One of the arguments used to convince people of the virtues of solar energy was that “the sun doesn’t send a bill … energy from the sun is free!” Even Dave Suzuki once claimed that.

The notion that “solar energy is free” has turned out to be an expensive myth. Quite to the contrary, the bills for solar energy are now coming in, and they’re huge.

Hat-tip Benny Peiser.

Not Long ago investors were exuberantly bullish when it came to investments in solar energy in Germany, so were large companies. Today, however, many have since lost their shirts. And the FAZ now writes large corporations who placed their bets on solar power and solar heat are “pulling out disillusioned“. “The strategy ended in a debacle.”

As an example, the FAZ cites Siemens, who announced on Monday that its solar unit would be liquidated and shut down completely by next spring after the company’s solar strategy “ended in a debacle” after having “poured about a billion euros into the business“.

Looks as if the solar industry in Germany is “dead”

The FAZ writes that Siemens now follows a long list of failed solar companies in Germany (once ballyhooed as a model for the rest of the world), joining Bosch, who announced too that it would withdraw from the solar business, thus putting the jobs of 3000 employees at stake in economically depressed East Germany. Supervisory board chairman Franz Fehrenbach now says it looks as if the solar industry in Germany is “dead”.

Solar manufacturers blame the plummeting prices for panels and modules, as well as competition from China. FAZ reports that “a total of 1.56 billion euros had been completely written off by the company by the end of 2012. On top of that come operating losses totaling 750 million euros”.

The FAZ then tallies the total capital destruction by the German solar industry as a whole, pegging that number at 21 billion euros! The FAZ writes:

Investment stars Solarworld and Q-Cells have destroyed capital to the tune of double-digit billions of euros. In December 2007 the East German Solar Valley cell and module manufacturer Q-Cells was considered to be an aspiring candidiate for the first league stock market. Nothing came of that. Instead the company declared itself insolvent in 2012 and was bought up by a Korean company. Private investors practically lost everything.”

So much for the claim that “solar energy is free”. Once again, the central planners demonstrate again how effective and talented they are when it comes to destroying wealth and capital.

Not that von Storch is sort of a provocateur, rather he only speaks his mind, which at times for some means a message they’d prefer not to hear. He has something for both sides today, but moreso for the alarmists.

What follows are some excerpts that appear at von Storch’s Klimazwiebel site on the Spiegel interview and from the interview itself.

Less climate hysteria today

On the climate aspects of the flooding that has just occurred in Germany, HvStorch:

In my view the climate hysteria has decreased. There are still people who with every natural catastrophe are ritually calling out: ‘You see, it’s climate change’s fault!’ But indeed many more people are talking about the real causes of the flooding, like covering the ground with asphalt and concrete and the disappearance of natural flood plains. That’s good.”

Models facing a serious problem

On the current temperature stagnation while CO2 is rising, Klimazwiebel quotes HvStorch: “We face a puzzling problem. Only 2% of the models foresaw this, and if nothing changes in the next 5 to 6 years, research will be faced with a serious problem as not a single model projected that.”

SPIEGEL asks:  ”That’s pretty dismal for your colleagues when they have to go back to the drawing board to adjust the models to fit reality…”

HvStorch: “Why? That’s how the process of science works. In science, also in climate science, there is no last word. We never deliver the truth. Rather we deliver the closest approximation of reality. It’s just that this often gets forgotten in the public perception and communication.”

HvStorch adds, “the mistake is that science often produces the impression that it is the keeper of the truth.”

Expect more surprises

Later in the Spiegel interview, HvStorch also believes that the global temperature will eventually resume its rise and may even exceed 2°C, depending on how emissions develop. He thinks so because that is what his instincts tell him, he says. He elaborates further:

Other climate scientists probably have another instinct. Our models do make lots of assumptions that are highly subjective. You can calmly expect more surprises.”

Ocean acidification makes HvS nervous

When asked about his fears on the consequences of climate change, HvStorch replies:

The possible acidification of the oceans from CO2 in the atmosphere. For me that is a phenomenon that is really scary – maybe because I understand too little about it. If marine life was no longer able to adequately form shells and skeletons, that would disrupt the marine food chain. That indeed makes me nervous.”

Photo source: http:institute/coastalresearch.en.

Here he explains to his German readers how the temperature really developed over the Holocene and why the 20th century is “unique”.

