German CDU Parliamentarian Calls Climate Science “A Very Dangerous Mixture” Of Belief and Dogma

I was a bit hesitant to write about this because it could lead to trouble for the person with the courage to speak up. After all, we’d hate to see riots, violence and rabid fits of shouting.

But the good fight must be fought, and we must never be forced into silence – even when our livelihoods depend on it.

German Parliamentarian and physicist Dr. Philipp Lengsfeld of Angela Merkel’s (once) conservative CDU party gave a short talk last year at the 10th IKEK international climate and energy conference late last year in Berlin.

Dr. Lengsfeld, the son of human rights, anti-Communism activist Vera Lengsfeld, sees the green movement for what it really is: an oppressive system designed to strip the individual liberties from citizens.

Skeptics, EIKE, doing “a service to science and democracy”

The European Institute fro Climate and Energy, which co-hosted the conference and posted the video, wrote:

He compares the ideals of communism to those of the climate rescue ideology, namely rescuing mankind from itself and leading it collectively to paradise conditions – if only it would surrender its rights and the dignity of individualism. Both of these can be achieved only by dictatorship and Lengsfeld calls them criminal – even with respect to those stated in climate ideology.”

At the 1:50 mark he thanks EIKE and reminds the audience that “science and democracy thrive from the same basis: freedom, creativity and competition”…

Autocracy, on the other hand, lives from conformity, solidarity and brutal selfishness when it comes to asserting their own interests. Therefore it is totally clear to me that you are performing a service to science and to democracy.” And for that my deepest thanks.”

He then adds that the skeptics are indeed “up against an autocratic system” of the likes of the former Communist regimes and that there are in fact many similarities between the climate movement and the communist regimes.

Climate science a dangerous mixture of dogma

He warns that the climate science is fraught with “belief and dogma“, what he calls “a very dangerous mixture“. He adds that although renewable energy sources have positive points, we now find ourselves in “a system of dogmas that has become complete certainty and that any thing else is wrong“.

He says that Germany’s attempt to be a leader in renewable energy has completely missed the target and has failed.

We are surrounded by interest-driven dogmatists who have staked a claim on morality and belittled anyone who challenges.”

His advice to skeptics on this is to continue doing what we are doing, but warns:

Please stay scientific. Do not make the mistake of multiplying everything by minus one. That is not going to work. You may get some short term success here and there, but I think it is not the right strategy.”

Let’s get loud

He then calls “evidence-driven policy” and illusion:

If you are honest, policymaking means evidence considering. […] Evidence-driven implies already an eternal truth, it already implies that one sole solution is needed and that it is only necessary to give it to the Parliamentarians and insist that it is what you have to do and everything will be fine. But it doesn’t work that way. That’s not how the world is. That is not how people are. That’s not how science is.”

Lengsfeld advises skeptics to continue with a “fair discussion, a balanced discussion, but certainly not with a quiet discussion“.

Lengsfeld is optimistic, and believes the skeptics actually will have an easy time because the opponents have “run afoul.”

Look like “idiots”

Lengsfeld believes that climate science likely will go the same way as continental drift, where continents were once believed to be fixed on the globe, and that Alfred Wegener was eventually proven to be correct by claiming they were moving. Today, Lengsfeld said, everyone says that the scientists insisting on static continents now look like “idiots.”

 

41 responses to “German CDU Parliamentarian Calls Climate Science “A Very Dangerous Mixture” Of Belief and Dogma”

  1. Mike Haseler (Scottish Sceptic)

    If you subtitle the video, it will get a big airing.

  2. ole jensen

    New buzzword : Climatedrift 🙂

  3. SebastianH

    Today, Lengsfeld said, everyone says that the scientists insisting on static continents now look like “idiots.”

    I’d compare skeptics to those people who would claim the sun orbits Earth or continents don’t drift though. Specifically to those upholding the claim long after the observation has been verified by measurement.

    The amount of our influence may be up to debate, the fact that we influence the climate is not.

    1. AndyG55

      Sort of like AGW believers hey, seb

      No observations of the most basic tenet of their religion. No CO₂ based warming in a convective atmosphere.

      But there are morons and the heavily brain-washed that still “believe” regardless.

    2. David Johnson

      Funnily enough that’s just who I’d compare people like you who twist facts to suit their agenda.

      1. David Johnson

        That post for Mr Sebastian by the way

    3. tom0mason

      SebastianH 4. February 2017 at 5:29 PM said —
      “The amount of our influence may be up to debate, the fact that we influence the climate is not.”

