Science Under Siege: Max Planck Institute Study Shows Climate Models Severely Overstate Warming

Hamburg-Based Max-Planck-Institute for Meteorology: Aerosols Cool Less Than Previously Thought

By Sebastian Lüning, Fritz Vahrenholt
[Translated, edited by P Gosselin]

In our book “The Neglected Sun” we wondered a lot about the cooling effect of aerosols that was assigned in the climate models. Aerosols are tiny dust particles and droplets that act to diffuse sunlight and thus as a rule act to cool the earth. But by how much? In Chapter 5 of our book we wrote:

According to the IPCC, the cooling effect of aerosols offsets about two thirds of the power of CO2. In the IPCC’s view, aerosols reduce the warming generated by all greenhouse gases by 45 percent. But the uncertainty is large – it could be 15 percent, or even 85%, because we have only modest to low level of scientific “understanding of the relationships.”

Today very few are aware that the climate models generate far more warming than what we really produced over the last 100 years. The IPCC strategy: All the surplus heat is cancelled by aerosols until the models “fit”. The cooling joker is thus badly needed in order to maintain CO2’s high climate sensitivity.

In March 2015 we saw some progress in the aerosol discussion. One of the authors of the latest IPCC report claimed that the range of uncertainty concerning the effect of aerosols on climate had been greatly reduced thanks to new research findings, and in the meantime there’s been a lot of talk that the cooling potential of aerosols indeed had been significantly exaggerated in the past. The real cooling value is actually at the lower limits of the range assumed up to now by the IPCC.

The most important and boldest claims come from Bjorn Stevens, one of the three directors at the Hamburg-based Max Planck Institute for Meteorology (MPIM). That paper appeared in the Journal of Climate. What follows is the paper’s abstract:

Rethinking the lower bound on aerosol radiative forcing
Based on research showing that in the case of a strong aerosol forcing, this forcing establishes itself early in the historical record, a simple model is constructed to explore the implications of a strongly negative aerosol forcing on the early (pre 1950) part of the instrumental record. This model, which contains terms representing both aerosol-radiation and aerosol-cloud interactions well represents the known time history of aerosol radiative forcing, as well as the effect of the natural state on the strength of aerosol forcing. Model parameters, randomly drawn to represent uncertainty in understanding, demonstrates that a forcing more negative than −1.0 W m−2 is implausible, as it implies that none of the approximately 0.3 K temperature rise between 1850 and 1950 can be attributed to northern-hemispheric forcing. The individual terms of the model are interpreted in light of comprehensive modeling, constraints from observations, and physical understanding, to provide further support for the less negative ( −1.0 W m−2 ) lower bound. These findings suggest that aerosol radiative forcing is less negative and more certain than is commonly believed.

In general one should be careful not to overuse the word “sensational”. But here the word is most suitable. Surprisingly the German media has been deadly quiet on this. A Google news search reveals that there has not been a single article written about the paper. Undesirable news that the media prefer not to make public?

The implications of the paper were immediately recognized within the scientific community. On March 19, 2015, Nic Lewis explained the paper’s far-reaching implications at Steve McIntyre’s Climate Audit and Judith Curry’s Climate Etc.: Also the climate sensitivity gets further limited, and most likely is near the lower limit of the IPCC’s given range. Lewis’s calculations using the new Stevens value yield a most probable mean value for CO2 climate sensitivity (and indeed for the long-term “ECS”) of 1.45°C of warming for each doubling of CO2. The new total range suggested by Lewis ranges from 0.9 to 1.65°C per doubling of CO2. This is far below the IPCC’s latest range of 1.5 to 4.5°C per doubling of CO2.

Figure 1: Range of CO2 climate sensitivity according to calculations by Nic Lewis using the latest Stevens 2015 values. Source.

Bjorn Stevens was fully aware of the avalanche of reactions this would unleash. It is going to take awhile before his IPCC colleagues get over their indigestion and allow the new findings to flow into their modeling work. Until that happens, it is best to avoid any media storm. The MPIM intentionally did not issue a press release to announce the paper. As the English-language media busily discussed the logical consequences of the paper, the MPIM in Hamburg eventually found it necessary to put out a statement. On April 2, 2015, Stevens put out a statement saying that his paper only addressed aerosols and would not be appropriate for speculation on CO2 sensitivity. With it he buys himself a little public peace – for the time being. However the scientific community will not be able dodge the consequences of the paper over the mid to long-term.

 

Vahrenholt Blasts Der Spiegel’s Print Doomsday Article: “Extremely Poorly Researched”…”Half Truth”

Some weeks ago the print edition of Der Spiegel presented the latest in its decade’s long series of climate scares, read background here and here.

Last month leading German climate science critic Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt sent a deservedly harsh letter to Spiegel, blasting the news weekly’s poor journalistic quality. That letter has now been published at his Die kalte Sonne site. Here’s the letter translated in English:

From: Fritz Vahrenholt
To: Spiegel
Sent: 25. February 2015
Re: Reader’s Letter on “Der verheizte Planet” in Spiegel 9/2015

LETTER

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen

The article ‘verheizte Planet’ [Heated planet] is an extremely poorly researched article that does not hold up to scientific review. As the basis for the temperature development, the time period of 1950 – 1980 was used. This was a period of cooling. Der Spiegel in its issue no. 33/1974 even carried the title ‘Is a new ice age approaching?’ In the latest article the period before 1950 in the graphic was cut out; it had been some 0.3°C warmer – a sign of natural cycles, which was completely hidden in the article. It is thus little wonder that the fact global mean temperature has not risen significantly over the past 16 years despite the constantly climbing CO2 emissions went unmentioned. Numerous recently published scientific publications show that more than 50% of the temperature rise from 1975 to 2000 is due to natural factors (solar influence, cyclic oceanic currents).

Also on the part looking at catastrophes, only the half-truth is reported. The rise shown by the EM-Dat databank from von 1970 to 2000 is owing to the fact that the databank was first set up in 1988. It is also questionable that the time period before 1970 was cut off by Spiegel because the data are close to zero as back then there were no systematic reporting. Overall the EM-Dat also records earthquakes and cold disasters. The fact that natural disaster have declined considerably since 2000 of course does not fit well with the narrative. Even the IPCC itself writes in its last report of 2013 that there is no real evidence of an increase in hurricanes, droughts, flooding, hail and storms. The Sahara is also not expanding, as the article describes, rather it is getting greener. This is shown by satellite data. Such a thing should not happen at Spiegel.

