09 February 2012

Rethinking Climate Doom in Germany: Chaos in Climate Camp

One of the fathers of Germany’s modern green movement, Professor Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt, a social democrat and green activist, decided to author a climate science skeptical book together with geologist/paleontologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning. Vahrenholt’s skepticism started when he was asked to review an IPCC report on renewable energy. He found hundreds of errors. When he pointed them out, IPCC officials simply brushed them aside. Stunned, he asked himself, “Is this the way they approached the climate assessment reports?”

Vahrenholt decided to do some digging. His colleague Dr. Lüning also gave him a copy of Andrew Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusion. He was horrified by the sloppiness and deception he found. Persuaded by Hoffmann & Campe, he and Lüning decided to write the book. Die kalte Sonne cites 800 sources and has over 80 charts and figures. It examines and summarizes the latest science. _No Tricks Zone
Germany's climate community is in turmoil as one of its leading leftist environmentalists is vocally rejecting the IPCC climate orthodoxy in a new bestselling climate expose', Die Kalte Sonne.
Germany’s Top Environmentalist Turns Climate Sceptic, saying
“I couldn’t take it any more. I had to write this book.”

Doubt came two years ago when he was an expert reviewer of an IPCC report on renewable energy. “I discovered numerous errors and asked myself if the other IPCC reports on climate were similarly sloppy.”
“THE CO2 LIES … pure fear-mongering … should we blindly trust the experts?”

That’s what Germany’s leading daily Bild (see photo) wrote in its print and online editions today, on the very day that renowned publisher Hoffmann & Campe officially released a skeptic book – one written by a prominent socialist and environmental figure.

This is huge. More than I ever could have possibly imagined. And more is coming in the days ahead! The Bild piece was just the first of a series.

Mark this as the date that Germany’s global warming movement took a massive body blow. _WattsUpWithThat
SPIEGEL: You are an electric utility executive by profession. What prompted you to get involved in climatology?

Vahrenholt: In my experience as an energy expert, I learned that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is more of a political than a scientific body. As a rapporteur on renewable energy, I witnessed how thin the factual basis is for predictions that are made at the IPCC. In one case, a Greenpeace activist's absurd claim that 80 percent of the world's energy supply could soon be coming from renewable sources was assumed without scrutiny. This prompted me to examine the IPCC report more carefully.

SPIEGEL: And what was your conclusion?

Vahrenholt: The long version of the IPCC report does mention natural causes of climate change, like the sun and oscillating ocean currents. But they no longer appear in the summary for politicians. They were simply edited out. To this day, many decision-makers don't know that new studies have seriously questioned the dominance of CO2. CO2 alone will never cause a warming of more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) by the end of the century. Only with the help of supposed amplification effects, especially water vapor, do the computers arrive at a drastic temperature increase. I say that global warming will remain below two degrees by the end of the century. This is an eminently political message, but it's also good news.

SPIEGEL: You make concrete statements on how much human activity contributes to climatic events and how much of a role natural factors play. Why don't you publish your prognoses in a professional journal?

Vahrenholt: Because I don't engage in my own climate research. Besides, I don't have a supercomputer in my basement. For the most part, my co-author, geologist Sebastian Lüning, and I merely summarize what scientists have published in professional journals -- just as the IPCC does. The book is also a platform for scientists who apply good arguments in diverging from the views of the IPCC. The established climate models have failed across the board because they cannot cogently explain the absence of warming.

SPIEGEL: You claim that the standstill has to do with the sun. What makes you so sure?

Vahrenholt: In terms of the climate, we have seen a cyclical up and down for the last 7,000 years, long before man began emitting CO2 into the atmosphere. There has been a warming phase every 1,000 years, including the Roman, the Medieval and the current warm periods. All of these warm periods consistently coincided with strong solar activity. In addition to this large fluctuation in activity, there is also a 210-year and an 87-year natural cycle of the sun. Ignoring these would be a serious mistake …

SPIEGEL: … but solar researchers are still in disagreement over whether the cycles you mention actually exist. What do you think this means for the future?

Vahrenholt: In the second half of the 20th century, the sun was more active than it had been in more than 2,000 years. This "large solar maximum," as astronomers call it, has contributed at least as much to global warming as the greenhouse gas CO2. But the sun has been getting weaker since 2005, and it will continue to do so in the next few decades. Consequently, we can only expect cooling from the sun for now. _DerSpiegel
We are supposed to be willing to relinquish control of our economies and our lives to a cabal of fudgy computer modelers and their kleptocratic bureaucracies. We are supposed to risk the backbone of industry -- energy and power -- on green schemes of big wind and big solar, which are clearly unable to reliably and affordably support modern power grid demands. We are supposed to be willing to hand over hundreds of billions of dollars for "climate reparations" to the third world on the basis of little more than hand-waving and bombastic claims of doom. And we are supposed to do all that based on faith in people who consistently refuse to provide transparency into their methods and data.

More people are waking up. In the end, it is likely that there will be a reckoning.


The cracking climate consensus

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share


Blogger AWED.org said...

If you read the entire interview with DerSpiegel, it sounds more like a Nazi interrogation that a journalistic interview.


Friday, 10 February, 2012  
Blogger al fin said...

Yes. But that is to be expected, given how the money generally flows in the skankstream media of Europe and North America.

The thug-monkeys of the skankstream media typically try to establish dominance from the beginning.

In the end, the joke will be on them.

Friday, 10 February, 2012  
Blogger FeignMan said...

This Vahrenholt guy might be right and the mainstream media might be acting out of political agendas (like they always do) but the smoke and the smog does still irritate me no end. And pollution might not mean the end of us, one would be hard-pressed to defend it against ANY non-polluting energy source. Maybe you live in the west with a population density of a few hundrerd/sq kilometer. I live in India, and when there's so many of us to deal with, you can really feel the dirt. In fact, I'm not sure technology is any good if it has to come at this price.

Wednesday, 25 July, 2012  

Post a Comment

“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act” _George Orwell

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts