Schellnhuber Boasts Of Having Skeptics Excluded From Participating In Drafting “Laudato Si” Encyclical

 at www.achgut.com/ch, a policy-critical site run by leading German publicists, wrote how Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber recently boasted before journalists of the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) how he got Pope Francis to swing over to climate alarmism in His most recent encyclical “Laudato Si”. It wasn’t through open debate.

[Read here for more background on Schellnhuber.]

Wendt quotes the climate-alarmist Schellnhuber:

Over ten years ago the Pontifical Academy held a conference on climate change. Back then also a squad of prominent ‘skeptics’ also were invited; the Vatican’s position at the time was much different than it is today. …It was a tough job to prepare the scientific findings so that the problem is now far better understood in the Vatican.“

In response Wendt writes point that for Schellnhuber: “The major progress made at the Vatican is namely that the Church excluded any controversy in the new, latest debate which he influenced.”

According to Wendt, the FAZ journalists anxiously asked Schellnhuber:

The skeptics were invited as well?”

Schellnhuber replied:

No. But a British politician, Lord Monckton, managed to sneak into a conference. Unfortunately he is all caught up in conspiracy theories. In Rome he sat behind me with his iPhone, eagerly recording everything, and later in his blog made fun about how he fooled the Swiss security. It was a performance like in a Tyrolean peasant theater.”

Wendt summarizes what we naturally can gather from all this:

When it comes to how a debate is supposed to be conducted, we now know quite precisely what Schellnhuber’s idea of this is, especially once his Great Transformation becomes successful one day.”

Schellnhuber is convinced he should have the last and final word. Pope Francis likely views him as a prophet of some sort.

Wendt defended Monkton, writing that the high profile British climate critic is not caught at all up in any “conspiracy theories”, and that he in fact shares many common positions with scientists like Schellnhuber, quoting him in his own words: “Yes, there is a greenhouse effect. Yes, CO2 contributes to it. Yes, it causes warming. Yes, we emit CO2. Yes, warming will result. But not a lot.”

So here we see, just as we suspected, that the Vatican never bothered having any real balanced and open discussion on climate science in the run-up to “Laudato Si”. A terrible misstep.

Flagship German FAZ Assails Pope’s “Distorted Depiction Of Civilization”…Encyclical’s Vision “A Frightening Idea”

Journalist Jan Grossarth of flagship political daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) says it all in just the first sentences of his recent online commentary here:

Where the Pope errs

The Pope’s Encyclical is chock full of criticism and anti-liberal distortions. The good of the industrial present hardly gets mentioned.”

This is quite a comment for Germany’s leading political daily, which has been consistently green and a devoted purveyor of climate alarmism.

Grossarth is not the first to criticize the Pope’s massively one-sided, über-pessimistic position outlined in the Encyclical. Other journalists and observers have done so as well.

Increasingly it is growing clearer with each passing day that Pope Francis has made a fatal miscalculation in allowing certain alarmist, extremist scientists to dictate the Encyclical’s tone. They have rendered it a grotesquely flawed document.

The FAZ’s Grossarth cannot understand why the Pope is coming down so hard on modern society and its many virtues:

For many, and not by a long shot only those in the Northern World, capitalism is a paradise: Hunger is receding, more and more people are going to school, are getting older, and don’t have to work as long or as hard.”

In a nutshell, most things that earlier popes and Catholics requested in former times have been expediently delivered by free market systems. Much misery, squalor and suffering have been alleviated. Ehrlichian visions of doom from just 40 years ago never came to pass – due to modern industrial progress.

Grossarth thinks the Pope is overly “pessimistic” – someone who is way out of bounds in equating “capitalism to greed”. He characterizes Pope Francis as a person who has an incurable, chronic habit of presenting only the very ugly side of things. He writes:

In the Encyclical there are so many examples of one-sided negative perceptions that in summary a distorted depiction of civilization is the result.”

This should not be a surprise as the lead contributor to the Encyclical was German alarmist scientist Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber. It’s truly a pity the Pope did not have the wisdom to recognize the document for what it was: a power-grabbing instrument by extreme environmental activists masquerading as scientists. Under John Paul II or Benedict such a polarizing and distorted encyclical would have never seen the light of day.

Grossarth also makes the point that Francis is extremely adversarial to free-market systems, that he is someone who defines them as the world’s evil.

Instead, all the abstract talk is about ‘refraining’, and the ‘common good’, or of ‘irrational trust in progress’. For the Pope, man’s intervention in nature leads to a vicious circle.

Economic liberalism (symbolized by Adam Smith’ s ‘invisible hand’) is named in the same breath along with sickness, forced labor, slavery or child abuse.”

Grossarth also sharply criticizes Pope Francis for making claims “without any evidence”. He writes that the “Pope leaves the facts aside.” The FAZ journalist thinks that the Pope’s vision of an exodus back to an agrarian world of more natural, pre-industrial living is totally misguided. On the Pope’s vision, Grossarth writes:

Thus here the pre-industrial times are revered as a time when ‘man and things’ were still ‘in friendly harmony’. The return to that time is a frightening idea.”

Pope Francis Encyclical Incites The Violation Of 4 Of God’s 10 Commandments

This Vatican site here teaches Catholics the 10 Commandments of God.

Yet, on topics of energy and climate, the Pope’s latest Encyclical arguably serves to incite many of the world’s citizens and powerful institutions to violate 3, if not 4, of these Holy Commandments.

On the subject of climate science and energy, the overall attitude of the Pope with regards to skeptic voices has been a colossal disappointment. Pope Francis has purposely refused to listen to the critics of climate pessimism and alarmism, has outright dismissed them, and, as He communicates in His Encyclical, He now calls for the forced redistribution and reorganization of the world’s goods.

Though the Encyclical gives the appearance of an appeal to alleviate pain and suffering among the world’s most vulnerable, It is in part a deeply rooted and disturbing desire to seize and control the world’s life-sustaining wealth and resources. History threatens to repeat.

Rather than teaching Catholics to voluntarily share their wealth (as many already do), Pope Francis instead proposes that Catholics and all citizens be forced to do so by law, against their will, and to do so to a draconian extent. This is an uncharacteristically harsh and aggressive doctrine. So harsh in fact that executing the Encyclical’s underlying demand would de facto involve the violation of 4 of God’s 10 Commandments:

NO. 10: YOU SHALL NOT COVET YOUR NEIGHBOR’S GOODS

When you boil down the issue of climate change, it gets down to the confiscation, redistribution and re-ownership of global wealth. Catholic and PIK economist Ottmar Edenhofer even confirmed this in no uncertain terms. It is clear that much of the issue is all about coveting thy neighbor’s goods. It is about inciting the world’s poor to covet the wealth of others, and inciting powerful institutions to seize that wealth on the poor’s behalf. Worse, rightful owners are being coerced by false threats (e.g. computer-generated doomsday scenarios) should they resist going along.

NO. 7: YOU SHALL NOT STEAL

The climate issue and the Encyclical itself demand that a global authority be set up with the purpose of denying and/or redistributing the world’s wealth and energy. Redistribution here means seizing property rights from their rightful owners, and transfering these rights to others, all under the guise of the common good. The confiscation of property through gross acts of scientific deception and computer-generated threats of natural calamities is ‘stealing’.

NO. 8. YOU SHALL NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS AGAINST YOUR NEIGHBOR

When it comes to the claimed “consensus” on the science, its funding, the accuracy of climate models, presentation of data, proxy reconstructions, etc. there’s been an over-abundance of false witness. This has been the most unfortunate aspect and the root of the whole issue. The Pope’s characterization of the non-alarmist climate skeptics, one he seems to have hastily adopted from the powerful and well funded, is one that bears false witness against these very skeptics. The skeptics of alarmism and climate science are in fact in great numbers, and most are operating humbly on a shoestring and with no support from the powerful institutions, let alone Big Oil. Moreover there is no consensus whatsoever, and the Pope is spreading a grave untruth here when He implies there is. The skeptics are poor, have had their voices muffled – and yet, rather than showing them compassion as Jesus would, the Pope has callously dismissed them, refused to hear them, even marginalized them, opting to side with the rich and powerful.

NO. 5: YOU SHALL NOT KILL

Here killing means the premeditated act of taking another’s life. Of course no one believes the Vatican endorses this. But if you know your actions and policies lead to lives being lost in mass, then you are guilty of killing. It is clear that taking affordable energy away from the poor (and even the lower middle class) leads to horrible deaths from exposure – real deaths today that we witness winter after winter. Instead the Pope appears indifferent to the poor’s need of cheap fuel to stay warm and to care for their families, and seems obsessed with the fictitious computer-generated “deaths” 50 years down the road that some see in models, which so far have been proven to be totally flawed. Has he bought into the notion that climate scientists are prophets?

These are 4 Commandments that Pope Francis is sadly neglecting and possibly abusing in his Encyclical. Many of us have already come to realize that this Pope did not even author the encyclical himself, and that he likely was duped into endorsing It. Executing the Encyclical would lead to moral anarchy.

Good Catholics will choose to ignore the Pope’s Encyclical with respect to the still very much unsettled and hotly debated topics of climate science, energy, and especially the calls for the forced redistribution of (coveted) goods.

Pope’s Negligent Rush To Flawed Judgment: ‘Laudato Si’ Based Solely On Alarmist Side

A reaction to the Pope’s encyclical has been published at climate science critical site: Die kalte Sonne.
=================================

What does the pope know about our climate?

By Uli Weber
[Translated/edited by P Gosselin]

In his encyclical‚ Laudato si, Pope Francis worries about our “common home”, and fundamentally he is not incorrect here. Under Part I of his encyclical he addresses environmental pollution and climate change. Unfortunately the papal view on the climate question is restricted solely to the strictly alarmist position. Here we present a few excerpts:

20. … Technology, which, linked to business interests, is presented as the only way of solving these problems, in fact proves incapable of seeing the mysterious network of relations between things and so sometimes solves one problem only to create others.”

This statement not only applies to market economy technologies, but rather to a far greater extent to central planning mechanisms. The ecological efforts of using renewable energies for rescuing the climate are creating at the very moment great problems in the third world, and these are being completely ignored. On this point our ecological souls, namely rainforests, are being clear-cut to make way for bioethanol production for our “ecologically precious E10 fuel”. Here a clear position-statement from the Pope on the sale of eco-indulgences at the expense of the third world would have been most desirable. Instead such active environmental destruction is being booked under the alleged climate change, which supposedly will lead to the migration of climate refugees. Quote from the papal encyclical:

25. …this is how, for example, changes in climate, to which animals and plants cannot adapt, lead them to migrate; this in turn affects the livelihood of the poor, who are then forced to leave their homes, with great uncertainty for their future and that of their children…”

For the first time since the Middle Ages the scientific mainstream and the Catholic Church are once again unified. A quote from the encyclical:

23. …a number of scientific studies indicate that most global warming in recent decades is due to the great concentration of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen oxides and others) released mainly as a result of human activity. … The problem is aggravated by a model of development based on the intensive use of fossil fuels, which is at the heart of the worldwide energy system.…“,

… and both agree with the politics:

26. … Therefore it is urgently needed to develop political programs over the coming years which will serve to drastically reduce the emission of carbon dioxide and other strongly polluting gases, … There have been some investment in production methods and types of transportation that require less quantities of energy and raw materials, as well as types of construction or ways of building renovation that increase energy efficiency. However these good practices have by no means been put into practice everywhere.”

We already know the implicit demand to decarbonize the global energy supply from the G7 summit at Schloss Elmau, and from the “Contract for a Great Transformation“ by the German Advisory Council for Global Change (WBGU) of 2011. Precisely this WBGU reported on 17 June 2015 that Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber, Chairman of the WBGU and Director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, PIK, would introduce the encyclical “Laudato si” by the Pope together with Cardinal Turkson in Rome on June 18, 2015 . This encyclical on environment declared that man-made climate change is a scientific fact and that committed climate protection for mankind represented a religious and moral imperative. Is the Pope now announcing ‘ex cathedra’ climate science truths?

—————————-
Our reader Manfred Büchel points out another important point in the encyclical, which we find hidden at the very end of the first chapter:

61. On many concrete questions, the Church has no reason to offer a definitive opinion; she knows that honest debate must be encouraged among experts, while respecting divergent views.”

Swiss ‘Weltwoche’ Magazine Fires At Activist Encyclical …”Somewhere Galileo Is Chuckling”

The latest 17 June 2015 edition of Weltwoche from Switzerland has a commentary on the Vatican and its encyclical on climate titled: “A Matter of Faith“.

The commentary believes the Vatican is out of place with Its recent encyclical on climate science, reminding readers that the Vatican hardly has a stellar record when it comes telling Catholics what true science really is, and that today It is wrong with Its claim there is a consensus on the issue.

“Galileo is chuckling”

The Weltwoche article writes in its introduction:

With an encyclical the Pope is attempting to teach correct climate policy. The Catholic Church has long since always proven its sense for true science. Somewhere Galileo is chuckling.”

Weltwoche recounts the Church’s debacle surrounding Galileo, writing that it took the Catholic Church over 300 years to apologize for having falsely accused the 17th century physicist, who claimed the Church had been wrong in thinking the earth was the center of the universe.

“The Amen to the reporters of the IPCC”

Yet under Pope Francis the Church appears to have learned nothing from its long history of intellectual blunders, and Its Little Ice Age and bad-weather witch-hunts. Weltwoche writes:

Pope Francis is now sending the encyclical “Laudato Si” to his bishops, which reads as the Amen to the reporters of the IPCC and the capitalism critics, such as Naomi Klein.”

