Silence Of The Greens

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

Germany’s Greens grow silent when confronted with questions on democracy, tolerance and free speech.

The German Greens think it is their duty to conduct inquisitions whenever anyone challenges prevailing environmental dogma. But whenever they themselves are asked tough questions on democracy and freedom of expression, they go silent and run for cover.

When the questions get tough, the Greens get silent. This is what has recently happened with some Green Parliamentarians in Germany.

    Silence of the Greens. (Photo source: Wikipedia)

           (Photo source: Wikipedia)

The Greens bully those who express different views

Back in August, Fred Singer visited Germany and spoke before an audience at a German parliamentary forum discussion. Many of those listening found Singer’s speech interesting and even “enlightening”, some even calling the climate protection craze that has swept through Europe a substitute religion. At this forum, freedom of thought and expression had been awakened, though only very briefly.

But this questioning of climate dogma borders on crime for the German Greens, who have become Germany’s new and growing intolerant. They, along with the Socialists, were livid and unleashed their hellfire and brimstone at those that expressed different views at the forum, read here.

These same Green Parliamentarians then presented Angela Merkel’s ruling government with a list of 13 questions, demanding how such environmental-blasphemy could have been given a forum within the ruling government, background here.

Asking questions is okay, of course, but the problem was the particularly aggressive, arrogant and intolerant tone contained in the brown Green query, so much so that it set off a wave of outrage throughout the blogosphere, leading many to question whether Germany was on track to a dark time it once had visited in its history.

It didn’t take long for the Greens got answers to their 13 questions; they came swiftly. First from physicist Lubos Motl here, and then from the German CDU/FDP coalition government read here, and from EIKE here.

The Greens (aggressively and arrogantly) demanded explanations and answers, and got them, even though they were not worthy of any response.

But it did not end there. Those on the receiving end of the Greens’ fire had questions of their own for the Greens to answer – questions about tolerance, democracy, freedom of expression, and how science progresses.

The German Free Democrats present 16 questions of their own to the Greens

Wondering if the German Greens still respected free speech, democratic principles and the scientific approach, a group of Free Democrats of the Friedrich Naumann Institute and other freedom-friendly organisations prepared a list of questions of their own for the Greens to answer, and sent it to the Green Parliamentarians. Several thousand concerned persons have also already signed a copy in the Internet.

Here are the questions posed to the Greens, 30 November 2010,  in short:

1, Are the Greens aware of the 800 peer-reviewed papers that question AGW?

2. Are the Greens aware that climate science is a relatively new science that still entails lots of uncertainty, and that there is no consensus?

3. Will the Greens even send a representative to the 3rd International Conference on Climate and Energy in Berlin?

4. If the Greens think the question of climate change is already settled, then why spend billions more for financing of climate research work?

5. Are the Greens aware of any other institution, except for the Pope and their own party, that claims to be infallible?

6. Are the Greens aware that scientific papers questioning man-made climate change were suppressed, and are they aware of Climategate, Himalayagate, Glaciergate, Amazongate?

7. Are the Greens aware of the scientific achievemnts of Prof. Fred Singer’s distinguished scientific career?

8. Are the Greens aware that Prof. Dr. Judith Curry said: “Man made climate change is a theory and is highly uncertain?

9. Is it the Greens’ view that serious, scientific work is only so if it supports the political standards of your party?

10. Why is it that no journalist has ever gotten the idea to check up on the scientific reputation of experts that are paid by the Greens?

11. What is the Greens’ position on the fact that your politics accompanies the profligate subsidies to solar and wind energy, bought by donations from, among others, IBC Solar AG, SMA Solar Technology AG, Ostwind, Umweltkontor Renewable Energy, EWO Energietechnologie GmbH, Conergy AG, Pro Vento, Nordex AG, Windpark G. W. Meerhof GmbH & Co. KG, Ersol AGder Windpark GmbH & Co. KG, Wind Project Development GmbH, Solarworld AG, SMA Technologie AG, Solon AG fir Solar Technology, AGU Energy and Electrotechnology GmbH?

12. In which renewable energy industries and to what extent have Parliamentarians of the Green Faction invested?

13. Do the Greens intend to continue their constant use of the expression “climate denier”?

14. Will the Greens continue to use public money to encourage and incite others to commit acts of crime, such as vandalizing rail tracks?

15. Do the Greens call protests at nuclear waste storage facilities only when they are in the opposition, and do the opposite when they are not?

16. Are the Greens aware of the point you’ve reached today, when you are asked such questions?

Response: deafening silence

Well, it’s been 2 weeks, and still not a peep from the Greenshirts. And glancing over at the debating-table, we see they have snuck away, bolted through the back door, and disappeared into the darkness.  Their silence speaks volumes.

