Two days ago I wrote of an interview with physicist Prof. Dr. Horst-Joachim Lüdecke, published at the website of the German Employers Association (DAV) here, on the minimal role of CO2 on the world’s climate.
German professor calls climate protection a “dangerous, undemocratic ideology”.
Due to the length of the interview I focused only on a part of it. Today I will write on the other important comments made by Prof. Lüdecke relating to climate models, Germany’s energy policy and the climate protection ideology.
Decarbonization “gross nonsense”
On the endeavor to “protect the climate” through cutting CO2 emissions, something often called decarbonization, Lüdecke calls it “gross nonsense” and tells us that a changing climate is “a law of nature“. He adds that there is no evidence that CO2 is “harmful to the climate” and that it strongly warms it”.
Lüdecke tells the DAV that strong warming is found only in models that use dubious assumptions and effects:
Whether or not these effects are based on reliable data is of no interest to the modelers. This is how one gets the temperature rise that one desires. The only problem is that these models have not been able to reproduce the past. The climate models simply don’t work. They are wrong. Amazingly that does not bother the climate alarmists.”
The retired German professor also slams the media for uncritically blaring out every alarmists claim, no matter how foolish it may be, and shutting out reasonable voices. Whenever an alarmist prediction fails to appear, “a new one such as ocean acidification gets paraded out in the public“.
On Germany’s trillion-euro attempt to curb CO2 emissions, Lüdecke calls the effort “absurd”, claiming that the country’s share of global CO2 is only a tiny fraction of the total emitted globally, and that the government’s target would result in a temperature difference of “only a few thousandths of a degree over the next 20 years“. He calls it a “purely political agenda“, summarizing:
Factually it is therefore totally idiotic what we are doing.”
On sea level rise and ice melt, Lüdecke reminds us that sea level rise is happening at a perfectly normal range of 1 to 3 mm per year, depending on the data source, and that there is no evidence of anything alarming happening. To put things into there proper context, he tells the readers that it would take Greenland ice 5000 years to melt even if the temperature rose 5°C. “By then we’ll likely be already well into another ice age.”
Greenland temperature has dropped 2.5°C
A warming of Greenland is very unlikely, according to Lüdecke:
A scientific publication using data from ice core analyses show that the mean temperature of Greenland has fallen 2.5°C over the past 8000 years.”
Brutal dictator
On what is driving the climate alarmism, Lüdecke tells the DAV:
It’s all an ideology, a mixture of well-known Marxism, Nature Romanticism and the interests of powerful investors and politicians. […] not at all about good, but rather about a brutal dictator that wants to tell us which lights to use, that we’re no longer allowed to eat meat – in short, how we are to live.” […]
The aim of the eco-ideology is in reality another society – undemocratic and dictatorial. Ecology here is only an instrument. […]
Climate change is a dangerous undemocratic ideology.”
So many errors in this.
First understand Notrickszone is a denial blog:
http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.ca/2015/01/notrickszone-review-too-many-tricks-in.html#disqus_thread
I choose just one error:
“….models have not been able to reproduce the past. The climate models simply don’t work. They are wrong.”
Check this out:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
Go back to your hole in the ground, the adults are having a discussion involving real problems with very serious consequences.
He is an adult, Chris, but apparently his parents failed to teach him any good manners, especially how to behave when entering someone’s home for the first time.
“…Notrickszone is a denial blog:” – John Macdonell
So, denying lies is somehow a “bad” thing? Who knew?!
“Check this out:”
http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html
Boy, are you on the wrong band wagon.
“Skeptical Science has become a well-known resource for people seeking to understand or debate climate change, and has been praised for its straightforwardness.[21] Marine biologist Ove Hoegh-Guldberg has described it as…. [-snip, someone hand me a barf-bag- quick! -PG]
And I could get Al Capone to say nice things about John Gotti.
Yes a bit like Jack the Ripper giving a character reference for Hannibal Lector.
