Sunday, December 18, 2011

German Climate And Energy Experts To Publish Controversial New Book – Reject Alarmism, Call For Reopening The Debate

A new book is coming out. Personally I believe it’s going to cause a political storm in Germany, if not Europe. It’s going to upset a large number of climate Scrooges and the profiteers of doom.

The book Die kalte Sonne, Warum die Klimakatastophe nicht stattfindet (The Cold Sun, Why The Climate Catastrophe Is Not Taking Place) seriously challenges global warming alarmism. The book is written by Prof. Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt and Dr. Sebastian Lüning. Deliveries start at February 22, 2012. But I’m told the date may actually be February 8! The publisher is influential publishing house Hoffmann & Campe in Hamburg.

What compelled the authors to write the book? In short, being trained scientists, they noticed stark contradictions between model projections and real-life observations. Nothing matched up, something was wrong with the science, the models, and the IPCC. They explain it in detail in the book and in layman’s terms. The German Amazon description writes:

"The IPCC is sure: The climate warming is because of man. However, are the infamous climate gases really the primary driver of our climate? And why hasn’t it been getting warmer? Vahrenholt and Lüning have taken a close look at the various climate models during their research. They reach the conclusion that a part of the Earth’s warming of the last 150 years is because of a natural cycle that is predominantly controlled by the sun. The next decades are more likely to lead us to a slight cooling instead of a warming. This provides the time to rationally develop and expand renewable energy sources, and to carry out the energy transformation in an economically, sensible and sustainable way.”

The book is up-to-date, and its content is well-researched – over 800 footnotes. Many of the cited sources are the most recent scientific papers and findings. Also many of the well-known climate blogs and sites are cited as well. Some blogs are prominently featured, like Climate Audit, WUWT, and Real Climate. I had the privilege of reading the manuscript, so I’m familiar with the book’s content. I really wish I could spill more about it. The book concludes, paraphrasing: "The IPCC is in error, the models are bogus, and the climate catastrophe is not coming. The climate debate has to be started anew.”

Die Kalte Sonne also features guest contributions by leading international scientists.

I think this book is surely going to change the minds of a lot of readers here in Germany, and hopefully lead to a new and rational discussion, which is so badly needed here. The authors make a powerfully convincing case that the science behind global warming alarmism is extremely shaky and dubious, and that the current, panicked energy transformation stampede cannot continue on its current path without something very painful happening.

The book also underscores that a transition to renewable energy source is essential and that we need to do it. But it has to be done rationally and in a sensible step-by-step approach. Only in this way will it be possible to make the energy transition while assuring the needs of 9 billion people on our home planet are humanely met.

About the authors:

Prof. Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt is a professor of chemistry at the University of Hamburg. He has been active in politics and renewable energy for 30 years. From 2001 to 2007 he was Chairman of the Board of wind turbine manufacturer REpower Systems, Since 2008 he has been the CEO of RWE Innogy, the renewable energies arm of German energy giant RWE. Vahrenholt was also a member of the council for Sustainable Development under Chancellors Gerhard Schroder and Angela Merkel.

Dr. Sebastian Lüning has a doctorate in geology and paleontology. He has been involved in the reconstructions of natural environmental changes for 20 years. He was a guest professor at the University of Vienna, and has received a number of awards for his studies and research. He is currently a geological expert for Africa for RWE Dea.


Watch Out! Polar Bear Cannibalism Rises on Global Warming!

Yesterday we learned, to our great joy, that we no longer have to worry about the twin evils of global warming and hurricanes combining to stop Obama’s stimulus plan.

For those of you who missed yesterday’s column, we showed that the not-greedy scientists, who very unlike the Republican bankers who took down the whole housing sector just because they are greedy… well, the scientists anyway demonstrated that hurricanes and global warming are not in any way scientifically or romantically linked.

In a work published in late November on the site for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the chief scientist studying hurricanes in the US concludes that “the overall impact of global warming on hurricanes is currently negligible and likely to remain quite tiny even a century from now.” Hurray! Finally, some good news.

Previously it was part of the liberal religion that you must say out loud at least several times a week that intense hurricanes have been ravaging the world on account of global warming caused in part by greedy Republican bankers who took down the housing sector because they are greedy, except Warren Buffett and George Soros who aren’t greedy or Republican.

