Originally Posted by slapphead_otool

Interesting stuff that slipped under the radar last year:

Open Letter – Climate Change

Bundeskanzleramt
Frau Bundeskanzerlin Dr. Angela Merkel
Willy-Brandt-Strabe 1
10557 Berlin

Vizerprasident
Dipl. Ing. Michael Limburg
14476 Grob Glienicke
Richard-Wagner-Str. 5a
E-mail: [email protected]
Grob Glienicke 26.07.09

To the attention of the Honorable Madam Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany:

When one studies history, one learns that the development of societies is often determined by a zeitgeist, which at times had detrimental or even horrific results for humanity. History tells us time and again that political leaders often have made poor decisions because they followed the advice of advisors who were incompetent or ideologues and failed to recognize it in time. Moreover evolution also shows that natural development took a wide variety of paths with most of them leading to dead ends. No era is immune from repeating the mistakes of the past.

Politicians often launch their careers using a topic that allows them to stand out. Earlier as Minister of the Environment you legitimately did this as well by assigning a high priority to climate change. But in doing so you committed an error that has since led to much damage, something that should have never happened, especially given the fact you are a physicist. You confirmed that climate change is caused by human activity and have made it a primary objective to implement expensive strategies to reduce the so-called greenhouse gas CO2. You have done so without first having a real discussion to check whether early temperature measurements and a host of other climate related facts even justify it.

A real comprehensive study, whose value would have been absolutely essential, would have shown, even before the IPCC was founded, that humans have had no measurable effect on global warming through CO2 emissions. Instead the temperature fluctuations have been within normal ranges and are due to natural cycles. Indeed the atmosphere has not warmed since 1998 – more than 10 years, and the global temperature has even dropped significantly since 2003.

Not one of the many extremely expensive climate models predicted this. According to the IPCC, it was supposed to have gotten steadily warmer, but just the opposite has occurred.

More importantly, there's a growing body of evidence showing anthropogenic CO2 plays no measurable role. Indeed CO2's capability to absorb radiation is almost exhausted by today's atmospheric concentrations. If CO2 did indeed have an effect and all fossil fuels were burned, then additional warming over the long term would in fact remain limited to only a few tenths of a degree.

The IPCC had to have been aware of this fact, but completely ignored it during its studies of 160 years of temperature measurements and 150 years of determined CO2 levels. As a result the IPCC has lost its scientific credibility. The main points on this subject are included in the accompanying addendum.

In the meantime, the belief of climate change, and that it is manmade, has become a pseudo-religion. Its proponents, without thought, pillory independent and fact-based analysts and experts, many of whom are the best and brightest of the international scientific community. Fortunately in the internet it is possible to find numerous scientific works that show in detail there is no anthropogenic CO2 caused climate change. If it was not for the internet, climate realists would hardly be able to make their voices heard. Rarely do their critical views get published.

The German media has sadly taken a leading position in refusing to publicize views that are critical of anthropogenic global warming. For example, at the second International Climate Realist Conference on Climate in New York last March, approximately 800 leading scientists attended, some of whom are among the world's best climatologists or specialists in related fields. While the US media and only the Wiener Zeitung (Vienna daily) covered the event, here in Germany the press, public television and radio shut it out. It is indeed unfortunate how our media have developed - under earlier dictatorships the media were told what was not worth reporting. But today they know it without getting instructions.

Do you not believe, Madam Chancellor, that science entails more than just confirming a hypothesis, but also involves testing to see if the opposite better explains reality? We strongly urge you to reconsider your position on this subject and to convene an impartial panel for the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, one that is free of ideology, and where controversial arguments can be openly debated. We the undersigned would very much like to offer support in this regard.

Respectfully yours,

Prof. Dr.rer.nat. Friedrich-Karl Ewert EIKE
Diplom-Geologe
Universität. - GH - Paderborn, Abt. Höxter (ret.)