Sincerely

Prof. Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt
Author ‘The Neglected Sun – How the sun precludes climate catastrophe’
Sole Director
German Wildlife Foundation
Hamburg”

 

Truth Sinks Into The Mud: How German N24 Public Television Grossly Misled Viewers On Sea Level

German public television seems to have gotten extremely sloppy and misleading lately. Gone are the days of critical reporting and fact-checking, it seems.

Not long ago flagship ARD television, using tricky wording, sadly misled viewers into thinking that the more than 15,000 deaths caused by the Japan tsunami of 2011 were caused by the Fukushima nuclear reactor meltdown (Reality: not a single death has yet to be attributed to leaked radiation).

Sundarbans

Image licensed under public domain via Wikimedia Commons

The latest gross deception, by what Germans are starting to call the “Lügenpresse” (the lying press), comes from German NDR public television site which got the entire science on Sundarbans sea level rise wrong.

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

River delta in India and Bangladesh sinking away: N24 forgets to mention sediment compaction as an important reason for rising waters

Climatic apocalyptic mood on 19 February 2015 at n24:

Extreme climate change: The Sundarbans have 15 years left
Climate change is threatening all of humanity, but some are especially impacted. In the Sundarbans already the livelihoods of 13 million people are threatened. […] Sea water has already swept over the spot of land on the Indian island of Bali where Mondol grew rice and operated fish ponds – just like earlier generations since about 200 years ago. Water has taken everything else away – and one day it will also take away the hut. ‘Every year we have to move a bit further inland,’ he says. Bali is considerably smaller than the Indonesian island with the same name. Mondol lives in the Sundarbans, a low lying delta region between India and Bangladesh that has 200 islands and round about 13 million inhabitants. Most of the homes are in an impoverished condition. The sea level in the region is rising about twice as fast as the global average. Tens of thousands already have become homeless. According to estimates by scientists, a large part of the Sundarbans could be submerged in 15 to 25 years.”

Delta regions are known for the gradual stabilization of their sediment – so-called compaction – sinking. This small detail was simply left out by n24. Here on April 30, 2013 Nature India explicitly pointed out that the flooding was not solely due to climate change:

Seven years after the first report on the ‘vanishing islands’ of Sundarbans, Subhra Priyadarshini revisits the fragile delta in the Bay of Bengal to find that it is not just climate change that threatens the existence of this world heritage mangrove tiger-land spread across the Indo-Bangladesh border. […]In the last 25 years, the rate of relative sea level rise comes close to 8 mm/year, significantly higher than the rate of 3.14 mm/year in the previous decade,’ he says. In a recent report he co-authored for the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF)3, Hazra says besides global warming and the subsequent thermal expansion of water, the rather rapid subsidence of the Bengal delta (2-4 mm/year), compaction of silt and other local causes may be responsible for the exceptionally high rate of relative sea level rise in the Indian Sundarbans.

Science has already intensively studied the subsidence problem, and so it is peculiar that n24 did not mention this result. Geologist Till Hanebuth reported in 2013 on results from the delta region of Bangladesh. His team found natural subsidence of more than 4 millimeters per year. This rate is considerably higher than the climatic-related sea level rise. In the description of results of a project by the Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft (German Research Association) it is stated:

Assessing the recent subsidence of the central coastal Delta of Bangladesh by dating submerged kilns The densely populated low lying Ganges‐Brahmaputra Delta is highly vulnerable to the global sea‐ level rise. In order to estimate the subsidence of the delta, we examined submerged salt‐producing kiln sites in the coastal Sundarbans. These kilns were built just above the previous winterly spring high‐tide level, but are currently located ~155 cm below the corresponding modern level. According to optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dating, the kilns were ultimately fired ~300 years ago and salt production was terminated by a catastrophic event, which affected the kiln sites at different levels and locations. AMS‐14C ages of charcoal at the kiln’s base and associated mangrove stump horizons support the OSL dates. Based on the elevations and the ages, the 300‐year‐average rate of sinking of the outer delta is 5.2 ± 1.2 mm/a, which includes 0.8 mm/a of eustatic sea‐level rise. Reasonably postulating that the subsidence rate will not change during the next few decades and accepting the estimates of current sea‐ level rise of 1.8–3.0 mm/a or 2.7–7.1 mm/a, a RSL rise of 6.4 ± 1.7 mm/a or 8.9 ± 3.3 mm/a, respectively, must be assumed along the Sundarbans coasts.”

Similar subsidence was also found by Stanley & Hait (2000).

 

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.”

If This Cold Is Warming, Then ISIS Is Peace … USA’s Stunning Shock-Freeze Contradicts NOAA Warmth Claims

Not only last winter was a brutal one for the USA, which saw the Great Lakes freeze over, this year is also turning out to be an epic one as record cold temperatures continue their unrelenting grip across the nation and massive snowfalls bury large regions across the east.

The UPI’s Fred Lambert recently wrote the bitter cold extends all the way to Siberia and had killed dozens across the US. Lambert writes:

According to the Weather Channel, the cold air mass now seizing the country stretches as far west as Russia, moving down through Canada and into the United States in what some meteorologists call the “Siberian Express.”

New all time records

The UK’s Mail online here reports that New York City’s 1°F reading set yesterday broke it’s 65-year old all-time cold record temperature. In Minnesota the mercury plummeted to -41°F. The Mail continues:

The temperature in Boston is below freezing, as the city is set to break the record of 16 days below 32F set in 1961.

In Florida, strawberry and orange crops have frozen over because of the harsh winter weather.”

The online English daily presents a spectacular series of winter photos. Even Niagara Falls has frozen over!

Unexpected freeze

As of Wednesday, over 85% of the Great Lakes was frozen over with experts predicting 100% ice cover in perhaps just a matter of a few more days. The USA Today here quotes George Leshkevich of the Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory:

Nobody expected 2014 to be as bad as it was, almost record breaking for ice cover and this year it’s the same thing with these very cold temperatures.”

“Historical ice cover record”

This morning mlive.com here shows images of Lake Huron, which it writes: “Lake Huron is almost entirely covered in ice. It is only 2.7 percent away from its historical ice-cover record.”

All this in the “6th warmest winter”?

Strangely, despite all the record freezing, the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) claims that it has been the sixth-warmest winter on record. NCDC officials may want to go back and check their thermometers, as these claims are looking a lot like “padded room” quality.

If this cold and ice are warming, then ISIS is peace.

Meteorologist Joe Bastardi explains the breathtaking, acrobatic tricks the NOAA used to produce the reality-disconnected result (see 1:30 mark).

Next cold blast to arrive next week

Dr. Ryan Maue at Twitter tells us that the cold wave is not yet done:

Maue Twitter

Note Maue warns of more records to possibly come. Obviously the US weather never got the message that it is supposed to be the 6th warmest on record.

 

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.

Freedom Of Deception…”Brave” Leaders Not In Front Row, But Cowered Behind Over One Million Paris Demonstrators

Never the trust the media, let alone political leaders.

When they tell us global warming is real while sea ice at the poles is at normal levels and snow is falling in Jacksonville, Florida and in the Arabian desert, should we believe them?

Probably not – especially when one looks closely at the climate data. And certainly not at all when one looks at how they report the news on how world leaders “bravely” demonstrated in Paris “alongside” more than a million people in response to the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack.

Most readers by now are aware of the STAGED photos and images of the 50 or so world leaders standing and “marching united with” the more than one million demonstrators in Paris last Sunday. In reality it was all staged to deceive television viewers all over the world.

Charlie Hebdo demo

World leaders stage their Paris, Charlie Hebdo, demonstration. Image cropped from here.

German Television’s mass deception

Now someone has just put up a montage of various news clips from some German public television news networks, showing how they used the stagecraft to deceive viewers into thinking our leaders were bravely demonstrating at the front row against terrorism in the Paris march of last Sunday.

At the 0:40 mark the video informs the viewers up ahead of the deception the media used:

Observe the targeted deception of the viewers through the use of camera angles, sound clips (the side streets were dead quiet) and the audacious lies of the news anchors and correspondents”.

What follows are some examples I’ve translated in English.

At the 0:55 mark Germany’s ZDF describes how more than a million people demonstrated in Paris to “send a clear signal of unity and to march for freedom of expression, tolerance and against terror”.

At the 1:12 mark, the ZDF anchor tells its millions of viewers:

And among them, arm-in-arm, the leaders and countries from all over the world.”

The reality is that these world leaders were in fact too afraid to appear “arm-in-arm, should-to-shoulder” with the masses. In effect they actually demonstrated their capitulation to terrorism, admitting the terror worked and that they are now too afraid to appear with the public. Congratulations terrorists, your aim has been achieved – at least among our leaders. Obviously real courage is something only for the masses.

At the 1:32 mark the ZDF switches to a correspondent “on location”, and shows how the world leaders seem to be marching along with the one million-plus demonstrators.

At the 1:34 mark the correspondent reports on the leaders:

These here are also demonstrators. More than 50 government leaders and high officials from all over the world march together.”

Looking at the video image, one sees Angela Merkel and others even seemingly waving at people. The sad truth is that it was all an act.

At the 2:00 mark, the same ZDF correspondent describes:

The world’s political elite on the street, side-by-side, with the people.”

Sorry, but they weren’t “with the people”. It’s just the media willfully disseminating organized deception to millions of viewers all over Europe and the world.

Later in the video a ZDF Special Report shows more of the same: brave world leaders marching hand-in-hand with the people, “to send a signal against terrorism“.

At the 2:52 mark there are more images deceiving the viewers into thinking the world leaders were marching with the people. Even Bibbi Netanyahu is getting in on the act. The deception continues at the 3:38 mark…courageous leaders seemingly risking their lives to demonstrate in unity in public with their people.

Truth: leaders were cowering behind the demonstrators

The aspect that annoys me in particular is that these leaders found the situation to be too dangerous, yet had no qualms about letting the more than a million and half demonstrators put their lives at risk on the street. Bravery for you, but not for me.

The truth is that the world leaders, by staging in an empty highly secured street, were in effect cowering in the last rows behind the demonstrators, and not bravely leading them in the front row as we were misled to believe.

At the 4:30 mark the video shows how Germany’s flagship ARD Television also uses the same mass deception, the news anchor announces:

More than 40 world leaders participated in the march.”

At the 6:40 mark the ARD in a special report again showed “world leaders marching with the people“.

At the 7:51 mark viewers see world leaders in the “front row”, seemingly bravely leading the million-plus person march. Here we notice audio of people cheering and demonstrating in the background, when in reality the footage was recorded on a secluded street where the side streets were completely empty and silent!

At the 8-minute mark the correspondent reports the names of the important figures present in the front row: Merkel, Hollande, Netanyahu and Abbas.

At the 8:06 mark the correspondent declares that it’s:

“A front row who are declaring: ‘We will not be intimidated!'”

These are the very people who send our sons and daughters to the battlefield.

At the 9:08 mark yet another ZDF report shows world leaders marching with the people, labeling them at the 9:20 mark: “Politicians as demonstrators.”

The topping on the cake comes at the 10:00 mark, where the ZDF correspondent even asks:

When was there ever a time where government leaders, or leaders of 50 nations, have come onto the streets as demonstrators, over a kilometer-long stretch that was not even completely safe? That was something particularly special.”

The mainstream media cannot be trusted. Little wonder that demonstrators in Germany refer to them as the “Liar Press”. I guess we should sarcastically start calling them “the Truth Press”.

 

German Citizens Have Had Enough…”Conflict Over Wind Turbines Escalating” …Against “Horror Landscapes”!

In Germany protests over a broad range of issues have been heightening.

In Dresden citizens have been turning out by the thousands in “Monday demonstrations” to protest the perceived threat of the Islamification of Europe and the so-called “liar media”, which they no longer trust. Since the Paris attacks by radical Islamic terrorists, the protesters have only become more emboldened.

Citizens are also clearly beginning to feel they are being misled by the “liar media” and politicians regarding wind energy. The glaring difference between what was promised and what is actually being delivered can no longer be ignored. Enough is enough!

Germany’s online SVZ.de writes that the “conflict over wind turbines is escalating” and that “criticism and fears are becoming louder” and that “citizen protest groups are forming at many locations“.

What does it mean? It means that wind and solar power are nothing like they were once cracked up to be. They are poor performers, costly, and are creating a nationwide blight that risks permanently scarring Germany’s once idyllic landscape and natural heritage.

Everything and anything can now be sacrificed at the alter of climate protection. Recently Die Welt published a scathing commentary on the “immensely dangerous power of the eco-cartel“, writing that “totalitarian undercurrents are plainly visible” and that the movement is all about power and money, and less so about environmental protection. Germany’s green movement has been corrupted to the bone.

In the state of Mecklenburg-Pomerania the SVZ.de site writes how an organization called Freier Horizont was established last November and serves as the umbrella for 40 citizens initiatives. “They are protesting against what they see as the uncontrolled expansion of wind energy and speak of horror landscapes.”

Freier Horizont Chairman Norbert Schumacher worries that wind energy will have negative impacts on the region’s coastal tourism. Citizens are concerned that Germany’s cherished Baltic Sea coast will be “blighted” and believe political leaders and wind energy developers are not taking their concerns seriously.

They aren’t, of course. It’s all about money. Even the most self-professed Greens are selling out to the big money of wind energy. For example Die Welt writes of German Green Party honcho Boris Palmer, someone “who grew up protesting the installation of power transmission towers is – no joke – demanding that natural parks and reserves be opened for the 200-meter tall rotating monsters, even if they are located right next World Heritage Sites.”

Greens like Palmer no longer have qualms about that, and so it should not surprise us that they are ready to trample and permanently damage heritage locations – e.g. like the Nazca Lines in Peru. It’s all in the name of the Green Allah: Climate Protection. Green madness has taken over in Germany, but citizens are waking up.

=======================
German readers may wish picking up a copy of “Alles grün und gut? Eine Bilanz des ökologischen Denkens“, by Dirk Maxeiner and Michael Miersch.

 

New York Times Dot Earth’s Andrew Revkin Suddenly Believes In “Natural” Causes (And Not Man-Made Ones)

A couple of days ago I wrote a piece aimed at encouraging readers to consider a diet change to improve their health for the coming new year, and to ignore the consensus high-carb/lowfat diet. My own health has improved dramatically since I stopped listening to the preventive maintenance advice peddled by the boys at the expensive repair and spare parts shop, advice that always seemed to land me on their workbenches. Go figure.

I also used it as an opportunity to illustrate the absurdity and the extreme danger of consensus-driven science, using Andrew Revkin’s stroke to highlight this.

In the example I suggested that his stroke was perhaps root-caused by the high-carb/low fat diet – the very one advocated as healthy by the consensus of America’s major health and medical institutes and associations. The one that we are finding out has been a catastrophe. I just assumed that Andrew followed their advice because, as we all know, he is a big believer in science by the consensus of leading experts – especially when critical issues are at stake. In effect I suggested that Mr. Revkin had been probably (and ironically) a victim of the very consensus he so dearly endorses, like he does in climatology.

Mr. Revkin reacted, denying that his brush with death had anything to do with (consensus) nutrition at all. I expected that. He wrote:

Hmm. You must not have read much of my article or related blog posts. http://j.mp/dotstroke I experienced what’s called a ‘spontaneous dissection’ of the left internal carotid artery (which is not in the brain). Resulting clots traveled to the brain. Such strokes are not a function of diet at all. My arteries were (and are) clear. These strokes are mainly triggered by physical injury to the carotid – everything from some yoga and chiropractic moves to tipping your head back in certain ways painting a ceiling, even getting a shampoo at the beauty parlor. The video, created by a medical illustration team for someone with a very similar stroke, is informative: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrNJ-Byuwm4

Here he claims his type of stroke was caused by “‘spontaneous dissection’ of the left internal carotid artery.”, which is like blaming a bridge collapse on “spontaneous beam rupture”. Well, bridge beams and rivets just don’t rupture for nothing when hardly loaded, do they? They do so because of rust from poor maintenance, or perhaps ignored fatigue-cracking as it ages. Andrew’s medical issues are personal and I don’t want to dwell into them in particular. But here he insists his arteries are healthy and suggests that “spontaneous dissection” in arteries in general is just something natural, a bit of bad luck (even though medical science shows that arterial health is in fact very closely related to nutrition). This is amazing.

It is truly stunning that some people can infer a possible connection between a single storm in New Jersey and SUV emissions in California, yet are not able to see the clear connection between diet and strokes in middle-aged men.

Ultimately it doesn’t matter if Mr. Revkin’s own stroke was nutrition-related or not. It’s not our business. What matters is that for many people who have suffered the same, or have had a heart attack, or who struggle with Type 2 diabetes, etc., it is very often diet-related and the direct result of the consensus-driven nutritional guidelines, which today are proving to have been underpinned by fraudulent and bogus science, read here.

Today the scientific literature tell us that Andrew’s condition, once very rare, has become more commonplace over the past decades. Strokes in middle age men are not natural incidents resulting from bad luck, but rather they are, as is the case with the explosion of cardiovascular disease and diabetes sweeping across the western world, a direct result of the catastrophic, junk-science-based medical and nutrition consensus of the past decades.

Thus it would be nice if people like Andrew Revkin would concede that the notion of consensus-driven science is dangerous, that it always needs to be vigorously questioned and that skeptics are essential.

I have a lot of respect for Mr. Revkin and he deserves much credit for bringing the much needed attention to the stroke issue. I just have serious issues about how he selectively applies science from field to field, whatever suits him best.

 

World’s Second Largest Reinsurer Swiss Re Sees Huge Drop In Losses From Natural/Manmade Catastrophes In 2014!

The online Swiss Handelszeitung (Trade News) reports on the world’s second largest reinsurer Swiss Re, and on the losses from natural catastrophes for 2014. Let’s recall that natural catastrophes are supposedly becoming more and more frequent due to the alleged man-made climate worsening from manmade CO2 emissions.

Hat-tip: Kurt

However the Handelszeitung writes that preliminary estimates show that the Swiss reinsurer saw “markedly less damage claims than in previous years” and far less loss of lives. Fortunately this is lots of good news, but the catastrophe-obsessed media are refusing to report it.

Deaths plunge almost 60%!

According to preliminary Swiss Re estimates, total economic losses from natural catastrophes and man-made disasters were USD 113 billion in 2014, down from USD 135 billion in 2013. Out of the total economic losses, insurers covered USD 34 billion in 2014, down 24% from USD 45 billion in 2013.

The 2014 loss amount is way below the annual average of $188 billion dollars for the past 10 years, 1.e. over 41% less.

The Swiss Re press release writes that disaster events have claimed around 11,000 lives this year – down almost a whopping 60% from the 27,000 fatalities in 2013.

“No major hurricane”

The Zurich, Switzerland based reinsurer attributes the reduced damage in part to “the mild hurricane season“. It adds: “No major hurricane made landfall in the US, the ninth year running that this has happened.”

“Very low temperatures and heavy snow”

Moreover, the major losses resulted from cold events. The Swiss Re writes that “2014 started with extreme winter conditions in the US and Japan and, as the year drew to a close, the Northeast US was once again gripped by very low temperatures and heavy snow. The storms in the US at the beginning of 2014 alone caused insured losses of USD 1.7 billion. This is above the average full-year winter storm loss number of USD 1.1 billion of the previous 10 years. In mid-May, a spate of strong storms with large hail stones hit many parts of the US over a five-day period, resulting in insured losses of USD 2.9 billion, the highest of the year.”

Another myth bites the dust.

 

60-Hour Blizzard Paralyzes Northern China, Russian Orient: 90 cm Snow, 105 km/hr Winds, Minus 20°C!

The main media often avoid reporting catastrophes involving bitter cold winter conditions, as it may cause the public to doubt global warming. So it’s little wonder that they have opted not to report on an ongoing massive blizzard pounding the Russian Orient, northern parts of China and extending to northern Japan.

However, the smaller media outlets are picking up where the mainstream media is slacking off.

The French language www.catnet.net reports here on “a very powerful snowstorm” that has hit the Russian Orient and Northern China and pumped very cold Arctic air into the region. It writes:

The storm in particular hit the Khabarovsk and dell’Amnur regions with heavy snowfalls and icy winds in the sector of North-North East that have reached speeds of 120-130 km/hr over the Okhotsk Sea.”

catnet.net writes of widespread power outages and winds of 105 km/hr and 72 cm of snow in the region of Khabarovsk. The region of d’ell’Amnur also saw 50 cm of snow with winds of over 105 km/hr. The catnet.net reports that the city of Komsomolsk has been “completely paralyzed“.

The English-language news.xinhuanet.com writes of an “ongoing blizzard” that continues “pelting the region with snow” and temperatures falling to -17°C.

China’s CCTV News presents a video of the conditions here and reports, “Strong winds with heavy snow reduced visibility in Fuyuan to less than 50 meters, affecting local traffic.”

CCTV News here also reports of a 60-hour blizzard pounding China’s Heilongjiang province and continuing even today: “Outdoor temperatures reached as low as minus 20 degree Celsius and the accumulated snow is up to 90 cm deep, leaving residents struggling to open doors.

 

NCEP November 2014 Globally One Of Coldest This Century…Bastardi: NOAA’s “Habit Of Jumping On” The Warmest Dataset

Veteran meteorologist Joe Bastardi at the Weatherbell Analytics Saturday Summary site sharply criticizes NOAA’s ongoing claims of all time high global temperatures being reached, the latest this past November.

Early in the video the Weatherbell expert says NOAA has a habit of ignoring the other many (cooler) datasets and jumping on the warmest one they can find:

One thing I want to try to sort of stop here is this whole, you know, record warmth ever type thing; I can’t help what NOAA does. Basically they use a database that, that I don’t what exactly they are up to, except for part of that database has pre-satellite temperatures. It is a much more coarse grid then say their NCEP database. And there are many ways of measuring the global temperature and NOAA has been in the habit of jumping on the one that is the warmest.”

Joe then shows an entire series of NCEP November global temperature charts for most years going back to 1997. Using the results for each year, I slapped together the following chart to show the overall trend for November. So much for the NOAA’s “record warmth”.

NCEP November global temperature

Global November temperature anomaly versus the year. From NCEP data. Note that Joe did not show the 2011 result, so a straight line was drawn from 2012 to 2010.

Although cold snaps, blizzards, record sea ice, ice in lakes in July, harsher winters, etc. are mere anecdotes, their increasing frequency globally flies in the face of the claims of record warmth repeated every month by NOAA. When compared to observations on the ground and other datasets, NOAA’s claims are looking more and more like the scientific propaganda one expects of a rogue government institute obsessed in a hypothesis and bent on misleading citizens.

The above chart clearly shows that the November trend is considerably downward – with a trend of more than 2°C cooling per century having occurred since the beginning of the century.

Given that the reality on the ground contradicts the weird claims made by the NOAA, the new Republican controlled Congress should start an investigation into the inner workings of the organization. The American taxpayer deserves much better.

 

Amazing…AP Reporter Seth Borenstein Emphasizing Value Of “New Catch Phrases” To Hype Up Climate Stories!

For the media, at least for the AP’s Seth Borenstein, it’s not about presenting the science in a professional and balanced manner, rather it’s all about sensationalizing it and getting the editor to print it.
The good stuff starts at about the 7:30 mark.

Can we rely on this kind of obviously tabloid-quality journalistic practice?

45:38 Craig Welch boasting:

Nobody in my newsroom quotes people who don’t believe climate change is real that I know of. And if I find out about it, I will go talk to them myself, but I also work in a newsroom where my managing editor used to be an environmental reporter and so there’s never been, I mean, he understands what we are doing, so.”

 

Veteran German Meteorologist Wolfgang Thüne Blasts “Fetch-And-Carry Stooge Journalism” …Hansen “Manipulated”

Thüne_Former German public television meteorologist anchorman Dr. Wolfgang Thüne has a harsh commentary on the state of climate science communication by journalism.

Photo: Dr. Wolfgang Thüne

In a nutshell Thüne claims journalism has failed in its ethical duty to inform the public on the climate issue and accepted the role of playing useful idiots and stooges on behalf of activist scientists.

Thüne begins by reminding journalists of the importance of being cautious about what they report, and “to not stand on the same the same level as the inventors and propagandists of the greenhouse effect and climate catastrophe“.

He calls on journalists to get back to more investigative journalism instead of swallowing without question everything institutionalized science feeds them.

The veteran meteorologist writes that fighting the weather and climate is a totally a futile endeavor, reminding that it is a natural chaotic phenomenon that cannot be fought by man:

A ‘global transformation’ and the creation of a ‘world government’ will do nothing to change the general circulation and weather variety of the earth.”

When it comes to climate catastrophes, Thüne calls them the Saturnalia of journalists. The climate catstrophe for German journalists was born on January 22, 1986 at the Hotel Tulpenhof in Bonn:

On this day the German Physical Society e. V. had invited journalists in order to present to them the ‘warning of the threatening climate catastrophe’. […]

Explained was CO2’s role as a potential source of danger for global climate changes. The effect of CO2 was compared to the glass cover of a greenhouse that is ‘heated’ only by solar radiation. With a doubling of CO2 concentration, the temperature would increase 2°C in the tropics, 4°C at ‘our latitudes’ and about 8°C at the polar regions and cause a shift in the climate zones. If the ice floating at the Arctic and the ice on the Antarctic continent disappeared, then the sea level  would rise successively up to 60 meters.”

Thüne writes this is where journalists dropped the ball. He writes:

That would have been the ideal hour for critical journalism, however the journalists froze, intimidated by the wisdom of the physical science prominence represented by physics professors K. Heinloth (Bonn) and J. Fricke (Wurzburg). Not a single journalist dared to question the physicists about climate, which is statistically derived from weather and thus only depicts and reflects the historical weather change.”

