** BREAKING NEWS! ** BREAKING NEWS! ** BREAKING NEWS! **
Another huge slab of the Climate-Berlin-Wall has fallen. It’s a climate skeptic jail-break! I imagine the Climate-Politburo members must be quivering and trembling in their bunkers in Potsdam by now.
Big hat-tip to NTZ reader Ike.
A leading German news magazine has decided to depart from the dogma of angst and catastrophe and bring up climate science issues that, up to now, have been strictly taboo here in the Vaterland. Tomorrow FOCUS magazine will come out with its newest issue titled:
Prima Klima! Umdenken:Wieso die globale Erwärmung gut für uns ist. (Best Climate! Change of Thinking: Why global warming is good for us.)
Change of Thinking – yes! And the timing couldn’t be better.
Folks, this is the first time in a long time that a major German news magazine has decided to do a little investigative reporting, instead of relying on the press releases from the Palaces Of Panic like the Potsdam Institute of Climate Impact Research, NOAA, Alfred Wegener Institute, etc., and seriously look into this controversial global issue. Game over comrades!
When the global warming hoax collapses in Germany, then Europe follows right behind it – and then, of course, the rest of the world. Germany is that one domino. This represents a major setback for the warministas. Indeed it would be interesting to know what went on in the FOCUS editorial offices.
Perhaps the normally über-alarmist FOCUS has already gotten tired of the winter and longs for the warmer days. I can’t explain why they are coming out with such an issue – especially during Cancun. Whoa! That’s all I can say.
Here’s what tomorrow’s issue will feature:
78 Warm times are good times. Harvest yields increase, Forests grow, deserts shrink
86 Which impacts of climate change are proven? Which are not?
90 The “Who is who“ in climate science
Promo video (in German, see English text below):
The video begins with:
This week in the coming FOCUS: Best Climate. Change in thinking – global warming is good for us. FOCUS editor Dr. Christian Pandler (sp?) researched the current topic and reports on it in the new issue.
Editor Dr. Pandler (a bit paraphrased):
In the new FOCUS issue, we take a look at the question of climate change. This week the world climate conference is taking place in Cancun, where world leaders are going to debate over how to combat warming. Our question: Is global warming actually bad? Does it entail only disadvantages and only catastrophic consequences? Up to now, people have only focused on what will be bad. The question is what could be good? No one has really looked at this. It’s taboo in Germany.
We know from history that warm periods were good periods for us. Cold periods were bad periods. We know that 20,000 years ago Europe was a frozen wasteland where nobody lived. That was a real climate catastrophe. For example we had a warming 10,000 years ago, which led to a greening of the Sahara. Then there was cooling which led it to be parched again. Now it’s warming, and there are lots of signs that show it is greening up again. For the people in Africa, it is absolutely a positive development. If it continues that way, it could once again become green with a variety of wildlife, rivers and lakes and so on. This is a consequence that hardly has been discussed.
We’ve spoken to scientists who are there on site. One researcher in particular has gone there every year for 30 years and photographed how the Sahara is gradually getting greener.”
Go out and reward FOCUS by buying this issue – get an additional copy for a friend too. Thank the editor for having the guts to do this.
In the meantime, my advice to that brave editor at FOCUS: Put on your bullet-proof political vest and find the deepest possible bunker. The greenshirts are sending over the B-52s! Achtung!
This is going to be something to relish.
Ironically this comes out precisely when the science is showing signs that cooling is coming instead, and so FOCUS may be only getting false hopes up. Lol! You just can’t make this stuff up. It makes my day.
30 responses to “Focus Magazine: “Global Warming Is Good For Us””
Good news from The Netherlands too, because last week my newspaper, Volkskrant, published a big interview with a climate skeptic. Two years ago they promised us that no skeptic opinions were allowed anymore in the newspaper because the science was settled. I am wondering what is going on there. Do they realize that their ship is sinking and they are becoming desperate fools if they remain on board?
If you wish, you can write a summary of that report with the best quotes and I’ll post it. Just e-mail it to me!
Die ist die besten Idee, die ich diese Woche gehört habe.
The timing is perfect! Cancun is going to be VERY interesting.
Maybe this is cover for Angela Merkel. If Cancun fails (it will), then she can say that warming isn’t all that bad after all. And maybe some in the media are recognizing that the Greens here are getting too big for their britches.
I know FOCUS has had terrible sales lately, and maybe they’ve decided to stand above the crowd. That’s 3 “maybes” I’ve used.