To do this, Rahmstorf uses the findings of the already refuted Shaun Marcott et al paper, reminding us that Marcott et al “tried out 20 different averaging methods and carried out 1000 Monte Carlo-simulations ” in order “to confirm the robustness of their results“. Rahmstorf writes:

To put the main results in a nutshell, it appears as follows:

Fig. 1. Blue curve: global temperature reconstruction from proxy data from Marcott et al., Science 2013. Shown is the RegEM version – noteworthy differences between the variants with different averaging methods appear only at the end, where the number of proxy series decreases, but where the temperature course is well-known from the instrumental measurements. Red curve: global temperature for (HadCRU). Graphic: Klaus Bittermann.”

Next Rahmstorf explains how there had been a long term general cooling over 5000 years, and that that this was interrupted suddenly by a skyrocketing warming over the last 100 years, a warming that completely cancelled all the cooling that had taken 5000 years to accomplish.

Rahmstorf then compares the Marcott reconstruction to the PAGES 2k reconstruction, as shown in his Fig. 3:

Fig. 3. The last two thousand years taken from Fig. 1 compared to the PAGES reconstruction (green), which is explained in Part 1. Graphic: Klaus Bittermann.”

On Fig. 3 Rahmstorf comments:

What we see is that both reconstructions produce consistent results. The course of the last 1000 years is practically identical and is, by the way, one more confirmation of the ‘hockey stick’ from Mann et al. 1999 – see part 2 of this series, The hockey stick debate.”

So now in Rahmstorf’s mind, the hockey stick is back to life (again).

Next Rahmstorf asks if the modern warming is unique, and explains the methodology used for the 20th century temperature reconstruction:

Because of the mentioned limitations of sediment cores, the new temperature reconstruction does not extend to the present, rather only until 1940, and the number of data curves used decreases significantly before that. (Therefore the shown range of uncertainty becomes increasingly wider near the end and reconstructions with various averaging methods diverge here – here we show the RegEM method because it works the best with the decreasing data coverage – see the blog from Grant Foster for more details, who is a professional statistician). The warming of the 20th century is therefore only captured to some extent, which is not a big problem because the warming is optimally documented by weather stations. There’s no doubt about the climate development of the 20th century.”

True there is no doubt about the 20th century. All the doubt surrounds the reconstructions over the course of the Holocene, and there’s very much in dispute. Moreover, splicing datasets coming from totally different measurement methods is dubious in the least, and is thus nothing less than creative curve designing. On the splicing, Rahmstorf comments.

There is a certain amount of room for play on how one splices the proxy data (blue) to the thermometer data (red) – Here I made it so that the mean value of the Marcott curve is the same as the mean value of the PAGES 2k reconstruction for the time period of 1000 to 1940 AD.”

Rahmstorf does admit that there are problems with the Marcott paper, yet feels that in principle it is correct and that the 20th century warming is unique, citing three reasons: 1) other proxies have never shown a warming like that seen in the 20th century during the entire Holocene, 2) statistics expert Grant Foster says so, and 3) such a rash warming must have physical reasons, and thus would have to disappear just as quickly.

Rahmstorf summarizes by saying that although the Marcott curve can be improved on, he believes that the course of the curve is “for the most part correct” and claims that a gradual cooling over the last several thousand years was abruptly interrupted in the 20th century.

To drive the point across to his readers, Rahmstorf then reaches ever deeper into his creative curve-designing toolbox and next splices on a scenario produced by model projections that use the worst-case climate-sensitivities (which have been shown to have been completely exaggerated) to the already dubiously diced and spliced proxy/instrumental reconstruction. By now the curve looks worse than Evel Knievel did after his worst motorcycle crash:

Fig. 4. Global temperature since the last ice age 20,000 years ago and extended until the year 2100 for a intermediate emissions scenario with about 3°C of warming. Graphic: Jos Hagelaars.”

This is not above finger-painting of curves in climate-kindergarten.

Rahmstorf’s Fig. 4 tells us what will happen if we “do not rashly reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases”. He writes that “we are in the process of catapulting ourselves out of the Holocene.” and that if we continue on, “we will know longer recognize our Earth by the end of the century.”

Hat tip Judith Curry (must read).

Some quotes:

“Germany’s Energiewende bodes ill for the country’s European leadership.”

