I think some people are not aware of, or seriously underestimate, Germany’s contribution to this global warmist movement. It really isn’t scientific at all. It’s purely political. Science (junk science) is just one of the engines they use to propel it.
A reader brought my attention to an interview with Hartmut Grassl at the leftwing newspaper TAZ in Berlin. Grassl is one of the grand-daddies of the German global warming movement.
He was the Director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology (MPI), a member of the Enquête Commission, a main Kyoto Protocal player, director of climate research programs at the World Meteorological Organization, board member of the über-alarmist Munich Re re-insurer and also the Academy of Sciences in Hamburg. He’s kind of like the German version of Stephen Schneider.
Here’s how this seemingly distinguished individual views the growing scepticism (answers from the TAZ interview paraphrased).
On handling sceptics (paraphrased):
Have they ever published anything? In 99% of the cases, that’s already the end of the debate – their literature has nothing to do with science.
What motivates the sceptics (paraphrased)?
Some get money from oil companies. Others are just people who are against everything. I used to try to convince them with scientific arguments, but it was hopeless. When I get e-mails from them they are highly aggressive and filled with exclamation points and sentences in block letters.
On Climategate (paraphrased)
They were released just before Copenhagen. They always get real loud before major conferences. In the USA the sceptics have been traditionally strong; a lot of money flows in part from the oil industry.
On storms and exaggerations (recall he is a board member at Munich Re!):
One also has to say that people who exaggerate climate change are not helpful. Some environmental organisations even claim that climate change leads to more storms.”
Are there any credible sceptics? (paraphrased)
Yes, but very few. Richard Lindzen from MIT in Boston for example: He doesn’t dispute CO2’s greenhouse gas, but doubts the feedback effects. The climate models have probably gotten better as a result of his critique. But, the debate over his objections is pretty much over.
On Henrik Svensmark
Also Svensmark has been refuted a number of times. But scientists are often unable to let go of worn out theories, especially their own.”
What about the geologists?
Of course there have been temperature rises of 4 to 5 °C over periods of 10,000 years. But today we are talking about a warming of 2 to 3°C within 100 years!
There you have it. Sounds like our reader Dana doesn’t he? I mean that in a friendly way. I really like his answer about Svensmark. It’s kind of like the black pot insisting the white porcelain vase is black.
And shall we add a few more exclamation marks to the last statement and put it in block letters as well? Which 100 years is he talking about anyway? The computer model-fantasy century?
Just for the record, so far in this observed century the temperature has risen 0°C. plus or minus a few hundredths.
Expected climate warming: +1.5 to +5.5°C.
This century’s trend so far: – 0.2°C.
I think I’m going to post “This Century’s Trend So Far” every month.
But in the future I will not cheat. and use instead UAH and RSS, which below shows a slight warming of about 0.6°C per century, well below the IPCC scenarios.