Like David Appell telling us we can trust sod. 🙂
Ove hoegh-Guldberg is a climate alarmist, no better than his pals at skeptical (non)science.
Actually, the G.B.R. is in no danger.
http://www.c3headlines.com/2011/06/australias-great-barrier-reef-healthy-unaffected-by-climate-change-peer-reviewed-study-determines.html
But how can one further the cause, and scare up more funding, without raising a false alarm? As long as the pols believe it, and the money keeps rolling in, who cares if it’s a lie?
UPDATE: Judith Curry calls Ove hoegh-Guldberg an “extremist propagandist,” and includes him in her list of those who have demonstrated that they cannot be trusted.
https://judithcurry.com/2013/01/10/trusting-the-experts/
No surprise then, that you would side with an unprincipled anti-social wacko over sanity.
@John Macdonell(sic)**
Oh, and another thing about the credibility of John Cook and his Skeptical(non)Science propaganda outlet. He was responsible for the 97% consensus nonsense, which has been thoroughly debunked.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/10/29/cooks-97-scam-debunked/
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/97-articles-refuting-the-97-percent-consensus.html
Note that some of the criticism of his “work” appeared in peer reviewed journals.
Like you and all like you, he is an arrogant anti-social activist with no integrity.
(**This is the correct spelling of “MacDonnell,” btw. At very least, the “D” should be capitalized.)
CORRECTION (to what hasn’t appeared as of my starting to type this)
Apparently some people who aren’t idiots do actually spell their names as you do, though I still think it’s deviant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacDonell
Who’d of thunk it?!
I’m seeing some censorship here of my posts. And some ad hominems. Let’s see if this stands or is censored:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-climate-skeptics-are-wrong/
This is a safe space, John. Don’t trigger us or we’ll non-platform ya.
to DirkH:
Glad to hear this is safe space. Thanks for replying.
Perhaps you can now explain why 2 of my posts have been removed. They were both respectful – like this one is.
Thanks again.
“I’m seeing some censorship here of my posts. And some ad hominems. ”
ahhh diddums..
Take your sad-sack putridity some place else.
“I’m seeing some censorship here of my posts. And some ad hominems.” – John Macdonell
Sometimes posts don’t appear right away, so you have to be patient. Pierre allows a lot through, so yours probably will get there.
As to “ad hominems,” if you praise the work of deceitful idiots, who can be demonstrated to be so (John Cook’s 97% lie, O. H-Guldman’s G.R.B. lies, as I showed above), then calling you a deceitful idiot is more than appropriate, IMO, though I will try to keep it to a minimum, if you’ll restrain your hyperbole (e.g., childish barf bag remarks).
And if you want censorship, just try to get anything skeptical posted on your far-Left friends’ blogs.
@John Macdonell 9. May 2016 at 12:35 AM
I stopped reading Scientific Un-American LONG ago, ever since they abandoned science, and became an advocate of ideologies rather than adhering to the principles that made them the premier scientific journal they used to be.
When the best scientists of the highest integrity are vilified by self serving amateurs, and intellectual freedom is denied anyone who doesn’t agree with the ideologues, that’s a sure fire recipe for stagnation and ultimately disaster.
John Macdonell 9. May 2016 at 12:59 AM | Permalink
“Perhaps you can now explain why 2 of my posts have been removed. They were both respectful – like this one is.”
Don’t you know ANYTHING about Social Justice? BECAUSE YOU TRIGGERED WORDPRESS, you knuckle-dragging white privileged racist.
John Macdonell, surely you are aware enough of reality to realize that Scientific American gave up objectivity decades ago – they just go with the popular delusions as they come along.
LOL – oops, sorry Pierre. I didn’t realize that was your “barf bag” comment. heh heh heh. I didn’t expect that from you, so I attributed it to J.M. Well, his stuff is pretty ridiculous, but you still caught me off guard there.
John, I’m one of the “less educated” people wisiting here. I’d appreciate if you were to unveil the mystery of WHAT… “climate change”….actually is, as YOU use the expression. Think that is possible ? Thank you in advance !
