Radical Green Obsessions: German Gov Pushing To Devolve Humans To Herbivores

News site t-online.de here writes that visitors to the German Ministry of Environment will be served only vegetarian food, according to German daily Bild.

The order comes from the Environment Minister Barbara Hendricks (Socialist Party) herself. According to reports, food service companies that cater events held at the Ministry are not to provide fish or meat, or products made of meat. The rule has been in effect since February 1st. Also catered food must come from organic farms, be seasonal and locally produced with short transport distances.”

The reason for the new policy? According to the report, the Ministry must act as a “role model” in the fight against the “effects of meat consumption“.

More German climate protection madness in the pipeline
Higher taxes on meat and milk products

The dictation of people’s lifestyles does not only end at the Environment Ministry banning meat and fish at its events. but according to topagrar.com here, the Ministry is also calling for higher taxation nationwide on “animal products such as milk and meat“.

German government herding its citizens to eat like cows. Image: USDA

If the German government gets its way, soon a nutritious and balanced diet will become a luxury that only the rich will be able to afford. The poor will be forced to devolve to diets of herbivores, a level down the food chain. In summary: biological devolution seems to be the new direction of progress in Germany and radical environmentalists. Better to become a lowly herbivore than to risk warming the planet by a degree or two.

Humans are to be herded down the food-chain…back millions of years in evolution.

According to UBA president Maria Krautzberger: “Animal food products need to be taxed at the regular 19% VAT rate.” In Germany food is taxed at a 7% VAT rate. With the added revenue, the Ministry says it aims to lower the tax on plant products. “This will protect the climate and will be less a burden on the taxpayer,” she said. According to topagrar.de, the aim is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The Ministry blames the agricultural industry for being one of the country’s top greenhouse gas emitters. It claims that the production of one kilogram of beef causes between 7 and 28 kilograms of greenhouse gases, whereby 1 kg of fruit or vegetables emits less than a kilogram.

In response, the German association of farming (DBV) sharply criticizes the plans, accusing the Ministry of using misleading figures and focusing in the wrong areas.

DBV president Joachim Rukwied said: “A penalty tax on food will have no positive benefit on climate, but rather will only make the daily purchases made by consumers more expensive.”

Topagrar.de points out that agriculture in fact represents only a small fraction of the total greenhouse gas emissions: 7%, and so the focus is misplaced. Rukwied criticizes:

It is totally incomprehensible how agricultural animal farming can be put in the front row of climate sinners.”

topagrar.de quotes MIV Milk Industry Mndustry Association director Eckhard Heuser:

Milk and milk products are among the fundamental food staples of German citizens. Families with small children, and thus having a high milk consumption, and people with low incomes will be forced to pay disproportionately more.”

The National Union of the Food Industry (BVE) has come out against the ecological control taxation on food, saying that it will only serve to “make products more expensive, distort the market and add more bureaucracy“.

 

96 responses to “Radical Green Obsessions: German Gov Pushing To Devolve Humans To Herbivores”

  1. Ed Caryl

    It is appropriate for the sheep!

  2. mwhite

    “Higher taxes on meat and milk products”

    Unless you live close to one of Germanys neighbours, in which case you’ll probably end up doing all your shoping over the border. (See Danish fat tax http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20280863)

    As for reducing VAT on veg I believe EU law means it cannot go any lower than 5%.

  3. AlecM

    Germany can afford to have lunatic politicians because it has industry , an undervalued currency and Grid power to allow it all to exist. Make that power too expensive and industry emigrates.

    The migrants will then have no state benefits to live on. This is the recipe for 30 years’ Civil War with many cities reduced to rubble as America and Russia crush the various Salafist derivatives. Think of the 30 years’ war.

    1. DirkH

      Yeah, like America “crushed” ISIS, right? By giving weapons to all terrorists except ISIS – who then “lost” them to ISIS…

      What’s it called? Plausible Deniality. Americans are masters of the modern terrorist Proxy war while at the same time being SOOO against it in public.

      1. DirkH

        Tpyo, Plausible Deniability…

  4. Curious George

    Hitler was a vegetarian.

    1. AlecM

      Correct: he just had people killed by cyanide gas then burnt before burying the ash.

  5. DirkH

    Milk is the symbol of our movement!
    https://dirkhblog.wordpress.com/2017/02/21/drinking-milk-at-shia-laboeufs/

    The German state defines its raison d’etre as being antifascist. (GAUCK: “The only reason for the existence of Germany is AUSCHWITZ.”)

    Hitler was a vegetarian.

    1. SebastianH

      Wow, just wow … on so many levels just wow. This comment (and the referenced blogpost) explains a lot. I feel for you bro …

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6X9CEi8wkBc

    2. AndyG55

      But did Hitler ever go so far as to try to stop other people eating meat and drinking milk? (asking, because I don’t know)

      Seems these Socialists are even more dictatorial than Hitler was, at least in this area.

      1. AndyG55

        I apologise for the double similar post.

        I thought this one had disappeared into the æther.

    3. AndyG55

      Did Hitler ever try to stop people eating meat or drinking milk.?

      If not, then it seems that in this respect, these totalitarian socialists are WORSE than Hitler.

      They should be told in no uncertain terms…

      …. to GO JUMP IN THE LAKE.

      1. SebastianH

        Are you serious? Nobody is trying to stop people from eating meat or drinking milk in Germany.

