Archive for the ‘Climate Politics’ category

Hans von Storch Speaks Out On CRU, IPCC And Climate Science

August 3, 2010

Here is an outstanding interview given by Prof. Hans von Storch, one of Germany’s leading climate scientists, in an interview with Germany’s Handelsblatt
(Germany’s equivalent to the Wall Street Journal) yesterday. Although a warmist, Professor Hans von Storch, much to his credit, has always kept an open ear and mind to serious climate sceptics. Here are some paraphrased excerpts of yesterday’s HB interview.HB: Are today’s hot and cold extreme events a sign of global warming?

HvS: It’s important to keep weather separated from climate. The media have certainly been focussing more on the weather. And unfortunately there are plenty of activists who like to connect heat waves and storms with climate change. And then these activists wonder why sceptics do the same when there’s a cold winter, using it as evidence against warming. It’s intellectually low. The fact of the matter is that it is trending warmer.

HB: Who recommends the scientists for participation in the IPCC?

HvS: In Germany it’s the Federal Ministry of Environment, Nature Protection and Reactor Safety and the Ministry of Research and Science in Bonn.  Here one can apply to participate, and this is what I’ve done. I offered to be a part of WG2. That’s where most of the errors occurred and I’d like to help out this time around to prevent such errors from happening again. My name has been sent, along with 80 others, to the IPCC in Switzerland.

HB:  The IPCC has come under fire because it dramatised climate change. How can we prevent such errors and what should quality control look like?

HvS: We have to look very closely at the literature that is handed to us. We have to be very careful with grey literature. It has to meet the highest scientific standards. Under no circumstances can literature from interest groups like reinsurers, coal industry or environmental groups be accepted.

HB:  And what about the WWF’s Amazon Rainforest report?

HvS: One cannot claim that this was a neutral scientific report. The IPCC made that mistake, and it cannot be blamed on the WWF, who have legitimate interests.

HB:  Could there be a benefit in allowing studies from interest groups?

HvS: I would not agree to that. In WG2 it would not be necessary to include material from interest groups. There’s already enough scientific literature at hand.

HB: And what about critical opinions from the scientific community? In the wake of the hacked e-mails from the CRU, some scientists complained that their publications had been blocked.

HvS: Here we have to differentiate between 2 kinds of gate-keeping. In the case of the Climate Research Unit, it is alleged, or indeed it was attempted, to keep an article with a contrary opinion from being published. Thus it was possible to assure that some results would not flow into the IPCC report.

In the IPCC report itself, minority opinions also must be allowed to be shown. We have to determine just where there is consensus, and where there are contrary opinions. This has to be done scientifically, without any prejudice.

HB: A report for the political decision makers probably has to be summarised: But isn’t that walking on a tight rope between what is scientifically exact and what the politicians understand?

HvS: A summary by the scientists for the politicians is in my opinion, not necessary. The summary emphasis takes place at a later time when the decision makers wish to present the matter to their clientel. The politicians that I’ve been involved with know what climate research is about –and especially on questions of adaptation. Personally I’m quite impressed by their competence.

HB: Last fall after errors were found in the IPCC report and the disclosure of the CRU e-mails,  climate science skidded off track and came under heavy fire.. What does this branch of science need to do in order to regain respect?

HsV: There are two strategies – and I’m afraid not much is happening for the most part. It is simply being claimed that evil media outlets and the fossil fuel industry are behind the unjust discrediting of the science. But this assertion simply is not sustainable. In the past, climate science attempted to work too much with catastrophe reports. But that bubble blew last fall. As a result, trust suffered immeasurably.

We have to take a critical view of what happened. Nothing ought to be swept under the rug. Some of the inquests – like in Great Britain – failed at this. They blew an opportunity to re-establish trust.

The second strategy us scientists have to consider is what role it is we wish to play. Are we supporters of a certain political process, or supporters of a certain brand of politics? I’m emphatically for the first, whereby we are the providers of special knowledge. We must not say that this is right, and that is wrong. This is not the competence of a climate scientist. We are merely experts in climate dynamics, and not specialists for competing political or ethical problems. Fundamentally a debate has to take place. That’s what climate scientists want, and that is what is expected from the public.

