German Chancellor Refuses To Answer Inconvenient Climate Questions From Fellow Scientist

It appears leading German politicians have no interest in dealing with facts.

Last March geologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning, co-author of the climate science skeptic book “The Neglected Sun“, wrote a letter to German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Sadly he never got a reply.

Therefore he has posted the following letter at the Chancellor’s “Direct to the Chancellorwebsite here.

You can support Dr. Lüning’s request for answers and democratic participation by clicking “dafür stimmen” (in favor), circled in yellow in image below, at the end of the letter at the above link. You’ll have to enter the code in the box.

Merkel letter

Here is Dr. Lüning’s letter in English:

The Fight against global warming

Dear Chancellor Merkel

I am referring to the article “The fight against global warming: Climate protection has priority” at: http://www.bundesregierung.de/Content/DE/Artikel/2015/02/….

1) You wrote (with reference to Germany):
‘Extreme weather events are becoming more frequent’
On which scientific publications and time periods are you basing this on? According to my knowledge most studies have found Central Europe has had no increase in weather extremes over the past 100 years.

2) You presented ‘heavy rains and storm flooding are on the increase’ and ‘the five largest natural catastrophes of 2014′ as examples of extreme weather events. Such a list can be drawn up for any desired year. Climatically relevant, however, in this relationship are foremost long-term trends of the last 100-300 years. How does these look? What is the intent of your list?

3) You wrote:
‘Climate change is leading to high costs. The total costs arising from natural disasters in 2014 worldwide was 110 billion dollars. One cyclone in India for example caused damage of seven billion dollars.’
However, scientific papers show that the observed rise in global extreme weather insurance damage is almost completely based on socio-economic reasons.

4) You quote Peter Höppe of reinsurer Munich Re: ‘Damages from thunderstorms and bad weather have been shown to be on the increase in various regions such as the USA and Central Europe.’
And what about other regions on Earth? How do things look when it comes to the global mean? And can it be excluded that natural fluctuations/shifts are at play here?

Thank you in advance for your reply.
Kindest regards
Sebastian Lüning

Scientist Exposes Grossly Deceptive Science Communication By Germany’s Alfred Wegener Institute

What follows is an e-mail sent by geologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning to Dr. Roland Neuber of the Alfred Wegener Institute in Potsdam. Dr. Lüning wishes to know why a report issued by the AWI left out more than 80% of the Spitzbergen temperature record.
========================================

To: Dr. Roland Neuber, science coordinator of the research team AWIPEV, Alfred-Wegener-Institute Potsdam
From: Dr. Sebastian Lüning

Sent: 15 May 2015
Reply: still unanswered

Dear Dr. Neuber,

On April 9, 2015, at the web platform “Entwicklungspolitik Online” (epo online) there appeared an article: “Climate change: Arctic air temperature climbs 1.3°C per decade”, which was about a recent visit to Spitzbergen by the German Federal Minister for Education and Research, Prof. Dr. Johanna Wanka. The article quoted the AWIPEV research team which you yourself coordinate as follows:

Since the regular data recording in 1993, the mean annual air temperature at Spitzbergen has increased an annual average of 1.3°C per decade.”

Of course this is true. However in my view it absolutely should have been pointed out that between 1940 and 1970 a cooling of the exact same amount as the warming that followed over the past 40 years occurred at Spitzbergen. Here I cite the GISS temperature dataset for Spitzbergen, see http://www.kaltesonne.de/news1-6/.

Overall today’s temperatures are at the level of 1930, after having gone through a complete warm-cold-warm cycle.

My question to you: Did the AWIPEV delegation advise the Minister and the accompanying media of this important context? How is it possible that this omission was allowed in the epo-online article, which as a result suddenly makes the climate situation at Spitzbergen look completely different?

To be transparent I would very much like to publish your answer at www.kaltesonne.de.

Kindest regards

Dr. habil. Sebastian Lüning
=========================================

Today, almost two weeks later, Dr. Lüning’s inquiry remains unanswered. This leaves us to wonder if AWI is too embarrassed to face the issue.

Scandal: Wind Energy Law Written Directly By German Wind Lobbyists, Enercon and GE!

Though regional, what follows is a scandal that illustrates just how energy laws and policy are formed today in many developed countries: by green activists and lobbyists who have an extreme agenda or narrow, self-serving interest.

German national daily Bild here reports how in Hannover the new energy law for the state of Lower Saxony was not really written by policymakers elected by the voters, but by the Big Green industry lobbyists themselves.

The Bild story bears the title: “Companies write the energy law

Germany’s number one daily by circulation, Bild, tells of Lower Saxony’s Environment Minister Stefan Wenzel of the Green Party coming under heavy fire from the opposition. The FDP Free Democrats accused Wenzel of having parts of the 79-page draft legislation “dictated to him by the wind industry.” In other words, Bild writes:

Instead having the law formulated by employees of the Ministry, lobbyists participated in the formulation!”

According to Bild 12 environmental activist groups worked on the legislation, including companies such as Enercon and GE.

Bild quotes Free Democrat Dr. Gero Hocker, an environment expert:

The Environment Minister must concede that the wind lobby took over the job of drafting the law. That’s an outrage!”

Bild writes that although it is not unusual to get imput from various organizations, an angered Gero Hocker shot back: “Taking over as they are the formulations is a real scandal.”

Increasingly lawmakers have become marionettes of Big Green…democratic representation be damned. It also doesn’t help that a huge share of German lawmakers are investors in fail-safe, get-rich-quick green energy projects.

Spiegel Describes Circus of “Trickery” In Run-Up To Paris. Russia Wants To Curb CO2 Emissions By Increasing Them!

Spiegel journalist Axel Bojanowski has an analysis on the Berlin climate negotiations now taking place among the leaders of 36 nations who have the aim of laying the groundwork for a binding climate treaty in Paris later this year.

The title: “They’re tricking; they’re getting creative.”

Bojanowski calls it the “big climate show”. Although big delcarations are being made, behind the scenes “creative steps” and “tricks” are the real order of the day.

Grandstanding

For example rich nations like France and Germany are climate grandstanding and promising to provide even more money to poor countries to help them fight climate change and switch over to renewable energy sources. But Bojanowski describes how no one appears to be really willing to make the hard compromises that alarmists are demanding. As a result countries are resorting to creative trickery to shirk real climate responsibility. For example climate insurances are to be set up in order to cover weather damages in poor countries, but not much else.

Ducking the real questions

Bojanowski writes, however, that the all-important and really decisive questions are being pushed to the sidelines, foremost:

How does the global community intend to curb the emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, which climate science says will result in considerable warming?”

Here the Spiegel journalist writes that it is still unclear for many EU countries how they will reach their stated targets. He also points out that it is unlikely the US Congress will vote for the government’s plan to curb emissions by 16% compared to 1990 levels. Especially unclear are also the plans for reductions from China, India and other developing countries.

One example of trickery comes from Russia, Bojanowski writes:

Although Russia has announced it wants to reduce emissions 25% by 2030 compared to 1990 – this is in fact trickery. Because of the collapse of its industry during the 1990s, the country is emitting only half as much CO2 as it did in 1990. That means with respect to climate targets, Russia intends to emit more CO2 in the future.”

And not less!

In Paris do expect the signing of a “binding international treaty”, but one that will be chock-full of non-binding requirements. The circus (which no one takes seriously anymore) thus will continue.

Leading Industry Expert Slams Germany’s Wild Foray Into Green Energies: “Unaffordable” … “Absolute Imbecility”!

The Germany-based European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE) held another conference on climate and renewable energy last March. One of the speakers was Prof. Dr. Dieter Ameling, an expert in heavy industry. EIKE has posted his presentation.

In the presentation Ameling calls Germany’s Energiewende (transition to renewable energies) a real threat to industry, warning that the country faces a de-industrialization.

Already, Ameling reminds us, every day the Energiewende in Germany is progressing and that the damage already done is getting even worse and that “foremost it will soon be irreparable“.

Subsidies’ vast divergence from earlier projections

At the 5:15 mark he calls the German government’s 2022 targets for renewables “economic nonsense” and will result in “electricity getting continuously more expensive“.

His following chart shows a comparison of the German government’s projected green energy subsidies compared to that of reality:

Ameling_1

The gray bars show the government’s projected annual subsidies in billions of euros. The blue bars depict the real skyrocketing subsidies. In 2014 the subsidies rose even further, to 23.6 billion euros. Chart: Dr. Dieter Ameling.

“Unaffordable” and “absolute imbecility”

The big problem, Ameling emphasizes, is the huge supply-volatility in wind and sun, which are totally weather-dependent. At the 9:35 mark the retired professor calls the German state of Bavaria’s energy-mix plan for 2022 as something that “cannot function“…”is unaffordable“, and “is absolute imbecility“.

The chart at the 11:20 mark shows how Germany has one of the highest electricity prices worldwide, more than double the rate found in USA, Canada, or Russia.

At the 13-minute mark another chart shows the huge gap in natural gas prices between Germany (10.7 cents per gas unit) and the USA (only 3.7 cents per gas unit). Thanks to fracking, gas prices in USA have tumbled while in Germany poor households barely can afford to heat their homes.

Germany’s skyrocketing electricity prices

At the 13:34 mark Ameling displays a chart showing Germany’s electricity price development:

Ameling_2

Since 2000 the price of electricity in euro-cents/kwh in Germany has more than doubled! Currently a 4-person household is paying over 366 euros a year just for the green energy feed-in tariffs alone. Ameling warns that figure will continue to rise rapidly.

Exodus of industry leaving Germany, Europe

Later in the presentation Ameling shows how the energy-intensive industries such as cement, glass, steel, chemicals etc. are being hit hard by the skyrocketing energy costs. In Germany alone 3.5 million jobs depend on the steel industry. At the 19:03 mark Ameling warns that the exodus of industry “has already begun” with heavyweight companies such as ThyssenKrupp, Norsk Hydro, BASF, SGL Carbon and Voest moving operations abroad.

1 trillion euros!

How much is Germany’s Energiewende projected to cost? In 2013 former Environment Minister Peter Altmaier told the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung it would cost Germans 1 trillion euros!

Ameling 3

At the end Ameling summarizes, announcing that the “Energiewende has failed” because it is simply too expensive and too volatile. The infrastructure that is needed to handle it is not even in place. Unless Germany radically alters the current direction of its Energiewende, Ameling says it will be “bye bye Germany“.

He ends the presentation with the following Friends of Science image, reminding us that CO2 is not even the driver of climate.

Ameling_4

German Government Advisor Calls 2°C Target An Illusion…Climate Science “Led Around By The Nose”…”Reputation Damaged”

Spiegel science journalist Axel Bojanowski interviews Oliver Geden, climate expert at the Berlin-based German Institute for International and Security Affairs – SWP. He is also an advisor to the German government.

2°C target “an illusion”

In the interview Geden calls the 2°C limit target “an illusion that has been fed by politicians and scientists“.

Geden tells Spiegel that scientists and politicians have calculated how much CO2 is allowed to be added to the earth’s atmosphere before the temperature climbs 2°C, but that they have dithered and dallied so much that theoretically no more CO2 emssions will be allowed globally by the year 2044. Thus the 2°C target is already a grand pipe dream.

“Very dubious” CO2 accounting tricks

In the interview Geden believes Paris will fall far short of what is necessary to reach the theoretical 2°C target, and

As a result the climate negotiators will use many calculation tricks which I think are very dubious.”

He expects policymakers to use tricks like “negative” future emissions from CCS technology, or growing trees. However Geden, a warmist and promoter of ending fossil fuels, calls negative emissions in the interview “political science fiction“.

Geden tells Spiegel that 500 million hectares of forests would have to added to the globe, an area equivalent to one and half times India!

Many developing countries would go into resistance if we demanded they stop using the land for food and to grow trees for stroring CO2 instead.”

The negative emissions calculations being put forth are in fact now so out of touch that Geden sarcastically tells Spiegel:

Scientists might as well just assume in 2070 green martians will land on earth as rescuers and suck the CO2 out of the atmosphere.”

Climate science reputation damaged

Bojanowski then asks Geden if all the carbon accounting tricks are hurting the reputation of climate science. Geden confirms that it is, reminding us that:

Five or six years ago it was consensus that greenhouse gas reductions of three percent annually were not realistic. But then emissions rose like never before – and suddenly the IPCC claims that six percent is doable. Precisely in a phase when CO2 emissions are rising liker never before the optimism is suddenly growing that drastic savings are possible. All this just to keep the 2°C story alive.”

Geden adds that scientists are forced to play along with the nonsense because they see the risk of getting less research funding.

