Two days ago I wrote here about how a scheduled presentation by Professor Dr Fritz Vahrenholt had been cancelled by the University of Osnabrück because of his controversial climate catastrophe skeptical book, Die kalte Sonne, which will be released next week by renowned publisher Hoffmann & Campe of Hamburg.The original public announcement of Vahrenholt’s presentation read: “In the series of presentations ‘University Speeches’ of the University of Osnabrück, Prof. Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt – RWE Innogy, Essen will hold a speech titled ‘The Climate Catastrophe is not Taking Place’.”
However, since the book and controversy have been making waves in Germany, the University of Osnabrück suddenly deemed such climate science skepticism as too “provocative”, and therefore refused to allow the presentation to be made unless a “counter-speaker” and a “competent moderator” were present. But because there was not enough time to organize it, the University cancelled Vahrenholt’s presentation at the last minute.
In the cancellation notification released by Professors Asholt and Altendorf, they claimed they had actually requested the topic of “Options for the Future Energy Supply of Germany”, and that Vahrenholt “surprised” them with the provocative title: “The Climate Catastrophe Is Not taking Place” just 3 weeks before the scheduled presentation.”
BS of course. The U of Osnabrück had known about the real topic long before, and not just 3 weeks ago. And so in an e-mail sent to NTZ, Prof Vahrenholt wishes to set the record straight. He wrote the following to Asholt and Altendorf:
Last year you happily accepted our topic of choice: ‘The Climate Catastrophe Is Not Taking Place’ and we agreed on a date for the presentation. You then informed my assistant just a few days ago, because of pressure from the University management, that I would only be allowed to speak under the condition that I accept a counter-position to be presented at the event, e.g. by Mr. Schellnhuber.”
Also in the cancellation Professors Asholt and Altendorf suggested Vahrenholt had agreed to a new date for the event. Vahrenholt writes that too is false:
We specifically informed you that I would not be available for such an event. And now that I was dis-invited by the University just 7 days before the event was scheduled to take place, I am no longer available for any other event. The entire matter is already bad enough. Hence I request that I no longer be misused as camouflage for the real motive behind my dis-invitation.”
Obviously The University of Osnabrück was less than truthful about the motives behind its dis-invitation. When University professors start distorting stories and camouflaging real motives, then indeed Prof Vahrenholt’s decision to no longer have anything more to do with them is more than warranted.
Makes you wonder if you can believe anything that comes from the two U of Osnabrück’s professors.
There is (somewhere) a statement about bright light and scurrying cockroaches.
Thanks for keeping the light on, Mr. Gosselin.
What is your evidence for believing Vahrenholt?
His statements concerning Global Warming show that he is used to distorting the facts.
Would you please name one “distorted fact”?
The current temperature, averaged across the globe, is not extraordinary at all, and has been reached, for instance, in 1979 already. What Global Warming are you talking about?
Maybe someone pulled strings in the background and excerted pressure on the U of O. Pressure can only mean funding; maybe the professors will be awash with funds next?
When someone gives a university lecture you expect them to tell the truth and not spread disinformation like Vahrenholt does.
Do not forget tha the works for a company that has a keen interest in playing down Global Warming because they are the biggest emitter of CO2 in the EU.
Honi soi qui mal y pense?
Examples?
And you, Mr Vennecke, please do not forget that Prof Vahrenholt is also one of the big movers of the modern green movement.
http://www.rwe.com/web/cms/en/66234/rwe/curriculum-vitae-prof-dr-fritz-vahrenholt/
I think it would be a wise idea on your part to first read the book (and the science) before making more silly generalised claims.
Having a different opinion on a matter that is still very much in dispute has nothing to do with “distorting facts”. To the contrary, insisting that one particular opinion is fact would indicate a rather advanced state of pig-headedness and closed-mindedness, wouldn’t you say?
Günther; should a university also not let people involved with the renewable energy complex speak, as they would clearly have an economic interest in the ongoing subsidation of this grossly inefficient sector? Maybe they should not even let their own professors speak, as the renewable energy institutes (for instance all the Fraunhofer IWES institutes, in Kassel and elsewhere) do get paid by said subsidized industry, often for helping in testing and certifying their products.
“Having a different opinion on a matter that is still very much in dispute …”
Oh yes, I know, Global Warming is just as much in dispute as the age of the Earth, which – as some cranks believe – is only 6,000 years old or the question whether the Americans ever made it to the moon, a. s.o.
Science is an ongoing process, but when you want to challenge the consensus you have to present facts, not distortions of facts like the Global Warming deniers do.
The “consensus”… Günter, science is not done by consensus. The Null hypothesis is that the climate is either doing nothing exciting, or that it is following the long term warming trend since the trough of the LIA.
The CAGW scientists have not presented any evidence that refutes that hypothesis. It is the CAGW scientists who must first refute the Null hypothesis.
Schneider tried to declare the CAGW hypothesis as the new Null hypothesis, later Trenberth tried the same. Both failed. Nobody cares about these attempts.
Come on, prove your conjecture.
@Pierre Gosselin,
“Would you please name one “distorted fact”.
With pleasure:
“… da die Klimaerwärmung seit 12 Jahren zum Stillstand gekommen ist und sich die wissenschaftlichen Stimmen (außerhalb des WGBU und des Potsdam-Institutes) mehren, dass wir vor einer langjährigen Abkühlungsphase des Klimas stehen…”
This is utter nonsense since climate is measured over a period of at least 30 years. A spell of ten or 12 years may be controlled by natural fluctuation, but FACT is that the first decade of the 21st century was really the warmest ten years since measurements began. Whoever claims otherwise – as Vahrenholt does – is in conflict with the truth.
Günther,
Your time scales are much to short. Natural variation takes place over all time scales, from a few years to many thousands. The CAGW crowd has simply chosen the latest natural 30-year warming cycle to blame on CO2. It is now over. The last ten years is the top of the curve. We are now going down the other side.
[…] last minute afgelasting van een lezing aan de universiteit van Osnabrück door auteur Vahrenholt (hierr). Hierboven de cover van het boek “De koude zon – waarom de klimaatkatastrofe niet […]
Günter is a well known warmist in the german climate blog scene; he won’t accept your arguments at all. He beleaves, that the could winters we have in Germany is a conclusion of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. Is’n it? 😉