Everyone knows that trace gas CO2 drives climate 95%, that it’s the Earth’s climate-control knob, and that those who don’t believe it are like malicious Holocaust deniers, see here and here.

More divisive climate science from China.

Also “Holocaust-like deniers” are a Chinese-British team of scientists led by Fengling Yu. They actually had the temerity to publish a skeptic paper in the journal The Holocene. The paper’s title: Mid-Holocene variability of the East Asian monsoon based on bulk organic δ¹³C and C/N records from the Pearl River estuary, southern China. Hat-tip: Die kalte Sonne website.

According to the paper’s abstract, the Chinese-British team reconstructed “the mid-Holocene EAM history from the Pearl River estuary, southern China, using bulk organic carbon isotopes (δ¹³C), total carbon to total nitrogen (C/N) ratios and total organic carbon (TOC) concentration.”

From the results they conclude (emphasis added):

Results suggest a general decreasing trend in monsoonal precipitation from 6650 to 2150 cal. yr BP because of the weakening Northern Hemisphere insolation most likely related to the current precession circle. Superimposed on this trend are apparent dry–wet oscillations at centennial to millennial timescales most likely in response to solar activity.”

Geologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning and chemist Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt comment at their Die kalte Sonne website:

Especially the cold phases of the North Atlantic described by Gerard Bond were represented by distinct dry periods in the investigated core from southern China. Fengling Yu and colleagues concluded that the largest part of the observed climatic fluctuations in their study can be explained by changes in solar activity.

The authors also gave thought to how the the sun has an impact on on climate. Presented are the two most important solar amplification models via UV and cosmic radiation. With respect to impact on monsoons, the scientists speculate that the solar-dependent temperature changes influence the strength of Siberian highs. During phases of strong solar activity the Siberian highs were more intense, which led to stronger winter monsoons with reduced precipitation.

Many of the solar-synchronous climate cycles documented in the study are well-known from Chinese history. During the warm and stable wet phase of 7200 to 6000 years before present, the Neolithic Yangshao culture of the Yellow River as well as the Majiabang culture at the lower Yangtze level reached its zenith. The sudden cold phase 4000 years ago led to the failure of the Longshan and Liangzhu cultures in eastern China.”

So there we have it: yet another relatively new study showing the sun is the main driver and that human cultures flourish in warm phases and fail when it turns cold.

But be careful! Believing that hard science will get you accused of behaving like a Holocaust denier by the intolerant, oppressive CO2 zealots, a.k.a. frustrated scientists fully exhausted of scientific argument.

Yet, if one gives even just an ounce of thought to what Micha Tomkiewicz asserts, then you can only reach the conclusion that he’s got some loose bolts rattling around upstairs.

He is obviously totally clueless to how insulting and offensive he is being to researchers like Fengling Yu et al who are solely doing honest science. Tomkiewicz is a sad case that warrants only our deepest pity.

=========================
Update: And yet another NEW study! Hat-tip: reader Roger L.

Figure 1: Reconstruction of precipitation amounts for the edge of the Tibetan Plateau. The bars on the chart depict prominent weak phases of solar activity, which correspond to Om = Oort Minimum; Wm = Wolf Minimum; Sm = Spörer Minimum; Mm = Maunder Minimum; Dm = Dalton Minimum). Figure from: Sun & Liu (2012).

Geologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning and chemist Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt have written a summary of this paper, which I’ve translated in the English:

==============================================
New Study of the Tibetan Plateau: Whenever Solar Activity is Weak, the Rains Disappear
By Sebastian Lüning and Fritz Vahrenholt

The Tibetan Plateau is at 3000 to 5000 meters elevation the highest and most expansive high plateau on Earth. Therefore it reacts sensitively to climate changes. Junyan Sun and Yu Liu of the Chinese Academy of Sciences studied tree rings in the northwest plateau edge from two living 1000 year old trees. Tree growth in the area of study is particularly sensitive to the amount of precipitation.

Both scientists were able to reconstruct the distinct precipitation fluctuations occurring over the last 1000 years. The corresponding wet and dry periods each lasted some decades. A comparison to the other climate reconstructions coming from the same region shows great similarities in moisture development and that we are dealing with a representative regional climate signal. There were pronounced periods of droughts from 1092-1172, 1441-1517 and 1564–1730. Especially the Great Drought of 1441-1517 is mentioned in numerous historical documents and catastrophe reports. The Great Drought occurred during a weak period of solar activity, the so-called Spörer Minimum, which occurred from 1420 to 1570.

Interestingly, almost all other periods of drought occurred during times of solar minima, among them the Oort Minimum, Wolf Minimum, Maunder Minimum and Dalton Minimum (see Figure 1 above). Every time the sun goes into a slumber for a few decades, the rains on the Tibetan Plateau stay away. A frequency analysis of precipitation curves also delivers evidence on solar cycles. Here the Gleissberg Cycle (60-120 year period) and the Suess/de Vries Cycle (180-220 years) are seen in the datasets.

The study once again documents the enormous importance of solar activity fluctuations on the development of climate. Why the IPCC degrades this important natural climate driver to a secondary small player in theoretical climate models (See our article: “What is the coming solar activity slumber bringing? The Hadley Centre Leaves Its Back Door Open“) simply boggles the mind.
=====================================================

Indeed. And with every passing study, it is becoming increasingly clear that the CO2 warmists are either in deep denial or complete intellectual oblivion.

Figure 1: Taklamakan Desert is western China. Source: Wikipedia

I’ve translated and edited the text in English with their kind permission.

Oases of the Chinese Taklamakan Desert Greened Up In Sync With Solar Millenial Cycles
by Sebastian Lüning and Fritz Vahrenholt

The Taklamakan Desert is the 2nd world’s largest sand desert after the Rub el-Khali Desert in Saudi Arabia. A Chinese-Australian team of scientists lead by Keliang Zhao of the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Peking studied the sediment-profiles from an oasis at the edge of the Taklamakan where they reconstructed the climate of the last 4000 years based on pollen. The scientists published their results in March, 2012.

The Taklamakan Desert is bounded by the Kunlun Mountains to the south, and the desert Pamir Mountains and Tian Shan to the west and north. The oases of the Taklamakan react very sensitively to climate fluctuations and draw their water from the surrounding mountains regions via groundwater and surface water feed-in. Fluctuations in the amount of meltwater being fed in are made apparent through the ever thirsty oasis vegetation. The scientists studied the pollen.

Zhao and his colleagues extracted an 8.5 meter long sediment core from an oasis. The sediment came from melt water sands as well as wind deposits. The scientists analyzed the pollen composition from a total of 105 samplings which they extracted along the sediment profile every 5-10 cm. Using pollen data, they reconstructed the moisture and vegetation density in the oasis over the last 4000 years.

The researchers found three time periods where the oases grew and expanded in wetter climate conditions: These time periods were 4000-2620 before today, 1750–1260 years before today and 550-390 years before today (see Figure 2). Interestingly these intervals coincide precisely with the cold phases of the North Atlantic as distinctly described by Bond et al. (2001), the so-called Bond Cycles. Gerard Bond was able to show that the North Atlantic cold phases occurred during times of low solar activity, i.e. caused by fluctuations in activity. In the Chinese region of investigation, these solar periods of weak activity led to wet periods. The last wet period coincided with the Little Ice Age. However, during the Medieval Warm Period, warm and dry conditions prevailed.

The team of scientists therefore suspect that during the wet spells, the moisture-carrying west winds shifted southwards towards the area of investigation. This led to more precipitation in the form of snowfall in the surrounding mountains. The glaciers in the mountains expanded due to the larger snowfalls and globally cooler conditions. This also increased the feed-in of springtime meltwater into the Taklamakan oases accordingly, thus leading to greener conditions. The westwinds in the region get their moisture mostly from the Atlantic, Mediteranean, Black and Caspian seas.

The study is yet another beautiful example of the global climatic impact of the solar millenial cycles (also see our recent article “New Study in PNAS Confirms Solar Impact Over the Last 9000 Years“ and “Solar Millennium Cycles Regulated the Wet and Dry Periods of the Mediteranean During the Roman Times“, also see pages 68-75 of our book “Die kalte Sonne“.

Figure 2: Reconstruction of the moisture development in the region of study using pollen for the last 4000 years. The shaded gray areas depict wet periods in the Tarim Basin. These coincide with the cold phases in the North Atlantic (numbered 1, 2, 3) and solar weak phases, as described by Bond et al. (2001). Chart from Zhao et al. (2012).

Germany’s “journalism elitists” seethe over Bild’s media power.

