What follows is one example why caution is absolutely essential when dealing with results and findings issued by (activist) government agencies.
Once popular diesel engines now public enemy no. 1
Nowhere in the world have the diesel engines enjoyed so much popularity as in Germany. Diesel engines had long been considered in Germany as being more environmentally friendly then the Otto type engines due to their much higher fuel mileage. Taxes on diesel fuel were and are today much lower.
But Germany has withdrawn its welcome mat for diesel engine. Like CO2, the government and environmental groups recently began waging full-scale war on diesel engines. The official reason for the crack down on diesel is the alleged high levels of dangerous emissions of nitrous oxides, and is what many suspect is mostly part of what is the overall war on the internal combustion engine and thus the effort to get people to switch to “clean” electric cars.
Ministry of Environment’s, media’s absurd claims
To underscore the risks of diesel fumes and to spread fear of diesel engines, Germany’s Ministry of Environment (UBA) recently released “new findings” claiming diesel engines are responsible for 6000 premature deaths every year. Unsurprisingly: the German press and activist groups went bananas uncritically reporting the findings in the most spectacular ways they could imagine.
For example: the Frankfurter Rundschau wrote:
Also diseases such as diabetes mellitus, high blood pressure, stroke and asthma are connected to irritant gas concentration. Eight percent of the diabetes mellitus illnesses in Germany in 2014 can be linked to nitrous oxide in the air outside: ‘That corresponds to some 437,000 cases,‘ said Myriam Tobollik, health researcher at the Ministry of Environment.”
“A political number” that “sounds like science”
Fortunately the hysteria and gross exaggerations did not escape the attention of the German press consumers, who have recently seen the value of their diesel engine vehicles plummet, and the few, still responsible journalists out there. It turns out the UBA report was based on exceptionally terrible science and the claims bordering on the absurd.
For example, Spiegel’s Jan Fleischhauer wrote here:
The made-up dead
Every year 6000 premature deaths from nitrous oxide – that’s how the Environment Ministry panicked the German citizenry. What sounds like science in truth is a political number from a completely politicized government administration.”
In the Spiegel article Fleischhauer asks why aren’t other devices not targets: “A gas cooking stove during reaches peak values of 4000 micrograms per cubic meter. Where’s the campaign against the gas stove?”
It is a fact that many workplaces see routinely far higher nitrous oxide concentrations than what is measured near streets.
Measurement station folly (again), fake crisis
Fleischhauer also reminds readers that the EU directives specify that limit values for exhaust concentrations be measured at a distance of 25 meters from a busy intersection. After having looked through the UBA report, the Spiegel journalist adds:
Now I read the the measurement instruments in Germany are placed directly next to the roadway. I have not verified that. But if it’s true, then it should not be a surprise we find ourselves in a state of a diesel alarm.”
Diesel study “botched”
That the 6000 deaths a year figure was a fraud came to the attention of German mass daily Bild from its own readers. Bild was compelled on March 11 to publish the following headline:
Bild daily headline: “Reader anger over the botched diesel study”
The European Institute for Environment and Climate (EIKE) here commented that the German Environment Ministry “irrevocably ruined the reputation of the 1500-employee large agency behemoth”.
“Politicians lying, playing games”
One Bild reader, Wolfgang Bügener of Oberhausen, wrote: “It is peculiar how our politicians are playing games with and lying to us.”
Another added: “The real scam not only happened in Wolfsburg [VW headquarters] but also at the environmental organizations and Ministries, who throw around false and unproven claims.”
59 responses to “Germany’s War On Diesel Takes A Setback…Environment Ministry Activism Exposed, Absurd Risk Claims”
Here I expect the proponents of junk environmental and climate science to fully endorse the German Environment Ministry’s methods and “science” presented here.
To find the true New World Order agenda, read the German-government-sponsored WGBU’S 400 page Contract for Social Sustainability report or the summaries.