The tendency is that those who supply the policymakers with the desired studies and models are better off.”

Science hubris

Geden also points out that “many climate scientists are idealists who wish to rescue the planet;..”

He believes that many scientists are suffering from “hubris” and actually “believe that the earth’s system is controllable“. He slams Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber’s WBGU which in 2011 “proposed a Great Transformation of Global Society to combat global warming”.

It was the first work since the fall of communism that called for the restructuring of the entire world according to a plan.”

Science being “led around “by the nose”

Joachim Müller-Jung at Germany’s flagship Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) writes a commentary on the “political fever” that has swept through the science community as the Paris Conference approaches.

Müller-Jung writes that “science is allowing itself to be led around by the nose by politicians and economists.”

Müller-Jung describes the 2°C limit as “utopian”.

Top Econ Professor Says Germany’s Renewables “Already Reached The Limits”…Country Risks “Gambling Away Its Prosperity”!

German online finanztreff.de here reports on the opinion recently expressed by Prof. Hans-Werner Sinn, Director of the renowned Munich-based ifo-Institute for Economic Research, regarding Germany’s attempted move into renewable energies, primarily solar and wind power.

Currently about 25% of Germany’s energy supply is “green”.

At a conference of experts in Berlin Sinn is quoted by Dow Jones as saying that the installation of “renewable energies in Germany has already reached its limits” because there is just nowhere near enough storage capacity available to balance out the sharp and volatile supply spikes of wind and solar power.

Sinn also ridiculed the idea of using electric cars as a means to store the green energy, calling the notion a “PR gag”. He added that 159 million BMW i3 vehicle would have to be put on the streets, i.e. thus nearly tripling the number of cars currently on the streets. A preposterous solution.

On using green energy to produce gas, Sinn calls it a horribly expensive alternative that would cost about 24 cents per kilowatt-hour; Russian natural gas by comparison is only 3 cents per kilowatt-hour, he says.

It would get expensive very rapidly,” Sinn warned.

Currently Germany’s Ministry of Environment is proposing the investment of 1 trillion euros for a new energy supply system. Sinn calls that idea “a monstrous gamble with an uncertain outcome“, and one that harbors “a real risk” of Germany “gambling away its prosperity“.

So how will German policymakers react to Professor Sinn’s assessment? Well, if they don’t heed his warnings, then there’s really no one left out there who may still be able to talk sense and reason back into the policymakers’ heads.

Should the policymakers ignore the warnings of the renowned Ifo Institute, then the only thing left is to learn it the hard, painful way. Knowing today’s German intellectual obstinacy of the elite class, the odds of that are better than even.

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.

 

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.

 

Elitism: “17 Prominent Scientists” Express Contempt For Democracy…Demand Policymaking Power

By Dennis Ambler and Pierre Gosselin

One of the most worrisome aspects of the climate science movement, other than its outright fudging of data, is its unabashed contempt for democracy.

Yesterday a tiny group of “17 international scientists from world class institutions“, who are unhappy with the current development course of civilization because it has not been to their liking, released in a statement the elements of a global climate agreement, and “what needs to be done in order to meet the 2°C target.”

The 17 elitist “scientists” call themselves “The Earth League“.

Not surprisingly the statement calls for the fundamental reorganization of global human civilization and society.

Yesterday the ultra-alarmist Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) also published a press release about that statement from the “international alliance of prominent scientists“, which calls for “bold action by decision-makers to pave the way for a successful international agreement to reduce the risk of dangerous climate change“. The Earth League statement announces:

It is a moral obligation, and in our self-interest, to achieve deep decarbonization of the global economy via equitable effort sharing. This requires reaching a zero-carbon society by mid-century or shortly thereafter, thereby limiting global warming to below 2°C as agreed by all nations in 2010. This trajectory is not one of economic pain, but of economic opportunity, progress and inclusiveness.”

Such promises of zero-pain are not new. Ten years ago Germany’s Environment Minister Jürgen Trittin claimed the transition would “not cost citizens more than a cone of ice cream“. That cone of ice cream today has since exploded to 355 euros – each year – and CO2 emissions still haven’t dropped!

The Earth League’s statement coincides with Earth Day. Not surprisingly among its members is PIK director Hans Joachim Schellnhuber. The statement clarifies what an international climate agreement should achieve in Paris in December.