It appears that the “intellectual” leftist dailies in Germany simply are unable to cope with their increasing irrelevance. The arrogance, indignation and sour grapes by these crybabies are just so palpable. The Local writes:

…reporters from one paper rejected a prestigious prize because they were set to share it with the populist Bild newspaper. Three journalists from the Süddeutsche Zeitung broadsheet showed their distaste for Bild journalism during the Friday evening ceremony for the renowned Henri-Nannen prize by refusing their award. The Bild journalists were due to share the ‘Best Investigative Achievement’ title for their revelations which ultimately led to the resignation of President Christian Wulff. [...] This was described by Süddeutsche Zeitung reporter Hans Leyendecker as a ‘break with our culture’.”

We will recall that Bild is the leading German daily that carried the headline in February Die CO2 Lüge (The CO2 Lie) in the wake of the release of Fritz Vahrenholt’s and Sebastian Lüning’s bestselling skeptic book “Die kalte Sonne“, read story here. The Süddeutsche Zeitung, on the other hand, has been a leading proponent of the anthropogenic global warming scare and has aimed severe criticism and vitriol at Bild and Die kalte Sonne.

Now they are being asked to share a major prize with Bild! This they refuse to do.

In fact Bild being nominated for the prize had already sent the elitist media into a tantraum, and they reacted using language typically reserved for describing blogs. The Local writes:

Green politician Antje Vollmer called the nomination an ‘alarm signal’ which threatened to blur the line between ‘serious journalism and pseudo-journalism’. Populist publications like Bild, wrote Vollmer, were superficially just entertainment, but at their core the whole point of their existence relied on stirring up the ‘baser instincts in anxious mass societies.’ [...]

…the announcement of Bild’s prize greeted with booing from the audience largely made up of Germany’s journalism elite.”

Sorry, but you pseudo-intellectual, snobby journalists are just nowhere near as good as you think you are. In fact a lot of the stuff you write is just plain bad information based on dubious sources. That’s why readers are leaving you in droves.

And with your reaction to the award, you really have made yourselves look like a bunch of spoiled 5-yearolds.

I wish to thank the commenter styling himself SpaceScience for drawing our attention to the article at Nature GeoScience titled Atmospheric observations of Arctic Ocean methane emissions up to 82° north.

PMMA chamber used to measure methane and CO₂ emissions in Storflaket peat bog near Abisko, northern Sweden. Source: Wikipedia.

The comment was in response to my comment pointing to an article stating that the Arctic was a net sink for methane.

The problem with both articles is that they both bow to the “Group Think” prevalent in the climate research community. Both articles clearly assume that global warming is a problem that is, or will, exacerbate methane release in the polar regions, leading to catastrophe. Each approaches the science as if unprecedented global warming were a proven fact, where, as we know, no additional warming has occurred in the last decade and a half, and previous warm periods within the last millennium have exceeded the current one.

The article that this author cited, All About Frozen Ground, by Kevin Schaefer of the National Snow and Ice Data Center, at least admitted that the Arctic is a net sink for methane, then warns that if the permafrost melts, this will release methane that will increase global warming. The logical disconnect is not addressed. Why is the Arctic a net sink? Because warming and additional CO2 is increasing biological activity, the plants growing in the tundra are growing faster and bigger, and the tree line is moving northward, storing additional carbon. There is no explanation of when or how this process might reverse.

The article cited by SpaceScience (behind a paywall) has only the abstract available, but which begins with the word “Uncertainty.”

Uncertainty in the future atmospheric burden of methane, a potent greenhouse gas1, represents an important challenge to the development of realistic climate projections. The Arctic is home to large reservoirs of methane, in the form of permafrost soils and methane hydrates2, which are vulnerable to destabilization in a warming climate. Furthermore, methane is produced in the surface ocean3 and the surface waters of the Arctic Ocean are supersaturated with respect to methane4^, 5. However, the fate of this oceanic methane is uncertain.”

The reader will immediately notice all the necessary words that the climate community uses to insure publication, like: “potent greenhouse gas, realistic climate projections,” and “vulnerable to destabilization,” You will also notice all the fudge-factor words like “challenge” and “uncertain,” that keep these papers from being quickly recognized as misleading. The researchers find that methane is released only from open water in the Arctic; ice puts a lid on it. The implication is that with the loss of ice there will be more methane. This author would like to point out that currents in the Arctic constantly recycle all the water into and out of the Arctic, so that within just 3 to 5 years, all the water finds itself without a lid. They would always find methane! There is no methane in the surface waters that is permanently trapped, so there can’t be any additional methane in the long run. This is not to mention that the ice cycle is currently recovering in the Arctic.

GroupThink is a huge problem in climate science. It colors every paper published. Well researched facts are presented in such a way that they support the preconceived idea that AGW is real with a big C in front of it, when they are just facts that have no relationship to that idea. This is proved time after time in paper after paper by all the “fudge” words that are needed to make the facts fit the premise. This problem makes separating the wheat from the chaff in the climate field very difficult. I for one will be very  happy to see the premise collapse.

Steffen Hentrich of the Liberal Institute writes on how Germany’s once impeccably stable world-class power grid has been transformed and is today just one step away from being a developing-world laughing stock. This has all been accomplished in just a few short years – thanks to the country’s reckless and uncontrolled rush to renewable energies, wind and sun, all spurred on by a blind environmental movement and hysteria with respect to nuclear power.

In a press release íssued a few days ago the German Federal Network Agency reported that the burdens of the unsteady, forced feed-in of renewable energies poses a risk to the power supply in Germany unless the grid is expanded quickly. In Point No. 1 on page 10 in the summary of its Report on the Status of the Grid-Related Energy Supply in Winter 2011/12, they write:

1. The situation for the power grid in the Winter of 2011/12 was very precarious.”

Moreover, the report writes: “No. 5 Reserve capacity in Germany and Austria was strained on multiple occasions” and that overall (No. 6) “the power plant situation has adversely developed.” and that “regulatory measures are required in order to ban the shutdown of conventional power plants”.

The report adds that the grid disruptions occurring last winter can be avoided, but only with great efforts. Earlier the problem had been restricted to North Germany. But since the shutdown of nuclear power plants in the south (5000 MW), the problems of grid instability have spread nationwide. There’s an urgent need for reserve capacity.

Another huge problem is that the system is now characterised by great unpredictability, especially when it comes to supply by sun and wind. The report also sates that the current gas network is inadequate to balance out fluctuations.

Steffen Hentrich writes:

This does not only show how the replacement of conventional energy capacity through renewable energy is an illusion, but also how expensive the forced energy transition to renewables will be for citizens. The transformation of the energy supply, as it is now being conducted, cannot be supported by the arguments of environmental protectioi, supply reliability and economics, even when the reports of state officials allow us to see that none of these targets sells by iteself.”

The latest German report reveals a grid that is headed for disarray – and quickly. Welcome to the energy of the future.

Will this be Europe’s energy supply of the future?

ESA declares end of mission for Envisat

Just weeks after celebrating its tenth year in orbit, communication with the Envisat satellite was suddenly lost on 8 April. Following rigorous attempts to re-establish contact and the investigation of failure scenarios, the end of the mission is being declared.

A team of engineers has spent the last month attempting to regain control of Envisat, investigating possible reasons for the problem. Despite continuous commands sent from a widespread network of ground stations, there has been no reaction yet from the satellite.

As there were no signs of degradation before the loss of contact, the team has been collecting other information to help understand the satellite’s condition. These include images from ground radar and the French Pleiades satellite.

With this information, the team has gradually elaborated possible failure scenarios. One is the loss of the power regulator, blocking telemetry and telecommands.

Another scenario is a short circuit, triggering a ‘safe mode’ – a special mode ensuring Envisat’s survival. A second anomaly may have occurred during the transition to safe mode, leaving the satellite in an intermediate and unknown condition.

Although chances of recovering Envisat are extremely low, the investigation team will continue attempts to re-establish contact while considering failure scenarios for the next two months.

The outstanding performance of Envisat over the last decade led many to believe that it would be active for years to come, at least until the launch of the follow-on Sentinel missions.

However, Envisat had already operated for double its planned lifetime, making it well overdue for retirement.

With ten sophisticated sensors, Envisat has observed and monitored Earth’s land, atmosphere, oceans and ice caps during its ten-year lifetime, delivering over a thousand terabytes of data.

An estimated 2500 scientific publications so far have been based on this information, furthering our knowledge of the planet.

During those ten years, Envisat witnessed the gradual shrinking of Arctic sea ice and the regular opening of the polar shipping routes during summer months.

Together with other satellites, it monitored the global sea-level height and regional variations, as well as global sea-surface temperatures with a precision of a few tenths of a degree.

Years of Envisat data have led to a better understanding of ocean currents and chlorophyll concentrations.

In the atmosphere, the satellite observed air pollution increase in Asia and its stability in Europe and North America, and measured carbon dioxide and methane concentrations. Envisat also monitored the Antarctica ozone hole variations.

Over land, it mapped the speed of ice streams in Antarctica and Greenland. Its images were used regularly to update the global maps of land use, including the effects of deforestation.

Using its imaging radar, Envisat mapped ground displacements triggered by earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, improving understanding of tectonics and volcanic mechanisms.

Envisat provided crucial Earth observation data not only to scientists, but also to many operational services, such as monitoring floods and oil spills. Its data were used for supporting civil protection authorities in managing natural and man-made disasters.

Envisat has also contributed valuable information to the services within Europe’s Global Monitoring for Environmental Security (GMES) programme, paving the way for the next generation of satellites.

Now with the end of the mission, the launch of the upcoming GMES Sentinel satellites has become even more urgent to ensure the continuity of data to users, improve the management of the environment, understand and mitigate the effects of climate change and ensure civil security.

http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEM1SXSWT1H_index_1.html

Geologist Mourdock trounces incumbent Richard Lugar in a climate of throw-the-old-bums-out and bring in fresh blood and ideas.

So what can we expect from the new GOP candidate when it comes to climate change and science? First note, however, that his Democrat opponent is also no stooge of the warmists’ hoax.

According to (un)Scientific American, Mourdock holds a Master’s degree in geology from Ball State University and worked in the energy sector for more than 30 years. I like him already.

Many accuse the Republicans of waging war on science. Geologist Mourdock scoffs at the notion that conservatives are doing this.

I think that’s silly. Galileo was attacked. Darwin was attacked. I don’t know that this is a political attack so much as a societal attack,” says Mourdock. “If it’s political, it’s because so much in our lives, and I’m not just talking science here anymore, seems to require involvement of government.”

On global warming climate change, the (un)Scientific American writes:

Mourdock says the debate is not over on global climate change. He says that in science the debate never ends. ‘That is the most anti-scientific stance that you can take,’ says Mourdock.

‘It’s never over. One question leads to another, leads to another, leads to another.’

Mourdock says there will be a consensus of a majority on climate change, but his preference is that it be based on science that is questioned.

‘Politicians are always going to do a horrible job of assessing science when there is no clear, obvious outcome,” says Mourdock, “because science is being used to drive a political outcome.’

And it doesn’t take a rocket scientists to see that.

Meteorologist Klaus-Eckard Puls

Physicist and meteorologist Klaus-Eckart Puls was interviewed by Bettina Hahne-Waldscheck of the Swiss magazine “factum“.

I’ve translated and summarized the interview, paraphrasing for brevity.

factum: You’ve been criticising the theory of man-made global warming for years. How did you become skeptical?

Puls: Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data – first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it. The CO2-climate hysteria in Germany is propagated by people who are in it for lots of money, attention and power.

factum: Is there really climate change?

Puls: Climate change is normal. There have always been phases of climate warming, many that even far exceeded the extent we see today. But there hasn’t been any warming since 1998. In fact the IPCC suppliers of data even show a slight cooling.

factum: The IPCC is projecting 0.2°C warming per decade, i.e. 2 to 4°C by the year 2100. What’s your view?

Puls: These are speculative model projections, so-called scenarios – and not prognoses. Because of climate’s high complexity, reliable prognoses just aren’t possible. Nature does what it wants, and not what the models present as prophesy. The entire CO2-debate is nonsense. Even if CO2 were doubled, the temperature would rise only 1°C. The remainder of the IPCC’s assumed warming is based purely on speculative amplification mechanisms. Even though CO2 has risen, there has been no warming in 13 years.

factum: How does sea level rise look?

Puls: Sea level rise has slowed down. Moreover, it has dropped a half centimeter over the last 2 years. It’s important to remember that mean sea level is a calculated magnitude, and not a measured one.  There are a great number of factors that influence sea level, e.g. tectonic processes, continental shifting, wind currents, passats, volcanoes. Climate change is only one of ten factors.

factum: What have we measured at the North Sea?

Puls: In the last 400 years, sea level at the North Sea coast has risen about 1.40 meters. That’s about 35 centimeters per century. In the last 100 years, the North Sea has risen only 25 centimeters.

factum: Does the sea level rise have anything to do with the melting North Pole?

Puls: That’s a misleading conclusion. Even if the entire North Pole melted, there would be no sea level rise because of the principles of buoyancy.

factum: Is the melting of the glaciers in the Alps caused by global warming?

Puls: There are many factors at play. As one climbs a mountain, the temperature drops about 0.65°C per 100 meters. Over the last 100 years it has gotten about 0.75°C warmer and so the temperature boundary has shifted up about 100 meters. But observations tell us that also ice 1000 meters up and higher has melted. Clearly there are other reasons for this, namely soot and dust. But soot and dust do not only have anthropogenic origins; they are also caused by nature via volcanoes, dust storms and wildfires. Advancing and retreating of glaciers have always taken place throughout the Earth’s history. Glaciology studies clearly show that glaciers over the last 10,0000 years were smaller on average than today.

factum: In your view, melting Antarctic sea ice and the fracture of a huge iceberg 3 years ago are nothing to worry about?

Puls: To the contrary, the Antarctic ice cap has grown both in area and volume over the last 30 years, and temperature has declined. This 30-year trend is clear to see. The Amundsen Scott Station of the USA shows that temperature has been declining there since 1957. 90% of the Earth’s ice is stored in Antarctica, which is one and half times larger than Europe.

factum: Then why do we always read it is getting warmer down there?

Puls: Here they are only talking about the West Antarctic peninsula, which is where the big chunk of ice broke off in 2008 – from the Wilkins-Shelf. This area is hardly 1% of the entire area of Antarctica, but it is exposed to Southern Hemisphere west wind drift and some of the strongest storms on the planet.

factum: What causes such massive chunks of ice to break off?

Puls: There are lots of factors, among them the intensity of the west wind fluctuations. These west winds have intensified over the last 20 years as part of natural ocean and atmospheric cycles, and so it has gotten warmer on the west coast of the Antarctic peninsula. A second factor are the larger waves associated with the stronger storms. The waves are more powerful and so they break off more ice. All these causes are meteorological and physical, and have nothing to do with a climate catastrophe.

factum: Then such ice breaks had to have occurred in the past too?

Puls: This has been going on for thousands of years, also in the 1970s, back when all the talk was about “global cooling”. Back then there were breaks with ice chunks hundreds of square kilometres in area. People were even discussing the possibilities of towing these huge ice chunks to dry countries like South Africa or Namibia in order to use them as a drinking water supply.

factum: What about all the media photos of polar bears losing their ice?

Puls: That is one of the worst myths used for generating climate hysteria. Polar bears don’t eat ice, they eat seals. Polar bears go hungry if we shoot their food supply of seals. The polar bear population has increased with moderately rising temperatures, from 5000 50 years ago to 25,000 today.

factum: But it is true that unlike Antarctica, the Arctic is melting?

Puls: It has been melting for 30 years. That also happened twice already in the last 150 years. The low point was reached in 2007 and the ice has since begun to recover. There have always been phases of Arctic melting. Between 900 and 1300 Greenland was green on the edges and the Vikings settled there.

factum: And what do you say about the alleged expanding deserts?

Puls: That doesn”t exist. For example the Sahara is shrinking and has lost in the north an area as large as Germany over the last 20 years. The same is true in the South Sahara. The famine that struck Somalia, Kenya and Ethiopia was mainly caused by the leasing of large swaths of land to large international corporations so that they could grow crops for biofuels for Europe, and by war. But it is much easier for prosperous Europe to blame the world’s political failures on a fictional climate catastrophe instead.

factum: So we don’t need to do anything against climate change?

Puls: There’s nothing we can do to stop it. Scientifically it is sheer absurdity to think we can get a nice climate by turning a CO2 adjustment knob. Many confuse environmental protection with climate protection. it’s impossible to protect the climate, but we can protect the environment and our drinking water. On the debate concerning alternative energies, which is sensible, it is often driven by the irrational climate debate. One has nothing to do with the other.

Forbes online has just published a consensus-shattering article by Larry Bell: Global Warming Chorus Discord Rising To Feverish Pitch. Some selected juicy excerpts…

…leading voices in the Global Warming Gospel Choir are now abandoning the old climate crisis hymnal … ‘there’s nothing much happening yet even though we were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now’ … blizzard of criticism charging the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) with gross incompetence and dishonesty, most particularly regarding fear-mongering  exaggeration …

Schellnhuber coauthored a paper refuting reliability of General Circulation (climate) Models … ‘[greenhouse gas scenario] trends are clearly overestimated’ … benefits of any global warming…are greatly underrated … no confidence in alarmist climate predictions … all based on computer models … powerful convergence of interests. Scientists seeking grant money, media seeking headlines …

scientists have falsified data to support their own beliefs … 51% of the Democrats also agreed … Rapidly growing public skepticism … putting alarmists on the defensive … worried about a global warming-induced ice age …”

Read it all here!

PS: The Forbes article even has a link to NTZ.