German Advisory Council on Global Change
Interestingly, if their aim is “global” government, that means some sort of global equity.
And the ONLY way to achieve that is through economic and social development of third world countries.
And the ONLY way to achieve that is through solid RELIABLE electricity and energy supply systems for manufacturing and general infrastructure.
And the ONLY fuels that provide that RELIABILITY are coal, gas and oil.
(political instability probably takes nuclear out of the equation)
Wind and solar CANNOT provide the reliability of supply that is required for economic development.
Their anti-science anti-CO2 agenda is the exact opposite of what is needed for global “anything” !!
A core requirement for the WBGU plan to be successful is that national sovereignty will have to be transcended.
This is also echoed in an interview in the New York magazine, with a scientist credited with coining the term “global warming”, Wallace Smith Broecker.
Check out where he says quite matter of factly that China might be best placed to dictate to other countries about their carbon usage, how an international Army may be required to police fossil fuels and usage, and how the UN is not powerful enough to do what is necessary.
It’s Schellnhuber’s “Master Plan”, which reminds me of some blood-and-earth scheme to return the planet back to purity and order.
Blut Und Boden
(Excellent documentary. Not all parts currently available online.)
Very chilling, even without the spooky music.
You are probably not aware of it, but the term originates from German. Also, Nazi comparisons make your position weaker not stronger.
You seem to be in deep DENIAL of any sort of history.
Climate history is a particularly WILFULLY IGNORANT topic of your.
Why add denial of German history to the very long list of things you HAVE to remain ignorant about to maintain your mantra-like “beliefs” ?
Wow … AndyG55 … just wow.
WOW, yet another EMPTY comment from seb
WOW !! is anyone surprised ??? !!
The link to the NY Magazine new world order plan has curiously stopped working since I linked to it!!
It’s here though, on the wayback archive:
Show me the death certificates!
Government-backed pseudoscientific fraud is extensive and numerous in this country, not least because the Greens have successfully usurped the deep state (ministries, Behörden, NGOs.) The green-minded are exceedingly adept at acting behind the scenes, while defining the politically correct Weltanschauung in Germany, leaving the traditional parties to act as followers of the green cult, while shedding their own principles [espouse the values and views of the political CDU/SPD/FDP-centre of the 1970/80s and your apt to be called a Nazi today] and serving mainly as access points to the institutions of power in Germany. The Grüngesinnte have grown so sure of their license to deceive that they may have finally overdone it with the attack on Diesel. I hope real political opposition returns to Germany, after decades in which it was absent. For the time being, however I think, this still describes the sad status quo in the country:
It is the new normal for the German government to violate a number of its most fundamental duties — I am old enough to remember the times when they would not have gotten away with it.
The government is not protecting the freedom and other conditions required for the pursuit of science. Instead of ensuring that the requirements of science remain intact, it requires scientists to provide results that correspond with the government’s ideological preferences. By contrast, the US-administration understands that it is the duty of government to guarantee the orderly scientific process. It is prepared to institute “red and blue teams” to ensure that scientific exchange and controversy is not suppressed. Germans are outraged at that, insisting on government-directed “science”.
Another governmental breach of duty results from partisan manipulation of the scientific process. If government judges projects from the point of view of ideological preferences rather than according to scientific criteria, it loses the ability to properly vet policy proposals, including large-scale undertakings like the Energiewende that amount to a comprehensive transformation of society and the economy.
Had the German government heeded its constitutional obligation to exercise diligence, it soon would have become clear that the hypothesis underlying the Energiewende — the theory of catastrophic global warming supposedly induced by the small contribution of humans to overall CO2-emissions — was, and is to this day, so rudimentary, insubstantial, and uncertain (and demonstrably flawed) that it cannot possibly form the basis of government policy, let alone a scheme designed to fundamentally alter society.
