Germany’s Green Party Apologizes For “Massive Sexual Abuse Of Children”, Advocacy of Pedophilia …”Up To 1000 Victims”!

The title may sound stunning, and unbelievable, but it’s true.

It’s also appearing in the main media elsewhere.

Berlin’s leftist daily Online Tagesspiegel here reports comprehensively on the German Green Party’s troubled past involving it’s earlier advocacy of pedophilia and practice by some of its former leading members, see background here, here, here and here.

Green Party Chairwoman Bettina Jarasch has just publicly apologized for what she calls an “institutional failure,” Tagesspiegel writes, as a commission report on the matter has been presented. 

On behalf of the Berlin Greens, we ask for foregiveness,” said Jarasch.

The Tagesspiegel adds:

In the Berlin state association of the Alternativen Liste, the forerunner organization of the Green Party, there was massive sexual abuse of children.”

The Greens’ advocacy of pedophilia rights was part of the party’s platform in the 1980s and early 1990s as it pushed neo-liberal ideas like “free and open relationships”. It still remains unclear as to why the Germany’s top environmental party took so long to issue an apology.

1000 child victims of sexual abuse

The number of victims is not known. However one Green Party Berlin parliamentarian and author of the report, Thomas Birk, in March mentioned “up to 1000 victims”, though he said the figure was “speculative”. The report itself gives releases no figure.

Current Green party official Daniel Wesener said that there were at least two repeat offenders who were tolerated within the party, one was convicted in 13 cases.

Currently the child sex abuse within the Green party is now under investigation by a special commission. The Green Party leaders pledge their full cooperation and to provide compensation to victims who step forward.

According to the Tagesspiegel, the investigation shed light into an “abuse network” within the forerunner of the Green party, Alternativen Liste, which included at least three leading figures who set up a “youth center” in Kreuzberg recreational center.

According to witnesses, they abused numerous youths who had been recruited at elementary schools.”

Today Green Party officials insist that the abuse, however, did not take place within the party structure itself.

Though some media outlets such as the Tagesspiegel reported on the story, much of the German media has been pretty mute on the topic.

Classless Act: Tübingen Mayor Boris Palmer Unhinged, Hurls Angry Insults At Wind Energy Dissenter

Green Party Tübingen Mayor unhinged over dissent – “damn stupid blather!
By Michael Limburg, EIKE
[Translated, edited by P. Gosselin]

Tübingen mayor Boris Palmer is considered as one of the Green Party’s more moderate realists. However when it comes to the facts about the pie-in-the-sky “Energiewende” (transition to renewable energies), the moderate realism comes to an abrupt end. Suddenly it turns to bad-mounting and insults, as one citizen in the beautiful region of Stauferfeld found out when bringing up the laws of nature – which in fact also apply even to green ideology. Idyllic Stauferfeld is planned to receive an array of wind turbines.

Though we are not the New York Times, we took the liberty of publishing Palmer’s disrespectful e-mail.

Photo: Tübingen mayor, Green Party member, Boris Palmer. Photo by: Manfred Grohe

It all started with a concerned citizen sending an e-mail to Tübingen’ s honorable burgermeister Herr Boris Palmer:

From: XXXXXXX
Sent: Tuesday, 28 April 2015 11:09 p.m.
To: Palmer, Boris, University City Tübingen
Subject: AW: FAZ article of 2 April 15: Industrialization of our landscape with wind energy machinery

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,

At the former military depot 3 units will be installed, and the other 3 will be installed in untouched nature 700 meters away from the Adelberg Convent and the Herrenbachstausee nature recreation centre, right in the middle of beautiful Stauferland!

The military depot is indeed an untouched paradise for red kite birds, bats, and for rare woodcocks.

In Baden-Württemberg you can install as much wind energy and for as long as you can, and the only thing that we will surely get for it is a high number of installed capacity. However you will never get a base load capacity with renewable energies because we still do not have a sensible storage technology.

What we are getting: a huge amount of waste electricity when the wind blows, which we have to get rid of in foreign countries at a high expense. And when there is little or no wind blowing, we get the power from coal or nuclear.

Unfortunately: zero times as much installed wind capacity as you want always equals zero!

Please convince us of the opposite!

The expansion of renewable energies will certainly not fail because of resistance from citizens, but rather because of the laws of nature. It is not possible to plan wind and solar energy. They can be stored only minimally, and they will not meet the demand peaks of consumption!

But maybe we first have to first completely cover Germany with wind turbines, corn fields and solar fields in order to comprehend this.

Hopefully in this case at least the nuclear power plants in our neighboring countries are safe enough so that us German do-gooders do not perish some time soon because of a French or Polish nuclear catastrophe!

Yours sincerely,
XXXXXXX

The Green mayor Herr Palmer was hardly amused by the dissent over the planned wind project, even becoming unhinged, and viciously lashed out with the following response:

From: Palmer, Boris, University City Tübingen [mailto:boris.palmer(at)tuebingen.de]
Sent: Wednesday, 29 April 2015, 10:16
Subject: FAZ article 2 April 2015; Industrialization of our landscape with wind energy machinery

Dear Frau XXXXXXX,

to be loud and clear about it: In the termionology of the Rems Valley, your egotistical and unknowledgeable blather deserves only one characterization: damn stupid nonsense.
Zero knowledge times zero willingness to be responsible = zero importance.

To conclude with natural laws that we should not use what is in fact an endless supply of an energy type so that we can instead use up the last remnants of coal and gas from the earth requires a blindness that is certainly beyond any cure.

Feel free to send this e-mail to the New York Times.

Yours sincerely,
Boris Palmer
Mayor
University City Tübingen
City Adminsitration im Blauen Turm
Friedrichstraße 21, 72072 Tübingen
Tel. (0 70 71) 204 – 1200; Fax (0 70 71) 204 -1000
www.tuebingen.de

To which the dissident citizen promptly responded:

Sent: Wednesday, 29 April 2015 11:22
To: ‘Palmer, Boris, University City Tübingen';
Subject: AW: FAZ article from 27 April 15, Industrialization of our landscape with wind turbine machinery

Dear Herr Palmer,
You may of course portray me as egotistical and damn stupid, but it does not bother me at all.
In any case you are going to find it increasingly difficult to counter my arguments and those of many other citizens, except by using defamation and polemic.

With warm greetings from the beautiful wind-energy free Stauferland in lovely Tubingen.
XXXXXXXX”

Obviously the green movement has started getting awfully testy about the rapidly growing dissent over the failing wind and renewable energy dream in Germany.

 

151 Degrees Of Fudging…Energy Physicist Unveils NOAA’s “Massive Rewrite” Of Maine Climate History

UPDATE: DUE TO ELEVATED INTEREST, THIS ARTICLE WILL BE A STICKY POST FOR ANOTHER DAY OR TWO.

Fellow New Englander, engineering physicist and energy expert, Mike Brakey has sent a summary analysis of NOAA past temperature “adjustments” for Maine.
=====================================

Black Swan Climate Theory
By Mike Brakey

Here in the U.S. I have documented manipulations similar to those in Switzerland and other locations worldwide that NTZ wrote about yesterday.

Over the last months I have discovered that between 2013 and 2015 some government bureaucrats have rewritten Maine climate history between 2013 and 2015 (and New England’s and of the U.S.). This statement is not based on my opinion, but on facts drawn from NOAA 2013 climate data vs NOAA 2015 climate data after when they re-wrote it.

We need only compare the data. They cooked their own books (see numbers below).

Brakey_1

Figure 1: NOAA cooled the years of Maine’s past by an accumulated 151°F! (55,188 heating degree day units).

The last four months have been some of the coldest you might ever recall in our lifetime. So far 2015 is the fourth coldest in Maine’s history over the last 120 years. Data from 2013 confirm that so far – from January 1 to April 29 – 2015 has required 4249 heating degree days.

That rivals 1904, 1918 and 1923 over the last 120 years.

But when I recently looked at NOAA’s revised 2015 data, these last four months now would not even put us in the top twenty of coldest months. The federal government went into the historical data and lowered those earlier years – and other years in the earlier decades – so that they can keep spending $27 billion a year on pushing global warming.

They assumed no one would archive temperature data. But I did. My research indicated they used the same algorithm across the United States at the same time. Fortunately I had archived their data from 2013 for Maine and recently compared it to their 2015 data (see above table).

As an engineering physicist and heat transfer specialist, I have worked with heating and cooling degree days for forty years. It is alarming when one discovers multi-million dollar websites have been corrupted with bogus data because the facts do not match up with agendas.

It tremendously harms the industry you and I both work in. Worse, it harms the public. If the public knew the climate data facts indicated it was not getting warmer locally, and that it might actually be getting cooler, it would have all the more reason to insulate and become more energy-efficient in their homes.

I have put together a Maine history of climate temperatures in a narrated PowerPoint Presentation placed on YouTube titled, Black Swan Climate Theory.

Below is a brief sampling of my findings:

Brakey_5

Table 1: Sampling of findings.

So far 2015 Maine temperatures, as of April, are running neck-and-neck with the coldest years in Maine’s history: 1904 (40.6°F), 1918 (42.1°F) and 1925 (42.3°F). These temperatures cited come right from the federal government’s own NOAA climate data (from 2013). I archived them on my computer for future reference.

2015 so far among coldest on record

A BLACK SWAN event is forming in 2015 (following chart):

Brakey_2

Figure 2: Plot comparing the new, altered dataset to the 2013 dataset. Black curve is the plot of the 2013 dataset. The blue curve is the plot of the 2015 new, altered data.

Based on the first four months of 2015, there is an excellent chance 2015 Maine temperature might average, on an annual basis, well under 43.0°F. Not only have Maine temperatures been on a decline since 1998, we are now seeing temperatures reminiscent of the bitter turn of the early 1900s.

“Massive rewrite”

It appears NOAA panicked and did a massive rewrite of Maine temperature history (they used the same algorithm for U.S. in general). The new official temperatures from Maine between 1895 and present were LOWERED by an accumulated 151.2°F between 1895 and 2012.

“Out-and-out fraud”

In my opinion, this is out-and-out fraud. Why did they corrupt national climate data? Global warming is a $27 billion business on an annual basis in the U.S alone.

Brakey_4

Now NOAA data revised in 2015 indicate that 1904, 1919 and 1925 in Maine were much colder than anything we experience today. (See the scorecard above comparing the NOAA data that are 18 months apart). Note how for 1913 the NOAA lowered the annual temperature a whole 4°F!

For the balance of the years, as they get closer to the present, the NOAA tweaks less and less. They have corrupted Maine climate data between 1895 and present by a whopping accumulated 151.2°F.

Unfortunately NOAA is remaining true to that old saying, “Figures don’t lie but liars figure.”

A multi-million dollar website has been corrupted. I can no longer rely on the tax-payer funded NOAA for clean, unfiltered, climate data for my ongoing research.

Conclusion

I can no longer trust the climate data and energy information ultimately drawn from the U.S. government. Locally, I now have to determine if they got their data from NOAA.

This makes research a lot tougher.

Mike Brakey

Swiss Weekly Calls Temperature Rise A “Propaganda Trick” (Not A Trend) …”We Are Making A Warming”!

At the print edition of Swiss news weekly “Weltwoche”, science journalist Markus Schär writes that not only has the global temperature trend suspiciously been tampered with, but so have the datasets of the Swiss Meteorological Service:

WeWo

View of print Weltwoche article on global temperature “adjustments”.

To illustrate Weltwoche shows two datasets in its article from two different locations in Switzerland:

Swiss temperatures WeltWoche

The chart above shows the mean annual temperatures and trends for Sion and Zurich before (left) and after “adjustment” (right). The “adjustments” resulted in a doubling of the temperature trend.

At the start of the article Schär characterizes Thomas Stocker’s claim that the “so-called” 18-year global temperature pause is misleading information spread by “lobbyists” as scientifically invalid, and does so for three reasons: 1) It’s not “so-called” because datasets show there’s been no warming in over 18 years, 2) the pause is acknowledged by leading experts, and 3) IPCC experts have already acknowledged it, and have even come up with “over 50 explanations” to explain it.

Schär then focusses on the reports of temperature adjustments at various locations around the world that have led to a depiction of more rapidly warming global temperatures:

The Australian last year uncovered that state meteorologists adjusted an 80-year temperature series of Australia so that a cooling of 1°C per century was changed to a warming of 2.3°C.”

Schär also wrote of NASA’s dataset:

British science journalist Christopher Booker, who called the manipulation of temperature data ‘the biggest science scandal ever’, showed how among other things that the record value for 2014 came about because the responsible NASA institute had flipped the data trend for rural measurement stations in Brazil or Paraguay.”

According to Schär at Weltwoche, also Swiss temperature data have been adjusted to show stronger warming, calling the work a “propaganda trick, and not a valid trend“.

Schär calls into question the basis used for justifying the upwards adjustment, especially with respect to the fact that stations today are more urbanized and under influence of the urban heat island effect. He writes of the Swiss data:

It is correct that meteorologists homogenize their data, i.e. filter out external influences. But here the question is: How and with what intention are they doing this? […]

The meteorologist significantly lowered the data from the 19th century and strongly raised those of around 1980.”

The result, Schär writes; was a doubling of the temnperature increase rate. Schär also reports on how German meteorologist Klaus Hager earlier determined that the newer electronic measurement instruduced since the 1980s showed “on average 0.93°C higher temperatures.”

So why the upward adjustments when we have all the instrumentation and siting issues?

Schär writes that the Swiss meteorologists have rejected Hager’s claim that the new electronic instrumentation is delivering warmer temperatures, insisting that “the thermometers in the new automatic network are showing ‘slightly lower temperatures’ than those in the ‘poorly ventilated’ Stevenson screens.” Schär continues:

The corrections, however, appear so massive that they represent half of the entire temperature increase.”

Despite the data fudging by Swiss meteorologists (and those worldwide), no one is able to hide the fact that winters in Switzerland and in Central Europe have gotten colder over the past 20 years, defying predictions of warming made earlier by climatologists.

But that’s no problem for the climatologists, Schär writes.

Temperatures no longer have to rise in order to spread the fear of climate catastrophe. In the science magazine ‘Einstein’ on Swiss television, Stephan Bader of the Swiss Meteorological Service showed that winters in the Alps were getting cooler over the past years: But he also added that it was due to climate warming: Scientists at the Alfred Wegener Institute ‘suspect’ the cold snaps came from the melting of Arctic ice (which has stopped).”

Propaganda trick, anyone?

 

Academics Seeking Power Over Global Policy Launch “Australian-German College of Climate & Energy Transitions”

Tony Thomas at the Australian online Quadrant site here has an excellent overview of who and what is really behind the far-out alarmist “science” coming from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK): “Die Grünshirts Parachute Into Parkville“.

Some excerpts follow.

On Hans Schellnhuber:

PIK was founded in 1991 by climate doomsday professor, Herr Professor-Doktor Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber, who continues to lead it and seek for it world-changing powers. In an interview with Der Spiegel in 2011, Schellnhuber was asked: ‘Do you feel that the government’s abrupt change of course in relation to its energy policy is adequate?’ He replied (emphasis added):

‘No. It can only be the beginning of a deep-seated shift. The German Advisory Council on Global Change, which I chair, will soon unveil a  plan for a transformation of society. Precisely because of Fukushima, we believe that a new basis of our coexistence is needed.’ “

On Otmar Edenhofer:

One of his master plans for renewable energy involved, he said, a cost of ‘a mere twelve thousand billion dollars by 2030′ to put the world onto 75% renewable energy by 2050.

Someone’s calculated that USD12 trillion is about eight times the cost of World War 11. And Edenhofer doesn’t even mention the costs from 2030-50, or the untold billions spent already to deliver 0.3% renewable energy to the globe so far. Could Edenhofer have   triple-digit trillions in mind?”

On Stefan Rahmstorf:

In 2011 he was found by a German court to have made ‘untruthful assertions’ against a journalist, Irene Meischner, who had dared to criticize blunders in the IPCC (she was not even a sceptic).  He wrote on his blog that she had been dishonest, sloppy, had never read the IPCC report, and  had even plagiarized writings. Meischner stood up,  sued and won.”

On Dr Leena Srivastava:

…is Acting Director-General of the TERI think-tank, until February run by IPCC chair (now ex-chair) Rajendra Pachauri. The New Delhi police, who are taking a keen interest in the disgraced warmist, allege that the 74-year-old spent much of his final 15 months at TERI stalking a 29-year-old female staffer.

Read the entire piece here.

Incredibly even the Vatican has hitched its wagon to these individuals and their movement. The Church truly has been corrupted.

 

German Climate Physicist: Alternative Energy, Climate Are A “Religious Creed”…”Miles Away” From Openness

Yesterday approximately 15,000 coal miners turned out to protest the German government’s energy policy.

German Economics Minister Sigmar Gabriel announced earlier he intended to levy a CO2 surcharge on older coal power plants with the aim of shutting them down.

Lüdecke

Prof. Dr. Horst-Joachim Lüdecke. Photo EIKE.

Before yesterday’s demonstration, German physicist and climate scientist and spokesman for the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE), Prof. Dr. Horst-Joachim Lüdecke, published a sharply-worded commentary here on the government’s anti-fossil fuel/nuclear power policy. As the introduction Lüdecke wrote:

Climate protection and the switch over to renewable energies were instilled in German citizens by state propaganda, green brainwashing and with the help of all of Germany’s mainstream media. The unconditional necessity to advance into alternative energies has become a religious creed. By historical and global comparison, such a thing happens the most easily here, time after time. The logic used by the politically interested parties every time appears to be infallible. [..]

The argument goes as follows: The rescue of the planet from a death by heat and the immediate shutdown of the irresponsible German nuclear power plants are essential. The question of whether this is really true is not be asked, let alone discussed.”

Lüdecke says, however, that public awareness over the madness of Germany’s energy policy is beginning to dawn and that he believes “now is the phase of sobering up, but unfortunately not yet one of reason.” Leading print media are beginning to soften their support for the so-called Energiewende as it now stands, he writes. As angry coal miners take to the street, and thousands of industrial jobs become threatened, it is becoming increasingly apparent something has gone awry.

Lüdecke thinks that the sobering-up process will take time because every political party has made green issues part of its platform. “Green is a very difficult color to wash away,” the German physicist writes.

Lüdecke then explains the primary disadvantage of renewable energy: their low energy density, i.e. meaning they require vast areas and that the major ones are weather-dependent. The German EIKE professor does not know how long the sobering-up process will take, citing the immense power of an array of lobbies behind the green movement.

Lüdecke also aims harsh words at Germany’s pompous and one-sided media:

Finally a word for the German media, here especially for the public TV and radio networks. They are rightly being compared by the current contemporaries to the conditions of former East Germany or even earlier times.”

At the political level, Lüdecke blasts the atmosphere of intimidation against people who have alternative views, who often are threatened with physical violence from radical leftists groups.

When it comes to openness, such as that proclaimed by French philosopher Voltaire, the German climatologist writes “in the dark media of Germany, we are miles away.”  He adds:

Factual discourse, connected with polite listening and taking the arguments from opponents seriously, is definitely not in fashion.”

Lüdecke describes Germany as a desert when it comes to independent reporting and expression of opinions.

 

Growing Unrest: German Trade Union To Protest CO2 Plan That “Threatens 100,000 Jobs” And “Affordable And Reliable” Energy !

Germany’s powerful trade unions have long been major constituents of the country’s SPD social democrat party. But new CO2 reduction plans being drawn up by Germany’s Economics Ministry, headed by SPD chief Sigmar Gabriel, has the country’s mining, chemical and energy workers up in arms.

The IG BCE trade union representing a variety German energy employees is calling on its members to demonstrate in Berlin, on 25 April 2015.

Aufruf Demo Berlin

“We oppose!” Photo: Stefan Hoch, IGBCE

The planned protests further puts a German government in an increasingly awkward position as it attempts to appease both the powerful environmental groups, and the country’s influential industrial trade unions.

100,000 jobs at risk, “social blackouts”

Coal power plants supply approximately 45% of the country’s electricity demands. German online daily Die Welt here reports that the Economics Ministry has produced a concept paper calling for capping emissions of older coal plants, and subjecting excessive emissions to hefty fees.

The 125-year old IG BCE union claims the plan threatens 100,000 jobs – in regions where economies are already strained. “Ultimately the social blackout of entire regions threaten,” the IG BCE warn. It also says that scaling back coal power “puts an affordable and reliable power supply at risk“.

The IG BCE announces large demonstrations outside Chancellor Angela Merkel’s office in Berlin on April 25: The motto: “Enough, we oppose!

“Unrealistic” figures

Die Welt writes that the IG BCE had investment bank Lazard check over the draft plan. Lazard found that it is based on “unrealistically high power prices” for the year 2020.The prices projected for 2020 by the government will in fact be much lower, and thus means the plan would result in 85 to 95 percent of the power plants being unprofitable. The cap would literally mean the end of Germany’s lignite-fired power plants.

IG BCE commenter Thomas Rohde writes he will surely be attending the demo, and comments:

For too long we have believed politicians that an affordable energy supply and good jobs were worth it. The gods of climate protection have blindly run and sacrificed the guarantors of prosperity and value creation at the altar of CO2 reductions, much to the joy of other EU and industrial countries.”

Hat tip: Michael Limburg, EIKE.

 

Alarmist Potsdam Institute Concedes: “Natural Variability Underestimated”…”WE ARE CURRENTLY FACING A COOLING PERIOD”!

By Dennis Ambler and Pierre Gosselin

Few institutes have been as adamant and dogmatic about man-made global warming as the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), headed by German climate doomsday professor, Herr Professor-Doktor Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber.

Schellnhuber

German climate doomsday professor Hans Schellnhuber forced to postpone climate doomsday scenarios due to natural factors, but insists warming is still happening, and it will be worse – at a later time in the future. Photo: PIK

The institute has long maintained that the science was settled, and was instrumental in formulating a master-plan for re-organizing global society and watering down democracy in order to avert the modeled disaster. Their master-plan calls for allotting more power to an elite group of “visionary” scientists – like to Herr Doktor Schellnhuber himself.

So today it’s all the more surprising that they are announcing a paper that concedes natural factors indeed are more powerful than the 0.01% CO2 atmospheric concentration added in part by humans over the last 150 years. This is a milestone for the PIK, which earlier claimed they could not find any real evidence of other factors driving the climate.

Their press release writes (emphasis added):

So far it seemed there were hardly any major natural temperature fluctuations in Antarctica, so almost every rise in temperature was attributed to human influence,” says Armin Bunde of Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen (JLU). ‘Global warming as a result of our greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels is a fact. However, the human influence on the warming of West Antarctica is much smaller than previously thought. The warming of East Antarctica up to now can even be explained by natural variability alone.’ The results of their study are now published in the journal Climate Dynamics.”

They had us going there for a minute, but no, it isn’t a real admission they were wrong: global warming has been merely hiding behind natural variability as well as in the oceans, they insist.

The press release continues:

The scientists did not only analyze data from individual measuring stations but also generated regional averages. The results show a human influence on the warming of West Antarctica, while this influence is weaker than previously thought.

However, the warming of Antarctica altogether will likely increase more strongly soon.

Soon? How long are we to wait? Many are losing patience in their long wait for the promised catastrophe. Suddenly things look as if they are losing their urgency.

For several years temperatures in Antarctica, but also globally, have been increasing less rapidly than in the 1990s. There are a number of reasons for this, e.g. the oceans buffering warmth.

The study now published by the German team of scientists shows that man-made global warming has not been pausing – it was temporarily superimposed and therefore hidden by long-term natural climate fluctuations like in Antarctica.2

How do they know it’s temporary? From their models? Well, they have been wrong since day 1. Obviously there’s much more to the climate system than just trace gas CO2.

‘Our estimates show that we are currently facing a natural cooling period – while temperatures nonetheless rise slowly but inexorably, due to our heating up the atmosphere by emitting greenhouse gas emissions,’ explains Hans Joachim Schellnhuber.

‘At the end of this natural cold spell temperatures will rise even more fiercely. Globally, but also in Antarctica which therefore is in danger of tipping.”

The good Herr Dr. Schellnhuber never lets you down. Just be patient longer than we thought. The catastrophe that we promised is just taking longer to get here – but when it does, by golly, it’ll be a lot worse – you’ll all be sorry for not doing what we told you.

This is taking on comical dimensions.

 

Biology Teacher Sends Letter To Ernst Klett Verlag Concerning ‘Manipulative And Unserious’ German School Textbooks

A few years ago at a social event I had a brief discussion with a secondary school teacher who happened to be on some sort of committee in Hannover which decided the textbooks the children at Lower Saxony upper secondary schools were to use.

On that subject I told her I thought that the geography textbook our children were using was designed to indoctrinate the kids on the subject of climate change, and that it dissuaded them from critical thinking on the subject. My opinion was that the schools should teach children, and not indoctrinate them.

Needless to say, I got quite a stern, German-style reaction. I’ll never forget the icy, piercing look in her eyes, one that made my grade school principal Arlene Simons look angelic by comparison. Parents, especially cowboys, obviously were not expected to question the state when it comes matters concerning the education of children.

The following is a letter written by a biology teacher, posted at Die kalte Sonne site. It was sent to one of Germnay’s larger textbook publishers: Ernst Klett Verlag.

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

Answers are requested: How do school textbook publishers handle the climate discussion?

To: Klett-Schulbuchverlag
From: Teacher of Biology and Chemistry [anonymous in order to avoid problems with colleagues]

Sent: 18 March 2015

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,

Because the general contact-page at your website is blocked, I am using this address and requesting that you pass my comments on the subject of climate change on to the responsible editors:

In the preparation of my lessons (Biology Grade 7) in your textbook Prisma Biology 2, ISBN 978-3-12-068390-2, I came upon an illustration depicting the causes of climate change which I find to be unserious and unscientific. Under the heading, ‘The greenhouse effect is being enhanced’ one finds the following text: ‘Over the past decades scientists have been measuring a steady increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. At the same time the average temperature of the earth has risen because the heat trapping gas barrier is getting tighter…“

Here the illusion of a causal relationship is being given, when this is everything but certain. Why do you not provide the development of the mean global temperature over the past? This would allow the pupils to see that warm periods have always occurred, long before man could have had an impact on the earth’s atmosphere. The pupils would be able to recognize that the climate in the Middle Ages was similar to today’s climate and that it provided significant benefits to the people living back then.

My view is that it is scientifically unserious to show only an increase over the last decades. Here it is being suggested that there weren’t any climate changes earlier.

Why don’t you show how little the share of man’s CO2 is in the earth’s entire CO2 budget?

Why do you not mention the ongoing discussion on CO2 climate sensitivity?

Why do you not mention that the global mean temperature of the earth has not risen over the past 18 years, even though the CO2 atmospheric concentration of the atmosphere has risen during the same period?

Why do you not mention that many studies have shown that in the past temperature increased first, and then CO2 and methane concentration followed, and thus the driving force for the earth’s temperature could not have been these gases?

And why do you fail to mention that the climate models, which projected a significant warming of the earth, have been proven false?

What I find to be especially manipulative and unserious is the exercise: ‘Evaluate the single information sources using this sentence: Who posted what, and with what intention, in the Internet?“ This is all about speculation and the manipulation of 13-year olds who do not yet possess the knowledge necessary for assessing the seriousness of a source in the Internet. It may very well be that the ideological stipulations of political parties may lead a school textbook publisher to depict the reality as such, so that it fits the political narrative. But this has absolutely nothing to do with science. Serious would be to show in a neutral manner the different views on climate changes of the last 150 years, side by side, and to provide as many of the known facts as possible.

Yours sincerely”

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

Well, don’t expect the Lower Saxony Ministry of Education to give this letter an A+ by any means.

Today Germany’s kids are being told what they can be critical about, and climate science is certainly not one of them. Even the concerns of parents are being dismissed by what appears to be a state apparatus that has gotten excessively arrogant on the subject. Indeed it’s back to school – the old nasty German one of thought control.

And it’s unbelievable that the climate of intimidation in academia has become so aggressive that the biology teacher fears being identified, and thus chose to stay anonymous. This should make anyone pause and think.

German Climate Witch-Hunting Under New Management…Wanted: “Explosive Material” On Climate Skeptics

In former times, the job of official climate witch-hunting had been one of the German Ministry of Environment, which even went so far as to identify, target and attack skeptic US and German scientists and journalists – all because they held non-alarmist views on climate change. Fortunately that activity turned out to be somewhat embarrassing, and thus the activist Ministry thought that it was best to end it.

But not to worry, the witch-hunting business has found a new home: at the site of the end-of-world climate conspiracy theorists: Klimaretter.info – a leading alarmist site run by a group of highly influential climate doom-infatuated persons.

Hat-tip: Die kalte Sonne

Klimaretter.info (in English: climate rescuers.info) is now offering a new, very special service to readers: They now have the chance to deliver “explosive disclosure material” on climate skeptics and their clandestine activities at an anonymous letter box: The klimaretter.info site explains:

Here you can discretely and anonymously deposit internal documents, information, data sets, bank accounts, and similar material when you think that the public needs to know about it.”

The klimaretter site even promises that materials will be handled in “strict confidentiality”, and that tracing back to the discloser will not be possible.

Many of us of course will naturally view this as a step back into the old authoritarian, go-after-the-enemy days in darker German times. Is this all they have left? Are they totally bankrupt of argument in the arena of debate that they now have to resort to gutter skimming and dumpster diving? Perhaps they ought to get in touch with Peter Gleick to find out how to acquire explosive documents.

So who are these people at klimaretter.info? A look at their website tells us a lot already. It’s mainly made up of a group of powerful lobbyists working on behalf of the renewable energies industry, or the reinsurance industry. Among the publishers at Klimaretter are Hartmut Grassl, former director of the WMO and the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg. According to other sources, it turns out he is also a foundation board member of reinsurer Munich Re!

Other klimaretter.info publishers like Claudia Kemfert, Gero Lücking, Jens Mühlhaus, Matthias Willenbacher or Klaus Franz are directly connected to the multi-billion dollar green energy industry. Kemfert is also a member of the Club of Rome.

Pots ought to be careful about going around and calling others black.

Send in your explosive documents

Already skeptic site Die kalte Sonne tells here that the klimaretter.info secret letter box has gotten some success. Die kalte Sonne writes that they have delivered a comprehensive package of “explosive material” consisting of (1) important scientific papers on the sun’s impact on climate, (2) a bank statement of an explosive visit to a pizza eatery concerning the last international climate conference and (3) discrete sea level data showing an average rise of 1.5 mm/yr. But don’t get your hopes up that we’ll be reading about that at Spiegel, or Die Zeit.

Die kalte Sonne also would like to know who are the generous donators to Al Gore’s Climate Reality Project.

If readers here should happen to have in your possession explosive information like photos, documents, bank transactions, e-mails, datasets, etc. that you feel the public needs to know about, then do send them to the confidential letterbox of the climate rescuers at klimaretter.info here. Perhaps you ought to send them the cream of the Climategate e-mails.

 

Megalomaniac Google? … Internet Behemoth Now Fancying Itself As The Ultimate Gatekeeper Of The Truth

Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise.   – 1 Corinthians 3:18

A wave of commotion has just been unleashed by the very recent FOX News report on Google’s contemplating of changing the way it ranks website pages with its famous search engine. Also read here.

Google Truth

Towering arrogance from speech-rights midgets? The self-appointed gate-keepers of the Truth: Image cropped here.

Rather than ranking websites on their popularity, a Google research group is looking into ranking websites based on how “factual” they are. If implemented, it would literally mean Google taking on the gatekeeper role of who deciding fact from fiction. Google has already created a “knowledge vault” containing “commonly believed facts”. In summary sites found to deviate from what Google considers facts, would be automatically down-ranked in searches. Result: dissident opinions would surely get buried.

Though the system may have some merits, it is chock-full of pitfalls and it risks the establishment of an information dictatorship – a so-called Orwellian Ministry Of Truth. In other countries such information control programs are the sort of things one associates with tyrannies and dictatorships, like Iran, North Korea, Red China, Russia, Venezuela or Islamic fundamentalist states. Note in all these states, leaders are convinced it’s for the overall good of the people.

“That is very troubling,” writes Jim Lakely, Director of Communications of the Chicago-based think-tank The Heartland Institute in an e-mail. He thinks there is no doubt that the ‘facts’ of politicized sites who clearly have a defined agenda will get favorable treatment in Google’s ‘knowledge vault’ while dissident sites will be locked out.

“I worry about this issue greatly… My site gets a significant portion of its daily traffic from Google,” Anthony Watts told FoxNews.com. “It is a very slippery and dangerous slope because there’s no arguing with a machine,” he added.

While Google maintains this project is only in the development phase, others are not so sure. One climate science dissident, who wishes to remain anonymous for the time being, believes that Google is already “heavily biased and directing traffic away” from climate science skeptic sites.

When it comes to science, the move reveals that Google seems oblivious to how the discipline works. It that is so, it makes the omnipotent company all the more dangerous. Science is always hotly disputed. For example is used to be a universal “fact” that saturated fats were bad for human health – before dissidents forced a rethinking. With Google’s new proposed policy, dissident voices would never see the light of day and progress would be stunted as a result. Dissidence is the life blood of science itself. By removing dissidence, as Google unwisely moves to do, science itself would de facto get starved and be catapulted back to the Dark Ages and the times of the Inquisition.

Global warming alarmists have long been working to get Google to suppress dissident voices on the subject of climate change. In 2009 conservative news site Newsbusters here wrote:

Former Vice President Al Gore a few years ago advised Internet behemoth Google about “aspects of search quality.”Such was reported by the New Yorker in its October 12 issue (subscription required). […] given the ongoing concerns about Google’s political leanings and how its search algorithms might be manipulated to favor liberal news outlets over conservative points of view, the very idea that Gore might have had any input to this process is worrisome to say the least.”

Thus we see that the Google project has long been in the works, and so the preparation appears to be grand and fundamental in scale. It cannot be that an organization with the power and might of Google would take it upon itself to police the world’s body of knowledge and to decide who is trustworthy and who isn’t. This borders on dangerous megalomania.

Censorship can be fought

The irresponsible and arguably arrogant deeming of “unreliable sources” is not something that Google alone is contemplating, but was already once reality among some powerful government institutions worldwide just months ago. For example Germany’s Federal Ministry of Environment issued a 123-page publication that singled out German and American journalists and scientists who it claimed were responsible for “spreading doubt and false information“ on climate change. Among them: Fred Singer, Sallie Baliunas, Willie Soon, Frederick Seitz, Joe Barton, Pat Michaels, John Christy and Ross McKitrick.

Fortunately the German journalists and scientists who were targeted did not take the state-sponsored attack lying down. The brochure is no longer available. A small victory for the freedom of scientific dissent.

So will Google and its many backstage operators be successful?

If anything, the move confirms yet again that the globalist alarmists have lost the argument and that the public debate has become unwinnable for them. This is the reason for the “state-of-emergency” scale move. Despite their huge advantages in the media and state funding, they are unable to explain the harsh winters, the models’s failure, the sea ice growth and the many other warmer Holocene periods. Now they are forced to shut down dissidents, a-la-Inquisition.

But it will never work. Every lie has a short shelf-life and can be propped up only for so long. Eventually it gets stale, and no one is left to swallow it.

Google’s move, however, is indeed extremely worrisome and very serious. The new US Congress needs to move swiftly and forcefully, and to put these obviously out-of-control Google executives on the hot seat for a serious grilling or two and a little schooling on the virtues of un-monopolized dissent. The human right to be heard, and to not be silenced, is at stake here. Sympathetic lawmakers need to be contacted.

Kennedy aptly concludes: “Whoever controls the Truth, controls the world“.

The power to determine the truth belongs to the people, and not to Google.

 

Former IPCC Climatologist Lennart Bengtsson Calls Out Spiegel On Climate Gloom: “Wrong…Hopelessly Naïve…Ought To Know Better”

Some days ago I wrote about how German news weekly Der Spiegel had resorted once again to catastrophe-hopping when it recently rolled out its print edition whose front cover featured a burning planet caused by human climate change.

Skeptics in Europe reacted harshly, but at the same time dismiss the doomsday piece as a desperate sensationalism stunt in a bid to stem its hemorrhage of readers.

Alarmist views “wrong, completely naïve”

Some criticism even came from rather hefty figures in the climate scene. For example Swedish professor Lennart Bengtsson, former IPCC climatologist and former head of the German Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg.

Hat-tip: Hans Labohm

Bengtsson posted a commentary concerning the Spiegel doomsday piece at the Swedish Anthropocene site here. He calls the alarmist views of book author Naomi Klein, which Spiegel cited in its article: “not only wrong, but also hopelessly naïve.”

No basis showing weather has gotten more extreme

Bengtsson, who has gravitated from being an regular alarmist to a non-alarmist luke-warmer over the years, thinks that the growing emission of greenhouse gases is a problem over the long term, but that it is not an urgent problem. He writes there is no scientific basis showing the weather has become more extreme.

The storms are not worse than before, and they will be fewer in a warmer climate as a result of the polar regions warming up.”

No urgency

On sea level Bengtsson writes that it is now rising at about 3 mm per year, but has not accelerated over the past 23 years. It makes no sense to rush and to make “hasty and inaccurate decisions. He writes:

The reason for the increased emissions of carbon dioxide is the increasing earth‘s population and the desire of all the poor to live a life that is a little better and more hopeful, and perhaps someday even take a taxi at any time – surely among some of Naomi Klein’s environmental sins.”

Bengtsson calls the belief that a non-capitalist system can solve the earth’s energy and environmental problems completely naïve” and uninformed, citing past failed experiments in socialism.

If anyone ought to be familiar with the costs needed to solve the problems left behind by communist East Germany, it is Spiegel. The Elbe River was a dead river at the time of the German reunification. Now, thanks to the capitalist system, it has returned to life.”

As an example of a successful approach to lower CO2, emissions, Bengtsson uses the United States: “In fact, one of the few countries that has significantly reduced CO2 emissions are the United States, through its growing gas exploration!

Bengtsson adds:

The only hope to solve the planet’s long-term environmental problems is via the open and free society, not least of all by a socialist dictatorship on a global scale. This at least Spiegel’s editors ought to know.”

Catastrophe-Hopping Spiegel: German News Magazine Rolls Out Latest Climate Horror Vision: A Burning North Pole

This week’s hard copy of Spiegel features the front cover story dubbed “Der verheizte Planet” – The heated planet – (see right image below). Thus, Spiegel is returning and keeping to its long tradition of promoting end-of world scenarios.

The following image sequence shows how the burning planet is just the latest and newest climate catastrophe designed to get an apocalypse-weary public to worry (and to buy its magazines). So far the reaction, however, has been a big yawn. The world is, after all, full with other real concerns.

Spiegel disaster hopping

Spiegel depictions over the last decades. 1986 and 2015 were even front cover images. 1974: cooling. 1986: sea level rise. Now, 2015: it’s a burning planet.

1974 – 10,000 to 1 chance at best of planet returning to warming

In 1974 Spiegel warned of global cooling, writing that climate change was leading to growing deserts and global cooling. The article even claimed that the North Atlantic had cooled 0.5°C – this after “The global annual mean temperature increased by 0.7°C from 1890 to 1945.” During that warming period, Spiegel writes: “Near the poles the temperature was even several degrees warmer.”

In the lengthy article Spiegel even quoted meteorological researcher James McQuigg who said the chances of the climate returning to warmer conditions such as those in the 1930s were “at best 10,000 to 1″.

Also in Spiegel’s 11 February, 1974 edition an article titled The Desert is growing shows a temperature chart that tells us the global temperature fell from 16.0°C to 15.7°C from 1945 to 1970. Someone needs to tell this to NASA GISS. Today aren’t they saying the global temperature is now 14.9°? Weird.

1986: “Die Klimakatastrophe”

Then, just 12 years later in 1986, scientists realized the ocean cycles had flipped to their warm phase and so suddenly global warming was back in the pipeline. Immediately Spiegel ran with its legendary August 11, 1986 edition bearing the front page headline “Die Klimakatastrophe“, which depicted the Cologne Cathedral half submerged in sea water.

Forest die-off scare, acid rain

Spiegel not only spread fear about climate catastrophes, but it was also instrumental in spreading the acid-rain/forest die-off scare in the 1980s. In 1981 the magazine featured a 3-part series depicting the German forests as being doomed and certain to be forever lost.

Back to some rationality

Over the past years, it seemed Spiegel had been backing off from global climate catastrophe meme. The flagship news magazine often featured balanced reports, foremost by science journalist Axel Bojanowski, who often questioned the claims of a climate catastrophe and challenged the shrillness of the IPCC’s warnings. NoTricksZone often wrote about these articles. It seemed the magazine was back to rational and critical journalism on the topic of climate change, and this fostered hopes of a balanced debate someday taking place in Germany.

2015 Spiegel returns to the apocalypse

But this was wishful thinking, it turns out, as this week on Monday Spiegel rolled out its latest apocalyptic issue with the front page bearing the headline: “The Heated Planet” and an image of a planet on fire. The article is a repackaging all the doom and gloom scenarios that rest of the German mainstream media had been crowing about for a good two decades now. Balance has disappeared, regrettably.

Plummeting circulation

So why suddenly the change in tone? One can only speculate. Clear is that Spiegel circulation has been taking a massive beating over the recent years. For example in the 3rd quarter of 2014 alone Spiegel newsstand sales fell a whopping 12 percent, so reports the online horizont.net.

The European Institute for Climate and Energy presents the chart for subscriptions to Spiegel:

Source: EIKE

Veteran science journalist Ulli Kulke of flagship Die Welt writes at his blog:

Does the new editorial board at Spiegel want to scale the magazine back to being a warrior on behalf of the environment? Will the critical journalism over the past years that questioned the increasingly baseless end-of-world-mood now come to an end? The new frontpage cover The Heated Planet appears to be going back to the good old days of the apocalypse…”

PS: So far none of the catastrophes have come to pass.

The Sydney Morning Herald’s Peter Hannam Grossly Deceives His Readers Using Massively Doctored Photo

What follows is photo-shopping taken to an extreme.

It’s little wonder few people believe anything the mainstream dailies write when it comes to climate change. Time and again they’ve been exposed to be unloading barges of BS onto their readers.

Reader Jim sent an e-mail bringing attention to probably the most amateur photo-shopping work on behalf of global warming propaganda I’ve seen in a long time, all used by eco-journalist Peter Hannam of the Sydney Morning Herald in a piece about the coal-fired Liddel Power Station in Hunter Valley, NSW.

Not only is the photo totally manipulated with the aim of deceiving readers, but Hannam’s facts are just as misleading as the photo-shopped power plant image itself:

SMH propaganda2

Glaring photo-shopped image by Jonathan Carroll gets used by the SMH to produce impression that the Liddel coal power plant is causing disease at an epidemic proportion. Original photo: Jonathan Carroll.

Note how the steam emitted by the power plant’s cooling towers is a sinister black. Since when is water vapor black? Hannam obviously is unable to distinguish between the smoke stack and the cooling towers. The scant emissions from the single smokestack in the center of the image shows just how clean coal power plants have become.

The photo also tells the many readers residing in the northern hemisphere that skies down under have very weird colors.

Hannam reports on an activist group of doctors who using a dubious formula claim they have succeeded in putting a figure on the health damage the power plant causes: $600 million annually.

Hannam writes:

The Coal and Health in the Hunter report by the Climate and Health Alliance estimates that burning coal for electricity in the valley alone produces health damage in the order of $600 million annually from the resulting air pollution, including the release of small particles.”

However, as reader Jim points out, a quick search of health statistics from Hunter New England Health (which covers the Hunter Valley) shows that Hannam’s claims are dubious at best. What follows is a chart showing the causes of death for all respiratory ailments:

NSW Health chart

Source: Health Statistics New South Wales

The above chart shows that deaths due to respiratory ailments are primarily caused by lung cancer (smoking) and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) which is in part related to pollution. Deaths from COPD, which to some extent are linked to the emissions from coal power plants, have been declining over the last 15 years.

Deaths due to asthma, a disease that could certainly be exacerbated by pollution, shows no trend.

Why would any reader believe anything Hannam writes? Using doctored images and dubious statistical methods, he is obviously attempting to fabricate a health crisis that does not exist.

 

Sick Side-Show: Justin Gillis And New York Times’ Attempt To Blow Up Distinguished Professor’s Reputation.

UPDATE: I got an angry e-mail from a reader who acted like he was offended by my likening the intolerance of warmists to that of the ISIS. The writer demanded that I get back to “a little bit of civility here”. Gee, I thought burning enemies was something Christians did hundreds of years ago, and so we ought not get so upset about it, at least that’s what President Obama told us. At any rate, I’ve decided to replace the IS image below with another that meets the warmists’ standards of civility. Happy now?
===================================

Unfortunately we live on the same planet as a couple of apocalyptic cults which find the existence of non-believers an affront to their particular belief system. One cult fantasises about executing non-believers, the other does it in imaginative ways. Both cults need to believe in hidden things. Both are best avoided.”

David Archibald

10 10 no pressure 2

IS propaganda image. What zealot warmists really fantasize of doing to dissenters. Source: cropped from here.

Distinguished scientist Willie Soon has become the target of a nasty smear job led by Justin Gillis of the hopelessly biased New York Times. It is not so much that the Smithsonian professor dared to question climate science orthodoxy (which is what science is all about to start with), but rather that his questions have yet to be answered. Thus Soon is viewed as a threat and so he has been condemned a heretic by the global warming cultists. And so ensues the orchestrated attempt by the New York Times, and the usual suspect web of alarmist scientists and activists, to cage-burn Soon’s reputation as a scientist.

Sideshow rather than scientific debate

Obviously the strain brought on by the embarrassment of the 18-year global warming pause and the unexpected record winter weather has been taking its toll on the global warming apostles and the desperate activist media outlets. The supposedly settled science apparently has more than its share of prickly thorns in its side.

Instead of arguing the science point by point, the New York Times led by Gillis prefer to create a diversionary side show: Soon’s reputation gets put in a cage that is to be set afire as the science goes ignored.

The activist past of Justin Gillis

Gillis’s brand of one-sided, highly activist and aid-and-abet journalism on behalf of end-of-world theorist scientists is hardly new. His true identity was exposed, for example, in his attempt to go after distinguished MIT professor Richard Lindzen. Christopher Horner writes of collusion at the Washington Examiner:

Gillis wrote a piece in May laboring to undermine one of the most highly credentialed and respected climate ‘skeptics,’ the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Dr. Richard Lindzen. This front-page article prompted my request for information reflecting how the A&M professor and activist whom Gillis quoted was using his taxpayer-funded position.

The specific correspondence began when Gillis wrote that interviewing Lindzen for a piece on his area of expertise was ‘unavoidable,’ and ‘[s]o I need a really good bibliography of all the published science’ countering Lindzen’s position on cloud feedback — ‘that is, anything that stands as evidence against Lindzen’s claim that the feedback has to be strongly negative.’

Remember, this was a reporter for the New York Times writing this. In the released emails, Gillis comes off as an activist posing as a journalist, sneering at Lindzen. Of another prominent skeptic, Gillis wrote, ‘I sense you’ve got him in a trap here … can’t wait to see it sprung.’ “

The Galileo treatment

The need to go after heretics who stand out is as old as humanity itself and is a seemingly incurable mental illness that has ailed human civilization from the start. Today, as David Archibald points out, it is starkly manifested by radical Islam. One illustrative scientific case from the past is the Trial of Galileo from some 400 years ago:

Galileo’s renunciation of Copernicanism ended with the words, “I affirm, therefore, on my conscience, that I do not now hold the condemned opinion and have not held it since the decision of authorities….I am here in your hands–do with me what you please.”

The parallels are stunning to say the least. Unfortunately Galileo was pretty much alone in his plight and did not have a blog.

Long list of warmists funded by Big Oil, industry

Of course Gillis writes as if questionable funding is only a problem one finds on the skeptic side, who in fact are massively underfunded compared to the global warming alarmists. Many skeptic blogs operate on volunteer basis. Recently NTZ exposed the massive funding the radical warmist elements get from Big Industry: Long List Of Warmist Organizations And Scientists Haul In Huge Money From Big Oil And Heavy Industry.

Earth to Gillis…Earth to Gillis..do you read?

Not only is the New York Times article just a sorrowful side-show, but it is one involving immature and juvenile elements. Prior to article appearing, taunting e-mails were anonymously sent to Professor Soon. It is not known who was behind the e-mails, but it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out it came from a circle close to the New York Times piece.

Pitiful attacks mean skeptics are winning

So what does Gillis’s sorrowful piece of journalism tell us? Most climate skeptics skeptics have become very familiarized with the words of Gandhi concerning being first ignored, then laughed at, and then attacked before finally emerging victorious. The attack on Willie Soon is just the latest sign of the warmists’ desperation. They know their science is just sinking refuse.

Finally read: Goon Squad Fails To Distract Public From Fact That Climate Models Stink.

Also see many links to reports at Climate Depot.

http://www.breitbart.com/witch-hunt/

 

German Analysis: “97 Percent Consensus” Does Not Exist … Demands To End Debate Are “Way Off Sides”

I’ve always found the discussion over consensus in science extremely annoying. History is clear: When it comes to science progress, consensus has ended up being the loser every single time.
=======================

The ninety seven percent problem: which consensus?

By Uli Weber
(Translated/edited by P Gosselin)

We constantly hear and read about the claim that 97 percent of all scientific papers (or sometimes all scientists) confirm man-made global warming. The Consensus Project made such a statement in a scientific paper which precisely wants to prove the point. The paper titled: “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature” by Cook et al. in the Environ. Res. Lett. 8 (2013) 024024 (7pp) points to the 97% consensus for anthropogenic global warming (AGW) as follows:

  • 12,465 scientific papers examined for statements on AGW
  • 4014 papers contain own statement on AGW
  • Of these 4014 papers with statements on AGW, 97% confirm the AGW theory.

The supposed 97 percent AGW consensus is calculated using only a part that is 4014 of the originally surveyed 12,465 scientific papers, and not on the totality of the examined papers. The calculation approach of course is totally absurd and virtually meaningless. If one could even present such a statement on AGW in such a way to begin with, then the so called “consensus“ using the correct method of calculation would yield a result of only 32% of the surveyed scientific papers. Yet at the same time the approximately one third of the 12,465 surveyed papers are supposed to represent the entire spectrum of proponents of the AGW theory as well as the so-called luke-warmers who believe that a human contribution to climate is possible, but reject the catastrophe scenarios for the future climate.

Thus for the forecast of global future climate catastrophe scenarios, what is really left is only a consensus of considerably under one third of the papers surveyed and not more. And when one looks more critically at the information, one indeed does find there is a stated restriction to the described partial amount of papers in the Consensus Project. Here it is written in fine print behind the huge “97%” (emphasis added),

of published climate papers with a position on human-caused global warming agree: GLOBAL WARMING IS HAPPENING – AND WE ARE THE CAUSE”,

However, in a thorough consideration of all the scientific climate publications surveyed by Cook et al., the result looks entirely different:

  • A two thirds majority of the examined scientific climate papers take no socio-political stand on AGW.
  • Judging from socio-political views, only about 1% of climate realists are said to be opposed to AGW.
  • The AGW protagonists on the other hand, with about one third of all the surveyed publications, are far less reserved when it comes to their statements on scientific publications.

Result:

The ominous and often cited 97% consensus for the acceptance of the AGW theory in climate science does not exist. Thus the scientifically hostile demand for “an end to the climate discussion” is morally and computationally way offsides. In the Cook et al. study it is clearly shown that the protagonists of the climate catastrophe bring their social-political positions in scientific papers. Finally, in the given study a comparison is made between diametrically opposed socio-political positions using a subjectively selected sampling amount as a yardstick for a supposed consensus in the entire climate sciences.

The one positive result the study yields is that it allows us to determine that in climate science there is still a “silent” two thirds majority who choose to refrain from the socio-political discussion in their scientific publications. In the end, however, in the public depiction of climate science, the socio-political opinion of a one third minority is being sold as scientific 97% majority consensus.

So with the backdrop of the proven “one-third truth“ for man-made climate change, it is indeed very peculiar that the so-called “climate deniers” are getting lumped together with deniers of every type by the climate catastrophe followers again and again. Moreover in an open scientific discussion on the fundamentals of the dreaded climate change, it is completely incomprehensible that a climate of hatred is being applied to an equal extent against both the “climate deniers” and “luke-warmers” (Kalte-Sonne article of 3 February 2015). And that is not only the case in Great Britain and in USA, but elsewhere as well. For example in a 2013 brochure issued by the German Ministry of Environment (to which a link no longer exists), climate change critics were universally declared as being clueless. German daily WELT even carried an article titled: “A government authority declares the climate debate over“.

German Experts: New Paper By Gleisner Shows 2013 Cowtan And Way Arctic Data Hole Paper Was A Lemon

German experts Sebastian Lüning and Fritz Vahrenholt tell at their Die kalte Sonne site us why the 2013 Cowtan and Way paper has proven to be a flop.
========================================

Failed spectacularly: Arctic data hole theory for the warming pause collapses
By Sebastian Lüning and Fritz Vahrenholt
(Translated, edited by P Gosselin)

For quite some time climate scientists have been desperately seeking an explanation for the unexpected warming pause. On November 15, 2013 in the Süddeutsche Zeitung Christopher Schrader declared that the solution had been found: There was no pause; the data had only been missing from the Arctic.

Climate change without pause
According to the data, the earth had not warmed over the past years. However, this impression is likely related to missing data from the Arctic. And there the temperature appears to have risen much more strongly than the global average.[…] These [temperature] measurements have large holes: Approximately one sixth of the earth is not covered. Foremost in the Arctic there are not enough thermometers. But according to all signs it is warming considerably more quickly than the rest of the planet. An English and a Canadian scientist now show how this hole can be closed up with estimated values and how the supposed warming pause practically disappears. Kevin Cowtan of the University of York and Robert Way of the University of Ottawa refer to satellite data. […] Thus ultimately Cowtan and Way arrived at the result that the Arctic warmed eight times faster than the rest of the planet. Before that it had been thought that it was warming three times faster.”

