Archive for June 2010

Just Suck It Up; Otherwise The World Is Going To Be Destroyed By Global Warming

June 30, 2010

How long have we been hearing this kind of talk from alarmists? How often are we told that we have to make lots of sacrifices and give governments unlimited power – otherwise the earth will be destroyed? The answer is: almost everyday.

High energy taxes, loss of freedom, massive regulation, constant monitoring, surveillance over how we do things will be huge inconveniences; but it’s necessary, and so just suck it up.

Can’t you see all the destruction all over the planet? It’s spreading everywhere, and soon it will be at your doorstep, unless of course you suck it up and give them the power they need.

I ask,  just what kind of person does one have to be to heed that kind of advice? Pretty clueless I think.

 Just suck it up, otherwise the planet is going to be destroyed

I know as a climate-blogger I’m going out on a limb with this. But I got a feeling we have not heard the end of this story by any means. Where’s there’s smoke, there’s fire. My eyes and ears are perked.

I can understand the other climate blogs not wanting to touch this with a 10-foot pole, claiming whatever righteous reason. But I think someone has to observe and report on this. I got a hunch, and I#m going to follow it..

I happen to think Al Gore is not an okay person, and so it would not surprise me if this story turns out to be true. I’m not saying the story and allegations are true. Yellow journalism and the such are not what I draw my conclusions on. That’s for the IPCC to use (before asking us to suck it up).

The problem is that Al Gore unwittingly revealed a lot about himself and his movement when he made the film AIT. The film was carefully designed to mislead and manipulate its viewers in a mean kind of way. And it was carefully crafted to demonize anyone who refused to fall in line. It uses bully psychology.

Does AIT show any respect for the very element that is needed for science to progress? The answer is of course: none whatsoever!  There was absolutely zero tolerance for sceptical views. Sceptics were ridiculed, mocked and called flat-earthers, and other nasty things.

There are lots of other things in the film that are troublesome, which speak volumes about the persons involved in making it. Of course some involved were just gullible and innocently believed the rubbish.

And let’s not even discuss how Gore lives his life, his business ventures, and so on. These also speak volumes about what kind of guy he is. To me it’s crystal clear. Gore in the film is a pretty bitter and quite peeved chap and he’s capable of a lot of things. 

But we’ll see how the story turns out soon enough. I’m not going to stop blogging about it until the story ends and the (inconvenient?) truth is out.

And my feeling is that the other climate bloggers will be joining in with the commentary before too long. Like it or not, it’s a climate story. But, my hunches could be wrong.


Update: By yellow journalism, I don’t mean the Examiner, rather the Nation Enquirer, who broke the story, and whose website for whatever reason I can’t access from Germany.

Other Links:
Fox News video

Summary And Conclusions Of The Scientific Advisory Board Report Buried By Germany’s Ministry Of Finance – English Translation

June 30, 2010

In my recent post here I wrote about a ZDF story on an Expert Assessment Report, led by Prof. Dr. Kai Konrad of the Max Planck Institute and a team of finance researchers, on Europe’s and Germany’s climate policy. The report is titled:

Climate Policy Between Emissions Prevention and Adaptation
Expert Assessment By The Scientific Advisory Board Of The Federal Ministry of Finance

Note: The report itself is not a product of the Max Planck Institute, as some have mistakenly believed. The lead author is Dr. Kai Konrad of the Max Plank Institute, who is also vice chairman of the Finance Ministry’s Scientific Advisory Board, the actual producer of the assessment report. The members of the Scientific Advisory Board participating in the expert assessment are listed below at the end of this post.

You’ll recall the assessment report was so damning that the Finance Ministry took it down from its website. When you read the following summary and conclusion you’ll see how it completely contradicts the government’s current policy, which is to prevent CO2 emissions and to subsidise alternative energy. This is a finding that was embarrassing for the government.

Note that the authors of the assessment report take the position that CO2 is bad for the climate, i.e. the more CO2 that is produced, the worse the climate will become. They are finance experts after all, and not climate experts – obviously.