But Germans have rediscovered their taste for gigantic campaigns intended to put the entire world in order. The population is caught in the old thrill to serve the authorities — so-called experts, the government and its organs and media — with passionate obedience and sacrificing fervour and a reawakened lust to merge with the collective. The uniformity in this regard among the German people is as eerie as it is daunting.
I fully agree with you, Georg.
I’m honoured by your affirmation. I thoroughly appreciate reading your enriching comments. Let me add the following thoughts, having watched the interview with Prof. Köhler:
You’ve got to be a very courageous person to tell the truth, as Köhler does, on these matters, disclosing the fabrication by “science” in Germany of erroneous but politically correct results.
So far Köhler’s conduct within the purview of the discipline in which he is an outstanding specialist (pneumology).
However, unaware of the fundamentals of the physics of CO2 [https://youtu.be/57pU2F-bIQs], unfortunately he mixes his genuine competence with his views as a political consumer, in which latter capacity he buys into the CO2-lie and demands draconian state interventions to redress the putative problem. The green-minded will walk away advertising that yet another scientist confirms CO2-induced global warming.
The above YouTube-video strikes me as a gem: in only 9 minutes of sober physics CO2-voodoo is blown apart.
I noticed the same inconsistency in Köhler’s comments as you did. E. g. He also mentions that all those PM or NOx studies are methodically correct but just wrongly calculated because they did not control properly for confounders. While the latter might be true the statement itself is wrong and this puts him in a weak position. It is the methodology that is fundamentally flawed. Choosing an arbitrary value of exposure several orders of magnitude below reality and finding a link between the arbitrary exposure and mortality but claiming that the real exposure causes the mortality is such a ridiculously apparent logical fault that it makes me wonder whether one needs to be extremely stupid or completely reckless to create successful scientific horror narratives.
Köhler says he knows the scene but he obviously doesn’t recognize its biggest flaw. That allows me to reason that he is by far not aware of the other flaws in climate science or of the more or less harmless truth behind the curtains of the auto industry which he is also accusing.
Anyway, Köhler stands up and states that there is no clinical indication of danger with the existing concentrations of PM or NOx. For me that’s the most important take away of his criticism.
By the way, the man in the linked youtube video is correctly stating that the main bands of CO2 are already saturated. But that is in fact not disputed by honest climate scientists whereas some dummies are trying to refute it. The theoretical warming effect of higher CO2 concentrations is coming from an increased effective emission height. If CO2 is radiating energy to space from a higher level it then does it in a colder condition (lapse rate) and since the radiated energy is depending on the temperature of the gas the energy loss to space is slightly less and the energy remaining in the atmosphere slightly higher by the same amount. This is the theory in a static system but what the dynamic system of the earth is doing with such a warming impulse is unknown. There are mighty weapons all over in the world like e. g. cooling by evaporation which will counteract on lapse rate and emission height. At the end nobody knows the real effetc of a higher CO2 concentration but the existing data imply a very minor role of it.
One reason why CO2 is no problem
Thank you, very interesting. I lived (and worked briefly as a Praktikant at Dürkopp) in Germany in late 60s. The junkscience site is very good on corrupt science by USA EPA on diesel emissions.
“But Germans have rediscovered their taste for gigantic campaigns intended to put the entire world in order. …….. — with passionate obedience and sacrificing fervour and a reawakened lust to merge with the collective..”
A certain troll-like visitor here is deeply immersed in this brain-hosed culture of anti-science pseudo-do-goodery. (except for the sacrificing of its own comforts)
Its like one big “borg” assimilation similar to the 1930s, 1940s, and they don’t even seem to realise it.
I suspect that these “6000 deaths” are the result of a computer simulation which showed that, because of exhaust pollution, the average German lived 2 weeks less.
It’s bo11ocks, like most of climate “science”.
You are absolutely right. And reality is much worse. There isn‘t even a correlation between NOx exposure and mortality because exposure was never measured. That makes sense because otherwise the hundreds of thousands of participants of such a study would have had to live with a measurement equipment on their back.