HB: Is there a danger that climate science falls on the wayside because the sceptics take up very popular slogans against the subject of anthropogenic climate change?

HsV: Many alarmists do the same– both sides don’t hold back much. We have to accept the challenges the sceptics present and step into the debate with them in order to win them over.

Many physicists, chemists, engineers or geologists have open questions about climate change which they view as unanswered. Here there is a considerable and legitimate potential at hand, which unfortunately is not addressed often enough. Instead, they sometimes get attacked and called sceptics, which only serves to aggravate them. It’s no way to build trust. We have to find a way back to a reasonable discussion.

HB: Do you have any hope that progress can be made with the next IPCC report with respect to climate protection, especially after the spectacular failure of Copenhagen?

HsV: I don’t expect that the next IPCC report will significantly improve the chances for a comprehensive climate protection program. The last report was already so emphatic that there is no way to top it. The concept that science tells politics what’s necessary has failed. We have to give up on the idea of making an agreement from top down for 150 countries, and that they will abide by it. Change has to come from the bottom.


Malignant Science: Next Gate-Update Coming August 3

July 29, 2010
Next week on August 3, I’ll be releasing my latest list of climate scandals, a gate-update (see Current list of climate scandals). This is a month earlier than originally planned.

The list that’s posted now is visited on average about 100 times a day. Clearly it has become some sort of resource.

Unsurprisingly, the new list coming out has grown, and it will continue to grow. This is assured because of the way climate science is operated, funded, rewarded and politicised.

The disease is hopelessly chronic and there is no treatment in sight. The system is designed, built and programmed to keep producing many more scandals. Already I see dozens of new gates in incubation.

“Climate science” even has its own immune system that works to keep out the deadly virus called “truth”.  The reality of that immune system became clear with the Muir Russell, Oxburgh and Penn State enquiries.

Soon I will have to break the climate-gate list into Volumes 1 and 2.  I have no doubts about this.

The real threat, unfortunately, is that “climate science” risks becoming a malignant cancer that will threaten to spread to other fields of science and to our public institutions. In some cases it already has. Because of “climate science”, the public is losing trust in science and the civic institutions that are supposed to police it. As mistrust of climate science reaches ever higher levels, so will the public mistrust in other fields.

Scientists in these other fields need to take notice.

The Legal Problems Of Climate Therapy

July 20, 2010

Would climate therapy be legally feasible?

The Max Planck Institute has an interesting article (in German) here When Man Engineers Climate concerning the international legal aspects of employing technical means to engineer climate change. Personally, I think there isn’t much man could do, unless all resources were focussed in doing so. But others think it’s possible and even feasible.

Scientists are developing processes to counteract the alleged negative impacts of climate change. But employing these untested processes could very well lead to unexpected results instead. Do these technical processes – should they function at all – comply with international norms?

There are several techniques that may be used to influence climate on earth, or what some call climate engineering, or geo-engineering or climate therapy. But the impacts of climate engineering would be completely unpredictable, and could cause more harm than good for a region. Who would be liable for damages? Think of the technical legal complications in proving in an international court that a negative impact was caused, or could be caused.

There are basically two general technical methods to counter global warming:
1. Reducing solar radiation by using reflective aerosols.
2. Removing CO2 from the atmosphere.

No. 2 for example, uses iron fertilisation to promote the growth of algae. The algae then absorbs CO2, which would disappear at the seabed when the algae dies off.  The Alfred Wegener Institute even conducted a controversial experiment to see how well that would work: The Lohafex Experiment. The scientists dumped iron sulphate over 300 sq km in the South Pacific. But things did not go as hoped. The fertiliser did indeed promote the growth of algae, but swarms of small crabs descended and torpedoed the project with their large appetites. No extra CO2 was absorbed in the end.