“The reality has been messier, marked by price distortions, political U-turns, surging costs and inadequate infrastructure.”

“Businessmen say the Energiewende will kill German industry. Power experts worry about blackouts. Voters are furious about ever higher fuel bills.”

“…people see no paradox in demanding an end to nuclear power but objecting to the new transmission grid being built in their backyard.”

“…modern, clean natural-gas power plants are not viable. Only ageing, dirty brown-coal power stations with low variable costs can compete. The result is a web of grotesque distortions.”

“The cost of this mess is passed on to electricity users.”

Here we note that the Greens propose having industry take over the costs, but so far have been unable to explain what industry would do with these added costs. Not being able to think more than one step ahead is a chronic illness of the Greens.

“Germany’s most energy-intensive industries are now eyeing expansion on the other side of the Atlantic.”

Read the entire report here: www.economist.com/tilting-windmills.

The direction of the Energiewende is clear, and thus it is not hard to predict what’s up ahead for the country if it doesn’t make radical adjustments soon. Yet, its leaders refuse to pull their heads out of the sand and insist it’s going to work…somehow. From a sociological point of view, it is intriguing to observe a movement that is so cock-sure of itself, proud, arrogant, and obstinate that it would prefer to compromise the entire nation before admitting it has erred. History repeats.

The problem is that the green movement is massively institutionalized at every civic level and has been codified as the moral thing to do by all parties. How can it backtrack now and save face? Can we expect it to dismantle itself? The answer is clearly no.

Global warming science prematurely became fact and settled science years ago in Germany. Anyone who disagreed was labelled a heretic, outcast or extremist. Just take a look at the latest UBA brochure. As the Economist shows, it is truly a sad situation when a country meanders so far off course that its “extremists” in the end are proven to have been right all along.

I don’t see any change of direction coming at all. The green religion has even been hammered deep into the psyche of schoolchildren. Germany finds itself back in familiar historical territory. The only thing that can save it now is a major explosive upheaval. The longer the pressure builds…

Antarctic Ice Sheet Indeed Melting Slower Than Originally Thought
By Fritz Vahrenholt and Sebastian Lüning (translated, edited by P Gosselin)

We often read that the ice caps are melting faster than ever and that sea level rise has accelerated over the last decades. It is feared that sea level could be 2 mters higher by the year 2100. It is true that a majority of water stored on land as ice is located in the Antarctic ice sheet. If it melted completely, sea level would rise 60-65 m.

Luckily today we have satellites to permanently monitor the ice caps on Earth. And so far over the years, we have collected a good amount of data. Indeed it is only necessary to measure in detail the height of the ice cap over the continent and then automatically compute an ice volume. From the change, one could then calculate the melt rate.

But things aren’t quite that easy. When the last ice age ended 12,000 years ago, part of the Antarctic ice thawed. This reduced the load on the continent and thus allowed it to rise like an unloaded cargo ship – a process that is still taking place today. This is called glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA). This value itself is not easy to determine. The uncertainty here is estimated to be 50-150 billion tons per year (gigatons/year). That’s no chicken feed – especially if you consider that the melt rate assumed so far is only 26 gigatons per year. Here we see that the uncertainty is multiple times more than the actual data signal itself. That hardly induces much confidence in the results.

An international research team led by Erik Ivins of the Jet Propulsion Lab of Pasadena, California has taken a closer look at the GIA-correction and has reworked the data. They just recently published the results in the Journal of Geophysical Research. Based on data of the last decade, they’ve determined that the Antarctic ice melt represents in the worst case an amount of o.16 mm/year in terms of global sea level rise. That is signficantly less than what the IPCC proposed in its 2007 climate report. Back then the IPCC propoosed a sea level rise contribution by Antarctica in the worst case of 0.56 mm per year, see Table SPM1 of IPCC AR4).
==========================================

Photo credit: NOAA, public domain.

Members of an American landing party lend helping hands to other members of their organization whose landing craft was sunk be enemy action of the coast of France. These survivors reached Omaha Beach, by using a life raft. Photographer: Weintraub, 6 June 1944. Image source: U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain.

The English-language The Local from France reports here that “A controversy is brewing over plans to construct 75 windmills in Normandy, next to the site of the D-Day landings in WWII. Opponents of the French project say the windpark would be an act of desecration. [...] desecrates the memory of the liberators.”

The Local writes that the project is being proposed by French power company EDF, which plans to construct seventy five 100-meter tall windmills near the beaches where British and Canadian forces landed and thousands lost their lives. The Local adds:

‘These beaches belong to history. It’s from here that the liberation of the world began. If you allow the comparison, I don’t think the Germans would permit the construction of a wind park next to the ruins of a concentration camp. These are sacred areas,’ said Karel Scheerlinck, a Belgian who lives in the town.”

Is this how some people in France say “merci”? Talk about ingrates. For a nation that prides itself in being sophisticated, this idea sure is an example of very poor manners and bad upbringing by some among them.

This is an idea they’d be wise to scrap immediately.

Read full story here.

As an aside, here’s a worthwhile (outstanding) video:

Climate activist group close to IPCC removes video: The science on which it was based, from Stefan Rahmstorf, is no longer the scientific consensus
By Fritz Vahrenholt and Sebastian Lüning (translated/edited by P Gosselin)

For years Skeptical Science has been actively defending the climate catastrophe model scenarios of the IPCC. The name of the website was purposely selected to mislead, as it is not skeptical of the climate catastrophe, like the name implies. Rather it is more skeptical of climate skeptics (“Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism”). At the website, a group of activists discusses the more common climate-skeptical points and attempts to refute them scientifically, which more often than not fails. A look at the discussion there reveals shocking results. For example, an incomplete temperature chart was used as the basis of discussion for showing the climatic impacts of the sun. The temperature plateau of the last 15 years was mysteriously missing.

On 10 January 2013, a new 2-minute video was featured at Skeptical Science, which used the argumentation of Stefan Rahmstorf (Foster & Rahmstorf 2011) to show that the stop in temperature rise of the last years was indeed in agreement with the current IPCC models. So all was well at the IPCC. However, all that changed. A wave of new publications has shown a significantly reduced CO2 climate sensitivity and a stronger influence by ocean cycles. Moreover, scientists dismantled the methodical approach used in the video, and thus the one used by Foster & Rahmstorf (2011). Then about a month later on 21 February 2013, Skeptical Science pulled the emergency brake by taking down the video altogether. When you call up the video at YouTube, there’s nothing to see. At the Skeptical Science site the following message is found:

Update 21/02/2013: Troy Masters is doing some interesting analysis on the methods employed here and by Foster and Rahmstorf. On the basis of his results and my latest analysis I now think that the uncertainties presented here are significantly underestimated, and that the attribution of short term temperature trends is far from settled. There remains a lot of interesting work to be done on this subject.”

On 21 May 2013 Skeptical Science then published an even more detailed error discussion at its site. These efforts are openly welcome, and do help re-establish some confidence in climate science. However the broad rejection of the Foster & Rahmstorf approach by the IPCC colleagues does not come as a surprise. Already on February 4, Die kalte Sonne blog contributor Frank Bosse did a comprehensive error analysis of the dubious Rahmstorf paper. In his blog article “How much man-made influence is there in climate change?” Bosse criticized, writing:

We remove what we know very well and conclude from it: Whatever is left, must be anthropogenic. In the end that’s how you could describe the approach used by F/R 2011. This indeed may be a good strategy to use on TV quiz shows (the process of elimination) and may function reasonably well because there is only a very limited number of possible answers. However in science there’s always something new that gets found. One example is the effect of black carbon, or soot. It has been assigned a warming effect that is approximately  2/3 the effect of the IPCC-assumed CO2 warming effect (see our article ‘Soot is a much greater climate killer than previously thought. Must the CO₂ effect now be scaled back?‘). The space that is left for CO2 in the overall equation is becoming increasingly smaller.  Who knows  what we will soon know with greater certainty and what we will be able to remove from the overall equation. Research on solar impacts on our climate is now proceeding at full speed and goes beyond the total solar irradiance (TSI). See our article ‘New US National Research Council Report on the Climate Effect of the Sun‘).”

At his KlimaLounge blog Ramstorf has been silent about the video folly. No comment. The large June 2013 flood seems to be taking most of his media attention.