You, sir, are an unmitigated fool.
I mean Mr. Macdonell.
Wait. ‘sir’ and ‘unmitigated fool’ in the same sentence?
sarc when I am angry I tend to address people with underserved honorifics.
“child-mind” MacDonell
“First understand Notrickszone is a denial blog”
John Macdonell, do you know how you look to the world outside of your head when you write sentences like this?
…and skepticalscience is an alarmist propaganda blog”.
Skeptical Science???? Are you really that dumb?
See: http://www.debunkingskepticalscience.com/
If you got taken in by their 97% lie, see this: http://www.debunkingclimate.com/97percen_%20of_scientists.html
You are so off! Dishonest, “green” rent and grant seeker propaganda so shallow even children laugh at it.
The Playstation 64 models used by Greenpeace / WWF aka IPCC is wrong, ref.: https://roaldjlarsen.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/102timesfalsified.jpg
The red line is the “science”, the dots and squares trailing at the bottom is the empirical measured temperature. As we can see, Greenpeace / WWF aka IPCC have no idea what they are talking about!
“Lüdecke calls it “gross nonsense” and tells us that a changing climate is “a law of nature“.”? The facts are that the ‘law of nature’ also determined that many Professors, Scientists and so called Experts of today are totally ‘nuts’!
What a statement coming from a Professor. He could be excused if he would have included in his statement that the climate has in the past and can change again over thousands of years but not at that rapid pace as it has over the past century and evidently still continues at a record pace
You should take a good look at the data before expressing such nonsense.
Orca.. you are wailing !!!
Apart from El Nino events, there has been ZERO warming in the satellite period from 1979-now..
I repeat.. ZERO warming apart from NON-CO2 forced El Ninos.
Yes there was, thankfully, some slight warming out of the coldest period of the last 10,000 years, but since the peak (now erased) in the late 1930’s, there has been very little real warming at all, just UHI and “adjustment” warming.
“What a statement coming from a Professor.” – orca
Isn’t it, though! Carries a lot more weight than, oh, say that of a comment by an anonymous activist troll.
Climate change is a dangerous undemocratic ideology.”
Yes, yes it is. The largest global genocide is about to occur if we continue to let these con men get their way.
Why do you think the Democrats in the USA and the UN hate the Second Amendment so much? Because that’s all that stands in the way of them becoming that brutal dictatorship.
Yes, like all Fascists of the past they would have no trouble, in the name of saving humanity, attempt to destroy it.
“On Germany’s trillion-euro attempt to curb CO2 emissions, Lüdecke calls the effort “absurd”, claiming that the country’s share of global CO2 is only a tiny fraction of the total emitted globally, ”
He does not understand economics either. We have dropped solar to incredibly low prices. basically solar PV can beat every other source now. And the prices keep dropping.
“2.99 U.S. cents per kilowatt-hour”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-03/solar-developers-undercut-coal-with-another-record-set-in-dubai
Unfortunately they work only a tiny fraction of the time, not at all in thee winter – which makes them uneconomical. I’ve got 12 KW on my own roof, and the investment would not have made any sense without the huge subsidies.
“Unfortunately they work only a tiny fraction of the time, not at all in thee winter – which makes them uneconomical.”
I do not know anything about winter in Dubai, but i am pretty sure, that solar PV will do very good there even in winter.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-03/solar-developers-undercut-coal-with-another-record-set-in-dubai
But even in Germany, after we went trough “april winter” just a week ago, seems to be doing pretty good with solar PV this “wintry” times:
https://www.agora-energiewende.de/de/themen/-agothem-/Produkt/produkt/76/Agorameter/
PV is well above 20 GW for relevant parts of the day and we nearly hit 100% of demand with renewables this afternoon (08.05.)
But you ignore the error made by the Professor. He assumes, that the “energiewende” only has an effect on Germany and that for only has little effect on CO2.