No.1 can be achieved by cloud-making, which reflects sunlight back into space. This can be done through salt crystals or using sulfuric acid. Mt Pinatubo showed that this works as it spewed 10 million tons of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, which scientists say caused global temps to drop 0.5°C.

Engineering climate (doing climate-therapy) would likely lead to unpredictable consequences. According to legal researcher David Reichwein:

Nobody knows what consequences such experiments could have on the global climate and how these consequences would impact different regions in different ways.

Reichwein adds:

A large-scale attempt to remove CO2 using iron sulphate to promote algae growth could have considerable negative impacts on ecological balance.

Climate therapy by using reflective aerosols could also lead to nasty side effects. For example a study based on a model conducted by Patricia Heckendorn of the Atmospheric and Climate Sciences Institute of the ETH Zurich showed that using sulfur aerosols in the stratosphere would likely lead to a considerable degradation of the ozone layer.

In Pinatubo’s aftermath, shifts in precipitation were observed. So a large-scale application by man could lead to devastating results, and thus would certainly be challenged legally.

The problem is that the impacts of climate therapy processes cannot be contained to a specific area. The threat of uncontrolled adverse impacts entail international law and human rights issues. Says Reichwein:

Geo Engineering up to now has yet to find a foothold in human rights treaties.

Employing geo-engineering processes will lead to the opening up of a whole new can of worms legally, let alone questions of technical feasibility.

In the meantime, hoards of companies, all with promises of delivering successful climate therapy, are lining up at the feeding troughs, which are filled by crooked politicians.

Enviro-Taliban? Is Europe Proposing to Criminalise Scepticism?

July 19, 2010

The blogosphere has started to buzz about alleged proposals in the European Parliament in Europe to criminalize climate science scepticism. Science progresses through scepticism and rigorous testing of hypotheses. Criminalising scepticism would be the same as criminalising science. It would be a going back to the Dark Ages.

Lubos Motl wrote a piece at his blog on these proposals and so I listened to the audio he has available. In the audio a name of an International Academy of Environmental Science came up, and whose president is a Professor Abrami. I tracked this down and this is what I found:

Abami is invited to the EU in Brussels:

The European Parliament invited Abrami to explain his proposal at a meeting on July14th in Brussels.

The European Parliament Invitation written by Jo Leien to Professor Abrami of the International Academy of Environmental Science: 20let.pdf. Excerpt of the invitation:

Dear Professor Abrami,

I am writing to thank you very much for your letter of 13th May 2010 in which you set out the background to the interesting proposal of the International Academy of Environmental Sciences for the creation of an International or European Environmental Criminal Court.

I would like you to present the proposal to the Environment, Public Health, and Food Safety Committee at its meeting on Wednesday 14th July at 4.30 pm in the European Parliament in Brussels, and thereafter to participate in an exchange of views with the members of the Committee…blah blah blah


The Meeting’s Agenda

Now here’s the agenda for the 14th July meeting: The meeting agenda includes topics on biodiversity, and the notorious Pt. No. 14:

14. Presentation of a proposal for an International or European Environmental Criminal Court

Exchange of views with Professor Antonino Abrami, acting President of the International Academy of Environmental Sciences (IAES)

So here we see the EU wants to clamp down real hard with environmental regulation. It’s gaming to set up a dictatorship through environmental regulation. But readers can interpret this how they wish.

Abrami’s Hearing: What is he calling for?

What function could such a court have? Here is the link to the Professor Abrami hearing at ENVI Committee Professor Abrami outlines the function of such a proposed court, and an overview of the projects and the urgency of its realization

According to Abrami, there’s:

– A growing need for a coherent and coordinated body of legal regulations, bringing more restrictive limitations  in human activities that are inherently dangerous for the ecosystems.

– The adoption of transnational investigations and jurisdictional instruments meant to enforce environmental protection.

Abrami says:

It is necessary to consider the development of the “thirst” for knowledge of preventive and repressive measures within a system of Justice that prescribes effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions.

