Continued Crumbling Consensus: Austrian Space Research Institute Director Baumjohann Says Sun Cannot Be Ignored!

More bad news for the catastrophe-insisting climate alarmists who claim 95% of climate change is due to 0.04% trace gas CO2. Yet another prominent scientist, this one a big-league heavy hitter, has expressed serious doubt on CO2’s sole dominance during a recent interview. The once much ballyhooed consensus keeps falling apart.

Professor Wolfgang Baumjohann, Director of the Institute for Space Research of the Austrian Academy of Sciences. Graz, Austria. (Photo credit: Sissi Furgler)

Professor Wolfgang Baumjohann, Director of the Institute for Space Research of the Austrian Academy of Sciences, one of the world’s heavyweights in physics, gave an interview with the online Austrian flagship daily Der Standard here. Hat-tip:

The interview was in part to get his opinion on Fritz Vahrenholt’s and Sebastian Lüning’s bestselling skeptic book Die kalte Sonne, which has been creating a row within the scientific community throughout Germany and Europe since it was released earlier this month.

When asked about the role of solar activity on the Earth’s climate and whether Vahrenholt’s claims were nonsense, Baumjohann said:

There’s not a serious scientist claiming that CO2 emissions can be neglected. However, one cannot say that it’s the sole reason for global warming when it is obvious that increased solar activity correlates. One has to take that into account. When the solar dynamo runs more strongly, then a warming is logical.”


One seriously has to separate all the various cycles and make comparisons to see just how strongly solar activity impacts the climate.”

Actually, Vahrenholt and Lüning did precisely just that in their book. And the data that is available now show a clear, indisputable correlation. Here Baumjohann would likely have used much bolder words had he read that section of the book. Or maybe he’s just being diplomatic.

On the subject of cosmic rays and weakening magnetic fields (h/t: DirkH) Baumjohann is completely open to Svensmark’s theory and does not disguise that the theory is entirely plausible and just comes out and says that they directly impact the Earth’s climate (emphasis added):

Indeed, more cosmic rays and more solar particles would hit the top of the atmosphere – and this would have direct implications for our weather. We can’t tell yet whether these will be positive or negative consequences. Long term, climatic changes depend on cosmic rays and their influences on cloudiness.”

This is as major an endorsement as you’ll ever get!

We’ll remind readers that Vahrenholt in no way neglects CO2 as a factor. He is being chastised for cutting it down to size as a climate driver, saying that it is likely responsible for up to half of last century’s warming. But he dismisses that we are headed for an imminent catastrophe.

Note how Baumjohann contradicts Max Plank Institute Director Jochem Marotzke, who never even bothered to read Vahrenholt’s book, and who remains stuck on pre-AR4 science, i.e. focusing only on total solar irradiance and thus insisting the sun has not played any important role over the last century.

Baumjohann adds:

Us humans certainly know what life-giving energy the sun holds. Everyone feels it in the springtime. That’s a really personal experience.”

The latter part of the interview looks at the Earth’s magnetic field and the financing of scientific institutes.

Baumjohann’s Career Summary here


Judy Curry: IPCC Might Have Outlived Its Usefulness – Climate Scientists Have Lost Touch With The Public has conducted a very interesting interview with the well known climatologist Judith Curry, who runs the excellent Climate Etc. blogsite.

You’ll recall that Professor Curry was once a staunch AGW proponent. Later the scientific evidence cooled her down to lukewarm.

The interview is balanced and readers may be interested in reading about Judith’s concerns for climate science, how climate change is affecting the planet, reasons for the increase in scepticism and why climate scientists have lost touch with the public.

The IPCC might have outlived its usefulness. Let’s see what the next assessment report comes up with. But we are getting diminishing returns from these assessments, and they take up an enormous amount of scientists’ time.”

You can read the full interview at: An-Interview-with-Judith-Curry.

Some of Judy’s quotes:

Because of recent criticisms of the IPCC and a growing understanding that the climate system is not easily understood, an increasing number of scientists are becoming emboldened to challenge some of the basic conclusions of the IPCC, and I think this is a healthy thing for the science.”

and on the IPCC:

…we put the CO2 stabilization policy ‘cart’ way before the scientific horse.”

and on the green industrial complex (emphasis added):

Yet, we have allowed it to dictate global policy and form a trillion dollar green industrial complex – all without applying a single quality system, without a single performance standard for climate models, without a single test laboratory result and without a single national independent auditor or regulator. It all lives only in the well known inbred, fad-driven world of peer review.

You can read the full interview at: An-Interview-with-Judith-Curry


Vahrenholt’s & Lüning’s Skeptic Book Marks A Tipping Point – The End Of Climate Consensus In Germany

Last week parts of Germany’s media were reporting on the latest (again) alarmist findings of the Max Planck Institute (MPI), which announced that the Arctic was melting faster than expected, and that its latest model scenarios projected an ice-free Arctic in the summertime by the middle of the 21st century and, should CO2 emissions continue their rise, the Arctic would also be ice-free in the wintertime.

The Arctic is melting faster than expected, alarmist Max Planck Institute claims (US Navy photo)

But today something is different. Back just a couple of years ago, media coverage of such announcements in Germany were far more intense and spectacular. Not so today. Fewer media are turning up for the weekly end-of-world press conferences. Major media outlets are gradually losing interest in the fading climate catastrophe. Indeed it’s as if some are realizing that something is rotten in Germany’s once prestigious climate science institutes – and in those around the world.

For example, top selling German daily Bild did not even bother to feature the MPI’s Arctic meltdown press conference. Instead Bild featured a story on how clouds have been getting lower and that a negative feedback seems to be in play and is acting to cool the planet.

German flagship news magazine Spiegel also skipped reporting on the MPI doom and gloom crystal ball model findings, at least online up to now. Instead it featured a story on the Gleick stolen identity and document theft scandal in the USA, thus further tarnishing the already soiled image of climate science today.

So when Bild newspaper and Spiegel shift gears and change directions, then it’s undoubtedly a worrisome development for those on-board for the climate catastrophe joyride. Gone are the days of universal, lock-step media consensus.

Germany’s movement of skepticism started some years ago, and then picked up steam in 2009 in the wake of the Climategate emails and Germany’s 2nd international skeptic climate conference. A series of brutal winters, combined with weird Politburo-type explanations claiming it was caused by warming, provided yet more fertile ground for the seeds of skepticism. German skeptic blogs also sprouted and coordinated. The Internet buzzed with skepticism and before you knew it, the global warming establishment began having fits about the budding open discussion.

Then came Vahrenholt and Lüning.

Bild Feb. 6 page 2 story.

And with them a mushroom cloud. On February 6, influential Hamburg-based publisher Hoffmann & Campe released a skeptic book called “Die kalte Sonne” – on what happened to be Germany’s coldest day of the winter. The release of the book also coincided with Bild’s smashing page 2 story “CO2 Lies – Renowed Team of Scientists Catastrophe Is Panic Mongering” and Spiegel’s “We’re Being Fooled” interview with Vahrenholt.

Die Welt newspaper followed the next day with a full page report called “The Sun is Giving Us Time“. In no time Vahrenholt’s and Lüning’s book became a bestseller. The grand climate gig was over.

Even more revealing was the reaction of the German environmental press and the alarmist climate institutes. Jochem Marotzke, director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg slammed the book, but did so without even reading it. So did Mojib Latif. Both claimed that the book’s line of argumentation had long since been dispelled. But this was a ridiculous claim since the book’s conclusion is based in large part on the latest scientific findings, which are now just in the process of being discussed. The few other counter arguments that they offered were of pre-IPCC AR4 nature. They fully neglected solar amplification mechanisms and ocean cycles. Horrifying is the appearance that these renown scientists are not even aware of historical climate cycles.

Lüning recently wrote that he had expected much tougher counter argumentation and is surprised that it’s been so easy so far.

Hartmut Grassl, former Director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, took on an indignant attitude in a TV interview, refusing to even acknowledge the book and insisting his catastrophe fantasy is real.

The University of Osnabrück even cancelled a scheduled speech by Vahrenholt at the last minute, saying it wasn’t interested in his kind of discussion – calling it “provocative”. One student later told me that she found the University’s reaction strange and had nothing to do with expanding knowledge.

Today these institutes wonder why influential media like Spiegel and Bild are no longer bothering to report on their science. It’s not surprising – you can hear “We’re right, and we don’t want to discuss it!” only so many times before you lose interest altogether.


EU Emissions Law: Will The EU Be Allowed To Boss The Rest Of The World Around?

It’s not a well known fact but it’s pretty much just the EU and a few other activists scattered across the rest of the world who are supporters of forcing CO2 emissions reductions through binding greenhouse gas emission treaties. Indeed about 86% of the world opposes binding, Kyoto-type treaties, and so disagree with the remaining 14% fringe EU minority.

Europe’s emissions law threatening trade war. Photo: Alan Radecki (Akradecki)

Countries like India, China and Russia only support such treaties if they themselves are exempt from compliance and if the US isn’t.

The EU has decided to defy the vast global majority and is now demanding that all airlines flying into or from its territory purchase GHG emission permits. Furious, 23 countries (among them China, USA, Russia, India, etc.) convened in Moscow last week and signed a joint declaration expressing their disapproval and threatening the EU with a trade war should it continue to defy international will.

Read more here in English at,1518,817426,00.html


IPCC Investigator Laframboise: “Numerous IPCC Scientists With WWF Connections…IPCC Has Been Compromised”

Donna Laframboise attended the 4th International Climate and Energy Conference in Munich, Germany last November, and granted an interview with Achgut.TV here.

Die kalte Sonne 3 from Tim Maxeiner on Vimeo.

We know that one third of the 34 authors of the IPCC summary report are connected to either Greenpeace or the WWF. Professor Fritz Vahrenholt, author of the bestselling German skeptic book Die kalte Sonne, brought this up in a recent interview:

It is indeed interesting that of the 34 members of the IPCC editorial team that wrote the summary report, one third are connected to the WWF and Greenpeace. That is legitimate, but that has to be made transparent. Imagine just the opposite and the editorial team were one third Exxon supporters. Wouldn’t people say: ’Hello! Is that really necessary?’”

Can activists be trusted to make objective judgements?

In a court of law, the guilt of the accused person is not decided exclusively by the prosecution or by the defense. To decide on guilt, we need an objective jury to weigh the evidence. And the accused never gets put away “just to be on the safe side”.

Humanity is on the dock when it comes to climate change, but 2 things are missing in the climate court: 1) a chance for the defense to present its case unobstructed and 2) an objective jury. So far we’ve had neither. In fact it could be argued that in some cases all we’ve seen so far is an angry lynch mob donning green pillow cases and armed with phony evidence, pitchforks, clubs, and torches.


Veteran Meteorologist Klaus Eckhart Puls: “Goodbye Warming – Hello Cooling”. From Wrong Science To Fraud Science

German veteran meteorologist Klaus Eckhart Puls writes a piece at the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE) on what he calls the “glaring contradiction between IPCC prognoses and reality”. Rather than increasing 0.2°C per decade, global temperatures over the past decade have actually declined.

Global mean temperature hasn’t risen in over 10 years. (Chart K.E. Puls)

Warmist Max Planck Institute now in a state of panic

Since Fritz Vahrenholt’s and Sebastian Lüning’s skeptic book “Die kalte Sonne” has become a German bestseller, major German climate institutes have gone in a state of panic to salvage global warming scenarios. They refuse to acknowledge that observed data deviate completely from their model projections. Instead they have undertaken a massive campaign to feed the media panic machine by unveiling their “latest model projections” which shows the planet is warming rapidly. However, the observed trends tell the opposite story.

The Max Plank Institute (MPI) for Climate Research in Hamburg and the Alfred Wegener Institute in Bremen last week went on a professional media blitz, claiming that temperatures are going to climb faster than ever and that the Arctic ice cap will melt – all based on their latest computer models, which will become part of the IPCC 5th Assessment Report. Why do they ignore reality and real observed data and focus on crystal ball projections?

Puls writes:

The most beautiful catastrophe from the computer crystal ball – the so called climate model – is always juicier than the arduous look at reality, which looks entirely different.”

Puls makes his point using charts from observed data and trends. Here I will present only the global data charts. Here’s what the Daily Mail said a month ago (see blue text in chart):

Here’s the global trend over the last 10 years:

Falling global temperatures (Chart: K.E. Puls)

The above chart is from data from the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia – a leading provider of climate data to the IPCC. Where’s the warming catastrophe? Answer: in the climate crystal balls of the Max Planck Institute and others only, and nowhere else!

Modellers ignore natural factors sun and oceans, massively inflate CO2

So why do their models continue to produce only warming? It is because the modellers are deliberately ignoring major climate driving factors such as ocean cycles, solar cycles and their amplification mechanisms, and wrongfully transfering their respective warming effects over to human-emitted CO2. Volumes of data and the trends of the last 15 years show this is wrong to do – but they continue to intentionally do it anyway.

From wrong science to fraud science

Deliberately ignoring the major natural factors while wildly exaggerating another, despite the volumes of data out there, has been going on in the IPCC models for years now. We’ve seen the culture of deception in the Hockey Stick, Al Gore’s exaggerated AIT, Climategate, Hansen’s adjustments and just recently with the behavior of Peter Gleick. With every passing year, scientists have noticed the widening deviation between their models and reality, yet they continue to ignore the major factors of sun, oceans and soot, and they manipulate the models even more to make CO2 appear as the culprit.

This systematic fudging and manipulation of models is increasingly fitting the definitions of criminal fraud. Unless the IPCC changes its course and starts acknowledging the sun, oceans and soot in its models in its next report, then the public will have grounds to sue them for fraud in a class action suit. The sheer weight of the data showing that the sun, oceans, etc. have considerable impacts is overwelming and can no longer be ignored in good faith.

A society the feels defrauded needs to start taking the legal steps to begin moving the case forward. It can be argued that the line between wrong science and fraud science was crossed long ago and that the hand of justice needs to intervene.

German readers can read more about Klaus-Eckhart Puls’s piece at EIKE here and “Die kalte Sonne, here“.


NASA Data Show Clouds Are Losing Altitude – “May Represent A Negative Feedback Mechanism” – Confirms Lindzen

NASA has recently issued a press release, here. A recent study by Davies & Molloy (2012) appearing in the Geophysical Research Letters shows that clouds have gotten lower over the first decade of this century. Hat tip: Die kalte Sonne.

Data from NASA's MISR instrument show that global average cloud height declined by about 1 percent over the decade from 2000 to 2010, (Source: NASA)

Here’s the NASA press release (emphasis added):

February 21, 2012

Earth’s clouds got a little lower — about one percent on average — during the first decade of this century, finds a new NASA-funded university study based on NASA satellite data. The results have potential implications for future global climate.

Scientists at the University of Auckland in New Zealand analyzed the first 10 years of global cloud-top height measurements (from March 2000 to February 2010) from the Multi-angle Imaging SpectroRadiometer (MISR) instrument on NASA’s Terra spacecraft. The study, published recently in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, revealed an overall trend of decreasing cloud height. Global average cloud height declined by around one percent over the decade, or by around 100 to 130 feet (30 to 40 meters). Most of the reduction was due to fewer clouds occurring at very high altitudes.

Lead researcher Roger Davies said that while the record is too short to be definitive, it provides a hint that something quite important might be going on. Longer-term monitoring will be required to determine the significance of the observation for global temperatures.

A consistent reduction in cloud height would allow Earth to cool to space more efficiently, reducing the surface temperature of the planet and potentially slowing the effects of global warming. This may represent a negative feedback mechanism a change caused by global warming that works to counteract it. “We don’t know exactly what causes the cloud heights to lower,” says Davies. “But it must be due to a change in the circulation patterns that give rise to cloud formation at high altitude.”

NASA’s Terra spacecraft is scheduled to continue gathering data through the remainder of this decade. Scientists will continue to monitor the MISR data closely to see if this trend continues.

For more information, visit:

MISR, built and managed by NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., is one of five instruments on NASA’s Terra spacecraft, launched in December 1999. The instrument uses nine cameras at different angles to produce a stereo image of clouds around the globe, allowing measurement of their altitude and movement. For more on MISR, visit: . For more on Terra, visit: .

Another NASA mission that studies clouds is NASA’s CloudSat, also built by JPL and launched in 2006. CloudSat is the first satellite that uses an advanced radar to “slice” through clouds to see their vertical structure, providing a completely new observational capability from space. CloudSat’s primary goal is to furnish data needed to evaluate and improve the way clouds are represented in global models, thereby contributing to better predictions of clouds and thus to their poorly understood role in climate change and the cloud-climate feedback. For information on NASA’s CloudSat mission, visit: and”

Cooling is the result of warming? How much more tangled up in a web of fantasies can one possibly get? And when they say “we don’t exactly know”, it really means they don’t have a clue, or they know but it’s a reason they are not supposed to mention.  Wasn’t CO2 supposed to cause positive feedbacks, and not negative feedbacks? Time to rework the models.

Fritz Vahrenholt and Sebastian Lüning at Die kalte Sonne site provide their remarks:

The decrease in high clouds means an additional cooling effect has been in place over the first decade, one that has not been taken into account up to now. It is known that global temperatures have not risen since the year 2000. The exact cause of the newly described cloud effect is still not known.

Larger deviations of the falling effective cloud height appear to be controlled by the Southern Oscillation, which is an internal oceanic cycle (see p. 313-314 in ‘Die kalte Sonne’). Could there be another longer period Pacific Ocean Cyclic, the PDO, behind the cloud trend? This remains speculation. But it is interesting to observe that the PDO also began its downward trend in the year 2000.

Die publication from Davies & Molloy (2012) appeared in the Geophysical Research Letters of the AGU.

At MeteoKlima Christian Heuer discusses whether this could be Richard Lindzen’s Iris Effect (see p. 168-170 in “Die kalte Sonne”), that is a negative, dampening feedback that counteracts global warming.”

Amazing how everything that Vahrenholt and Lüning wrote in their book, which a number of German scientists have just recently dismissed offhand without reading, is turning out to be spot on.

Gleick Scandal Goes Global. Spiegel: “Climate Scientist Pilfers Secret Documents”

Warmist Spiegel journalist Axel Bojanowski presents today a story on Peter Gleick’s Fakegate scandal and on what it means. In a nutshell: climate science is far from settled and there is a bitter war waging between the skeptics and alarmists. Consensus does not exist!

Climate scientist pilfers secret documents from a lobbyist group

Spiegel writes at the top of its report in bold print that the documents, which were intended to discredit the Heartland Institute:

…ended up disgracing the person revealing them.” Renowned climate scientist Peter Gleick using a fake name, succeeded in obtaining documents from a lobby group. He led a group on scientific ethics.”

Here Spiegel’s juxtaposition of Gleick’s seedy behaviour and his leadership of a group on ethics could not be more profound. Spiegel mentions that the bitter conflict between the skeptics and alarmists has been raging for 20 years (there never ever was a consensus).

Slowly one gets the feeling that the influential Spiegel is getting tired of the warmists obvious shenanigans and deception, and are not letting it go unnoticed, as much of the media are doing.

Even Spiegel seems to be going skeptic (at times). Get a load of this statement in the article (emphasis added):

The UN climate report, which is summarized every few years with the involvement of hundreds of scientists, comes to worrisome conclusions. However, the environment comprising air and earth is so complex that there are still huge gaps of knowledgeand they provide the fuel for fierce debate.”