With all the folly surrounding the video, it’s understandable that readers would want to view it as the latest sorrowful example in the recent science story. Although the original video has been removed by Skeptical Science and is no longer available to the public, some other dedicated climate catastrophe warrior has the video in his Youtube film repertoire. It’ll be interesting to see for how much longer (PS: you may want to save a copy – quickly!):

One question still remains open: Why didn’t Rahmstorf’s science-colleagues even lift a finger when the Foster & Rahmstorf 2011 paper appeared? Did it really have to take 2 years to discover that the simplistic methodical approach was incomplete? Other than scientific reasons, could other reasons be involved here?

Now there’s another question that has been unsettling scientists as of late: Why is Antarctic sea ice expanding?

Antarctica sea ice anomaly. Source: arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/jpg.

This is one question a German research institute now aims to answer. Antarctica has long been a painful thorn in the warmists’ side. Hopefully a real answer will be found, and not some concocted plausible-sounding explanation of the sort we’ve been getting lately.

Germany’s polar research center Alfred Wegener Institute located in Bremerhaven has issued a press release about its upcoming expedition to Antarctica.

Below I’ve highlighted the part describing one of the purposes of the expedition:

Bremerhaven, 6 June 2013. A group of researchers from the Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research is flying to South Africa today. However this trip south is no summer holiday, but rather the start of a special journey: on Saturday, 8 June 2013 the research vessel Polarstern will be embarking on an expedition to the Antarctic winter. 49 researchers from institutes in twelve countries together with 44 crew members will spend a good two months in the Southern Ocean. They will be exploring the sea ice, the atmosphere and the ocean, until the expedition comes to an end on 12 August in Punta Arenas, Chile.

The research ice-breaker Polarstern is one of the few ships in the world that is able to navigate the Antarctic Ocean in the winter. At this time of the year the Weddell Sea, which is the destination of the expedition, is covered by sea ice, and the members of the expedition team will face temperatures of around minus 30 degrees Celsius and the polar night with only a few hours of twilight. These special conditions have meant that not enough research has been carried out into several physical, chemical and biological processes in the Antarctic winter. The Antarctic plays a key role in the Earth System: It is where the so-called deep water, which drives global ocean currents, is formed.

Chief scientist Prof. Dr. Peter Lemke from the Alfred Wegener Institute has assembled an international team and is taking the most modern research equipment on the expedition in order to obtain baseline data in the wintery Antarctic. On the Greenwich Meridian through to the Antarctic coast the team plans to investigate, for example, the fundamental question of why Antarctic sea ice is expanding slightly whilst the sea ice cover in the Arctic is steadily shrinking.

The second half of the expedition then moves on to the incipient spring: the planned route takes the Polarstern from the Antarctic coast in a north-westerly direction, away from the polar night and into the rising sun. The second central question addressed by the research programme looks at which mechanisms permit the ecosystem of the Southern Ocean to come back to life after the long, cold and dark winter. You can also follow the route of the Polarstern live here: http://expedition.awi.de/.”

Photo: Polarstern research vessel of the Alfred Wegener Institute. Source: Alfred Wegener Institute.

Today nothing has changed apparently, as Spiegel poignantly demonstrates with its latest online round of hysterics titled: Flut-Drama in Deutschland: Wir sind schuldig!  In English: Flood Drama in Germany: We’re to Blame! by Jakob Augstein.

According to Augstein, today’s German flooding is a result of man’s sins against the climate. Climate deniers are mostly to blame for the “Katastrophe“. He writes:

High water of the century is rolling across southern and eastern Germany. Now is an opportunity to take the deniers of climate change for a tour of the dikes, and to take the preachers of growth to Magdeburg. But they would just say they are not to blame. And we would all agree!”

If you thought Augstein sounded like some zealot inquisitor from the Dark Ages who zealously prosecuted at witch trials, you wouldn’t be far off. His hysterical language and mindset are the same. In publishing his ridiculous commentary, Spiegel looks like it is stuck in the Dark Ages. Little wonder that renowned astrophysicists like Murry Salby are calling climate science a ”cult science“.

In describing the flooding disaster in his commentary, it’s clear for Augstein:  ”Our way of living is not coming without a price.”

He adds:

The question is: What proof do the climate change deniers need before they open their eyes? What is it going to take to get the preachers of growth to learn?

Like during the Dark Ages, weather misfortunes are proof enough for the high priests and witch-trial seeking prosecutors like Augstein. Who needs scientific data when we have Maxeiner, Miersch and Magdeburg?

Today modern climate statistics show that hurricanes/accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) are near lows, tornadoes show no trend, and global temperature has been flat 15 years. Worse, ALL the crystal ball warming projections of the “renowned” scientists have been completely wrong from the start.

All 73 models got it completely wrong. Source: drroyspencer.com/

Yet, Spiegel thinks we should just ignore all the hard data and simply accept a single spring flood as a “moment of clairvoyance“.

In his tirade, Augstein singles out pro-growth economics professor Karl-Heinz Paqué, who he says is to be thanked for making sure the Enquete Commission Report to the German government of last week became a “document of failure“. He goes after skeptic journalists Michael Miersch and Dirk Maxeiner for discrediting the results of climate science in the “right-wing corner” of a leading daily, saying that the German government was correct in singling them out and slandering them as infidels.

Augstein sees little hope that people will adopt the green religion (good news!) and warns us by bringing up the downfall of earlier human civilizations.

Those who follow old ways under new living conditions will end up extinct. That’s what did in the people of Easter Island, the Vikings in Greenland, and the Mayans. We should not be surprised if we are next.”

Ironically, all of those earlier civilizations perished because of natural climate change, and for some extinction came because they tried to solve their climate problems precisely with neurotic rituals like human sacrifices, and rain-dancing. Today Augstein and Spiegel are advocating we do the same, but with different rituals: changing light bulbs, going by foot and buying locally. Ask the people whose homes were flooded in Magdeburg if their energy saving lights, carbon credits and buying locally kept the waters back. Human rituals, no matter how righteously and ceremoniously carried out, aren’t going to control the weather.

Science is not about accepting what “renowned” scientists insist we believe, and not daring to question their authority. To the contrary, it is precisely about not accepting what they insist we believe, and it is about scrutinising and putting what they tell us to rigorous test. Anything else is just the superstition of fools, which belongs to the dustbin of history - to join the Dark Ages, witch-hunters, and Augstein.

Most of the presentation is very mathematical and technical. But the last 10 minutes sums everything up very nicely for the laypersons.

Die kalte Sonne writes:

Prof. Murry Salby, climate scientist at Macquarie University of Sydney, made a presentation in Hamburg on April 18th as part of a European tour. Prof. Salby is author of the textbook Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate (Cambridge University Press) and Fundamentals of Atmospheric Physics (Academic Press) and is renowned worldwide as an astrophysicist. He recently caused excitement with new findings on the relationship of the 12C- and 13C isotopes and the development of CO2-concentration. From the findings he concluded that the anthropogenic emissions only had a slight impact on the global CO2-concentrations. They are are mainly a consequence of temperature changes. This relationship is known up to now only from the warming phases after the last ice ages. Prof. Salby extends this relationship to our current climate development.

The video recording of the presentation, which was organised by the host Helmut Schmidt University, is now available at Youtube (above).”

Near the end (1:02:50) Salby on CO2 and temperature:

Their divergence over the last decade and a half is now unequivocal. In the models global temperature tracks CO2 almost perfectly. In the real world it clearly doesn’t.”

Salby then presents two charts for comparison, which I’ve arranged side-by-side: the model world vs real world:

Model world (left) vs real world (right). Graphics from Murry Salby presentation.

1:04:05 mark he sums it up neatly:

CO2 then evolves not like temperature, as it does in the model, but like the integral of temperature. In dotted blue is the integral of observed temperature. It closely tracks observed CO2 – even after the 1990s when the observed record of CO2 and temperature clearly diverged. If CO2 tracks the integral of temperature, which it clearly does, it cannot track temperature, which it clearly doesn’t.

In the model, CO2 and temperature are related directly. In the real world they are also related, but differently. The distinctly different relationship between CO2 and global temperature represents a fundamental difference in the global energy balance between its evolution in the model world and the real world. If the global energy balance is wrong, everything else is window dressing.”

The points of Salby’s presentation lead to the following implications:

- In the Real World global temperature is not controlled exclusively by CO2, as it is in the Model World.

- In significant part, however, CO2 is controlled by Global Temperature, as it is in the Proxy Record.”

At the end of the presentation, Salby implies, quoting Richard Feynman, that CO2 science today can be described as “Cult Science”.

He sums up quoting Feynman: “If it differs from observations, then it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”