George and Warren just got really lucky, accidentally. Like Obama’s friends George Kaiser and Jon Corzine did.

So, anywho… as I was saying, there was great celebration in liberal-land because it turns out that we aren’t having more and worse hurricanes than in the past on account of global warming.

Presumably as a liberal you now no longer have to mindlessly repeat that hurricanes and global warming are linked, which is good news for liberals because: 1) it means we are safer from hurricanes than was presumed in the past; and 2) it wasn’t, you know… true.

But if anything is certain in life it is this: that once you allocate to scientists federal grant money, they’ll selflessly exert themselves to find out what in the world is wrong with mankind even if they have to spend more and more money every year doing it selflessly! Those are just the kind of guys scientists are.

So it was unsurprising that after dodging that whole hurricane bullet yesterday scientists revealed- or at least writers who have a website with the word “science” in the name revealed- that there could be an epidemic of polar bear cannibals on account of global warming, which by now, we all know was caused by the global meltdown of the real estate market caused by greedy Republican bankers who are both greedy and Republican.

And there is only one thing worse than polar bear cannibals. That is…drum-roll… all together now: greedyrepublicanbankers.

So, anywho… as I was saying, this website with the word “science” in it called asks the question that we all, at least subconsciously, have been asking ourselves for years: Is Global Warming Driving Polar Bears to Cannibalism? The answer is: yes, according to people who write about stuff that scientists say on the spur of the moment., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Tech Media Network, by its own account, is made up of “science reporters, editors and video producers” who have unimpeachable resumes with academic degrees in studies like Olde English, Arts and Journalism. The journalism degree alone ought to disqualify anyone from writing about anything.

Well some of these reporters rounded up the scientists who previously miscounted the polar bear population- sparking the theory that polar bear populations had reached the lowest levels ever- and these reporters did a hard hitting story about a new theory these scientists have.

Presumably they are looking for a new theory that can be debunked in ten years after millions in grant money is spent studying the theory in order to fill the hole in the global warming theory now that hurricanes aren’t as scary anymore.

So, anywho… “A new article in the journal Arctic,” writes, “suggests that polar bear cannibalism — typically the predation of small bears or cubs by much larger adult males — is either much more commonplace than previously thought, or has lately become more common. In the paper, leading polar bear biologist Ian Stirling and nature photographer Jenny Ross detail three recent instances of the behavior among polar bears in Norway's Svalbard Archipelago, each of which was photographed from the decks of ecotourism and research boats anchored a few hundred yards away.”

And the cause of this eco-outrage? That’s right: global warming. The greedy Republican bankers are implied.

Ok, so Sterling made a mistake by undercounting polar bears by an order of magnitude of five times. Ok, so he’s postulating a theory on the basis of only three pictures.

So what’s the big deal? It’s not like science needs to be an exact art form. Guessing is an important part of mainstream global warming science that has an honorable tradition going back to traveling carnivals in America.

But there is one thing that bothers me: I thought it was more likely that polar bears would team up with “the Rand Corporation, in conjunction with the saucer people, under the supervision of the reverse vampires,” than become cannibals. Polar bears always seemed more like Republicans than liberals to me.


Durban climate conference: Canada withdraws from Kyoto Protocol

Within days of the world reaching an agreement at the Durban climate conference on the extension of the Kyoto Protocol and framework for a new climate treaty, the efforts have suffered a major blow with Canada announcing its decision to pull out of the protocol. The extension of the protocol beyond 2012, when the first round of commitments expires, was agreed to at Durban after hectic parleys and 'give and take'. Industrialised countries agreed for a second round of commitments only after developing countries gave their nod for a new treaty for emission reduction from 2020 onwards.

The decision of Canada to exercise its legal right to withdraw from the protocol has dealt a blow to the spirit of the Durban deal. For long, industrialised countries have been seeking abandonment of the protocol. The US, of course, never signed this agreement. Now another major carbon emitter is out of it. Russia and Japan too have opposed any extension of commitments. All this may render the protocol a dead instrument.

