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.


German Scientist Calls For Founding And Funding Of Independent Climate Research Institute To Counter Alarmist Climate Claims

Geologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning believes it’s high time for the skeptic side to respond more forcefully to the often hyper-exaggerated claims launched by the government funded global warming alarmists and is calling for the founding of an independent Germany-based climate research initiative.

Lüning DkS

Dr Lüning co-authored together with professor Fritz Vahrenholt the leading skeptic book, Die kalte Sonne, which subsequently was translated in English as The Neglected Sun. Their book clearly provides overwhelming scientific evidence of governing natural factors like the sun and oceans driving climate change throughout history.

Lüning’s idea is dubbed the KlimaForschungsInitiative (KFI) – Climate Research Initiative – which he feels is necessary because the criticism of the apocalyptic end-of-world visions is coming from only a few courageous shoulders and citizens who have recognized the “faulty development” in climate science. The debate is completely lopsided, Lüning writes.

These climate realists as a rule receive no financial support for their work. To the contrary it is highly risky to challenge the IPCC line because positions outside the political mainstream are punished by scientific and societal marginalization. Inconvenient criticism of the climate alarmism line is undesirable. The German Federal Ministry of Environment even published a blacklist of [German and American] climate realists. It’s a real career blocker for scientists at the state-supported research institutes. A University of Graz music professor even suggested the death penalty for people who do not tow the IPCC line.”

Under such a hostile and intolerant climate, who on earth would want to raise a finger?

Climate of political intimidation and fear

Lüning says the pressure is in fact so strong that also western industry is visibly intimidated: “Too large is the fear of upsetting those with political power by presenting inconvenient facts.” Rather than rocking the boat, industry has opted to play along –  and to ship jobs overseas instead, or to shut down complete parts of their company, as is the case with German power giant E.On, Lüning says.

Recently the media reported that lawyers are gearing up to sue the major fossil fuel companies for causing extreme weather, like tropical storm Haiyan“ in the Philippines. Such claims, Lüning writes, are fully based on junk science which he describes as resembling superstition and Medieval witch-hunting.

Lüning comments that the world seems to have gone a bit hysterical. The Philippine tropical storm is a good example. From s scientific view it can be excluded that Haiyan resulted from climate change, a view that is supported by scientific literature. Yet, there are plenty demands being made for industry to pay for the damage.

Too often, Lüning writes, false scientific arguments and outright tricks are allowed to go insufficiently challenged. The German geologists says it is essential that an independent climate research initiative be founded by qualified climate-related scientists who are skeptical of the alarmist scenarios in order adequately to respond to the “wild climate claims” through the use of factual and scientific arguments.

Lüning writes that the main activities of an independent Climate Research Initiative would be determine:

1) The real value of CO2 climate sensitivity.

2) The real role of ocean cycles for the 1977-1998 warming phase.

3 If the correlation between solar activity and the temperature development over the last 10,000 years is just a coincidence, as the climate models like to suggest.

4) If extreme weather events are part of natural variability.

The German maverick geologist writes that here more climate-historical scientific studies are needed in order to better document natural climate variability over the past decades, centuriesand millenia. Important: “Which trends and cycles are really detectable and could they be useful for making climate forecasts?”

Lüning envisions a climate research initiative supported by private individuals and the business sector who are truly interested in finding out what really drives the climate. Lüning proposes the six main responsibilities:

1) Identifying the open, disputed climate issues.

2) Targeted support of research projects, publication of results in peer-reviewed journals.

3) Systematie evaluation of existing climate literature on natural variability and compilation of results.

4) Intensive communication with institutes and media concerning the results. Internet communication with the public.

5) Participation in German and international scientific conferences and workshops.

6) Training seminars for non-scientists, advising.

Lüning is convinced that what is required for a sustainable and rational debate is a “structured cooperation with an independent team of experts with a solid financial foundation” in order to address what the real fears are and which scenarios are unrealistic.

Parties interested in working for or supporting an independent German climate research initiative should contact or


Shown On German ZDF Television! Walter Cunningham: “One Of The Greatest Scientific Fiascos Of All Time”

A few days ago the German ZDF national television late evening news presented a profile of the 2014 Starmus Festival in Tenerife, which featured distinguished Nobel prize scientists and astronauts (last September).

Hat-tip Wolfgang Neumann at

Example of those in attendance were Harold Kroto, Steven Hawkins, and astronauts Charlie Duke, Walter, Alexey Leonov, and Apollo 7 Astronaut Walter Cunningham.

ZDF Cunningham

Former astronaut Walter Cunningham. Image cropped from ZDF “heute journal”.

A video of the ZDF newscast is posted here at the network’s website. The part of interest begins at the 16:10 mark where the ZDF begins its the segment on Starmus. The really interesting, and unexpected, part begins at the 18:05 mark where ZDF British Nobel prize chemist Harold Kroto comments on CO2 and climate, which follows (in part translated from the German voice-over):

Even if there is no global warming, it is still in the interest of humanity to find an alternative to fossil fuels. As a chemist I’m telling you that it is almost criminal to burn them.”

But former astronaut Charles Duke doesn’t buy Kroto’s view:

A single volcano emits more climate gases into the atmosphere than man does. I don’t think we are responsible for the global warming.”

And neither does astronaut Walter Cunningham buy into the global warming theory:

Those who are sounding the alarms have corrected their claims multiple times. It is one of the greatest scientific fiascos of all time.”

It’s quite a surprise that Germany’s leading politically correct national television, ZDF, showed that sound byte, and did so in an untypically neutral way. Too late now – millions of Germans heard what undoubtedly will serve as seeds for doubt.
Readers here who are familiar with German climate politics of course are expecting certain PIK scientists to pick up the phone and to vigorously scold the ZDF for their “irresponsible” journalism, for giving a few seconds time to highly qualified skeptics.


German Met: Climate Change Nothing New…”We Do Not Know What Will Be 30, 40, Or 50 Years In The Future”

German skeptic site Die kalte Sonne here directs our attention to an article on Germany’s record warm 2014 year in German national daily, Die Welt.

The Die Welt article quotes German commercial meteorologist Dominik Jung of, who is often quoted in the German print media. Here’s the Die kalte Sonne post in English!

Dominik Jung warns of uncertain climate forecasts: “Us meteorologists know just how difficult forecasts for the next 5 to 10 days are. So how certain can 50-year trends be?”
By Sebastian Lüning and Fritz Vahrenholt
(Translated/edited by P Gosselin)

Exemplary reporting on the 2014 German temperature record appeared on December 30, 2014 in Die Welt. The daily allowed meteorologist Dominik Jung to get a word in. Jung puts the temperature trend in important context: 1000 years ago during the Medieval Warm Period it was at least just as warm in Germany as it is today. One needs to be careful when using the word “record”. What follows is an excerpt from the Die Welt article:

For the first time we have the number ten before the decimal point for Germany’s annual mean temperature. The mean temperature was around 10.2°C. ‘That’s a one hundred year record. Never has it been so warm in Germany,’ says meteorologist Dominik Jung at the weather site […]

‘One must clearly state: The temperature trend for Germany is clearly upwards over the last 130 years. And naturally this is climate change,’ said Jung. He then adds: ‘But: Climate is always changing. The earth’s climate has been subject in part to large fluctuations. During the Medieval Period there were both warm and icy times. So this pattern isn’t really anything new. However, there’s a lot of controversy in the ongoing discussion concerning what impact man has on the on the current increase in the mean temperature. Today that still has not yet been adequately determined.’ […]

‘We are a long way away from the severe drought summers, or winters without ice and snow – just a look out the window is already enough. These extreme scenarios help very little. They only serve to spread uncertainty. We do not know what will be 30, 40, or 50 years into the future. Chill out: Us meteorologists know just how difficult forecasts for the next 5 to 10 days can be.’ Jung has doubts on ‘How accurate the 50-year trend will be.'”

You can read the entire German article at Die Welt.



German Scientist Slams, Mocks PIK’s Use Of Tacky Madison Avenue-Style Marketing To Sell (Junk) Climate Science

When a science finds itself having to resort to using professional marketing campaigns to get the public to buy it, then you can be reasonably sure something is awfully wrong.

Geologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning responds to and mocks the Potsdam Institute’s report released together with the World Bank.

Learning from the PIK means learning how to win: Clever Climate Marketing 2.0
By Dr. Sebastian Lüning
(Translated by P Gosselin)

When it comes to the business of climate change, we are dealing with lots of money. Thus it is only natural that the World Bank is getting into the act and playing the climate doomsday music. But to do this, it needs an ally. Fortunately there’s the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), which is sort of a mill that regularly churns out and markets new, entertaining horror scenarios.

The World bank has contracted the PIK to conjure up an entire series of climate alarms. Part 3 of the cooperation came to light in November 2014. Of course here one finds nothing new. Yet again the attempt was made to shock a climate-weary public with the usual old Biblical extreme-weather cocktail: hellish heat, huge floods and giant cyclones descending from the heavens.

Their efforts seem to have been accompanied by a professional marketing department that took on the task of coming up with hard-hitting marketing slogans and catchy messages. And so this is how they got the title ‘Turn down the heat 3‘, which also could be the name of a rock album. Hats off. The same can be said for the slogan: “Confronting the new normal”. Sounds great.

So why can’t us climate skeptics do the same? In our reports we all too often use ineffective terms, calling the other side names like “stupid alarmists”, “swindlers”, or “senseless”. What if instead we used terms like “Let’s get back to reason 5.0″ or “Accepting and understanding the Medieval Warm Period”?

Overall the structure of the PIK press release and the psychological fundamental elements used are carefully considered and crafted. The claim “Climate change impacts foremost the world’s poor” really does play on the heart strings:

‘Global warming impacts in the next decades are likely to hit those hardest that contributed least to global greenhouse gas emissions: the global poor.’ Developing countries are expected to experience the most severe climate impacts, notably in the tropics, while lacking the means to build resilience. And within these countries, again those parts of the population with the least means are most vulnerable to additional stress.”

A great marketing gag: the evil westerners are destroying the climate, particularly in developing countries. From a scientific point of view, it is totally baseless, yet it sounds really good and almost no one will dare to challenge the claim. That simply does not befit the rich westerner. Here for example the coral horror would be of much worth. Here’s how it’s written by the PIK:

In the Caribbean, coral reefs are threatened of significantly higher probabilities of annual bleaching already at 1.5-2 degrees warming… .”

Apparently knowledge of the latest literature on that subject is quite lacking at the PIK. Otherwise the Potsdam scientists would have known that the coral reefs have turned out to be far more warmth-resistant than previously feared. Yet the cooperation between the World Bank and the PIK has far less to do with facts, and much more with moral declarations formulated in catchy language that makes for good prose. The PIK director puts on his best act to mislead:

‘Tackling climate change is a matter of reason, but also of justice,’ says the report’s lead-author Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, director of PIK.”

This method would also work effectively for the climate realists side. For example we could write:

‘Recognizing the climate’s natural variability is a matter of reason, but also of justice,’ says Sebastian Lüning, DkS website director and number 2 lead author of the sustainable climate report ‘Die Kalte Sonne’.”

As is known since the discovery of the motion picture in Hollywood, a good story has a happy ending and allows for a bright outlook. Thus it is no surprise that this technique also gets used by the PIK and the World Bank:

‘The good news is that we can do something about it’
[…] The good news is that we can take action that reduces the rate of climate change and promotes economic growth, ultimately stopping our journey down this dangerous path. World leaders and policy makers should embrace affordable solutions like carbon pricing and policy choices that shift investment to clean public transport, cleaner energy and more energy efficient factories, buildings and appliances.”

A positive call to action is simply far more effective than making threats. The phrase “Good News” has been successfully employed in religions for a very long time, and also by cults. “The good news: You can transfer one third of your income to the account of our religion founder, and so cleanse yourselves of all your sins.”

Us skeptics should do as the PIK does and band together with a top performing team of marketing experts and psychologists so that we too can promote our scientific messages in the suitable format.

This step is not only a matter of reason, but also of justice. Learning from the PIK means learning how to win.

Sebastian Lüning is a geologist who has published numerous papers in his field. He is co-author of the climate science skeptical book: The Neglected Sun.


University Of Augsburg 44-Year Veteran Meteorologist Calls Climate Protection “Ridiculous”…”A Deception”!

Hager_Klaus U of Augsburg

I was notified by reader Ken of an interview conducted by German daily Augsburger Zeitung (AZ), appearing in the hard copy edition. Now posted here in German.

44-year veteran meteorologist Klaus Hager. Photo credit: University of Augsburg

Interviewed was meteorologist Klaus Hager. He was active in meteorology for 44 years and now has been a lecturer at the University of Augsburg almost 10 years. He is considered an expert in weather instrumentation and measurement.

The Augsburger Zeitung writes that “hardly any of his colleagues are as familiar with the weather as the 73-year old is“.

“Fluctuations dominate climate, not trends”

The Augsburger Zeitung wanted to know Hager’s views on climate change. Hager doesn’t hold back any punches, claiming that “people are being deceived” on the subject and that man’s influence on the climate is very small.

On whether temperatures are warming in the Augsburg region, Hager says there is “no detectable trend showing this is so” and that it’s been cooling since 2005. When it comes to the climate variability, he agrees with Professor Lauscher of the University of Vienna: “Fluctuations dominate climate, not trends“.

Warming an artifact of new instrumentation

One reason for the perceived warming, Hager says, is traced back to a change in measurement instrumentation. He says glass thermometers were was replaced by much more sensitive electronic instruments in 1995. Hager tells the SZ (my emphasis):

For eight years I conducted parallel measurements at Lechfeld. The result was that compared to the glass thermometers, the electronic thermometers showed on average  a temperature that was 0.9°C warmer. Thus we are comparing – even though we are measuring the temperature here – apples and oranges. No one is told that.”

Hager confirms to the AZ that the higher temperatures are indeed an artifact of the new instruments.

Hager also calls climate change and climate protection “ideologically charged topics“.

People are being deceived especially when it comes to reducing CO2.” He tells the AZ that weather depends on dozens of single factors – all of various weighting.

The AZ, seemingly stunned by it all, asks Hager: “So you’re saying that the calls for climate protection connected to CO2 are not serious?” Hager confirms, answering:

The CO2 taxes that are being levied are actually a sin against national wealth. If you want to stop the alleged climate change, then you need to ask what it’s all about and who profits from it at the expense of the citizens.”

Hager then explains how CO2 is only a trace gas and that its role in climate is overhyped.

When asked about how his position is completely contradictory to that of the mainstream, Hager scoffs at the notion:

You know I check facts and I want others to think about it and not to just swallow everything unfiltered- just because its the current zeitgeist. Manmade climate change will turn out to be a climate bubble. It’s going to pop like the forest die-off scare – and will do so because of nature – here I mean when solar activity falls again.”

I wonder how much longer he’ll lecturing at the university of Augsburg. Expect the warming-jihadists to go after him. Kudos to the Augsburger Zeitung for printing the interview!


German Physicist Sees Dangerous Return To “Medieval Scholasticism” – Climate Models Have Failed Conclusively

At EIKE distinguished German physicist and climate expert Prof. Dr. Horst-Joachim Lüdecke writes how we are witnessing a notable paradigm shift in climate research today: the resurrection of medieval scholasticism. In plain language: the science of the Dark Ages.


German climate physicist Prof. Dr. Horst-Joachim Lüdecke says today’s climate science paradigm has shifted to a “medieval scholasticism” and is a real threat to science and society as a whole. Photo: EIKE.

Scholasticism dominated medieval western Europe and was based on the writings of the Church Fathers, with strict adherence to traditional doctrines. To say the least, it was effective in stifling enlightenment.

The breakthrough from this crusty, dogmatic approach, Lüdecke writes, came with Galileo, who gave highest priority to systematic and numerical measurement, which today remains the standard method of science. With Galileo’s approach hypotheses or theories that are not confirmed by measurements get discarded and are no longer pursued. The method led to giant leaps and bounds in technology, medicine and science, from which today humanity is benefitting immensely.

Richard Richard Feynman summarized Galileo’s approach beautifully, saying that if a hypothesis disagrees with observations, then it’s wrong.

This fundamental approach, the Lüdecke writes, is no longer in use in climate science and, what is worse, the old medieval scholastic method is even now dangerously invading other fields of science.

According to Lüdecke, the key question today: Is the climate change witnessed since 1850 unusual, and thus due to man, or is it well within the range of natural variability the planet has seen throughout its history? The German physicist says a hypothesis’s burden of proof is clearly not on its skeptics, but on the one proposing the hypothesis. He writes:

It is senseless to favor a certain hypothesis – senseless according to our still valid scientific paradigm – when no confirming measured data can be shown to support it. One can occupy himself with a hypothesis, put it at the center of his research, and even have complete faith in it. However one cannot use it as a basis for taking rational action without first having confirmed measurements. In summary: If we cannot observe any unusual climate activity since 1850 compared to the times before that, then we have no choice but to assume natural climate change.”

In order to assume there has been “unusual activity”, Lüdecke says, it would be necessary to have comprehensive data about the oceans before 1850. This doesn’t exist, and so a comparison is not possible. Lüdecke reminds: “It is mandatory to prove that the climate data since 1850 are indeed unusual when compared to the period before that.” A comparison is already very difficult to do with atmospheric temperatures. With ocean data: “Who today can tell us what temperature distributions the oceans had back during the Medieval Warm Period?” Lüdecke writes Assuming that today is unusual without being able to compare it to anything from the past is not science at all, he tells us.

When it comes to extreme weather events, there are plenty of paintings and recorded accounts showing that they too existed earlier on, and that today’s events are nothing new, Lüdecke writes. Even the IPCC has reached that conclusion. The German climatologist puts the assumptions of more future extreme weather events in the category of “crystal balls” and not modern science.

Prof. Lüdecke also blasts the over-emphasis on climate models, writing that “the models fail already for the past” and that they cannot even predict the next El Nino correctly or the missing tropospheric hot spot. He writes:

Using the R. Feynman yardstick these climate models are not only inaccurate or a bit false; they are totally false. […] Anyone selling climate forecasts from climate models as scientific is using a medieval paradigm. He is conducting moral sciences instead of physics.”

Ouch. Lüdecke also then calls the alliance between the IPCC and policymaking “dubious” and one that was set up with the target of reaching an already predetermined result. He calls the manner in which policymaking is moving ahead “embellished nonsense”.

In his conclusion the German professor advises those engaged in a discussion with alarmists, or listening to a presenation by an alarmist, to not go easy on them. There are three points, he advises:

1. The modern science paradigm of priority on measurement over theoretical model remains valid. The climate alarmist must prove that his hypothsies is confirmed by observations and measurements. It is not up to you to prove his hypothesis is false.

2. When the climate alarmists “starts beating around the bush” insists he name a peer-reviewed paper that proves, based on measurements, that the climate change since 1850 is unprecedented compared to earlier times (there isn’t any).

3. Don’t let yourself be drawn into the discussion over climate models. That the models are unable to describe the climate development means they are false, as to point no. 1.”

The distinguished professor ends by blasting climate policymakers, warning they are bordering on “criminal activity” in their conscious misuse of science to formulate policy:

We are allowing hundreds of thousands of people in the poorest developing countries to starve in order to be able to finance climate protection and energy transformation that are not based on today’s valid science paradigm. That is not only idiotic, but also borders on criminal activity by the politically responsible persons.”


Pope Embraces False Prophets Of Doom – Why I’m Disassociating Myself From The Vatican And Church

Vatican sells outI’m Catholic and this Sunday I’m announcing that I’m disassociating myself from the Vatican and its pope. I urge other skeptic Catholics to consider doing the same. This is not a step I’ve taken lightly.

I’ll be opting out of Germany’s Kirchensteuer (Church Tax) and will not attend any services in the future. With their latest planned encyclical they are indicating that they have shifted back to the Dark Ages of bad-weather witches, superstitions and Medieval indulgences. Worse, they are openly subscribing to nutty end-of-times theories.

This comes on the heels of a recent announcement that Pope Francis intends to issue an encyclical on climate change. I am not renouncing Catholicism Christianity, rather I am solely renouncing my recognition that the Vatican and Pope are the faith’s administrator and moral compass. It’s the last straw in an unending string of corruption, child sexual abuse and scandals that have raged within the Catholic Church in recent times.

False prophecies based on junk models

The Vatican announces that it accepts a science (but it is one that is built on the false prophecies of faulty climate models made by unscrupulous scientists who claim they can now see decades and even hundreds of years into the future) and that bad weather is now due to the sins of man. It’s back to the dark days of Church-sanctioned witchhunts of the sort that once punished, tortured and burned people for brewing bad weather. Stunningly, once again, this is where today’s Catholic Church is heading today.

We can only speculate on why the Vatican has decided to take this extreme, divisive, and hugely misguided step, especially at a time when climate science is hotly debated and more tenuous then ever. It has elected to ignore the long-term data, the role of the sun and oceans, the complete lack of correlation between CO2 and global temperature, and seems to have declared the debate over among Catholics. It has entered a bargain founded on a monumental lie and bought into the silly end-of-world scenario. Such a Church is no longer worthy of being followed.

Vatican aligning with population control ideology

Even more disturbing is that the Vatican has opted to align itself with those who possess ideologies that are openly hostile to and spiteful of humanity. In May 2014 the Vatican held a workshop where the invited delegates included Naomi Oreskes, Arctic sea-ice crackpot Peter Wadhams, and Professor Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber of the ultra-alarmist Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Pesearch. Strangely it doesn’t seem to bother the Vatican that Professor Schellnhuber once openly stated that the ideal human population for the planet was less than 1 billion people, implying an excess of more than 6 billion inhabitants. He also once said that the planet would “explode” if the population reached 9 billion.

This kind of environmental stewardship is one that advocates the pre-emptive abortion of future generations – a denial of life for future generations – i.e population control. This is hostile to the human race and it is appalling to any practicing Catholic. Either Pope Francis is stunningly naïve, or just diabolically evil.

And don’t expect the Vatican to backtrack anytime soon and to admit that it may have acted too hastily. Recall that It did not apologize to Galileo until 1992 – some three hundred and fifty years after the great philospher’s death. Galileo’s crime: he dared to challenge the consensus of the time.

Poorest urgently need affordable fossil fuels

I can no longer stomach this giant step back to the witch-hunting Dark Ages the Catholic Church is contemplating. The Vatican appears to have unwittingly elected to abandon the poorest among us, and their urgent need for affordable and reliable energy that only fossil fuels and nuclear power are able to deliver. The move by the Vatican risks putting the lives of tens of millions of the world’s most impoverished at risk. This Pope needs to remember that the road to Hell is often paved with good intentions. Though his intentions may be good, they are in this case based on horribly false prophesies peddled by charlatans who arrogantly refuse to debate.

What’s going to be next? An encyclical on the virtues of veganism – based on junk science nutrition?

Defying a corrupt Vatican is the Catholic thing to do

It’s important to keep in mind that rejecting a corrupt, incompetent or misguided Vatican is in fact the most Catholic thing to do. The collection money you give every week will do a lot more good if you give it directly to the needy. The Vatican or the regional Bishop need not send over a minion priest with the errand of saving my soul. Instead the Vatican should worry about its own.

Little wonder that Pope Benedict XVI resigned. The Vatican appears to be well on the way to becoming a cesspool of corruption and self-deceit. I can no longer bear it. The witch-hunting, end-of-world climate encyclical will be the last straw.


Why Has There Been Global Warming? Literature Unambiguously Shows: Because It’s Entirely Normal (Stupid)!”

A reader posted a comment, which I’ve upgraded to a post (with some editing).

Why there is global warming

by Harold Faulkner

People in the USA are being told by the U.S. government and media that global warming is man-made. If that is true, how can the government and media explain the high temperatures the Earth has experienced in past years when there were far fewer people?

Let us look back in the world’s history: for example, between roughly 900 AD and 1350 AD the temperatures were much higher than now. And, back then there were fewer people, no cars, no electric utilities, and no factories, etc. So what caused the Earth’s heat? Could it be a natural occurrence? The temperature graph shows the temperatures of the Earth before Christ to 2040.

In the book THE DISCOVERERS published in February 1985 by Daniel J. Boorstin, beginning in chapter 28, it goes into detail about Eric the Red, the father of Lief Ericsson, and how he discovered an island covered in green grass.

In approximately 983 AD, Eric the Red committed murder, and was banished from Iceland for three years. Eric the Red sailed 500 miles west from Iceland and discovered an island covered in GREEN grass, which he named Greenland. Greenland reminded Eric the Red of his native Norway because of the grass, game animals, and a sea full of fish. Even the air provided a harvest of birds. Eric the Red and his crew started laying out sites for farms and homesteads, as there was no sign of earlier human habitation.

When his banishment expired, Eric the Red returned to congested Iceland to gather Viking settlers. In 986, Eric the Red set sail with an emigrant fleet of twenty-five ships carrying men, women, and domestic animals. Unfortunately, only fourteen ships survived the stormy passage, which carried about four-hundred-fifty immigrants plus the farm animals. The immigrants settled on the southern-west tip and up the western coast of Greenland.

After the year 1200 AD, the Earth’s and Greenland’s climate grew colder; ice started building up on the southern tip of Greenland. Before the end of 1300AD, the Viking settlements were just a memory. You can find the above by searching Google. One link is:

The following quote you can also read about why there is global warming. This is from the book EINSTEIN’S UNIVERSE, Page 63, written by Nigel Calder in 1972, and updated in 1982:

The reckoning of planetary motions is a venerable science. Nowadays it tells us, for example, how gravity causes the ice to advance or retreat on the Earth during the ice ages. The gravity of the Moon and (to a lesser extent) of the Sun makes the Earth’s axis swivel around like a tilted spinning top. Other planets of the Solar System, especially Jupiter, Mars and Venus, influence the Earth’s tilt and the shape of its orbit, in a more-or-less cyclic fashion, with significant effects on the intensity of sunshine falling on different regions of the Earth during the various seasons. Every so often a fortunate attitude and orbit of the Earth combine to drench the ice sheets in sunshine as at the end of the most recent ice age, about ten thousand years ago. But now our relatively benign interglacial is coming to an end, as gravity continues to toy with our planet.”

The above points out that the universe is too huge and the earth is too small for the Earth’s population to have any effect on the earth’s temperature. The earth’s temperature is a function of the sun’s temperature and the effects from the many massive planets in the universe, i.e.:

The gravity of the Moon and (to a lesser extent) of the Sun makes the Earth’s axis swivel around like a tilted spinning top. Other planets of the solar system, especially Jupiter, Mars and Venus, influence the Earth’s tilt and the shape of its orbit, in a more-or-less cyclic fashion, with significant effects on the intensity of sunshine falling on different regions of the Earth during the various seasons.”

Read below about carbon dioxide, which we need in order to exist. You can find the article below at:


– Of the 186 billion tons of carbon from CO2 that enter the Earth’s atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth’s oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.

– At 380 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of the Earth’s atmosphere–less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, the Earth’s current atmosphere is CO2-impoverished.

– CO2 is odorless, colorless, and tasteless. Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO2 as a waste product. Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life– plants and animals alike– benefit from more of it. All life on Earth is carbon-based and CO2 is an essential ingredient. When plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon dioxide.

– CO2 that goes into the atmosphere does not stay there, but continuously recycled by terrestrial plant life and earth’s oceans– the great retirement home for most terrestrial carbon dioxide.

– If we are in a global warming crisis today, even the most aggressive and costly proposals for limiting industrial carbon dioxide emissions and all other government proposals and taxes would have a negligible effect on global climate!

The government is lying, trying to use global warming to limit, and tax its citizens through “cap and trade” and other tax schemes for the government’s benefit. We, the people, cannot allow this to happen.