I’ve translated the all-important Part 4, Summary and Conclusion (bold print is my emphasis), which is as follows:

4. Summary and Conclusion

Economic and political action on global warming can be categorised under two kinds of measures: 1) measures that aim to slow down global warming (prevention) and 2) measures that aim to react to global warming (adaptation).

With adaptation measures, the beneficiary and the cost-bearer are the same. Decisions concerning many adaptation measures can thus be decided by the private economy. In the cases where this is not possible, the extent of adaptation measures can be handled by the local, regional or national politics.

But when it comes to measures for preventing CO2 emissions, the circle of beneficiary and the cost bearer splits apart. A meaningful reduction in emissions through uncoordinated, single country initiatives cannot be achieved. Effective emissions reduction with respect to global climate protection can be accomplished only through global coordination. In the past, global coordination has proven to be difficult and hardly successful. Despite various international attempts and considerable use of resources on the part of some countries, a worldwide climate policy has not been reached.
The theory of international public good offers an economic explanation as to why the international climate policy has not reached its ambitious goals up to now. That’s why suspicions that the current efforts will not lead to any success are being confirmed

This assessment yields the following results:

The uncoordinated, single-country go-it-alone approach leads to unachievable emissions reductions. Many polluters hardly participate in avoiding emissions. It has to be expected that only the more populated, economically strongest, environmentally aware and climatically threatened countries will make any notable efforts to undertake emissions reductions.

• Efforts by single countries to act as a leader in climate protection and to influence climate policy by imposing emissions reductions on itself can cause other countries to slack off in their own climate-policy efforts rather than intensifying them. As a result, taking a leadership role in climate policy leads to, as a rule, higher costs in that country without assuring any decisive improvement in the global climate.

• Special efforts and leadership initiatives made by individual countries also do not necessarily improve the situation for a global climate agreement, but rather can actually imperil an agreement. Diminishment of remaining benefits arising from worldwide climate agreements make the realisation of an agreement more improbable.

• Also unfavourable are agreements among groups nations of the international community of nations. Such agreements greatly burden  the participating countries economically, and serve to benefit the countries that do not participate. Despite the high costs, the positive climate effects of such group-nation agreements can end up being very small. Moreover, coalitions of nations can actually worsen the chances of an international worldwide climate treaty.

However, in no way do these arguments speak against continuing international negotiations. Effective international climate agreements are urgently needed. The arguments listed above do, however, speak against going it alone nationally, taking a leadership role, in preventing CO2 emissions.

When it comes to implementing measures for adaptation to climate change, there are no problems like those listed above. Measures for adapting to climate change do not have the problems that measures for prevention have. Adapting to climatically related environmental changes do not have the “free-rider” problem, where one incurs the costs and the other reaps the benefits. The circle of beneficiary and cost-bearer are mutual when it comes to adaptation measures. The strategy of adaptation thus offers opportunities for a unilateral, cost-effective national climate policy in a wide variety of impact areas (e.g. against flooding or storm damage). At the same time, such a policy augments the chances of an international emissions limitation.

The adaptation strategy leads to an immediate climate cost reduction in one’s own country, independent of  international agreements.

• If a country invests in national adaptation measures, it also improves its bargaining strength in negotiations for a climate treaty.

• When all countries take up adaptation strategies, it results in – when compared to an ideal, worldwide combination of both instruments – a strain that in the end favours adaptation instead of prevention. The economic-political result would be worse than the one from a non-existing prosperity-maximizing world government, but better than the result that would arise from foregoing an adaptation strategy.

• Without adaptation measures, more prevention measures would have to be undertaken due to reasons of precaution and in view of the uncertainty of climate impacts from irreversible CO2 emissions. Adaptation buys governments time to more precisely research climate impacts.

The way for some especially motivated industrial countries to use comprehensive unilateral early contributions and subsides for alternative energy is misguided with regards to a timely, binding and adequately scaled climate policy. Even worse, it is to be feared that this policy not only has been and is very expensive for Germany and Europe, but also that it is an obstacle to reaching an effective worldwide climate policy. In view of the fact that emissions reduction is an internationally public good and in view of strategy effects, the Advisory Board recommends options for adaptation to climate change be examined and pursued more vigorously by single countries than in the past. The strategy of adaptation does not only ensure immediate adaptation to climate change, but also increases the chances for an effective international agreement to reducing emissions.

Directory of members of the Scientific Advisory Board at the Federal Ministry of Finance
Prof. Dr. Clemens Fuest (chairman)
Prof. Dr. Kai A. Konrad (vice chairman)
Prof. Dr. Dieter Brümmerhoff
Prof. Dr. Thiess Büttner
Prof. Dr. Werner Ehrlicher
Prof. Dr. Lars P. Feld
Prof. Dr. Lutz Fischer
Prof. Dr. Heinz Grossekettler
Prof. Dr. Günter Hedtkamp
Prof. Dr. Klaus-Dirk Henke
Prof. Dr. Johanna Hey
Prof. Dr. Bernd Friedrich Huber
Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Kitterer
Prof. Dr. Gerold Krause-Junk
Prof. Dr. Alois Oberhauser
Prof. Dr. Rolf Peffekoven
Prof. Dr. Dieter Pohmer
Prof. Dr. Helga Pollak
Prof. Dr. Wolfram F. Richter
Prof. Dr. Ulrich Schreiber
Prof. Dr. Hartmut Söhn
Prof. Dr. Christoph Spengel
Prof. Dr. Klaus Stern
Prof. Dr. Marcel Thum
Prof. Dr. Alfons Weichenrieder
Prof. Dr. Dietmar Wellisch
Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Wiegard
Prof. Dr. Berthold Wigger
Prof. Dr. Horst Zimmermann

Oreskes At Deutsche Welle’s Journalism For Dummkopfs Conference

June 29, 2010

Oreskes instructs international journalists to call sceptics "contrarians" and to not use the term "climate debate".

Ulli Kulke of the German online Die Welt national newspaper has written a piece: How Sceptics Are To Be Converted. He reports on the recent Global Media Forum held by German public broadcaster Deutsche Welle dubbed “The Heat Is On – Climate Change and the Media”, see here for background and here. According to Kulke the real objective of the forum: 

The media are to warn the public of the dangers of climate change even more effectively and powerfully than before, and of course to make it even more clear that it’s the fault of man. 

One well-attended workshop was: How To Deal With Climate Scepticism. Its own stated objective: 

This workshop aims to point out what journalists must know about climate change policy, whom to trust and when to question their own professional procedures. 

and warned: 

Falling back on a “neutral” journalistic position can mean playing into the hands of the skeptics at the expense of the basis of life. 

According to the workshop’s moderator, Bernhard Pötter of the newspaper Tageszeitung

For journalists, climate change is the most important topic of the 21st century. 

The “How To Deal With Climate Scepticism” workshop was designed to provide assistance to frustrated editors, authors and other journalists on how to best deal with the unwanted confrontation with a climate sceptic. 

Oreskes’s Propaganda 

One notable speaker at the workshop was Naomi Oreskes, who, according to Kulke, requests journalists eliminate the use of the word “scepticism” from their reporting. Kulke reports on Oreskes: 

‘Scepticism” is too positive, and is indeed even a virtue in science. It’s better to use the word “contrarian’, which one can translate as ‘adversary’ or ‘dissenter’, says Oreskes. “Also it’s a no-no to use the term climate debate’. 

‘It’s no wonder,’ complained Oreskes, ‘that people think science is still debating climate change when everywhere in newspapers one reads about a ‘debate’. Debate has long been in the history books. Climate change is a scientifically proven fact.’ It’s important for journalists to stress that the debate is over. 

Ulli Kulke wonders what newspapers Oreskes could be possibly reading out in California, which would lead her to conclude the press is playing down climate change. Kulke writes: 

In the years leading up to and after the last IPCC assessment report in 2007, the press and television reported daily on the coming end of the world in America and Europe. 

But this has changed over the last half-year. Inconsistencies, cover-ups, big blunders and, most of all, exaggerations by climate scientists have been exposed. Some have admitted their errors. Even plots by scientists against their sceptic colleagues came to light. As a result the media have toned down their alarmism a little. And one even gets the impression that, since Climategate, journalistic principles have made a comeback. But some people have got a problem with that. 

Like Oreskes. 

