France 2.0? Police Brutally Beat Protesters As German Environment Minister Aims To Boost Fossil Energy Prices

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

Is Germany blindly following President Emmanuel Macron in agitating its citizens with plans to impose higher fuel and heating oil taxes?

Video in tweet above: French policy brutally beat French citizens protesting higher fuel taxes.

German flagship daily Die Welt here recently reported Germany’s Environment Minister Svenja Schulze has a plan for the country to meet its 2030 climate targets.

According to Die Welt, it involves single sectors such as transportation, agriculture or energy having to comply with “binding requirements to save CO2.” Die Welt writes the proposal would make heating oil and diesel fuel expensive.

Recently Minister Schulze said in a speech her Ministry is cooperating with the powerful Ministry of Finance. However, stiff opposition is already mounting, and denials are surfacing. According to Die Welt:”‘There are no thoughts about introducing a new pricing on CO2,’ a spokesman for the Finance Ministry said on Friday.”

Schulze says it’s time to tax

Die Welt reports that Angela Merkel’s CDU/CSU party so far has rejected applying taxes to CO2. But Schulze remains insistent: “Are we serious about climate protection or do we continue muddling through and arguing about each and every tonne of CO2?”

Climate and environmental protection activists see taxes on CO2 as an effective instrument to achieve reductions. However, the loudness of the protests in France and Belgium appears to have taken German and European lawmakers by surprise, and so they will likely move with far greater caution.

Proponents feel that a tax on CO2 would help make electric mobility more attractive. Die Welt writes that the government’s aim is to have 65% of the electricity supply come from renewable energies by 2030.

Macron backs down

In France, President Macron is facing a serious backlash from citizens for proposing higher taxes on energy. Macron has since been forced to put the tax hikes on hold in response to the unexpectedly raucous uprising across the country.

Die Welt writes “Germany has given up on its 2020 climate target, but hopes to reach a 55% reduction by 2030.” So far Germany is about halfway there.

Most of the German CO2 reductions came in the wake of shutting down rundown, former communist East German industry in the wake of the 1990 German reunification.

Over the past 9 years, however, Germany has not reduced CO2 equivalent emissions at all. As the French show, making targets is easy but reaching them is a very different story.

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

30 responses to “France 2.0? Police Brutally Beat Protesters As German Environment Minister Aims To Boost Fossil Energy Prices”

  1. SebastianH

    Most of the German CO2 reductions came in the wake of shutting down rundown, former communist East German industry in the wake of the 1990 German reunification.

    While it’s true that reductions were bigger in the 90s …

    Over the past 9 years, however, Germany has not reduced CO2 equivalent emissions at all. As the French show, making targets is easy but reaching them is a very different story.

    … this is as disinformative as it can get. 9 years ago was also the greatest single year reduction ever achieved, guess why that happened? And you guys keep using this year as a starting point despite emissions in 2017 being almost 10% below those 10 years ago. It doesn’t need a genius to recognize why you do this. it’s the same strategy as when you talk about stable Arctic ice conditions 😉

    Past emissions for reference:
    https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/384/bilder/2_abb_thg-emissionen_2018.png

    1. William Astley

      What is your point? There are more than a dozen observations that disprove CAGW and AGW. That is however a subject for a different thread.

      Are you an adult or a child?

      The idiotic German cult of CAGW supporters/fanatics have not done a basic back of the envelope calculation of the costs to reach their idiotic promises and have not done an engineering feasibility test (regardless of costs there are other limitations) to reduce anthropogenic CO2 by 20%, 40%, 60%, 80%, 90%, and so on.

      What is being discussed/promised is lunacy, ridiculous, not possible, …
      It is pathetic (there is a lack of knowledge, honor, honesty, courage, vision, and so on forth of those who push CAGW and the green scams) that this madness has gone on this long, has proceeded to this point.

      ‘The key problem appears to be that the cost of manufacturing the components of the renewable power facilities is far too close to the total recoverable energy – the facilities never, or just barely, produce enough energy to balance the budget of what was consumed in their construction. This leads to a runaway cycle of constructing more and more renewable plants simply to produce the energy required to manufacture and maintain renewable energy plants – an obvious practical absurdity.

      A research effort by Google corporation to make renewable energy viable has been a complete failure, according to the scientists who led the programme. After 4 years of effort, their conclusion is that renewable energy “simply won’t work”.

      Ignoring the cost issue (the cost of electricity in Germany is twice that of the US) wind, energy storage is required to reduce CO2 emissions by more than about 20% of the electrical grid total load if solar and wind systems only schemes used.

      Energy storage more than doubles the cost. There is no energy storage system that is scalable. Roughly 30% of the energy generated is lost in energy storage systems in conversion losses and battery loses. The battery systems efficiency degrades with time. The batteries have a lifetime of 7 to 10 years.

      Germany Energiewend Leading To Suicide By Cannibalism. Huge Oversupply Risks Destabilization.

      http://notrickszone.com/2015/02/04/germanys-energiewende-leading-to-suicide-by-cannibalism-huge-oversupply-risks-destabilization/#sthash.8tE9YRDj.PSllYaQF.dpbs

      http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/21/renewable_energy_simply_wont_work_google_renewables_engineers/

      1. SebastianH

        Yes, what is the point of this? Are you writing from 1980 and missed out on the last decades somehow?

        Those who believe in observations disproving AGW and that renewables barely produce as much power as is needed to construct them, are … well … Kennth would censor that term.

        You live in a very different world partly detached from our reality. And the bad part is that you probably – from you sound like – believe you are the one rooted in reality. So I ask you right back, are you an adult or a child?

        My point was that you guys cherry pick the hell out of everything to construct claims that couldn’t be farther from reality. No CO2 reduction since 2009? What about since 2008 then? 2007? 2010? Get the point?

        1. Kenneth Richard

          Those who believe in observations disproving AGW

          “Disproving” isn’t the correct term here, but observations do support the skeptical positions far more than the positions of believers in the claim that humans are catastrophically affecting the climate with their CO2 emissions. Modern climate changes aren’t even detectable against the backdrop of natural variability. For example…

          Since 1870s – no warming
          Greenland – no warming
          New Zealand – no warming
          Antarctica – no warming
          North Atlantic – no warming
          Western Pacific – no warming
          India/Western Himalaya – no warming
          Pakistan – no warming
          Turkey – no warming
          Himalayas/Nepal – no warming
          Siberia – no warming
          Portugal – no warming
          NE China – no warming
          SW China – no warming
          South China – no warming
          West China – no warming
          Southern South America – no warming
          Canada (B.C.) – no warming
          Canada Central – no warming

          Since 1940s/50s – no warming
          Northern Hemisphere – no warming
          Arctic Region – no warming
          Greenland – no warming
          South Iceland – no warming
          North Iceland – no warming
          Alaska – no warming
          New York – no warming
          Rural U.S. – no warming
          Northern Europe – no warming
          Western Europe – no warming
          Mediterranean Region – no warming
          Finland and Sweden – no warming
          East Antarctica – no warming
          North Atlantic – no warming
          Western North Atlantic – no warming
          Brazil – no warming
          SE Australia – no warming
          Southern South America – no warming
          Andes Mountains – no warming
          Chile – no warming

          Haine, 2016
          The anthropogenic melt from the Greenland ice sheet is still too small to be detected. … [N]o clear change in the delivery of Arctic freshwater to the North Atlantic due to human climate forcing.”

          Hansen et al., 2016
          “[W]e found that there is (yet) no observable sea-level effect of anthropogenic global warming in the world’s best recorded region.”

          Ding et al., 2014
          http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v509/n7499/full/nature13260.html
          “Here we show that the recent warming in this region [northeastern Canada and Greenland] is strongly associated with a negative trend in the North Atlantic Oscillation, which is a response to anomalous Rossby wave-train activity [planetary waves related to the Earth’s rotation] originating in the tropical Pacific. … This suggests that a substantial portion of recent warming in the northeastern Canada and Greenland sector of the Arctic arises from unforced natural variability.”

          Parker and Ollier, 2017
          “The loud divergence between sea-level reality and climate change theory—the climate models predict an accelerated sea-level rise driven by the anthropogenic CO2 emission—has been also evidenced in other works such as Boretti (2012a, b), Boretti and Watson (2012), Douglas (1992), Douglas and Peltier (2002), Fasullo et al. (2016), Jevrejeva et al. (2006), Holgate (2007), Houston and Dean (2011), Mörner 2010a, b, 2016), Mörner and Parker (2013), Scafetta (2014), Wenzel and Schröter (2010) and Wunsch et al. (2007) reporting on the recent lack of any detectable acceleration in the rate of sea-level rise.”

          Jones et al., 2016
          http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n10/full/nclimate3103.html
          Most observed trends [over the 36-year satellite data] are not unusual when compared with Antarctic palaeoclimate records of the past two centuries. … [C]limate model simulations that include anthropogenic forcing are not compatible with the observed trends. This suggests that natural variability overwhelms the forced response in the observations”

          Stenni et al., 2017
          http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/cp-2017-40/cp-2017-40.pdf
          No continent-scale warming of Antarctic temperature is evident in the last century. … [M]ost of the trends observed since satellite climate monitoring began in 1979 CE cannot yet be distinguished from natural (unforced) climate variability, and are of the opposite sign [cooling] to those produced by most forced climate model simulations over the same post-1979 CE interval.”

    2. Bitter&twisted

      If the troll really believes that CO2 emissions are a serious problem, it can show leadership by volunteering to pay extra tax on my behalf.
      That’s if it actually has a real job.

  2. Lance

    The beatings will continue until moral improves!

  3. E. Martin

    Where, exactly, is the scientific evidence or better yet, proof that reducing co2 emissions will reduce global warming?

    1. Penelope

      E. Martin, you ask Where is the scientific evidence? It’s here: http://leftexposed.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2014-Senate-Billionaire-Club-Report.pdf

      Money talks. Whether it tells the truth is another matter.

    2. Don from OZ

      In answer to E Martin- Neither scientific evidence nor proof exists.
      The scientific evidence in laboratory tests on CO2 shows that it is at best a very weak GHG It only absorbs and re-emits a very narrow band of frequencies (11 to 15um) in the Ultra-violet spectrum. Consequently it can’t be proved.

    3. Marv

      Here’s some pretty good proof – There’s no global warming to reduce.
      Even if there was, reducing CO2 emissions wouldn’t do didly,
      not even reduce atmospheric CO2.

      https://youtu.be/rohF6K2avtY

    4. SebastianH

      Where is the proof that anything skeptics are coming up with is even remotely correct? Where is the proof that you guys are not delusional?

      1. Kenneth Richard

        Where is the proof that anything skeptics are coming up with is even remotely correct?

        It’s not “proof” (which is as impossible to achieve as disproof), but the fact that climate models fail so miserably when it comes to simulating climate conditions definitely undermines their credibility. Scientists are now even saying that climate models centering around CO2 don’t even utilize “known, mature physics” in their representations. In other words, they “don’t agree with reality”. For example:

        Essex and Tsonis, 2018
        https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378437118301766
        Climate models do not and cannot employ known physics fully. Thus, they are falsified, a priori. Incomplete physics and the finite representation of computers can induce false instabilities. … [A[re there propositions that contemporary models make, crucial to their own objectives, that are falsifiable? Is there any physical test possible that would force us to conclude that they are unable to achieve their own objectives, thus requiring a rethinking of basic assumptions? This paper addresses this question. But it is a question that cannot be comprehended in the face of many widely-held misconceptions about the direct meteorologically based projection modeling of climate. Foremost among these misconceptions is that climate models are full implementations of known, mature physics. This false conception can lead to the conclusion that falsification is irrelevant because models are simply an execution of previously known correct physics.”

