The Unbearable Slowness of the Speed of Light

Image credit

Nur Lichtgeschwindigkeit, herrje. Da kann man ungeduldig werden.

Common, can we please go faster then the speed of light.

Water Cycle — More Evidence: No Catastrophic Man-made Climate Change

Image credit

If people were truly interested in climate — rather than in being socially accepted by sharing a politically correct religious preconception—, these findings would be greeted with hope, widely disseminated and seriously discussed — when, in fact, they are handled as a grave nuisance, the outcome of a vicious conspiracy of evildoers.

Climate models postulate that increasing CO2 concentrations will intensify the Earth’s water cycle. This intensification is believed to eventually result in dangerous (3°C and up) global warming. Observational evidence has thus far falsified these IPCC-endorsed claims.

Read the entire article.

Bohr and Heisenberg

Image credit

Continued from here.

Time mark 11:15: 

To understand where an electron is, you have to look at it. To look at it, you have to shine a light on it. But when you shine a light on it, that disturbs where the electron is.

[Which is implied but nor strictly elucidated in Michio Kaku's statement; IGTU] 

So, the very fact of observing an object changes its location. Therefore, he realised that uncertainty is an essential part of his picture. 

[... The uncertainty principle:] 

The more you know about a particles position, the less you can know about its speed and direction ... The more you know about a particle's speed and direction, the less you can know about where it is at any given time. 

[At this point, Heisenberg] realised he could merge the [Classical] Schrödinger picture with the Bohr-Heisenberg picture to give us the modern day theory of the Quantum principle. In other words: the electron is a point particle, but you don't know quite where it is. And the probability of finding it at any given point is given by a wave — the Schrödinger wave. So, we now have a beautiful synthesis of waves and particles.

Conceptions of Reality — Einstein and Bohr (3)

Image credit

Continued from here.

Einstein had proposed a contrivance by which to measure the speed of an atomic particle. Bohr riposted that clock are affected by gravity. hence, one could not hope to measure this property of an atomic particle without changing it in the very act of ascertainment.

Einstein was appalled by the idea that a complete picture of nature — a synopsis of all features of the phenomena of the universe — should not be within our reach.

It is actually quite astounding that Einstein could not accept an idea as simple and plausible as the inevitable selectivity of our knowledge of the universe. 

Even over great distances, atomic particles remain connected to one another — this is a core insight of Bohr's physics. Concepts, he thought, like space and time would not work on the atomic scale. The difficulty was, of course, that Bohr could not follow up this "destructive" insight with something workable to replace these categories. At the same time, Einstein was very attached to space-time and unwilling to give up these concepts easily.

In 1905, Einstein had shown that light could be conceived in terms of both waves and particles (quanta or photons). And this duplex nature holds true of atoms as well.  So, to clarify the situation, it was desirable to account for these phenomena more distinctly. Efforts were made to measure the properties of the atom with greater reliability. But it turned out: observation will inevitably disturb the atomic particle.

Bohr discovered complementarity, i. e. the fact that the form in which atomic particles appear (waves or particles) is affected by interaction with different kinds of measuring apparatuses.

Later crucial experiments, notably by Alain Aspect, provided empirical support for Bohr's hypothesis that the act of observation affects the observed atomic particles.

Einstein hoped that "a mouse could not affect the universe simply by looking at it" and that a crucial experiment could show that local causality determined observational outcomes.  But he was proven wrong. As John Wheeler explains a Bohrian phenomenon becomes a Bohrian phenomenon "when the dragon bites", not before it. The dragon being a nondescript, premature, undeveloped set of conditions awaiting closure. To the extent that it is accessible to us, reality is dependent on observation; to us, it is constituted by it.

The road to the thing in itself, to the Kantian Ding an sich, is barred to the human mind.

Conceptions of Reality — Einstein and Bohr (2)

Image credit

Continued from Conceptions of Reality — Einstein and Bohr (1).

A fascinating video. Viewing it leaves me with a sense just how old fashioned Einstein was — an iconoclast in his way, highly perturbed by iconoclasm in other fields, in fact, in fields that he had brought into being. The revolutionary did not like his children. 

God does not dice, said Einstein, meaning that phenomena that do not conform with his system of causality were senselessly random and therefore militated against God's orderly and harmonious Universe.

Bohr riposted: Einstein, stop telling God what he should be like.

Einstein believed in what is effectively a disjointed but supposedly neatly uniform Universe, sustained by local causality. 

By contrast, Bohr accepted that the universe is a whole in which everything could be instantly related to everything else — effects were not constrained, slowed or localised by restrictions such as the speed of light.

The controvery was kicked off by Bohr's claim that it was not possible to measure the properties of an atomic particle, notably its speed, without disturbing it. For the measiring devices, for instance clocks, are affected by gravity.

xxx

Two aspects stand out from the point of view of my own philosophical development: man is a creature of the meso-cosmos, which explains Einstein's startling parochialism. Man is adjusted to the medium-sized dimensions of reality, essentially the world experienced by us in everyday life. But reality takes place in many other dimensions, to some of which we shall presumably never find access — though it does leave traces observable to the human mind —, while others pose tremendous challenges to our imagination and rationalising faculties.

The second aspect is touched by Bell's remark, in which he acknowledges that the evidence supports Bohr rather than Einstein, i. e. things as conceived by Quantum Mechanics do appear to be real: things can happen all at the same time unconstrained by Einstein's conventional causality. 

However, in an important sense, this does not matter, that is: it is of no import to the creatures of the meso-cosmos, as we are (as yet) unable to take practical advantage of the goings-on outside of our causal cage — for instance teleportation.

We are like a tiger behind a thick glas wall in a Zoo wondering why that tiny little girl that keeps provoking him remains impervious to his attacks.

Continued here.

Unscientific Climate Policy

Image credit

Following up on this German post:

Leading media outlets like DER SPIEGEL are notoriously happy to discard the duties and rigours of professional journalism in favour of promoting their ideological preferences. 

This is how the German public is being shielded from the truth and politically biased instititions are encouraged to advance far reaching claims, presenting them as endorsed by the scientific consensus when these propositions are in fact unsupported, even contradicted, by scientific research.

Quoting from here:

Professor Bates examines some key aspects of the SR1.5 report. He assesses if the IPCC report exhibits a level of scientific rigour commensurate with the scale of its extremely costly and highly disruptive recommendation that carbon emissions be reduced to zero by mid-century.

The paper concludes that such a level of scientific rigour is not present in the report. Specifically, SR1.5 is deficient in scientific rigour in the following respects:

● It departs from the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report in conveying an increased sense of planetary emergency without giving rigorous scientific reasons for doing so.

● It fails to communicate to policymakers a considerable body of important observationally-based research evidence that has accumulated since the Fifth Assessment which reduces the sense of a looming emergency.

● It fails to communicate important information made public by climate modellers since the Fifth Assessment regarding the empirical tuning of models to achieve desired results.

The paper concludes that, in view of these deficiencies, the SR1.5 report does not merit being regarded by policymakers as a scientifically rigorous document.

“There is much recent observational and scientific evidence that the IPCC report has failed to include and which supports a more considered mitigation strategy than the extreme and unrealistic measures called for in the SR1.5 report,” said Prof Bates.

Conceptions of Reality — Einstein and Bohr (1)

Image credit

Einstein felt that reality exists in effect out there — something independent of us. And the position of Bohr was rather this: [that] reality is only a word, and we have to learn what the right way is to use that word.

John Wheeler

Continued here.

Über die unwissenschaftliche Klimapolitik

Image credit

Der Astrophysiker Peter Heller erklärt, warum die Klimapolitik unwissenschaftlich ist. Bitte lesen Sie diesen Artikel eines deutschen Wissenschaftlers, der den Mut hat, derartiges in einem Land zu schreiben, wo eine nüchterne faktengestützte Einschätzung der Klimadebatte mit erheblichen persönlichen Gefahren verbunden ist.

Die Klimapolitik ist nicht nur unwissenschaftlich, sie ist anti-wissenschaftlich, denn sie beruht auf der aktiven Bekämpfung und Unterdrückung unvoreingenommer wissenschaftlicher Forschung.

Lügen werden in diesem Land nicht nur vom SPIEGEL systematisch verbreitet, dessen politisch korrekter Betrug ist nur die Spitze des Eisbergs. Lügen und Unwahrheiten bilden die Basis vieler staatstragender Projekte, einschließlich der Energiewende und der Opferung des deutschen Nationalstaats am Altar einer Fehlkonstruktion namens EU.

Mehr hier.

Truth Made in Germany (2)

 

Image credit

Make sure to read the entire piece:

"We are concerned that the leadership of Der Spiegel encourages this form of reporting and that the reporters appear to deliver what the leadership wants," wrote Grenell, who accused the paper of anti-American bias, and said the German paper "routinely included information and stories which could have been proven untrue if they had checked the facts with the Embassy first."

Read also Truth Made in Germany (1).

Truth Made in Germany (1)

Image credit

„Wir haben keine Erfahrung mehr im Umgang mit wirklichen Ernstfällen. Das führt dazu, dass wir Katastrophen geradezu lustvoll herbeiphantasieren. Zum Beispiel die Klimakatastrophe, die ich für ein erstaunliches Phänomen massenhafter Verblendung halte”.

"We no longer have experience in dealing with real emergencies. This leads us to fantasize about catastrophes. For example, the climate catastrophe, which I consider an amazing phenomenon of mass delusion."

And the Lügenpresse is thriving on it. 

I do not expect Germans to complain much about being lied to by DER SPIEGEL. 

They are being lied to by the Media including the very popular state broadcasters every day on a massive scale. There are ample opportunities for the German public to discover that these media outlets are lying, serving as propaganda outlets of the government and the dominant political parties. 

Germans are less concerned with truth than with a good yarn based on a simple story that can be conveniently repeated to ensure one if culturally accepted by one's fellow citizens.

What should be the subject of critical discussion and vibrant dissent has been turned in Germany into unassailable dogma to be regurgitated in the manner of a social convention.

Germans repeat state ordained lies as a matter of social acceptability. 

More on how Germans willfully give up their inclination to think critically and  make themselves eager speaking trumpets of their masters in politics and the state:

Subservience Rushing Ahead of the Command - Vorauseilender Gehorsam

and

From the Pages of an Infallible Newspaper

How do you say "good morning" in German? "Guten Morgen". Correct. 

Is there another way of saying"good morning", or "hello", for that matter?

Yes: "Trump ist ein Arschloch." ("Trump is an asshole.")

A German who says that can expect to be considered a jolly good fellow by his peers, even by complete strangers. You say this to be liked. It is not the result of careful examination — one is being relieved from this job by the media.

I left this comment here:

You would think, the alarmist crowd would use their ample resources to avoid CO2-emitting mega events, utilising and even innovating online-capabilities instead. 

But the hordes of believers are overwhelming, their self-reenforicng "credo" ("I believe") is an unstoppable impetus in its own right. They are beyond the discipline of facts, having lost their capacity for rational self-control. 

I like the quote from the Bamberg sociology professor - however, I do not like the fact that no source is given. 

One of the many things I like about NoTricksZone is the accuracy with which sources are quoted. 

Thanks for the excellent translation.

The source.

Continued here.

Physics and Balance — CO2

Image credit

I have left this comment here:

In a previous comment, I have expressed astonishment as to why the physics of CO2 has met with rather little attention by skeptics – even though it appears to lend little support to a significant role of CO2 in temperature changes.

I am equally puzzled by the fact that the basic questions of how much CO2 emitted worldwide in a given period of time is absorbed and released again and how much of these stocks and flows can be ascribed to humans and how much to non-human natural processes, do not seem to represent a major area of concern with skeptics. Again, it appears that the alarmist position is not particularly solid.

Murry Salby has given an interesting lecture covering this issue – though, I must admit, I wish a more popular variant of his message were available.

https://youtu.be/rohF6K2avtY

Science versus Censorship and Repression — A Murry Salby Lecture

Image credit

No words.

Totalitarians Know It All, Need No Demos, No Democracy

Image credit

Gavin Smith, Mr. Global Warming Scare, backed by the deep coffers of government, a closed front of partial media and the culturally dominant etiquette of political correctness, like all greens, despises democracy. 

With so much power behind him, he would be a fool to allow himself to be challenged by dissent from the unwashed masses. 

He exempts himself from the rigours of democracy and scientific discourse, puts in an autistic appearance at the studio and returns to his siloed world.

No need for democracy, no need for scientific debate, those who do not think like him are children not worthy to be spoken to: Gavin Smith knows it all — for things to be right, the world needs to act according to his perfect knowledge. An autistic, a narcissist, a totalitarian par excellence.