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

53 responses to “Silence Of The Greens”

  1. DirkH

    In the coming regional elections, a win of Red-Green is expected. Without the slightest hesitation, a radio journalist of “NDR info”, a local public radio channel, pointed out that the reason for the green success in polls is that they stand for climate protection (“Klimaschutz” he said, literally).

    So, still no signs of questioning the AGW orthodoxy. The Big Lie strategy has worked out very well so far for the Greens. I have no doubt that most of them believe the big lie themselves.

    The Germans are near-schizophrenic – they don’t even think about the obvious contradiction between ever colder winters and the Big Lie. They have swallowed their medicine very well.

    1. DirkH

      Forgot to mention, i was talking about the Hamburg elections….

  2. cassiopeia

    1, Are the Greens aware of the 800 peer-reviewed papers that question AGW?

    Yes, it is a

    -snip…trolling and saying things you yourself do not even believe (RC Policy – sorry).

    1. DirkH

      I don’t have the time to clear everything up for you. Just this one
      “2. Are the Greens aware that climate science is a relatively new science that still entails lots of uncertainty, and that there is no consensus?

      Nope, because it isn’t. In 1827 Jean-Baptiste Fourier suggested that greenhouse gases kept the earth warmer. This has been confirmed time and time again by many independent groups of scientists. Today 98% of climate scientists agree with the consensus. Considering the amount of money which is available from the carbon lobby for dissenting, this is a remarkably reputable and honest group of people by the standards of most

      Cassiopeia; the greenhouse effect increase caused by a doubling of CO2 (which we are far below ATM) is at most 0.4 deg C; even warmist scientists agree with that. The more drastic projections result in the assumption of a positive water vapor feedback. This positive water vapor feedback has never been demonstrated to occur in nature; and with it stands and falls the assumption of catastrophic consequences of a rise in CO2. And this assumption of a positive water vapor feedback is controversial, and not proven at all.

      If you are a member of the Green party, please tell them about it.

      Re the “oil money for the sceptics”: This is a myth. You can prove a few 100,000 that went to conservative think tanks in the US – not necessarily because of global warming, and often these donations happened decades ago yet are cited again and again by the Greens like some kind of original sin.

      OTOH, the ongoing funding of warmist science with billions of taxpayer money (allocated by governments who hope that they can profit from it by introducing carbon taxes or auctioning off carbon permits) is a fact that can’t be denied and is even greeted enthusiastically by the Greens.

      I leave the other points to others.

  3. Ed Caryl

    “ Anthropogenic climate change is a theory in which the basic mechanism is well understood, but in which the magnitude of the climate change is highly uncertain owing to feedback processes”
    How can it be well understood when the feedback process numbers have been “studied” to be anywhere from 10 degrees positive to 1 degree negative for CO2 doubling?

  4. cassiopeia

    I am not a political ‘Green’ but a Scientist/

    -snip…trolling and saying things you yourself do not even believe (RC Policy – sorry).

    1. DirkH

      From the page you link to:
      “Satellites have observed an increase in atmospheric water vapour by about 0.41 kg/m² per decade since 1988. A detection and attribution study, otherwise known as “fingerprinting”, was employed to identify the cause of the rising water vapour levels (Santer 2007). Fingerprinting involves rigorous statistical tests of the different possible explanations for a change in some property of the climate system. Results from 22 different climate models (virtually all of the world’s major climate models) were pooled and found the recent increase in moisture content over the bulk of the world’s oceans is not due to solar forcing or gradual recovery from the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo”

      So let me get this straight: To explain satellite findings, they have to run 22 GCM’s (with their inbuilt assumptions) and do some statistical contortions and then they come to a conclusion. Now, the problem i have with that is the involvement of GCM’s into which the assumption of positive water vapour feedback is built into.

      Show me one study that doesn’t have to resort to climate model computer runs to explain experimental findings and i’m willinh to consider it. You see, the models have flaws. Not even the climate scientists who build them would be able to deny that. Show me one study they did without their models.

  5. DirkH

    Ok, i read the Santer 2007 paper – thanks for the link, BTW, i didn’t know it by now. I think my criticism can be concentrated a little by looking at this part of their conclusions:
    “Conclusions
    In summary, model fingerprints of the response of atmospheric
    moisture to external forcings are identifiable in observations with
    high statistical confidence, despite the short length of the SSM/I
    record. Single-forcing experiments performed with two different
    models (28, 29) suggest that the large increase in Wo is primarily
    due to human-caused increases in GHGs (Fig. 5) and not to solar
    forcing or the recovery from the Pinatubo eruption.”

    What they did was compare the moisture predictions of several model runs to about 10 years of observations – they were running the models “unforced” and “with added anthropogenic forcing” (through CO2 increase). And they find that the “forced” mode matches the observations better.

    I wouldn’t call this a prove of the CO2-water vapoor-feedback hypothesis – the only thing they did was run the same computer program (an average of 22 different computer program runs is still a computer program run; only one with a bigger size) with two different settings, finding that the second way of setting the parameters delivers a better match.

    It is absolutely no proof for a certain kind of mechanism operating the way they assume in nature. Also, see their opening sentence:
    “Data from the satellite-based Special Sensor Microwave Imager
    (SSM/I) show that the total atmospheric moisture content over
    oceans has increased by 0.41 kg/m2 per decade since 1988. Results
    from current climate models indicate that water vapor increases of
    this magnitude cannot be explained by climate noise alone.”

    So what do they say? There have been increases in water vapor; and OUR MODELS SAY that they are too big to be explained by climate noise. So – the assumption that the water vapor fluctuation is something extraordinary rests entirely on a comparison with their models. This is how it begins. In the end, they find that the models in forced mode explain it best.

    So if i begin with accepting that the models are right, and go through the motions of the paper, i find out, in the end, that the models have been right all along… It is a wicked world the climate modelers live in…

  6. DirkH

    Here are the current SSM/I measurements. I will try to find time series.
    http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/ml/spp/index.html

  7. Nonoy Oplas

    Is cassiopeia a representative of the Greens? Or speaking for him/herself. Theare are many other questions above that he/she has not answered yet. like using taxpayers’ money on renewable energy subsidies.

    And the current prolonged cold wave hitting the northern hemisphere, this is not consistent with “more CO2, more warming”. Or maybe the Greens are now saying, “more CO2, more cooling also”? The inconsistency is too glaring.

    1. DirkH

      He/she answered the question above: “I am not a political ‘Green’ but a Scientist/Engineer, who has worked in the motor industry and for government.”

      So we still have no official answer from our Green representatives 🙂

  8. DirkH

    Cool monthly measurements from SSM/I (pictures; water vapor, cloud water, wind, rain):
    http://www.ssmi.com/ssmi/ssmi_data_monthly.html

    reached from here:
    http://www.ssmi.com/ssmi/ssmi_browse.html

  9. Bernd Felsche

    The Green mouthpieces are still waiting to be told what to think.

    I see the usual canned responses here from an alleged engineer/scientist; one who thinks that grossly-inadequate models trump real-world measurements. One who is apparently incapable of doing an order-of-magnitude analysis of the perceived problem and the proposed solutions and their consequential costs.

  10. cassiopeia

    Perhaps you can answer me some

    -snip…trolling and saying things you yourself do not even believe (RC Policy – sorry).

  11. R. de Haan

    Cassiopeia, let me help you.

    The warmest year was 1934.

    NASA/GISS data is NOT RELIABLE.
    James Hanson is cooking the books for 2 decades now.

    This is part of the “fraud” aspects of the AGW doctrine
    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/12/13/hansens-hottest-year-ever-is-primarily-based-on-fabricated-data/

    This is where ClimateGate is all about, climate scientists cooking the books, from CRU/MET OFFICE to NASA/GISS

    All others claims from melting sea ice to sea level rise are just plain lies.

    I am not going to reproduce the list but ALL IPCC AR claims have been debunked and for every debunked claim we have a peer reviewed scientific report.

    You get your information from the wrong sources.

    A check who’s behind a website before you start parroting their opinions could be a great help.

    By the way, stating that the 800 peer review debunking AGW is a fake
    based on information published at greenfyre, a happy hockey stick celebration site is an absolute joke of course.

    Just like the claim that the Greens are right.

    They have never been right about anything but the color green.

  12. R. de Haan

    Cassiopeia,

    Let me help you one more time.
    An engineers view on the AGW Fraud
    Please have a read:
    http://rps3.com/Pages/Burt_Rutan_on_Climate_Change.htm

  13. cassiopeia

    Sorry I thought you were reffering to global temperatures!

    What the science

    -snip…trolling and saying things you yourself do not even believe (RC Policy sorry).

    1. Bernd Felsche

      What happens when you measure a signal for a period much shorter than its period?

      “Climate” is an artificial, arbitrary construct; averaging weather for 30 years. In a particular region. There is no such thing as “global climate”. And “global temperature” is a meaningless figure. Especially the way that it’s extracted from the temperature record. Temperature doesn’t tell you about heat content.

      If you were doing more than pumping fuel as an “engineer” in the “automotive industry”, you should damn well understand that heat content has to increase for there to be real “global warming”. One can easily have rising air temperatures as heat content reduces.

      If you had any appreciation at all about thermodynamics and fluid mechanics, you’d understand that the atmosphere acts as a convective heat distribution engine. One driven by the fact that the rotating Earth presents only a small zone, for a short part of the day, (3 to 4 hours either side of noon) that is actually subjected to nett inbound radiation. And within that zone; albedo variations produce a change in inbound heat that are orders of magnitude higher than the alleged post-industrial CO2 concentration increases.

  14. greenfyre

    @ DirkH

    you said “is at most 0.4 deg C; even warmist scientists agree with that.”

    Sorry, wrong … just another Denier fable for the gullible & foolish. As this video points out, try actually reading the science!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3vIWD4tAHc&feature=sub

    “is a fact that can’t be denied ”

    I deny it … how about some actual evidence?

    1. DirkH

      So you deny that billions of taxpayer money have been used to fund AGW science? Do i have to make a list of the warmist research institutions in every Western country? A list of the supercomputers built for running climate models; one of them, once the most powerful, famously called the “Earth Simulator”? (Japan; NEC) What number would you place on it? Millions? Or do you not believe that there is a PIK, a Tyndall centre, a CRU, a Hadley centre, GISS?
      Do you think they pay for themselves?

      These are rethorical questions; you don’t have to think up an answer.

  15. cassiopeia

    Googled it yet?

    what sector of the population did the Western Fuels Association, National Coal Association and Edison Electric Institute (ICE) specifically target in 1991 in an attempt to change their opinions on global warming

    1. DirkH

      Cassiopeia – you are beyond pathetic. Somebody targets a sector of the population to change their opinion? That’s a very good description of all activities of Greenpeace, the WWF, PETA, Friends Of The Earth and Oxfam.

  16. cassiopeia

    It is not that they are targeting a particular group, it is what that group is which is er

    [-snip; Sorry, RC Policy. Trolling and writing things you yourself do not believe.]

  17. cassiopeia

    The reason why climate scientists remove posts is simply because they think Deniers are trolling and don’t even believe themselves what they post!

    [-snip
    Sorry, but I’ve decided to snip this too. I think it’s time you learn your own lessons. I’m not going to tolerate people who “are trolling and don’t even believe themselves what they post” Again – just applying RC policy here, that’s all.

    How do you like it?

    Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to go back and examine your past comments here…they might have to be snipped too, as I get the feeling you were “just trolling”.

    1. Ike

      “The reason why climate scientists remove posts is simply because they think Deniers are trolling and don’t even believe themselves what they post!”

      Just because someone has a different approach, does not make him automatically a “Denier”. In history there was seldom consensus in science. Science is about debating, exchanging views and confront each other with theories. Climate change science is a huge complex area with a lot of uncertainties. Now, that we have the internet and blogs shurly everyone can post his opinion. But that is great! Do the scientists want to keep out the non-scientists (definition of scientist?)? Well, then close your forums, bbs and blogs and only allow real scientists to write posts.

      “They think Deniers are merely trying to prolong the debate. This provides the impression to the public of a meaningful debate between two equally informed groups which isn’t the case. To them its like arguing with Apollo moon hoax conspiracy theorists or even flat earthers! They want to move on to debate the detail of how warm and how fast, not if.”

      They “think”, it “provides the impression” ….saying, scientists have no clue how to handle those non-scientists. Huh? These people care as much for our planet as you guys. And how do you guys know, that some of these so called “deniers” are also scientists? The main public is not reading WUWT, RC, NoTricksZone, EIKE aso…they read the yellow press, watch low profile TV series and only care about they bank account. The main public is not interested in climate change debate on the internet.

      “Name me one climate scientist (sceptic or otherwise) who believes man has no effect on the rate of warming.”

      You mean “believe” or “can prove”? Do you believe in global warming? Well, I don´t. The point is, you can´t prove your believes and I can´t prove mine. As you stated above, you are not a climate scientist. You did not study meteorology. Me neither, I studied law.

      “As an Engineer I’m more interested in solutions, but I do get annoyed at people deliberately misleading others, life is difficult enough without that sort of thing.”

      keep away from the internet! If you can´t stand the heat,… …. …. …. kitchen.

      You ever heard the term “brain storming”? Thinking about unorthodox ways to find a solution to a problem? Looking at all sides, even if they are unlikeable? Galileo did that!

      1. Bernd Felsche

        Never mind the brain-storming (which is called “ideation” in Engineering).

        Any competent Engineer first verifies that what is presented as a problem is a real problem that can be measured. Because if it can’t be measured, then you have no way of telling if your engineering to fix the problem has worked and you’re not going to get paid for any work that you do.

        Real Engineers get paid for the results; not the activity.

  18. cassiopeia

    WHAT is the difference between a sceptic and a denier?

    [-snip…trolling and only trying to prolong a debate. -PG]

  19. cassiopeia

    You better censor this quickly as well
    ——————————————
    Okay. -snip! – PG

  20. Tony B

    Cassiopeia is such a typical warming zealot zombie. So typical that it has to pick one example from 19 years ago as proof of “denier manipulation” by the media.

    The current media obsession with pushing the CAGW religion clearly escapes the brain cells of the warming zombies.

    “messages describing the motivations and vested interests of people currently making pronouncements on global warming – for example, the statement that some members of the media scare the public about global warming to increase their audience and their influence….”

    You can’t see the wood for the tree rings, can you Cassiopeia?

    The quoted phrase above is an absolutely perfect assessment of the current situation with media messages on CAGW. The fact that it is a quote from the Moonbat’s website is wonderfully ironic.

    But keep on chanting the mantra. I am sure it helps you to get the through these cold dark days of winter.

    Did I say cold? Sorry, I meant to say very cold, actually, extremely cold. Just like last winter, and the one before, and the one before.

    Come on CAGW – hurry up! Where are you?

  21. cassiopeia

    – snip

  22. Ed Caryl

    Cassiopeia
    http://wmo.asu.edu/

  23. Ed Caryl

    Pierre, you’re getting carried away.
    Cassiopeia
    Searching for the truth requires a lot of work, a great deal of curiosity, and an open mind. Verify everything.

  24. cassiopeia

    Pierre, you’re getting carried away.
    Cassiopeia

    Searching for the truth requires a lot of work, a great deal of curiosity, and an open mind. Verify everything

    Verification and scepticism is always the basis of a good science, that’s called peer review. Are you familiar with the procedure? It is tough and takes few prisoners believe me.

    Deniers would do well to take note when they read the junk science pages. Very little of it is peer reviewed, and much is deliberately manipulated.

  25. Ed Caryl

    Cassiopeia
    All my articles here get “peer reviewed”. I read all the comments posted. Some can get brutal. Most are fact-based. I can accept facts. Supply some. But engage brain before wiggling the fingers over the keyboard.

  26. cassiopeia

    Johann Hari sums up how ridiculous the situation is in this article

    “So let’s – for the sake of argument – make an extraordinary and unjustified concession to the deniers. Let’s imagine there was only a 50 per cent chance that virtually all the world’s climate scientists are wrong. Would that be a risk worth taking? Are you prepared to take a 50-50 gamble on the habitability of the planet? Is the prospect of getting our energy from the wind and the waves and the sun so terrible that’s not worth it on even these wildly optimistic odds?

    Imagine you are about to get on a plane with your family. A huge group of qualified airline mechanics approach you on the tarmac and explain they’ve studied the engine for many years and they’re sure it will crash if you get on board. They show you their previous predictions of plane crashes, which have overwhelmingly been proven right. Then a group of vets, journalists, and plumbers tell they have looked at the diagrams and it’s perfectly obvious to them the plane is safe and that airplane mechanics – all of them, everywhere – are scamming you. Would you get on the plane?”

    http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/johann-hari-i-wish-that-the-climate-change-deniers-were-right-14587028.html#ixzz0YkMeQlF7

    1. DirkH

      Pascal’s wager again. Cassiopeia, make sure you’re in church on Sunday.

  27. cassiopeia

    Most other people would call it insurance

    1. DirkH

      Cassiopeia, the problem with Pascal’s wager or “insurance” is that you can spend all your eligible resources on preparing for that potential catastrophe. Now is that sane? It depends on whether there really is a risk. Now, NOAA & NCDC have just adjusted the past again to make sure 2010 comes out as warmest year ever.

      http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/12/noaa-ncdc-pursue-goal-of-warmest-year-ever-for-2010-release-newly-fabricated-global-temperatures.html

      Hmm. Would you trust these people? I mean, if AGW were happening, such adjustments wouldn’t be necessary – warming would all by itself make sure that we’d have record warm years. Something’s very rotten here.

      It’s like an arsonist wanting to sell you fire insurance.

  28. cassiopeia
  29. cassiopeia

    Do you never bought insurance?

  30. cassiopeia

    Sorry, have you never bought insurance before?

    1. Bernd Felsche

      How many harbour bridges have you been sold?

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy

Close