        As for Hitler, he certainly has gone out of his way to change part of the world so people couldn’t eat meat or drink milk even if they wanted to.

        1. AndyG55

          seb again proves he cannot read or understand…

          “the Ministry is also calling for higher taxation nationwide on “animal products such as milk and meat“.”

          Wilful ignorance again from seb.

          1. SebastianH

            So higher taxation is equal to trying to stop someone from doing something? Are governments then trying to stop people earning too much? Or do you have a flat tax scheme where you live?

            A strange perception of reality you have. Have you also read that other products will be taxed lower so there is no net change in the amount of taxes from food? And did you know that meat in Germany has already a reduced VAT? Does that mean the government is currently trying to make us meat-only citizens?

          2. AndyG55

            You seriously are an illiterate in basically every subject aren’t you.

            When a government raises taxes JUST on certain items, it is obviously a ploy to steer people away from those items.

            “And did you know that meat in Germany has already a reduced VAT?”

            Just meat, or all primary produce? Or are you trying deceitful misdirection, yet again.

          3. SebastianH

            Steering people away from something is different then trying to stop people.

          4. AndyG55

            Of course it is, you little […-snip]

        2. DirkH

          Sebastian, so you’re saying Hitler didn’t go far enough?

          1. SebastianH

            wtf is wrong with you?

          2. AndyG55

            We have been wondering that about you for a LONG time, seb.

            Once we can get past your mental deficiencies, we are then up against your moral deficiencies.

  6. JJM Gommers

    I don’t understand what is going on with our policymakers in Western Europe. In our Dutch parlement there is no one with some knowledge to evaluate issues like climate, energy policy. You can expect crap like this, does she knows the difference between a herbivore and omnivore??
    I really start to have my doubts.

    1. Mindert Eiting

      And does she know the difference between Church and State?

  7. John F. Hultquist

    … be seasonal and locally produced with short transport distances.

    We are not in Germany but there are lots of things available here now that would have to be cut. Some folks like coffee and tea — gone. Oranges, dates, cashews — gone. Bananas — gone. If seasonality is required there are many things that would be available for only 3 or 4 weeks each year. Children in some places would grow up not knowing what an Orange is.
    The fact is, we live in cattle country so the “short transport distance” is easy to do. Sea food would have to go, although a few times each year the Salmon come home and they can be caught and stored via several methods.
    A total requirement such as this would remake the world economy and push many people into destitution.

  8. Stuart

    Madness. does no one understand the carbon cycle.
    Grass and vegetation convert CO2 into starches and sugars, these then get eaten by bacteria insects or animals, if animals dont eat it, they rot (bacteria) and the result is the same that CO2 is released to the atmosphere.

    1. SebastianH

      It should be obvious that the animals we eat are being fed with plants we specifically grow for the purpose of feeding animals. That argument above makes no sense …

      1. AndyG55

        The carbon cycle will continue as it will, it was a very sensible comment.

        The cycles will either contain humans or not. It doesn’t make any difference to how much carbon is in the atmosphere. That is the whole rationale behind Drax burning wood pellets from American trees (I hope Trump puts a rapid end to that particular piece of farce)

        I assume seb would prefer that the carbon cycle didn’t contain humans….. except himself, of course.

        Thank goodness we are bringing buried carbon back into that cycle to strengthen it, hey 🙂

        Too bad you don’t have the intelligence to understand any of this, seb… no expectations from you, that is for sure.

        Have you found that missing paper to support your baseless religion yet, seb ???

        1. SebastianH

          Do you still believe that surface temperatures are as high as they are because of the “gravito-thermal effect”?

          1. Kenneth Richard

            Do you still believe that 1.8 W m-2 of the alleged total radiative forcing from atmospheric CO2 concentration variations since 1750 is enough to dominate as the cause of net heat content changes in the global oceans? What physical/observational evidence do you have that shows atmospheric CO2 concentration changes are a dominant cause of ocean heat variations? Or do just believe it’s true without needing physical measurements/scientific verification?

            Why do you think it is that the Pacific Ocean is still -0.65 C colder in the 0-700 m layer than it was 1,000 years ago with all that, you know, human forcing?

          2. SebastianH

            Let’s see … what is the current ocean heat content change since 1750? From 1960 to today is seems to be 20 * 10^22 Joules, correct?

            That equals about 5.55555555 * 10^19 Wh or 1.1325 * 10^14 W on average in those 56 years.

            The area of the ocean surface is 361,900,000,000,000 m² or 3.619 * 10^14 m².

            So only about 0.31 W/m² of forcing is needed to achieve this kind of change in the heat content of the ocean.

          3. Kenneth Richard

            “So only about 0.31 W/m² of forcing is needed to achieve this kind of change in the heat content of the ocean.”

            According to this realclimate.org graph…

            http://www.realclimate.org/images//AR5-Fig-3.2-2.jpg

            …ocean heat content (0-700) remained flat until about the late-1980s, when it began rising (if one can find an actual trend in there with uncertainty ranges an order of magnitude greater than any assumed trend).

            The global radiative forcing value in surface solar radiation (SSR) attributed to the shortwave cloud effect (decreasing cloud cover = more solar heat absorbed by the ocean) for the 1980s to 2000s period is about 3 to 6 W m-2 according to dozens of scientific papers using satellite data (which I have cited previously).

