Expect Soon Another PIK Paper Claiming Warming Leads To Cold Snaps Over Europe

By on 2. January 2026

Winter across Europe has been on the mild side so far – just as predicted by global warming alarmists. But now the weather is about to turn cold.

A cold winter spell is beginning to settle over Europe and there’s a risk the public here might start having doubts about the global warming narrative – especially as heating bills skyrocket and gas reserves run out. Thus, let’s not be surprised if climate-alarm suspects soon rush out another dubious paper claiming that extreme  winter cold, too, is a telltale sign of warming.

Just-so story science

This was the case earlier. For example in 2010, in the middle of a bitter cold winter, PIK scientists Petoukhov et al published a paper, “A link between reduced Barents-Kara sea ice and cold winter extremes over northern continents” that found that sea ice loss in the Barents-Kara Seas could triple the probability of cold winter extremes in Europe.

In 2019, Kornhuber et al published a paper, Extreme weather events in early summer 2018 connected by a recurrent hemispheric wave-7 pattern that focused on summer heatwaves, This research tracks the “resonant amplification” of planetary waves that allegedly causes cold air to spill south and stay there for weeks.

PIK researchers, particularly Vladimir Petoukhov, suggest to have identified a specific non-linear relationship, and claim the atmosphere reacts most violently when sea ice concentration is around 40–80% in certain Arctic regions. When the ice disappears, the ocean releases a massive “bubble” of heat into the cold winter air, thus creating a local high-pressure system (an anti-cyclone) over the Arctic. This high-pressure system acts like a physical wall that pushes the Jet Stream south and forces cold, continental winds from Siberia to blow westward into Europe.

Stefan Rahmstorf and his team have also championed the theory, arguing that Arctic warming makes the “waves” in the Jet Stream grow much larger and to move much slower. So, you see warming also leads to unusual cold and harsh winter events across Europe”

As of January 2026, the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) and the broader scientific community have been tracking a highly unusual set of Arctic signals they believe align with the “less ice = harsher winters” mechanism (AMOC slowing, Tipping Points Report in October 2025, and the Arctic Report Card 2025 released just weeks ago.)

According to the PIK, we are no longer looking at “future risks” but rather the live observation of a destabilized system where low ice is creating a “heat dome” over the pole and is forcing the Jet Stream into a “stuck” position, leading to the current cold snaps.

Just-so science: Giraffes have long necks to reach high leaves. Image generated by Grok AI. 

While the climate scientitsts insist this is well-grounded climate science, skeptics see it  for what it really is: a “just-so story” filled with pseudo-profound bullshit and science sophistry. It sounds perfectly logical and satisfying (e.g., giraffes have long necks to reach high leaves), but it lacks empirical evidence to prove it’s actually how things happen.

Happy New Year everyone!





Posted in , | 1 Response

New Study: Human CO2 Emissions Responsible For 1.57% Of Global Temperature Change Since 1750

By on 2. January 2026

“The remaining 98.43% of climate forcing arises from sources other than anthropogenic CO2.” – Davis, 2025

When it comes to climate forcing, “atmospheric CO2 plays a minor and diminishing role in forcing contemporary global warming.”

Key quotes from Davis, 2025

“As a result of today’s higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere, the radiative forcing power of CO2 has dropped to less than one-third of the forcing power in 1750.”

“The forcing attributable to atmospheric CO2 is so small relative to the Earth’s energy budget that 80% of heat captured by CO2 is reflected back into space by aerosols.”

“If the concentration of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere continues to increase exponentially as it has since contemporary measurements began 67 years ago (see below), then the incremental contribution of CO2 forcing to global warming will continue to decline exponentially because the forcing power of CO2 wanes with higher CO2 concentrations owing to the aforementioned diminishing returns in marginal forcing.”

“These contributions of CO2 to temperature forcing must be evaluated against the above demonstration that 6.27% of RFCO2 [radiative forcing from CO2] between 1750 and 2020 is attributable to anthropogenic CO2 (Figure 1) while the remaining 93.73% is natural in origin. It follows that even if contemporary global warming were 100% attributable to increases in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 instead of the estimated 25%, 6.27% of this forcing would be attributable to human-sourced emissions of CO2. Using the more refined empirical estimates of CO2 contributions developed above, where approximately one-fourth of total forcing is attributable to atmospheric CO2, the maximum contribution of human-sourced CO2 to contemporary global warming is estimated quantitatively from empirical data as 6.27% (the computed contribution of anthropogenic CO2 forcing from 1750 to 2020, above) of 25% (the approximate mean empirical estimate of CO2 forcing of temperature, above), or 1.57% of total temperature forcing.”

Other conclusions from the study:

The full concentration of CO2 (420 ppm) currently provides only 0.0058% of the Earth’s surface energy, which is imperceptible.

There is a negative correlation (r = -0.19) between CO2 and temperature (i.e., CO2 rises as temperature falls, or temperature rises as CO2 falls) over the last 425 million years.

Image Source: Davis, 202

Posted in , | Leave a response

Welcome To 2026: Europe Laying Groundwork For Climate Science Censorship!

By on 31. December 2025

As EU narratives collapse, desparate leaders are planning more tyrannical measures to keep it all from sinking. 

Censorship of scientific debate…

Currently, EU leaders are fuming that US officials would be so audacious as to accuse them of practicing censorship. Yet, when it comes to suppressing open discussions and differing viewpoints on major issues, things are in fact worse than  most people think. And, it’s about to get even worse.

Image created by Grok

A recent (indirectly EU-funded) report released earlier this year shows how the EU is planning to broaden censorship to include the topics of climate and energy science.

In the “Harmful Environmental Agendas and Tactics” (HEAT) report, published by EU DisinfoLab and Logically, its authors investigate how climate-related misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation (MDM) are strategically used to undermine climate policy in Europe, specifically in Germany, France, and the Netherlands.

Climate science skeptics threaten democracy

The report argues that climate disinformation has moved beyond simple science denial and has become a tool for broader political and social polarization.

Outright denial of climate change, the authors claim, is being replaced by narratives focused on “climate delay.” These often acknowledge climate change but attack the feasibility, cost, and fairness of solutions, e.g., they claim green policies will bankrupt households or destroy industries.

The enemies

The report identifies four main pillars driving these agendas:

  1. The Conspiracy Milieu: Distrust of elites and “deep state” narratives (e.g., the “Great Reset”).
  2. Culture War/Partisan Discourse: Framing climate action as an authoritarian or elitist project.
  3. Hostile State Actors (HSAs): Significant involvement of Russian-linked networks (e.g., Portal Kombat) that use localized domains like Pravda DE to amplify divisive climate content.
  4. Big Oil Alignment: Narratives that align with fossil fuel interests, even if direct corporate attribution is often obscured.

In Germany, for example, there are attacks on the Energiewende (energy transition) and the Building Heating Act.

In France, there are links between climate policy and the “Yellow Vest” movement or anti-elitist sentiments.

Meanwhile, the “nitrogen crisis” has been reframed as “government land theft” in the Netherlands. 

European leaders are convinced that their policies have nothing to do with all the failure going on. In their eyes, it’s all the fault of unruly citizens and their disinfoarmtion campaigns.

The report’s key recommendations

The authors call for decisive institutional and platform-level action to treat climate disinformation as a structural threat and a danger to democracy. This all needs to stop!

Platforms must act!

The primary recommendation is for the EU to explicitly recognize climate disinformation as a systemic risk under the Digital Services Act (a.k.a. by critics the Digital Censorship Act). This would force so-called Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) to take proactive measures and conduct risk assessments.

The authors also call for mandating algorithm audits and public reporting on content moderation, specifically for climate content. It’s time to crack down on skeptics, they say. 

“Independent” auditors

Moreover “independent researchers” are to be provided with access to disaggregated platform data to track how these narratives spread.

Another recommendation is calling for the labelling and limiting the reach of “ideological or sponsored” climate disinformation.

“Trusted flaggers”

The authors also are calling for greater monitoring of Russian-aligned and other hostile state operations that exploit climate debates to weaken EU democratic resilience.

Another step suggested to counter “climate disinformation” is the establishment of reporting channels for civil society organizations (so-called “trusted flaggers”) to flag coordinated inauthentic behavior (CIB) and harmful narratives to regulators.

“Prebunking”

Also “prebunking” campaigns aimed at proactively educating the public on disinformation tactics before they are exposed to them—especially in lower-educated rural and working-class areas that are frequently targeted.

Happy New Year!

And thanks to the donors out there for your support!





Posted in , , | 7 Responses

New Study Finds A Higher Rate Of Global Warming From 1899-1940 Than From 1983-2024

By on 30. December 2025

Global warming was significantly more pronounced in the early 20th century and prior to 1940, or back when CO2 emissions rates were 8.6 times lower than they were from 1983-2024.

A new study using 60 million daily maximum/minimum temperatures from 1600 global weather stations across 29 countries indicates the globe warmed at a rate of 0.022°C/yr from 1899-1940, a 42-year period when cumulative CO2 emissions only amounted to 139.6 GtC.

Then, over the next 42 years (1941-1982), global temperatures cooled at a rate of -0.011°C/yr even though cumulative CO2 emissions rose to 460.0 GtC. In other words, CO2 emission rates more than tripled from the 1940s to 1980s as global temperatures declined.

Global warming returned by the 1980s. However, over the next 42 years (1983-2024) the warming rate, 0.017°C/yr, was not as strong as it was in the early 20th century. This slower rate of warming is significant because cumulative CO2 emissions were 1,209.8 GtC during this most recent period, an amount 8.6 times higher than they were from 1899-1940.

So over the last 125 years of “global warming,” at no time has there been a decadal period of warming (or cooling) that could be shown to have closely aligned with the varying rates of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

“These findings challenge the conventional assumption that human-induced CO2 is the primary driver of global warming.”

Image Source: Bhatta, 2025

Posted in , , | 7 Responses

Meteorologist Dr. Ryan Maue Warns “Germany Won’t Make It” If Winter Turns Severe

By on 25. December 2025

Meteorologist Dr. Ryan Maue warns at X that if the winter of 1962-1963 happened again with today’s Europeean energy system, then “Germany won’t make it”. The country has “exceptional energy shortfalls.”

Image genrated by Grok AI

And, suddenly, the weather models are hinting at severe winter conditions across Europe for early January.

Maue’s claim leans on a paper titled: “On the Link Between Weather Regimes and Energy Shortfall During Winter for 28 European Countries,” published in Meteorological Applications (2025) by Emmanuel Rouges, Marlene Kretschmer, and Theodore G. Shepherd. The authors examine how specific atmospheric patterns affect the balance between energy demand and renewable energy production across Europe.

The study focuses on energy shortfall, defined as periods when electricity demand significantly exceeds renewable energy production (specifically wind and solar). It analyzes 28 European countries using a “fixed electricity system” model (based on current infrastructure) and historical weather data (reanalysis) to see how past weather would affect today’s grid.

The researchers found that the primary driver of shortfall varies by region. In cold-climate, low-windd capacity countries, a shortfall is primarily demand-driven (e.g., increased heating needs during cold snaps).

In warm climate, high wind capacity countries, a shortfall is primarily production-driven (e.g., periods of low wind speed or “Dunkelflaute”).

The study categorized winter weather into six specific “regimes.” Only a subset of these—primarily those involving atmospheric blocking (which brings cold, still air)—are responsible for the majority of high-shortfall days. These critical weather regimes often affect large portions of the continent simultaneously, meaning many European countries experience energy stress at the same time.

There is a high level of spatial correlation in energy shortfalls. If one country is experiencing a shortfall, its neighbors are highly likely to be in the same situation. This highlights a potential challenge for “sharing” energy across borders during extreme weather events, as many potential exporters might also be facing deficits.

The authors simulated what would happen if the 1962/1963 winter (the coldest of the 20th century in Europe) occurred with today’s energy system. They concluded that the persistent blocking conditions of that winter would lead to extreme and prolonged energy shortfalls across almost all of Europe, far exceeding the stress seen in more recent decades.

The paper emphasizes that as Europe transitions to renewable energy, understanding the meteorological drivers of shortfall is critical. It suggests that energy planners must account for the fact that extreme weather events can cause simultaneous, continent-wide energy crises that current interconnected grids may struggle to mitigate through simple cross-border trading.

Merry Christmas everyone, stay warm!





Posted in , | 5 Responses

Merry Christmas Everybody!

By on 23. December 2025

Wishing everybody

a relaxed and harmonious

Christmas Holiday!

Posted in | 5 Responses

Two More New Studies Show The Southern Ocean And Antarctica Were Warmer In The 1970s

By on 23. December 2025

The Southern Ocean (60-70°S) and Antarctica (south of 60°S) were warmer in the late 1970s and early 1980s than in recent decades (Vihma and Uotila, 2016, Ma et al., 2025).

These regional temperature anomalies do not align with linearly-rising CO2 emissions.

Image Source: Vihma and Uotila, 2026

Image Source: Ma et al., 2025

Posted in , | 2 Responses

Der Spiegel Caught Making Up Reports About Conservative America (Again)

By on 20. December 2025

Relotius 2.0…Spiegel caught lying about Louisiana conservatives…paranoid, “Fox News-brainwashed” residents

NIUS’s Julian Reichelt exposes lies about Louisiana conservatives by Spiegel reporter Jonah Lemm. Image cropped here. 

Germany’s NIUS has video report titled: “The Fairy Tale Reporters: Police video exposes how the mirror manipulates!” which critically examines a report by the news magazine Der Spiegel and accuses the outlet of spreading untruths to serve a specific ideological narrative.

Spiegel reporter’s false claim

NIUS anchor Julian Reichelt claims Der Spiegel “invents” or massively distorts stories to fit a narrative of a “dark, racist America” under Donald Trump. The focus is on a report by Spiegel journalist Jonah Lemm about a small town in Louisiana (Winfield). In his article, Lemm described a threatening atmosphere in which he was allegedly driven out of town by paranoid, “Fox News-brainwashed” residents and the police.

Police footage contradicts Spiegel claims

But Reichelt presents US police bodycam footage that shows this was not the case.

Winfield residents became suspicious because Spiegel reporter Lemm had filmed underage cheerleaders and later drove past the home of one of the girls.

The footage then shows officers speaking politely with the Spiegel reporter, offering advice, and even offering him protection should he feel unsafe.

And while Lemm’s article mocks the religious faith of the residents, he is shown on-site in the NIUS video telling the officers that he thought the prayer before the football game was “cool” as he is a Protestant himself.

Intentional propaganda …”one of the worst journalistic pieces”

In his report, Reichelt concludes that the Spiegel story’s angle was predetermined before the trip to Louisiana even began, and that facts were deliberately omitted or twisted to confirm clichés about Southerners.

The Sheriff of Winfield, Josh McAllister, is quoted in the video describing the Spiegel article as one of the “worst journalistic pieces” he has ever read. He emphasized that Lemm drew attention not because of his nationality, but because of his suspicious behavior toward children.

Der Spiegel stated upon inquiry that no misconduct by the reporter was identified and that the cheerrleader recordings were intended solely for documentation purposes, not for publication.

NIUS interprets this as evidence of a lack of “error culture” at the magazine.

NIUS’s Reichelt sharply criticizes Der Spiegel and views the Lemm misreporting as an example of how Spiegel creates propaganda to spread “fake news” about conservative parts of the United States.

Also read NIUS article here.

Posted in | 1 Response

New Study: 8000 Years Ago Relative Sea Level Was 30 Meters Higher Than Today Across East Antarctica

By on 19. December 2025

Today’s sea levels are the lowest of the last several thousand years.

Carbon dating evidence from the elevation of abandoned penguin rookeries (and other proxies) reveal relative sea level (RSL) was ~30 m higher than today across East Antarctica about 8000 years ago (Small et al., 2025).

Following that highstand RSL fell rapidly at rates of 4 to 10 m per 1000 years. RSL was 24 m above present sea level (ASL) by 7200 years ago, 15 m ASL by 5700 years ago, 5 m ASL by 3200 years ago, and still 1 m ASL about 800 years ago.
Image Source: Small et al., 2025

Another study from Antarctica’s South Shetland Islands suggests RSL has plummeted by 10 meters just in the last 2000 years after a 15 m highstand 9000 years ago.

Image Source: Watcham et al., 2011

There are regions in the northern hemisphere where RSL reached similarly high elevations as they did across East Antarctica. The southeast coast of Sweden, the southern Baltic Sea, records RSL 22 m higher than today from approximately 7500 to 6200 years ago (Katrantsiotis et al., 2023).

Image Source: Katrantsiotis et al., 2023

Posted in , | 1 Response

The Wind Energy Paradox: “Why More Wind Turbines Don’t Always Mean More Power”

By on 17. December 2025

The Munich-based daily Merkur is finally reporting on something that sus keptics have been pointing out some 20 years: Wind turbines always either produce too little or too much, and are thus uneconomical and unreliable.

Image: Vernunftkraft.de

In a recent insightful interview with Merkur.de, Prof. Dr. Sigismund Kobe, a renowned physicist from the TU Dresden, explains a phenomenon he calls the “Transition to Renewable Energy Paradox.”

His warning is clear: adding more wind power to the grid might soon yield diminishing returns—or none at all.

Zero times two is still zero

The fundamental problem, according to Prof. Kobe, lies in the nature of weather-dependent energy. Wind power does not scale linearly in a way that guarantees supply. During a lull, when there is no wind, it doesn’t matter if you have 30,000 or 60,000 turbines. The output remains zero. Doubling the capacity does nothing to solve the problem of “Dunkelflaute” (dark doldrums).

Conversely, under windy weather, the existing turbines often produce much more electricity than the grid can handle. Adding even more turbines during these periods only increases the surplus that cannot be used, leading to forced shutdowns.

Building “useless” capacity

Kobe argues that Germany is rapidly approaching a “saturation point.” Data shows that while the installed capacity (the theoretical maximum) of wind power has grown significantly, the actual amount of electricity fed into the grid hasn’t kept pace.

We are essentially building “useless” capacity that only produces power when we already have too much of it, while failing to provide any power when we actually need it.

Economic fallout: paying for nothing

This paradox isn’t just a physical problem; it’s an expensive economic one.

  1. Redispatch Costs: When the grid is overloaded, grid operators must pay wind farm owners to turn their turbines off. Consumers end up paying for electricity that was never produced.

  2. Double Infrastructure: Because wind is unreliable, Germany must maintain a completely separate fleet of “backup” power plants (mostly gas-fired) to jump in when the wind stops. This means paying for two parallel energy systems.

Can Storage Save Us?

The standard counter-argument is that we simply need better batteries or hydrogen storage. However, Prof. Kobe remains skeptical. He points out that the sheer scale of storage required to bridge weeks of low wind is technically and financially astronomical. The efficiency losses involved in converting electricity to hydrogen and back again make the resulting power incredibly expensive.

Prof. Kobe’s message is a reality check for policymakers. He argues that the current strategy of simply “expanding at all costs” is hitting a physical wall. Without a breakthrough in massive, affordable storage, adding more wind turbines won’t stabilize the grid—it might just make it more volatile and expensive.

Prof. em. Dr. rer. nat. habil. Sigismund Kobe is a distinguished German physicist and a long-standing academic at the Technical University of Dresden (TU Dresden). Born in 1940, he has dedicated his career to theoretical physics, with a specific focus on the behavior of complex systems.





Posted in , | 6 Responses

New Study Reopens Questions About Our Ability To Meaningfully Assess Global Mean Temperature

By on 15. December 2025

“Temperature is an intensive property that is defined only in equilibrium systems and cannot be meaningfully averaged across non-equilibrium systems.” − Cohler, 2025

A 2007 math proofs study that asserted a global mean temperature does not exist in reality (because a temperature average can only be defined in equilibrium systems) has never been disproved.

For example, determining whether a cup of coffee is warming or cooling – and by how much – is entirely dependent on the averaging formula one arbitrarily chooses. In the study 4 averaging methods were chosen to assess change in the average coffee temperature over time. All four were shown to yield different warming vs. cooling results.

Image Source: Essex et al., 2007

A new study reopens this debate by reasserting there are “infinite ways to average temperature.” The averaging method chosen in modern “climate science” is arbitrary, non-physical, and yields fundamentally different results vs. other methods.

“Each method produces different numerical results and different [average temperature] trends over time.”

Image Source: Cohler, 2025

A 2020 study illustrating this unheralded statistical problem fundamental to modern “climate science” pointed out that a large volume of scientists had calculated the global average surface temperature as ranging from 14.0 to 15.1°C from 1877 to 1913, or approximately 14.5°C.

And yet according to calculations from HadCRUT4, NASA GISS, and Berkeley Earth, the global mean temperature was 14.4°C, 14.5°C, and 14.5°C, respectively, from 1991-2018. In other words, it can be shown that there has been “no change for the past 100 years” in the global mean temperature.

Image Source: Kramm et al., 2020

Posted in , | 4 Responses

Dialing Back The Panic: German Physics Prof Sees No Evidence Of Climate Tipping Points!

By on 14. December 2025

German experimental physicist Prof. Gerd Gantefor explains in a recent video why he’s being made a climate denier by the fanatic parts of the climate movement: because he sees no evidence of tipping points nor the end of civilization. 

And also he warns of a dictatorial monster by the movement.

Image cropped here. 

Prof. Ganteför begins by distancing himself from the term “climate denier,” which is imposed from outside and intentionally associated with a dark past.

He differentiates between two main groups of people who are labeled as climate deniers: 1) Individuals who deny global warming and question the human cause (e.g., blaming the sun or clouds), negate the greenhouse effect, or dismiss the warming as normal climate fluctuation, and 2) people who fear a loss of freedom and prosperity or doubt the effectiveness of radical, national measures given the global nature of the problem.

As a Professor of Experimental Physics and former lecturer of a major course on Energy and Climate in the Master’s program in Physics, Ganteför emphasizes his deep understanding of the subject matter. He states that he is economically and intellectually independent (retired and funded by crowdfunding).

Says manmade climate warming is real, but…

Ganteför’s core theses are that warming is happening and is man-made due to CO2 emissions and that it is a serious problem. But what gets him in trouble is his confidence that humanity will not become extinct because of it. That’s enough to get labelled a “denier” by the German radical climate movement.

Ganteför also expects the 2-degree limit will be exceeded, as a timely global energy transition will not occur. But he feels the consequences can be managed with reason, science, and technological capability—not through self-restriction or regression. He sees no evidence for the often-cited “tipping points” in the main reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and calls these extremes.

Movement is concerned with the transformation of society

Ganteför views himself as the “natural enemy” of the radical wing of the climate movement because he exposes their true goals. According to his analysis, the radical movement is not primarily concerned with the global climate, but with the “transformation of society” toward eco-socialism and the “end of capitalism”.

He argues that climate apocalypse panic serves as a vehicle and a weapon to enforce unpopular, expensive, and, in his view, dictatorial measures (such as bans) that are concentrated on his own country (Germany), even though the problem is global.

He criticizes the movement for using personal attacks and threats because they lack substantive scientific arguments against him, as he relies on the plausible statements of the IPCC and exposes exaggerations.

Freedom just as important as climate protectin

The distinguised professor stands for democracy, freedom, and personal responsibility and rejects “non-negotiable” bans (German: alternativlos), which he views as dictatorial. He is in favor of measures implemented with the people, not against them, and considers freedom to be just as important as climate protection.

He proposes addressing the climate problem through international collaboration and agrees with the five guidelines published by civil society and business associations, which call for more effective and efficient climate policy. These include:

  • Comprehensive international cooperation.

  • Realism and pragmatism in international solidarity.

  • Use of natural and technical CO2 sinks.

  • Elimination of overregulation.

  • Ensuring societal acceptance and economic viability.

He concludes by affirming: “I am not a climate denier, but I fight the radical arm of the climate movement before it develops into a dictatorial monster”.





Posted in , | 4 Responses

Next »

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy

Close

Anonymization by Anonymouse.org ~ Adverts
Anonymouse better ad-free, faster and with encryption?
X