So what all those studies ( incl. those for particulates) are doing, is take a central measurement value from an official station and calculate the concentration in front of the door of one participant which is located up to 10 km away. The computer models for that calculation are called Land use regression (LUR) models. As you can imagine there is a huge uncertainty between the calculated and thhe real value. But fasten your seat belt, because the joke has only started.
Nobody lives in front of his frontdoor. People usually spend 1 hour in their car, 8 hours at work, 2 hours in a bar, 8 hours in their sleeping room. The exposure in those envirionments varies by several 100% up to 10000% compared to the calculated front door concentration.
So at the end those studies can by no means (!!!) establish a link between mortality and NOx or any other pollutant of which the exact exposure isn’t measured.
Don‘t laugh! The joke isn‘t over yet! How do they get their correlations then? If they do not know the exposure and basically take a completely random value, how do they find their association? Very easy. There are many LUR models on the market, each one equipped with knobs for fine tuning. So if they do not find a correlation they just change the model. You can search for Panullo et al. They took a look on such a scottish study and tried to reproduce it with a different LUR model. The original study found a correlation of 5% more deaths per 5 microgramm/cbm more NOx. After changing the model the correlation disappeared. You can also visit famous statistician william briggs‘ blog. He is criticizing this fraud by epidemiology since years. He is giving the example of a particulate study where the authors made 8 calculations with 8 different models. Only one of the eight resulted in a significant correlation. Guess which one was published.
Now you can laugh, everytime you hear of causation when they talk about a fabricated correlation between a completely randomly choosen exposure and whatsoever.
Lumpi, Professor Ross McItrick did a study, in Canada, where he compared the causes of actual deaths with models that “predicted” deaths from pollution.
The models predicted more significantly more deaths than actually recorded, from all causes.
So we have death by suicides, car crashes etc all being “modelled” as deaths by diesel pollution.
It would be insanely funny, if it were a joke, but it isn’t.
Yes, no joke! And the fact that those people are not laughing is the best proof that they are part of a cult. That is way beyond religion.
I suspect you nailed it.
For anybody unfamiliar, this is a favourite trick also used in the pharmaceutical industry and elsewhere no doubt.
Plot a curve of deaths vs. time for a large population. Read from one axis and you get – HORROR! – x thousand deaths. Read from the other and you get an average life-shortening of next to nothing.
This doesn’t seem to bother you, so please feel free to breathe next to car engines running, the rest of us wants to maximize their time on this planet.
Cars in fact vastly lengthen our lives as a whole. They make the movement of necessary daily items rapid and thus life-sustaining products available to us when they are needed. Moreover they are involved in the direct rescue of lives. But perhaps Seb would prefer to walk to the emergency room next time, or to be carried over on an ox cart?
What kind of reasoning is this? You have technology 1 with benefits A and disadvantages B. You could go forward and replace technology 1 with technology 2 with the same benefits A and less B, but no … you argue restricting technology 1 because increasing B is less than ideal means there are no alternative and we should walk.
Pretty sure you’ve (intentionally) misrepresented what has actually been argued.
What has actually been argued?
That cars are good, right? Why do cars neccessarily have to use fossil fuel with the resulting exhaust released at street level to be a good thing? Why is walking the only alternative to cars that burn fossil fuel?
Nobody breathes next to the exhaust outlet of a car.
The thing is that for humans it doesn’ make any difference whether we breathe air with 40 microgramms/cbm Nox or air with 100 microgramms/cbm. But to fulfill the 40 microgramm limit makes cars at least 1.000 Euro more expensive. So the EU and our government are forcing us to pay 1.000 €/car for absolutely no value in return. The 1.000 € is minimum. Those cars will also have higher repair costs and probably reduced lifetime, which are costs that do not appear at the time of purchase. Why should we pay for that except for ideological reasons, not everybody is sharing? At the end of the day it is nothing else than an ideologically motivated punishment of the mass to force the people into the even more expensive emobility.
