German article: sceptics are "like viruses"

Fritz Vahrenholt

UPDATE: Un-Skeptical Pseudo-Science smears Vahrenholt with one of its usual smug cut-and-paste jobs from IPCC AR4,  dismissing any possible solar influence on climate other than TSI. See? The science is settled when you cover your eyes and shut your ears! Yawn. How they loathe it when one of their own turns on them. Link – Webcite only, not giving them any of my traffic.

Once again, I suppose we should be pleased that those who attack sceptics have no arguments whatsoever, and resort to name calling and bizarre explanations as to why anyone could possibly be a climate heretic. These poor souls are so brainwashed that they have lost the ability to reason logically, so instead they flail wildly around, searching for any possible excuse. So much less effort than responding to the sceptics’ points.

We have seen this before. Here, from 2009, is a response to the claim that sceptics were mentally ill:

The idea that ‘climate change denial’ is a psychological disorder – the product of a spiteful, wilful or simply in-built neural inability to face up to the catastrophe of global warming – is becoming more and more popular amongst green-leaning activists and academics. And nothing better sums up the elitism and authoritarianism of the environmentalist lobby than its psychologisation of dissent.

The labelling of any criticism of the politics of global warming, first as ‘denial’, and now as evidence of mass psychological instability, is an attempt to write off all critics and sceptics as deranged, and to lay the ground for inevitable authoritarian solutions to the problem of climate change.

Historically, only the most illiberal and misanthropic regimes have treated disagreement and debate as signs of mental ill-health.

And again from 2009, here:

CSIRO’s former climate director, Dr Graeme Pearman, suffered a personal crisis after confronting this question before deciding to study psychology, which he describes as the new frontier in climate change:

“Behavioural issues are likely to be much more important than the development of improved descriptions of exactly what happens or might happen to the climate. These are the main barriers to the actions that are needed.”

So we shouldn’t be surprised when a recent article in Germany likens sceptics, including Fritz Vahrenholt, author of The Cold Sun, to “viruses”. Petra Döll, lead author for IPCC AR5 WG2, Part A, Chapter 3, freshwater resources (see here – PDF), claims climate sceptics “should no longer be heard”. Vahrenholt responds:

The attitude of refusal by the IPCC with respect to open scientific discussion and debate is now conspicuous. This is demomstrated by IPCC lead author Dr. Petra Döll in the German online taz in claiming that “climate skeptics” no longer need to be heard. Indeed it is questionable just how long this weird scientific approach can be maintained. Should we not expect a professional demeanor from scientists who are paid and supported by German tax revenue? Döll’s dubious reasoning: The climate skeptics ”just keep repeating the same arguments”.  

Could it be that the so-called climate skeptics are forced to keep repeating because the current climate science establishment has yet to provide a satisfactory answer? There’s a lot that indicates this is the case. An assessment of the media one week after the launch of the book “Die kalte Sonne” has clearly shown: The media are relying on a hand-full of prominent experts whose arguments are showing to be everything but scientifically convincing. The statements of many experts and activist editors are characterized by misrepresentations, intentional omissions and errors.

There’s much more at No Tricks Zone.

IPCC "ignores an entire field of science"

Rotten to the core

Why should that surprise anyone? The IPCC isn’t a scientific organisation, impartially sifting through and collating the current state of climate research to seek the truth, it is a political one, established for the sole purpose of finding evidence to support a pre-determined conclusion reached back in the 1980s, namely that man-made CO2 was causing dangerous climate change.

Why else would the IPCC include acres of grey literature, the majority of it from environmental advocacy groups, and the majority of it tending to make the case against CO2 stronger, yet exclude much peer-reviewed (for what that’s worth) research which questions the influence of CO2 relative to other factors? Why else would virtually every error discovered in the IPCC reports tend to exaggerate the seriousness of the crisis? Why else would many lead authors be permitted to be closely involved with environmental organisations like WWF and Friends of the Earth whilst carrying out their duties for the IPCC? Why else would Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the IPCC, be seen regularly advocating particular policy outcomes, such as reduction of emissions, which assume a particular scientific conclusion?

When one stops deluding oneself that the IPCC is a scientific organisation and appreciates that it is a political organisation, rotten to the core, all the above make perfect sense.

In Germany, where the sceptic movement has received considerable publicity over the past week or so, thanks to Fritz Vahrenholt’s new book, The Cold Sun, newspaper Die Welt publishes a damning indictment of the IPCC, in an editorial entitled Climate science is the new replacement religion:

Very few people have recognised that in the research that Vahrenholt und Lüning are referring to has nothing to do with the irradiative heating of the sun, which indeed does not fluctuate much, but with the solar winds which are increasingly shown to have an indirect impact on cloud formation, and thus influence the climate.

The IPCC has looked at this on the fringes and have determined that this research – which the renwoned CERN institute and others are carrying out -– is not far enough to allow conclusions to be drawn.

That may or may not be the case. But the fact remains that the IPCC, which is responsible for bringing the scientists together, still has not gotten the idea to invite these scientists for its large climate reports. Why not? After all it’s the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and not the Intergovernmental Panel on CO2.”

As No Tricks Zone goes on to say:

The positive feedbacks ASSUMED for CO2 with respect to water vapour are also very poorly understood. Yet the IPCC has no problems inflating those and including them in their climate reports.

Source link from No Tricks Zone.

Google Translate version of Die Welt editorial is here.

Varhrenholt: "I feel duped on climate change"

Fritz Vahrenholt

More spectacular publicity from Germany for a high profile convert to scepticism. We posted on Fritz Vahrenholt, and his book, “The Cold Sun”, at the end of last month. Now Spiegel Online carries an interview with the renewable energy executive and former global warming disciple:

SPIEGEL: Do you seriously believe that all 2,000 scientists involved in the IPCC are deluded or staying true to the official line?

Vahrenholt: It’s not like that. However, I am critical of the role played by the handful of lead authors who take on the final editing of the report. They claim that they are using 18,000 publications evaluated by their peers. But 5,000 of them are so-called gray literature, which are not peer-reviewed sources. These mistakes come out in the end, just like the absurd claim that there will no longer be any glaciers in the Himalayas in 30 years. Such exaggerations don’t surprise me. Of the 34 supposedly independent members who write the synthesis report for politicians, almost a third are associated with environmental organizations like Greenpeace or the WWF. Strange, isn’t it?

SPIEGEL: Why are you taking on the role of the climate rebel with such passion? Where does this rage come from?

Vahrenholt: For years, I disseminated the hypotheses of the IPCC, and I feel duped. Renewable energy is near and dear to me, and I’ve been fighting for its expansion for more than 30 years. My concern is that if citizens discover that the people who warn of a climate disaster are only telling half the truth, they will no longer be prepared to pay higher electricity costs for wind and solar (energy). Then the conversion of our energy supply will lack the necessary acceptance.

SPIEGEL: If we take your book to its logical conclusion, it will be unnecessary to reduce CO2 emissions at all.

Vahrenholt: No. Even a temperature increase of only one degree would be a noticeable change. But I am indeed saying that climate change is manageable because the cooling effects of the sun and the ocean currents give us enough time to prepare. In any case, it will be easy for us in Germany to adjust.

SPIEGEL: So, is it a mistake to concentrate exclusively on the reduction of carbon dioxide?

Vahrenholt: Yes. In addition to carbon dioxide, we also have black soot, for example. It creates 55 percent of the warming effect of CO2, but it could be filtered out with little effort within a few years, especially in emerging and developing countries. And, in doing so, we would achieve huge benefits for human health.

Read it all here.

%d bloggers like this: