“Right Wing” Of Merkel’s Party Stuns Country: Climate Science “A Sort Of World Rescue Circus”!

A tsunami of outrage swept across Germany right after President Donald Trump announced dropping out of the Paris Accord (and not to transfer billions of taxpayer money over to the UN each year).

It appears the President’s bold and courageous move is leading to potentially dangerous pockets of energy policy and climate science uprising in Germany.

A reader just pointed out something a bit stunning: Germany’s flagship ARD television, the country’s version of the BBC, reported here how a group of conservative politicians from Angela Merkel’s CDU party known as the Berliner Kreis has just voiced its strong opposition to the party’s climate and energy policy course.

A group from Angela Merkel’s CDU party recently released its “Climate and Energy Political Demands”, calling for a science and energy policy “without ideology”, an end to “moral extortion”, and an exit from the “climate saving circus”, pdf here.

According to the ARD report, the group of conservatives is disputing the “‘solitary role’of the greenhouse effect in global warming’ – and is demanding a change in direction in the chancellor’s climate policy“.

The Berliner Kreis, led by Philipp Lengsfeld and Sylvia Pantel, issued an official declaration (German), see pdf here.

“World rescue circus”

The Berliner Kreis declaration demands a return to science “without ideology”, a “fact-based” discussion — one free of “moral extortion” –, and calls for a “reform of the IPCC”, which “has not been as scientifically sound as an advising body needs to be”.

The Berliner Kreis declaration adds that the science must not become “a sort of world rescue circus”.

The Christian conservative group also casts Germany’s CO2 reductions policy into question, noting that so far the country has cut back its CO2 emissions by less than half a billion tonnes while the rest of the plant has increased it by 14 billion tonnes, i.e. 30 times more than what the country has saved.

Germany’s CO2 emissions represent only 2% of the globe’s output, but its energy policy has been 100% pain.

Alinsky-type target?

Now that the Berliner Kreis position has become public, already it has come in the cross-hairs of major media outlets, setting off a wave of reports, e.g. here, here and here.

It remains to be seen what the real ARD intent of their report was: Whether to show that there is dissent in on the climate topic in Germany and that policy needs to take a step back, or if it is to identify and single out unwanted voices Alinsky style (Rule 13).

Lately the approach used by the media and entrenched establishment in Germany concerning unwanted dissenting voices on sensitive issues – such as Europe, immigration and climate – has followed the labelling formula of: dissent = extremism = Nazi. Many feel intimidated by it and thus are afraid to speak up.

What becomes of the dissident Berliner Kreis will remain a question. Expect Merkel to mobilize forces to shut them up, and down. The Berliner Kreis would be well-advised to quickly forge channels and networks with international dissenting groups, as they may be about to find out what the real price of civil courage is.

German publicist Dirk Maxeiner here, who knows first-hand the cost of civil courage, applauds the move by the group of CDU dissenters, commenting (with sarcasm):

A group of CDU parliamentarians that calls itself the ‘Berliner Kreis’ dares to think for itself on the climate issue. The Tagesschau comments on this atrocity with the headline: ‘CDU right wingers attack Merkel’s climate direction.’ Skepticism, thought, realism, facts – all right wing.”

 

47 responses to ““Right Wing” Of Merkel’s Party Stuns Country: Climate Science “A Sort Of World Rescue Circus”!”

  1. Tregonsee

    Now that the President has pointed out that the emperor has no clothes, I expect a deluge of people and organizations speaking out on the pointlessness and hypocrisy of the Paris climate agreements.

    1. Josh

      Here’s hoping. Trump made the right call, and a brave one at that. This should embolden others.

  2. DirkH

    Well the Berliner Kreis might appeal to reason. MERKEL continues to appeal to emotion. She now claims that TRUMP is threatening creation itself, and that she and the other globalists are the only hope for a continuing existence of the planet itself.
    https://dirkhblog.wordpress.com/2017/06/02/merkel-trump-is-destroying-the-universe/

    MERKEL spirals into delusion quickly now.

    1. Mikky

      I suspect that Macron is just singing from the hymn sheet but Merkel must have an eye on German job losses to the USA, as happened a few years ago with BASF.

      1. Mindert Eiting

        Half a year ago Macron invited USA climate scientists to come to France as refugees which means a lot of USA job losses to France.

        1. Curious George

          Let’s hope.

    2. toorightmate

      Would you expect anything different from an East German communist?

  3. sod

    where are the citations? what is the basis of their false opinion?

    1. John F. Hultquist

      An opinion does not need a citation.
      For example:
      People tend to have strong opinions on capital punishment.
      If a mosquito lands on my cheek I swat her. What do you do. Please give a citation.
      My opinion about colors . . . I prefer Blue. You? And please give a citation.

      1. sod

        This is a discussion about science. OF COURSE you need citations!

        a policy on a scientific topic is not an opinion.

        I like cars to travel at 300 km/h in towns, so what speed do you like?

        1. AndyG55

          WTF are you going on about sob-sob.

          There is more proof for what Berliner Kreis is saying, than there ever was for the unsupportable AGW religion.

          This is a report on a group actually coming to their senses and having the guts to tell the truth.

          Get used to it, because it going to be happening more and more.

          1. sod

            “There is more proof for what Berliner Kreis is saying, than there ever was for the unsupportable AGW religion.”

            there is not. but IF there was ANY proof, why did they not CITE it?!?

            i can explain the defeaning silence by the CDU guys and by Trump on the science: you have no scientific support for your crazy ideas.

          2. AndyG55

            If there is proof for the AGW farce of CO2 causing warming in a convective atmosphere.

            WHY DON’T YOU CITE IT !!!

            You have ZERO science behind anything you yap. !!

          3. AndyG55

            “i can explain the defeaning silence by the CDU guys and by Trump on the science”

            NO, you cannot.

            There is zero science behind the Paris Agenda.

            It is purely political.

            Trump et al DO NOT NEED to bring science into the decision at all, because there IS NO SCIENCE in the AGW socialist globalist Paris Agenda.

            Note.. I am now referring to it as what it is…

            The Paris AGENDA.

            What Trump has done is told them they can take their meaningless, anti-science, control agenda, and stick it where the sun don’t shine.

            Well done President Trump.

        2. John F. Hultquist

          The discussion is about the “direction in the chancellor’s climate policy.”

          It is not about science.
          A discussion about the correctness of Betz’s Law regarding harvesting wind would be a scientific argument.

          Whether or not a policy is like a “circus” is politics as shown by the silly shouting being generated.
          [I’ve been told using all caps is “shouting.” But maybe not, I don’t have a citation to offer.]

        3. Hivemind

          The acme of academic bullying. “Citation needed”.

          You have already seen enough evidence that global warming is a scientific fraud, just on this site. You don’t need to demand yet more. And to say that it “isn’t good enough” or “not the right kind of climate scientist” just because it wasn’t in the very best of pal-reviewed journals is just insulting.

        4. Josh

          Sod digs himself a deeper hole the more he comments on this site. He is of course entitled to his false opinions, but not his own facts.

  4. Graeme No.3

    Higher power costs than the USA means job losses to the USA.
    Trump knows that, does Merkel?
    And Germany will have to pays much more into the trough for third world dictators. Also the balance of trade will move against Germany.

    Higher electricity prices, higher taxes, job losses – sob will be wetting his pants.

    1. AndyG55

      “And Germany will have to pays much more into the trough for third world dictators”

      If she has any left after paying her fair share towards NATO. (Maybe she can borrow some from China?)

      Seriously, what a monumental WASTE of money this AGW scam has been !!

      1. Josh

        Absolutely. It has been a shocking waste of time, money and resources. I shudder to think how these could have been better used (ie. directed toward real infrastructure projects).

    2. sod

      “Higher power costs than the USA means job losses to the USA.”

      so true. That is the reason why the USA are exporting all that stuff and Germany is exporting nothing.

      In the real world, energy prices have a low effect in many sectors and as Germany is supporting all big electricity users directly with money from the private households, this aspect is simply not true.

      1. Robert Folkerts

        sod says

        “as Germany is supporting all big electricity users directly with money from the private households”

        sod, do you not recognize any problem with this concept?

        I guess you don’t, as you appear to suggest this is a positive!

        1. sod

          “sod, do you not recognize any problem with this concept?”

          i do. But it is directly contradicting the argument brought forward above.

          1. Robert Folkerts

            Robert Folkerts says

            “sod, do you not recognize any problem with this concept?”

            Sod says

            “i do. But it is directly contradicting the argument brought forward above.”

            So sod, this is how you operate??
            Your comments don’t even have to make sense to you!
            Just so long as they contradict other peoples posts you are happy?

          2. yonason (from my cell phone)

            @Robert Folkerts 5. June 2017 at 9:49 PM |

            There are times when I wonder if sod isn’t an A.U-i. chat bot. (Artificially Un-intelligent) The reason being the assumption (obviously unwarranted) that no human could be that wrong all the time.

            Then there are times when I think that, no, he’s probably just a run of the mill N.U-i. human. (Naturally Un-intelligent) What is unnatural, though, is how impervious he is to embarrassment at being shown to be factually wrong, which is virtually always.

  5. Ulrich Elkmann

    “Borrow some from China”. Hehe. The latest reliable numbers seem to be avaiable from 2012 (so factor in some signifcant rises since then); but then we exported goods to the tne of 66 billion Euros (the German/French “milliard”) and imported for 77 bn (http://www.dgwz.de/themen/handel/china). Almost every computer, every mobile phone comes now from there. And all the superstrong magnets that go into every wind turbine. What the Chinese will never do, sensible people that they are, is to lend us any money (= selling/investing in future interest). It’s not the kind of job they are investing in, and even if they were, they would look at the chance they would stand in getting their money back. Pas de chance.

  6. Ulrich Elkmann

    No surprise, by the way. Phillip Lengsfeld is the son of Vera Lengsfeld, former East German dissident, and one of the most vehement critics of Our Lady of the Kanzleramt. There were some desultory noises in the media yesterday to the effect that this was “not discussed” or “voted on”, i.e. nothing like an official declaration. No way to know. But if you talk to many members of the Christian Democrats (not the big honchos, of course), many, many of them are really fed up with what has been happening in German politics over the last years.

  7. Henning Nielsen

    Thank you for this important news! This may be only a small crack in the dam of political consensus, but where a few lead, others may follow, and my guess is that there are many “closet-skeptics” out there among Europe’s politicians, who have so far not dared voice any doubt.

  8. sod

    Why did Trump not cite an science? why did Pruitt not cite any science? why do these CDU extremists not cite any science?

    because you folks do not have any science. There simply is no scientific support for your positions.

    On a place like this blog, people can cite obscure blog posts or amass random scientific studies that mention a single key word.

    you can also use scientific pseudo speak (Andy is the best at this! convective atmosphere anyone?), to confuse the uneducated.

    But in any kind of public setting, you can not do that. Either you damage your extremist supports by paddling back to a position that gets at least a bit of scientific support or you make moronic claims that are picked up and upon by everyone.

    so the method is silence.

    1. pmc47025

      Exposing the Paris Accord as a really bad deal for the U.S. without a lot of sciency mumbo jumbo? Brilliant!

      No scientific support? Heat waves are increasing? No:
      https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-high-and-low-temperatures

      Droughts are getting worse? No:
      https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-drought

      Sea level rise rate has increased since adding dangerous plant food to the atmosphere? No:
      https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8518750

    2. AndyG55

      “Why did Trump not cite an science?”

      Because the Paris thingy was NEVER about science.

      It is not even based on any provable science.

      You KNOW that !!

      Even your beloved Merky Angela said it was about globalism.!!

      1. sod

        “Because the Paris thingy was NEVER about science.”

        Such a policy change needs a scientific basis. None was cited. fact.

        1. AndyG55

          No it doesn’t, there is NO SCIENCE in the Paris Agenda or backing up the Paris Agenda.

          NONE what-so-ever.

          It is PURELY POLITICAL.