            According to Feldman et al. (2015), the radiative forcing attributed to CO2 variations between 2000 and 2010 is 0.2 W m-2 — though the authors do not include ocean heat content in their analysis. According to a more recent paper, Song et al. (2016), the GHE radiative forcing for +30 ppm CO2 was effectively zero for 1992-2014:

            “The oceanic Gaa [atmospheric greenhouse effect] exhibits a notable increasing trend with a rate of 0.21 W m−2 yr−1 in 1979–1991, whereas its rate of change (−0.04 W m−2 yr−1) during 1992–2014 is not statistically significant.”

            So, since the late-1980s, natural forcing from the decrease in cloud cover alone can explain any and all ocean warming trend (3 – 6 W m-2), which would completely overwhelm any assumed changes in OHC attributed to the CO2 greenhouse effect for that period (0 to 0.3 W m-2). This assumes, of course, that the models are correct that presume ocean heat content is significantly affected by 0.000001 changes in atmospheric CO2, even though this presumption has never been observed to occur in the real world.

            So why do you believe, SebastianH, that 0 to 0.3 W m-2 of presumed forcing from CO2 since the late 1980s or early 1990s is greater than the forcing of 3 to 6 W m-2 attributed to observations of reduced cloud cover/SSR over the same period? Or do you just plan to ignore the SSR forcing values because they don’t collaborate your belief that CO2 variations drive changes in ocean heat content?

          4. AndyG55

            A modelled load of propaganda pap, there is no way they could have measure OHC at all before 2003.

            Have you found a paper that proves that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere yet, or are you still flapping around like a semi-stunned mullet.

            I gave you several papers on the G/T effect, which works on all planets with a viable atmosphere.

            Ignoring science seems to be your only strong point. You must be an AGW “believer”.

          5. SebastianH

            A modelled load of propaganda pap, there is no way they could have measure OHC at all before 2003.

            I am sure Kenneth will come up with some paper with a detailed reconstruction to the beginning of time …

            I gave you several papers on the G/T effect, which works on all planets with a viable atmosphere.

            Cause and effect. The gradient begins at the surface. (read this blog post if you want: https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2014/12/09/i-dont-get-the-gravito-thermal-effect/ )

            If you believe all papers are correctly describing reality then why did you ignore everything I presented to you in the past?

          6. AndyG55

            Still no paper to prove that CO2 causes warming in a convective gravity/gradient controlled atmosphere??

            Getting way past PATHETIC isn’t it. 🙂

            And I’m sorry the poor nonce you linked to doesn’t “get it”…

            … as you have amply illustrated, ignorance is strong in the AGW church.

          7. AndyG55

            Hey everybody, seb has just redefined gravity

            according to him,

            “Gravity begins at the surface”

            Probably ranks among one of the most anti-science pieces of idiocy we have seen, even from seb.

            Well done, seb, you have exceeded your own dumbness. !!!

          8. Kenneth Richard

            “Gravity begins at the surface”

            He meant that gravity begins at the surface of where it begins from. Once it starts at the beginning, it continues to the end. And then, you know, the greenhouse effect. It’s simple physics, simplified by the laws. And stuff.

          9. AndyG55

            But Kenneth.. If gravity begins at the surface, where does gravity end?

            What happens below the surface?

            Enquiring minds want to know how this new thought-bubble of gravity actually works!

            Furthermore, how does CO2 affect gravity?
            It seems to affect just about everything else… according to AGW thought-bubbles.

            (Even though CO2 warming in a convective atmosphere has never been proven.)

          10. Kenneth Richard

            “If gravity begins at the surface, where does gravity end?”

            At the carbon dioxide.

          11. SebastianH

            Get a room, you two lovebirds.

            Where did I write where “gravity” begins? English is not my primary language, but I am pretty sure it reads “gradient” above …

          12. Kenneth Richard

            Sorry, SebastianH. I assumed it was a direct quote.

            Now will you answer the question you keep on avoiding?

            So, since the late-1980s, natural forcing from the decrease in cloud cover alone can explain any and all ocean warming trend (3 – 6 W m-2), which would completely overwhelm any assumed changes in OHC attributed to the CO2 greenhouse effect for that period (0 to 0.3 W m-2). This assumes, of course, that the models are correct that presume ocean heat content is significantly affected by 0.000001 changes in atmospheric CO2, even though this presumption has never been observed to occur in the real world.

            So why do you believe, SebastianH, that 0 to 0.3 W m-2 of presumed forcing from CO2 since the late 1980s or early 1990s is greater than the forcing of 3 to 6 W m-2 attributed to observations of reduced cloud cover/SSR over the same period? Or do you just plan to ignore the SSR forcing values because they don’t collaborate your belief that CO2 variations drive changes in ocean heat content?

          13. AndyG55

            You are making a MOCKERY of your baseless unsubstantiated AGW religion, Seb

            “Gravity begins at the surface” … roflmao !!!

            Totally unable to find one single paper that proves that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere… roflmao

            Has zero comprehension of the natural all pervading gravity/thermal effect …. roflamo

            SO darn INGNORANT, you are beyond a joke.

            We don’t need to mock you.. you do it all to yourself. 🙂

          14. SebastianH

            Kenneth, you already linked a paper that claimed that total cloud cover forcing is about – 21 W/m² (blocked sunlight minus additional LW radiation from the clouds to the surface). So the blocked sunlight decreased by 3 to 6 W/m², what is the resulting change in total cloud cover forcing?

            Do you have a graph of the total cloud cover change since the 80s? By how much did it actually change since the 80s? The most recent I could find says the cloud cover percentage was the same in 2009 and 1983. So did it change by 1%? 2%? 3%? What’s 1% of -21 W/m²? 0.21 W/m² … and there you have your total change of the forcing by the change in cloud cover.

            Do you disagree? If so, why?

          15. Kenneth Richard

            “Kenneth, you already linked a paper that claimed that total cloud cover forcing is about – 21 W/m² (blocked sunlight minus additional LW radiation from the clouds to the surface). So the blocked sunlight decreased by 3 to 6 W/m², what is the resulting change in total cloud cover forcing?”

            Apparently you missed the part where I explained to you (and apparently the first time you’ve ever read it, if you did) that the – 21 W/m² is the absolute value for net cloud forcing, calculated from subtracting/adding the shortwave and longwave components together. The 3 to 6 W m-2 is the net relative change in forcing calculated from satellite observations of global-scale cloud cover. We do not substract one from the other, just as we do not subtract the 1 to 5 W m-2 of (relative, net) TSI forcing since the Maunder minimum from the 300-500 W m-2 (absolute) daylight forcing, or the amount of energy that is absorbed by the Earth’s oceans on an average sunny day. Do you understand the difference yet? You obviously didn’t before. Do you now?

            Here’s an earlier paper that put net cloud (absolute) forcing at -18 W m-2:

            http://www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu/files/brt18.pdf
            Clouds reduce the absorbed solar radiation by 48 W m−2 (Cs = −48Wm−2) while enhancing the greenhouse effect by 30 W m−2 (Cl = 30Wm−2), and therefore clouds cool the global surface–atmosphere system by 18 W m−2 (C = −18 W m−2) on average. The mean value of C is several times the 4 W m−2 heating expected from doubling of CO2 and thus Earth would probably be substantially warmer without clouds.”

            Here’s an explanation of the relative forcing from cloud cover reductions:

            http://file.scirp.org/Html/22-4700327_50837.htm
            The reduction in total cloud cover of 6.8% [between 1984 – 2009] means that 5.4 Wm−2 (6.8% of 79) is no longer being reflected but acts instead as an extra forcing into the atmosphere… To put this [5.4 Wm-2 of solar radiative forcing via cloud cover reduction between 1984-2009] into context, the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report…states that the total anthropogenic radiative forcing for 2011 relative to 1750 is 2.29 Wm−2 for all greenhouse gases and for carbon dioxide alone is 1.68 Wm−2. The increase in radiative forcing caused by the reduction in total cloud cover over 10 years is therefore more than double the IPCC’s estimated radiative forcing for all greenhouse gases and more than three times greater than the forcing by carbon dioxide alone [from 1750 to present].

          16. SebastianH

            And AndyG55 continues to make himself look stupid by repeating whatever he imagines to be true …

          17. AndyG55

            Poor Seb-troll, the little amoeba STILL can’t even support the VERY BASIS of his AGW religion.

            Cannot produce one single paper that proves CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.

            He also cannot understand the basic physics behind the gravity/thermal effect.

            Only one person looking STUPID here, seb, and it isn’t me. 🙂

          18. AndyG55

            At least the poor, brain-dead parrot has figured out that there is pressure gradient.

            small step, tiny step, hey seb !!! 😉

            Keep straining that grey slush of your.. eventually you might get there.. or NOT !!

          19. SebastianH

            Kenneth,

            We do not substract one from the other

            If you read carefully what I wrote, than you’d know that I didn’t do that. It tried to show you how relative 3-6 W/m² end up when calculated to an absolute value.

            It is the second time (“gravity begins”) you did that in this thread …

          20. Kenneth Richard

            Here’s what you have written:

            SebastianH: “Kenneth, so you want me to believe that the net cloud forcing is -21 W/m² and that number changed by 5.4 W/m² by what kind of reduction of the cloud cover? Did we really lose a quarter of the cloud cover?

            SebastianH: “If you cite something that says clouds cause a net forcing of -21 W/m² and then cite something that says the decrease in cloud cover is responsible for a forcing of 5.4 W/m², then I assume that net cloud forcing was -26.4 W/m² in the past.”

            How did you arrive at your conclusion that we “lost a quarter of the cloud cover” if you didn’t wrongly compare the -21 W m-2 and the 5.4 m-2 to one another? You obviously have no understanding of what the -21 W m-2 (or -18 W m-2) represents, despite my explaining it to you twice. It’s hopeless. You don’t even want to understand it, let alone answer the question.

            The relative forcing value for clouds since the 1980s is 3 to 6 W m-2 (according to many dozen scientific papers). The relative forcing values for CO2 since the 1980s is 0.0 to 0.3 W m-2 (Feldman et al., 2015, Sing et al., 2016). These are the values found in the scientific literature. Without trying to figure out what -21 W m-2 means (since you obviously won’t or can’t — and I never even mentioned the absolute forcing value in my question above), answer the question: Which of these two forcing values is larger – the forcing values for clouds, or the forcing values for CO2?

            See if you can answer this question without trying to veer off in another direction like you usually do.

            I apologize (again) for assuming (without checking) that you were being quoted correctly. When quotation marks are used, I assume it’s a direct quote.

          21. AndyG55

            Funny isn’t it.

