Climate Change Now Questioned At German Universities – Professors Speaking Up

The AGW religion in Germany is in deep trouble. Consensus is crumbling. the science is coming under attack.

It’s taken a awhile, but slowly and surely, Germany, once the premier power in science, is beginning to ask questions again. When lectures and seminars questioning climate science take place within academic circles and at German universities, then you know something is afoot.

Skeptic blog Readers Edition posted yesterday a clip of a seminar here by Professors Dr Klaus Landfried of Heidelberg and Dr Werner Kirstein of the Institute for Geography at the University of Leipzig before an audience at the University of Leipzig. The seminar is titled:

 “Where’s The Climate Change?”

Dr Kirstein opens the seminar and expresses his surprise that so many people are in attendance, some travelling from far away. The introductory part is then handed over to Professor Dr Klaus Landfried.

Professor Dr Landfried reminds us that a university is one of the few places in society where questions can be asked freely, where answers are searched, and then questioned again, and that without any restrictions, in an environment where debate is free.  Landfried says, “Religions have a hard time dealing with that.”

Landfried sets the tone of the seminar in no uncertain terms. This is a seminar that is absent of Rahmstorfian rules and Schellnhuber suppression.

At the 7:10 mark Dr Landfried slams any peer review process run by a good ol boys network.

In the world of science it is unavoidable, as humans are involved, that there are always attempts to portray truths as unacceptable, or to try to suppress them using methods that have nothing to do with science, and perhaps to even slander persons in an attempt shut them up. One method used here is to claim that everything that is good must go through peer review.

Dr Landfried delivers his speech forcefully, slamming peer review processes that involve a cartel of ideas, where some participants are excluded, and the others focus on concentrating their power. He reminds us that the misuse of peer review has always been a problem in science. Conflict in science is nothing new. For example, oncology has long been in bitter dispute.

At the 13-minute mark, Dr. Werner Kirstein starts his presentation. He addresses three main topics:

1. Are the IPCC model-based climate projections something to be taken seriously?
– uncertainties
– model deficiencies
– quotes Neils Bohr: “Prognoses are always problematic, especially when they look at the future.”

2. Sea level rise and glaciers
– Satellite photos show that Bangladesh is actually growing 20 sq km per year.
– Bangladesh land area is 44,000 sq km more than 10,000 years ago (4.4 sq km growth per year).
– Axel Mörner and Vincent Gray say the IPCC is corrupt.
– Rahmstorf projects 140 cm rise, Fred Singer 18 cm, the GFZ 2mm/yr, Mörner max. 20cm by 2100.
– North German coast: no detection of any acceleration in sea level rise.
– For the Pacific Micronesia, tectonics are at play.
– Islands on the Carolina Plate are sinking because the Carolina Plate is being forced down.
– Slams Rahmstorf’s and Schellnhuber’s Potsdam Institute for disinformation.
– Observations vs models, nature vs IPCC.
– Glaciers have retreated and advanced throughout time.
– In the last 10,000 years, glaciers have been smaller than they are today 2/3 of the time.
– Arctic ice is also within boundaries of natural variation.

3. The controversy and politics of climate change
Many meteorologists say about climate science: ” That’s political and has nothing to do with science.”
Dr. Kirstein: “Climate change? – That’s political and has nothing to do with normal science, it’s post-normal science.” With post-normal science, politics is at the forefront and science is just a tool to promote and drive “good” policy” by spreading fear and sticking to a dogma. In the early 1980s, “scientists” projected that all trees would die in Europe by 2005. Dr Kirstein then quotes Hans von Storch:

Climate science is not normal. It’s post-normal.

Post-normal science is always for a good cause or a political agenda. The target is to achieve de-industrialiasation – The Green Economy – The Great Transformation. The modus operandi: by spreading fear. Kirstein then quotes Maurice Strong, John Houghton, Stephen Schneider, and explains some of the recent and infamous PR scare campaigns. There’s even a Climate Change Hotel and tourism in Greenland where you can actually “see climate change taking place”.

After viewing Dr Kirstein’s presentation, it is absolutely no wonder that Hal Lewis called “climate science” the greatest fraud he’s ever seen. Dr Rahmstorf, Dr Schellnhuber, your sham is up.

19 thoughts on “Climate Change Now Questioned At German Universities – Professors Speaking Up”

  1. This is good news once again but it’s still a long way to go from this presentation to Merkel (who should know better and maybe does) and the EU aparatchiks who are even more corrupt than climate science.

    Fortunately France is also presenting a report soon with similar critics.

    In the mean time the consumer is told that “Green Energy” is….. cheap.
    Maybe we could clear them up by showing this is a scam too.

  2. EIKE recently published an analysis by Dr-Ing. H Alt that addresses the fantasy that pumped storage driven by wind power could fulfill Germany’s energy requirements during e.g. the typical 6-day lull in winds. It turns out that 3 cubic kilometres of water have to be pumped up to an altitude of about 3000 metres to store sufficient potential energy for hydro-electric recovery to power the nation during a lull — if no other source of energy is permitted.

    How much water is that? EIKE point to the Starnberger See, Germany’s 4th-largest, about 20 km (12 miles) long and almost 130 metres (425 ft) deep. Pumped to the top of Germany’s highest mountain, the Zugspitze.

    Calculations that anybody could replicate, using 10th-grade physics. Heretic science teachers are invited to engage their classes in the exercise. :-)

    Germany’s Chancellor has a PhD in physics. I don’t know if that’s irony or scandal.

    EIKE article:

    1. Hi Bernd,
      I read that too. Punping all that water to such an elevation entails additional energy losses. In total it’s one big ineffcient and costly concept. -PG.

      1. Now, Germany obviously can’t pump the Starnberger See up the Zugspitze – especially because we would first have to blow up the top; and we would have to change the name from Zugspitze to Zugstumpfe.

        But apart from that, pumped storage delivers an overall efficiency of 85% – only batteries and supercapacitors can do better. In this respect, it’s the only viable storage technology for *big* amounts of energy ATM – big meaning GWh.

        For instance, the hydrogen cycle using current electrolysis and fuel cell technolgies ends up with a total cycle efficiency of 10%. We will probably be able to improve on that, but that’s the state of non-experimental technologies ATM.

        So don’t discount pumped storage. Norway, Switzerland and Austria have a lot of it, and they make money this way – they buy energy from the spot market when it’s cheap and sell it back when the prize is high – this is exactly the business case for *any* energy storage.

        1. DirkH,

          I read a while ago that Switzerland’s capacity for more pumped storage is quite limited. Sorry, can’t remember where I read that off the top of my head. Basically, without building massive reservoirs (to which the environmentalists object), there isn’t a lot of storage available.

          I was in Austria in May 1999, down on the Wörthersee where it was a comfortable 25°C or so. I decided to take a drive into the mountains as I’d already paid for the privilege and it seemed like a good idea.

          The first destination was the Maltatal’s Kölnbreinsperre; a reservoir that’s about 200 metres deep with its base at 1750m above mean sea level. It acts as pumped storage from another reservoir at 1300m.

          However, on that day there wasn’t a great deal of liquid water behind the wall. There was lots of ice. And it was bitterly cold with sleet and snow so I didn’t stick around for long.

          This would seem to present a problem with pumped storage at higher altitude; seasonal reductions in overall capacity.

          Practicalities also mean that intermediate pump reservoirs are required to raise the water the requisite 2500 metres to the necessary 10 km diameter concrete saucer atop the Zugstummel.

          What also goes unsaid is that the capacity to fill the pumped storage must also be guaranteed. i.e. average wind power capacity must be sufficient to refill depleted storage between lulls (as well as meet direct demand) and there must be enough water available to pump.

          If the problem were moved to e.g. Switzerland and Lake Lucerne (11 cubic km) used as the source and Lake Constance as the “drain”, then there’s only 34 metres of “head”; but the volume of water isnot nearly enough. One could dam the valley of the Reuss above Lake Lucerne around Wassen and flood Andermatt, etc to a depth of 300 metres (1700m altitude or thereabouts) so that only 24 cubic km of storage is required, but the locals might object. Especially when you start draining the Lakes during windy periods after a lull to recharge the storage.

          And you’d wreck it for tourists like me who’ve enjoyed the Gothardstrasse. http://www.vimeo.com/1180021

  3. One thing with your article P Gosselin:

    Dr. Werner Kirstein is quoting others. He states repeatedly and emphatically that he’s quoting others. Dr. Kirstein is not yet retired.

    IMHO, that says as much to the matter of the corruption of science by politics as anything that he quotes.

    It illustrates that the places of higher education aren’t in practice the venues for open and frank discussions (without risk of repercussions), as the portrayed by the (hopeful?) remarks of Dr. Landfried.

    (Meanwhile, I’m transcoding the video to DVD for casual viewing by innocent bystanders.)

  4. A very good lecture; nothing new to me, but i think the many Germans who haven’t been exposed to WUWT and the likes will hear all of this for the first time.

    In the end, nature will make the current green narrative crumble; and the Greens will adapt their narrative. It is already visible: the German Greens are riding high on the old anti-nuclear narrative, and internationally, the WWF boasts we’ll need a second Earth by 2030… so all their current activities avoid climate change already like it’s poisoned.

    I think it’s roadkill already.

  5. Did you guy’s know that Austria and Switzerland are buying cheap coal generated electricity from German plants to pump water in their lakes and later sell this “hydoelectric power as “Green Power” on the German market.

    If this isn’t a fraud I don’t know what is.

  6. Pierre I watched this scam on Dutch television about green energy scams that can be found anywhere:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/13/the-insanity-of-greenery/

    There is also a study that found the lakes and reservoirs used to generate hydro electric power emit massive amounts of Methane and Co2.

    The time has come to pull the plug on the entire AGW scam because it’s going to bankrupt us and it promotes the green energy mafia.

    For this you only have to see what has happened with the European Carbon Trading System where 90% of the cashed credits have been identified as fraud based.

    Our elderly and the low income families pay the price.

    Energy poverty is on the rise all over Europe.

    It’s a scam, it’s a scam, it’s a scam

  7. Nice slap on Mr Bolt’s wrist, Pierre. Perhaps he’ll take note. If not I’ll hassle him with “Copy-gate” claims. 😉

    Too much content quoted without explicit attribution following up on the tease I left in his daily tips.

    People are supposed to either see who wrote it directly or click on the link from some “tease-text” to see the source. It’s like seeing the headline in a newspaper.

    What I find inconsistent in BoltA’s blog is that he freely links to foreign-language content (i.e. the video in this case); yet snips such content from links, even if the links are substantial to readers’ comments being posted. I guess that may be the result of lawyers running the mainstream media and moderators being whipped into timid compliance beyond reason.

    I’d estimate that 98% of his blog’s readership wouldn’t understand the video’s content as it doesn’t look like he’s put in the effort to add English subtitles. Well; that’s about a week’s work that’s not going to happen.
    —————————-
    Reply: How long has Bolt been around? I’d think he ought to know better by now. I’m quite surprised. Maybe he was in a hurry. He still hasn’t mentioned the source directly. I guess he wants to tango.-PG

  8. Stanislaw Lem, the writer of “Solaris”, had written a brilliant novel “The Use of a dragon”. If you know German, you should find it as “Vom Nutzen des Drachen”. This novel describes above CO2 – farce perfectly.

Comments are closed.