Consensus Gone: Only 56% Of Nobel Laureates Sign Mainau Declaration 2015 On Climate Change!

The online German flagship daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) conducted an interview with Australian astrophysicist and Nobel Prize laureate Brian Schmidt, revealing that so far only 36 of 65 Nobel laureates attending the Lindau Nobel laureate conference have signed the so-called 2015 Mainau Declaration, a document urging world leaders to act quickly on climate change.

The FAZ interview bears the title: “The evidence that must not be distorted.”

In the interview conducted by Joachim Müller-Jung, Schmidt gives the impression that there is an almost universal consensus and certainty on the science, that the IPCC is 99% sure that humans have been responsible for the recent climate change.

ipcc_fig1-4_models_obsWhen Schmidt is asked by the FAZ directly why he is so sure about the science, Schmidt says he relies on the models…”extremely complex models“, and adds that although they do not know whether things in the future will happen exactly as the IPCC says they will, Schmidt tells the FAZ “we can say that most of the model calculations lead to a serious change in the atmosphere that will be unacceptable. This change puts everything in doubt it leads to perhaps the greatest crisis for mankind. […] I would say that we can be 99 percent certain that a dangerous and man-made climate change is taking place.”

Consensus? Only 56% signed

And it turns out that not many Nobel laureates are as sure as Schmidt. The FAZ asks why “just a bit over half” of the laureates attending the Lindau conference signed the document, i.e. only 35 of 66 Nobel laureates. Schmidt replies first by claiming that there is actually only one person who steadfastly refuses to sign (Ivar Giaever) and that:

Most of the others simply had to leave the conference earlier or had second thoughts about signing because it was beyond their expertise.”

When asked by the FAZ what would happen if it turned out they are all wrong, Schmidt answers: “Then I am the first to admit that I was wrong. But I am 99 percent sure that this will not happen.”

Here Schmidt may want to look at the comparison of the model projects and the real observed data (see IPCC chart above).

At the end Schmidt says that U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu and Royal Society President Paul Nurse played key roles in authoring the Mainau manifesto.


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

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

[Read here for more background on Schellnhuber.]

Wendt quotes the climate-alarmist Schellnhuber:

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

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

According to Wendt, the FAZ journalists anxiously asked Schellnhuber:

The skeptics were invited as well?”

Schellnhuber replied:

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

Wendt summarizes what we naturally can gather from all this:

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

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

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

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

Heartland Institute Now Distributing ‘The Neglected Sun’ …Scientists Say IPCC “Grossly Incorrect”

Neglected Sun HeartlandA reader recently left a comment saying he had been having difficulty getting a copy of “The Neglected Sun“, the best-selling non-alarmist climate science book showing how man-made climate change is nowhere near as serious as the IPCC wants us to believe it is.

Order here now.

Good news! The Die kalte Sonne site here reports that The Neglected Sun, the English version, which sold out a few months ago, will once again be printed and available from the Chicago-based powerhouse think-tank The Heartland Institute, who have purchased the rights to the book.

It is now available at Amazon here, or at the Heartland Institute online shop for US$ 19.99. The Kindle version is available at Amazon for US$ 11.11. Shipping begins July 1, 2015.

The book was also translated in Polish and has been available since October 2014.

IPCC’s “grossly incorrect radiative forcing values”

According to authors Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt, the book is up-to-date, cites hundreds of peer-reviewed literature and explains in easy terms why the CO2 climate sensitivity has been totally overblown and how the sun and oceans are the primary climate drivers.

They commented in an e-mail:

Detailed comparison with the palaeoclimatological development demonstrates that the climate change observed over the past 100 years is nothing new, neither qualitatively nor quantitatively. Natural climate variability is much more important than previously thought and solar activity changes and ocean cycles are some of the key drivers. It turns out that the IPCC has made major mistakes in the attribution of the 20th century warming which leads to grossly incorrect radiative forcing values in the IPCC reports.”

The two authors also point to the latest UK Met Office report which shows we may be heading into a new cold phase due to low solar activity.

NASA data are “suspicious”

The two prominent German skeptics are also distrustful of NASA GISS temperature data, claiming the temperature “corrections” are “suspicious” because “they always result in amplification of the warming trend, never the opposite. Artificial cooling of the past and artificial warming of the present-day.”

What to expect from Paris

On what we can expect from Paris later this year, the two co-authors write that there will be some sort of treaty “but likely without a lot of substance and with lots of vagueness and loopholes.”

Also pick up a copy of Climate Change: The Facts:



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

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

What does the pope know about our climate?

By Uli Weber
[Translated/edited by P Gosselin]

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

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

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

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

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

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

… and both agree with the politics:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Galileo is chuckling”

The Weltwoche article writes in its introduction:

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

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

“The Amen to the reporters of the IPCC”

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

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

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

A Hail Mary to reverse crumbling consensus?

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

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

Stiff opposition

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

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


German Physics Prof Blasts Climate Science …”Far Too Removed From The Scientific Facts”!

The online North German NWZ daily here has an article on a speech given by University of Konstanz physics professor Dr. Gerd Ganteför on the subject of Germany’s transition to renewable energies, the so-called Energiewende, and on the general irrationalities pervading German climate science.

He says that the country appears to have “a desire for demise“.

In a presentation called “The Energiewende – Vision and Reality“, he reminded the audience of earlier end-of-world scenarios that never materialized, such as “the end of oil, forest die-off from acid rain, ozone hole”. He thinks that the German population “can be convinced of anything, ‘as long as it’s bad!‘” the NWZ reports.

Ice age approaching

Ganteför told the audience that the climate is going to change anyway even without the influence of man. And on a millennial scale: “The current warm phase will end at that we are approaching a new ice age.” He also told the audience that eliminating light bulbs and using smaller vacuum cleaners are not going to rescue any climate whatsoever.

Energiewende will fail

So far in Ganteför’s view the Energiewende has been limited only to a transition in the electricity supply and that this will fail due to the lack of storage technology.

Removed from scientific fact

The NWZ also writes that Ganteför “criticizes the ‘false fear’ in the public discussion: Germany has become far too removed from the scientific facts and is too caught up in the current zeitgeist: ‘Indeed we are all going to die, but not because of the climate catastrophe,’ was his prediction at the end.”

Photo credit:

Gerd Ganteför is also the author of the German language books: Climate, the demise of the world is not taking place and Is everything NANO or what?: Nanotechnology for the curious.


A Reader Rejects The Old Consensus On Medical Science, And Immediately Finds Vastly Improved Health

My father used to say that medical doctors were really gangsters in white coats. I used to think he was just being cynical, and so I pretty much dismissed it. Well it turns out his attitude allowed him to live beyond 90, and today I realize he was right all along.

What follows below is a reader comment by MJSnyder that really made my day. A couple of days ago I posted here on the consensus-led disaster of the lipid hypothesis. One reader got all upset about it and attempted to discredit the doctor whom I was citing with the aim of discrediting the science.

Of course one doctor doesn’t make science. But over the past years an entire chorus of doctors have emerged, and they are sharply criticizing the at times fraudulent science underpinning the lipid hypothesis. Even the government, having seen tens of millions of diabetics over the recent decades, has finally begun accepting the new results that fat and cholesterol are not killers after all and that they are actually healthy. Longstanding dietary guidelines are being amended.

I’ve switched to a high-fat, low-carb diet with vegetables and have seen amazing results when it comes to weight and examination test results. No more medicines for me. Of course this really bothers evil Big Pharma. But I’m not the only one who has seen success…

Here’s what one reader sent:

Pierre – Last year you had a posting on your life-style changes that intrigued me, so I followed the links, that lead to more links, that lead…..
I became convinced that the low carb diet was the way to go. So I switched to high fat, low carb. I’m now down 43 lbs, my blood pressure has normalized (now 5 pills less per day), my type II diabetes is controlled (7 pills less). I’ve also dropped Lipitor (cholesterol statin) and no longer have excruciating leg cramps.
My original goal was a loss of 80 lbs, but this has been so easy to attain that I’m thinking of extending it to 100 lbs.
I’m feeling so good about myself again that I’m seriously planning another cross-continent bicycle tour. That would the 3rd. I’m 71 years now.
Thank you Pierre – I’m very grateful for you sharing your personal experiences.

I’m convinced that the Climate Science industry and the Pharmacological industry are fraternal twins.

What’s incredible is that the cure is so simple and only involves nutrition adjustments – nothing more. Tens of millions have the opportunity to get better soon, in less than a year!

I’ve posted a couple of times on nutrition, and I think the reader means this post:…

Or perhaps here:

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

Update: To the sheep of David Appell:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result he writes:

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

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

Imagine that it took 6 decades to figure that out.

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

Consensus is the brake failure of science

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

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

The 97% should have been ignored

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

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

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:

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,

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)]
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
University City Tübingen
City Adminsitration im Blauen Turm
Friedrichstraße 21, 72072 Tübingen
Tel. (0 70 71) 204 – 1200; Fax (0 70 71) 204 -1000

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.

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Sent: 18 March 2015

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours sincerely”


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

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

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

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

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

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

Hat-tip: Die kalte Sonne (in English: climate is now offering a new, very special service to readers: They now have the chance to deliver “explosive disclosure material” on climate skeptics and their clandestine activities at an anonymous letter box: The site explains:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Send in your explosive documents

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

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

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


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 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!”


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

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

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

Google Truth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Censorship can be fought

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

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

So will Google and its many backstage operators be successful?

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

The ninety seven percent problem: which consensus?

By Uli Weber
(Translated/edited by P Gosselin)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Government (Junk) Science Advances 100 Million Funerals At A Time

According to University of California pediatric endocrinologist Robert Lustig, the US had 6 million “seriously overweight” kids in 2001. Since then that number has skyrocketed to over 20 million.

Worldwide there are 366 million people with diabetes. By 2030, if trends are not curbed, 165 million Americans will be obese and by 2050 100 million will have diabetes. Lustig calls it “a standard pandemic” The related health costs will be astronomical – and unaffordable. No modern civilization can survive that.

Tragically these are the numbers that were necessary to finally get the US government to concede that its longstanding dietary guidelines (once solidly and irrefutably confirmed by the “vast consensus of scientific experts”) had been severely flawed for decades. Read here and here.

Why did it take so damn long for the government to wake up? It gets down to obstinate egomaniacal scientists, greedy food and pharmaceutical industries, and governments corrupted by the same industries. See here.

Because established scientists have a long habit of insisting their pet theories are right and scoff at those who challenge them, renowned German physicist Max Planck once wisely remarked, “Science advances one funeral at a time.” he noticed that false theories don’t die until their founders do. Sadly, as the case of nutritional sciences shows, hundreds of millions of people have gotten or are about to get early funerals. Hence, government science advances 100 million funerals at a time. Such is now the case with the science concerning saturated fats and human health.

The very same tragedy has begun in earnest in climate science today. Just as the saturated fat theory was founded on the junk science and phony 7-Country chart of Ancel Keys, the CO2 global warming theory was founded on the junk science of NASA scientist James Hansen and the dubious hockey stick graph of Michael E. Mann. And just as dissenters were ignored, marginalized and cut off from funding in the nutritional sciences, so are skeptic global warming scientists experiencing the same today. And just as a consensus among all scientists was claimed endorsing the saturated fat theory (fully backed by the National Academy of Sciences and virtually every American medical association), an illusionary 97% consensus is also being claimed in climate science today. And just as the American Dietary Guidelines were promoted and made official by a Democrat Presidential loser candidate (George McGovern), the global warming science and proposed energy dietary guidelines are being promoted today by Democrat Presidential loser candidate Al Gore. The parallels between the two sciences indeed could not be more stunning.

It would be nice if the parallels ended there, but it is unlikely they will. Just as the case has been with the saturated fat theory, the CO2 climate change theory now risks killing hundreds of millions in the future – thanks to energy poverty and starvation. Without energy, people die horrible deaths from exposure.

All of this could be avoided, of course, if only governments were honest in their interpretation of climate data and stopped making up excuses for colder and colder  winters, and 18 years of zero warming. Unfortunately that does not appear likely to happen anytime soon. Tragically it’ll probably take tens of millions of unnecessary premature deaths resulting from energy deprivation to get the governments to realize they have made a horrible mistake. Instead of making a course correction on the climate issue, the US government, led by NASA, is now altering the historical temperature data in a manner that would even make Ancel Keyes blush.

People can argue about the impacts of faulty science on human life. But one thing cannot be argued: Truth leads to life; lies lead to death.

Clearly the US policy will likely have to see another 100 million or so early funerals before it allows climate science to advance.


German Climate Group Discussion To Focus On 2014 Global Temperature: “No Evidence Of An Especially Warm 2014″

German climate science critical group is holding its next meeting at the Freizeitheim Linden in Hannover, Germany, 19 February, at 7:30 pm.

The group regularly has meetings on climate and is known for taking the discussions directly to the public, but doing so with respect, courtesy and politeness. It writes:

The main topic of the next meeting is the reliability of the temperature measurements. There’s the frightening suspicion that NASA (GISS) has manipulated the temperatures upwards. How much of this is true?

At the last meeting we discussed the topic of 2014 being the warmest year in Germany and worldwide since records began.

Short summary:

Germany: Despite the warmest year since records began, the overall trend shows no increasing temperature, (see 1 and 2), over which the German DWD Weather Service has yet to inform the public.

Globe: 2014 was a warm year, like 2010, but it was the warmest with only 38% certainty. The Met Office in Great Britain has even distanced itself from the claim that it has been the warmest ever because the temperature was only 0.02°C above the old record, which is well within the range of uncertainty (Met Office).

Satellite measurements show no evidence of an especially warm 2014 (UAH).

The warm temperatures of 2014 were weather and therefore do not symbolize any temperature trend. The stagnation in global temperature persists.

Satellite measurements by RSS: No temperature increase in 18 years:


Source: The huge stop extends once again.

If you have questions about climate or energy, we’ll gladly answer them.

The discussion is easy to follow and an open discussion that includes varying points of views are at the forefront, and will remain the most important characteristic of this initiative.

Those interested in joining the Hannover discussion are welcome to contact (in English if you prefer): Achim Fahnenschild:


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

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

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

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

Catholics reject intolerance and hatred

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

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

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

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


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

Read more at the Daily Mail.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vatican sees Galileo as a “leading figure”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As if it ever had one.


Tim Flannery “Has Plenty Of Company In The Dunce’s Corner” …Climate Science’s Long List Of Failed Predictions

Good article at Quadrant magazine here on the background behind the many failed predictions of disaster in climate science and the strange characters behind them.

Hat tip: reader Stefan.

Warmists Take the Hardest Hits

Anyone can be a prophet of doom….

Why can’t the global-warming catastrophe industry convince the public that the scare underwriting its meal ticket is real? Even the CSIRO’s  annual survey last year  showed that 53% of Australians reject the official story. And even on the CSIRO’s figures, Aussies rank climate fourteenth out of sixteen concerns overall, and we rate it only seventh out of eight even among environmental concerns. In Britain, more of the same, with a new survey showing those who describe themselves “very concerned” about climate change falling to 18%, down from 44% in 2005.

Partly to blame is that dratted 18-year halt to global warming, even as man-made CO2 continues to pour into the skies. But my theory is that the global warming industry has made itself so ridiculous over the past 30 years, so hyperventilatingly ludicrous, by predicting ever-more-dire catastrophes by the year 20XX.  But then year 20XX   comes and goes and life continues as normal. …

Continue reading here

Top Swiss Avalanche Expert Werner Munter Calls IPCC Report “A Scientific Farce”…”Piss Take”!

He looks more like a guru, even a prophet. In Switzerland 73 year old Swiss Alps mountain guide Werner Munter is known as the “avalanche pope”. No one knows more about avalanches in the Alps and their risks than he does.


Werner Munter: Image credit:

Having authored some 20 books, he is credited for having revolutionized the science of avalanches.

The online Swiss here featured the expert and his position on the IPCC’s latest report late last year. writes that although Munter is not a climate expert, he has read up on the subject extensively, and quotes Munter:

It’s unbelievable arrogance to believe that we would be able to sustainably influence the climate.”

He also tells that he has found no evidence showing how CO2 could warm the climate. Swissinfo writes:

He views the current claims of most climate scientists as well as the experts of the UN (IPCC), who say mankind’s activities are causing climate change, as ‘piss take’.”

“Piss take” definition: here. Why is Munter skeptical? He cites hundreds of scientific papers opposing the current opinion of the IPCC and that there isn’t any consensus at all. reports Munter does not dispute climate is changing, but believes man is not responsible for it.

Munter to

During the Holocene – a period on earth going back about 10,000 years – there were five phases when it was just as warm as it is today, or even warmer.”

Munter also tells “CO2 is not a pollutant” and that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 stemming from man is “negligible”. He also doesn’t believe that CO2 is even a greenhouse gas, citing a paper by physicist Robert Wood.

On why the earth is warming, Munter says it all goes back to the sun. And by the sun he not only means solar irradiance but also the sun’s magnetic field, thus lending support to Svensmark’s theory.

Munter’s skepticism worryies media like, and established climate scientists in Europe – for example Mike Schäfer, a risk communication professor at the University of Zurich. He tells that Munter is not alone as a skeptic because “in the USA 20 to 30 percent of the population are climate skeptics” who do not believe man plays any real role on climate or the projected consequences.

Media do not share skeptic positions

Interestingly writes that the number of skeptics in Germany and Switzerland is far smaller than in the USA. Schäfer attributes that to the fact that “practically no media share the positions of the climate skeptics.”

On skepticism in Switzerland, quotes Marko Kovic, president of an association for critical thinking: “Skeptiker Schweiz”, who claims skepticism in Switzerland is limited to only a few individuals:

These are people who as a rule who have read American website and blogs.”

Next highlights how in Europe there is a strong popular consensus that man is responsible for climate change, and that this is not so in English speaking countries like the USA, Great Britain and Australia because the “vast majority of these persons have some kind of relation with the business lobbies of oil, coal or the automobile industry, who deny the impact of emissions on climate“.

Whew! The Swiss really are backwards and shallow in some ways. Little wonder Swiss women were not allowed to vote until 1971. It’s kind of like a “just shut up and get back to your place!” sort of culture.

Munter on the other hand also thinks there is corruption, telling that climate science has been corrupted by money and politics. That does not go down very well. To refute Munter’s claim, promptly contacted Urs Neu, Director of ProClim (a state-supported institute). Neu denies the accusation and cites an “evaluation of 12,000 scientific papers published between 1991 and 2011, which found that 97 percent of the authors suspect that human activity is the cause of climate change.”

Right. And before 1970, a survey by Swiss men showed 97% of half of Swiss men believed that women were too dumb to vote. Again it’s the caveman wooden club of authority thing. sums up by quoting state-funded warmist University of Genf professor Martin Beniston on the need for skeptics like Munter:

Skeptics allow scientists to tweek their arguments and to drive additional studies with which they can respond to their critics. If there had not been any opposition, then it would not have been possible to have made the great progress in climate science that we have seen.”

Right again. Swiss men also need a few independent-minded women to talk back from time to time – because this is what has allowed them to make great progress in being better-knowing husbands.

Hats off to Werner Munter for taking on such a conceited bunch.