Will they be releasing the polar bears into the auditorium? 😉
How do I buy a copy from Australia?
I don´t know where to buy a copy in down under…but, maybe one of PG blog is willing to send you a copy.
Or maybe some1 can scan the article and sent it to you per email.
I think it ought to be possible to get a copy at a major airport there, or to order one from a newsstand. It’ll cost extra. . And maybe it’ll be put in the internet in full.
Will you be translating it and posting it here? My wife considers translation an onerous task at best, and my German is utterly hopeless!
If a translation is posted on the web, please let us know where!
Surely I’ll write a post about it on Tuesday. It would be a copyright infringement to do a translation and post it.
The bad news is, Socialists will be compelled to devise news ways to impose a one-world government, Socialist state.
The “global warming you’re causing it and killing a billion people” program just doesn’t have traction any more.
Socialists might have to return to the Soviet-style, armored tanks and battalion occupations again. At least this method is effective for a little while, anyway.
No, they use food and energy to do the job.
The interview, titled ‘There is no climate debate’ was with Marcel Crok in Volkskrant, November 21, 2010. It was about his second book and he comments on it (in Dutch) on his own blog
The content is interesting for a broad public, but does not contain information we don’t know. Perhaps I have some time this week for translations. Sincerely.
In stark contrast, the FRANKFURTER ALLGEMEINE ZEITUNG is supporting Prof. H.J. Schellnhuber’s view, today, 29/Nov./S. 6: “In climate protection matter we need majority decisions”, (Wir brauchen im Klimaschutz Mehrheitsentscheidungen) here:
Last year on 05 Dec/2009, the FAZ published Latif & Schellnhuber article : “ The test of humanity” (Die Prüfung der Menschlichkeit”). http://www.faz.net/s/RubC5406E1142284FB6BB79CE581A20766E/Doc~EA4B266D018D443BDA3EC397BBA5773AE~ATpl~Ecommon~Scontent.html , that made me to write a letter to the FAZ (in German here: http://www.ozeanklima.de/Archiv/dez_09.html) , in vain.
From your Schellnhuber interview link: “Wenn Sie fragen, ist Verzicht heute mehrheitsfähig, um in ferner Zukunft ein Kind vor dem Exodus zu bewahren, so lautet die Antwort zunächst: nein.”
engl: When you ask, is wealth reduction today capable of attracting a majority to save a child in the far future from exodus (meaning emigration, probably), so the answer is: no”
Let’s think about this – while a lot of warmists ponder possibilities of radical geo-engineering, this warmist says we should reduce our (the entire worlds, IOW!) wealth because it cannot be that in the far future a person has to migrate.
Now, migration is the easiest and cheapest adaption measure of all, and this warmist simply rules it out.
Baffles the mind, doesn’t it? As if we were all vegetable.
BTW: Schellnhuber is a Bavarian – he was NOT born in Potsdam. Duh.
The cited text of the man with qualifications in mathematics and physics—and a Doctorate in Theoretical Physics, continues as follows:
“But key questions such as these, as well as the human rights issues belong in the Constitution. This would mean that there are judges who decide against a majority when it is in keeping with our constitutional right consensus.
YOU’LL NEED A FEW PEOPLE WHO POSE AN ETHICAL ELITE. At the end, you can probably not solve problems by a large majority that have a causal distance as in the case with climate change.”
(Aber Kernfragen wie diese, ebenso die der Menschenrechtsfragen, gehören in die Verfassung. Das hätte zur Folge, dass es Richter gibt, die auch gegen eine Mehrheit entscheiden, wenn es im Sinne unseres Verfassungskonsenses richtig ist. Sie brauchen also auch ein paar wenige Leute, die eine ethische Elite darstellen. Am Ende werden Sie vermutlich mit einer breiten Mehrheit nicht Probleme lösen können, die eine kausale Distanz wie beim Klimawandel besitzen.)
The debat according to the BBC
‘200 years of evidence’ proves climate change
Interesting. Of course they are right concerning Fourier and Arrhenius, but they don’t say how CHANGES in CO2 level should have an impact. Can’t bother the listener with logarithmic functions, we’re too dumb for that. And from there, the chymera of postulated, never observed water vapor feedback SHOULD be mentioned, and then, the inability of GCM’s to model cloud formation correctly… It’s so easy to tear down the entire fairytale yet the journos are incapable of that.
Related: Schellnhuber in Der Spiegel, Interview, engl.
German Climatologist on Criticism of IPCC
‘We Received a Kick in the Pants'”
Surprisingly, he acknowledges plant fertilization and talks about the need for assessing positive vs. negative impacts. Maybe the old alarmism number ain’t a selling point in Berlin anymore.
Maurice Strong engineered the attack on capitalism and industrialism, its engine of growth, through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
Time For Economic Restoration Now Climate Change Deception Exposed
By Dr. Tim Ball Monday, November 29, 2010
Problems are only problems if you are unaware of them. Once identified you’re over halfway to resolution. American voters rejected the Obama administration’s policies of increasing government control through energy, environment and economic policies. They voted for cessation and reversal. Now the new politicians and chastened survivors must act accordingly. Debt and deficit are serious problems and the solution depends partly on reduced government spending, but mostly on a vigorous growing economy and that depends on energy. Maurice Strong’s plan to collapse the industrial economies recognized this with his focus on fossil fuels and CO2, so that’s where the solution must begin.
Keynote speaker Vaclav Klaus, elected President of the Czech Republic in 2003 made a memorable comment for me at the first Heartland Conference on Climate Change in New York. He said we’ve just emerged from 70 years of communism and asked, incredulously, why anyone would go back. He was referring to the US and Europe and identified environmentalism and climate change as the vehicles for the transit. He made his case effectively in his book Blue Planet in Green Shackles where he writes, “The themes in the contemporary dispute (or perhaps clash) are clearly about human freedom – not about the environment.” His warnings are not surprising given his personal experiences, but they’re supported by similar comments and actions by Russia and China. The contradiction is not surprising and parallels evolution of human, social, economic and political systems.
We’ve really only tried two socio-economic systems, capitalism and communism. They evolved from two major 19th century works published just 8 years apart. Darwin’s Origin of The Species published in 1859 is the essence of capitalism with its theme of survival of the fittest. Karl Marx’s Das Kapital published in 1867 denounced capitalism and became the basis of communism. Now capitalist countries move toward communism in the form of total government control.
Some foolishly suggest a compromise is the oxymoron of State Capitalism. Trouble is capitalism requires free markets with little or no government interference. Ironically, one of the few places where free markets succeeded was the black market in the Soviet Union. One development that paralleled growth of capitalism was increasing government intervention in the market place. Malfeasance in the market place made people realize unbridled capitalism was not the answer. The problem is, once you start controls, how are they limited? This is where limits to growth really apply.
Maurice Strong engineered the attack on capitalism and industrialism, its engine of growth, through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He focused on energy, particularly fossil fuels, and that marks the biggest difference currently between former capitalist and communist countries. Phony environmentalists with political agendas and those milking government for climate research funding, blame skeptics for the failures of climate conferences and the collapse of global climate policies. In fact, it was India and China who consistently blocked the plans as they moved to expand their economies. Russia sits cynically on the side doing only what benefits them. All three continue with extensive development of fossil fuels by ensuring access to supply and building energy facilities, especially coal and nuclear. Energy from these facilities is used to produce alternate energy products for nations who foolishly pursue an already proven unsustainable green agenda.
India, China and Russia did not reject IPCC findings simply to advance their economies. They did it because they knew the science was false. Consider the presentations made by Putin’s economic advisor Andrei Ilarianov clearly with approval.
Putin only changed when they threatened to deny access to the World Trade Organization (WTO) if he didn’t sign Kyoto.
Ilarianov resigned. All three paid lip service to Kyoto, but did not become enslaved to the carbon footprint that is stomping out economies of the so-called capitalist economies.
What To Do? Some Simple Inexpensive Solutions
There are simple steps essential to the US rebuilding energy sources and resources.
Put Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma in charge of a Commission to get climate and energy policies back from the edge of disaster. He is the only politician who understood the climate corruption and spoke out about it despite ridicule and nasty attacks.
Immediately cancel all plans for Cap and Trade or similar strategies.
Withdraw from the IPCC and cancel all research on climate carried out by government agencies. Reassign employees to extensive and better data collection on a multitude of environmental factors. This must include accurate information on all energy resources to avoid the exploitation of the argument we are exhausting resources, a fundamental tenet of the Club of Rome.
Produce reliable, fully documented, material that explains why CO2, especially human production, is not the cause of global warming or climate change. Launch a vigorous campaign to educate people about the science in ways they can understand.
Cancel all climate research funding and redirect it to identifying real problems with workable solutions. Academics have shown they’ll sell integrity for funding so have them produce really relevant rather than contrived work.
Produce reliable, fully documented, material that explains how the climate issue was manipulated. This must include the motive and the mechanism.
Cancel all subsidies to alternate energies. There are some uses for alternate energies, but they are very limited and very expensive, a problem completely masked by the subsidies.
Review and reduce all unnecessary restrictions on expansion of oil, coal and gas reserves established to reduce CO2.
Review and reduce all unnecessary restrictions on nuclear power development established after environmentalists, following Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, exploited public fears. It is no longer necessary with new technologies.
Reverse the Supreme Court decision that CO2 is a toxic substance. It was based on the falsified work of the IPCC. This will remove control of CO2 from the EPA.
Remove all energy subsidies and allow market forces to determine development. This will likely result, in nuclear and coal producing electricity; natural gas powering vehicles; and oil sustaining petrochemical industries.
Cancel legislation and funding introduced to deal with CO2, carbon footprints or any other extension of the idea.
Reduce taxes on all fuels as a direct benefit to the entire society. They’ve become a “sin” tax to punish us for causing climate change.
Review all environmental policies evolved from the false climate science.
Government can offer significant prizes for private citizens, the source of American exceptionalism, to influence innovation that solves basic energy problems. These include efficient large-scale storage of electricity and superconductivity.
Rejection of the Obama agenda includes exploitation of climate as a vehicle for total government control. The White House appointment of John Holdren, member of the Club of Rome, as Science Czar confirmed the commitment. It’s time for the newly elected politicians to team up with Senator Inhofe and roll back the policies. Beyond the increased debt, the climate basis for the energy policy has done much to destroy the economy and will do more unless quickly reversed. It then becomes the solution rather than the problem.
Do you have a link to this text?
I’d prefer readers not cut and then paste someone’s work here as this can lead to some copyright issues. Can you find the link?
Oh Mein Gott!!!
What a change of mind? Does it mean the End of the AWG Topic in the German magazines? That’s can’t be true!
In Jülich, it is snowing now. I’ve never seen such weather for years 🙂
It’s snowing across the northern 30% of the UK, from what I understand – just in time to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the MET pronouncement of “snow as a thing of the past in the UK.”
Such isolated events are quickly forgotten, however, whenever a couple of days of summer weather of 25 deg.C temperatures in London prove to the BBC and the Prince of Wales that everybody is going to die within two years if we don’t stop burning coal and oil immediately.
I’ve found the link Pierre:
Brian G Valentine
29. November 2010 at 20:27 | Permalink | Reply
With a royal Family like that a country doesn’t need any enemies.
If someone encourages a person with sub-par intelligence to go out and commit an extremely dangerous stunt for their own entertainment and intrigue – such as playing Russian roulette – are they guilty of a crime?
Charles ought to be charged as an accessory to attempted murder, that’s what, for goading the stupid Catlin expedition team to survive the Arctic in an imbecilic attempt to reach the North Pole, all for the purpose of demonstrating Charles’s idiotic pronouncements that the Arctic would be “ice-fee” in a matter of a few years.
Was Charles ever called to answer for this crime?
No, but Blair was, for deciding to eliminate Saddam, after which Blair atoned for his sins by proselytising AGW together with the likes of that lout, Sir Richard
Pierre, maybe you can scan the article and turn it into a PDF file?
I can try to get the Focus tomorrow and send you the scanned documents.
I’m sure I’d need permission for that. Otherwise I’d get huge problems with FOCUS over copyright infringement. I’m not really in the mood for that.
First time I’ve been to Focus web site. How good is this with some common sense starting to appear from the media re the climate change scam.
Skepticism globally toward the theory that increasing levels of man made CO2 is the primary cause of AGW, is growing rapidly, especially in light of empirical evidence (like this http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1005/1005.4639v1.pdf published recently in The Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics) that provides a far more plausible explanation for the variations in global temperatures (past, current & future) V’s the tired old Alarmist mantra of Global Warming due to CO2.
There’s fewer ‘Believers’ today than 12 months ago, due in no small measure to the Climategate revelations & more recent scientific evidence (as above) that effectively challenges the findings of the UN IPCC’s Reports that were cobbled together by the dubious activities of a select number of scientists behaving badly. The science clearly isn’t settled!
In those circumstances, unless seeking a path to political suicide, why would any Govt in it’s right mind continue to press ahead to constrain, indeed penalise, the development of its own economy in penance to an unproven science.