Yes Michael. Using this logic and different statistical models you can find correlations everywhere where random rules. A link between NOx and bank robberies, cancer or anything you might want to establish for whatever reason should be no problem at all.
A swedish study which was listed by the WHO in their guidelines found a link between power transmission lines and cancer. After the study was debunked they changed the association and said, wait a sec, next to the power line there’s a big road, it‘s not the line but the NOx, after they applied their LUR models.
Epidemiology on air pollutants is by far more corrupt than any climate science can ever be. It‘s just that not too many sceptics ever looked at it. That will change as soon as they want to ban ICE cars.
You mean this?
Isn’t that how skeptics think climate mechanisms work? Simple correlation and voila, mechanism found? Almost like magic, isn’t it?
“Simple correlation and voila, mechanism found? Almost like magic, isn’t it?”
You mean the short term correlation of CO2 increase with warming in the adjusted surface temperatures. ???
And the mechanism…. just a fantasy fairy tale…
Yep, the FAKE MAGIC of the AGW agenda.
If you have any empirical proof that enhancement of atmospheric CO2 causes warming.
THEN PRODUCE IT. !!
That’s exactly what I mean. Skeptics seem to think it is that simple and use it for nearly all their arguments.
A few days ago you told us that you can’t disprove fairy tales, effectively admitting that you can’t identify a fairy tale for what it is. Time is moving fast …
All observational data matched with the proposed mechanisms. There is no proof in physics, you have to find a situation where the proposed mechanisms don’t work. That leads to adjustment of a complete revise.
Should be fairly easy to do if you are right.
So why did 114 of 117 climate model simulations get the 1990s to 2013 trend wrong by more than a factor of 2 (Fyfe et al., 2013)? Why have the models predicted Antarctic sea ice would decline…since it has been rising since 1979? Why haven’t the Himalaya glaciers followed the predicted IPCC trajectory of total melt by 2035? 88% of Himalayan glaciers are stable or advancing. Why did the Arctic cool (by more than 1 C) between the 1940s and 1990s when CO2 emissions rose by a factor of 6 during that same period? These observational data do not match with the CO2-forcing mechanism you favor.
Did they? A factor of 2? What models based on what scenario?Compared to what? El Nino as a start? Or from 1993? I can’t retrace the authors calculations, can you?
Did they? Which models? Antartic sea ice rising and land ice declining? Strange, isn’t it? So contradictory.
You know, models can be off. Models can be wrong. If someone comes up with a better model good. Then those models get used. Science is about learning from mistakes, isn’t it?
[-snip – this is a pure activist site -PG]
[-snip, I doubt you understand the CO2-forcing mechanism at all. You need to learn how to get your points across without sounding like a know-it-all blowhard. -PG]
So why did 114 of 117 climate model simulations get the 1990s to 2013 trend wrong by more than a factor of 2
This will likely be the 4th or 5th time I have pointed this out to you in the last 4 months. Why do you keep on pretending like it is new information for you that the models predicted 0.3 C per decade and the trend was 0.14 C per decade, with only 3 of 117 model simulations getting it “right”? Where else in real science does a 98% failure rate affirm the hypothesis and indicate that there was a “match” between expectations and observations? Answer: nowhere.
Fyfe et al., 2013
“[W]e considered trends in global mean surface temperature computed from 117 simulations of the climate by 37 CMIP5 models. … By averaging simulated temperatures only at locations where corresponding observations exist, we find an average simulated rise in global mean surface temperature of 0.30 ± 0.02 °C per decade (using 95% confidence intervals on the model average). The observed rate of warming given above is less than half of this simulated rate, and only a few simulations [3 of 117] provide warming trends within the range of observational uncertainty. … [T]he observed trend [1998-2012] of 0.05 ± 0.08 °C per decade is more than four times smaller than the average simulated trend“
Hedemann et al., 2017
“The observed trend deviated by as much as −0.17 ◦C per decade from the CMIP5 (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5) ensemble-mean projection—a gap two to four times the observed trend. The hiatus therefore continues to challenge climate science.”
