It’s been interesting reading some of the reactions from the green, warmist sites. Of course they are all seething in rage and resignation as their unclean movement collapses.None of them up to now have presented any scientific arguments refuting the claims made by Lüning and Vahrenholt.
Indeed many forget that geologist and climate-paleontologist Lüning is also one of the authors and brings more expertise to the book than many of those who reside in bloated “climate institutes” and call themselves climate scientists. The book is not written by just an “RWE boss”.
The very green Financial Times Deutschland (Germany) has been running a reader poll here since February 8.
The results? The FTD may be green, and maybe many of its readers, but FTD’s readers are also obviously open-minded, or just downright skeptical.
Survey: The climate view of Fritz Vahrenholt is…
Answer 1: humbug – 10%
Answer 2: rhetoric of a lobbyist – 20%
Answer 3: good food for thought – 28%
Answer 4: 100% right on! – 42%
Number of votes: 4800
I suspect that a number of readers really don’t see any real changes in the climate, except that we are back to cold winters here in Germany, which of course flies in the face of projections of warming. And I suspect that many see through the scam. They see who’s making money, and where it is all taking us.
Hat-tip: Eckhard
Pierre,
please. This is not “70% of the readers”. It’s a non-representative survey that has probably been swamped by EIKE readers. It’s a thin line between propaganda and misinformation. Don’t overstep the line.
p.
I am sure you are one of those who always adds the same kind of caveat when talking about the “97% of all climate scientists” who agree that humanity causes CAGW. You do that, don`t you?
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/01/03/lawrence-solomon-97-cooked-stats/#ixzz1A5px63Ax
Thanks Dirk – well said. We all know who the true liars are.
Of course everybody knows it’s not truly representative. What surveys really are?
I have no idea which readers took this survey. To me I’d assume a margin of error on +- 10% for FTD readers. But it is enough to agree that it definitely indicates skepticism. Besides, use your common sense. Only a knucklehead would not agree that an alternative view is good food for thought and cannot harm anything. Remember that we live in an open society – thank God.
And why all the effort to shut people up and to demand that people feel dreadful about potentially positive news? The people who voted “humbug” never even read the book! But thanks for your comment, in any case.
“Climate catastrophe? Get of here! We don’t want to hear it!”
That’s a psychologically disturbed view.
If you read the TAZ today, there’s an interesting article about how many (e.g. Sigmar Gabriel) so reluctantly agree, through seriously clenched teeth and with spite, that the skeptics have to be listened to. The debate is not going to go away.
http://www.taz.de/Streit-der-Woche/!87496/
Nice to see that the SPD boss chains the fate of his party to the sinking ship of CAGW.
Never interrupt your enemy while he’s making a mistake.
The SPD’s decline began decades ago when it abandoned representation in favour of the pursuit of power; over those it purports to represent.
IMHO; the heady years of Brandt were too intoxicating. Addictive.
Political parties are all susceptible. They perpetuate a frame of mind that no longer represents the changed attitudes and values of the ordinary people; those with a moral imperative but without political aspiration; who inspired the formation of the party. New people join the party and, not having shared the experience of the “elders”, reinterpret policies and objectives. Few even notice the “Schwarzfahrer” who jump onto the party wagon, with the objective of driving the locomotive.
My personal view is that political parties should be “executed” at the age of 10, or after 2 consecutive terms in government, whichever comes sooner. De-register the parties and call in liquidators; any proceeds, if any, to got to erm… a state lottery. Confiscate their membership registers and lock them up for a minimum of 5 years; to be accessible to nobody except under judicial order.
Re-formed parties will be on the basis of the people active in the party when it re-forms.
It’s a lot less messy than the other options.
There is really changing something. Today in the traditionally alarmist Volkskrant (page 32) a broad article, translation of a Wall Street Journal article, about the sixteen scientists who wrote that there are no scientific arguments for fighting CO2. Added is a funny photograph of Geenpeace activists in polar bear outfit. In 2009 they decided that dissident opinions were no more allowed in the newspaper because the science was settled. I think that it is over in The Netherlands.