Weltwoche describes how Pope Francis claims there is a “scientific consensus” and that as a result “mankind has to change its lifestyle“.

A Hail Mary to reverse crumbling consensus?

Weltwoche also writes how major media outlets such as The Guardian and Reuters have cheered the Pope’s word on the issue, hoping it will finally tip the scales in favor of radical environmental change. But this reaction was expected, writes Weltwoche:

The jubilation can be explained because the consensus in the science has been crumbling: The temperature has not been rising in what will soon be 20 years and it remains below all prognoses as a result. With increasing desperation, instead of abandoning their refuted models and theories, the climate scientists offered more than 50 explanations.”

Stiff opposition

Weltwoche then describes a growing atmosphere of shrillness pervading among climate scientists and activists, but on the other hand emerging countries have been unimpressed by the ever more shrill alarms being sounded. A climate treaty faces stiff opposition from the US Congress, and for this reason Pope Francis plans to visit Washington in September, Weltwoche writes, adding that His Holiness plans to have a talk with Catholic and House Speaker John Boehner:

However the Holy Father will barely be able to teach him much, and not at all the Chinese, and certainly not the Indians, who will first bring their citizens out of poverty, just as the encyclical demands. And to do that they need affordable energy, foremost coal.”

 

Disastrous Scientific Consensus Finally Crumbles After 60 Years Of Deadly Failure!

Update: To the sheep of David Appell: http://notrickszone.com/2015/06/09/disastrous-scientific-consensus-finally-crumbles-after-60-years-of-deadly-failure/comment-page-1/#comment-1029797
====================================

Science has a way of calling itself the art of enlightenment, yet historically it has a nasty habit of taking us deep into dark dead-ends. Human history is filled with examples.

Whenever new theories get prematurely accepted as hard fact, policies usually follow and mislead society into new and ultimately disastrous directions. Dissidents are cast into academic exile. Eventually society gets led deep into a dark dead-end, light-years from the truth. Society wakes up and mends its ways only when real science is allowed to function once again.

So it was with the lipid theory, where cholesterol from high fat diets was claimed to be a major killer. Today, after 6 decades, it is turning out to be strikingly false.

That lipid theory was propelled in the 1950s by Dr. Ancel Keyes and his infamous, phony 7-country chart, which purported to show a direct link between heart disease and fat intake. Six decades long western societies were led to adopting the low-fat high carb diet for healthy living as a result. Today, after tens of millions having died horrible deaths from diabetes, heart disease and cancer, the science is only now finally beginning to admit it had gravely erred. The consensus science had been wrong.

Must read

Disclose.tv here has an article by Dr. Dwight Lundell, a veteran heart surgeon, who tells why it was wrong, and the horrendous consequences.

… we opinion makers insisted heart disease resulted from the simple fact of elevated blood cholesterol.

The only accepted therapy was prescribing medications to lower cholesterol and a diet that severely restricted fat intake. The latter of course we insisted would lower cholesterol and heart disease. Deviations from these recommendations were considered heresy and could quite possibly result in malpractice.”

The result he writes:

Despite the fact that 25% of the population takes expensive statin medications and despite the fact we have reduced the fat content of our diets, more Americans will die this year of heart disease than ever before.” […]

The long-established dietary recommendations have created epidemics of obesity and diabetes, the consequences of which dwarf any historical plague in terms of mortality, human suffering and dire economic consequences.”

Imagine that it took 6 decades to figure that out.

The same will be true when it comes to the CO2 and climate theory. The parallels are stunning. Like the lipid theory, the climate-CO2 theory is also based on an absurd hockey stick chart fabricated by a less-than-honest activist scientist. It’s going to take a few more decades, and probably here too tens of millions of premature deaths as well.

Consensus is the brake failure of science

It wasn’t until early last year that I rejected the old consensus on cholesterol and health and switched to a high-fat, low carb diet that includes lots of meats, eggs, Kerrygold butter and vegetables. Since then I’ve lost 20 lbs, my blood pressure has returned to normal, and my blood values are normal. I haven’t felt better in at least 20 years. This is what results from rejecting “consensus” science.

The lesson here? Consensus is the brake failure of science. When it happens we can only hope it doesn’t take us over a cliff. This is precisely what is happening today in climate science.

The 97% should have been ignored

Concerning heart disease, if earlier patients had ignored 97% of the doctors and followed the advice of the other 3%, many would still be alive and even healthy today.

Reading Dr. Lundell’s admission at the above link may change your life and make it immensely better.

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.