          Even if the science were supportive of the AGW scam, which it most certainly IS NOT, the deal for the USA was ridiculous.

    3. AndyG55

      “Andy is the best at this! convective atmosphere anyone”

      Yep, I doubt there is much convection in your padded inner city ghetto basement.

      The rest of the world, however lives in a convective atmosphere.

      Sorry you are incapable of understanding this very simple FACT. !!

      Your little fantasy world is obviously something out of your weirdest dream. And certainly you are NON-educated.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0s_YFLI4G1M

    4. AndyG55

      “There simply is no scientific support for your positions.”

      Neither you nor your sebling have EVER been able to provide any science supporting the very basis of the AGW scam.

      You are nothing but an empty, nil-educated, yapping, little trollette

    5. AndyG55

      ““Why did Trump not cite an science?””

      The real “science” says no discernible warming for 18 years!

      The real “science” shows no evidence that observed changes since the little ice age are related to CO2 levels!

      Last thing that the alarmistas want to discuss is the “real science”.

    6. cementafriend

      SOD- heat transfer and generation of electricity are engineering almost nothing to do with science. do you know about dimensional analysis, do you know how to use the Schmidt number, the Nusselt number or the Grashof number which were first outlined by engineers? Are you capable of understanding the peer review recent paper of Nikolov and Zeller “New Insights on the Physical Nature of the Atmospheric Greenhouse
      Effect Deduced from an Empirical Planetary Temperature Model”? Do you really understand the difference the Stefan-Boltzmann equation which applies to a vacuum? Do you know the difference in emissivity between a source of heat and the receiver of heat. Do know know that radiation of a wavelength of light (around 0.7 micron) is absorbed by water and that it is dark at the bottom of the ocean? I suggest your understanding of technology is minimal or that you are good at telling lies.

    7. Hivemind

      “Convective atmosphere” is how the atmosphere works. Big convection currents, aka winds, move heat about. From the surface to the top of the atmosphere, from there to the poles.

      “Radiative forcing”, is what the models do. It is what the atmosphere doesn’t do. And that explains the total failure of the models to predict anything. People have been asking for years, what planet do the models work on, because they don’t work on Earth. Well, they work on any planet that uses “radiative forcing”, which is to say, none at all.

      Sod, you really should learn some physics.

      1. SebastianH

        I love replies such as this one. Thanks for making climate skepticism look like denial by not understanding the laws of physics. There was a post about violation of the laws of thermodynamics a few days ago … Same league.

        Maybe I’ll have time for some more replies today. You (the usual commenters) have provided some very entertaining stuff over the last few days 🙂

    8. Josh

      ‘because you folks do not have any science. There simply is no scientific support for your positions.’

      Absolute nonsense. Projection anyone. I recommend you start reading the NIPCC’s site.

  9. Zane

    All it is folks, is a wealth redistribution system. Yes the climate is changing, always has been and always will change hence several ice ages. Hammering white countries with taxes (enslaving them) and giving to non-white countries does not solve climate change. It never will as the earth is evolving always.

    1. sod

      “Hammering white countries with taxes (enslaving them) ”

      this arguments are not only false but also utterly disgusting.

      1. yonason (from my cell phone)
      2. AndyG55

        “but also utterly disgusting”

        Are you saying that people in developed countries AREN’T being hammered with taxes because of the AGW Agenda

        That would be a LIE, and you know it.

        Yes we can agree that the whole AGW scam and its agenda.. is UTTERLY DISGUSTING

        And YOU support it. You WORSHIP it and all its LIES.

        What does that say about YOU. !!!

        …. no wonder you sob-sob-sob,

        The inner SHAME must wound you deeply.

        1. yonason (from my cell phone)

          “The inner SHAME must wound you deeply.” – AndyG55

          That is the problem, isn’t it, Andy! There is no lie too big for sod to tell, and no amount of correction sod will ever accept. No matter how wrong he(?) is or how often, he/she/it/whatever ALWAYS repeats the same nonsense, no matter how often corrected. “He” is neither capable of shame, nor of learning, but I’m just “preaching to the choir” here, so I’ll stop now.