        The empirical nature of large climate models can be clearly seen in their diverse outputs. If they followed the laws of physics in their entirety, they would all produce the same results under the same conditions. But they do not. In a recent study, the Climate Model Inter-comparison Project phase 3 (CMIP3) models [2] were considered and a detailed comparison at the dynamics level, using an approach involving climate networks [Steinhaeuser and Tsonis, 2013] was performed. It was found that the models not only don’t agree with each other when it comes to dynamics, they also don’t agree with reality.”

        Kundzewicz et al., 2018
        http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S146290111730638X
        Climate models need to be improved before they can be effectively used for adaptation planning and design. Substantial reduction of the uncertainty range would require improvement of our understanding of processes implemented in models and using finer resolution of GCMs and RCMs. However, important uncertainties are unlikely to be eliminated or substantially reduced in near future (cf. Buytaert et al., 2010). Uncertainty in estimation of climate sensitivity (change of global mean temperature, corresponding to doubling atmospheric CO2 concentration) has not decreased considerably over last decades. Higher resolution of climate input for impact models requires downscaling (statistical or dynamic) of GCM outputs, adding further uncertainty. … [C]limate models do not currently simulate the water cycle at sufficiently fine resolution for attribution of catchment-scale hydrological impacts to anthropogenic climate change. It is expected that climate models and impact models will become better integrated in the future. … Calibration and validation of a hydrological model should be done before applying it for climate change impact assessment, to reduce the uncertainty of results. Yet, typically, global hydrological models are not calibrated and validated. … Model-based projections of climate change impact on water resources can largely differ. If this is the case, water managers cannot have confidence in an individual scenario or projection for the future. Then, no robust, quantitative, information can be delivered and adaptation procedures need to be developed which use identified projection ranges and uncertainty estimates. Moreover, there are important, nonclimatic, factors affecting future water resources. … As noted by Funtowicz and Ravetz (1990), in the past, science was assumed to provide “hard” results in quantitative form, in contrast to “soft” determinants of politics, that were interest-driven and value-laden. Yet, the traditional assumption of the certainty of scientific information is now recognized as unrealistic and counterproductive. Policy-makers have to make “hard” decisions, choosing between conflicting options (with commitments and stakes being the primary focus), using “soft” scientific information that is bound with considerable uncertainty. Uncertainty has been policitized in that policy-makers have their own agendas that can include the manipulation of uncertainty. Parties in a policy debate may invoke uncertainty in their arguments selectively, for their own advantage.”

        Collins et al., 2018
        https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-017-0059-8
        “Here there is a dynamical gap in our understanding. While we have conceptual models of how weather systems form and can predict their evolution over days to weeks, we do not have theories that can adequately explain the reasons for an extreme cold or warm, or wet or dry, winter at continental scales. More importantly, we do not have the ability to credibly predict such states. Likewise, we can build and run complex models of the Earth system, but we do not have adequate enough understanding of the processes and mechanisms to be able to quantitatively evaluate the predictions and projections they produce, or to understand why different models give different answers. … The global warming ‘hiatus’ provides an example of a climate event potentially related to inter-basin teleconnections. While decadal climate variations are expected, the magnitude of the recent event was unforeseen. A decadal period of intensified trade winds in the Pacific and cooler sea surface temperatures (SSTs) has been identified as a leading candidate mechanism for the global slowdown in warming.”

        Kravtsov et al., 2018
        https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0044-6
        “[D]eviations of the model-simulated climate change from observations, such as a recent “pause” in global warming, have received considerable attention. Such decadal mismatches between model-simulated and observed climate trends are common throughout the twentieth century, and their causes are still poorly understood. While climate models exhibit various levels of decadal climate variability and some regional similarities to observations, none of the model simulations considered match the observed signal in terms of its magnitude, spatial patterns and their sequential time development. These results highlight a substantial degree of uncertainty in our interpretation of the observed climate change using current generation of climate models.”

