousands of feet of sediment that compacts under the weight of added sediments, and when not replenished, the coastal area sinks.
    These processes have been studied where the Mississippi River flows into the Gulf of Mexico where there are 40,000 (?) feet of sediment.

    1. AndyG55

      All that silt is now piling up behind Akosombo dam.

  2. DirkH

    Hey they should really use the most obvious example, the German island Sylt, which has been destroyed by Climate Change since 1362. True story:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Marcellus%27_flood

    1. David Appell

      That event was a storm (“gale”), not climate change.

      1. yonason

        Looks like there were two. On in 1362, killing at least 25,000, and another, about 140 years earlier, in 1219 that killed 36,000 people, even more than the second.

        Oh, darn those medievals and their cursed SUVs!

        So, lets sum up. Here it’s weather when TWO monster storms wipe out 10s of thousands, but below in China it’s climate, even though a monster dam is depriving them of water during a drier than usual interval between the monsoons.

        All that’s “settled” here is that you haven’t a clue what you are writing about.

        1. David Appell

          Two storms in a 150 years doesn’t prove anything, except that big storms sometimes happen.

          And they were much devastating back then, of course.

      2. AndyG55

        Every weather event is NOT “climate change™”

        “Climate change™” is a disproven baseless assumption.

      3. Mindert Eiting

        This is what Appell wrote 31 December 2016, 9.07 AM:

        ” I’m done here (…) Not worth my time”.

        1. yonason
  3. Henning Nielsen

    It is he same in Norway with our state radio and tv corporation NRK. We all have to pay, whether we use their services or not. And they are massively alarmist since Rio 1992 or thereabouts. One leading politician involved with that conference was the former Norwegian PM Gro Harlem Brundtland who once made the infamous comment about CAGW: “Doubting is immoral”.No dissenting or blasphemist views are allowed to disturb the “consensus” of the unholy allience of climate research-media-politicians. And we, the people, are required to pay and keep our mouths shut.

  4. Manfred

    Sounds that Germany is ripening nicely (like many others) for a political swing away from the irrational to the rational. It’s happened elsewhere.

  5. David Appell

    I don’t know where you get the idea that the science is less settled than ever, but it’s completely false. You need to get out of the bubble you live in.

    “Climate science is settled *enough*” Raymond Pierrehumbert, Slate 10/1/14

    http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/10/the_wall_street_journal_and_steve_koonin_the_new_face_of_climate_change.html

    1. Kenneth Richard

      “I don’t know where you get the idea that the science is less settled than ever, but it’s completely false.”

      According to “settled science” (as documented in the journal Nature), about one million species will wind up extinct within the next 33 years, or by 2050, due to global warming. That’s about 30,000 species extinctions per year. According to the BBC and the Union for the Conservation of Nature, only 1 species has gone extinct since the year 2000. So, David, at what point does the settled science say that we will start going from 1 species extinction every 10 years to 300,000 species extinctions every 10 years? Please support your answer with peer-reviewed scientific evidence.

      “Climate science is settled *enough*” Raymond Pierrehumbert, Slate 10/1/14

      That’s all the confirmation we skeptics need. A blog post certainly clears things up, David.

      But if the science is “settled enough,” why is it that the IPCC acknowledged that 111 of 114 CMIP5 climate models (98%) failed to accurately simulate the temperature changes during the pause (or, as the IPCC authors called it, the hiatus)? If the models were that wrong, would that indicate that the science is not settled? If not, what failure rate would suggest that climate models are not settled science? If a 98% failure rate is still good enough, would a 99% failure rate cross that threshold, or is a 1% success rate good enough for people like Slate’s Raymond Pierrehumbert (and you)?

      IPCC AR5 direct quotations:
      “However, an analysis of the full suite of CMIP5 historical simulations reveals that 111 out of 114 realisations show a GMST trend over 1998–2012 that is higher than the entire HadCRUT4 trend ensemble.”
      “During the 15-year period beginning in 1998, the ensemble of HadCRUT4 GMST trends lies below almost all model-simulated trends (Box 9.2 Figure 1a)”
      “For the period 1998–2012, 111 of the 114 climate-model simulations show a surface-warming trend larger than the observations (Box SYR.1, Figure 1a).”
      “Almost all CMIP5 historical simulations do not reproduce the observed recent warming hiatus.”

      http://www.stat.washington.edu/peter/statclim/fyfeetal.pdf
      “Global mean surface temperature over the past 20 years (1993–2012) rose at a rate of 0.14 ± 0.06 °C per decade (95% confidence interval) This rate of warming is significantly slower than that simulated by the climate models participating in Phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5). [W]e find an average simulated rise in global mean surface temperature of 0.30 ± 0.02 °C per decade (using 95% confidence intervals on the model average). The observed rate of warming given above [0.14 C] is less than half of this simulated rate, and only a few simulations [3 out of 117, or 3%] provide warming trends within the range of observational uncertainty.”