Why have the models predicted Antarctic sea ice would decline…since it has been rising since 1979?
Wow. Why am I so much more knowledgeable about the climate models than you are?
“The historical simulations of sea ice during 1979 to 2005 by the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) are compared with satellite observations, Global Ice-Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System (GIOMAS) output data and Pan-Arctic Ice Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System (PIOMAS) output data in this study. Forty-nine models, almost all of the CMIP5 climate models and earth system models with historical simulation, are used. For the Antarctic, multi-model ensemble mean (MME) results can give good climatology of sea ice extent (SIE), but the linear trend is incorrect. The linear trend of satellite-observed Antarctic SIE is +1.29 (±0.57) × 105 km2 decade−1; only about 1/7 CMIP5 models [7 of 49] show increasing trends, and the linear trend of CMIP5 MME is negative with the value of −3.36 (±0.15) × 105 km2 decade−1.”
Schroeter et al., 2017
“Antarctic sea ice extent has increased by approximately 1.5 % per decade since satellite observations began in 1979 (Parkinson and Cavalieri, 2012; Turner et al., 2015). … By contrast, models in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) exhibit decreasing sea ice trends in all months (Turner et al., 2013a). The reasons for the disparity between observed and modelled trends are not yet well understood (Bindoff et al., 2013; Hobbs et al., 2016).”
Mezgec et al., 2017
“The causes of the recent increase in Antarctic sea ice extent, characterised by large regional contrasts and decadal variations, remain unclear. Simulations performed with state-of-the-art climate models fail to capture such a sea ice increase.”
Comiso et al., 2017
“The Antarctic sea ice extent has been slowly increasing contrary to expected trends due to global warming and results from coupled climate models.”
Why haven’t the Himalaya glaciers followed the predicted IPCC trajectory of total melt by 2035?
Yes. But the problem is, when the models are wildly off, and 85% to 98% fail to accurately simulate observed trends, your side declares that they were right all along anyway. It’s the unfalsifiable hypothesis.
What would the failure rate have to be before you might begin to question their efficacy?
“All observational data matched with the proposed mechanisms”
There is NO DATA that shows that enhancing atmospheric CO2 causes WARMING of anything.
You say there is….
THEN PRODUCE THAT OBSERVATIONAL DATA
“That’s exactly what I mean”
You still don’t know the difference between a “coincidence” and a “correlation”, do you seb.
For a short period, temperature and atmospheric CO2 were going the same way.
That short period is all you have
Since satellite temperature data (as opposed to specifically adjusted surface data) was available, there has been NO-WARMING for 33 of the 39 years of that data.
Any warming was from El Nino events that are ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with atmospheric CO2
There is NO CORRELATION at all over the last 40 years.
The whole CO2 warming mantra is a load of unsupportable hogwash, (as you keep proving)
But hogwash is where you belong, seb.
I don’t know how often I have replied to this …
Stop acting like being off a bit means we do know nothing and it’s probably not CO2.
Of course you are, you are supposed to have a huge database of fitting papers for every occasion that supports whatever you want. I am just employing the playing stupid game you tried on me to get you to do some work, just like you always try to make me do homework for you.
I don’t have such a database. I just read different blogs than you find it hilarious what gets posted as science on blogs like these. I really need to finally compile that Kenneth FAQ with fitting answers for all your repeated questions that all have been answered before. Just to be able to give you pre-canned answers in return to your list of papers with cherry picked quotes.
@Pierre Gosselin: a pure activist site? You are an activist site if you haven’t noticed yet, you regularly link to activist sites if you haven’t noticed yet. The whole fringe climate debate you and people like me are having is activist stuff. Nobody else cares about this other than activists.
Thank you for reading my blog for so many months now.
Of course, linking to blogscience and their tortured attempts to claim that the 0.3 C per decade of warming predicted by climate models was actually right all along even though it’s warmed by less than half that amount (i.e., the models were wrong) is not affirmation that the models were right all along. 6 of 7 CMIP5 simulations have been predicting Antarctic sea ice would decline for decades, and yet they’ve all been wrong too. Why? Because the Southern Ocean — 14% of the Earth’s surface — has been cooling since 1979, which also defies the models. That the Arctic didn’t warm, but cooled between the 1940s and 1990s (50 years!) is also something that the models didn’t predict. The models keep getting it wrong again and again and again, and then, in response, you provide a link to carbonbrief.org and think that that must cover it. Sorry, SebastianH, but that doesn’t cover it. We’re skeptics. We’re not believers that models that get it wrong 98% of a 20-year period are scientifically verified.
You do realize that when you make the claim that models “match” observations and proceed to support that belief with a link to blogscience… And then, in response, I provide links to 7 peer-reviewed scientific papers that support my original statement and completely undermine your blogscience-based beliefs… This makes your position look quite weak. So in the process of trying to “get me to do some work”, you have set the table to have undercut your own beliefs that CO2-based models “match” quite well with observations.
Do you believe you citing some papers is not “blogscience” as you named it?
You keep on citing the impressive SkepticalScience blog and the Carbonbrief blog to support your beliefs, SebastianH.
“I am just employing the playing stupid game”
No seb ,you are NOT “playing stupid”
You ARE STUPID.
IGNORANT and EMPTY of any real science.
You are just a mindless, brain-washed little nil-educated non-entity.
If you don’t know that “carbon-briefs” is NOTHING but a childish anti-science AGW mantra blog…
…then you really have basically ZERO individual-thought capability.
“I really need to finally compile”
What you REALLY need to do is produce some real evidence that enhanced atmospheric CO2 causes any warming
So far, just ONE BIG EMPTY BLANK HOLE….
.. which you keep digging deeper and deeper.
NO SCIENCE can escape from that deep, dark, fetid pit….
… because there is ZERO science in there.!!
“I don’t know how often I have replied to this….. blah, blahhhhhhh…silly link…”
seb , it doesn’t matter how often you repeat NON-SCIENCE nonsense.
Does not make it true,
….just make you look like a brain-hosed religious fundaMENTAList.
seb links to an analysis, by the same group of people who created the models, which is the same group of people that FABRICATE and MAL-ADJUST the surface data.
And doesn’t see how ANTI-SCIENCE that is.
SERIOUSLY FUNNY. seb !! 🙂
Meanwhile, actual real temperatures only touch the 95% CHIMP5 spread in the highest of El Nino transients.
Models were too warm in 1990, saved by the El Nino in 1998 (Low atmospheric transient more than surface blip) then they get seriously out of wack afterwards, to the stage of being utterly LAUGHABLE.
Anyone who thinks the temperature are going to go anywhere near the projected warming, has AGW brain-hosed sludge for brains.
Even a slight drop by the end of 2018, further by 2020, SHOULD consign ALL these climate model fabrications to the shedder, where they belong…
… if the models weren’t just a political driven and originated propaganda fabrication.
They normally post and explain links to relevant papers in their articles. But yet, you think you are not “blogscience”? What is the difference? Do you think you aren’t posting papers that support your beliefs? At least their explanations are far better than what you come up with: no explanation at all, just cherry picked quotes and a deep misunderstanding of core mechanisms.
Had a good laugh … do you think you multiple comment rants are making you look mature?
From what point in time do you think these models are forecasting from?
Ok, what will you do if that doesn’t happen? It’s not like the skeptic community didn’t predict cooling before and it never happened. Doesn’t keep them from still believing their junk science and gut feelings … so what will happen if 2020 is warmer than 2018/2017? Will that validate climate models for you?