The media are like that, the politicians, the EU-bureaucracy is like that - a Kafkaesque clique trying to build its own people. 

But the French people begin to wake up.

Regulatory Limits - The Case of the International Maritime Organization (German Post)

Image credit

Aus einem Artikel, der die neue Gesetzeslage in Sachen Begrenzung des Schwefelgehalts bei Schiffstreibstoffen und ihre Auswirkung auf die internationale kommerzielle Schifffahrt beleuchtet – zusammenfassend hält der Artikel fest:

Dies ist wieder mal ein Beispiel für die Festlegung von Grenzwerten – die der Mehrheit der Bevölkerung gar nichts sagen – durch ferne und abgehobene Gremien. Ähnlich der Stickoxide durch die EU. Die Bombe ist erst geplatzt, als der Normalbürger von Fahrverboten betroffen war. Aktuell hat man gerade die Diskussion über „unverbindliche Empfehlungen“ der UNO auf einem ganz anderen Gebiet. Auch die IMO [International Maritome Organization]-Grenzwerte waren einst nicht bindend. Hier setzt die Kritik an den einschlägigen Industrieverbänden ein. In der Phantasiewelt der Linken [...] schreiben die Lobby-Verbände die Gesetze. In der Realität ist das mitnichten so. Sie stehen einer Mauer von – überwiegend ungebildeten, aber ideologisch gefestigten – Politikern, Bürokraten und Nicht-Regierungsorganisationen gegenüber. Allesamt Personen, die für die wirtschaftlichen Konsequenzen ihres Handelns in keiner Weise verantwortlich sind. Die meisten sind nicht einmal demokratisch legitimiert. Das Vehikel Umweltschutz hat sich inzwischen als eine Gefahr für alle Gesellschaften herausgebildet. Auf keinem Sektor sind so viele Scharlatane und Ideologen unterwegs. Mit der zunehmenden Abnahme naturwissenschaftlicher Kenntnisse in Deutschland wird eine notwendige Aufklärung über technisch-wirtschaftliche Abhängigkeiten immer schwieriger.
 

Quelle

Doing It With Models

Image credit

The Coyote describes how they are doing it with models:

I seldom trust a computer model I did not build and I NEVER trust a model I did build (because I know the flaws and assumptions and plug variables all too well).

By the way, the mention of plug variable reminds me of one of the most interesting studies I have seen on climate modeling, by Kiel in 2007.  It was so damning that I haven't seen anyone do it since (at least get published doing it).  I wrote about it in 2011 at Forbes:

My skepticism was increased when several skeptics pointed out a problem that should have been obvious. The ten or twelve IPCC climate models all had very different climate sensitivities -- how, if they have different climate sensitivities, do they all nearly exactly model past temperatures? If each embodies a correct model of the climate, and each has a different climate sensitivity, only one (at most) should replicate observed data. But they all do. It is like someone saying she has ten clocks all showing a different time but asserting that all are correct (or worse, as the IPCC does, claiming that the average must be the right time). 

The answer to this paradox came in a 2007 study by climate modeler Jeffrey Kiehl. To understand his findings, we need to understand a bit of background on aerosols. Aerosols are man-made pollutants, mainly combustion products, that are thought to have the effect of cooling the Earth's climate. 

What Kiehl demonstrated was that these aerosols are likely the answer to my old question about how models with high sensitivities are able to accurately model historic temperatures. 

When simulating history, scientists add aerosols to their high-sensitivity models in sufficient quantities to cool them to match historic temperatures. Then, since such aerosols are much easier to eliminate as combustion products than is CO2, they assume these aerosols go away in the future, allowing their models to produce enormous amounts of future warming. 

Specifically, when he looked at the climate models used by the IPCC, Kiehl found they all used very different assumptions for aerosol cooling and, most significantly, he found that each of these varying assumptions were exactly what was required to combine with that model's unique sensitivity assumptions to reproduce historical temperatures. In my terminology, aerosol cooling was the plug variable.

When I was active doing computer models for markets and economics, we used the term "plug variable."  Now, I think "goal-seeking" is the hip word, but it is all the same phenomenon.

A Winter Tale

Image credit

Now a decade later, the global climate has not warmed 1° F as forecast by the IPCC but has cooled slightly until 2007-08 when global temperatures turned sharply downward. In 2008, NASA satellite imagery (Figure 6) confirmed that the Pacific Ocean had switched from the warm mode it had been in since 1977 to its cool mode, similar to that of the 1945-1977 global cooling period. The shift strongly suggests that the next several decades will be cooler, not warmer as predicted by the IPCC. 