        Lacour et al., 2018
        https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-18-0023.1
        The representation of clouds over Greenland is a central concern for the models because clouds impact ice-sheet surface melt. We find that over Greenland, most of the models have insufficient cloud cover during summer. In addition, all models create too few non-opaque liquid containing clouds optically thin enough to let direct solar radiation reach the surface (-1% to -3.5% at the ground level). Some models create too few opaque clouds. In most climate models, the cloud properties biases identified over all Greenland also apply at Summit proving the value of the ground observatory in model evaluation. … At Summit, climate models underestimate cloud radiative effect (CRE) at the surface, especially in summer. The primary driver of the summer CRE biases compared to observations is the underestimation of the cloud cover in summer (-46% to -21%), which leads to an underestimated longwave radiative warming effect (CRELW = -35.7 W m-2 to -13.6 W m-2 compared to the ground observations) and an underestimated shortwave cooling effect (CRESW = +1.5 W m-2 to +10.5 W m-2 compared to the ground observations). Overall, the simulated [modeled] clouds do not radiatively warm the surface as much as observed. … Of particular importance, clouds can trigger surface melt over a large portion of the Greenland Ice Sheet (Bennartz et al. 2013; Solomon et al. 2017). Greenland surface melting increases non-linearly with increasing temperatures due to positive feedbacks between cloud microphysics, surface melting and surface albedo (Fettweis et al. 2013) and modulates the ice sheet mass balance (Van Tricht et al. 2016; Hofer et al. 2017). … Every model included in this study underestimates the net cloud radiative surface warming in summer. … [O]nly few general circulation models are able to represent the surface of the Greenland ice sheet (Cullather et al. 2014). … Since the overall cloud radiative warming is underestimated in the models, we may expect an underestimate of Greenland surface melting. However, misrepresentation of clouds is not the only contributor to biases in the modeled surface melting.”

        Kam et al., 2018
        https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0813.1
        “In summary, there is marginal evidence for an emerging detectable anthropogenic contribution toward earlier WSCT [winter-spring center time] in parts of North America. The regions with strongest relative indication of an anthropogenic contribution in our analysis include: the north-central U.S. (Region 3); the mountainous western U.S./southwestern Canada (Region 1); and extreme northeastern U.S. and Canadian Maritimes (Region 6). However, in none of the regions examined do a majority of the nine CMIP5 models examined robustly support a detectable attribution of an earlier (decreasing) WSCT trend to anthropogenic forcing. At some level, the difficulty in detecting a climate change signal comes down to low signal to noise ratio (Ziegler et al. 2005). Apparently, for the variable at hand, the climate change influence is not very large compared to interannual/interdecadal variability noise.”

        Agarwal and Wettlaufer, 2018
        http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/376/2129/20170332
        “The fluctuation statistics of the observed sea-ice extent during the satellite era are compared with model output from CMIP5 models using a multifractal time series method. The two robust features of the observations are that on annual to biannual time scales the ice extent exhibits white noise structure, and there is a decadal scale trend associated with the decay of the ice cover. It is shown that (i) there is a large inter-model variability in the time scales extracted from the models, (ii) none of the models exhibits the decadal time scales found in the satellite observations, (iii) five of the 21 models [24%] examined exhibit the observed white noise structure, and (iv) the multi-model ensemble mean exhibits neither the observed white noise structure nor the observed decadal trend.”

        Luo et al., 2018
        https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-017-3688-8
        “Over the recent three decades sea surface temperate (SST) in the eastern equatorial Pacific has decreased, which helps reduce the rate of global warming. However, most CMIP5 model simulations with historical radiative forcing do not reproduce this Pacific La Niña-like cooling. Based on the assumption of “perfect” models, previous studies have suggested that errors in simulated internal climate variations and/or external radiative forcing may cause the discrepancy between the multi-model simulations and the observation. … Based on the total 126 realizations of the 38 CMIP5 model Historical simulations, the results show that none of the 126 model historical realizations reproduce the intensity of the observed eastern Pacific cooling (Fig. 1d) and only one simulation produces a weak cooling (−0.007 °C per decade).”

        Ding et al., 2018
        http://www.mdpi.com/2410-3896/3/2/12/htm
        [C]limate changes in polar areas remain difficult to predict, which indicates that the underlying mechanisms of polar amplification remain uncertain and debatable.”

        Hanna et al., 2018
        https://www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/tc-2018-91/
        Recent changes in summer Greenland blocking captured by none of the CMIP5 models

        Scanlon et al., 2018
        http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/01/16/1704665115.full
        “The models underestimate the large decadal (2002–2014) trends in water storage relative to GRACE satellites, both decreasing trends related to human intervention and climate and increasing trends related primarily to climate variations. The poor agreement between models and GRACE underscores the challenges remaining for global models to capture human or climate impacts on global water storage trends. … Increasing TWSA [total water storage anomalies] trends are found primarily in nonirrigated basins, mostly in humid regions, and may be related to climate variations. Models also underestimate median GRACE increasing trends (1.6–2.1 km3/y) by up to a factor of ∼8 in GHWRMs [global hydrological and water resource models] (0.3–0.6 km3/y). Underestimation of GRACE-derived TWSA increasing trends is much greater for LSMs [global land surface models], with four of the five LSMs [global land surface models] yielding opposite trends (i.e., median negative rather than positive trends) … Increasing GRACE trends are also found in surrounding basins, with most models yielding negative trends. Models greatly underestimate the increasing trends in Africa, particularly in southern Africa. .. TWSA trends from GRACE in northeast Asia are generally increasing, but many models show decreasing trends, particularly in the Yenisei. … [T]he magnitude of the estimated climate contribution to GMSL [global mean sea level] is twice that of the human contribution and opposite in sign.”

  4. Yonason

    I’ve read that the French protestors haven’t “won” anything more than a 6 month reprieve. Instead of the new taxes on petrol being imposed in January, they’ll be imposed in June.

    And what do they get for all the suffering they’ll endure?

    “The protesters in Paris will be expected to pay much of the up to €8 billion annual tab for a minuscule global benefit—that’s how much tax revenue Mr. Macron thinks his levies will raise. This is preposterous in an economy that still has an 8.9% jobless rate (21.5% for the young) and will struggle to hit 2% annual GDP growth.”
    https://www.thegwpf.com/the-global-carbon-tax-revolt/

    The Left has never excelled at economics, or much of anything useful for that matter.

    As that article goes on to say, crazy American Leftists (Democrats) are no better:

    “The carbon tax revolt is world-wide. Voters in Washington state last month rejected a carbon tax that would have started at $15 per ton of emissions and climbed $2 a year indefinitely. Washington ranks 25th among American states in carbon emissions and when we tried to estimate its contribution to global emissions our calculator couldn’t handle a number that small. Gov. Jay Inslee and green activists nonetheless wanted voters to pay $2.3 billion in taxes over five years.”

    Don’t worry, they’ll figure out some other way to steal your money, and blame it on the way you chose to live your life, rather than on their own greed and stupidity.

    1. SebastianH

      This „they are in it for the money“ meme is getting old Yonason. Where do you think the people opposing common sense get their money from? Do you believe the AGW „scam“ industry has more money than those interested in continued usage of fossil fuels?

      1. Yonason

        Yes, troll, it’s true. Con artists do not like people saying “they’re in it for the money.”

        How dare I think that those who get rich providing a useful commodity to willing customers are any more entitled to their money than those who would take it from unwilling customers under false pretexts for useless junk. Whatever was I thinking?

  5. mwhite

    Euro elections next year. Wonder how that’ll go down in France.

    1. Yonason

      According to the Brexit movie, whoever is elected makes not the slightest difference whatever, because they have no power or influence. They are just a showpiece to make the citizens THINK they do.

