Archive for the ‘Opinion’ Category

Adobe Lightroom 2.6.1 update woes

Sunday, April 11th, 2010

Repeat after me: Never change a running system!

I was quite happy with my installation of Lightroom 2.5, but as I was working on a recent set where I needed a web gallery, I found that Lightroom 2.5 was behaving strangely. After pressing the “Export” button nothing happened. Nothing. The software would create the directory, and then did nothing. Nothing at all. About five minutes later the export started. Of course, I had pressed the “Export” button three times by then, and so all of a sudden there were three export processes running at the same time. (Insert swear word here.)

So I thought, maybe, just maybe an upgrade to the latest Lightroom was in order. I went to the Adobe web site and found the most recent update to version 2.6.1. Good. A couple of minutes later the upgrade was in progress. Fine.

And then: after the restart of Lightroom, the software presented me with a German user interface!?! (Insert another swear word here.)

I checked the settings under Bearbeiten > Voreinstellungen and guess what? It says: Sprache: Englisch

Screenshot: After upgrade to version 2.6.1, Adobe Lightroom does not respect the language preference set by the user in the previous version

I restarted Lightroom again, heck, I even restarted my computer hoping that this would cure the problem. It did not. (Insert yet another swear word here.) I was yelling in front of my computer:

Listen, Adobe! Yes, I am woring on a German computer, yet


a) You get better support for Lightroom in English language, but only if you know the right terms. It’s impossible to know these terms when you are working on a German translation of the user interface.

b) The German help function does not work at all. When I open up Hilfe > Hilfe zu Lightroom, all I get is a link to which is, frankly, not very helpful at all. The English version at least forwards me directly to the respective Lightroom help pages.

But hey, I could fix the problem on my own. Here’s how:

Step 1 – Open Bearbeiten > Voreinstellungen and select German as language (even if this is not what you want and thus makes little sense).

Step 2 – Restart Lightroom. Lightroom starts (again) with a German user interface. Surprise!

Step 3 – Open Bearbeiten > Voreinstellungen again, and now select English as language again!

Step 4 – Restart Lightroom again. Now it starts with an English user interface. Hoorah.

Huh? What genius programmer worked on that?

Repeat after me: Never change a running system!

(Insert final swear word.)

What global warming?

Tuesday, December 29th, 2009

My final post for this year is also about the alleged global climate change (and yes, I promise to go more into photography again in 2010), but as you might have seen from my last few posts on this, I think that this is a crucial topic that deserves some time to think about. When our governments think about further regulating our lives (e.g. by adding new energy taxes), then they better have a clear scientific foundation for their actions. (I don’t think they have, so I promote to be very very cautious when making such far-reaching decisions.)

So, I took the time to actually look at some of the data myself and -despite not being a climate researcher- to draw some conclusions from this.

Specifically, I looked at the data of the weather station in Armagh, Northern Ireland. The records reach back until 1865 and can be obtained from the U.K. Met Office.

Now, if we are talking about “global warming” at an alarming rate then this should be reflected in individual station data as well, right?

The data available for Armagh are the average high and low temperatures for each month, and the rainfall. I just wanted to know about the temperatures, so I put the data into Excel and calculated annual averages from the highs and lows. The results where then plotted into a nice chart, and I also added ten-year moving averages and linear trend lines:

Armagh/Northern Ireland Weather Station Data, 1866-2008
Data Source: U.K. Met Office, Graph: Mark Zanzig

Hmmm. There are upswings and downswings, also reflected in the averages; the trendlines indicate a slight global warming. For the maximums Excel calculates the increase as 0.0041 °C per year (or 0.41 °C per century), and for the lows as 0.0047 °C per year (or 0.47 °C per century). This seems to be in line with the findings of others who say that global warming happens at the rate of about 0.6 °C per century.

Admittedly, towards 2008 the temperatures are slightly warmer than in previous years, but for 2008 the values are already going down again. In the case of the low temperatures, this has even affected the ten-year average, so it points down as well.

Especially interesting to me are the periods where the ten-year moving averages are actually decreasing (after World War II, until mid-1980s). Throughout this time the CO2 level has been rising, so it is a bit difficult to explain the development of the temperature just with the development of CO2.

For me, there is slight global warming of about 0.6 °C per century. For further more scientific analysis of the climate, I suggest to download the full NIPCC report on climate change. The case on “global warming” is closed – it is a non-existing problem.