Read the full account written in 2008.

Of Turkeys, Microwave Ovens, CO2, and the Oceans

Image credit

When you cook a turkey in the microwave oven, the air around the turkey remains relatively cool. The air in the microwave oven is transparent to the microwave. If I was to put a frozen turkey in the microwave oven and only the very surface layer absorbed the microwaves, the turkey would never cook. The surface may become charred, but the wavelengths would never penetrate into the turkey and cook it. 

That is the exact phenomenon ignored when Climate Alarmists claim that CO2 is warming the oceans. Longwave infrared radiation does not penetrate the oceans. It is completely and absolutely absorbed in the very thin microlayer of the oceans. Longwave infrared radiation never penetrates far enough into the oceans to cause any significant warming.

The source.

See also here and here and 9 Minutes of Sober Physics Blowing CO2 Voodoo Apart.

On Being Human, Language and Civilisation

Image credit

In this thread, I have written a short piece about one of my favourite pieces of anthropology:

John F. Hultquist and RAH,  

I agree with you guys. To me, language is among the most fascinating leads left by mankind from which to judge where our efforts at being civilised have been taking us. 

I take my cue from Sir Karl Popper who identifies the functions specific to human language (as opposed to the functions of the language of [other] animals) as what makes humans humans. 

As opposed to animals, we are able to make elaborate descriptions (descriptive function of language). If you can describe things, you can describe descriptions and their difference, which brings you to the next specifically human function of language (lacking in animals):  

The argumentative function; we can argue about the quality and truthfulness of a description, and develop refined and powerful methods of ascertaining truth/plausibility. This gives rise to another function specific to human language: the critical function; we can use our language to understand and criticise one another's thoughts.  

At this point man has arrived at objectivity — he can turn his inner reasoning into an object for assessment by other humans (note objectivity of which man is capable is not to be confused with absolute and final truth but with findings/propositions/hypotheses subjected to the most rigorous testing).  

At this advanced point man has effectively developed a hyper-intelligence that connects the brains and thinking of billions of human beings. This makes us a lot more kowledgeable and reflected than any other species.

Verlust der rationalen Selbstkontrolle

Image credit.  I wonder what they are reading, and what they would make of our times.

Ein absurdes Elitenregime von unkontrollierten Politikern und Medienvertretern, dekadent und regressiv, macht sich mit Neusprech ("Newspeak") immun und mächtig und wählt sich mit ihrem Vokabular und noch mehr durch dessen ewige und unentrinnbare Wiederholung das Volk, das es sich wünscht (Bertold Brecht).

Ich mache mir überhaupt nur noch die Mühe derlei anzusprechen, weil ich glaube, dass wir alle verantwortlich sind für die entsetzlichen Fehlentwicklungen, die Deutschland erfasst haben. 

Besonders die einst staatstragenden Parteien CDU und SPD mache ich für den Verfall der grundlegenden Werte der Bundesrepublik Deutschland verantwortlich. 

Ich mache sie verantwortlich für das Verschwinden eines sozialen Gewissens (des Strebens nach Interessenausgleich zwischen Kapital und Arbeit und sozial motivierter Konjunkturpolitik) und eines wehrhaften Gespürs für die Demokratie und die unverzichtbaren Aufgaben des Nationalstaats, ebenso wie für ein Europabild, aus dem die Nöte der Europäer und die Gefahren neuerlicher Spannungen zwischen den Nationen dieses Kontinents, die von der EU ausgehen, ausgeklammert bleiben – zugunsten eines die Völker hintergehenden Europas der Politiker, der Bürokraten und der Lobbyisten. 

Ich mache sie verantwortlich für die Umkehrung des Umweltschutzgedankens in eine Religion, die das Verhältnis des Menschen zur Natur dramatisch verschlechtert, den Schutz der Wissenschaft aufhebt und ihre Funktion pervertiert und Umweltbewusstsein auf vorgestanzte Stereotypen reduziert, die eine wirkungsvolle Ökoverblödung der Bevölkerung erzielen (man muss nur noch sinnentleerte Stichworte aussprechen, und schon hoppelt der Bürger – einem aufziehbaren Spielzeugäffchen nicht unähnlich – auf politisch korrektem Kurs, Beifall spendend und von unerbittlichem deutschen Ernst erfüllt.