So much for settled science. Bojanowski, a journalist who has written some of the warmist of articles in the past, doesn’t seem to believe in settled science anymore.

Spiegel explains how Gleick obtained the documents and how they were published by Desmogblog, and informs readers that “a simple apology will not suffice” and that Heartland is “demanding a complete clarification” from Gleick and that “legal consequences will follow”and that the integrity of many members and the reputation of the institute were damaged.

Spiegel goes into Gleick’s “downfall” – from being a leader of an ethics workgroup for the renowned American Geophysical Union (AGU) – to now reaping the outrage from Mark Fennel of the AAAS, and how Kevin Knobloch of the Union of Concerned Scientists has distanced himself from Gleick.

As the war between skeptics and alarmists intensifies in bitterness, Spiegel concludes with the following observation:

The recent affair fully confirms that the complexity of the climate topic is presenting challenges that are simply too much for the public debate to handle. Even intelligent scientists like Peter Gleick can lose their rationality.”

Indeed the science is complex and far from being settled. But we should remind Spiegel why intelligent scientists lose their rationality in the first place. It has something to do with the quality of their arguments and their failure to convince.

600,000 Households In Germany Without Power – “Increasing Energy Poverty Is Alarming”

Here’s Germany’s solution to saving energy and reducing its carbon foortprint- make electricity affordable only to a few rich people! German online DIE WELT daily has an article titled: Hundreds Of Thousands Have Had Their Power Turned Off.

Germany’s power and gas has become so expensive thanks to its Renewable Energy Feed-in Act that it is now an unaffordable commodity for many among the poor.

Under the feed-in act, power companies are forced to buy up the expensive renewable energy from producers and pay them exorbitant tariffs. This has driven Germany’s electricity prices up and has made them among the most expensive in the world. So much so, that many can no longer pay for it.

According to DIE WELT:

Because of unpaid electricity bills, an estimated 600, 000 households in Germany had their power cut off in 2010, according to the Consumer Agency of North Rhine Westphalia in Düsseldorf. […] Price increases of about 15% for electricity and gas over the past 2 years have made energy an unaffordable commodity for many households.” said Chairman Klaus Müller. The increasing energy poverty is alarming.”

DIE WELT also writes that power companies had to send out millions of payment reminders. Many of these consumers, who were in arrears, paid their bills, but a portion were unable to do so.


Klimaretter Blog Continues Quoting Fake Document To Smear Heartland And Watts – Even 36 Hours After Confession!

Although Peter Gleick confessed almost 2 days ago to stealing and leaking documents designed to damage the Heartland Institute and others, one of Germany’s leading warmist climate blogs continues to ignore it and is still actively spreading rumors about them. About 12 hours after Anthony Watts’s story Breaking: Gleick confesses appeared, went ahead and published a new opinion piece to further smear Heartland and those involved.

First on February 16, Hanno Böck of Klimaretter wrote in piece titled The Financing Of Climate Change Doubt, where he gleefully broke the story about the acquired Heartland documents: He wrote:

Internal documents of the conservative Heartland-Institute of the USA show the strategies that the organization pursues in order to discredit climate sciences. The institute receives donations from industry and finances other blogs and alleged neutral organizations, who then spread doubt about climate change. Among others, donators include Bayer, Microsoft and General Motors.[…]

Canadian DeSmogBlog has revealed internal documents from conservative lobby organization Heartland Institute. […] From the documents it is clear that many seemingly independent voices in the debate are funded by donations from industry provided though Heartland Institute.”

Up to now, neither corrections nor omissions have been undertaken by Klimaretter, which is run by journalists and German Parliamentarians. To the contrary, as you will read below, they actively took steps to sustain the phony Heartland story by posting an opinion piece by Dr. Hermann Ott, who again using the fake document smears Heartland and the skeptics.

In its February 16 piece, Klimaretter listed the alleged funders of skeptic sites: Koch Industries, Microsoft, AT&T, Time Warner, Bayer – but did point out that the donations were mainly targeted for pharmaceutical lobbying.

Klimaretter then singled out blogger Anthony Watts, claiming he received donation checks from industry. Böck wrote:

One of these for example is the project of blogger Anthony Watts, who writes the widely read “Climate skeptical” blog Watts up with That, and the organization NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change) of American physicist Fred Singer, who views himself as a counter voice to the UN IPCC, but who is regarded as unscientific by climate scientists.

In the year 2012 the Institute plans to create educational material for schools.”

Klimaretter then wrote that Heartland had been funded by Big Tobacco to fight against the rights of non-smokers before it began to focus on climate change. Klimaretter claimed that much the pressure to attack scientists stemmed from the Tea Party movement.

Concerning the document “2012 Heartland Climate Strategy”, Klimaretter wrote that “the Heartland Institute claims the questionable document is a fake” and that “no further details concerning the authenticity of the other documents could be added, so says Heartland in a Press Release.”

Geick confesses, Ott quotes a faked document

Now, six days later, a full day after Gleick confessed he leaked the documents, you’d think Klimaretter would have taken down the story by now and added a correction. They haven’t. In fact, they’ve added an opinion by German Green party member Dr. Hermann Ott, who goes after Fred Singer and Heartland with renewed vigor. He posted his opinion (read it here) at Klimaretter 12 hours after Gleick’s confession.

Green Parliamentarian Dr. Hermann Ott, who is a regular contributor at Klimaretter and skeptic smearer, posted his piece yesterday (February 21, 3:01 pm CET) ) dubbed: How US Companies Undermine Climate Policy, which more or less reiterates everything Hanno Böck had written days earlier, and quotes the faked document:

And what does the Institute [Heartland] do with the money? Taking a first look at the figures, one sees that climate change denier Fred Singer alone, who unfortunately appeared in the Bundestag, is financed by the Heartland Institute with 5000 dollars per month (plus expenses). $100,000 is available for developing alternative educational curricula for schools for promoting doubt about climate change. In the description of this project for schools, there’s even the sentence that their goal includes: ‘dissuading teachers from teaching science’. Unbelievable and revealing.”

Ott later writes:

The entire ‘datacheck’ of the Heartland-Institute makes it perfectly clear what I was saying about the strategies of the climate change skeptics in my discussion in the Green Bundestag faction last year, namely that the funders stem mostly from the fossil fuel industry and that it is always about increasing doubt and nothing to do with scientific findings.”

Scientific findings? Does he mean the dubious sort that Gleick uses? Why Ott would continue to insist the Heartland story is real is baffling, and if done intentionally – it is malicious and slanderous. I can only speculate that he thinks nobody in Germany is going to notice, and so he thinks he can get away with it.

In light of the known fact that Gleick used fake documents (because the other docs simply weren’t going to produce the desired effect), Ott still has the temerity to conclude:

One can only hope that making the documents public will hamper the strategy of the fossil fuel industry and also lead to such books like the one by RWE-Manager Vahrenholt to disappear from the bestseller charts.”


Instead, they will be seen for what they really are: cold hearted egoists who put the future chances of humanity at stake for the sake of their profits.”

P.S.: If you wish to give Peter Gleick some kind words, you can do so at Twitter unter @PeterGleick.”

Recall that Hermann Ott posted this on February 21 at 3:01 p.m. CET, 12 hours AFTER Anthony Watts broke the story that Gleick had confessed. Obviously Ott is comfortable putting himslef in the same company as document fakers and mudrakers.

In case Heartland, WUWT, or the lawyers representaing them, would like to give Klimaretter some kind words, you can reach the editor in chief at:

They undertand English very well.

Dutch Scientist Says 5th Report Draft Exemplifies “Worst Features of Science” – Calls For A Critical Review!

Dutch scientist and chemical engineer Dr. Arthur Rörsch has distributed a working paper to Dutch officials in his country to request a comprehensive review of the results and recommendations of the IPCC, especially its upcoming 5th assessment report.H/t:

In his paper Rörsch, former vice-president of the Netherlands Organisation for Applied Research, writes that the IPCC has “deviated from the traditional scientific principles”.  On man-made warming from CO2, he writes “that no indisputable scientific proof, or even strong empirical evidence, has been provided for such an effect, which therefore remains a matter of speculation.”

Read his entire working paper here.

He adds:

These reviews would best be undertaken by senior and established scientists whose reputation rests in the traditional enabling disciplines that underpin climate science, specifically physics, chemistry, geology and meteorology.”

The draft volume for WG1 AR5 is a summary and compilation of papers published in scientific journals up to 2011. Rörsch makes two observations:

– The prevailing hypothesis of the assessment report is that Dangerous Anthropogenic Global Warming (DAGW) is occurring; this hypothesis has been under challenge for many years by numerous independent scientists. These scientists were not invited to participate in the preparation of the AR5 report.

– The scientific literature cited in the draft AR5 is selective towards papers that support the DAGW hypothesis, and even the papers that are included are then selectively analysed towards the same ends. These two underlying biases set the tone of the message that the authors of the AR5 report want to transmit.

Rörsch particularly criticizes the following points:

1. The IPCC assumes that atmospheric CO2 is a dominant forcing agent for global temperature without providing evidence.

2. The report authors are instructed to express their conclusions in terms of a qualitative (i.e. opinion-based) probability scale.

3. The IPCC’s use of “self-appointed experts”.

4. There’s arrogance and intolerance for alternative views displayed by the self-appointed climate experts. These experts should be treated with extreme suspicion.

5. The style of the draft AR5 report marks it as a political rather than a scientific document, for it has been fashioned within the framework of a particular cultural paradigm.

Here’s what Dr. Rörsch concludes:

The IPCC’s draft AR5 report shows insufficient objectivity, and lacks the ‘traditional’ scientific balance necessary for it to be used as the basis for policy making. Regrettably, the report exemplifies some of the worst features of the ‘post-modern’ approach to science…”


How Skeptical Is Germany’s Next President? Joachim Gauck Shows Some Encouraging Signs

Joachim Gauck (Photo by J. Patrick Fischer)

Now that Christian Wulff has resigned in disgrace from the office of President of Germany in the wake of a scandal, a new nominee has been found: former pastor and anti-communist  Joachim Gauck. He is expected to be appointed easily.

If you’re like me, the question that comes to mind is: How skeptical is he when it comes to climate science? Surprisingly, there are signs for optimism.

First a bit of background from Wikipedia, my short version:

Endured brutal Soviet occupation
Joachim Gauck was born in Rostock in 1940, is a German politician, Protestant pastor, and former anti-communist human-rights activist in East Germany. His family was a victim of Soviet persecution. When Joachim Gauck was eleven years old, his father disappeared after being arrested by Soviet occupation forces. He was accused of espionage and deported to a Gulag in Siberia, where he was severely mistreated. For nearly three years, the family knew nothing about what had happened to him and whether he was still alive. Only in 1955, he was freed.

An “incorrigible anti-communist”
Gauck’s political activities were inspired by the ordeal of his father, and stated that he grew up with a well-founded anti-communism. In school in East Germany he made no secret of his anti-communist position, and he steadfastly refused to join the Free German Youth. He became a pastor in the Protestant church in Mecklenburg. His work as a pastor in East Germany was very difficult due to the hostility of the communist regime towards the church, and for many years, he was under constant observation and was harassed by the Stasi secret police.The Stasi described Gauck in their file on him as an “incorrigible anti-communist”.

Tireless pro-democracy advocate”
During the Revolutions of 1989, he was a co-founder of the New Forum opposition movement in East Germany, which contributed to the downfall of the Soviet-backed dictatorship of the Socialist Unity Party of Germany (SED). Following the Reunification of Germany, he was elected by the Bundestag as the first Federal Commissioner for the Stasi Archives, serving from 1990 to 2000. As Federal Commissioner, he earned recognition as a “Stasi hunter” and “tireless pro-democracy advocate,” exposing the crimes of the former communist political police.

Gauck’s views today
Gauck today does not belong to any particular party. His views on an array issues are unknown. But perhaps some of his earlier comments can provide valuable clues.

According to the FAZ, Gauck is quoted as saying:

I’m unbelievably allergic to any politics that reacts to fear. This also applies to other issues, for example the use of nuclear power. We should refrain from forms of actions that are based on the fear of people and derive a dynamic from it.”

Surely he must be absolutely aware of the crude fear driving the global warming movement.

The Sueddeutsche Zeitung here provides more interesting quotes and insights on controversial issues.

Occupy-Wall-Street movement
While the media found general praise for the protesters, Gauck had another opinion. He found it “inexpressibly absurd” that people were demonstrating against the unbridled power of the financial markets, and called the dream of a world that simply does away with markets a “romantic idea” and that it is mistake to think that it would be nice to conquer capital.

On the Stuttgart-21-mega rail station project
Here warned of a growing culture of protest. He characterized the German tendency to fall into hysteria and fear as “abhorrent”.

On Thilo Sarrazin
The politically incorrect Sarrazin dared to question multi-culturalism in Germany, Gauck said Sarrazin “showed courage” writing his controversial best-seller Deutschland schafft sich ab (Germany is going down the tubes). “He spoke about a problem that exists in our society more openly than the politicians.”

Climate change?
That’s the mystery – one that even has the warmists a bit worried and wondering. We do know he is no fan of fear and intimidation. A few hours with a good skeptic would probably suffice. The warmists such as Klimaretter have already researched Gauck and found little. That’s encouraging. If he felt half-strong about climate change, then he would have said something to support combating it. But if he disagrees with all the hysteria, and wished to avoid poking a hornets’ nest, then he would have remained silent. That is precisely what he has done on the issue.

Here’s what the warmist Klimaretter (Climate Rescuer) writes about Gauck:

The word “climate change” up to now has only appeared when he criticized the German’s so-called addiction to fear that he himself diagnosed and placed it, from his perspective, on a level with swine flu and e-coli.  Otherwise: a total blank. Gauck’s ecological plea: total silence.”


Gauck, the President to be, is a contemplative man who is certainly ready to reconsider his own positions. Perhaps this will be true for his so far neglected “green” issues. One thing is clear: With this guy, the country will experience some surprises.”

Gauck appears to be a man of principle, integrity – someone who thinks policies have to be based on foundations of truth. The climate movement and its promises, like communism, are not; they are based on a plain lies and distortions. The movement is driven by fear and hysteria over scenarios 100 years in the future. This is not the sort of thing a man like Gauck readily embraces.


Germany ‘s $130 Billion Investment In Solar Energy Delays Global Warming A Whole 23 Hours!


Boy, I’m sure our great grandchildren will be thanking us for that one extra day!

Here’s a sad, yet funny evluation of one of the greatest engineering follies of all time.  H/t DirkH

Björn Lomborg has a new article out that assesses Germany’s solar energy “boom”.

Germany’s Sunshine Daydream


COPENHAGEN – One of the world’s biggest green-energy public-policy experiments is coming to a bitter end in Germany, with important lessons for policymakers elsewhere.

Germany once prided itself on being the “photovoltaic world champion”, doling out generous subsidies – totaling more than $130 billion, according to research from Germany’s Ruhr University – to citizens to invest in solar energy. But now the German government is vowing to cut the subsidies sooner than planned, and to phase out support over the next five years. What went wrong?

There is a fundamental problem with subsidizing inefficient green technology: it is affordable only if it is done in tiny, tokenistic amounts. Using the government’s generous subsidies, Germans installed 7.5 gigawatts of photovoltaic (PV) capacity last year, more than double what the government had deemed “acceptable.” It is estimated that this increase alone will lead to a $260 hike in the average consumer’s annual power bill.

To put it another way: by the end of the century, Germany’s $130 billion solar panel subsidies will have postponed temperature increases by 23 hours.” Continue reading…

For all you others countries out there considering the German model – think about it! What more do you need to be convinced it’s a folly?


Hamburger Abendblatt Defends Vahrenholt & Lüning, Slams Germany’s Culture Of Intolerance

Matthias Iken has written a piece at the online German daily Hamburger Abendblatt here on Germany’s reaction to Fritz Vahrenholt’s and Sebastian Lüning’s climate skeptical bestselling book “Die kalte Sonne“. His piece is titled: The Intolerant Society.

Germany deals with its climate skeptics (Public domain work)

Needless to say, the reaction to Germany’s bestselling skeptic book has been brutally harsh. In his piece, Iken reminds us of three rules in Germany:

1. Never praise the Pope!
2. Never doubt the multi-cultural society!
3. And do believe in climate change!”

Violating any of the above will get you into serious trouble. Since Vahrenholt’s and Lüning’s skeptic book has hit the bookshelves, the two authors have been met with a storm of outrage from the much of the media, numerous zealot activists and the political establishment. Vahrenholt’s own party comrade Michael Müller even labelled him a “climate denier”.

Germany stomps “skeptic physics

As Die kalte Sonne website mentions, Iken writes:

It is best kept silent that Vahrenholt is the director of RWE subsidiary Innogy for alternative energies. The same applies to the fact that the former environmental politician fought as a pioneer for the ecological movement, as the author of the book Seveso ist überall [Seveso is everywhere} and that he was the manager of the wind power company Repower. He has earned the right to be taken seriously. No one has to agree with him, but he needs to be discussed with.”

Die kalte Sonne website writes that one has to wonder about the massivve blind trust placed in the keepers of the unchallenged IPCC climate truth. Instead of entering into a fruitful discussion, brimstone and fire has rained down. Numerous scientists who agree at least with parts of the book’s argumentation are keeping silent for fear of being chastised by colleagues and loss of grant money. Unfortunately Germany has seen similar days some decades ago. The only difference today is that the science that challenges climate orthodoxy now gets called skeptic physics.

No. 14 on bestseller list

Critics also unfairly claim that the book was not written by real climate scientists. However, not only is Vahrenholt a professor of chemistry, he is also an expert in renewable energies – something the media keeps burying. One critic scientist even made the mistake of claiming that Lüning has not authored any real peer-reviewed papers. However, it turns out that he has authored or co-authoredover 30 publications, and, since two weeks, is the author of a bestseller: “Die kalte Sonne”, now ranked No. 14 on Spiegel’s bestseller list.

On the other hand, warmist Mojib Latif, a fierce critic of Vahrenholt and Lüning, has also just released a climate book. It’s ranked number 31,500 at Amazon, making it a real loser. Latif obviously is seething with envy and so has resorted to petty back-biting.  

Die kalte Sonne also includes 4 guest authors who are distinguished experts and pioneers in their respective fields: Nir Shaviv, Henrik Svensmark, Nicola Scarfetta and Werner Weber. Scientifically, it’s as solid as can be.

Ikes reminds us:

As Francis Picabia once said: Our heads are round so that we can think in all directions. In Germany we often act like blockheads.”

Publications Sebastian Lüning, click here.


Fritz Vahrenholt In Major Newspaper Interview: “We Need An Explanation On Why There’s Been No Warming Since 2000″

Fritz Vahrenholt gives a comprehensive interview with leading Austrian daily KURIER here.

Why is it cooling? H/t: Real Science

The interview covers a number of areas. But a few points I found particularly interesting. On the lack of warming since 2000, the KURIER asks if it’s too short of a time period.

Of course it is. But we still need an explanation on why CO2 emissions, which the IPCC says is responsible for global warming, and which rose continuously since 2000, has not caused any warming. There has to be natural causes: the sun and the 60-year ocean cycles –  they were the reasons why we wrote the book.”

Vahrenholt also has words on Germany’s current attempt to move to renewable energy:

We’ve  gone into a hectic rush and today in Germany we are converting wheat into bioethanol, and installing 50% of all the world’s photovoltaic systems in a country that gets as much sunshine as Alaska – namely Germany.  This uncoordinated mad rush is rooted in fear: It’s our fault, we could trigger a climate catastrophe.”

On the IPCC filtering out the sun and other factors:

It is indeed interesting that of the 34 members of the IPCC editorial team that wrote the summary report, one third are connected to the WWF and Greenpeace. That is legitimate, but that has to be made transparent. Imagine just the opposite and the editorial team were one third Exxon supporters. Wouldn’t people say: ‘Hello! Is that really necessary?'”

Vahrenholt on why the climate debate has inquisitorial undercurrents:

Because it has long since not been about a purely scientific issue,  rather it is about how to run society. Some are saying that we are entering an uncontrollable situation, and so claim any means against it is justified.”

Like throwing democracy overboard, as some are advocating. Here Vahrenholt specifically singles out Schellnhuber’s WBGU and his Great Transformation of society masterplan, which calls for:

…changes in consumption behavior, changed trade behavior and that non-sustainable living styles be stigmatized by society.”

On the success of the book?

It’s no. 14 on the Spiegel bestseller list. Of course I hope the book will be read. The worst thing that could happen would be a spiral of silence, a discussion that never gets held. In five or ten years, we’ll know who is right.”

Overall, a solid and convincing interview by the KURIER. This will push book sales in Austria, Switzerland and Bavaria. Readers can visit the “” site, which has an English translation button.


German NDR Public Television Sends Message To Vahrenholt And Skeptics: “You Belong In The Sewer!”

Germany’s media is sick and intolerant at times, seemingly continuing a once infamous tradition.

Yesterday NDR German public television had an interview with Fritz Vahrenholt, co-author with Sebastian Lüning of the bestselling book Die kalte Sonne now sweeping through Germany. The NDR piece is dubbed: “Vahrenholt and the ‘CO2 lies'”. The clip first introduces the climate topic and reminds viewers that “that man is causing global warming and storms.”

Established climate science is indignant about the scrutiny

NDR first questions Hartmut Grassl and Jochem Marotzke, both of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology. Grassl, obviously agitated by Vahrenholt’s skeptical book, crossly replies:

Ach, actually I have no desire to comment on such nonsense.”

If you listen closely, you’ll hear a burst of laughter from some hyena in the background. Jochem Marotzke also takes the same snobby attitude: No one should question AGW. Why the indignant reaction from Marotzke and Grassl? One can only speculate.

Suppressing open debate

Perhaps they feel that a chemistry professor (Vahrenholt) and a geologist (Lüning) have no business doubting their science. But my guess is that they are completely embarrassed, and thus terrified, about having been duped by what is turning out today to be a really dumb and simplistic hypothesis: climate trace gas CO2 rules the climate and other factors play no role. These two scientific men bought into the global warming end-of-the-world catastrophe hook, line and sinker. They have absolutely no desire to have all this exposed by an open debate.

And as Lüning writes at the “Die kalte Sonne site here:

One gets the sense they are now trying harder than ever to suppress debate.”

NDR could not resist delivering a low blow to Vahrenholt. The used old footage of him when he was Environment Senator for Hamburg over 20 years ago. The footage shows the young Vahrenholt climbing down through a manhole while the reporter says: “He has opted to descend into another world.” NDR’s message to the viewers is clear: “Skeptics belong in the sewers.  Now you know how nasty things can get in Germany.

Critics should first read the book

The NDR interview with Vahrenholt on the other was well handled.

During the interview, Vahrenholt’s calls out the major error made by the IPCC, not properly taking the sun and ocean currents into account, and falsely assigning all the warming to CO2 from 1980 to 2000. ARD asked Vahrenholt to respond to Mojib Latif’s recent criticism, also indignant. Vahrenholt replied.

“He really ought to first read the book.”

They all should read the book. From their comments, it’s clear that they haven’t, and they seem stunningly ignorant of the latest science – or they simply just don’t want to talk about it.

Good news! The book is selling like hot cakes – no. 14 on bestseller list

Here’s a little anecdote. I live in a small town and four weeks ago I ordered two copies of “Die kalte Sonne” from our local bookshop here in town – one for myself and one for the bookshop display window, which the owner kindly allowed. I told the owner that the book was highly controversial and politically incorrect. “What do you mean?” he asked. I told him “the book doesn’t believe in the climate catastrophe!” He just laughed.

Today the bookshop owner sent me a message to let me know that “Die kalte Sonne” is now on the Spiegel bestseller list and that customers have been snapping them up, and that he’s been ordering more copies.Then he told me on the phone that once a book is on the Spiegel bestseller list, then sales pick up.

So expect tens of thousands of copies to be sold nationwide!


Debunking Armageddonist Chuck Kutscher’s Climate Alarmism Presentation

Here’s a presentation by the past Chairman of the American Solar Energy Industry, Armageddonist Chuck Kutscher, another person who can only be happy if he’s convinced the future is filled with doom and gloom.

h/t: Chris Smith

This is Al Gore repackaged. This is really a sorrowful, populist presentation. How did Kutscher get a PhD! We will redebunk this point by point.

It’s getting late – and I’ve watched the first half. Will finish tomorrow.

I can tell you right now that Fritz Vahrenholt’s and Sebastian Lüning’s new book Die kalte Sonne, using the latest data and peer-reviewed literature, completely demolishes every single point Kutscher makes. Sheesh – Kutscher is still stuck on TSI!

I can’t believe there are so many gullible suckers out there like Chris taking this crap in hook, line and sinker.

Debunking the presentation:

1. 4:30 mark – “Well-heeled misinformation campaign.” That’s bogus. Most of the doubt arises from privately run blogs with little or no money (Climate Audit, WUWT, etc.) and a rapidly growing number of skeptical scientists who are finding loads of flaws in the science. From time to time some media outlets are reporting on this. Public observation has also failed to detect the occurrence of any of the horror predictions. The warmist movement on the other hand is funded by billions.

2. 5:00 mark – “Climategate e-mails show the scientists wanted to get the message out.” Oh, that’s why they defied the requirements of thr FOIA and refused to make the data public. Read The Hockey Stick Illusion

3. 5:30 mark – “Independent panels exonnerated the Climategate scientists.” It’s proven that these were whitewashes led by warmist hacks. McIntyre has gone through all that.

4. 9:15 mark – “Mann’s hockey stick was fundamentally correct.” The national Academy of Sciences said Mann’s hockey stick was rubbish. The new ones that were made to replace it were also shown by McIntyre to be flawed as well. Don’t worry, we will go back and dig it all up again. The 2007 IPCC report did drop it. The one they depicted on page 457 was buried under the updated ones, which brought back the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.  Here’s the IPCC hockey stick history.

1990 IPCC chart

Figure 1:


IPCC 2001 - having gotten rid of the MWP. Orwellian rewrite of history.

Figure 2: www.martinfrost.climategate. Here they spliced thermometer data after 1960.


Moberg 2005. After 2005, science rediscovers the Medeival Warm Period!

Figure 3: p. 123 of “Die kalte Sonne”

[Drafting the remainder of this post is in progress and will be completed as time permits (debunking volumes of errors entails a proportionate amount of time, unfortunately). -PG]




Harvard German Conference: Germany Attempting To Hawk Its Catastrophic Energy Strategy To The USA

Anyone wondering what some US leaders envision for the USA’s energy policy may wish to attend the following Harvard German Conference to find out.

The energy part of the conference is taking place this weekend, Saturday morning, February 18, 2012:

9:30 – 10:30: Energy – Keynote Jeremy Rifkin.
The Third Industrial Revolution: The New German Model for a Post-Carbon Economy, Radcliffe Yard

10:30 – 10:50: Coffee Break, Radcliffe Yard

10:50 – 11:15: Energy Address, Dr. Hermann Ott (MdB German Green Party), Radcliffe Yard

11:15 – 12:40: Energy – Panel and Q&A:
Full throttle towards green energy – Germany visionary or misguided?
Prof. Dr. Jürgen Kluge, Dr. Hermann Ott, Benjamin Schlesinger, Ph.D., Prof. Dr. Eicke Weber, Radcliffe Yard

And if you’re interested in finding out how the “new German model” is coming along, read about it here – it aint pretty! In fact, the power grid came only a whisker away from a collapse during the recent cold spell. And many German companies are relocating to places where supply is more reliable.

But who cares about these nuances – it’s the way the USA should go these misguided pointy heads tell us. I’ll let the German readers here tell you who these German masterminds are.


The above report is a must read if you are involved in energy engineering, planning or policy!

If you do, you’ll never want to touch the German strategy. In fact, according to experts from 21 of the World Energy Council’s country committees:

81% of the countries surveyed reject the German way as a model for the world, and none of the experts could imagine their own countries following the German way.”

I’ve read the entire 28-page report, and it sounds worse than Soviet-style central planning. If anyone happens to be near Harvard, go check out the conference.

So far in Germany, the current attempt to switch over to renewable energy has only succeeded in:
1) driving up electricty and energy rates for consumers,
2) making the power supply unreliable,
3. littering the landscape with windparks and solar panels,
4. driving up the price of food,
5. driving industry out of country,
6. regulating private lives more and more intensely, and
7. putting billions into the pockets of a few opportunists and carbon traders.

Europe’s Worst Storms In History – When CO2 Was Only 320 PPM Or Less

Today whenever a North Sea storm blows over a tree, floods a basement, or knocks over a bistro table,  the media screams global warming climate change – proof that storms today are harder and more frequent, they claim. The reinsurers echo that and jack up their premiums.

Hamburg storm of 1962

Today is the 50th anniversary of the great storm of 1962, which with winds peaking at 200 km/hr hit Hamburg, Germany particularly hard. More than 50 dikes burst as the tide surged and submerged one sixth of the city. Imagine if that heppened today!

In total, the homes of about 60,000 people were destroyed, and the death toll amounted to 347 in Hamburg alone.

The European storm of 1953 – the worst in 500 years
It caused floods that took 2,000 lives. Holland was worst hit. Dikes gave way and flooded towns all across Europe.

Other great European storm disasters (when CO2 was 280 ppm):

17 Feb. 1164: Julian Flood, 20,000 dead.
16 Jan. 1219: 1st Marcellus Flood Reportedly 36,000 dead
14 Dec. 1287: St. Lucia’s Flood 50,000 dead
16 Jan. 1362: 2nd Marcellus Flood 100,000 dead.
1 Nov. 1570: All Saint’s Flood over 20,000 dead
11 Oct. 1634: Burchardi Flood, at least 8,000 dead
24 Dec. 1717: Christmas Flood; 14,000 dead

Read more here from the Munich Re!

Svensmark Hits Back At Scienceblog’s Florian Freistetter Over Vahrenholt Book

There’s been lots of disingenuous criticism from the CO2 end-of the world warmists and Armageddonists aimed at Fritz Vahrenholt’s and Sebastian Lüning’s new best selling skeptic book Die kalte Sonne. Much of it attacking Svensmark’s theory of solar amplification via cosmic rays.

Again. none have really read the book, they simply repeat the same old debunked arguments.

Henrik Svensmark hits back at the skeptics at the Die kalte Sonne site (scroll down to the English version):

Prof. Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center (Copenhagen) on the criticism aimed at his solar amplifier via cosmic rays:

Some people, including your critic Florian Freistetter on ScienceBlog, seem to think that physics is a democratic process and what matters is to count how many papers favour or disfavour each hypothesis. That of course is nonsense. All that really signifies is the evidence from observations and experiments, and how a theory stands up to attempts to falsify it. Remember Einstein’s comment on the pamphlet Hundert Autoren gegen Einstein (1931) – “If I were wrong, one would be enough”.

The hypothesis that cosmic rays strongly affect the climate offers a serious challenge to the more fashionable hypothesis that man-made greenhouse gases have been the main cause of climate changes. So it does not surprise me that many people try to falsify it. In fact it’s quite flattering that they go to so much trouble, when one good outcome (for them) should be enough, and in my opinion no such paper has been produced so far.

Freistetter suggests that all the recent papers say I’m wrong. That shows he is not very familiar with the climate physics literature. I think he has gone to some trouble to select papers against the cosmic-ray theory and ignore the favourable ones. Continue…

For the climate end-of-worlders  and critics like Freistetter, it would help to first climb out of the holes of ignorance before spouting off. Try reading for once. Freistetter admitted to ramming his head into the sand: “I never read the book. I didn’t want to buy it.” He doesn’t want to deal with arguments he can’t beat.

In his recent Blog-Artikel, Freistetter provided 1001 reasons why Prof. Svensmark is wrong about his solar amplifier via cosmic rays theory. Unfortunately for Freistetter, CERN’s results and historical correlations between sun and climate are ignoring his junk science.