      See from where the video starts (4:38) to about 9:35 for an explanation of how the EU works, which is essential to prevent the peons from having any say in it at all.
      https://youtu.be/eYqzcqDtL3k?t=278

      What an awful situation to be in, and how horrible it will be if the Democrats have their way here in America and we end up the same!

  6. BobW in NC

    How horrible for you folks in Germany. Hopefully, this will morph into the start of the people regaining control of government.

  7. Penelope

    Popular Science has the solution: “Finally an excuse to cancel all your plans. Staying in is good for the environment.”

  8. Penelope

    Careful, please, gentlemen, w that word “emissions”. We must always distinguish that natural, harmless, plant accellerant, CO2, and pollution.

  9. Skeptik

    Climate science is a bit like astronomy. In neither science can we do any real controlled experiments. All that we can do is to observe, measure and theorise. If our theories and observations match each other, then we are entitled to some hope that we are actually right. However, if they don’t, then the most we can say is that some other factors are almost certainly as important, and possibly more important, than the ones we have so far theorised about.

    There is, of course, no direct proof, (I would prefer to use the term empirical evidence), that CO2 is responsible for any of the warming that we think that we have seen. But, absence of proof is not proof of absence.

    Of course, AGW is “only” a theory – but it is one based on long established physics, none of which is unique to climate science and which, in general, has received ample empirical verification elsewhere. Given this, it would be surprising if it turned out to be completely wrong. However, the observations would indicate that it can only be a relatively small part of the overall story. What is the rest of it made up, of?

    1. Kenneth Richard

      Of course, AGW is “only” a theory – but it is one based on long established physics

      And what would those “long established physics” be with regard to CO2’s capacity to heat or cool the oceans? Please be specific.

      Essex and Tsonis, 2018
      https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378437118301766
      Climate models do not and cannot employ known physics fully. Thus, they are falsified, a priori. Incomplete physics and the finite representation of computers can induce false instabilities. … [A[re there propositions that contemporary models make, crucial to their own objectives, that are falsifiable? Is there any physical test possible that would force us to conclude that they are unable to achieve their own objectives, thus requiring a rethinking of basic assumptions? This paper addresses this question. But it is a question that cannot be comprehended in the face of many widely-held misconceptions about the direct meteorologically based projection modeling of climate. Foremost among these misconceptions is that climate models are full implementations of known, mature physics. This false conception can lead to the conclusion that falsification is irrelevant because models are simply an execution of previously known correct physics. … The empirical nature of large climate models can be clearly seen in their diverse outputs. If they followed the laws of physics in their entirety, they would all produce the same results under the same conditions. But they do not. In a recent study, the Climate Model Inter-comparison Project phase 3 (CMIP3) models [2] were considered and a detailed comparison at the dynamics level, using an approach involving climate networks [Steinhaeuser and Tsonis, 2013] was performed. It was found that the models not only don’t agree with each other when it comes to dynamics, they also don’t agree with reality.”

  10. sasquatch

    Will there be a CO2 tax on the carbon dioxide in German beer?

    Who will take the beating then?

    Germans will burn Brussels to the ground.

    Somebody has to suffer, be miserable. Tar and feathers for eurocrats would be a hoot, hog tie them to a sixteen foot pole and parade them around for a few hours.

    How about the yeast that produces the carbonation, will there be a yeast tax since yeast growth is the culprit?

    How about an oxygen tax, oxygen is guilty by two times. Probably shouldn’t exist as an element.

    It is an outrage that there is oxygen and it requires two oxygen atoms to comprise the carbon dioxide molecule. Something must be done about this oxygen atom, an inquisition is needed badly.

    An oxygen tax is only logical and a more reasonable thing to tax long before carbon dioxide itself.

    These Statists need to have a more aggressive approach on what to tax.

    Lots of CO2 in the ocean waters, tax water too.

    Everyone must be billed monthly for the carbon dioxide, oxygen, hydrogen, H2O, and yeast tax; since beer has it all, beer taxes can be five times higher. Add in barley and hops taxes too.

    Who do these beer drinkers think they are trying to get away with not paying their fair share to make sure climate change is stopped, more money will be the answer, always is. Plenty of revenue should do the trick.

    Have to get to the bottom of it all, cut to the chase, beer is a major offender of GHG growth.

    A hefty fee paid on each glass of beer drank during Oktoberfest will help stop climate change. I think.

    If it doesn’t, you’ll be paying the tax and all fees anyway. What do you need the money for, you beer drinking fool? Pay the price and cry in your beer. Quitcher beefin’ about it.

    It is absurd, but that doesn’t matter, and it could work for a while, maybe.

    Germans would burn all of Europe to a heap of ashes.

    Maybe that is all starting to happen anyway.

  11. John F. Hultquist

    While theories cannot be proven, they can be useful. Newton had reservatons about the theory (or law) of gravity but still claimed “it abundantly serves to account for all the motions of celestial bodies.”
    Not bad. Still it was wrong:
    Einstein’s theory of general relativity replaced it; namely, gravitation is an attribute of curved spacetime instead of being due to a force propagated between bodies.
    Those studying global warming, and claiming it is a result of CO2, have made many statements, but have not come close to Newton’s “serves to account for all” such things of interest.
    In fact, the global warming speciallists are frequently wrong:
    =Arctic Ocean ice cover will be gone by (pick one of a dozen);
    =Snow will be a thing of the past; [Viner of CRU]
    . . . .
    =Global Warming Threatens Famous Alps Resorts,
    Nordic Walking May Be the Sport of the Future

    When observations disagree with your theory – your theory is wrong. [R. Feynman]

    1. SebastianH

      Those studying global warming, and claiming it is a result of CO2, have made many statements, but have not come close to Newton’s “serves to account for all” such things of interest.
      In fact, the global warming speciallists are frequently wrong:

      You are confusing claims like gravity does something to a mass to specific predictions like this object on a ballistic trajectory will impact the surface in a specific location. The latter one is true if everything happens according to the parameters set in the prediction, but doesn’t account for disturbances like maybe an impact from another object during the descent.

      =Arctic Ocean ice cover will be gone by (pick one of a dozen);=Snow will be a thing of the past; [Viner of CRU]

      Those are predictions based on specific presumptions as well. You can add predictions about sea level rise. Those predictions aren’t what the theory about the effect CO2 has is about.

      When observations disagree with your theory – your theory is wrong. [R. Feynman]

      When will skeptics learn this then? You guys theorize about cooling for over a decade now. Didn’t happen, so do you consider yourselves being wrong now?

      1. John F. Hultquist

        If your cAGW theory can’t make a reasonable statement that comes true, of what use is it?
        Oh, I have to wait 80 years to find out.

        About cooling — not me. I’d like it a bit warmer. And I’d like
        CO2 to be between 1,200 and 1,500.

        Have all the Polar Bears died? Are there fewer now than 50 years ago? Have German electric prices gone down?

  12. rah

    Looks like the beating in France may not be over. Despite the fact that Macron caved on the carbon tax there are now new demands and the threat of Paris burning again this weekend seems to be pretty significant with the government already discussing how to react. The French like their revolutions you know.

  13. Dee

    Lefty Irish socialist politician: Oil Companies are “”addicted to carbon”.

    The Floating Voter: Government needs to hit Big Oil profits before hiking carbon tax for families – TD

    https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/the-floating-voter-government-needs-to-hit-big-oil-profits-before-hiking-carbon-tax-for-families-td-37601419.html

  14. Paul

    If co2 is the greatest threat to mankind that it mandates no increase in its quantity then why don’t we do away with catalytic converters and just put carbon monoxide in the air.
    The reason is even the radical environmentalists don’t believe in co2 reduction but being in control of everything by co2 control.

Leave a Reply

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy

Close