      Comparing what humans can do to influence climate to what nature can do is a non-starter. Human influence is all lost in nature’s climatic noise.
      One puff from the sun — whoosh BIG weather changes that can impact the climate for decades.
      One volcanic eruption and boom, climate is changed for decades.
      Exceptional El Nino or La Nina events and the repercussions can last for decade.

      Humans add a near insignificant amount of CO2 to the air for 300 years and nothing! No change spotted, no fingerprint, its all lost in the natural noise.

      1. AndyG55

        “No change spotted, no fingerprint, its all lost in the natural noise.”

        That’s because CO₂ has ZERO effect on climate.

      2. SebastianH

        Humans add around 36 gigatons CO2 to the atmosphere every year. If nothing were capable of sinking some of this CO2 (e.g. the oceans as per evidence of increasing acidification) the ppm count would increase by more than 4 points every year just because of us. It is just increasing by 2-3 points per year and you guys really believe mankind is only responsible for a 1-digit percentage of the increase? 3% is often mentioned as a kind of official value … does that originate from this table? http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/1605/archive/gg04rpt/pdf/tbl3.pdf

        The human amount could indeed be called insignificant in that table, but it causes an increase by 11.7 gigatons per year, which no natural cause has managed to do in the last few hundred years …

        1. Kenneth Richard

          “Humans add around 36 gigatons CO2 to the atmosphere every year.”
          “you guys really believe mankind is only responsible for a 1-digit percentage of the increase? 3% is often mentioned as a kind of official value”

          It’s not just according to “you guys”, it’s according to the IPCC (AR5), which had the emission rate at 8.9 GtC/yr as of 2013 (not your 36 GtC), and the overall percentage of human emission relative to natural emission at 4.3%.

          For an easy reference, see this graph from the 2013 report:

          http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig6-1.jpg
          Natural emissions total: 198.2 GtC (primarily 78.4 GtC from ocean outgassing, and 118.7 GtC from total biosphere respiration and fire)

          Anthropogenic emissions total: 8.9 GtC (7.8 GtC is fossil fuels, 1.1 is land use changes)

          Ratio in terms of 100% total 207.1 = 95.7 to 4.3

          Here’s an illustration of the non-correlation between fossil fuel emissions and the CO2 airborne fraction from Hansen, 2013:
          http://ej.iop.org/images/1748-9326/8/1/011006/erl459410f3_online.jpg

          Here are two papers that point out the ratio of CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere to the change in CO2 due to fossil fuel emissions, called the airborne fraction, has effectively remained constant (as shown visually in the above graph) despite rapid increases in fossil fuel emissions. Could you explain why this would be the case, SebastianH? Why wouldn’t they be moving in tandem?

          http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/10/9045/2010/acpd-10-9045-2010.html
          The ratio of CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere to the CO2 flux into the atmosphere due to human activity, the airborne fraction (AF), is central to predict changes in earth’s surface temperature due to greenhouse gas induced warming. This ratio has remained remarkably constant in the past five decades

          http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009GL040613/full
          Abstract: [T]he trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found.

          Conclusion: From what we understand about the underlying processes, uptake of atmospheric CO2 should react not to a change in emissions, but to a change in concentrations. A further analysis of the likely contributing processes is necessary in order to establish the reasons for a near-constant AF [ratio of CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere to the CO2 flux into the atmosphere due to human activity] since the start of industrialization. The hypothesis of a recent or secular trend in the AF cannot be supported on the basis of the available data and its accuracy.

          1. SebastianH

            1) There is a difference between GtC and gigatons CO2.
            2) When you have a container that receives 100 liters of liquid per year and loses 100 liters per year. What do you get when you put additional 3 liters per year into the container and the container is only able to lose 1-2 liters of those? That is what your 3% value describes.
            3) Wasn’t it suggested here that nature can sink large amounts of CO2 that we produce? As AndyG55 would put it: CO2 is good for plants, they grow better with more of it ;-). Also: CO2 airborne fraction is clearly increasing: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/derivative

            Let’s please not go around in circles again. The 3% number is not our total contribution it is a yearly figure of our emissions compared to nature’s emissions. Not all of these additional emissions are absorbed by nature and so the CO2 concentration increases year over year.

            Our contribution is more or less in the order of 30% of the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and close to 100% of the amount that was added since the concentration was 280 ppm.

          2. Kenneth Richard

            1. When we compare natural to anthropogenic CO2 emissions, we use gigatons of carbon. IPCC does. NASA does:

            http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/images/global_carbon_dioxide_1850_2009.png

            2. Not another unrelated analogy.

            3. That isn’t the airborne fraction.

            Our contribution is more or less in the order of 30% of the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere

            The IPCC says it’s 4.3%. Are they wrong, or are you?

          3. SebastianH

            You can easily calculate gigatons of carbon from gigatons of CO2 and vice versa. The 36 gigatons CO2 value was from a link yonason (i think) posted … it was about emission being flat for a few years and yet the CO2 concentration still increases.

            The analogy is not unrelated. I looked up airborne fraction and I got that wrong, but since you are using the term you acknowledge around 45% of human emissions stay in the atmosphere each year. That’s basically saying we are responsible for nearly the whole increase of CO2 concentration.

            Do you really not see what those 4,3% you mention mean? 45% of this stays in the atmosphere … every year. Another analogy: if you receive 1,935% (45% of 4,3%) interest on your bank balance, how many years until your balance doubles? 37 years …

          4. Kenneth Richard

            You can easily calculate gigatons of carbon from gigatons of CO2 and vice versa

            Yes, and I’m using the IPCC’s calculation in noting that even the UN agrees anthropogenic sources only account for 4% of emissions.

            Here’s a textbook on atmospheric physics that has the human contribution as even less (natural sources = 100 times greater):

            http://www.atmosfera.unam.mx/jzavala/OceanoAtmosfera/Physics%20of%20the%20Atmosphere%20and%20Climate%20-%20Murry%20Salby.pdf
            Together, emission from ocean and land sources (∼150 GtC/yr) is two orders of magnitude greater than CO2 emission from combustion of fossil fuel. These natural sources are offset by natural sinks, of comparable strength. However, because they are so much stronger, even a minor imbalance between natural sources and sinks can overshadow the anthropogenic component of CO2 emission.” pg. 546

            I looked up airborne fraction and I got that wrong

            Yes, and I’m curious as to how you can explain the non-correlation between AF and FF trends. The models say the airborne fraction should increase as fossil fuel emissions do. But the AF has been flat. Why?

        2. Kenneth Richard

          Carey et al., 2017
          https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170130140004.htm
          While scientists and policy experts debate the impacts of global warming, Earth’s soil is releasing roughly nine times more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than all human activities combined.

          Reich et al., 2016
          http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature17142.html
          Plant respiration results in an annual flux of carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere that is six times as large as that due to the emissions from fossil fuel burning, so changes in either will impact future climate.

          Munshi, 2015
          http://www.researchgate.net/publication/281111296_RESPONSIVENESS_OF_ATMOSPHERIC_CO2_TO_ANTHROPOGENIC_EMISSIONS_A_NOTE
          A statistically significant correlation between annual anthropogenic CO2 emissions and the annual rate of accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere over a 53-year sample period from 1959-2011 is likely to be spurious because it vanishes when the two series are detrended. The results do not indicate a measurable year to year effect of annual anthropogenic emissions on the annual rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere.

          1. AndyG55

            Kenneth, I like to think we are at least having some upward effect on atmospheric CO₂ levels 🙂

            Minor, but some.

            I really want to know that we are helping the biosphere. 🙂

          2. Kenneth Richard

            Our land-use changes have more of an impact on the biosphere than our CO2 emissions.

            Also, there has only been one species known to have gone extinct since 2000 — a mollusc. Prior to that, or from 1500 to 2000, there were 800 species that disappeared from the planet, with most of those extinctions occurring during the Little Ice Age. So we’re doing a better job of maintaining and protecting the animal kingdom. The warmth has been good for plant and animal species alike — whether we have anything to do with it.

          3. tom0mason

            “Our land-use changes have more of an impact on the biosphere than our CO2 emissions. ”

            Indeed that is humanity’s major impact on the globe. Since ancient times we have been changing the nature of the flora and fauna around us, which appears (like all animals) to be in our nature.

        3. AndyG55

          “Humans add around 36 gigatons CO2 to the atmosphere every year”

          Yes, isn’t it WONDERFUL !

          The ONLY thing it has any PROVABLE affect on is plant life, and plant life absolutely LOVES CO₂

          CO₂ was dangerously low before man found out that coal and gas were essential for the progress of civilisation.

          Those countries that have had industrial coal and gas, PROGRESS, CIVILISATION.. COMMERCE, etc etc

          Those who did not develop via coal and gas.. still third world.

          It is THE BIG THING that distinguishes third world countries, inadequate power supplies.

          And its about time something was done about it.

          1. AndyG55

            And NO, wind and solar DO NOT provide adequate electricity. You cannot run a fridge off them, for instance.

            Adequate electricity requires coal, gas, oil, hydro or nuclear.

            Nuclear and hydro are probably out for most third world countries, so that leaves THE BIG THREE. FOSSIL FUEL.

        4. tom0mason

          But we know that all this fuss about CO2 is just politics as some left leaning ‘climate scientist’ made very apparent with the big scientific scandal of ‘Climategate’ in 2009 when thousands of leaked emails revealed political advocates disguised as ‘climate scientists’ were trying to block access to data, manipulate observations, and hide methods.
          Thus these ‘climate scientists’ have shown themselves as anti-science and non-scientists regardless of their qualifications.

          The vilification of CO2 is just politics not science. Professor Wood’s experiment on greenhouse gases shows BEYOND DOUBT that CO2 has negligible on atmospheric temperature at ground level.
          See http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2010/06/greenhouse-theory-disproven-in-1909.html
          and
          http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2013/06/21/the-fallacy-of-trapped-heat/

        5. tom0mason

          @SebastianH 5. February 2017 at 12:00 AM

          Using http://geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif as a reference please indicate when runaway global warming has ever occurred on this planet.

          There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 million years ago), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.4 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm — about 17.5 times higher than today.

          The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were about 11 times higher than today at about 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric CO2 influences earth’s temperatures and any global warming.

          Points to Note
          1. Historically changes in CO2 levels do NOT coincide with changes with temperature.

          2. Historically at no point has CO2 levels cause ‘runaway global warming’ as propagated by the UN-IPCC and some climate scientists.

          3. Historically when CO2 levels were as high as 4,400ppm (0.44% of the atmosphere), between the Ordovician and Silurian periods, an ice-age occurred!

          4. During a major part of the Carboniferous period CO2 levels were comparable to today’s but temperatures were MUCH higher (20°C compared to today’s ~12°C). Then another ice-age, between the end of Carboniferous and the start of Permian periods, when CO2 levels were still low (and still comparable to today’s CO2 levels).

          Simply observing the data about the history of this planet shows that such events as CO2 mediated ‘global warming’ are not possible. The ‘climate science™’ that says such things are just wrong!
          Nature actively stops runaway global warming, even if we do not know the minutia of how the historical record shows it to be so.

          1. SebastianH

            It doesn’t have to be a runaway warming … imagine the implications for the human civilization if temperatures were to increase to 25°C levels as in your graph.

            There is also no evidence of previous civilizations on this planet that manipulated the CO2 concentration to facilitate warming (or cooling). And don’t forget that there are other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the huge estimates of uncertainty in graphs like this.

            Last but not least: has the CO2 concentration ever increased this fast? Why is it increasing less fast than the amount of CO2 we emit indicates? You can’t seriously think the increase is natural and we have nothing (3%) to with it, do you?

          2. Kenneth Richard

            You can’t seriously think the increase is natural and we have nothing (3%) to with it, do you?

            SebastianH, as explained to you previously, the IPCC indicates that 4.3% of the CO2 emissions released per year comes from anthropogenic sources.

            During the Mid-Holocene, or just a few thousand years ago, the Earth was multiple degrees warmer than now. This occurred while CO2 levels were in the 260 ppm range. Also, during this same period, sea levels were 1-2 m higher than they are now. What caused this, since it wasn’t CO2?

          3. SebastianH

            95.7% emitted by nature, 4.3% emitted by mankind, 98% absorbed by nature. Every year …

            This adds up and definetly is not insignificant and nowhere near 3% (or 4.3%) in total.

            Why has every warming have to be caused by CO2? The current one most likely is. Even your Skeptic Papers 2016 list is mostly debating the amount of forcing. I’ll repeat: there were no previous civilizations around in pre-historic times that could have manipulated the CO2 concentration like we do. So CO2 levels changed naturally … it certainly isn’t “natural” this time.

          4. AndyG55

            “95.7% emitted by nature, 4.3% emitted by mankind, 98% absorbed by nature. Every year …”

            Isn’t it absolutely WONDERFUL that we are making a small contribution to the planet’s welfare by helping, in a small way, to liftg the CO2 level to a level usable by plant life

            REJOICE, don’t complain.

    4. AndyG55

      “may be up to debate, the fact that we influence the climate is not.”

      Of course its up for debate.

      You DON’T get to say that it is not.

      Why are you here, if not for debate… just as a mindless AGW troll?

      Sure we have local effects on weather, but climate.. Not so much, if any.

      You have yet to provide one iota of proof.

      And no, surface data, fabricated, fudged and adjusted, is NOT a measure of anything except political climate.

      So again.. support your religious fantasies.. or DON’T !

      1. SebastianH

        I do not debate with you since you disqualified yourself with pointless insults, by ignoring facts, declaring everything else a lie or fabricated, etc. You could not be convinced of 1 plus 1 being 2 and I am pretty sure this is just an act to troll others …

        1. AndyG55

          Me a troll ?????

          You are the AGW fanatic coming here trying to push your anti-science BS.

          You just don’t like being trolled back.

          So stop crying and put up or shut up.

          https://s19.postimg.org/6ecsn8wz7/twit.jpg

      2. AndyG55

        RUN and HIDE, you incompetent twerp

        You STILL haven’t produce ONE SINGLE PAPER that proves CO₂ causes warming in a convective atmosphere.

        YOU CAN’T and you know it.

        It is YOU that is disqualified, for baseless, unsupported, RELIGIOUS DOGMA.

    5. ClimateOtter

      ‘I’d compare skeptics to those people who would claim the sun orbits Earth or continents don’t drift though. ‘

      you’d be DEAD wrong seb.

  4. John F. Hultquist

    Dr. Philipp Lengsfeld makes good sense. Gets a gold medal from me.

    The notion that some of Earth’s land areas had been together and then separated started with simple pattern matching and relatively unsophisticated technology. “Continental Drift” needed a mechanism to explain the movements. What came before were myths.
    Skeptics asked – What is the power and mechanism to move continents? There was no answer in 1910.
    During his lifetime, Alfred Wegener was primarily known for his achievements in meteorology and as a pioneer of polar research. He married (1913) Else Köppen, the daughter of his former teacher and mentor, the meteorologist Wladimir Köppen, of climate regions and map fame. Alfrred died in 1930. So there was WWI to interrupt science of this sort, and after he died there was WWII.
    The “continental drift” paper came about 1910 but after WWII and maybe, in part, because of it much research followed and technology improved. Plate tectonics followed and was popularized by an article in the 1960s (?) pages of Scientific American and other magazines.

    The climate scare beginning, say 1988, is now 29 years old. Much time, lots of money, and even brain power have been misdirected. That is so if we denying deplorables are correct. With the UN and the Obama administration’s political power and money sidelined, actual science can begin to make progress on understanding the mechanisms of weather and climate – insofar as these things are explainable.

  5. Rob

    I’d compare climate alarmists to the ancient Gauls who thought the sky would fall on their heads.

  6. Harry Dale Huffman

    This time in human history will be remembered by the false dogmas that were promulgated on every side. One of those false dogmas is “continental drift”, but even scientists “skeptical” of consensus climate science refer to it as if it were a fact, that succeeded in the end against the mass of unscientific doubters. The truth is entirely different:

    “Challenge to Earth Scientists”

    Continental drift was not “believed” for 50 years, not because it was suppressed by a false consensus, but because honest physicists could find no good physical cause for such movement. And plate tectonics doesn’t solve it, despite what almost everyone now thinks–thinks it so completely that plate tectonics is the central theory of all the earth sciences today.

    Politics is not the only broken system today. Science is broken too.

    1. John F. Hultquist

      And plate tectonics doesn’t solve it, despite what almost everyone now thinks…

      “it”?
      What “it” doesn’t “plate tectonics” solve?
      What are you talking about?
      What sources can you provide for the statement you made?
      Curious minds want to know.

      1. Mindert Eiting

        If you follow his link, you may read that “it” means deliberate design. I would call it a principle of a scientific explanation that we should not explain a miracle by something which is even a greater miracle. For that reason I have some problems with the multiverse but the discussion may become too OT here.

  7. http://charlesfilterproj1.com

    Trump was referencing a hysteria that had sparked after records from the Associated Press recently revealed that Linda Bean, the granddaughter of thee business’s founder as
    well as one of L.L. Bean’s 10 board members, made a
    $60,000 contribution tto a pro-Trump SPECIAL-INTEREST GROUP that had actually much gone
    beyond the legal limitation. http://charlesfilterproj1.com

  8. m e emberson

    http://www.canterburyquakelive.co.nz/

    Look around the site please and see how many earthquakes have happened.

    http://www.crystalinks.com/rof.html

    A simple site about the areas where one plate moves over or under the other. The mechanism for this movement is situated in the earths crust or rather lower where temperatures high. Sea floor from long ago has been reused again and again. there are stripes of lava like substance of different ages around continents on the current sea floor showing this reuse of rock over geological ages.

Leave a Reply