The scientists include Mario Molina of Centro Mario Molina, Jennifer Morgan of the World Resources Institute, Ottmar Edenhofer of Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change, Carlos Nobre of National Institute for Space Research (INPE) (and UNESCO), Lord Nicholas Stern of London School of Economics and Political Science, Johan Rockström of Stockholm Resilience Center and other authors.

People familiar with the PIK recognize that this is very much a “Schellnhubris” Potsdam initiative. Indeed it is amazing to see them claim “scientist” status for Jennifer Morgan, former WWF Climate Director and now a member of the Potsdam “Scientific Advisory Board”.  Her qualifications are in Political Science and “International Affairs”. Former World Bank economist Stern is chairman of the Grantham Institute at LSE and has also been on Schellnhuber’s Potsdam “Scientific Advisory Board”.

Edenhofer is also an economist and deputy director at Potsdam, although he is now named as Director of yet another new institution, the Mercator Institute on Global Commons, (that’s the air we breathe, in their book and it must be regulated so everyone gets their fair share. The West has had more than its fair share so we must recant and breathe less). He is famous for his quote that it is no longer about the science, but about wealth redistribution.

Rockström is a long term campaigner, an ecologist not a climate scientist and formerly at the Beijer Instituite which has merged with the Stockholm Resilience Centre. He is the vice-chair of the science advisory board at Potsdam and “he was also co-chairing the visioning process on global environmental change of ICSU, the International Council for Science.”

The Earth League does have a few scientists onboard, such as Sir Brian Hoskins, IPCC and Director of the Imperial College, London, Grantham Institute. He is also on Schellnhuber’s “Scientific Advisory Board”.

Another non-scientist is Leena Srivastava, deputy to the currently “on leave of absence” Rajendra Pachauri.

Of course none of these 17 “leading scientists” will ever admit their contempt for democracy, yet their demands tell us a different story. What their statement tells us is: Yes, citizens are allowed to elect their leaders, but the leaders must do what us elite “scientists” tell them. If that is not contempt for the democratic process, then what is? The PIK Press release writes:

The Earth Statement will be presented by Rockström and Schellnhuber at the 4th Nobel Laureates Symposium on Global Sustainability in Hong Kong “4C: Changing Climate, Changing Cities” hosted by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Asia Society Hong Kong (22-25 April) on Thursday – this will mark the beginning of outreach to leading decision-makers and thinkers.”

Welcome to the next wave of authoritarianism.

Weblink to the full Earth Statement and further information: www.earthstatement.org

Weblink to the Earth League: http://www.the-earth-league.org/

 

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.

 

Germany’s Leading Daily Calls For An End To Green Energy Subsidies! Calls Green Promises “A Fairy Tale”

Germany’s leading daily in terms of circulation Bild recently featured an op-ed piece that harshly criticizes Germany’s Energiewende (transisition to renewable energies).

Clearly the Energiewende is not even coming close to living up to what is was originally billed to deliver. Despite adding more than 70 gigawatts of wind and solar capacity that will cost consumers some $200 billion, German CO2 emissions have not decreased to speak of. Coal-fired power has actually risen.

In summary German electricity prices have skyrocketed and poor consumers are being hit hard. Energy-intensive industries are off-shoring operations – and jobs!

A number of experts are calling the Energiewende the greatest wealth redistribution from poor to rich scheme in Germany’s history as wealthy property owners cash in with subsidized zero-risk wind and solar installations. The poor consumers are forced to cough up the money.

“Enough with green power!”

So it’s little wonder that major German media outlets are beginning to express doubts. Bild features an opinion piece titled: “Enough with green power!

The popular German daily calls the promises of cheap power from wind and sun “a fairy tale”. It writes:

Indeed the truth is: The price of power continues to climb. Just in the past five years the power price exploded 29 percent.

The reason is simple: In the energy market, central planning rules and not the free market.”

Disfigured market

Today there is so much installed capacity, Bild writes, that “on days with lots of sunshine and wind, the green power has to be sold to foreign countries” – even if they don’t need it. When that happens the highly subsidized power gets sold at negative prices. The result? Huge losses for power companies. This is how disfigured the electric power market has become.

In summary Bild concludes that the price of power is much more expensive than it needs to be and that it is a product that needs to remain affordable. Germany’s energy policy is on the wrong path.