Together we should now focus on making our elected “leaders” aware of that. And while we do that we should also make them aware that anti-democratic ideas (like the globally forced implementation of new laws to reduce CO2 emissions) are not desired by us, the people. (See Spiegel Online for further information [in German only]).

Having said that, I wish you a Happy New Year.

* * *

Recommended reading at

27-DEC-09 Welcome to the new CO2 world order
05-DEC-09 Climategate – go figure!
19-JUN-07 State of Fear
05-MAR-07 The CO2 Scam

Welcome to the new CO2 world order

Sunday, December 27th, 2009

For a long time, I have wondered what will happen when fossile energy comes to an end? Will there be a big war? Will energy be something for the rich, with the masses being unable to afford energy and all the comfort that comes with it?

Now, at the end of 2009, I am beginning to see much clearer, thanks to the massive CO2 scam that has been going on for a while: the fight for energy will be a war, but a war of a new, previously unseen kind – the war of governments on their people! If you think this is bizarre and silly, it is! But it is not too far from truth. Here are some facts for one of the most developed countries in the world – Germany.

The “Wissenschaftliche Beirat der Bundesregierung Globale Umweltveränderungen” (WBGU) is a consulting council to the German government (!) for questions of the global environment change. These people re-iterate the official CO2 bogus scare whenever they can. And they published a “factsheet” where they propose a total CO2 budget for each nation until 2050, i.e. for the next 40 years. The total world budget for the entire period is quoted as “750 billion tons of CO2″. (Unfortunately, this document is available in German language only, but it might be worth getting a translation.)

According to the suggestion made in the document, Germany has 1.2% of the world population and would thus receive 1.2% of the 750 billion tons CO2 emissions respectively, 9 billion tons CO2 in total over the entire period. (The U.S. has 4.6% of the population and would receive 4.6% of the 750 billion tons, i.e. 35 billion tons.)

Now, “billion tons” may sound a lot, but in fact it is not!

Lets do a very, very simple calculation for Germany (but for the U.S. it would be similar since the assignment of CO2 budgets depends on population):

9,000,000,000 tons / 80,000,000 persons / 40 years
= 2.8 tons / year / person

Let’s further break this down:

2812 kilograms per person per year
= 7.7 kilograms per person per day (roughly)

Which is a ridiculous low value, compared to today’s consumption of roughly 11 tons per year per person (in Germany). Yes, they want us to reduce CO2 consumption by roughly 75%. Hmmm. You think that is not too bad? Well, let’s have a look. Here are some examples that make clear what such a step will actually mean for our lives:

  • The daily budget of 7.7 kilograms is good for 47 kilometers of car driving of a medium sized car (e.g. 164 g/km CO2 emission), or 23.5 kilometers return (one person). Unfortunately, if you decide to use the car for that distance, you may not eat anything that day, because the production of food will also cause CO2 emissions, so it’s either that drive in the car -or- having some food plus using the computer for a while plus switching on the light in the evening.
  • A two-week trip from Germany to the beautiful island of Mallorca will cost 1221 kg of CO2 per person, or about 43% of the person’s annual CO2 budget. And a two-week trip from Germany to Mexico causes 7218 kg of CO2 per person. This is, unfortunately, two-and-a-half times the annual budget per person (Source: WWF Germany). Or to be very clear: just forget about such trips in the future (and better look at our pictures of  Mallorca and Mexico City instead :-). You see, that’s what this whole CO2 stuff is all about: rationing energy and energy consumption to a degree that your life will be seriously affected.
  • Each and every product might be assigned its respective “CO2 footprint” (whoever determines that, and how). So, whenever you do a purchase, the respective CO2 impact will be withdrawn from your annual CO2 budget. It’s easy and convenient: at the cashier, just present your CO2 I.D. card, and the footprint for all your purchases will be calulated for you automatically, quick, easy, no problems. A side effect is that the state actually gets to know what you purchase, when you purchase it, and where you purchase it. Think this is too Orwellian? Bah! The U.K. is already thinking about this.
  • Children are now just “adorable carbon producing machines”, at least according to Valerie Williams, owner of green innovation site GreenMuze. In one of her articles she writes: “From a purely environmental standpoint it makes more sense for the planet to help a pre-existing child rather than create another adorable carbon producing machine. In fact, it is important that the individuals living in countries with large environmental footprints opt not to have children.” I think this idea is plain bizarre and ultimately cynical, and I sincerly hope that Mrs. Williams will never be in a position to work on (or -heaven help!- decide upon) legislation that will support such thinking.

Now, I might call this “okay-ish” (except for Mrs. Williams view) IF there were hard, undeniable scientific facts that CO2 is indeed causing that global warming, that global warming is bad for the planet, and that reducing CO2 emissions could indeed “save the planet”. But this is not the case! It is not entirely clear in the scientific world that warming per se is a bad thing. Also the other, often mentioned consequences (e.g. polar bears dying, incredible rising of sea levels, increase of the intensity and number of Hurricanes, etc. etc.) are unproved or even disproved.

In the mass media you will see mostly the official “bogus” messages, reported in an ever increasing alarmist style:

  • Global warming is bad for the planet!
  • There is consensus among scientists that man-made CO2 is causing global warming!
  • Reducing CO2 emissions by X percent will limit global warming to Y degrees!

Again – none of this has actually been proven.

So I urge you, the readers of my blog, to wake up! This nonsense has to stop, presto. Let’s not give our governments the cover for more outright silly legislation and higher, pointless taxes. Let’s speak up against this!

Read more about the great global warming swindle – I suggest to start with these videos, documents, and articles, all of them very revealing:

Prof. Dr. Richard Lindzen – Deconstructing Global Warming

Lord Christopher Monckton Speaking in St. Paul, 14-OCT-09

Prof. Bob Carter: Climate Change – Is CO2 the cause?

Godfrey Bloom at the European Parliament: Green Truth in 90 Seconds

31,000+ American scientists have signed a petition that there is no scientific evidence of man-made global warming

The Science is Not Settled

Climate Change Reconsidered

How to Manufacture a Climate Consensus

Climategate: the corruption of Wikipedia

Phelim McAleer asks an inconvenient question in Kopenhagen

The emperor’s new carbon credits

Current global temperatures put into perspective

John Coleman: Global Warming is not man-made

World Climate Report

Climate Chains – The Film

Science & Public Policy Institute

The questions Dr Pachauri still has to answer

Al Gore: I was wrong about North Pole thaw

The Great Global Warming Swindle

(auf Deutsch) Zu Hause bei den Klima-Knechten

(auf Deutsch) pur+: Die Erde schwitzt

P.S.: Whenever I discuss the CO2 scam with people who are “not so much into the topic”, at some point during the discussion I hear – “well, even if CO2 is not responsible for global warming, isn’t saving energy a good thing?”. To which I respond: Of course it is! I am all for saving energy and reducing human impact on the environment and developing eco-friendly technologies! But I completely reject the idea of a state-controlled CO2 rationing as now suggested by several organizations. The reason is simple: if we allow this kind of rationing to happen, the impact on our economies and lives will be massive (see above). And before I accept such consequences, I want to see clear and undeniable evidence based on scientific facts, not fuzzy guesswork.

* * *

An Airbus A380 lands in Munich, Germany, on 28th March 2007. In the proposed “low-carbon lifestyle”, trips with aircrafts will probably be a thing of the past for the majority of the people in the developed world.
Mark Zanzig/zettpress

If CO2 restrictions become reality, the beautiful harbour of Cala Figuera on the Spanish island Mallorca might see less tourists. WWF Germany has calculated the CO2 impact of a two-week trip to be 1221 kg of CO2 per person traveling. This would be about 43% of the annual allowance.
Mark Zanzig/zettpress

Tourists climb to the top of the Pyramid of the Sun at Teotihuacan, Mexico City. With CO2 budgets in place. a trip from the E.U. to Mexico would be out of the question – the CO2 impact of a two-week trip to Mexico is said to be 7218 kg of CO2 per person traveling, or two-and-a-half times as much as the annual allowance.
Mark Zanzig/zettpress

Deconstructs Global Warming

Merry Christmas!

Thursday, December 24th, 2009

Traditional Christmas in Germany on 26th December 1910
Unknown photographer (© The Zanzig Archive)

Yep – it’s Christmas. This year I pulled out a photo from the archives, a photo from an unknown photographer who captured a typical German Christmas in 1910, almost a century ago. What I find especially interesting is that Christmas has not that much changed since then. Sure, presents got bigger and more expensive since then, but the overall idea – to celebrate a memorable event for a big portion of mankind and to be thankful for the year that has passed – has not changed much.

We wish you a Merry Christmas 2009. May it be as peaceful for you as it is for us!