Prestigious Helmholtz Research Center Gutter-Dives…Promotes Sophomoric Attacks On Skeptics, Labelling Them “Deniers”

It’s worrisome enough that the German government itself recently issued a brochure singling out, naming, and defaming German and American climate science skeptics. Today we have one of Germany’s most prestigious science associations actively backing adolescent-level attacks on skeptics who have decided not to take part in the collective climate hysteria.

This morning on Twitter I happened to come across the following tweet:

Climate Service Center 1

Helmholtz Center’s Climate Service Center displays its ugly ideological side in defaming skeptics as deniers. Click here to view video.

Inhofe, Morano, Michaels, Bachmann labeled “deniers”

The above tweet comes from the Climate Service Center, which provides a link to an intolerant video called “The League of Deniers“, which was produced by In summary the video portrays skeptics as “deniers”, claims that “the public is misinformed” and that skeptics’ words are “human foolishness”.

The Climate Service Center even uses the derogatory label “Leugner” (denier) to describe the skeptics in its tweet (my emphasis):

Interesting #Kickstarter project on #climate changel deniers …

So why is the Climate Service Center stooping to such sophomoric behavior and what organization is behind the Climate Service Center? The answer to the first question is purely the subject of speculation. The answer to the second question is clear, if not surprising: It is Germany’s prestigious Helmholtz Center Geesthacht.

At its website we learn that the main function of the Climate Service Center is to act as the communications “connection between science on one side and business and politics on the other side“. We have to wonder what it is that the center and the Helmholtz Center wish to communicate.

Obviously some activists at the Helmholtz Center’s communications arm are sending an activist, sophomoric message these days. They seem to have no idea of the importance skepticism has in science, and why there are even climate science skeptics at all. Skeptics in science? What for!

To help them understand why there are skeptics when it comes to climate science, below are some questions that us skeptics have been waiting 15 years to receive answers.

1. Why has there been no global warming for 17 years?
2. Why have 97% of the climate models failed to foresee this?
3. Why has Antarctic sea ice been well above normal for more than 2 years?
4. Why are northern hemispheric winters getting colder?
5. What makes the present warm period any different from that of the Medieval Warm Period?
6. Why is it that CO2 has been suddenly assumed to be the major climate factor and the rest like the sun and oceans are ignored?
7. If there is consensus on man-made climate change, then why is there so much controversy over it?
8. Do you think it’s not necessary to have skeptics in order for science to progress?

Perhaps instead of wasting taxpayer resources on the sophomoric defamation and ridicule of those who legitimately ask questions, the Helmholtz Center ought to focus on providing some clear answers for the above questions for once.

In the portrait video of the Climate Service Center featuring director Guy Brasseur, he tells us that the Climate Service Center’s job is to communicate science to society for the purpose of decision-making. Again, with its tweet, what message are they really trying to communicate by linking to defamatory Kickstarter video?

Brasseur Climate service center

Climate Service Center director Guy Brasseur says they provide valuable information to re-insurance companies. Photo cropped from portrait video.

What was set up as a valuable communication organization, the Climate Service Center appears today to have devolved into a propaganda arm of a state-sponsored ideology – especially when one looks at the quality of the climate information they disseminate: Think for a minute, for example, how the Met Office has gotten 11 of the last 12 winter forecasts wrong and that 97% of the climate models have been wrong over the last 15 years. Is this really the information quality the public wants to have communicated to them? When information is that bad, and is packaged by ideologues with an agenda, then it is certainly not helping society. Rather it is harming it.

What’s really frightening is the seemingly close relationship that the Climate Service Center keeps with the re-insurance industry, as is exposed by the portrait video. For almost an entire segment Brasseur speaks of the valuable services they provide to the insurance industry and how important they are in helping them set their premiums! I kid you not. Brasseur proudly says:

And naturally they come to us and say, ‘Could you please tell us what we can expect in the future?'”

Wink, wink.

Gee, does anyone think there could be a conflict of interest there. This reminds us of how the Munich Re is very close to the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact research (PIK). This is just explosive corruption waiting to happen. You produce the horror scenarios; we jack up the premiums!

A close look at the supervisory boards of the various institutes and insurance companies probably would yield some very interesting results and revelations. The undue influence and closeness that major reinsurance companies have with German scientific institutes is worrisome and the potential for corruption there is far too great.

Examples of info for decision-making that gets communicated:


40 thoughts on “Prestigious Helmholtz Research Center Gutter-Dives…Promotes Sophomoric Attacks On Skeptics, Labelling Them “Deniers””

    1. Unfortunately I’m really shocked by the partiality, non-objectivity and level of activism rampant in leading institutes. Things are worse than I thought.

  1. “Climate Service Center director Guy Brasseur says they provide valuable information to re-insurance companies.”
    No, they are treating the re-insurance companies like mushrooms – in the dark and fed BS. You can bet the reinsurance companies have whole departments devoted to studying government impacts on infrastructure: dredging, dikes, bridges, the electric grid, pipelines, … Anything that when it breaks or degrades causes losses. The insurance companies might use the climate hysteria as an excuse for higher rates, but if they have any sense they each have one file clerk in charge of shredding anything they get from the Climate Service Center.

  2. Great 8 questions. My question no 9 in a debate with a warmista would be: “What would be proof that AGW is false ?”

  3. I and others definitely make your work known over here in the US, Pierre. We owe a debt of gratitude to you.

    But I too, have a few questions:

    9. How is it possible that the meager, trivial 3% CO2 from human activity causes all the catastrophic changes predicted by warmists?

    10. If CO2 is the villain you say it is, how will you control the 97% CO2 from natural sources?

    11. And, if CO2 is a greenhouse gas by virtue of being energized by LWIR, then what how will you add water vapor into the equation? It is energized in roughly the same manner and more strongly, and is present in 25 to 100 times the concentration of CO2.

    As is said, RVSP.

    Sincerely, BobW

  4. Amazing, how the hell they claim evering is getting worse when there is no warming for two decade now, almost the same as the warming trend we had since the mid 70’s… Getting more shizophrenic by the day.

  5. Nothing particularly new. 100 leading German scientists once denounced that Jew Einstein and his non-Aryan theories. Sad to see the history’s full circle.

  6. When you ask the simple questions about an issue, the dissembling in the responses becomes obvious. The trick is finding those simple questions.


  7. The League Of Deniers. That has a nice ring to it…..

    Just think of all the rocket scientists in the book: Michelle Bachman, Sarah Palin, Sean Hannity, Louis Gomert, Joe Bastardi, Antony Watts, Jim Inhoffe, Rush Limbaugh, Donald Trump.

    It will be much like the youtube video’s out there with all the tobacco smoke deniers. I think its a good thing that we have a record of everyone on video.

    Just think…..a few more years and the coal/oil/nat gas CEO’s will in the US Congress getting grilled. And they will STILL be saying: CO2 doesn’t have any effect on climate.

    Yea….I love those guys….:)

    1. Oh yeah, bring up the tobacco canard again. (Sigh) that’s just tiresome! At least you could TRY to be creative.

      If warm is so bad, are you running your central heating? The great cathedrals of Europe were built when it was warm. Witches were burned when it was cold. The Black Death depopulated Europe when it was cold. The modern plague is wind- turbines, solar panels, and shutting down perfectly good nuclear plants. Europe is dodging a winter bullet this year, but sooner rather than later, the cold will wreck Europe. Then the coal/natural gas/nuclear CEO’s will be welcomed back into the fold… By you, Buddy.

      1. I can assure this much: It will be a COLD day in hell when I welcome back ANY fossil fuel CEO.

        I thought the tobacco CEO’s were bad until the fossil fuel boys began their stream of lies.

        There is no cold that is coming to save the coal CEO’s……only a hot hell where they will roast with the tobacco CEO’s…..:)

        1. ” when I welcome back ANY fossil fuel CEO.”

          YOU won’t “welcome them back”? You must be a very important person. Does OfA pay you minimum wage ? Or do you get 1 US cent for every comment from Amazon MechTurk?

        2. OK, Buddy, you don’t have central heat. You don’t have a car. You don’t have lighting in your dwelling, wherever that is. You grow your own food in your back yard. You walk everywhere you go. You don’t buy anything manufactured. And the computer you use is rented at the local Internet cafe. No? Then you depend on fossil fuel. Try to do without.

          1. It’s on its way…’s on it’s way:) Granted….it’s going to take a while….but it is definitely on it’s way…


          2. “It’s on its way…’s on it’s way:) Granted….it’s going to take a while….but it is definitely on it’s way… ”

            See, you comic; nobody ever disputed that for instance PV panels become half as expensive after one decade. But explain to me the logic in rolling out the technology in places where it is still a money loser instead of waiting until it becomes cheap enough.

            You and your policies are a sure way to ruin, as we see in the public debt of Europe. We’ll have bankruptcy before we’ll have renewable energy utopia; what good is that for.

          3. Ed,

            If this troll uses potable water that it is cleaned, filtered, and pumped by the local water works or if he parks his turd$ in a waterborne sewage system, he is drawing on the electric grid and two-faced liar.

            So unless he draws water from his own well and do the bear thing and $hit in the woods, he is a sneaky snide.

        3. Are you on the payroll of Saudi Oil or one of Obama’s filthy rich crony green capitalists who have dumped billions of tax payer dollars down the toilet on failed green energy projects like Solyndra? or are you a Gaia worshipper who believes if humanity is wiped out the world would be a better place for the 1% superior race? Nazi’s in a Green Shirt

    2. The rocket scientists are people like Harrison Schmitt, Buzz Aldrin and Burt Rutan, who are climate sceptics.

      You do know who these people are Buddy…?

      Of course I am only an R&D scientist with a PhD in chemistry. What are your qualifications sir?

      ECS is about 0.5 C/doubling in the empirical data, which is completely harmless.

      1. “Of course I am only an R&D scientist with a PhD in chemistry. What are your qualifications sir?”

        WOW….I guess I should just believe you. And I guess what you are saying is that YOU are involved in CLIMATE SCIENCE RESEACH….right? Oh wait…you’re a R&D chemist….not a climate scientist.

        What type of company do you do your R&D CHEMISTRY research for? In other words….what industry?

        As for myself…I’m a “numbers guy”…..a finace guy with a CPA background. You did know that CPA’s are skeptics didn’t you? I mean…REAL SKEPTICS. You see…we don’t believe EITHER SIDE and we look to INDEPNDENT VARIFICATION of facts. Like temperatures. Like CO2 levels from ice core samples for the last 800,000 years. Like sea level changes. Like ice sheet and glacier changes.

        You see….I started out my journeay…..looking for the truth. And the truth ALWAYS starts with FACTS AND SCIENCE.

        FACT: CO2 levels over the last 800,000 years have been between 300 ppm and 180 ppm EXCEPT FOR THE LAST 65 YEARS in which CO2 levels have continued to rise from 280 in 1950, to 400 NOW. The CO2 level had not been above 300 for that entire 800,000 year time span….and now humans have pushed it increasingly higher.

        FACT: The earths climate has always changed. Before humans arrived on the scene in significant numbers….Milankovich cyles (between earth and sun) were the primary initiator of climate change. CO2 was a “feedback” that lagged the increase or decrease in temperature. NOW….CO2 is not lagging….because we are pouring millions of tons of CO2 back into the atmosphere. Now….it is CAUSING the atmosphere to absorb more and more heat as the CO2 level increases…..and as other feedback mechanisms like melting tundra release even more CO2 and methane into the atmosphere.

        FACT: CO2 and other greenhouse gases, are proven to warm the atmosphere. Without the RIGHT LEVEL of CO2….humans wouldn’t be here. Too little CO2 and we freeze……too much CO2 and we bake.

        So…..what industry are you an R&D chemist for?


        1. “FACT: CO2 and other greenhouse gases, are proven to warm the atmosphere.”

          Pure conjecture. The atmosphere is a complex system with negative feedbacks. If your conjecture were true, why do the “climate scientists” have to build GCM’s. They build them to find out what actually happens with the system. Without success, as we have seen. You can’t explain that with your simple conjecture.

        2. OK, Buddy, you have the basics according to the SkS kids. You have also absorbed their snark level. But leave a little room for doubt. There are scientists that doubt the details of each of your “FACTS”. For instance:

          There is no independent verification of the ice core CO2 measurements, except for the 20th century. In the 20th century, the CO2 pulse from the Second World War is not seen in the ice core data. Gas diffusion in the ice is an unknown quantity, but is obviously worse the older the ice. Both absolute quantity calibration and diffusion are controversial.

          Yes, greenhouse gases warm the atmosphere. It’s the “how much” that has not been determined. The most important greenhouse gas is water vapor, not CO2. Water in all its forms is the thermostat, not CO2. There have been times in earth’s history when CO2 was many times more prevalent than now and baking did not take place. Volcanic events like the Siberian and Deccan Traps triggered extinctions, but the earth then returned to equilibrium. If allowed, the earth’s biosphere will, in a few years, soak up any extra CO2. In the meantime, changes in water vapor and clouds have and will control temperature.

          The wild card is, of course, the sun. The sun has driven the gross changes in temperature over the last several millenniums, on top of the Milankovich cycles. Smaller, ocean cycles, and chaos, provide the noise.

          For more details, and cited sources, read my archived articles here, and try to keep an open mind.

        3. Buddy, how do you expect anyone to take you seriously if you don’t show the common courtesy of using a spellchecker? I very much doubt it that the so-called qualifications you totted-out so glibly is real and true, you would have been fired from any decent firm.

          My money is on the fact that you are nothing but a spotty-faced climate science undergraduate blogging at a minimum rate in some Soros fund climate war room.

          No self-respecting finance guy would miss-spell the name of his craft!

        4. Buddy – The problem with your comment is you have ignored the other processes going on in the atmosphere. I’ll give you an example. While CO2 is a greenhouse gas with a calculated Arrhenius impact of about 1.3 C/doubling, to do that it has to absorb IR energy.

          But incident solar energy and IR back radiation at the surface warms the surface and evaporates water. The energy is now locked up in latent heat of evaporation. The water vapour rises and eventually condenses in clouds, releasing the latent heat as IR. Much of which is radiated to space. Meanwhile most of the CO2 in the troposphere doesn’t see that heat since it wasn’t in a form it could absorb. Therefore the actual ECS is lower than the theoretical Arrhenius value.

          Further to the effect of CO2 in the historical record, if you look even cursorily at the data you will quickly see about half the temperature rise last century was due to a combination of solar processes and about a third was due to the ~60 year cycle in the oceans. CO2 caused about 1/6th of the temperature rise, which is consistent with the TCS values measured using the CERES data.

          I could go on in great detail. But why not search my tag “Bruce of Newcastle” and look at some of the comments. As it happens I do some paid work in the climate field. And my credentials are quite relevant to the field, including formal stats qualification, thermodynamics and computer modelling. I could probably give you a run for your money in your own field too, since I do detailed financial analysis of big projects for large companies.

          I would be pleased to debate with you in detail, with citations but unfortunately Pierre’s software doesn’t easily allow lots of links, and I would want to inflict him with moderation hassles. I’ll leave you with just a single link, which is ‘The Skeptics’ Case’ by Dr David Evans, who has no less than 6 university degrees and who worked for the Australian Greenhouse Office in Canberra before seeing just how poor the IPCC case was. Enjoy.

        5. Buddy – I just provided a response. Unfortunately it has gone into moderation or the spam bin, so it will take a while for Pierre to retreive it.

          In short, you need to do some reading. As I linked in the longer reply, I suggest starting with ‘The Skeptics’ Case’ by Dr David Evans. The Appinsys website has a lot of good data in one place for you to go through too. Read up also about ECS and TCS.

          If you would like to discuss in detail, I am willing, but we would need to move to another weblog that can take more links without going into moderation. I have a few hundred papers at hand I can cite and go through, to take you through the physico-chemical processes and the empirical data. I also have a temperature model of the CET which has proved accurate for the last three years since I built it. Which is a performance that the IPCC ensemble models couldn’t do.

    3. ” I think its a good thing that we have a record of everyone”
      Indeed it is good to have a record of all these alarmist posting. Interesting to see that most of them hide behind such acronyms like “Buddy” etc posting their insults as anonymous as possible.
      Are you ashamed of something buddy?
      As Pointman said, we skeptic have a secret weapon. And that is time. The longer it passes the more clear is how climate behaves with added CO_2.

  8. Well buddy tell us what you ‘belive’ in. I’m realy courious about.
    Any sttle science would easely eansers those question. With the best data that we have, not projection, not scary scenario’s, no insults, how much human co2 have warm the earth, provide mumber and dates. I’m genuinely courious about what you ask us to ‘belive’.

  9. Crowd funding via Kickstarter may be just a good way to hide a money trail.

    “OceanD” (the “scientist” in New York who wants $5000 to publish this) who will send copies to you and public libraries as a reward for your “investment”, has an abandoned Kickstarter project to promote “2-in-1 Playing cards”….for only $9,999.

    Prestigious German scientific organization endorsing double dealing card playing promoter has a nice (Helmholz) resonance to it.

  10. Pierre, i strongly suggest you check out the other ‘project’ listed in the kickstarter profile, and perhaps issue an update to your post. You’ll see what i mean when you click on ‘see full bio’.

    Best, M

  11. Once the climatologists have demonstrated a non-trivial future problem of warming, policy-makers then need to show they have a policy that (a) will combat that problem and (b) do so by imposing less harm from policy that the possible harm of climate change that they prevent.
    Given that by 2050, two-thirds or more of total emissions will come from emerging economies, nothing that happens in the EU/US/Japan will make any significant difference. Also, policy-makers in Europe have a very poor track record of delivering cost-effective emissions reductions.
    By calling anyone who criticizes the mainstream as “deniers”, the Helmholtz Center tramples over legitimate criticism, and their inability to comprehend the problem. There is not even any originality in this strategy. They could have picked it up from the British Guardian Newspaper.

  12. Perhaps we need a scientific or climate version of Dalrymple’s book, Life at the Bottom. Thanks Pierre, for the information.

  13. Ok, if a Helmholtz person reads this: I’m a German taxpayer and I’m not happy that my money is wasted to pay a useless scoundrel who thinks his job is to promote somebody’s vile attacks on me or other skeptics. Fire that person immediately. If it’s the director of the CSC, fire him.

  14. The world will take notice of this German intolerance. This is exactly how the Nazi party vilified its opponents and rose to power with disastrous consequences.

    It appears history is about to repeat itself.

Comments are closed.