Unfortunately Schrader did not mention that the two scientists were climate activists who were close to the IPCC-friendly Internet platform Skeptical Science. Yet, he still was unable to let slip out a couple of critical words about the two authors:

However the process is too complicated in order to find widespread recognition. Doubt will be stirred up among many because both authors have no name in climate science. Kevin Cowtan is a theoretical physicist and computer specialist at the Department of Chemistry at his University. Robert Way is still busy writing his doctorate dissertation.

It’s been a full year since the appearance of the dubious paper by Cowtan and Way, one that was highly praised by Stefan Rahmstorf. So just how was this pioneering paper received by the science community? On January 29, 2015 the answer from their colleagues appeared in the Geophysical Research Letters. The dodgy Arctic data fill-in model has failed spectacularly and has been soundly rejected. The answer to the pause is not to be found in the Arctic as Cowtan and Way suspected, rather it is to be found at the lower geographical geographical latitudes, as a team of scientists of the Danish Meteorological Institute in Copenhagen led by Hans Gleisner reports in a new publication. What follows is the paper’s abstract:

Recent global warming hiatus dominated by low-latitude temperature trends in surface and troposphere data
Over the last 15 years, global mean surface temperatures exhibit only weak trends. Recent studies have attempted to attribute this so called temperature hiatus to several causes, amongst them incomplete sampling of the rapidly warming Arctic region. We here examine zonal mean temperature trends in satellite-based tropospheric data sets (based on data from (Advanced) Microwave Sounding Unit and Global Navigation Satellite System Radio Occultation instruments) and in global surface temperatures (HadCRUT4). Omission of successively larger polar regions from the global mean temperature calculations, in both tropospheric and surface data sets, shows that data gaps at high latitudes cannot explain the observed differences between the hiatus and the prehiatus period. Instead, the dominating causes of the global temperature hiatus are found at low latitudes. The combined use of several independent data sets, representing completely different measurement techniques and sampling characteristics, strengthens the conclusions.

Long List Of Warmist Organizations, Scientists Haul In Huge Money From BIG OIL And Heavy Industry!

Reader Jimbo left a comment which I’ve upgraded to a post.

Below he presents a list of 25 examples where climate alarmism organizations and scientists were more than happy to take in big money from Big Oil and industry. Even Michael Mann (Example no. 19) benefitted from the Koch Brothers!

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

By reader Jimbo

We are often called fossil fuel funded climate change deniers. So you can imagine my shock when I came across these past and present takers of fossil fuel money. Imagine if skeptics hauled in such money.

1. Climate Research Unit (CRU)
History

From the late 1970s through to the collapse of oil prices in the late 1980s, CRU received a series of contracts from BP to provide data and advice concerning their exploration operations in the Arctic marginal seas. Working closely with BP’s Cold Regions Group, CRU staff developed a set of detailed sea-ice atlases,

This list is not fully exhaustive, but we would like to acknowledge the support of the following funders (in alphabetical order):
British Petroleum…Greenpeace International…Reinsurance Underwriters and Syndicates…Sultanate of OmanShell……

2. Sierra Club
TIME – 2 February 2012

Exclusive: How the Sierra Club Took Millions From the Natural Gas Industry
TIME has learned that between 2007 and 2010 the Sierra Club accepted over $25 million in donations from the gas industry, mostly from Aubrey McClendon, CEO of Chesapeake Energy—one of the biggest gas drilling companies in the U.S. and a firm heavily involved in fracking…”

3. Delhi Sustainable Development Summit
[Founded by Teri under Dr. Rajendra Pachauri chairman of the IPCC]

2011: Star Partner – Rockefeller Foundation
2007: Partners – BP
2006: Co-Associates – NTPC [coal and gas power generation] | Function Hosts – BP
2005: Associate – Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited, India | Co-Associate Shell

4. Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project
Berkeley Earth team members include: Richard Muller, Founder and Scientific Director……Steven Mosher, Scientist…

Financial Support First Phase (2010)
…Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation ($150,000) The Ann & Gordon Getty Foundation ($50,000)…
Second Phase (2011)
…The Ann & Gordon Getty Foundation ($50,000)…
Third Phase (2012)
…The Ann & Gordon Getty Foundation ($50,000)…Anonymous Foundation ($250,000)…
Fourth Phase (2013)
…The Ann & Gordon Getty Foundation ($100,000)…

5. 350.org

350.org caught up in fossil fuel ‘divestment’ hypocrisy
[Rockefellers Brothers Fund] RBF has given 350.org $800,000 in recent years and almost $2 million to the 1Sky Education Fund, now part of 350.org, according to foundation records.”

6. Union of Concerned Scientists

The 2013 Annual Report PDF

UCS thanks the following companies that matched members’ gifts at a level of $1,000 or more….Chevron Corporation…”

Annual Report 2002 PDF

The Union of Concerned Scientists gratefully acknowledges the following individuals and foundations for their generous contributions of at least $500 during our fiscal year 2002 (October 1, 2001–September 30, 2002)…”

Friends of UCS

The Friends of UCS provide substantial support for the ongoing work of the organization…Larry Rockefeller…Matching Gift Companies…BP Amoco Matching Gift Program…Philip Morris Companies, Inc…”

7. University of California, Berkeley
CalCAP, Cal Climate Action Partnership

What is CalCAP?
The Cal Climate Action Partnership (CalCAP) is a collaboration of faculty, administration, staff, and students working to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions at UC Berkeley.”

8. University of California, Berkeley
UC Berkeley News – 1 February 2007

BP selects UC Berkeley to lead $500 million energy research consortium with partners Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, University of Illinois.”

9. Climate Institute
About Us

The Climate Institute has been in a unique position to inform key decision-makers, heighten international awareness of climate change, and identify practical ways of achieving significant emissions reductions…

Donors
American Gas FoundationBP…NASA….PG&E Corporation [natural gas & electricity]Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Shell Foundation…The Rockefeller Foundation…UNDP, UNEP…”

10. EcoLiving

About
…EcoLiving provides events and hands-on workshops to teach Albertans about ways to reduce our collective ecological footprint, create more sustainable and energy efficient buildings, and share information about local environmental initiatives and services…”

Sponsors
2008 Sponsors: …ConocoPhillips…Shell 2009 Sponsors: …ConocoPhillips Canada…2013 Sponsors:…Shell FuellingChange…”

11. Nature Conservancy
Climate Change Threats and Impacts

Climate change is already beginning to transform life on Earth. Around the globe, seasons are shifting, temperatures are climbing and sea levels are rising…… If we don’t act now, climate change will rapidly alter the lands and waters we all depend upon for survival, leaving our children and grandchildren with a very different world…”

12. Washington Post – 24 May 2010

…What De Leon didn’t know was that the Nature Conservancy lists BP as one of its business partners. The Conservancy also has given BP a seat on its International Leadership Council and has accepted nearly $10 million in cash and land contributions from BP and affiliated corporations over the years….The Conservancy, already scrambling to shield oyster beds from the spill, now faces a different problem: a potential backlash…”

13. America’s WETLAND Foundation

Restore-Adapt-Mitigate: Responding To Climate Change Through Coastal Habitat Restoration”

PDF

Coastal habitats are being subjected to a range of stresses from climate change; many of these stresses are predicted to increase over the next century The most significant effects are likely to be from sea-level rise, increased storm and wave intensity, temperature increases, carbon dioxide concentration increases, and changes in precipitation that will alter freshwater delivery…”

Sponsors

World Sponsor: Shell
Sustainability Sponsors: Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil
National Sponsors: British Petroleum”

14. Green Energy Futures
About Us

Green Energy Futures is a multi-media storytelling project that is documenting the clean energy revolution that’s already underway. It tells the stories of green energy pioneers who are moving forward in their homes, businesses and communities.
Gold Sponsor: Shell”

15. World Resources Institute
Climate

WRI engages businesses, policymakers, and civil society at the local, national, and international levels to advance transformative solutions that mitigate climate change and help communities adapt to its impacts.

ACKNOWLEDGING OUR DONORS (January 1, 2011 – August 1, 2012 PDF 5MB

Shell and Shell Foundation…ConocoPhillips Company…”

16. Purdue Solar
Navitas Takes 1st at SEMA 2013

Last week, Purdue Solar Racing took home first place in the Battery Electric division at the 2013 Shell Eco-marathon. The winning run reached an efficiency of 78.1 m/kWh (a miles per gallon equivalency of approximate 2,630MPGe)…”

17. AGU Fall Meeting
9-13 December 2013
Thank You to Our Sponsors

The AGU would like to take the time to thank all of our generous sponsors who support the
2013 Fall Meeting and the events at the meeting.
ExxonMobil…….BP, Chevron…..Mineralogical Society of America…”

18. Science Museum – Atmosphere
About our funders

…exploring climate science gallery and the three-year Climate Changing… programme. Through these ground-breaking projects we invite all our visitors to deepen their understanding of the science behind our changing climate.

We believe that working together with such a wide range of sectors is something that we’ll all need to be able to do in our climate-changing world….

Principal Sponsors: Shell…Siemens…”

19. Dr. Michael Mann
WUWT – October 15, 2013

…it is enlightening to learn that his current employer, Penn State, gets funds from Koch, and so does where Dr. Mann did his thesis from, the University of Virginia. Those darn facts, they are stubborn things. See the list that follows…”

[Comments]

Jimbo October 16, 2013 at 11:49 am

Why stop at Koch funding?
Exxon Mobil Corporation
2012 Worldwide Contributions and Community Investments
…..Pennsylvania State University [$] 258,230…”

20. Stanford University
New York Times – 21 November 2002
By ANDREW C. REVKIN

Exxon-Led Group Is Giving A Climate Grant to Stanford
Four big international companies, including the oil giant Exxon Mobil, said yesterday that they would give Stanford University $225 million over 10 years for research on ways to meet growing energy needs without worsening global warming….In 2000, Ford and Exxon Mobil’s global rival, BP, gave $20 million to Princeton to start a similar climate and energy research program…”

21. National Science Teachers Association – Jun 11, 2012
by Wendi Liles

You are invited this summer to the 4th Annual CSI: Climate Status Investigations free climate change educator professional development in Wilmington, DE…. You will also get to participate in a climate change lesson with the staff from Delaware Nature Society to investigate the effect of climate change on their urban watershed…..a few fun giveaways thanks to our sponsors-DuPont, Agilent Technologies, Lockheed Martin, Chevron, Delaware Nature Society…”

22. Duke University

ConocoPhillips Pledges $1 Million to Climate Change Policy Partnership at Duke 2007

ConocoPhillips, the third-largest integrated energy company in the United States, has pledged $1 million to support an industry-university collaboration working to develop policies that address global climate change, Duke University President Richard H. Brodhead announced Wednesday.”

23. Alberta Water Council PDF

Growing demands from an increasing population, economic development, and climate change are the realities impacting our water allocation system.
…Breakfast Sponsor: ConocoPhillips Canada…River Level Sponsors….ConocoPhillips Canada”

24. University of California, Davis
Institute of Transportation Studies PDF

10th Biennial Conference on Transportation and Energy Policy
Toward a Policy Agenda For Climate Change
Asilomar Transport & Energy Conferences
VIII. Managing Transitions in the Transport Sector: How Fast and How Far?
September 11-14, 2001. Sponsored by US DOE, US EPA, Natural Resources Canada, ExxonMobil, and Chevron (Chair: D. Sperling)…”

25. Washington Free Beacon – 27 January 2015

Foreign Firm Funding U.S. Green Groups Tied to State-Owned Russian Oil Company
Executives at a Bermudan firm funneling money to U.S. environmentalists run investment funds with Russian tycoons
A shadowy Bermudan company that has funneled tens of millions of dollars to anti-fracking environmentalist groups in the United States is run by executives with deep ties to Russian oil interests and offshore money laundering schemes involving members of President Vladimir Putin’s inner circle……The Sierra Club, the Natural Resource Defense Council, Food and Water Watch, the League of Conservation Voters, and the Center for American Progress were among the recipients of Sea Change’s $100 million in grants in 2010 and 2011….“None of this foreign corporation’s funding is disclosed in any way,” the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee wrote of the company in a report last year…”

 

“Climate of Hate: His Children Are Urged To Kill Him”…David Rose Becomes Victim Of Vicious Hatred

Many readers and myself have become quite dismayed by the Vatican’s new position on the junk climate science-based, anti-humanity movement against fossil fuels.

Interestingly today I read a report in the Catholic Herald here where it is clearly miffed by how Britain’s UKIP party “now commands the support of an estimated one in six Catholicsand is “causing increasing alarm among Church leaders.” My, how could that be!

Well, we all understand that things move glacially slow at the Vatican, and we don’t expect them to see the light any time soon, even though it’s staring at them straight in the face. These things can take centuries.

Catholics reject intolerance and hatred

One reason Catholics are rejecting the positions held by the Church is no better illustrated than by the following article appearing in the The Daily Mail:

I’ve never supported the British National Party or the Ku Klux Klan. I’ve never belonged to the Paedophile Information Exchange, or denied the Holocaust, or made a penny from the banking crash.

But if you read The Guardian newspaper’s website, you might think otherwise. A commentator on it urged my own children to murder me.

He did so because of one of the many stories I’ve written for this newspaper about climate change. I first reported on the subject nearly six years ago: my article was about the ‘climategate’ scandal, where leaked emails…”

[…]

…”But ultimately, where are they taking us? Citing climate change is certainly an effective way of making schoolchildren feel fearful and guilty, much as preachers once used to.”

Read more at the Daily Mail.

Leaders will have to learn to face one fact: thanks to the Internet followers are much better informed today and many can see the cliff up ahead which their leaders are blindly leading them to. The Catholic Church is part of that green movement.

Catholics want nothing to do with and are appalled by the hate and bigotry that gets aimed at honest dissenters such as David Rose. And we reject the deception-riddled plot to deny the world of life-giving fossil fuels as well as the mentally ill hysteria of a world coming to an end.

If anything what we need is an encyclical on the necessity of fossil fuels.

It’s truly stunning that the Church can be so tolerant of the bigotry and intolerance on one side of the debate, yet be so quick to condemn honest dissent on the other.

 

Spiegel: Pontifical Academy Of Sciences Pushing For Climate Treaty…Finds Fossil Fuels Akin To “Modern Slavery”!

Spiegel science journalist Axel Bojanowski has an online interview with the Chairman of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Bishop Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo: The Church believes in science“.

Anyone with doubts the Vatican would abandon a neutral position on the science of climate change can now lay them to rest. Under Pope Francis the Vatican has been sending unmistakable signals that it is joining the junk-science based global warming movement, perhaps with the hopes of resurrecting the notorious system of indulgences (or a form of it) which for centuries swindled common people of their wealth and sent it to the coffers of the Roman Catholic Church.

The Church preaches that as stewards of the planet man must make responsible use of God-given resources, to use them sparingly, and that we share the fruits of our labors with the poor. Yet the Vatican never will do the same with its tens of billions in assets it has stashed away over the centuries.

In the interview Chairman Sorondo tells Bojanowski that “the Church believes in science – especially Galileo“. And on the upcoming encyclical on climate change, to be released in either June or July, Sorondo refuses to tell Spiegel what is going to be in it. “We will see.”

As to why there is even an encyclical on the climate to begin with, Sorondo tells Spiegel that it is to “provide an impulse” for the upcoming Paris Conference. The Lima Conference “disappointed the Pope”, Sorondo tells Spiegel.

On why a climate treaty is important, Chairman Sorondo spills the beans, telling Spiegel that “climate change has adverse impacts on the poorest two thirds of the world’s population who have no access to fossil energies but who have to bear the consequences of their consumption. Bartholomeos I, the Patriarch of Constantinople, compared climate change to modern slavery at the Conference of Religious Leaders in December.”

Clearly the Catholic Church is sympathetic to this extreme and preposterous position. Why would Chairman Sorondo cite it if it wasn’t. Unfortunately the Vatican fails to see that over the past 50 years fossil fuels have helped the poor far more than any Church’s redistributive plundering ever has over the last 1000 years. More often than not Church obstinate dogmatism often put the brakes on progress and as a result caused far more misery. It’s appalling that the Church fails to recognize that no God-given resource has been such a blessing to the poor as has affordable fossil fuels and that life as we know it today would be unimaginable without it.

Vatican sees Galileo as a “leading figure”

On why the Church is suddenly interested in environmental protection, Sorondo says it is so because “The Church believes in science.” A somewhat taken aback Bojanowski reacts skeptically and brings up the incident surrounding Galileo. Sorondo responds, claiming the Church never condemned Galileo: “He was only put to the test because his scientific evidence had not been convincing. Our Academy today views him as a leading figure.”

Isn’t that the way things usually turn out whenever blind consensus gets asserted and dogmatism prevail in science? For the Vatican unfortunately it took almost 400 years and man going to the moon before they became “convinced”.

Bojanowski responds forcefully, seemingly scoffing at the Chairman’s claim:

Galileo’s writings were banned by the Church, or were allowed to appear only in censored versions. He was no longer allowed to freely express himself on his theories. In court he was forced to accept what the Catholic Church regarded as true and was then subsequently punished with arrest. And his colleague Giordano Bruno had to endure much worse: Because he refused to recant his astronomical theories that opposed those of the Church, he was executed.”

Chairman Sorondo admits: “That was in any case a great injustice, and the Church acknowledged that.”

Bojanowski reminds the Chairman: “Well yeah, 400 years after the execution.”

That alone ought to drive home the dangers of religion deciding science. Can we really trust this Catholic Church and current pope on climate science?

Bojanowski also makes another important point: If the consensus of science supports a climate treaty, then why is the Vatican not playing along with the consensus on other scientific issues, like birth control? Here the Chairman is clearly in over his head.

So why is the Catholic Church taking the step of endorsing what is likely the most dubious, tampered and politicized science that civilization has seen in has seen in at least 100 years? Why is it teaming up with groups and political parties that are notorious proponents of abortion, population control, waging war, anti-Christianity and self-centered hedonism? One can only speculate.

To me it all reeks of Chicago-style politics. Perhaps there is a lot more rot in the Vatican than we may think – in addition to the scandals involving child molestation and shady finances. Someone seems to have gotten the goods on the Vatican, and now it’s: play along and everything will be okay, or else there’s going to be lots of trouble. Has the Vatican sold its soul?

As if it ever had one.