Die Übernahme des neoliberalen Denkens durch die Grünen ist kein Zufall, sondern Ausdruck des beispiellosen Hedonismus dieser Geistesart, der unethische Profitmacherei gierig verfolgt und mit grün-frommen Mantras salonfähig verbrämt.

Der moralisch-politische Verfall des Landes ist so groß, dass Deutschland die Fähigkeit zu rationaler Selbstkontrolle verloren hat und selbst Millionen von gut ausgebildeten Deutschen, viele davon echte Fachleute, nicht mehr in der Lage sind, eine offen zu Tage liegende Absurdität wie die Energiewende als eine solche zu erkennen. Die religiöse Einnebelung der Bevölkerung, ihr Eingeschüchtertsein und ihre Willfährigkeit gegenüber einer Obrigkeit, die vorgibt, welche Kleiderordnung der Überzeugungen als politisch korrekt anzunehmen ist, entspricht einer atemberaubenden Selbstgleichschaltung unter Bedingungen der Freiheit, die uns lehrt, dass jede Generation aufs neue zu Demokratie, Toleranz und aufgeklärter Rationalität erzogen werden muss, wenn barbarische Rückfälle verhindert werden sollen. 

Unten können Sie einen Beitrag lesen, der mir aufgefallen ist – ich bin rein zufällig auf ihn gestoßen – weil er sehr gut ausdrückt, zumindest der erste Teil, was ich seit vielen Jahren empfinde.

Ich habe nie verstanden, wie ein derart niveauloser, überzeugungsfreier, nur auf Macht bedachter Mensch, ohne Gestaltungstalente, die ihrer Macht einen konstruktiven Sinn verleihen würden wie Angela Merkel fast zwei Jahrzehnte an der politischen Spitze Deutschlands stehen konnte. 

Wenn sie in der Öffentlichkeit spricht, habe ich immer das Gefühl, dass sie sich an Kinder wendet.

Wie anspruchslos das Land geworden ist.

Wie kindlich und kindisch.

Nun der Ausschnitt – aus diesem Beitrag –, den ich meine:

• „Merkel am Ende“
• Das Buch ist nicht über Merkel als Person: Wer nun denkt, „da hat der Herr Knauß aber Pech gehabt, dass Frau Merkel pünktlich zum Erscheinen des Buches ihren Teil-Rückzug angekündigt hat“, der irrt. Das Buch beschreibt ein System Merkel, welches nur möglich war in einem Umfeld, in dem viele dachten, alle Probleme seien gelöst. Es beschreibt einen Zustand der Gesellschaft.
• Merkel war die perfekte Kanzlerin für ein Land, das davon träumte, das „Ende der Geschichte“ erreicht zu haben. Die zentrale These von Knauß. In dieser Illusion verschmelzen Gegenwart und Zukunft zu einem Amalgam – und das Politische wird scheinbar überflüssig.
• Merkel war die passende Kanzlerin für ein müdes Land, das nichts mehr von politischen Problemen, also von Entscheidungen zwischen alternativen Wegen, wissen wollte.
• Merkel hat perfektioniert, was nach 1990 fast alle westlichen Staaten prägte: unpolitische Politik. Es gibt in ihrer Laufbahn kein konstantes Ziel, nichts, wofür sie unzweifelhaft steht. Sie hat kein „Projekt“, kein Ziel, um das es bei der Macht geht.
• Persönlicher Machterhalt ist das einzige Ziel. Oder in der Sprache des Ökonomen: die Maximierung des Marktanteils an Stimmen. Positionen und Interessen konsequent vertreten, sie gegen Widerstand durchsetzen und dafür die eigene Macht aufs Spiel setzen – das ist Merkel fremd. Sie will die Macht, weiß mit ihr aber nichts anzufangen.
• Dazu wurden Positionen geräumt, einfach weil es gerade opportun war, um Stimmen zu bekommen oder Koalitionsoptionen zu eröffnen. (Energiewende, Grenzöffnung, …). Jüngstes Beispiel die Idee, kurz vor der Hessen-Wahl die Luftgrenzwerte mal so eben anzuheben.
• Merkels Methode war der Ausverkauf von politischem Kapital, also von Werten und Positionen ihrer Partei, von Interessen des Landes und der Bürger, für die die Regierenden Verantwortung tragen.
• Die Kosten für diese Politik des Machterhalts sind erheblich – wie auch ich in meinem Buch zeige –, wir alle müssen für diese Politik bezahlen. Doch das Land glaubte (zu) lange, sich Frau Merkel leisten zu können.
• Doch der Traum vom Ende der Geschichte ist ausgeträumt. In der Welt, in Europa und auch innerhalb Deutschlands sind fundamentale Gegensätze und damit politische Konflikte herangewachsen, die ein fortgesetztes Dahindämmern zwischen Alternativlosigkeit und Diskursverweigerung nicht zulassen.
• Je näher die Bedrohungen infolge des Zerfalls alter Ordnungen und der Auflösung bisheriger Selbstverständlichkeiten den Bürgern kommen, desto weniger wird sie der Wohlfühl- Politikersatz zufriedenstellen, den Merkel und andere Meister der Macht boten.
• Es wird nicht mehr genügen, immer gigantischerer Geldbeträge einzusammeln und zu verteilen. Was die Bürger in Deutschland vom Staat zunehmend erwarten, ist die Befriedigung des ältesten politischen Bedürfnisses: Schutz ihrer Interessen.
• Oder, um es in meinen Worten zu sagen: Wenn die Illusion des reichen Landes platzt, wird es ungemütlich. Dann geht das mit der unpolitischen Politik nicht mehr.
• Die bald unvermeidlichen Einschränkungen werden zu schockierenden Enttäuschungen von Erwartungen und harten Verteilungskonflikten führen – in einem Staat und einer Gesellschaft, die auf beides nicht vorbereitet sind.
• Jede neue politische Bewegung und jede Erneuerung der CDU und der anderen etablierten Parteien, die für die Zeit nach Merkel und nach der Großen Koalition gerüstet sein will, muss daher vor allem eins tun: glaubwürdige Angebote schaffen für das wachsende Bedürfnis der Bürger nach Schutz ihrer materiellen Versorgung und kulturellen Güter, ihrer Lebensgrundlagen in der Natur und ihrer bürgerlichen Freiheitsrechte.
• Damit sind wir auch in Deutschland am Ende des Märchens vom Ende der Geschichte. Die Zukunft wird deutlich politischer, leidenschaftlicher, kontroverser.
• Und das ist gut so: im Interesse der Bewahrung der freien, offenen Gesellschaft und der Demokratie.
• Wenn nicht, werden wir eine Abkehr vieler Menschen vom Verfassungsstaat erleben. Das wäre die schlimmste Spätfolge der langen und insgesamt verhängnisvollen Kanzlerschaft Angela Merkels.

A Human Mystery — Scientists Incapable of Science

Image credit

“The people who are supposed to be the experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence…I hope that a few of them will make the effort to examine the evidence in detail and see how it contradicts the prevailing dogma, but I know that the majority will remain blind. That to me is the central mystery of climate science. It is not a scientific mystery but a human mystery. How does it happen that the whole generation of scientific experts is blind to obvious facts?” – Freeman Dyson

(Source)

Freeman Dyson, the man that holds the same position that Albert Einstein did at Princeton, has taken a look at climate change and observed that the physical observations simply don’t support the conclusions reached by the climate alarmists. 

[...] 

[A] simple theory explains far more about the recent warming than CO2 and is supported by the data.

1. The oceans are warming
2. The oceans control the global climate
3. What is warming the oceans is also warming the atmosphere above the oceans
4. CO2 and the LWIR wavelengths that it radiates (13 to 18 microns) don’t warm water
5. Visible radiation between 0.4 and 0.7 microns do[es] warm water
6. More visible radiation mu[st] reach the oceans to cause warming
7. That can happen through fewer low clouds, a hotter sun or both

The problem with the CO2 caused climate change is that CO2 and temperatures don’t correlate. CO2 is a smooth near-linear variable and temperatures are all over the place and highly variable. Most important however is that temperatures have different characteristics over different time periods. CO2 doesn’t, it just increases in a nearly linear fashion since the start of the industrial era. In other words, temperatures don’t zig when CO2 zags. Temperatures zig a lot, and CO2 doesn’t zag much, and when it does it is mostly in the same direction, up.

The source.