Among other things, he asks:

Whether, and in what terms, great environmental disasters which destroyed eco-systems and /or human lives can fall under the category of Crimes Against Humanity?

I guess that means; “you mess with them bats, then you’re messing with the EU Justice”. That’s pretty radical. I certainly would not want to be that poor bloke who messed up on that BP platform.

Abrami is definitely calling for a draconian, radical clampdown for environmental protection. But in the hearing’s record I see no mention of clamping down on scepticism. I’m not a lawyer and I didn’t dissect the text. Maybe someone else will find something I missed.

In the meantime, I guess I can keep blogging without feeling like a criminal.

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

Germany Guide: Who’s Who In Climate Science?

June 20, 2010

Josef H. Reichholf - harsh critic of AGW science.

The real “troublemakers” in Germany are:
1. Professor Hans von Storch of the GKSS (warmist, but scientific and welcomes debate).
2. Prof. Josef H. Reichholf of the Technical Univ. of Munich.
3. Hans H.J. Labohm (Dutch), journalist.
4. Prof. Augusto Mangini, U. of Heidelberg (maybe not a sceptic, but critical of AGW science).
5. Dirk Maxeiner, journalist German blog.
6. Matthias Storx, journalist.
7. European Institute for Climate and Energy EIKE blog.
8. Readers Edition blog.
9. Klimanews blog.
9. Die Welt newspaper, which sometimes publishes sceptical pieces.
10. Der Spiegel magazine, which sometimes publishes sceptical pieces.
11. Petition of 77 sceptical German scientists
(And maybe some day this here blog may make it to the top 100!) 



1. Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research PIK. Government funded.
2. PIK Director Prof. Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber – visionary of the Great Transformation (a dangerous social engineering experiment). He’s the no. 1 climate advisor to Chancellor Angela Merkel (yikes!). Has tried to shut down debate read here.
3. Prof. Stefan Rahmstorf, gatekeeper, attack-dog. Notorious for efforts to stifle dissent and to marginalize sceptics. Calls sceptical media reports irresponsible and disinformation.
Famous for publishing alarmist scenarios just before climate conferences.
4. German media, almost unanimously. Perfect example here and here.
5. Munich Re Reinsurer, purveyor of catastrophic scenarios.
6. The German school system, which repeatedly shows AIT to children uncritically.
7. A host of well-funded environmentalist groups like BUND, NABU, WWF, Greenpeace, Germanwatch, etc.
8. An array of companies set to make tons of money in trading CO2 certificates.
9. A vast majority of politicians, conservatives and environmentalists alike. 

Germany is a country that has a powerful green movement. Environmentalism has become a religion for many. Probably has something to do with atonement for past sins. Environmentalism is pounded daily into the German psyche by the public-funded media, the state school system and other institutions. What you as a person does to “protect the climate” is a measure of how good you are. It’s like Karma. (So, I’m quite the naughty boy here). 

Yes!  Thanks to the little but vital  information the media allowed to drip out about Climategate, the recent bitter winter and a small group of concerned but very active citizens, there’s been much success in educating the public. Recent polls have alarmed the massive Green Establishment. They’re in panic. The sceptics have the momentum. Indeed the dreaded “tipping point” may have been reached. Just a couple of years ago, the media promoted the notion of universal consensus, and Mann’s depiction of the last 1000 years as fact. Today they can no longer maintain that. 

There are five significant parties in Germany.
1. CDU/CSU – center right. Equivalent to the US RINOS. Led by a centrist Angela Merkel. They like cap & trade and believe in AGW. Favour use of nuclear energy.
2. SPD – socialists. Equivalent to the US Democrats.
They love cap & trade, regulation and are in love with Barack Obama and the US Democrats. Against nuclear power. Led by Sigmar Gabriel – Fan No. 1 of Al Gore. He distributed 6000 copies of AIT to advanced secondary schools for indoctrinating university-bound children.

Sigmar Gabriel distributed 6000 copies of AIT to German schools.