            Continued climbing of aCO2 this century, but CERES shows down-welling long wave radiation DECREASING.

            https://s19.postimg.org/yq1khv3hv/CERES_Surface.png

            And poor little seb STILL can’t produce one single paper showing CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere..

            So sad that seb cannot defend even the most basic LIE of the AGW scam, and just keeps running and avoiding it….

            … while also denying the peer-reviewed papers on the gravity/thermal effect.

          22. SebastianH

            Kenneth, I think you are mixing numbers up now. You are digging up what I wrote in another thread where you didn’t understand what I was writing about (trying to make it clear to you that whatever “relative” forcing you assume cloud cover has is not the total forcing of the cloud cover). Why would CO2 forcing be relative? The surface has to lose the exact amount of W/m² in order to reach a steady state condition. It doesn’t have to compensate 3-6 W/m² of the cloud cover change you assume.

            It may very well be that English not being my primary language creates some missunderstanding here. It feels the same when arguing with you about magnitudes. You either intentionally missunderstand or you really do not understand, I can’t tell.

            AndyG55, did you even read what the grown ups are discussing here? btw: you graph shows “net longwave flux”, not downwelling …

          23. Kenneth Richard

            SebastianH, I understand you would like to make the 3 to 6 W m-2 of net cloud forcing since the 1980s go away. That’s why you originally wrote that you “bet” it’s actually 0 W m-2 — despite not having any scientific paper to support your “bet”.

            Why do you “bet” cloud forcing isn’t actually 3 to 6 W m-2 for the 1980s to 2000s, but 0 W m-2 instead? Because that way you can claim that the 0.0 to 0.3 of CO2 (modeled) forcing effect on the ocean heat content is greater — even though CO2 variations have never been observed, or measured, to have affected ocean heat content, let alone stand as the dominant cause of OHC variations. So, to distract from this subversion of the narrative you espouse that says nearly all natural factors influencing climate suddenly stopped varying and remained constant after the year 1950…or 1970, or whatever year you have cherry-picked, allowing CO2 to take over from natural forcing, you have once again ignored the forcing values found in the scientific literature, and instead veered off (again) to discuss what you believe the -21 W m-2 of cloud forcing actually means, or how it turns into -26 W m-2 sometimes, or how it is reduced by 1/4th… Whatever you can do to avoid answering the direct question, the better off you apparently think your position is. You’re losing the debate, SebastianH, because you refuse to answer this highly relevant and fundamental question:

            The relative forcing value for clouds since the 1980s is 3 to 6 W m-2 (according to many dozen scientific papers). The relative forcing values for CO2 since the 1980s is 0.0 to 0.3 W m-2 (Feldman et al., 2015, Sing et al., 2016). These are the values found in the scientific literature. Which of these two forcing values is larger – the forcing values for clouds (3 to 6 W m-2), or the forcing values for CO2 (0.0 to 0.3 W m-2)?

            I’ll put it another way. I believe that 3 to 6 W m-2 is greater than 0.0 to 0.3 W m-2. Do you believe that 3 to 6 is greater than 0.0 to 0.3 W m-2 too? Or do you think 0.0 to 0.3 W m-2 is greater than 3 to 6 W m-2?

          24. AndyG55

            Continued climbing of aCO2 this century, but CERES shows down-welling long wave radiation DECREASING.
            https://s19.postimg.org/yq1khv3hv/CERES_Surface.png

            oops. inconvenient data that seb MUST ignore.

            And poor little seb STILL can’t produce one single paper showing CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere..

            So sad that seb cannot defend even the most basic LIE of the AGW scam, and just keeps running away and avoiding it…

            It must make him feel very incompetent and inept.

            Once he sees that truth about himself, he can start actually learning..

            A bit like alcoholism or drug abuse or cultism, ….

            …. until he admits he has a problem, he can’t get or accept the help he needs.

          25. SebastianH

            AndyG55, do I really need to explain to you what “surface net longwave flux” means in the title of the graph you linked? Does the title read downwelling longwave radiation? No it doesn’t!

            Actual data for downwelling longwave radiation measured by CERES is pretty stable for the same time periods (despite Kenneth’s cloud cover forcing thing). So upwelling longwave radiation increased … as is expected when temperatures increase.

            https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/dwlwir-gl.png

            @Kenneth,

            why do you think CO2 forcing is relative? Is something working against this forcing? If less cloud cover causes additional 3-6 W/m² on the surface, but reduced downwelling longwave radiation (because less clouds) is in the area of 2.8-5.6 W/m² … then this results in a net forcing change of 0.2-0.4 W/m². Roughly the same amount as CO2 forcing is supposed to have changed.

            I get what you want the numbers to say, but those 3-6 W/m² are NOT comparable to your 0-0.3 W/m² number. As you can see on the downwelling radiation graph linked to above, cloud cover decrease in downwelling radiation might as well have been compensated by the increase in CO2 caused radation.

            Here is a link to the surface net shortwave flux: https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/congo-net-sw-sfc.png

            Where do you see a big increase caused by decreasing cloud cover?

            Here is a graph of total global monthly cloud cover: http://climate4you.com/images/CloudCoverTotalObservationsSince1983.gif

            Cloud cover was a higher percentage in mid to late 80s and then decreased … but it’s the same in late 2009 as in 1983/84. Where do you see a big change in cloud cover in recent times?

          26. Kenneth Richard

            Sorry, SebastianH, you can’t just make scientific papers go away because you don’t like what the satellite observations say, or you can’t just say cloud forcing is “0.2-0.4 W/m²” because you don’t like the 3 to 6 W m-2 values for clouds.

            http://www.sciencemag.org/content/308/5723/850.abstract
            Long-term variations in solar radiation at Earth’s surface (S) can affect our climate, the hydrological cycle, plant photosynthesis, and solar power. Sustained decreases in S have been widely reported from about the year 1960 to 1990. Here we present an estimate of global temporal variations in S by using the longest available satellite record. We observed an overall increase in S [solar radiation] from 1983 to 2001 at a rate of 0.16 watts per square meter (0.10%) per year

            http://nml.yonsei.ac.kr/front/bbs/paper/rad/RAD_2005-3_Wild_et_al.pdf
            A similar reversal to brightening in the 1990s has been found on a global scale in a recent study that estimates surface solar radiation from satellite data. This indicates that the surface measurements may indeed pick up a largescale signal. The changes in both satellite derived and measured surface insolation data are also in line with changes in global cloudiness provided by the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP), which show an increase until the late 1980s and a decrease thereafter, on the order of 5% from the late 1980s to 2002. A recent reconstruction of planetary albedo based on the earthshine method, which also depends on ISCCP cloud data, reports a similar decrease during the 1990s. Over the period covered so far by BSRN (1992 to 2001), the decrease in earth reflectance corresponds to an increase of 6 W m-2 in absorbed solar radiation by the globe. The overall change observed at the BSRN sites, estimated as an average of the slopes at the sites in Fig. 2A, is 0.66 W m-2 per year (6.6 W m-2 over the entire BSRN period).

            ftp://bbsoweb.bbso.njit.edu/pub/staff/pgoode/website/publications/Goode_Palle_2007_JASTP.pdf
            The decrease in the Earth’s reflectance from 1984 to 2000 suggested by Fig. 4, translates into a Bond albedo decrease of 0.02 (out of the nominal value of about 0.30) or an additional global shortwave forcing of 6.8 Wm2. To put that in perspective, the latest IPCC report (IPCC, 2001) argues for a 2.4 Wm2 increase in CO2 longwave forcing since 1850. The temporal variations in the albedo are closely associated with changes in the cloud cover.

            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0034425716304655
            Trends of all-sky downward surface solar radiation (SSR) from satellite-derived data over Europe (1983–2010) are first presented. The results show a widespread (i.e., non-local dimension) increase in the major part of Europe, especially since the mid-1990s in the central and northern areas and in springtime. There is a mean increase of SSR of at least 2 W m− 2 per decade from 1983 to 2010 over the whole Europe, which, taking into account that the satellite-derived product lacks of aerosol variations, can be mostly related to a decrease in the cloud radiative effects over Europe. … Downward surface solar radiation (SSR) is a critical part of the Global Energy Balance and the climate system … A widespread decrease of SSR from the 1950s to the 1980s [when global cooling occurred] has been observed (Liepert, 2002; Stanhill and Cohen, 2001; Wild, 2009), followed by an increase of SSR since the mid-1980s [when global warming occurred]… Pinker et al. (2005) used a different product (2.5° resolution) and found that the derived global mean SSR series underwent a significant increase of 1.6 W m−2 per decade from 1983 to 2001. … On the other hand, Hatzianastassiou et al. (2005) derived a SSR product from 1984 to 2000 (2.5° resolution) and reported a significant increase of +2.4 W m−2 per decade in the global mean series, which is considerably higher than the results from Pinker et al. (2005) and Hinkelman et al. (2009).

            http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kaicun_Wang/publication/224138562_Review_on_Estimation_of_Land_Surface_Radiation_and_Energy_Budgets_From_Ground_Measurement_Remote_Sensing_and_Model_Simulations/links/0912f50962ddc826c7000000.pdf
            Global “brightening” and “dimming” has great implications for climate change and hydrological cycles. In the IPCC-AR4, continental- and global-scale surface temperatures are shown to decrease slightly from the 1950s to the 1970s, but drastically increase since the 1980s, with strongest temperature rises on northern continents. This kind of behavior matches the similar patterns of the decadal variations of insolation.

            http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/8505/2013/acp-13-8505-2013.html
            [T]here has been a global net decrease [of 3.6%] in 340 nm cloud plus aerosol reflectivity [which has led to] an increase of 2.7 W m−2 of solar energy reaching the Earth’s surface and an increase of 1.4% or 2.3 W m−2 absorbed by the surface.” [between 1979 and 2011]

            ftp://bbso.njit.edu/pub/staff/pgoode/website/publications/Palle_etal_2005a_GRL.pdf
            Traditionally the Earth’s reflectance has been assumed to be roughly constant, but large decadal variability, not reproduced by current climate models, has been reported lately from a variety of sources. There is a consistent picture among all data sets by which the Earth’s albedo has decreased over the 1985-2000 interval. The amplitude of this decrease ranges from 2-3 W/m2 to 6-7 W/m2 but any value inside these ranges is highly climatologically significant and implies major changes in the Earth’s radiation budget.

          27. AndyG55

            Poor seb, STILL unable to provide one single paper supporting the very basis of his baseless AGW religion.

            Measured data shows DWLWR as decreased or held steady while CO2 has increased. oops !!!

            No CO2 signal in downward flux

            No CO2 signal in satellite temperature data

            No CO2 signal in sea level trends

            No CO2 warming signal ANYWHERE

            REALITY is not kind to the baseless AGW religion.

            Keep trolling, little troll, keep pushing your anti-science, anti-humanity agenda… its funny. 🙂

            …but until you can support the very basis of the AGW scam, it is all just anti-science nonsense…

            … and you know that, even if you do pretend to yourself that you don’t. 🙂

          28. SebastianH

            Endless circular arguments with someone who doesn’t seem to understand math.

            Kenneth,

            Sorry, SebastianH, you can’t just make scientific papers go away because you don’t like what the satellite observations say, or you can’t just say cloud forcing is “0.2-0.4 W/m²” because you don’t like the 3 to 6 W m-2 values for clouds.

            I am not “making papers go away”, but you are obviously confused about the meaning of those numbers, despite your claim that you know what absolute and relative forcings are (or rather just forcings and net forcings).

            I am not saying the cloud cover forcing wasn’t 3-6 W/m². I am saying the NET forcing was most certainly not that high and comparable in magnitude to the CO2 net forcing you suggested.

            I don’t know why you keep insisting on that 3-6 W/m² number as it should be obvious that such an increase in the short wave radiation spectrum without a corresponding decrease in the longwave spectrum would significantly alter the climate on this planet in a short period of time. We would have noticed it …

          29. Kenneth Richard

            “I am not saying the cloud cover forcing wasn’t 3-6 W/m². I am saying the NET forcing was most certainly not that high and comparable in magnitude to the CO2 net forcing you suggested.”

            Please provide scientific support for your claims that the net forcing for clouds was “most certainly” 0.2 to 0.4 W m-2. Since you are certain you are right, and the scientists who reported the satellite-observed values for clouds (3 – 6 W m-2) are wrong, surely you can provide an abundance of scientific evidence showing that your own 0.2 to 0.4 W m-2 values are actually the correct ones. Show us the scientific papers, SebastianH.

            “I don’t know why you keep insisting on that 3-6 W/m² number as it should be obvious that such an increase in the short wave radiation spectrum without a corresponding decrease in the longwave spectrum would significantly alter the climate on this planet in a short period of time.”

            How do you know that there weren’t other factors contributing to net changes in radiative balance besides clouds and CO2? That’s the recurring problem, SebastianH. You seem to want to believe the climate system is either/or, all or nothing, black and white. It’s not.

          30. AndyG55

            “Show us the scientific papers, SebastianH.”

            ROFLMAO ! 🙂

            We know that IS NOT going to happen !!

            His UTTER FAILURE in producing one single paper that proves CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere is a major LAUGHING POINT 🙂

          31. SebastianH

            Endless circular debate …

            Come on Kenneth, I did the calculation for you, explained it multiple times and yet you still insist those two numbers are describing the same thing?

            3-6 W/m² is – according to you – the increase in short wave radation. This includes changes in TSI, cloud cover and aerosols. Correct?

            It’s NOT the change in net forcing. Since you insist on some magic sky high forcing by cloud cover change, I showed you that a 1% change in cloud cover (you haven’t presented any numbers by what percentage cloud cover actually changed … I did and you ignored it) would also most likely result in a 1% change in net forcing of the cloud cover, wouldn’t you agree? And the net forcing of the cloud cover is – according to you – some value around -21 W/m². So what is 1% of -21 W/m²?

            If you still don’t understand, than I can’t help you. You don’t need scientific papers to confirm simple math, do you? It the same with your claim that somehow radiative energy transfers work differently with sea water surfaces. I’d like to see a scientific paper from you that oceans behave against established physics laws.

          32. Kenneth Richard

            SebastianH: “Come on Kenneth, I did the calculation for you”

            No, SebastianH. Your calculations are meaningless, as you have little to no understanding of SSR. Just a few days ago you insisted that SSR was only aerosols and TSI, and didn’t include cloud. I had to teach you about SSR by showing you what the IPCC says (SSR is not TSI, and clouds are also included in SSR, not just aerosols). Obviously this was the first time you have ever read most of the things I have presented to you regarding SSR.

            You are now trying to say that 3 to 6 W m-2 for cloud forcing since the ’80s is actually 0.2 to 0.4 W m-2 when you do your “calculation.” I’m not interested in your calculation. I’m interested to see if you can actually support your beliefs that cloud forcing since the ’80s is 0.2 to 0.4 W m-2 with a scientific paper that says that very thing. I’m not going to take your word for it, as you have demonstrated you have so little understanding of SSR, and because you have been caught numerous times just making up stuff. You are not a trustworthy purveyor of scientific “truth.”

            Provide a paper that supports your claim that cloud forcing has been 0.2 to 0.4 W m-2 since the ’80s. You’re the one who has made that claim. Back it up.

            “3-6 W/m² is – according to you – the increase in short wave radation. This includes changes in TSI, cloud cover and aerosols. Correct?”

            No. TSI is the change in the Sun’s radiation itself, its output. SSR is the solar radiation absorbed by the surface that is modified by changes in albedo. That you don’t even understand the difference between these two — and yet you think you have the standing to toss around your little “you don’t understand simple maths” hubris is excruciatingly off-putting. You don’t get it, SebastianH. That’s why people like Andy get so exasperated…and resort to name-calling. You pretend you know more than we do about a subject, and then, in reality, you display your beginnerdom.

            http://file.scirp.org/Html/22-4700327_50837.htm
            I’ve provided this link multiple times before, mostly because it simplifies what is being talked about here. It would be a good idea for you to read the entire paper, SebastianH, as it could aid your understanding of what is meant by cloud forcing. Instead of making up your own values, address the values presented in scientific papers. Or produce a scientific paper of your own that supports your beliefs.

  9. Bernd Felsche

    “Also catered food must come from organic farms, be seasonal and locally produced with short transport distances.”

    So it’s mosses on the menu at winter functions.

    Attendees will be bringing their own sandwiches.

  10. Don from OZ

    Questions for the know it all veges. What happens to the animal explosion if we stop slaughter of cows, chickens, pigs,ox? How do you propose to reduce the production of methane? (worse than CO2). As the number of animals rise so the quantity of grass and hay reduces until they start dying of starvation.

    1. SebastianH

      Question for you: do you think those animal populations would grow endlessly if we stopped eating them? Those are bred just for the purpose of being our food … you are not eating meat from free running animals that had to be killed because of population control …

      1. AndyG55

        “Question for you: do you think those animal populations would grow endlessly if we stopped eating them? ”

        No they would grow until they overgrew their food supply, then most of them would suffer agonising death from starvation.

        You would enjoy that, wouldn’t you, seb.

        1. SebastianH

          Nope, they are a product like any other food we eat. If we stop eating it, it doesn’t get produced …

      2. Don from OZ

        Seb don’t show arrogance by not not answering my questions and just change to some other aspect and respond with a question. One thing is certain, all those animals will continue to breed until overpopulated and they die UNLESS we somehow segregate ALL males from ALL females.Answer my questions if you are able please.

      3. Akatsukami

        Exactly; you progressives intend the extinction of these species, just as you intend the extinction of cats and dogs through forbidding pet ownership.

  11. Sunsettommy

    Then those eco loonies don’t mind eating slugs,grasshoppers and other critters?

    1. SebastianH

      That’s not vegetarian at all …

      1. AndyG55

        We have just found seb’s diet.. cockroaches..

        You are what you eat.

        1. SebastianH

          Your hate is what I eat ..

          1. AndyG55

            I can see you are here PURELY as an attention seeker… A base-level troll wanting a response, no matter what. 🙂

            And you seem to mistake hate, for ridicule. 🙂

          2. AndyG55

            And no, your hate has been with you all your life…

            It is part of you… It is self-perpetuating.

            It is the one single reason that you are here.

          3. SebastianH

            What is your reason to be here?

          4. AndyG55

            You can’t even tell the truth to yourself, can you, little troll.

            So sad…. so FUNNY !!! 🙂

          5. SebastianH

            Has is occured to you that you never answer questions? Instead you ignore them and/or hide behind insults and Trumpisms. Sometimes we get honored by a question as an answer …

            That’s what trolls do. I don’t care what you do … it’s a waste of time do debate with you, since you drag everyone down to your level and win by greater experience. Grow up (mentally and courtesy-wise) …

          6. AndyG55

            Has it occured to you that we are still waiting for you to produce one single paper that proves that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere?

            The only person trolling with propaganda AGW pap, is you…. and you KNOW that.

            Your pathetic attempts to divert away from that fact are quite hilarious.

            One does NOT have to be courteous to obviously ignorant, mentally deranged, trolls who has shown that they have NO INTENTION of ever accepting the truth.

  12. sod

    I prefer meat. But what is the problem with the ministry being an example?

    1. AndyG55

      What, no comment on them wanting to raise taxes on meat and milk products???

      Or didn’t you read that part?

      Oh wait.. its way after 140 characters.. so you would never have got to it.

      1. sod

        “What, no comment on them wanting to raise taxes on meat and milk products???”

        I am fine with it. Badly produced animal products are too cheap.

        1. DirkH

          Make a website where you publish the prices you plan for what.

        2. AndyG55

          Who said anything about production quality.. Yet another moronic strawman of misdirection from sob.

    2. CraigAustin

      An example of what? An Orwellian nightmare!

      1. SebastianH

        This makes no sense. In your view, is a vegetarian restaurant also an Orwellian nightmare? Why?

        1. LL

          A restaurant is not the State.

          1. SebastianH

            Events at a Ministry are not the State.

        2. DirkH

          Do you even know what an Orwell is, Sebastian?

  13. Hasbeen

    Surely this is just a ploy to make all those unwanted Muslim gate crashing migrants decide it was better where they came from, & GO HOME.

  14. CraigAustin

    They want to depopulate the planet, raising food and energy costs are a key element.

  15. Viktor Vargas

    They need lands to build wind farms.
    Just it.

    1. SebastianH

      That’s the evil masterplan of all environmentalists. Also they want to eat your children.

      1. DirkH

        And here I thought you wanted to throw them some pizza parties.

  16. AndyG55
  17. j martin

    They tell us how much gas animals produce, but they don’t tell us much co2 they consumed in the form of grass to produce methane farts. Perhaps it balances out, gas in equals gas out.

    1. SebastianH

      Most likely … but do you think a cow in our highly industrialized production world becomes a lovely 5€ per kg lump of meat by itself? They don’t just feed themselves off a lovely meadow and then walk to the slaughterhouse when they are ready. It’s an industry!

      1. AndyG55

        “It’s an industry!”

        and one which YOU and your ILK want to destroy.

        Anti-human totalitarian prats. !!