      1. David Appell

        Is that “one million species” settled science?

        If so, how do you know?

        Or it is the result from just one paper?

        For what reasons do you doubt their conclusion?

        1. Kenneth Richard

          David Appell: “Is that ‘one million species’ settled science?”

          I don’t know if it’s considered “settled” science, David. You’re the one who has claimed climate science is “settled enough,” and that “dozens” of species are going extinct every single day — which would amount to at least 9,000 species per year are currently going extinct due to human-caused climate change. Where’s the extinction list, David? Is that extinction rate that you believe in “settled science”?

          David Appell: “For what reasons do you doubt their conclusion?”

          Because since the year 1500, scientists have documented the total number of species known to have actually gone extinct. The number is 801 (in 500+ years) according to UCN, with 1 species extinction since 2000 (a mollusc). So the belief that we shall witness 300,000 species per decade over the next 33 years after having witnessed less than 1 per decade in recent years allows me to conclude that the claim there will be one million species extinctions by the year 2050 due to “global warming” worth doubting.

          But why do you believe their conclusion?

          1. AndyG55

            You have to remember, Kenneth…

            REAL DATA is terribly difficult for the rotten appell.

            It lives in a fantasy make-believe world where real data is meaningless.

      2. David Appell

        “Although extinction is a natural phenomenon, it occurs at a natural “background” rate of about one to five species per year. Scientists estimate we’re now losing species at 1,000 to 10,000 times the background rate, with literally dozens going extinct every day*.

        – Center for Biological Diversity
        http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/biodiversity/elements_of_biodiversity/extinction_crisis/

        * Chivian, E. and A. Bernstein (eds.) 2008. Sustaining life: How human health depends on biodiversity. Center for Health and the Global Environment. Oxford University Press, New York.

        1. Kenneth Richard

          David Appell: “Scientists estimate we’re now losing species at 1,000 to 10,000 times the background rate, with literally dozens going extinct every day*.

          So you’re a believer! Please identify the “dozens of species going extinct every day”, David. This sounds a lot like your belief that coal mines are killing millions of birds…which is based upon models (like the statement above is). Produce the list of the actual dozens of extinctions per day that are directly linked to anthropogenic global warming.

          According to the Union for the Conservation of Nature:

          “It is possible to count the number of species known to be extinct. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) does just that. It has listed 801 animal and plant species (mostly animal) known to have gone extinct since 1500. … According to IUCN data, only one animal has been definitely identified as having gone extinct since 2000. It was a mollusc.”

          But do tell, David. Show us you know more than the IUCN. Assuming conservatively that “dozens” equals 24 species per day go extinct due to human CO2 emissions, that’s 8,760 species extinctions per year that we cause by burning fossil fuels Show us the list, David. Back up your claims.

          1. David Appell

            “Please identify the “dozens of species going extinct every day””

            See the citation I gave already.

            PS: One doesn’t have to count them day to day to estimate how many species are going extinct.

            Just as political polls don’t need to query every voter.

          2. Kenneth Richard

            “See the citation I gave already.”

            Your citations says:

            “In the past 500 years, we know of approximately 1,000 species that have gone extinct, from the woodland bison of West Virginia and Arizona’s Merriam’s elk to the Rocky Mountain grasshopper, passenger pigeon and Puerto Rico’s Culebra parrot.”

            This isn’t much different from the UCN figures that have 801 species having gone extinct since 1500, with 1 species extinction since 2000 documented (a mollusc).

            As I suspected, you cannot produce a list of the “dozens” of species that have gone/are going extinct every single day due to global warming, which is at least 9,000 per year.

            I asked you to provide a list to the actual species that have gone extinct due to climate change. You can’t. Instead, you provide a 2010 quote from an activist blog that projects “30 to 50 percent of all species possibly heading toward extinction by mid-century [2050]”. Dozens of species are NOT going extinct every single day. That’s a made-up claim based on modeled projections, which is essentially what your version of “settled (enough) science” is built upon.

          3. David Appell

            Again, Kenneth, you don’t need a list of all voters to know who will win an election. Sampling.

            Similarly, you don’t need a list in order to estimate about how many species are going extinct.