Here Dr. Thüne writes that journalists in general have three choices when receiving news of an imminent catastrophe from experts:
1. Should they accept the information as is and distribute it, simply playing the role of fetch and carry.
2. Should they look at the supplied news critically, and check it out?
3. Or should they take it, and dramatize it to increase the effect on the public?

Unfortunately, Thüne writes, news magazine Der Spiegel chose the latter option in its August 11, 1986 issue, whose front cover donned a powerfully emotional image of a semi-submerged Cologne Cathedral. Here Der Spiegel grossly crossed the boundaries of responsible journalism in implying an upcoming Biblical wrath of God – brought on by the sins of man. Not only did Spiegel play the role of stooge for a dubious science, but had engaged in an orgy of sensationalistic journalism that would make even the shoddiest of tabloids blush.

The rest of Germany’s media unhesitatntly followed Spiegel’s example. Thüne writes that while the German Physical Society brought us the misnomer of ‘climate catastrophe’, it was Spiegel who popularized it.

To summarise, Thüne cites journalism experts H.-P. Peters M. Sippel:

Not the environmental movement, not the catastrophe – rather it was the warnings of scientists who publicly and politically exposed themselves who were the international godfathers of the climate debate.”

Thüne also adds that the American media also gladly accepted the fetch-and-carry role on behalf of an activist sicence, slamming James Hansen:

In the hot summer months the media over-proportionately reported on the greenhouse effect. Especially the hot summer of 1988 was used by James Hansen (NASA) to dramatize the consequences of the greenhouse effects and to manipulate the psychological climate of Congress.”

Thüne sums up:

More humility by journalists would boost their reputation when it comes to credibility.

 

Climate Change Dying As An Issue In German Media…Empty Seats Pack Hamburg “9th Extreme Weather Congress”!

This past week the 9th Extreme Weather Congress took place in Hamburg. Curiously this year there was very little coverage by the German media. Doing a Google search of the event turned up very few stories from the mainstream media.

9th ExtremWetterKongress 2014

Empty seats pack Day 3 of the Hamburg 9th Extreme Weather Conference, just minutes before starting. Source: here (11:12 mark).

The above photo is a snapshot from a Youtube video, just minutes before the start of Day 3 of the Congress.

Looks like the German media have grown fatigued by climate science in general and have sensed that something isn’t right with what the “experts” have been claiming. Record high sea ice, lack of hurricanes, low tornado activity, spectacularly failed climate models and bitter cold winters have a way of sobering them up.

Some German public television networks showed up on the first day, see here for example, but there too we see many empty seats – unusual given the opening first day hype.

Not a peep about Antarctic sea ice record

We begin to sense the media is feeling increasingly embarrassed about the climate issue overall. Any reminder of how they’ve been duped gets avoided altogether. Little wonder when Googling “rekord eis antarktis 2014“, we quickly find that the German mainstream media have totally ignored this year’s record high south polar sea ice event altogether. Too embarrassing! Besides, German viewers are totally bored by the climate issue.

Some small sites have reported the event, though. The online German weather site www.wetteronline.de writes that Arctic sea ice is “considerably greater than the record low year of 2012” and that the German Polarstern research vessel of the Alfred Wegener Institute “did not succeed in crossing the Northwest Passage of the American continent in the second half of August“.

Wetteronline.de also looked at the situation at the Antarctic, which this year smashed the all-time satellite era sea ice record. The site however, avoided the use of the word “record” and wrote:

…the sea ice around Antarctica reached 20 million square kilometers. Thus the 30-year maximum of last year was exceeded by about 0.4 million square kilometers.”

Of course this new satellite record high has baffled climate scientists, who are left stumped and only to speculate what is behind the unexpected trend. Wetteronline writes:

The reason for this, scientists suspect, among other factors, is a weakening sea current around Antarctica. Thus there is less mixing of the water masses which favours the growth of the sea ice.”

There’s no data to back this up, and so it just means the scientists don’t have a clue, are just shooting in the dark, and they should just say so.

Meanwhile, alarmist site Klimaretter presented its polar sea ice summary for 2014, but forgot to mention anything at all about the South Pole.

 

Viennese Climate Waltz…Austrian Media/State Officials Still Using Faulty Models, Misleading The Public

UPDATE: Ed Caryl provided the following:

Vienna_1995_2015

Based on GISS data

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

Even though IPCC climate models and expected climate trends have proven themselves to be completely false and useless, see here and here, parts of the Austrian media and state sector have no qualms using them, and in doing so they are misleading the public.

A recent example is the climate-alarmist Vienna-based Der Standard online daily in a recent piece titled: Climate in Vienna: More heat days, new plants.

The whole premise of the story is based on the climate models being right, which in fact today we know they have been universally wrong.

Palm trees in Vienna in a few decades!

In the article written by Christa Minkin and Julia Schilly, it is claimed that palm trees are to be expected in “a few decades in the Viennese forest – thanks to climate change,” citing ecologist Franz Essl of the Austrian Federal Ministry of Environment.

Minkin and Schilly also warn that Vienna is going to be hot in the future, all exacerbated by the urban heat island effect, citing “a new Austrian expert report on climate change“.

In 1910 there were only two heat days – i.e. temperatures over 30°C. In 2000 already 17 were measured.”

Der Standard also looks very deeply into the climate crystal ball…all the way to the year 2070 to 2100. Minkin and Schilly write:

For the period of 2070 to 2100 researchers anticipate a rise to more than 35 heat days per year on average. At the same time nights in Vienna will cool down less.”

Moreover, foreign plants will begin their invasion and displace domestic ones, the experts warn.

Slight cooling over the last 16 years

So with all the warnings of more unbearable heat days in the future, one might assume that temperatures in Austria must be currently on the rise. I searched the Internet for the temperature data series for Vienna, but unfortunately I wasn’t successful finding it. So I contacted the European Institute for Climate and Energy to see if they might be able to help out. They answered promptly by e-mail (slightly paraphrased):

Unfortunately we do not have the more recent data because the Austrian Weather Service does not make them public, only up to 2003. That’s why it’s not possible to show the last 15 years graphically, and so climatologists in Austria can claim whatever they want.”

Fortunately, EIKE was able to provide the recent data for Graz city center. Here we see despite the urban location there’s been a slight cooling.

Graz temperature trend

Mean annual temperature for Graz city center over the last 16 years.

The trend in Graz matches the overall trend of a slight cooling over central Europe over the last two decades.

So with the IPCC models having performed so horrendously, and in view of the fact there has been no warming trend in Austria for 16 years, it is truly a mystery how anyone could claim that summer heat days will just keep on rising linearly until the end of the century.

When the models are failures, then the future projections based on them are worthless.

 

Extreme Stupidity: Bremen’s ‘Weser Kurier’ Daily Now Claiming Climate Change Is Damaging Church Organs

This story is a perfect illustration of how today’s journalists will print anything they told by swindling climate scientists.
==========================================

Bremen’s Weser Kurier daily is very sure: “Climate change is damaging organs”

By Sebastian Lüning and Fritz Vahrenholt
(Translated, edited by P Gosselin)

The newspaper of the German port city of Bremen, the Weser Kurier surprised its readers on September 8 with almost unbelievable news:

Climate change is damaging organs

It sounds like a paradox, but the consequences of climate change were visible to see with the St. Andreas Church organ a few weeks ago. ‘The instrument was beset by mold and mildew“, says organ builder Martin Hillebrand from Isernhagen. For about six weeks he and his team have been working in the church to meticulously clean the organ and to fine-tune the pipes.”

We already suspected climate change for many things, but its role as a vandal of church organs is something new. So how does it cause mold and mildew to infest the organ? How does that work? The Weser Kurier tells us:

The mold infestation in the instrument is not a single occurrence – quite to the contrary. According to Hillebrand about 70 percent of the organs in so-called village churches are under attack. ‘This involves mainly churches where the people congregate for mass only every other week or less often. These churches are thus heated less and so in the wintertime they quickly become very prone to moisture,’ said the expert. Fungus attacks are also helped by warm, moist climate in the summertime. ‘Research instituites have shown that this and the relative humidity will increase in the future,’ says Hillebrand.”

So it’s not really due to climate change, but moreso people are going to church less and less? Those who do not heat have to expect mold – that’s been a well-known rule for a very long time. Warm, humid summers in Germany are also known. In summer it’s warm, and in winter it’s cold. What’s new? Only the relative humidity remains. Has it really risen over the last decades because of climate change? Here we take a look at the data from Braunschweig at the norddeutschen Klimamonitor website (Figure 1).

Oh dear, the relative humidity has actually trended downwards over the last 50 years. Climate change is not guilty! The problem actually appears to be caused by the lack of heating in churches, which promotes mold infestation. The climate-activist Weser Kurier once again regrettably has told its readers nonsense. The editors would surely welcome some letters from readers. Here is their contact page.

Figure 1: Trend of relative humidity in Braunschweig. Source: norddeutscher Klimamonitor.

 

2014: The Year Arctic Meltdown Stories Completely Vanished From Our Media!

Two years ago at about this time of year the media were overflowing at the brim with apocalyptic stories of high-speed Arctic meltdown. Everywhere the media used words like “dramatic”, catastrophic”, “accelerated”, “tipping point” and so on.

Except for the story of an overall long-term trend claimed by one paper from the Alfred Wegener Institute (AWI) claiming a long-term accelerated ice melt at both poles, the media have been eerily silent on news about sea ice extent in the Arctic.

Right now the media silence is so deafening that you can hear a pin drop on the Arctic ice.

This year so far has indeed been a bad year for weather catastrophes. The pickings have gotten awfully meager for the alarmists and the media, who have had to content themselves with hyper-inflating anecdotal weather events to keep the climate scare living, albeit in a coma.

Tornadoes have been well below normal, cold temperatures have prevailed over many populated areas this summer, hurricanes have been scarce (not even a tropical storm on the globe today), Antarctica is at near record high sea ice levels, global temperatures stagnant almost two decades now…and now even the Arctic has moved into the skeptic column. Nothing is going the way the alarmists had projected years ago.

That’s why we’re getting phony weather forecasts for year 2050. There’s nothing else!

Arctic may have already reached low point – 2 weeks early

Some charts are showing that the Arctic sea ice may have already reached its low point in late August…more than two weeks early:

Arctic_2014 Sept 1

Source: www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/png

The chart above shows this year’s late summer extent could be higher than half a dozen other years on the recent record. So it’s no wonder that the climate catastrophe-cheerleaders in the media have been dead silent on the Arctic this year. Nowhere in the German media are there  catastrophic, dramatic Arctic meltdown stories announcing the tipping of the climate system. All gone this year.

For that we will have to wait until next year, perhaps. Or maybe the year after, or maybe when the missing heat comes out of hiding – a time that no climate model is able to tell us so far.

 

German Scientists Aghast At BBC Censorship: “Fear Of A Serious Factual Discussion”…”An Egregious Step”

Geologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Professor of Chemistry Fritz Vahrenholt also posted today on the BBC’s lapse away from democratic principles: the right to free and open debate on important issues.
===========================

Fear of a serious factual discussion: Climate alarmists pressure BBC to censorship of the public climate debate

By Fritz Vahrenholt and Sebastian Lüning
(German passages translated by P Gosselin)

In February 2014 Lord Nigel Lawson, former Chancellor of the Exchequer under Margaret Thatcher, took part in a climate debate on BBC Radio. In it he represented climate-realistic positions while his discussion partner Sir Brian Hoskins defended the climate alarmist direction. The debate was moderated by Justin Webb of the BBC. What follows is an excerpt (via GWPF):

Lord Lawson: No measured warming, exactly. Well that measurement is not unimportant. But even if there is some problem, it is not going to affect any of the dangers except marginally. What we want to do is focus with the problems there are with climate – drought, floods and so on. These have happened in the past – they’re not new. As for emissions, this country is responsible for less than 2% of global emissions. Even if we cut our emissions to 0 – which would put us back to the pre-industrial revolution and the poverty that that gave – even if we did that, it would be outweighed by China’s increase in emissions in a single year. So it is absolutely crazy this policy. It cannot make sense at all.

Sir Brian Hoskins: I think we have to learn two lessons from this. The first one is that by increasing the greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere, particularly carbon dioxide, to levels not seen for millions of years on this planet, we are performing a very risky experiment. We’re pretty confident that that means if we go on like we are the temperatures are going to rise somewhere between 3-5 degrees by the end of this Century, sea levels up to half to 1 metre rise.

Justin Webb: Lord Lawson was saying there that there had been a pause – which you hear a lot about – a pause of 10 / 15 years in measured rising of temperature. That is the case isn’t it?

Sir Brian Hoskins: It hasn’t risen very much over the last 10-15 years. If you measure the climate from the globally averaged surface temperature, during that time the excess energy has still been absorbed by the climate system and is being absorbed by the oceans.