The Kyoto Protocol is currently the only legal instrument in force to combat climate change. It sets a clear target for reducing greenhouse gases by 25-40 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020 for the group of countries that are collectively known as Annex 1 parties. Canada and other industrialised countries are part of Annex 1. Under the protocol, poorer countries, including China and India, take voluntary, non-binding steps to curb the growth of emissions while they focus on economic development.

Canada on Monday became the first country to formally renounce the protocol. Announcing the pullout, Canada's environment minister Peter Kent said Kyoto doesn't represent the way forward for Canada or the world. "The protocol does not cover the world's largest two emitters, the US and China, and therefore cannot work. It's now clear that Kyoto is not the path forward to a global solution to climate change. If anything it's an impediment," Kent said.

The decision to withdraw from Kyoto, Kent said, would save Canada $ 14 billion in penalties for not achieving its Kyoto targets. "To meet the targets under Kyoto for 2012 would be the equivalent of either removing every car, truck, ATV, tractor, ambulance, police car and vehicle of every kind from Canadian roads or closing down the entire farming and agriculture sector and cutting heat to every home, office, hospital, factory and building in Canada," Kent said.

He said he would not be surprised if other countries follow Canada in pulling out of Kyoto.

Canada has the world's third largest oil reserves, more than 170 billion barrels. Daily production of 1.5 million barrels from the oil sands is expected to increase to 3.7 million in 2025. Only Saudi Arabia and Venezuela have more reserves. But critics say the enormous amount of energy and water needed in the extraction process increases greenhouse gas emissions.

Kent's announcement drew immediate criticism from China, which has long insisted the Protocol remain a foundation of global efforts to curb emissions causing global warming. "It is regrettable and flies in the face of the efforts of international community for Canada to leave the Kyoto Protocol at a time when the Durban meeting, as everyone knows, made important progress by securing a second phase of commitment to the protocol," China's foreign ministry spokesman Liu Weimin said at a news briefing.

China's state news agency, Xinhua, denounced Canada's decision as preposterous, calling it an excuse to shirk responsibility. While also describing the decision regrettable, Japan's environment minister Goshi Hosono urged Canada to stay with the pact, saying the Kyoto framework included important elements that could help fight climate change.

The tiny South Pacific island nation of Tuvalu, one those most at risk from rising sea levels caused by climate change, was more blunt. For a vulnerable country like Tuvalu, it is an act of sabotage on our future, Ian Fry, its lead negotiator said.

An Indian official said Canada's decision could jeopardise any gains made at the Durban meeting.

Scientists say that if levels of greenhouse gases continue to rise, eventually the world's climate will reach a tipping point, with irreversible melting of some ice sheets and a several metre rise in sea levels. However, they cannot pinpoint exactly when that would happen, but the climate negotiations have been focused on preventing global temperatures from rising more than 1.2 ° Celsius above current levels by the end of this century.


Spending bill blocks light bulb standards

The shutdown-averting budget bill will block federal light bulb efficiency standards, giving a win to House Republicans fighting the so-called ban on incandescent light bulbs.

GOP and Democratic sources tell POLITICO the final omnibus bill includes a rider defunding the Energy Department's standards for traditional incandescent light bulbs to be 30 percent more energy efficient.

DOE's light bulb rules — authorized under a 2007 energy law authored signed by President George W. Bush — would start going into effect Jan. 1. The rider will prevent DOE from implementing the rules through Sept. 30.

But Democrats said they could claim a "compromise" by adding language to the omnibus that requires DOE grant recipients greater than $1 million to certify they will upgrade the efficiency of their facilities by replacing any lighting to meet or exceed the 2007 energy law's standards.

Fueled by conservative talk radio, Republicans made the last-ditch attempt to stop federal regulations from making their way into every Americans' living room.

"There are just some issues that just grab the public's attention. This is one of them," said Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.). "It's going to be dealt with in this legislation once and for all."

After giving up in recent weeks on dozens of other riders aimed at stopping EPA rules because of opposition from Senate Democrats and the White House, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) told POLITICO that the light bulb rider was "going to be in there."

"Speaker [John] Boehner to Chairman [Fred] Upton to Chairman [Hal] Rogers, they all strongly support keeping it in," said Barton, who served as ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee in 2007 when the light bulb language got approved. "And it's a personal commitment because of their philosophy."