Dr. Holger Thuß
EIKE President
European Institute for Climate and Energy
http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/

Signed by

Scientists

1 Prof. Dr.Ing. Hans-Günter Appel
2 Prof. Dr. hab. Dorota Appenzeller Professor of Econometrics and Applied Mathematics, Vice Dean University Poznan, Poland
3 Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Bachmann Former Director of the Institute for Vibration Engineering, FH Düsseldorf
4 Prof. Dr. Hans Karl Barth Managing Director World Habitat Society GmbH - Environmental Services
5 Dipl. Biologist Ernst Georg Beck
6 Dr. rer.nat. Horst Borchert Physicist
7 Dipl. Biol. Helgo Bran Former BW parliamentarian Green Party
8 Prof. Dr. rer. nat. Gerhard Buse Bio-chemist
9 Dr.Ing Ivo Busko German Center for Aviation and Aeronautics e.V.
10 Dr.Ing Gottfried Class Nuclear Safety, Thermo-hydraulics
11 Dr.Ing Urban Cleve Nuclear physicist, thermodynamics energy specialist
12 Dr.-Ing Rudolf-Adolf Dietrich Energy expert
13 Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze IPCC Expert Reviewer TAR
14 Dr. rer. nat Siegfried Dittrich Physical chemist
15 Dr. Theo Eichten Physicist
16 Ferroni Ferruccio Zurich President NIPCC-SUISSE
17 Dr. sc.agr. Albrecht Glatzle Agricultural biologist, Director científico INTTAS, Paraguay
18 Dr. rer. nat. Klaus-Jürgen Goldmann Geologist
19 Dr. rer. nat. Josef Große-Wördem Physical chemist
20 Dipl. Geologist Heinisch Heinisch
21 Dr. rer.nat. Horst Herman Chemist
22 Prof. Dr. Hans-Jürgen Hinz Former University of Münster Institute for Physical Chemistry
23 Dipl. Geologist Andreas Hoemann Geologist
24 Dipl. Geologist Siegfried Holler
25 Dr. rer.nat. Heinz Hug Chemiker
26 Dr. rer. nat. Bernd Hüttner Theoretical Physicist
27 Prof. Dr. Werner Kirstein Institute for Geography University Leipzig
28 Dipl. Meteorologe Klaus Knüpffer METEO SERVICE weather research GmbH
29 Dr. rer. hort. Werner Köster
30 Dr. rer.nat. Albert Krause Chemist
31 Drs. Hans Labohm IPCC AR4 Expert Reviewer Dipl. Business / science journalist
32 Dr. Rainer Link Physicist
33 Dipl. Physicist Alfred Loew
34 Prof. Dr. Physicist Horst-Joachim Lüdecke University for Engineering and business of Saarland
35 Prof. Dr. Horst Malberg University professor em. Meteorology and Climatology / Former Director of the Institute for Meteorology of the University of Berlin
36 Dr. rer.nat Wolfgang Monninger Geologist
37 Dipl. Meteorologist Dieter Niketta
38 Prof. Dr. Klemens Oekentorp Former director of the Geological-
Paleolontology Museum of the Westphalia Wilhelms-University Münster
39 Dr. Helmut Pöltelt Energy expert
40 Dipl. Meteorologist Klaus-Eckart Puls Meteorologist
41 Prof. Dr. Klaas Rathke Polytechnic OWL Dept. Höxter
42 rof. Dr.-Ing. Sc. D. Helmut Reihlen Director of the DIN German Institute for
Standards and Norms i.R.
43 Prof. Dr. Oliver Reiser University of Regensburg
44 Dipl. Physicist Wolfgang Riede Physicists ETH
45 Dipl.- Mineralogist Sabine Sauerberg Geoscientist
46 Prof. Jochen Schnetger Chemist
47 Prof. Dr. Sigurd Schulien University instructor
48 Dr. rer.nat. Franz Stadtbäumer Geologist
49 Dr. rer.nat. Gerhard Stehlik Physical chemist
50 Dipl. Ing. (BA) Norman Stoer System administrator
51 Dr. rer.nat.habil Lothar Suntheim Chemist
52 Dipl.-Ing. Heinz Thieme Technical assessor
53 Dr. phil. Dipl. Wolfgang Thüne Mainz Ministry of Environment Meteorologist
54 Dr. rer. oec. Ing. Dietmar Ufer Energy economist, Institute for Energy
Leipzig
55 Prof. Dr. Detlef von Hofe Former managing director of the DVS
56 Dipl Geographist Heiko Wiese Meteorologist
57 Dr.rer.nat. Erich Wiesner Euro Geologist
58 Dr.rer.nat. Ullrich Wöstmann Geologist
59 Prof. em. Dr. Heinz Zöttl Soil Sciences
60 Dr.rer.nat. Zucketto Chemist
61 Dr. rer.nat. Ludwig Laus Geologist