            There are lists like this:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_extinct_animals

            and there is the famous red list of threatened species:

            http://www.iucnredlist.org/

            I don’t like thinking that my way of life causes animal and plant extinctions. Probably you don’t either.

            But I’m not afraid to admit it and not afraid to study the best science I can on the extent of it, and why it is happening.

          4. Kenneth Richard

            “you don’t need a list in order to estimate about how many species are going extinct.”

            I’m not asking for modeled estimates of what you or others believe might maybe could be possibly happening with regard to species extinctions because temperatures have risen by tenths of a degree in the last few decades. I’m asking for actually observed extinction numbers due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions, which you claim is “dozens per day”. Back up your claims that dozens of species are ACTUALLY going extinct every day. I’m not interested in your estimates of what you think might be happening, or what may happen in the future.

            Scientists are supposed to be skeptics. They’re supposed to question claims, not believe in them without investigative, observational evidence. Why are you so inclined to believe in models and future estimates that aren’t rooted in observation? Why do you believe in “settled science”?

          5. David Appell

            Science is ALL models. ONLY models. We don’t know much of anything WITHOUT these models. There are NO data without models. You’re can’t determine ANYTHING in science without a model.

            Your request that all extinct species be listed is equivalent to saying you won’t believe in dinosaurs until they have all been paraded one-by-one in front of you.

          6. Kenneth Richard

            “Science is ALL models. ONLY models. We don’t know much of anything WITHOUT these models.”

            So if I ask you to support your belief that raising or lowering CO2 concentrations in volumes of 0.000001 (ppm) over a body of water causes that body of water to warm up or cool down, and then I ask you to provide physical measurements supporting that belief that you have, your answer will be something like: “I can’t support my belief with actual observational evidence or physical measurements. Nor do I have experimental evidence that CO2 heats or cools water when raised or lowered. It’s a model.” And then I’m supposed to accept what you believe as truth?

            Sorry, as a true skeptic, I don’t just take your word for it, David. Real science involving CO2 and testing the hypothesis would actually involve physical experimentation. For example, if we wanted to find supportive evidence that CO2 heats or cools water when raised or lowered, we could conduct an experiment like this:

            Find or create two empty and identical glass-covered greenhouses (or other transparent buildings) that are located side-by-side, with neither structure affected differently by trees or shade or other outdoor environmental conditions. Inside each building place matching containers (large, preferably) filled with the same amount of water in each. Measure the baseline conditions of water temperature with precise thermometers, and measure the baseline CO2 concentration each building — which will presumably be the same or similar in each. In the first building (control), do not alter the internal natural CO2 concentration, but leave it at baseline (somewhere close to 400 ppm). In the second building, inject incrementally increasing quantities of CO2 (e.g., 500 ppm, 1,000 ppm, 1,500 ppm) with a CO2 generator (which are used in greenhouses to stimulate plant growth). Use a CO2 monitor (also used routinely in greenhouses) to measure and control the amount of CO2 contained in the experimental building. After a specified time lapse, measure the water temperature change, if any, for both the control building and the building with added CO2 from identical depths and locations for each container. Finally, reverse the process and incrementally draw down the CO2 injection in the experimental building while again gauging water temperature changes for each building.

            That’s what science is, David. Observations. Physical evidence. Your claim that “dozens” of species are going extinct every single day could be a supportable claim (if it were true). We have people who keep track of such things. And those who do (e.g., Int. Union for the Conservation of Nature) cannot supply support for your belief, as they only count 801 species extinctions since 1500, and just 1 since 2000. That’s not “dozens” per day, as is your claim. Why do you prefer to just make stuff up or believe things that are not rooted in empirical observation?

            “… Your request that all extinct species be listed is equivalent to saying you won’t believe in dinosaurs until they have all been paraded one-by-one in front of you.”

            Uh, no those aren’t even remotely equivalent. We have actual numbers of species that have gone extinct…using observational evidence.

            http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-17826898
            “It is possible to count the number of species known to be extinct. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) does just that. It has listed 801 animal and plant species (mostly animal) known to have gone extinct since 1500. … According to IUCN data, only one animal has been definitely identified as having gone extinct since 2000. It was a mollusc.”

            If you truly were interested in supporting your beliefs using observational evidence, you’d provide a list of these “dozens” of species that are going extinct every single day. You can’t. That’s because it’s a made-up claim, based on models. Why do you prefer models over observations, David?

          7. AndyG55

            Hey rotten appell…

            … did you ever find any pictures of birds killed by coal fired power plants?

            or are you STILL running and hiding.

