Leading Dutch Blog/Economist Slams Schellnhuber: “Completely Detached From Reality…Alice In Wonderland”!

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.’)

DDS

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.

 

20 responses to “Leading Dutch Blog/Economist Slams Schellnhuber: “Completely Detached From Reality…Alice In Wonderland”!”

  1. Dr. Gerhard Stehlik

    I’m sorry, but Dr. Hans H.-J. Labohm as “Economist” is unable to manifest of the whole lie of the greenhouse effect. A molecule cannot heat by itself, unless it is not radioactive. Today, this knowledge of the 19th Century is still not even formulated in textbooks, the more not in “peer review” journals. The symmetry of the molecules and of all molecular orbitals of the main constituent of the atmosphere, nitrogen and oxygen, makes these two molecules to very exceptional materials: They cannot be cooled by thermal radiation into space. The energy stored by them is an ideal insulating sheath around the earth’s surface, “heat keeping”, but not “heating“.

    But, the “heat keeping” jacket around the surface is in reality transformed into a cooling unit because of the action of the IR-active trace gases carbon dioxide and water vapour. Only they can emit thermal radiation irreversibly into space cooling down itself and its environment.

    The greenhouse effect is not only a lie, the reality is upside down like pope and emperor claimed: The sun revolves around the earth.

    Dr. Gerhard Stehlik, Hanau, Germany

  2. ArndB

    The text is a bit long (excerpts), but it was written in 1993 and published by ‘L.O.S. Lieder’ of the Law of the Sea Institute, William S. Richardson School of Law; University of Hawaii, in full: http://www.whatisclimate.com/1993-LOS-warming-up-science-or-climate.html

    “WARMING UP – SCIENCE OR CLIMATE : ……..
    As recently as 1990, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) came to the conclusion that CO 2 was altering the climate and that “understanding and detecting the earth’s climate system must surely be the greatest scientific challenge yet to be faced by humankind. It is a worthy banner under which the nations of the world can unite” (IPCC, Working Group I, p. 328). Certainly not a bad thing for science. The 1992 Earth Summit resulted in an unprecedented success for the scientists working in the climatic area, forcing politicians to listen to them and paving the way for greater financial backing in an effort to understand and come to terms with the climate system.
    Yet, what is good for scientists is not necessarily good for the climate. The simple fact of the matter is that meteorology has never been particularly inter¬ested in climate except for statistical purposes, defining it as the average weather over a given period of time. On the other hand, there are the mathematicians, physicists and chemists, who do little more than apply their laboratory findings, theoretical conclusions and abstract calculations performed on greenhouse gases to a real natural system with little regard for the true essence of climate.
    But while the seas continue to influence the climate, science is staring into the air (or, to be more precise, the atmosphere) in an attempt to find out what makes the climate tick. What is more, scientists have misled the international community of nations by claiming that greenhouse gases are the actual cause of climate change. This may yet prove to be the real tragedy of the climate change issue. After all, the oceans are still the part of the world about which the least is known. There is neither an “inventory” of the oceans nor an observation system. What is even sadder is that climate is still far from being acknowledged as the blue print of the oceans.
    So beware of IPCC’s call for unification in its attempt to come to terms with the climate. The climatic change issue is far too serious a matter to leave to those who should have known better for many decades and who were not interested in or aware of matters relating to the oceans……….. . There is no need to “detect the earth’s climate” and even less is there a need for a banner to serve IPCC’s “greatest scientific challenge”.

  3. DirkH

    “as several prominent warmists have left the sinking ship. That’s not gone unnoticed in a number of international quality media.”

    one remark; Pascal Lamy’s Thomson-Reuters continues to spread the gospel of warmism; BTW, the term “international quality media” sounds oxymoronic; they have only one quality, how well they are controlled by their masters.

    BUT; there is in fact no change at all – the Green movement was always only a facade for simple lust for power. Even Der Stern, a yellow press variant of Der Spiegel with the same political leaning, just had a scathing condemnation of Jospeh “Joschka” Fischer, the communist/maoist who infiltrated the Green party after their foundation and took it over; in print issue #15 2013 to Joseph Fischer’s 65th birthday.

    The article pointed out, amongst the known facts surrounding the Putztruppe and the Molotov cocktail attacks that left a young policeman with 60% burns, that for Fischer the environment never played a role – until he suddenly rose to fame as figurehead of the Greens.

    1. DirkH

      To clarify my point; from the foundation of the environmental movement by Maurice Strong in the Rio conference up to now, the movement always used – as ordered by the Club Of Rome – any environmental or warmist or scientific argument only as the facade. This has been so from the beginning. At the moment the facade looks especially brittle – but it is not a real qualitative change. Under a very thin veneer of climate science or environmental concerns or what have you we find a muscular, well organized agitation machine that repeats their same old lies again and again via outlets like Thomson-Reuters or Huffington Post; until all resistance is pulverized and absolute power is gained; they don’t care one wit for a scientific refutation; that is not their playing field even though they pretend it is.

      1. DirkH

        … and this leads directly to one of the rules for radicals by Alinsky:
        “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”

        The rule book they make their enemy live up to is the rulebook of science of course – one that they happily disregard ALL THE TIME. How much easier is it to create a confabulation like the Marcotte and Shakun study and spread it over all media than it is to successfully refute it and stop the disinformation from spreading years down the road? The “international quality media” will years from now STILL cite Marcotte & Shakuns confabulation and NOBODY will talk about McIntyre’s and other efforts to show that it is bogus.

  4. nzrobin

    DirkH,
    But this would be so very different if it were not for the likes of this blog, and the wonderful people like Pierre who consistently work at it, and Steve McIntyre, Anthony Watts, Jo Nova, and the list goes on.

    Even the readers and commenters play an important role as we share this with our friends, the world is coming to know the truth.

  5. Reynold Stone

    Pierre,

    Please don’t underestimate the extremely valuable contribution you have made and continue to make.

    I look forward to visiting his site on a daily basis to find out what’s happening on the German/European scene. I enjoy the articles here immensely.

    Keep up the excellent work!

  6. DennisA

    ArndtB – The Oceans.

    You would find this interesting:
    Yes, the Ocean Has Warmed; No, It’s Not “Global Warming” by Dr. Robert E.
    Stevenson, http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/ocean.html

    It was in Germany, at the Seewetteramt (Marine Branch of the German
    Meteorological Office), where I met and began to work with two outstanding
    marine climatologists, Martin Rodewald, and Hans Markgraf, and the director, Dr. Hans U. Roll, the premier marine meteorologist of the time. They were looking at much larger areas than I, namely, the North Atlantic and the Polar seas, and how they influenced the climate and weather over northwest Europe. It was a great education for me. I learned the processes by which the ocean and atmosphere work together.

    The basics of these interactions start where oceans and atmosphere meet. More
    than 70 percent of the Earth’s surface is covered by oceans, seas, and lakes,
    and another 5 percent is covered by glaciers and ice caps. Just more than two
    thirds of this water area is in the Southern Hemisphere, and the oceans are 4 to
    5 kilometers deep.

    The atmosphere cannot warm until the underlying surface warms first. The lower atmosphere is transparent to direct solar radiation, preventing it from being significantly warmed by sunlight alone. The surface atmosphere thus gets its warmth in three ways: from direct contact with the oceans; from infrared
    radiation off the ocean surface; and, from the removal of latent heat from the
    ocean by evaporation. Consequently, the temperature of the lower atmosphere is
    largely determined by the temperature of the ocean.

    This also a good read, with a good history of the scare:
    AN OCEANOGRAPHER LOOKS AT THE NON-SCIENCE OF “GLOBAL WARMING” http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202005/GobalWarmStevenson.pdf

    1. ArndB

      DennisA. Many thanks. I am aware of the mentioned papers by the late oceanographer Robert E. Stevenson (1921-2001) and agree that he was one of the few, who challenged IPCC and computer models fiercely. But mainstream science ignored him than, and would do it presumably today, as most of them have never heard or read the book by another oceanographer, H.U. Sverdrup: “Oceanography for Meteorologists”, New York 1942, page 223.. A brief excerpt here: http://climate-ocean.com/book%202012/j/j.html

      Good to hear that your training at the “Seewarte” had been interesting and helpful. I agree that ocean/atmosphere research at Seewarte was advanced. But you may also be aware that the “Seewarte” was during WWII a military entity, and the first three war winters were the coldest in North Europe since the LIA, and the Seewarte weather analysts neither during nor after the war investigated, Martin Rodewald included. Here an excerpt from the book “Failures of Meterology! Unable to Prevent Climate Change and World Wars?” (p.6):

      QUOTE
      ___A2, c. At the Centre of Marine Meteorology, but….?
      • Rodewald, Martin, 1948, “Das Zustandekommen der strengen europäischen Winter”(The realisation of severe European winters)

      Only after WWII M. Rodewald, reflected on weather conditions during the war, some of which he had analysed as a forecaster of the German weather service SEEWARTE (Marine Weather Service) in Hamburg, and he was responsible for a number of daily weather analyses during the war months in 1939. His paper mentions that a series of cold winters occurred from 1780 to 1859 with about 4 severe winters in every decade, with only two cold winters, 1881 and 1929, during the 80 years since 1860, with the further explanation:
      “Beginning in the previous century, a ‘secular heat wave’ made itself felt over most of the Earth, we noticed this especially in the increasing mildness of the winters, which became more and more striking between 1900 and 1939. So it is all the more surprising that there was a series of three severe winters in succession in 1939/40, 1940/41 and 1941/42, appearing to indicate a sudden reversal of the previous development rather than a slow deceleration, contrary to the sustainment tendency of circulation and temperature deviation.”
      Rodewald’s synopsis clearly stresses that something extraordinary had happened, but that is all, which is worth reading, if one is looking for reasons. Although he had been at the center of the weather service in autumn 1939 he did not investigate one of the ‘weather deviations’ during the initial months of WWII, e.g. the weak cyclone activity over Europe or the shift of wind from SW to the NE sector. ……cont./.”
      From: http://www.seaclimate.com/a/a2.html
      UNQUOTE
      M.Rodewald & colleagues in the 1940s, and science during the last 70 years failed to investigate the unique WWII winters and the start of a two decade long global cooling period in winter 1939/40, and come up with explanations. That would have prevented a lot of nonsense talking about CO2 and related AGW.
      Many thanks DennisA for emphasizing the ocean issue as well.

  7. George.Alexander

    Well, I would not be popping the Champers just yet. There has been a steady low-grade but ever-present messaging about Global Warming/Climate Whatever for so many years that it is taken as self-evident by so many of the middle-age to younger population. I just missed it in my own schooling but I do see how it is part of the lexicon of grade schooling today (at least in British Columbia). I am a scientist myself and have to de-programme my kids on a regular basis. I don’t tell them just to believe me… I tell them to think for themselves.

    I am heartened, however, that the tide does seem to be turning. It is also the time to fight the hardest as The Church of Clientology will not give up their beliefs very easily.

    1. DirkH

      I find the psychological implications of this mass delusion and their commercial and political exploitation way more interesting than the physics (which are to be frankly trivial). This was such an interesting journey all the way back from the Club Of Rome to Eddie Bernays and even farther, to Cecil Rhodes, Ruskin, Malthus and even Plato. And it will not end; even when they can’t uphold the lie anymore they will come up with a new ruse. And mind you, way back in the 70ies the Club Of Rome even TOLD US that they would manipulate us. Marvelous.