Much to her chagrin, parts of the German press, such as Ulli Kulke, are not ready to abandon the principles of journalism. That’s good news.

Expect scepticism contrarianism to grow in Europe.

Max Planck Institute Finance Researchers Call Europe’s Climate Policy A Failure

June 28, 2010

Prof. Kai Konrad and his team of finance researchers at the Max Planck Institute call Europe's climate policy a failure.

Hans von Storch’s blog brings our attention to an excellent German report by normally green ZDF public television.

The report takes a critical view of Europe’s energy policy and reaches the conclusion that it’s a failure. My last post Billions Of Euros For Nothing Called A Success Story illustrates this beautifully.

The ZDF interviews a leading finance researcher, Professor Dr Kai Konrad, and here’s what the ZDF report says:

 – Start clip (German)-, content in English:

After 20 years of conference after conference after conference, a sort of traveling climate circus on a worldwide tour, Copenhagen became the highpoint of absurdity in December of last year – a political and media overkill with the aim of nothing less than to rescue the planet. The conference failed yet again. It all gets down to money.

Professor Dr. Kai Konrad is a distinguished finance researcher at the prestigious Max Planck Institute in Munich and a close advisor to the Federal Ministry of Finance. He and a team of researchers drew up an expert assessment of Germany’s climate policy.

The assessment was so damning that the Ministry quickly removed it from its website.

The assessment took a hard look at the 1st Commandment of climate policy: reduce CO2 emissions, and how a relatively small group of countries decided – unilaterally – to reduce CO2 emissions. The researchers writing the assessment deemed this a grave error. Professor Konrad says:

When a small group of countries sit down and say they want to  do something good for the climate, and reduce their emissions, it has practically no effect on the total amount of emissions worldwide. It means the rest of the world picks up the slack and just emits more.

In effect it means that the countries who cut emissions incur all the costs but no benefits. And the countries that don’t cut emissions, profit. So it’s highly worth it for these so-called “free-riders” who don’t sign on. What has the Kyoto protocol produced?

Since 1990 worldwide CO2 emissions have increased 36% and the few countries that have reduced their emissions have had immense costs, estimated to be $150 billion.

When it comes to CO2 emissions, the European Union is a global power. Especially Germany has been a leader in cutting emissions – already 20% less than 1990. Professor Konrad says:

The fact that Europe is a leader in cutting emissions will only lead to other countries slacking off, and thus the costs are merely shifted from the countries that don’t play along to Europe. So whatever progress Europe makes in cutting emissions just gets lost to countries like USA and China.

And so the circus goes on. The other countries are happy about the cuts, and the EU carries all the costs. Europe’s Climate Commissar estimates the costs will be:

€500 billion ($620 billion) in the next 10 years.

Germany is the leader in this craziness, and is expected to cut emissions by 40% by 2020. This is to be accomplished by Germany’s EEG Gesetz, or Energy Feed-in Act, which forces power companies to purchase renewable energy at exorbitant prices from anyone who produces them and to deliver them to consumers, who then must pay through the nose. Professor Konrad says (in summary):

From a theoretical point of view, the EEG brings no benefit. It brings nothing because the system of buying CO2 emissions certificates doesn’t work.

All the certificates do is ensure that the CO2 gets produced elsewhere. Professor Konrad:

The Feed-in Act is to be criticised in my view because it is no longer transparent as to what an enormous redistribution it creates and the huge subsidies that flow out of the pockets of consumers and into the hands of those who profit from it.

By the end of the year German consumers will have paid €62 billion ($75 billion) without seeing any CO2 reduction. In Professor Konrad’s and his colleagues’ view:

The policy of avoiding the production of CO2 is a failure, nationally and globally.

As a result, Professor Konrad’s recommendation is to use a different strategy (one that even the earliest and most primitive of man used):


The researchers say this policy would be much more successful, and certainly much cheaper than the current CO2 elimination policy.

– End clip –

Now, I wonder if our clever politicians will muster the intelligence that even our early Neanderthal ancestors had millions of years ago, and adopt this strategy?

Don’t hold your breath.

Minister Tanya Gönner Calls Hundreds Of Billions Of Euros For Nothing A Success Story!

June 26, 2010

Genius minister Tanya Gönner calls heavily subsidised and costly energy a success story.

Mayor Hans-Martin Moll

Like in many countries in Europe, politcal parties in Germany, whether right or left, are big boosters of re-engineering society in order to save it from the fantasized self-inflicted climate catastrophe. People who speak up face risk feeling the wrath of the many climate-doctrine-following drones and zombies. And as the level of absurdity reaches intolerable levels, people are indeed speaking  up.

One such person is mayor Hans-Martin Moll of the town of Zell am Harmersbach in Germany. He has written a letter addressed to Tanya Gönner, Minister of Environment in the state of Baden Wuerttemberg and a member of the conservative CDU party.  The European Institute For Climate and Energy (EIKE) features Moll’s letter here in German.

Mr Moll, who is also a CDU member,  has become very concerned about the CDU’s aimless drift, led by Angela Merkel, in the direction of “green illusions” over the last years. Chancellor Merkel is advised by alarmists like Hans Joachim Schellnhuber and Stefan Rahmstorf.

What takes the cake for Mr Moll is Tanya Gönner’s declaration that Germany’s EEG Act is a complete success, and that it ought to be continued. The EEG Act forces power companies to buy renewable energy from anyone who produces it at fixed, exhorbitant prices that are guaranteed for years. (More info on the EEG Act here). Moll writes:

Producing power with coal or nuclear reactors costs between 2.5 and 4 cents per kwh. The EEG forces the consumers and the economy to pay 43 cents per kwh for photovoltaic power, or about 15 times more than the reliable, steady supply, conventional power.

And to make this hugely subsidised power of any use, billions of euros more are needed for expanding the power grid, for adding necessary over-capacity, and for “imaginary storage technologies”, which are physcially and geographically completely illusionary.

You call this a success story? I call it a political swindle of the citizens. Only in a communist centrally planned economy has such a thing ever been done.

Consumers and the economy had to fork out already 12 billion euros in 2009 for a completely useless and ideological nonsense. This EEG Act which you call a success story will cost hundreds of billions of euros.

Moll does not mince any words. Indeed the amount of CO2 that Germany may save by 2020 will be offset by Chinese economic growth within just a few months. It amounts to nothing. But it is a very expensive nothng.  CO2 reductions in Germany will have zero impact on the climate, assuming that added CO2 has a noticeable impact on climate. Moll writes:

With this kind of politics, the only thing that is sustainable is the harm done to the consumer, the economy and the jobs for our future generations.

This swindle must not only be reduced, it has to be eliminated completely. The same is true for wind energy.

Energy policy is going precisely in the Green parties’ direction. Their target is not the environment, rather it is the dismantling of industry.

Mr Moll concludes with:

I do hope the conservative CDU party will wake up soon, recognise this huge error, and that it will endeavour to pursue a real energy policy that is based on natural science and common sense.

I couldn’t agree more with Mr Moll. As people start speaking up, other people will start listening.

Pachauri Should Step Down, Say Leading German Scientists

June 25, 2010

Rahmstorf could imagine a better IPCC Chairman

The German Readers Edition reports that 3 leading scientists, among them alarmist Stefan Rahmstorf, are calling on Rajendra Pachauri to step down as Chairman of the IPCC because of management errors and the recent attacks on the IPCC and climate science.

According to Stefan Rahmstorf’s blog Klimalounge:

I’m not calling for an end of Pachauri, but I could certainly imagine a better Chairman because in my view, among other reasons, he reacted in an unfortunate manner with respect to the media attacks on the IPCC. The role of the Chairman is not to decide the contents of the report (he should not get involved with our work). Rather he ought to well represent the IPCC externally.

Calls for Pachauri’s resignation are nothing new. In February director emeritus of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, Prof. Hartmut Graßl, told the Frankfurter Rundschau newspaper that Pachauri should clear the table and leave the job in other hands.

Pachauri with Al Gore, a.k.a. Mr Stone.

Hans von Storch, director of the GKSS coastal research center in Geesthacht, Germany, said the IPCC director was a burden because he permitted sloppiness in the reviews and checks of the 2007 climate report.

Readers Edition quotes the current issue of zeo2 titled: The zeo2 Climate Summit, which states:

Pachauri should throw in the towel.


Media: No Evidence, No Crime. Let’s All Move Along.

June 24, 2010

I must admit I’m in a bit of shock reading this stuff, especially full police report about Al Gore’s alleged behaviour. I’m not going to draw any conclusion right now. It’s all too stunning, if it’s true.

The other climate blogs have not written a word about it so far. Maybe they want to be extra careful, which is understandable. But then again, Drudge plasters the story as its big headline for the day. Matt Drudge has been in business for years, and surely he’s done his homework. Maybe it’s to encourage other victims to speak out, if there are any.

I read the entire police report and it is shocking – really. Will other women come forward? Is it all a hoax? We’re not talking about Mike Tyson or Kobe Bryant here. We’re talking about the former VP of the USA and the prophet of AGW.


UPDATE; Germany’s top tabloid Bild reports here (German).

Al Gore: Massaging More Than Data?

June 24, 2010

Ritzy hotels and $540 massages

I know I shouldn’t go here, but the temptation is just too strong. I’ll let the readers make up their own minds. Here are some links to read. But do research more. 

UPDATE 1: Oh! Oh! Drudge has got Gore as the big headline.

1. Serious accusations
2. 3 reasons not to believe the accusations
3. $540 massage(?) at ritzy hotel
4. Gore assault NYT 

This eventually will boil down to the question: Can we really trust Al Gore? We saw how far he took the level of propaganda in his AIT film, which was carefully crafted to pull at the heart-strings and to mislead viewers. It was slammed by a British High Court. His jet-setting, mansion-buying lifestyle is in complete contradiction to what he preaches. He constantly ducks debate and keeps his head in the sand.
Not long ago he separated from his wife, indicating possible breach of trust in the relationship. He once claimed to have invented the internet. Just how believable is this guy? 

My personal opinion is that Gore is as great a fraud as one will ever find, and he’s living high on the hog because of it. But that’s just my opinion, which is based on the so many words that have come out of his mouth and on his actions. 

Indeed this has the potential to be much bigger than Climategate. 

“But what does that have to do with the science,” one may ask? Gore is not a scientist, but he is a big messenger who has a message he wants (demands) everybody to believe. And it so happens that he has a huge interest in that message. 

Look for the media to build a massive bulwark around Gore, and to come out blasting with everything they’ve got. 

Frustration At Deutsche Welle Forum

June 23, 2010

H/T: Benny Peiser

This is the final day of the Deutsche Welle’s Global Media Forum, this year’s conference is titled “The Heat is On – Climate Change and the Media”. If any conclusion can be drawn, it is that elite warmists are extremely frustrated. Read here.

Bob Ward:

British journalists don’t know difference between fact and fiction.

Peiser’s GWPF report reads: “But he also concedes that there have been grave mistakes made by researchers”. And Ward called for scientists to handle their findings and knowledge responsibly. Ward goes on to say:

The IPCC is too slow in correcting the faults.

Naomi Oreskes, non-consensus denialist:

The statements from scientists are so greatly disconnected from the media in the USA because the journalists unknowingly and inaccurately repeat what was said.

…so-called climate skeptics are nothing but “contrarians” and can’t be taken seriously because their critique isn’t scientifically based.

Can you hear their teeth gnashing?

Research Institutes Predict Arctic Sea Ice To Remain Steady in 2010

June 23, 2010

The June SEARCH report of September sea ice outlook here shows the predictions of 16 research institutes for 2010:

SEARCH September sea ice outlook: June report

According to the report:

 A quick calculation (leaving out the outliers of 3.2 million in 2009 and 1.0 million in 2010) shows an average prediction of 4.72 in June 2009, and 5.05 million this year.

On average their predictions for 2010 are 300,000 km² more than last year’s average prediction. This is probably due to the embarassment they had to endure last year, when ice melt was far less than all the institutes had predicted. Last year sea ice area bottomed out at 5.4 million km², see below:


As you can see from the above chart, they all fell short. This year they probably thought twice about making headline-grabbing claims like they did last year.