          8. David Appell

            Kenneth, do you want to rant about everything under the sun, or do you want to discuss issues like adults?

          9. Kenneth Richard

            Does “discuss issues like adults” include making up statements I never wrote and then calling those made-up statements attributed to me “naive”?

          10. David Appell

            Kenneth R wrote:
            “Real science involving CO2 and testing the hypothesis would actually involve physical experimentation.”

            Sorry, it’s impossible to do experiments in almost all aspects of climate science, since you can’t reproduce the same initial state over and over.

            But you can measure the absorption properties of GHGs. Have you read John Tyndall, perhaps?

            Have you seen this video perhaps?

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGaV3PiobYk

            Have you read these observational studies, maybe?

            “Radiative forcing – measured at Earth’s surface – corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect,” R. Philipona et al, Geo Res Letters, v31 L03202 (2004)
            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL018765/abstract

            “Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010,” D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339–343 (19 March 2015)
            http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html

            Press release for Feldman et al: “First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxide’s Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earth’s Surface,” Berkeley Lab, 2/25/15
            http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/

          11. Kenneth Richard

            “Sorry, it’s impossible to do experiments in almost all aspects of climate science, since you can’t reproduce the same initial state over and over.”

            Yes, and since we have no observational, experimental, or scientific evidence (nor physical measurements) that confirm varying CO2 up and down over a body of water causes heat changes in that body of water, the position that raising CO2 over a body of water causes that water to warm up is necessarily an assumption, or a belief. It’s not even a hypothesis. Hypotheses require observational evidence. So yes, thank you for acknowledging that your beliefs are indeed beliefs.

            “Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010,” D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339–343 (19 March 2015)

            This is probably the 5th time you have cited Feldman et al. (2015) here as “evidence” supporting your beliefs. I have cited the paper myself several times, as it completely undermines your claims. For example, see here for an explanation as to why cloud radiative forcing dwarfs the claimed forcing attributed to CO2:

            http://notrickszone.com/2016/10/27/3-new-papers-reveal-dominance-of-solar-cloud-forcing-since-the-1980s-with-co2-only-a-bit-player/

            As I’ve written previously (and then you never respond to it), there is no mention of ocean heat changes forced by CO2 in the Feldman paper. It’s based upon models of radiative forcing, and it assumes (without observational evidence) that CO2 heats water. Again, models of radiative forcing that don’t involve observational evidence of CO2 heating (or cooling) water when increased (or decreased) are not verified scientific evidence. We don’t share your beliefs, David. You’ll need to demonstrate that CO2 variations heat and/or cool water when raised or lowered. In a real scientific experiment. With physical measurements. You have nothing of the kind. All you have are models and beliefs.

            Curious. Do you consider yourself a skeptic?

          12. David Appell

            Kenneth wrote:
            “We have people who keep track of such things.”

            Wrong!

            We only know of a fraction of species that exist. Many exist that we do not (yet, at least) know about, because many new ones are discovered every year.

            “Somewhere between 15,000 and 18,000 new species are identified each year, with about half of those being insects.”

            http://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/new-animal-species

            You’re very naive for thinking a species exists only if we have observed it, and that a species is extinct only if we no longer observe it. Observations only show a fraction of what’s going on. To pretend that’s all that’s happening is unscientific (and denier-desperate).

          13. Kenneth Richard

            “You’re very naive for thinking a species exists only if we have observed it, and that a species is extinct only if we no longer observe it.”

            I never thought or wrote either of what you have just falsely claimed, and then insulted me for. Why do you insist on making up stuff and claiming I wrote it, David?

            What I have pointed out is that we have organizations with vested interests in preserving as many species as possible, organizations such as IUCN. And with the evidence they have available to them, they have determined that only 1 species, a mollusc, has definitely gone extinct since the year 2000. That’s their number. It’s 801 extinct species since the year 1500, with most of those occurring during the Little Ice Age. Yes, they “keep track of” such things using biological evidence. And no, your claim that we have “dozens” of species going extinct every day is not supported by the evidence available. Your link to a 2010 blog post by an activist does not support your claims. I have long known that we discover new species routinely. We also assume that some species are extinct that turn out not be. Stop making up words and thoughts and attributing them to me.

          14. David Appell

            Anytime I try to write anything of significance, my comments never appear, or even go to moderation apparently.

            I find that very suspicious.

          15. AndyG55

            “or do you want to discuss issues like adults?”

            First he would have to find someone other than the rotten-appell to discuss with, wouldn’t he.

            And to find some way of stopping the child-mind appell from butting in.

    2. yonason

      Sorry, David, but there’s more to the story than you have told us. And the bubble head leftists at Slate didn’t do their homework, either.

      “….record low rainfall this year has caused sharp drops in water levels in the middle and lower reaches of the Yangtze River, causing the drought to spread throughout Hunan, Hubei, Jiangxi, Anhui, Jiangsu and Zhejiang provinces. The region has suffered from 40 to 60 percent less rainfall than usual. Millions lack adequate drinking water.

      However, for Hong, the dry spell is not the only culprit to blame for her fish-less lake. Along with other farmers and environmentalists, she points to the Three Gorges Dam, the world’s largest hydro-power project as a resource nightmare that has exacerbated the drought.”
      _____________________
      http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/06/03/china.dam.drought/

      There’s a lot more on this than what you characters blame on “climate change.”

      The only thing that’s settled is that leftists are careless and/or dishonest.

      1. yonason

        It seems that David Appell prefers to hyperventilate over a problem rather than understand it. The reason the rains aren’t falling as much lately may, in addition to the problems the dam causes, be explained by this…

        New Study of the Tibet Plateau: Whenever Solar Activity is Weak, the Rains Disappear
        By Sebastian Lüning and Fritz Vahrenholt
        https://nextgrandminimum.wordpress.com/2012/05/14/grand-minimum-drought/

      2. David Appell

        Weather is not climate.

        1. AndyG55

          About time you figured that out !

          Climate shows no warming in 38 except for NON-CO2 El Nino weather events.

          No CO2 warming signal

          The anti-CO2 scam is an utter and complete distortion of science.. a total LIE…

          … so it is only to be expected that someone as slimy as the rotten-appell would support it.

    3. AndyG55

      Petite humbert

      You have GOT to be JOKING’

      The guy is a wacked out hippy reject.

      You would get on well with him.

      And the Slate.. roflmao

      Your reputation for ZERO science is further enhanced, worm-ridden appell

    4. AndyG55

      Humbert’s grasp on REALITY is probably even worse than yours, rotten-appell.

      He lives in a model created bubble world, with basically zero resemblance to the actual truth.

  6. tom0mason

    So not only do the AGW crowd believe in climate as a predictable entity if we darn humans hadn’t mess-up it up, the also believe in unchanging geography!

    Do they not understand that in damming the river the natural consequences will follow both up and down stream.
    Are the effect of nature so mysterious to these people?

    This report is every bit as banal as those about Bangladesh washing away when any storm gets close to it.

    1. David Appell

      Everyone knows climate isn’t predictable.

  7. Fred Stoller

    Hi Pierre, the SRF is not a German radio station. SRF belongs to us Swiss. And yes, all people living in Switzerland are forced to pay aroung 300.- US Dollars a year for that crap, even if you never watch or listen the SRF ( Schweizer Radio und Fernsehen http://www.srf.ch )But you are right, it is just another left wing propaganda machine.

    1. yonason

      Yipes!

      1. Bern has a “green” Stadtpräsident (Mayor? Governor?)
      http://www.srf.ch/news/regional/bern-freiburg-wallis/alec-von-graffenried-ist-berns-erster-gruener-stadtpraesident

      2. “Russia’s best chance for true democracy” …is 3 bimbos?
      http://s4.srf.ch/var/storage/images/auftritte/kultur/bilder/2017/01/15/f5228b853f87fbaa07edceb3beb6b697/133427220-3-ger-DE/f5228b853f87fbaa07edceb3beb6b697_s8.jpg

      My condolences to the sane minority of Switzerland.

      1. John F. Hultquist

        So, exactly where was that photo taken?

        1. yonason

          I wondered that myself. It was on that Swiss “news” website accompanying that title.

          They don’t look like what I would expect “Russian youth” to look like. Here’s one from “Russian Insider.”
          http://russia-insider.com/en/society/new-pioneers-russia/ri11329

          Looks like Russia may have it’s own version of “Common Core?”

          If I assume it’s all propaganda, then I don’t have to try to make sense of it, which is probably for the best, since it probably make none, at least not how it’s presented.

  8. yonason

    Hi, Pierre. My comment-1157695 isn’t even visible. Thanks in advance for digging it out.

  9. M E

    http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/3097382.L_Susan_Stebbing

    ‘Thinking to Some Purpose’..Penguin

    I found it a long time ago in a secondhand book shop and it may have had some effect.. I recommend it all your slightly spaced out correspondents. ( sourly)
    I also recommend second hand bookshops some of the best academic books end up there when out of fashion with the Universities.

  10. M E

    To all

    sorry

    “more haste less speed”