Originally Posted by slapphead_otool

Interesting stuff that slipped under the radar last year:

Open Letter – Climate Change

Bundeskanzleramt
Frau Bundeskanzerlin Dr. Angela Merkel
Willy-Brandt-Strabe 1
10557 Berlin

Vizerprasident
Dipl. Ing. Michael Limburg
14476 Grob Glienicke
Richard-Wagner-Str. 5a
E-mail: [email protected]
Grob Glienicke 26.07.09

To the attention of the Honorable Madam Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany:

etc etc

Originally Posted by iolande

Seriously, don't you think they could have given her more to go on then just a bit of "we think they're wrong, so don't do anything!"

Originally Posted by slapphead_otool

They were probably concerned about being attacked as “evil climate deniers” if they worded it any stronger.

They did make some crucial points:

• A real comprehensive study, whose value would have been absolutely essential, would have shown, even before the IPCC was founded, that humans have had no measurable effect on global warming through CO2 emissions.

• Instead the temperature fluctuations have been within normal ranges and are due to natural cycles. Indeed the atmosphere has not warmed since 1998 – more than 10 years, and the global temperature has even dropped significantly since 2003.

• Not one of the many extremely expensive climate models predicted this. According to the IPCC, it was supposed to have gotten steadily warmer, but just the opposite has occurred.


• More importantly, there's a growing body of evidence showing anthropogenic CO2 plays no measurable role. Indeed CO2's capability to absorb radiation is almost exhausted by today's atmospheric concentrations. If CO2 did indeed have an effect and all fossil fuels were burned, then additional warming over the long term would in fact remain limited to only a few tenths of a degree.


• The IPCC had to have been aware of this fact, but completely ignored it during its studies of 160 years of temperature measurements


They ended by asking for an impartial panel from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.

Instead Germany gave more money to the IPCC.

Originally Posted by iolande

Perhaps all these points had already been addressed by the German government before they committed, especially as they seem to be the same points that are brought up time and again.

Originally Posted by slapphead_otool

Possibly, but they are the thoughts of 60 scientists, and some look quite respectable.

All of this slowly makes me wonder more and more about the credibility of the AGW lobby.

The obvious thing for them to do is come out and provide evidence to refute the allegations.

Until now they have adopted an incredible ostrich like attitude. Climategate has changed that, and now the CRU head seems to be agreeing with these 60 scientists.

Is there any steam left in the AGW movement?

Originally Posted by iolande

Perhaps. When Big Tobacco wanted to protect themselves from anti-smoking legislation (and even the far-fetched notion of their product being banned) they used an over-arching tactic of creating distrust of scientists in the general public. They employed a wide range of 'tobacco-friendly' groups and people to create the illusion of a 'grass-roots movement' to reinforce this message. Many of the same people (commentators, websites, lobby groups, scientists etc) are the very same that are creating the same confusion in the Climate Change debate. www.junkscience.com is one such website (Steven Milloy was on the payroll of Big Tobacco, Exxon, General Motors amongst others).

Another technique employed was to constantly question scientists, who presumably did not have all day to answer every letter and email asking the same questions over and over again. If they did not answer a letter or an email it was 'proof' of a conspiracy. This is even worse with the freedom of information acts where government departments are required by law to provide requested information, but where the scope of the requested information is rather large - I read one the other day that wanted copies of all minutes, emails, correspondence, notes and any other communication that related to Climate Change that the organisation had even made. This might on the surface seem reasonable, however, many organisations do not have the resources to enable them to assemble this information.

It certainly sounds impressive when you read 60 names on an open letter to a leader of a country. Perhaps there were other letters from other scientists arguing different points of views?

Originally Posted by Wol

I'm beginning to get the picture of your approach - nitpicking the definitions rather than looking at the post <g>.

Originally Posted by iolande

Perhaps all these points had already been addressed by the German government before they committed, especially as they seem to be the same points that are brought up time and again.

Originally Posted by Burbage

And continue to remain unanswered by the Nature sceptics.

Originally Posted by mr mover

I,snt germany ,about to commision at state of the art Nuke power station ,which produces no waste ,,?? There,s the " nigga in the wood pile " .."Sieg Hiel" .......mm