Both parts of this assumption are utterly false. Next year, a day like this one will already surpass 100% demand with renewables. and the eneriewende has been driving prices down, leading to the cheapest solar PV hitting oil countries.
a lot of people who are “sceptic” of renewables are stuck with numbers that are a decade old. and this is typically more than true with those “retired” sceptics.
The Gospel according to sod. Amen.
Plenty of sun in the desert. Now, if only they could get rid of all that sand!
http://cdn.ipsnews.net/Library/2015/09/Mohammed-Park.jpg
“He does not understand economics either. We have dropped solar to incredibly low prices. basically solar PV can beat every other source now. And the prices keep dropping. ”
Sod, there’s a very simple rule: Things that need subsidies to get built are money losers.
I think that should be easy enough that the entire sentence fits in your brain.
And, the amount of subsidies rises year over year: In 2015: The subsidies for “renewables” ex hydropower were 28bn EUR for Germany; In 2016 they are 31 bn EUR.
I think this, together with the immigration war against the Germans, will completely wipe out SPD, CDU etc.
@DirkH
sod writes “We have dropped solar to incredibly low prices.”
Poor sod. My guess is that he was dropped on his head so often as a child that he now thinks up is down.
http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/electricprices.gif
And another problem.
So for it’s just a multi billions dollar exercise in futility.
https://cdn2.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/8gM7oMUyOLHi7IFPwkoG9zxlsYM=/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/3609752/global_energy_use_by_source.0.png
“All told, fossil fuels made up 87 percent of the world’s primary energy consumption in 2013. By contrast, low-carbon sources — including nuclear, hydropower, wind, solar, and biomass — made up just 13 percent.
That ratio hasn’t changed since 1999, as the University of Colorado’s Roger Pielke Jr. has pointed out. In other words, the world’s energy supply hasn’t gotten any cleaner for 14 years.”
I strongly doubt that global warming alarmism would ever have taken off if German academics had led the field.
Indeed, if a German institute were tasked with compiling a global temperature measurement they would be totally scathing about the present temperature stations and more or less tell politicians that the ground stations are such poor quality that they are useless for assessing any global temperature trend.
I believe that’s true most everywhere. There are still a lot of high quality scientists at the local level. It’s the incompetent activists who aspire to a greatness that is utterly beyond their ability who are the problem.
I recently had the honor of having a colleague who spent years as assistant at a German university and I must tell you; he was the perfect SJW.
It’s really bad. Forget. German. Universities.
Oh and he thought rising CO2 would kill us all. He was a good HF expert, but he was a complete SJW moron.
Well, DirkH, I didn’t say all of them, I said (and hope it’s true) that a lot are. If not, we might as well kiss science goodby, at least in the short term of a generation or two.
I strongly hold the view that we should indeed do that – for GOVERNMENT science.
whenever you try to tell the truth about this you get the typical barking from the eco whacko climate change alarmists who are being nothing but useful idiots of this movement.
I have news for you and go ahead try to dispute it. get this. the climate has always changed. otherwise there would not have been an ice age that got rid of the dinosaurs nor would Alberta at one point have been tropical. to my knowledge burning of fossil fuels caused none of that nor other climate changes that have happened over history. if you even look back 300 years and read accounts of wars in Europe you would know that Europe was much colder then, in fact a lot of war deaths were a result of that. many things change the climate, the biggest being the sun and water vapour evaporation and effects like fallout from volcanoes. CO2, geniuses is PLANT FOOD. all living things need it to survive. so why you suddenly label it bad and harmful is beyond me. in fact certainly in North America the air and water are cleaner than they were 50 years ago, thanks to regulations. but it is ludicrous to think you can predict the climate in 50 years when we cannot even predict it 3 weeks from today. anyone who believes this hoax is not very logical. the whole movement was invented at the corrupt UN, run by tin hat dictator countries who want to alleviate the west from as much wealth as they can. this whole thing is about taxation and making certain people rich and others impoverished. but one thing is for sure it has not to do with making the world a better place. we all care about the planet, keeping its air and water clean and its land pure. you climate zealots should realize rather than planting windmills and solar panels on farms, crops should be growing there, since crops and trees absorbs pollution including carbon and would be more of a benefit to the planet than putting these resource consuming devices that create virtually no energy and cannot survive without enormous subsidies from taxpayers. the young people who have bought into this nonsense are just ensuring they will be paying high taxes for years to come and will be assuming tons of govt debt. and no jobs. that will be your reward for buying into this hoax. get a brain seriously. the earth has always had and will always have checks and balances to right itself and even if you took every single car, truck and train out of circulation, stopped all air and ship travel and transport, it would not make one iota of a difference to the climate and would cripple world economies. I truly believe that is the end game for this hoax. one world govt and impoverished economies. so keep it up. as far as I am concerned the biggest threat to the world is not man made climate change, it is this ridiculous the sky is falling hoax. ever wonder why anyone touting this myth is rich? Gore, Suzuki, Maurice Strong, all of them, all rich with tons of the trappings of material wealth. even Di Caprio preaches the dangers of climate change as he says due to fossil fuel burning but if he was really concerned about it why would he spend every weekend on his massive fossil fuel consuming yacht. if Gore thought sea level was raising why would he have a mansion right at the water level in San Francisco. these eco wizards preach to us about fossil fuels and then jet all over the world multiple times. so I guess it only is bad if we are the ones consuming fossil fuels? which is ridiculous. I am betting my so called carbon footprint is tiny compared to Suzuki or Gore or Di Caprio. but anyone taking weather or climate advice from a hollywood actor, a washed up politician who could not walk up on a stage without falling and a fruit fly salesman like Suzuki probably asks for advice on their cholesterol level from an auto mechanic. yes it is THAT ridiculous. get some real facts, not what those who are getting rich off of this scheme are peddling. and do not ridicule those who do try to enlighten those who have bought into this crap.
Hear, hear!!!
Maurice Strong died last fall.
Therefore, it is not nice to say nastys about him.
However, it is okay to search the web and read a few.
Well said. I would add this one question: If CO2 is the controller of temperature, how come El Nino and La Nina are not insignificant in comparison; Or; Have you quantified natural variability so well that you can both predict the future climate AND say what is man’s CO2’s (~3% of total CO2) effect?
If your monthly income is controlling your wealth, how comes that ocassional lottery wins have a huge impact on the money on hand?
After the lottery win of El Nino comes the home invader La Nina and takes it all away again.
But, you know that. Everything for the cause, right, sod?
Excellent summary. Thank you.
John Macdonell, You counter the Professor’s argument by referring to the very people he is talking about, fanatical ideologists.
To yonason:
“Sometimes posts don’t appear right away, so you have to be patient. Pierre allows a lot through, so yours probably will get there.”
Thanks, except one of my deleted posts was partially quoted by Pierre – so it was there, but later removed. The other one, posted maybe 6 hours ago now, never showed up.
Regarding censorship, I haven’t seen any in the comments of Skeptical Science. Opposing comments can be found there. But I have found some censorship here.
Regarding Cook as “97% lie” – how do you know that? How do you explain that study after study – in the accepted peer-reviewed journals – support what he says?
Which studies – in the accepted peer-reviewed journals – support what you say?
Thanks for having me here.
Peer review is hardly the bible – especially in climate science.
Peer-review is the best security we have to get good science. Not perfect, but it helps errors get corrected, and has served us very well in that regard.
You probably wouldn’t have your computer, or the capacity to blog, if it weren’t for peer-reviewed science.
Please name a better criteria than peer-review for establishing credible science, and explain why it’s better.
S-K-E-P-T-I-C-I-S-M
(Don’t confuse pal-review with real robust peer-review)
I’m guessing you don’t have the faintest idea what goes on in “climate science” peer/pal review…
…or in any other sort of scientific peer review for that matter…. except maybe social science.. which, like much of climate science… AIN’T any sort of real science.
“You probably wouldn’t have your computer, or the capacity to blog, if it weren’t for peer-reviewed science.”
Computers were made by peer-reviewed science? Next you tell me their immediate predecessors, Hollerith tabulator machines, were as well?
You guys are funny.
The first programmable computer was built by Konrad Zuse in Germany. Peer review? Are you kidding me? How, when he didn’t even publish?
Next. Turing’s involvement in the British military effort to crack Enigma codes. Peer review? in a secret government project? I don’t think so.
So. See. It doesn’t help you to claim things you know absolutely nothing about because *WE* know about them.
Go and try that with some illiterates.
Peer Review = Where truth goes to die.
http://retractionwatch.com/2014/03/03/nobel-prize-winner-calls-peer-review-very-distorted-completely-corrupt-and-simply-a-regression-to-the-mean/
Since with publication on climate science one is required to support the dogma, or the very least not dare to question it, or risk getting fired or having your funding pulled (same thing), I would say the appropriate term is “FEAR review”.
Actually, it’s funny to see comments like his; those “sites” aren’t information sites, but support groups for the zealots who need to believe and go there to get belief-support and talking points – and they then beclown themselves by going outside their bubble and mindlessly regurgitating the latter.
The “peer review” thing is one of those babbling points. As Ed Begley (in)famously said, “Don’t take it from me folks – take it from people with ‘Ph.D.’ after their names.” As I’m qualified via this test…
Peer review isn’t magic, and has lots of problems – and I say this as someone who has had regular contact with peer review for more than two decades – as an author, “peer review” reviewer, and editor.
Peer review serves only to provide some minimal quality control – screening out things like bad grammar, weak background work on references and prior art, etc. It’s also an iterative process – a paper is reviewed and the reviewers have comments/thoughts for the author(s), and the process iterates – it’s actually very unusual for any paper to be “outrighted” – either accepted as-is or simply rejected outright.
It’s funny seeing the inflated claims made (by no-doubt non-participants), since the system was never built to provide the claims of infallibility that the non-participants ascribe to it.
Some problems with peer review:
o It’s time consuming, and everyone is busy. Reviewers are volunteers, and usually they are short on time (like everyone) and a request for a prompt review is one more thing on the pile. (The best place to do peer review is in the passenger compartment of a commercial aircraft.) So peer review tends to be quite cursory, even when intentions are good.
o Too many academics – and they too often treat manuscripts as being a student’s dissertation and continually demand more analysis and MORE analysis; it’s amazing how much useful material never gets into the journals simply because someone wants more and more and MORE analysis/measurements done to (in the reviewer’s view) nail down every last detail to the n-th degree.
o The process can be abused with intent – and this is true in ALL fields. Peer review tends to stifle non-dogmatic thinking (and the more academic the field, the more this happens). This doesn’t even have to be malevolent – dogma can become so entrenched that anything that disagrees is instantly branded as incorrect; given the number of dogmatic points in a wide variety of fields that have turned out to be totally wrong, you’d think that there would be interest in reforming the process, but that hasn’t happened yet. And, unfortunately, the process is regularly abused to suppress opposing views – or views/ideas that are merely “competitive” to the reviewer’s views (or “side”). I’ve actually seen numerous instances where the same (as always, anonymous during the review process) reviewers who blocked a paper from being published then state publicly that those opposing ideas are obviously wrong because “they were unable to get through peer review.”
This general problem is finally getting some attention – along with other problems with the actual realities of “science.” There’s an excellent-and-timely article that came out this month that’s worth reading in detail, which discusses “peer review” and other issues that are undermining the quality and usefulness of “science.”
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2016/05/scientific-regress
Take the time to read that whole article; it’s lengthy but worth it.
@The Indomitable Snowman, Ph.D.
RE-“support groups for zealots”
Lubos Motl rips John Cook to shreds.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2015/07/identity-theft-thief-of-lubosmotl-turns.html
Frank Tipler has some VERy choice words about the scam that’s “peer review,” and the drones who administer it – (an oldie but goodie):
http://johndfenton.com/Documents/Tipler03-PeerReview.pdf
@John Macdonell
“Regarding censorship, I haven’t seen any in the comments of Skeptical Science.” – J.M.
That’s the point, Slick.
“Regarding Cook as “97% lie” – how do you know that?” – J.M.
Are you blind, or just lazy? I posted two links with references elsewhere on this page. You find them.
HERE’S ANOTHER
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/06/30/getting-to-the-bottom-of-cooks-97-lie/
(Either you are a gullible fool to believe him, or a pathological liar like Cook. Take your pick)
“Which studies – in the accepted peer-reviewed journals – support what you say?” – J.M.
Back at ya, jack.
see here:
http://www.joseduarte.com/blog/cooking-stove-use-housing-associations-white-males-and-the-97
where he writes
“The Cook et al. (2013) 97% paper included a bunch of psychology studies, marketing papers, and surveys of the general public as scientific endorsement of anthropogenic climate change.”
Finally, from Lubos Motl
http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/03/john-cook-skeptical-science.html
“There exists no climate threat and there exists no empirically rooted evidence that the human impact on the climate deserves the attention of anyone except for a few excessively specialized experts who should investigate such speculative questions. All opinions that the climate change is dangerous, man-made, or even relevant for policymaking are based on the irrational attitude, cherry-picking, intimidation, censorship, and the general sloppiness of the kind that Mr Cook has shown us once again.”
“Thanks for having me here” – J.M.
The pleasure was all yours, I’m sure.
OMG, another zero-knowledge, brain-washed, kool-aide quaffer.
Do we really have to try and educate yet another of the zombies ??????
The problem is, how does one go about educating the brain dead?
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-u8sMJ8R_Smo/T6vxluBNNeI/AAAAAAAAFOk/Id4kXeo04tM/s1600/Communist_zombies.jpg
“Greenland temperature has dropped 2.5°C”
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379112004209
Based upon chironomid assemblages at North Lake, and supported by records of organic sedimentation in all five study lakes, we infer warmer-than-present temperatures by at least 7.1 ka [thousands of years before present] and Holocene maximum warmth between 6 and 4 ka. [T]he local ice sheet margin was at its most retracted Holocene position [and] summer temperatures were 2-3°C warmer than present during that time of minimum ice sheet extent.
—–
http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/early/2015/02/18/G36476.1.abstract
To determine the long-term sensitivity of the Greenland ice sheet to a warmer climate, we explored how it responded to the Holocene thermal maximum (8–5 cal. kyr B.P. [thousand years before present]; calibrated to calendar years before present, i.e., A.D. 1950), when lake records show that local atmospheric temperatures in Greenland were 2–4 °C warmer than the present. Records from five new threshold lakes complemented with existing geological data from south of 70°N show that the ice margin was retracted behind its present-day extent in all sectors for a limited period between ca. 7 and 4 cal. kyr B.P. and in most sectors from ca. 1.5 to 1 cal. kyr B.P., in response to higher atmospheric and ocean temperatures.
Pierre – Your mailbox is apparently full. Contact is not possible.
Yep, that is what these AGW turkeys don’t seem to get..
We are still very much at the COLD end of the current interglacial, only marginally above the COLDEST period in the last 10,000 years.
No wonder there is STILL SO MUCH Arctic sea ice compared to the near zero summer levels of the first 7000 or so years of the Holocene.
Thanks, it was full. Now emptied and back in operation.
Decarbonization “gross nonsense”:
He is right: decarbonization = debrainization
“= debrainization”
Already done with most AGW cultists.
[…] Climate change is a dangerous undemocratic ideology.” Read more .. […]
[…] Source: Retired Professor On Germany’s CO2 Reduction Effort: “Totally Idiotic What We Are Doing” […]