It looks like the article I wrote about Prof. Hans Schellnhuber a couple of days ago helped inspire a new commentary by Dr. Hans Labohm (a former expert IPCC reviewer) that appeared yesterday at the leading De Dagelijkse Standaard blogsite. Hans Joachim Schellnhuber: Het is nog erger dan we dachten.’ (Hans Joachim Schellnhuber: ‘It’s worse than we thought.’)
Labohm also viewed the video of Schellnhuber’s speech at the Stakeholders Conference on the 2015 Agreement, Shaping International Climate Policy Beyond 2020 and felt compelled to comment. Already the sub-title under the large photo of Schellnhuber tells us what to expect. It reads: “Completely detached from reality“.
First Labohm describes the IPCC process as being in a “zombie state” and the Stakeholer Conference as something that is “part of a climate ritual that has dragged on for decades.” and involves a gaggle of people who “earn their living by maintaining the climate hype.” According to Labohm, Schellnhuber’s speech was characterized by “cherry picking”, “spin” and “scare-mongering”. He writes:
So it was again the well-known propaganda tune and everything except science.”
Labohm calls Schellnhuber’s grudgingly made admission that global warming could be delayed yet another ten years as something we always hear from the prophets of doom.
Whenever their predictions don’t come true, they simply push them off into the future. And preferably far enough so that they can’t be called to account.”
Labohm also writes that Schellnhuber misleads the public whenever he claims there is a global consensus among the experts, writing that this is not at all the case “as several prominent warmists have left the sinking ship. That’s not gone unnoticed in a number of international quality media.”
Schellnhuber’s assertion that CO2’s influence on climate is settled science is also illusionary. CO2’s extent on climate change is more hotly disputed than ever. Labohm writes that Prof. Schellnhuber:
…completely ignores the studies that conclude climate sensitivity (the temperature effect of a doubling of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere) is insignificant.”
Labohm points out that Schellnhuber’s explanation for the warming stop (that the heat is being stored in the deeper layers of the oceans) is fraught with unknowns, and only confirms that the IPCC is now finally being forced to admit that natural mechanisms indeed do play a major role and can lead to cooling, and thus can also explain earlier warming periods. It’s back to the drawing board for the modellers – and they’ll have to start over from scratch.
Another example Labohm brings up that shows Professor Schellnhuber is either deceptive, or disconnected from reality, is the Marcott hockey stick. He writes:
In addition, he ignored the fact that, after publication, the author had explicitly and publicly recognized that the data for the 20th century were not robust.”
He also called Schellnhuber’s gloomy scenarios of the future, like 8°C warming, melting ice caps, etc. “Alice in Wonderland”.
Labohm, who is an economist, blasts Schellnhuber’s claim that implementing climate policy to meet the “2°C target” would cost global GDP only one per cent. Labohm points out that the Stern report had reached a similar conclusion, but was later “ripped apart by environmental economists such as Richard Tol“. Labohm writes:
I would be surprised if the refutation of the article/report took more than a few days. The reasoning is simple. There is a strong correlation between power consumption (mainly fossil) and economic growth.”
Little wonder that Germany and Japan have recently announced the construction of new, modern coal plants. Doing anything else would be unaffordable.
At the end of the article, Labohm tells his readers that “the game is over for Schellhuber and Associates”, quoting James Delingpole:
The EU has been the global laboratory testing the green agenda to see how it works. Today’s story means that the guinea pig died; the most important piece of green intervention in world history has become an expensive and embarrassing flop. It’s hard to exaggerate the importance of this for environmentalists everywhere; if the EU can’t make the green agenda work, it’s unlikely that anybody else will give it a try.
Dr. Hans H.J. Labohm is an independent economist and author specialized in climate issues. He is former dpt. Foreign Policy Planning Advisor at the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, former dpt. Permanent Representative of the Netherlands to the OECD, former Senior Visiting Fellow and Advisor to the Board of the Netherlands Institute of International Relations (Clingendael) and former (critical) expert reviewer of the IPCC.
Together with Dick Thoenes and Simon Rozendaal, he wrote: ‘Man–Made Global Warming: Unravelling a Dogma’, MultiScience Publishing Company, 2004.