Unfortunately there are no signs things will change anytime soon in Germany, which now has the world’s second highest electricity prices in the world after Denmark.

 

It’s Official: Most Efficient Gas-Fired Power Plant To Be Shut Down Due To Losses Stemming From “Energiewende”

It’s official. Germany’s Irsching power plant in Bavaria will be shutting down its recently built Block 4 and 5 gas-fired turbines. Both combined put out approximately 1.4 gigawatts of power. Online Spiegel here reports that its operators say it is no longer worth operating due to Germany’s Energiewende (transition to renewable energy).

The sporadic supply of solar and wind power into the grid means that the gas-turbines run only part-time, and often within a range that is inefficient. Two weeks ago I reported on this here. Now it’s official.

The Irsching Blocks 4 & 5 are the ultimate in gas-turbine engineering – reaching an efficiency of 60.75%. But its operators, among them energy giant E.on, announced that they are shutting down the turbines effective April 1, 2016. Spiegel writes the reason is “the lack of opportunity for economical operation“.

E.on and the other partner operators will need to obtain the shut-down approval from the Germany regulatory authorities.

Energiewende has thrown the energy market in turmoil

Spiegel adds:

Gas-fired power plants are currently under massive pressure due to the Energiewende and the plunge of power prices on the trading markets. ‘The growing amounts of subsidized power from renewable energies and the low wholesale prices for electricity no longer allow operation on the market,’ the four [Irsching] operators declared.”

Spiegel writes that the legal and political situation is also set to potentially become really messy. Already as “ultima ratio”, legal action is being threatened should German regulatory officials turn down E.on’s and its partner operators’ request to shut down the plant, something that German Economics Minister Sigmar Gabriel said the authorities would not allow to happen as the German power grid has become too precarious.

Supply problems are set to become far more critical as Germany will be forced by law to shut down its remaining nuclear power plants by 2022. Currently the German state of Bavaria is also blocking the construction of two major power transmission lines which would deliver power from large-scale wind parks in the North and Baltic seas.

With power transmission lines blocked, nuclear power slated to be decommissioned and gas power plants being shut down, the south German states are rapidly being maneuvered into a position where they will soon be confronted by huge power supply bottlenecks. Large power consumers are becoming wary.

Spiegel writes that E.on’s Irsching shut-down announcement jacks up the pressure on politicians.

Unless all the green madness ends quickly, soon there may be no more lights left to switch off in Bavaria on “Earth Day'”.

 

Meet Germany’s “Sustainable” Transportation Of The Future (Worse Than The Communist East German Trabant)!

Boy I’m glad lived in the time that I’ve lived in so far: a postwar period when we saw relative peace, prosperity, free markets, spreading democracy and freedom, and immense technical progress. Those days now seem to be going in reverse.

Germany's car of the future

Germany’s vision for the future family car: The new family “pedelec”, big enough for 2 kids,and flowers from the garden center. Source: German Ministry of Environment.

I’m worried about my kids. I fear they will be living in a world that will be less democratic, one where the citizens will be enslaved by technology and live in markets that will be firmly under the control of a faceless, unaccountable technocracy run by so-called self-anointed master central planners. This is what is taking hold in today’s Germany.

Let them ride electric bikes

Germany’s Federal Ministry of Environment (UBA) has just released a publication on one of the key components it envisions for the country’s future mobility scheme for the masses: electric bicycles, or pedelecs, see above for an example variant.

The reports abstract tells us:

As part of an integrated transport planning scheme, pedelecs are an important component of sustainable mobility in cities, but also, most notably, in rural areas. From an environmental perspective, this type of electric vehicle should be embraced, actively promoted and encouraged in order to make pedelecs appealing to more user groups as an attractive, inexpensive and environmentally sound form of transport that constitutes an alternative to private motorized transport.”

The aim, of course, so they say, is to rescue the climate by reducing the emissions of “pollutant” CO2, especially by cars. And to do this, central planning by masterminds is the only way. The green trend is one that is taking us back to bad old days of notoriously inefficient communist-style central planning. One only needs to look at Germany’s “Energiewende” to realize just how bad the inefficiency is getting.

I don’t have anything against people buying e-bikes, of course, but I do have serious reservations about governments punishing us out of our dependable, safe, and efficient cars and throwing us a dog treat every time we move or behave in a way they feel is best.

I’ve looked at e-bikes, but found them far too expensive for the real benefit they offer.

Will replace few cars

Unfortunately the grand scheme of the e-bike will end up having a similar result as the renewable energies. The German government has so far committed 200 billion euros to expanding green energies by some 80 gigawatts, but they have yet to reduce the consumption of coal and gas fired electricity by any significant amount. More on that tomorrow. The result will be similar with e-bikes…few cars will get replaced.

Germany mobilty of the future

Weather for e-bikes. Unfortunately such days are rare in Germany and generally confined to tourism pamphlets. Source: German Ministry of Environment.

Utopian fantasy

One problem is the that the e-bike has become a utopian fantasy for the UBA. To illustrate this, just look at the photos it uses in its report. The powerful government agency would like us to think that the weather in Germany is like the weather in Phoenix, Arizona – in November, and year-round – where temperatures and conditions are very agreeable. The truth is that German weather is often very lousy, cold, wet, windy, and so traveling by e-bike is often far from pleasurable or practical.

People will still need to buy and own cars for bad weather and for most trips over 10 kilometers, or trips involving a passenger. E-bikes will replace very few cars – unless it gets forced. Nothing offers flexibility, comfort, speed and convenience like the automobile, and few people will be willing to give it up.

Cargo cycles, pedelecs for business trips

In its recommendation part of the report, the UBA urges political decision makers provide “ample financial and human resources for the development of bike-friendly infrastructure” and that businesses implement pedelecs in commercial traffic and employ “cargo cycles” and for transport tasks. It also recommends pedelecs for business trips and commuter journeys to work premises. “Many car and compact van trips can instead be made using pedelecs or bikes,” the UBA writes.

To me an e-bike sounds like a good way to limit the freedom and mobility of women who stay home to care for the family.

 

How About Protecting Today’s Real People, And Not An Impossible Climate Of The Future?

Reader Frederick Colbourne put Bangladesh and its woes in what I feel is a proper perspective. I’ve upgraded his comment to a post.

Once again it is a sad story that politicians are using computer-generated climate disasters of the far future as a cynical, lethal and obscenely expensive distraction of today’s real problems. The money flowing into the folly of “climate protection” would have been far better spent had it been invested where it was really needed. Worse it is distraction from the political failures of those calling for climate protection.

Comment by Frederick Colbourne:

Among journalists (and the public too) there is profound ignorance about the physical Earth. I recall from a beginning physical geography course that deltas subside and that also the great rivers gradually extend seaward by depositing silt and clay.

When I worked in Bangladesh last year on an urban development project last year, I found that other false claims are being made too: that offshore islands are being destroyed by climate change. However, the reality is that offshore islands drift with currents in the Gulf of Bengal.

So many myths about the Earth! There are even vestiges of the Garden of Eden myth: the belief that at some time in the past, the Earth was benign. Nature is neither benign nor malevolent.

Nature is indifferent to the affairs of Man. The geographical disadvantages of eastern Bengal are ancient but made worse by growth of population to over 100 million people in a land that has few resources apart from land and rivers. These rivers flood about 40% of the land each year.

Religious and political conflicts led to partition of British India 65 years ago. Since then Bangladeshis have suffered a war of independence and military rule, either overt or behind the scenes. Bangladesh is one of the worst-governed countries in the world.

Climate change is the least of Bangladesh’s worries.”

 

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.

Climate Experts Say A Google Attempt To Rank Websites Based On “Truth” Would Backfire …”Nut-Job Conspiracy Theories”

A few days ago I wrote about how Google was researching into changing how it ranks websites during searches, claiming that the aim was to give sites that are loose with the truth a lower ranking and to favor sites deemed to be reputable.

But the possibility of abuse in such a system is worrisome.

So I asked some leading climate figures by e-mail what they thought and have gotten some responses. Here’s what they wrote (some editing):

Prof. Nir Shaviv (astrophysicist)

It is just a research project. The Fox News article says ‘A Google spokesperson told FoxNews.com that the fact-based-rankings are, at this point, just a research project.’

I can’t imagine Google will do anything like that. It is so wrong on so many levels it would be shooting themselves in the leg.”

Lubos Motl (physicist):

I don’t believe that it’s technically possible to design an algorithm that could reasonably accurately assign the truth value to all pages on the Internet (it’s just very hard to evaluate all the billions of statements that are out there – quite often, one really knows the answer) – I would be impressed if they proved me wrong; and I don’t believe that Google will impose filters that would selectively and significantly skew results in a direction that is political.

I don’t believe that Google plans to suppress or eliminate skeptical blogs about the climate from the rankings, and I don’t even think that this follows from any media reports on Fox News or elsewhere, so I view these fears as nut job conspiracy theories.

It’s my belief that they’re doing a good job. Some said that the solution to these censorship fears (which seem unjustifiable to me themselves) is to create a competition to Google, or something like that. Even if some folks in Google have politically extreme, left-wing opinions etc., they’re still primarily a technological company that has done amazing things that even some of the best people in big competing companies such as Microsoft couldn’t have matched (and I am a fan of Microsoft). Of course if Google searches turned out to be unusable due to political censorship or something like that, people like me would try to switch to a competition.

Google is an extremely important company and it is assessing its importance sensibly. Generally I am not going to join the bashing of Google based on conspiracy theories. My cooperation with the company (talking about AdSense) has been good for many years and as an ordinary user, I am impressed how many services Google has done for the users basically for free. Even if they wanted to use their search engine to push politics or the climate debate in some direction, they clearly have the right to do so, but because it would mean to throw away the value of the company which has grown into a rather standard corporation, I don’t believe that it will really take place, regardless of the opinions of some officials at various places.

Dr. Holger Thuss (President of EIKE)

Without a doubt, there are a lot of lies out there. However if Google really thinks a truth formula is the right way to promote ‘truth’, it will backfire on them because there simply is no such thing as absolute truth. Hence I believe this step would be entirely unnecessary. It will not stop promoters of ‘inconvenient truths’ such as climate realists from doing what they are doing, and it would cost Google large parts of its credibility. On the other hand, it would slow down important political and scientific debates. I also don’t see how, in the future, Google will convince organizations to pay for its advertising services if its reputation is damaged and people go away to other search engines. Nobody likes to listen to truther organizations.”

Dr. Benny Peiser (Chairman, GWPF)

I very much doubt that Google will implement the proposal to rank websites according to their “truthfulness.” Such a potentially self-destructive move would make Google look like George Orwell’s ‘Ministry of Truth’ who was responsible to falsify historical events or rewrite predictions. One only has to think about the way Google would deal with Michael Mann’s ‘Hockey Stick’ and the elimination of the Medieval Warm Period from history to realise the potential for abuse and manipulation.”

Dr. Hans H.J. Labohm (Dutch publicist)

Nobody should claim to possess the monopoly on truth. Therefore let people decide for themselves what information they deem trustworthy. And remember: ‘Du choc des opinions jaillit la vérité!’ Consequently Google should drop this initiative and bury it, covering it with a tombstone with the inscription: R.I.P.

Dr. Sebastian Lüning (Die kalte Sonne)

 Who would be the referees in this process, and how impartial could they be?

Dr Sonja A Boehmer Christiansen (Editor, Energy & Environment)

On whether Google would be able to control the Truth:

NO that would take a long time to emerge if ever…many scientific disputes took centuries to be resolved. Truth is likely to establish itself, temporarily, if combined and advertised in combination with solutions, like AGW.

There are short-term truths of course, what people act on in the hope that it is the truth, but then they usually have another motive to back up the truth like greed, personal advantage, getting research funds, pleasing ‘mates’. If they went ahead, they would be taking on a divine role. A warning!”

 

“Stunning Development” … EPA Chief Doesn’t Even Know If Climate Projections Are Rights Or Wrong!

It is indeed stunning. A must-watch. It’s as damaging a performance on behalf of a cause that you will ever see.

EPA chief Gina McCarthy also says she doesn’t even know whose models policy is being based on.

She says that the models diverging from actual observations “on the whole makes no difference to the validity in the robustness of climate science that is telling us that we are facing an absolute challenge that we must address …blah blah blah…”

Sorry, but it makes all the difference in science. McCarthy thus confirms observational data mean nothing and that climate science is a religion at the EPA.

“Whose models? What projections?” she asks – as if she has no idea what’s going on at all. This is as incompetent as you will ever see.

 

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.”