3. The Greens. Made up of enviro-zealots, treehuggers and elitists. Vehemently against nuclear power.
4. FDP – Free Democrats – libertarian. Supporters of free markets, nuclear energy. But pay much lip service to green alternative energy, but not real big supporters.
5. Die Linke – The communists.
They like anything that gives the state absolute power. Ought to be viewed as a threat to democracy. 

Currently a coalition of the CDU/CSU and FDP are in power. But they are weakening. Elections may have to be called. 

– CDU conservatives- 33%
– SPD socialists – 32%
– Green treehuggers – 15%
– Die Linke communists – 11%
– FDP libertarians – 6%
That means there’d possibly be a Socialist/Green/Communist government, and thus a huge push by Germany for a global climate treaty. So, although there’s been much progress, there’s still much to do in Germany when it comes to educating the public.

Note: I’m sure I’ve forgotten some names and other information. Your tips would be welcome.

Obama’s Green Dream Will Be America’s Next Nightmare

June 16, 2010

EIKE has a piece today called Super Expensive Energy. It perhaps could serve as a reminder for President Obama, who thinks passing cap & trade and stopping reliance on fossil fuels will somehow plug the hole. My feeling is that Obama is using the oil disaster as a political instrument to drive through a dangerous cap & trade law.

Cap & trade means subsidising industries. Governments can do this as long as they can afford it. But that’s rarely the case. Most often they cannot. Europe is a prime example for Obama to look at.

Take a look at socialist Spain, for example. Driven by a green ideology, and all the promises it brings, Spain went ahead and subsidised wind and solar energy with unbridled abandon, thinking it could create thousands of new green jobs and usher in the next economic wonder.

Well, it has. But not the kind of wonder a sane person welcomes. Today Spain is bankrupt and unemployment is at (twenty) 20%. Spain has since been forced to drastically cut its subsidies, and the solar bubble has popped. Spain is now begging other countries for a bailout.

Even in a country that has abundant sunshine, like Spain, solar energy still cannot compete on the free market without generous subsidies. Consumers prefer reliable and inexpensive energy.

You’d think that with solar energy being completely uncompetitive in a country where sunshine is plentiful, leaders in other countries with gray, rainy climates would avoid such a source of energy. Not Germany. Even with its gray dismal climate, leaders went full throttle ahead in subsidising solar panels and energy. They simply forced the power companies to buy up green power from people who have solar panels on their roofs at exorbitant prices.

The power companies of course simply pass the higher costs on to the consumers. Industry is among the consumers of power. Companies that have energy-intensive processes are moving operations, and the jobs that go with them, out to countries that have much lower pollution standards.

Cooking your own goose

State-guaranteed price for solar power in Germany is far above the actual sales price to the market. Such a method was used in former communist East Germany (the country that built a wall to keep its people from running away). For example, a person there could sell a goose they had raised in his backyard to the local markets at the state-guaranteed price of 30 East German Marks. A few hours later the same seller could go back to the market and buy the same goose for only 15 Marks, slaughtered and ready to cook. Today it’s the same with green power producers. They sell their power for 43 cents/kwh, and then buy it back for 22 cents. Does that make sense?

Only if you want to send the economy to hell in a handbasket, and quickly.

In Germany green laws have been passed that will cost hundreds of billions of euros over the next 15 years, all based on the bogus claim they protect the climate. According to EIKE:

These billions burden the economy in 2 ways: 1) They lead to higher electricity rates for producers, meaning their products become more expensive, and 2) lead higher energy bills for consumers, and thus less buying power. Eventually this will choke the German economy and its growth, which eventually will hit already strapped governments fiscally. Absolute foolery.

Der Spiegel: Pessimism At Bonn Climate Conference. EU Climate Targets On Ice

June 1, 2010

According to a Der Spiegel report today:

The world community is preparing a world climate treaty – but the first reactions sound pessimistic.

About 4500 participants from all over the world have gathered in Bonn in an attempt to forge a new world climate treaty in talks that will last two weeks. But so far talks have shown that no quick solutions are in sight. Der Spiegel writes:

Delegates and observers are almost unanimous on the view that a new world climate treaty won’t be achievable in time for Cancun at the end of 2010, this after the disaster in Copenhagen. At the conference in Bonn, the target is to lay at least the cornerstones for a partial success.

Government delegates have presented a new 42-page draft with options for contents of negotiation.

Der Spiegel writes: EU climate targets on ice!

Artur Runge-Metzger, Climate Protection Director of the EU Commission, emphasized that the EU’s target of reducing GHG emissions by 30% are not off the table. But the EU will go ahead with the 30% target ONLY IF other countries do their fair share in global climate protection.

Emphasis above is mine.

The EU has also pledged €2.4 billion in immediate aid to poor countries for climate protection. It was agreed in Copenhagen that industrialised nations would pay developing countries approx. $30 billion in immediate aid between 2010 and 2012. Developing countries have complained that they haven’t received anything so far.

As Governments Bedwet Over AGW, World Faces Potential Food Catastrophe

May 26, 2010

      While world governments bedwet over a fantasized climate catastrophe taking place 100 years out, mankind could be facing a potential catastrophic food shortage. A worthhile read (see link below).

A fungus threatens 20% of the world's food supply.

      The disease is Ug99, a virulent strain of black stem rust fungus (Puccinia graminis), discovered in Uganda in 1999, threatens the world’s wheat supply. Read the scary details here:

      Wheat provides 20% of all calories consumed by humans. According to Nobel laureate Norman Borlaug, father of the Green Revolution:

This thing has immense potential for social and human destruction.

      According to, the fungus attacks the stem of the wheat plant, causing it to wither and die.

Stem rust is the polio of agriculture, a plague that was brought under control nearly half a century ago as part of the celebrated Green Revolution. After years of trial and error, scientists managed to breed wheat that contained genes capable of repelling the assaults of Puccinia graminis, the formal name of the fungus.

But now it’s clear: The triumph didn’t last.

      The new fungus has spread from Africa and into the Middle East. It would only take a  traveller with a single spore on his shirt to transport it to the USA and Canada.

The pathogen makes its presence known to humans through crimson pustules on the plant’s stems and leaves. When those pustules burst, millions of spores flare out in search of fresh hosts.

      It goes to show that nature has a bag full of nasty tricks, and there’s nothing you can do to stop her. All you can do is adapt, hopefully quickly enough. But if you waste your time trying to appease her, and don’t invest your resources wisely in adapting, you’ll get eliminated.

German Industry Says: Take A Break!

May 26, 2010

The online German Der Spiegel reported yesterday here that the EU Commission wants to accelerate cuts in CO2 emissions, but industry and government officials are saying “no!”. With economies gripped by hardship and overall growing public scepticism (see here), calls for even more draconian measures to curb CO2 emissions are ringing hollow.

German Minister of Economics Rainer Bruederle says it’s time to take a break from efforts to protect the climate:

It accomplishes nothing for environmental protection when Europe goes it alone and jobs are sent to other regions of the world.

Werner Schnappauf, Director of the German Association of Industry adds:

As long as there is no international and legally binding climate protection treaty,  industry rejects increasing the climate reduction target from 20% to 30%. There are only disadvantages for both the climate and economy if Europe rushes and goes it alone.

      The EU wants to ratchet up the target from 20% to 30% less CO2 emissions than 1990 by 2020. Other leading German government officials think they can both appease the climate gods by making human sacrifices at the Altar of Climate, and at the same time boost the economy. German Minister of the Environment Norbert Roettgen and other EU environment ministers have said they want to go ahead and require the 30% target, with or without an international treaty.

It’s good for the environment and also for the incentive to innovate, from which the German industry would greatly profit.

      According to the EU Commission, a CO2 reduction of 30% by 2020 would lead to a 0.54% drop in GDP. Can’t these people think of ways to make our lives easier for a change?