“From what point in time do you think these models are forecasting from?”
As their models drift away from REALITY (even the fabricated reality of the NOAA-GISS farce)
, they keep repositioning the starting point.
Enough to fool mathematical illiterates like seb.
Your posts continue to be NOTHING but brain-hosed mantra rants, TOTALLY EMPTY of any actual scientific content.
Your only link is to the RABID AWG stall-wart Ed Hawkin. How’s his moronically ignorant arctic spiral working out for him the last 10 years, seb. !
“effectively admitting that you can’t identify a fairy tale for what it is.”
Wrong seb, I have identified the AGW fairy-tale for what it is.
You have yet to produce one iota of proof that CO2 warming is anything BUT a fairy-tale.
If you want to know who is really responsible for the discussed ban of diesel cars, look at that chart:
Poitics and their agencies are responsible for aligning Immission limits for environments and emission limits for sources. This is what they simply didn‘t do. In 2010 they introduced the new EE Immission limit of 40 microgramms/cbm without drastically reducing emission limits years before that. As a consequence a third of germany is violating the limits since 2010 whereas before violation was basically zero.
Now the very same people blame the auto industry for their own fault. The glorious new government even defined in its coalition contract that they want to let the auto industry pay for necessary engine updates in order to allow city entrance.
This is kafkaesk!
UK went better than this,
“On Tuesday 4th April 2017 Channel 4 News in the UK carried a report on the impact of pollution from diesel cars upon UK mortality. It was claimed that pollution from diesel cars accounted for 40,000 excess deaths in the UK each year: 29,000 down to particulate matter (PM2.5) and 11,000 down to nitrogen oxides (NOx). The source of the statistics was a report from the Royal College of Physicians called Every breath we take: the lifelong impact of air pollution published in 2016”
Someone mentioned Steve Milloy’s Junkscience website. He has shown there is no evidence of mortality from NoX or PM2.5.
I remember a few years back, it was PM10 they were attacking, they just keep moving the goal posts. It is part of the agenda against fossil fuels and there are thousands of lawyers looking to jump on the gravy train.
Nearly everywhere in western societies the same ideology. I guess science is grabbing goverment money in the same way as in Germany. I am a bit surprised that politics is also comparable. I thought we had the worst here.
Just recently, professor Dieter Koehler, a retired physician and former president of the German Pneumonic Society, exposed the scientific fraud of the NOxophobia. Unfortunately the link to a short MDR interview is no longer available. Instead I copied a link to a long SWR Interview. Very interesting! In both interviews the attitudes of the journalists are the same. They can‘t believe that all those scientific studies about paticulate matter and NOx are fraud. Both journalists tried to place Koehler in a bad light. But he is simply too smart and knows what he is talking about. He confirms that there is no danger from particulate matter and NOx in the existing concentrations. And he states right away that the European limits are too low! He also tells a lot about confirmation bias and government money as motivation for the fraud.
Unfortunately in German only.
Matthias Klingner, Head of the Fraunhofer Institute for Transportation and Infrastructure Systems IVI in Dresden is quoted:
»Das Gesundheitsrisiko wird maßlos überschätzt und übertrieben, die Horrorzahlen von Feinstaubtoten oder Stickoxidtoten ist reiner Populismus. An dem Feinstaub, den wir messen ist noch kein Mensch gestorben.<<
Health risks are vastly over-estimated and exaggerated. Horrifying numbers of particulate or NOx deaths is pure populism. Nobody has died from the particulate levels being measured.
[…] Gosselin reports at NoTricksZone on Germany’s War On Diesel Takes A Setback … Environment Ministry Activism Exposed, Absurd Risk […]
[…] https://notrickszone.com/2018/03/17/germanys-war-on-diesel-takes-a-setback-environment-ministry-activ… […]