Justin Webb: So it’s there somewhere?

Sir Brian Hoskins: Oh yes, it’s there in the oceans.

Lord Lawson: That is pure speculation.

Sir Brian Hoskins: No, it’s a measurement.

Lord Lawson: No, it’s not. It’s speculation.”

As a consequence, some BBC listeners complained that a climate realist should have never been invited on the show. Supposedly people became afraid when they noticed Lawson’s arguments came across as far more convincing than those from Hoskins. In a look back at the event in the Daily Mail, Lawson commented on am 9 July 2014:

The BBC was overwhelmed by a well-organised deluge of complaints — many of them, inevitably, from those with a commercial interest in renewable energy, as well as from the Green Party — arguing that, since I was not myself a scientist, I should never have been allowed to appear.”

Over the following months the complaints were reviewed by the BBC Complaints Office. In June 2014 an egregious step was taken: The complaints were upheld by the BBC. They claimed in short that Lawson had made false arguments. In reality a faulty accusation, as Lawson explains in his Daily Mail piece:

In fact, there was nothing I said in the entire Today programme discussion that was incorrect, nor, indeed, did Sir Brian Hoskins suggest otherwise. This can be confirmed by reading the full transcript, still available on my foundation’s website at thegwpf.org/Hoskins-vs-lawson-the-climate-debate-the-bbc-wants-to-censor, and possibly also on the BBC’s website, if they have not removed it out of embarrassment. The only untruth came from the unreliable Mr Chong of the Green Party who accused me of claiming on the programme that climate change ‘was all a conspiracy’. Needless to say, I said nothing of the sort, as the transcript makes clear.”

It appears the BBC will no longer be providing the climate realistic side any broadcast time. Already one can hear cheers from the climate-alarmists: Finally no more annoying discussions! Enough with democratic wastes of time, long live the IPCC dictatorship! Lawson explained in a piece in the Daily Mail:

The head of the BBC’s Editorial Complaints Unit, a Mr Fraser Steel, whose qualifications for the job are unclear and whose knowledge of the complex climate change issue is virtually non-existent, has written to a little-known but active Green Party politician called Chit Chong to apologise for the fact I was allowed to appear on the programme and to make clear this will not happen again. Among the reasons given in Mr Steel’s letter for upholding Mr Chong’s complaint and over-ruling the BBC’s head of news programmes is the mind-boggling statement that: ‘As you have pointed out, Lord Lawson’s views are not supported by the evidence from computer modelling.’ Evidence? However useful computer models may be, the one thing they cannot be is evidence. Computer climate models are simply conjectures, expressed in the form of mathematical equations (the language of computers), which lead to forecasts of future global temperatures, which can then be compared with the evidence on the ground.”

The director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, Benny Peiser, criticized the decision by the BBC in an interview in the iai news (excerpt):

IAI: So do you think that, when it comes to the media, it is a one-sided kind of alarmist perception of risk that comes into question?

PEISER: Of course, because they are well-known for pointing out everything that is alarming and being silent on reports that show it is not as alarming. So you have a bias in favour of alarm, and a kind of ignoring any evidence that suggests that it might not be that alarming.

It’s about people who think we are facing doomsday, and people who are thinking that the issue of climate change is exaggerated. And if you deny anyone sceptical of the apocalyptic doomsday prophecies, then you get in a position where the BBC is so biased that MPs are beginning to consider cutting the license fee, or abolishing the license fee altogether, because people are beginning to be upset by the BBC’s bias.

This is a self-defeating policy; the BBC is digging its own grave by annoying half of the population who are known to be sceptical about the alarmist claims which are not substantiated, which are not founded on any evidence. They are only based on on some kinds of computer modelling, which is not scientific evidence.

IAI: So scientific evidence, such as computer modelling and research, is being used as an instrument in the rhetoric?

PEISER: Well there is a big difference between observation, what you actually observe in reality – that’s what I would call evidence – and computer models that try to model the climate in 50 or 100 years time. I wouldn’t call that evidence. There is a difference between evidence and people saying, “if we don’t act now then in 50 or a 100 years time we will face mega catastrophe”. That’s not evidence, it is speculation.”

Read the complete interview at the iai news.

 

Tol/Lomborg Becoming Powerful Voices Of Reason On Climate Policy In German Media: “1 Euro Costs…3 Cents Benefit”

Lomborg_1It seems that it is beginning to dawn on some of Europe’s mainstream media: The transition to green energies is turning out to be ten or even 100 times more expensive than what they were led to believe just a few years ago.

Increasingly we have been seeing reports featuring renowned climate economists such as Bjørn Lomborg or Richard Tol in the German-language mainstream media.

The message: Hey, this green energy policy really isn’t working well at all.

And again the climate policy critics Tol and Lomborg are being featured by the German-language media as respected dissident voices, this time by the online Austrian nachrichten.at in an article titled: 1 Euro Kosten, 3 Cent Nutzen. In English:

1 euro costs, 3 cents benefit

First the nachrichten.at discusses what could be the most economically sensible way of reducing CO2 emissions. So far the measures that have been implemented have been both effective and ineffective: Effective at costing lots of money, ineffective at actually reducing CO2 emissions.

The nachrichten.at writes that the most effective policy to reduce carbon emissions may be a CO2 tax, but then writes how Australia has just repealed it because of its sheer unpopularity.

The Austrian nachrichten.at then writes about the astronomical costs and the utter ineffectivity of climate policy so far:

Already the EU 2020 strategy costs 185 billion euros annually. By the end of the century the costs will run to 15 trillion euros. With this, according to the UN IPCC, the global temperature increase will be lowered 0.05°C. For every euro that the EU pays into climate protection, it prevents 3 cents worth of damage from climate change. Lomborg writes: ‘That is not rational policy!'”

The nachrichten.at quotes what Lomborg said in 2013:

If the measures against climate change are not economically efficient, then they will not be sustainable because countries struggling to emerge like India and China will not follow along.”

Tol U of SussexMoreover the article presents harsh criticism from Richard Tol, writing:

Trillions of euros, zero effect

What has been done and planned thus far has been a debacle. […] Although the consequences of climate change cannot be denied, they have, however, been drastically overestimated. Tol accuses the climate scientists of acting ‘bitterly and politically’.”

Things are slowly changing. German language media are increasingly presenting other opinions to get the public to take another look at where the current, skewed energy policy is leading. That’s good news because a debate has long been sorely missing. As the costs skyrocket, the days of isolating divergent opinions may be ending.

Photo top right (Lomborg): Source
Photo bottom right (Tol): Source