The White House was not publicly spelling out which riders it didn’t want in the final spending package, with communications director Dan Pfeiffer only saying Wednesday that the House GOP plan would "undercut environmental protections."


Here We Go Again: Earthquakes Blamed on Climate Change Hoax

Wm. Teach

The Warmists really can't help themselves. They keep digging and digging and attempting to blame mankind's release of greenhouse gases for events that have happened for time immemorial
Could the earthquake in Haiti have been a man-made disaster?

No. But, don't let reality, history, and science get in the way.
If you ever doubted that human action was capable of profoundly effecting the Earth's ecology, consider this: Scientists now believe that our mismanagement of the environment is quite literally causing the Earth to shake.

New research has confirmed a correlative link between the occurrence of major earthquake events, such as the devastating 2010 earthquake in Haiti, and rapid soil erosion caused by deforestation and man-made climate change, reports the Independent.

The idea that the weather plays a role in triggering earthquakes is highly controversial, and scientists have largely discounted previous attempts to establish a link between earthquakes and changes in atmospheric pressure, such as what happens during typhoons and hurricanes.But a new study, recently presented at the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco, takes a different angle. It looks at how changes to the weight of soil bearing down on faultlines might serve to release geological stress.

"Very wet rain events are the trigger. The heavy rain induces thousands of landslides and severe erosion, which removes ground material from the Earth's surface, releasing the stress and encouraging movement along faults," said Shimon Wdowinski of the University of Miami in Florida.

And we all know that heavy rain and hurricanes only started when Mankind decided to build stuff and stop living in caves. The story goes on in breathless fashion telling us about hurricanes and tropical storms that hit Haiti that year, because Haiti is in an area that typically gets hit by tropical storms a lot, but, this time it's different, because someone drove a fossil fueled vehicle while talking on an iPhone and eating a BigMac. Therefore, there must be a correlation.

Could there be? Possibly. That's what science is for. But, obviously, it can't simply be natural, it has to be "extreme weather events" caused by Mankind living a modern life
These findings should also cause a shudder in our collective conscience. Since an uptick in extreme weather is one of the many unfortunate consequences of man-made climate change, we may want to reevaluate our role in disasters that were once believed to be entirely 'natural.

See? We should be super scared. If Mother Nature News was so scared, they'd shut the website down, because it uses lots of electricity which comes primarily from fossil fuels.


Windmill restrictions coming in Massachusetts

Should give NIMBYs power to stop just about all new windmills. Today Massachusetts, tomorrow the world? It's a big breakthrough in politically-correct Massachusetts

At an energy forum in Great Barrington on December 14th, Senator Ben Downing announced that he is tabling the controversial wind siting bill. The surprise announcement came a little over a week after Senate President Therese Murray changed her position on the bill. She said she was persuaded by her constituents, who have testified to the adverse impacts of wind turbines on health as well as property values.

According to Patrick Cassidy’s Cape Cod Times article on December 6, 2011, Senator Murray told the Berkshire Chamber of Commerce, “I think wind power has to be part of the solution for our energy fixes, but I don’t believe losing local control is the way to go so I would have to support my towns who don’t support the siting bill.”

Wind Wise ~ Massachusetts applauds this change of view, and welcomes Senator Downing’s intention to send the bill to study. All three bills filed to streamline the siting of industrial scale wind turbines were filed as “emergency” legislation, which would have allowed them to go into effect as soon as they were signed by the governor.

As co-chair, with Representative John D. Keenan, of the Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities, and Energy, Downing has encountered a barrage of environmentalists, municipal officials, and anti-industrial-wind activists at two hearings and many other public meetings. WESRA opponents have emphasized that communities need local control over wind siting decisions because of the array of potential impacts to human health, wildlife, water supplies, and scenic vistas.

This is what he heard from people opposing WESRA and industrial wind turbines.

* The desire for local control

* Frustrations with corporate subsidies

* Lack of local benefit

* Concern about replacing existing environmental law

* Standards should be developed first

* Impact of overdevelopment of wind energy on tourism

* Impact on real estate

* More focus on conservation and efficiency

* More support for solar

He also told the crowd of 75 people at the Berkshire South Regional Community Center that he had watched the movie Windfall and had talked with Dr. Ben Luce, about why wind energy is not viable on the ridgelines of the northeast.



For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here


No comments: