Leading German Alarmist Scientist Mojib Latif Turns Cool: “Climate Sensitivity Is Too High”!

Geomar scientist dares to go public, criticizes publication censorship: criticism of IPCC models unwanted!
By Sebastian Lüning and Fritz Vahrenholt
(Translated/edited by P Gosselin)

Vladimir Semenov is a scientist at the Geomar Institute in Kiel, Germany. In 2009, together with colleague Mojib Latif and other colleagues, he submitted a manuscript to the Journal of Climate in which the authors feared that the CO2 climate sensitivity in the climate models was possibly pegged too high. During the peer-review process the reviewers requested that all passages containing doubt over Co2’s impact on climate be deleted, otherwise the paper would not get published. And so it happened: An entire section had to be removed before the study finally got published in 2010:

Semenov, V., Latif, M., Dommenget, D., Keenlyside, N., Strehz, A., Martin, T. und Park, W. (2010) The Impact of North Atlantic-Arctic Multidecadal Variability on Northern Hemisphere Surface Air Temperature Journal of Climate, 23 (21). pp. 5668-5677. DOI 10.1175/2010JCLI3347.1.

In the wake of the mobbing affair concerning the former director of the Hamburg-based Max Planck Institute, Lennart Bengtsson, Mr. Semenov gathered the courage to take the issue to the public. He criticized that deleting the part challenging the IPCC model in his paper was a form of censorship.

The respected British daily The Times prominently reported on the matter on 8 July 2014 on the front page of its Environment section:

Voices of dissent drowned out by climate change scientists
Research that questioned the accuracy of computer models used to predict global warming was “censored” by climate scientists, it was alleged yesterday. One academic reviewer said that a section should not be published because it “would lead to unnecessary confusion in the climate science community”. Another wrote: “This entire discussion has to disappear.” The paper suggested that the computer models used by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were flawed, resulting in human influence on the climate being exaggerated and the impact of natural variability being underplayed. The findings could have profound implications. If correct, they could mean that greenhouse gases have less impact than the IPCC has predicted and that the risk of catastrophic global warming has been overstated. However, the questions raised about the models were deleted from the paper before it was published in 2010 in the American Meteorological Society’s Journal of Climate. The paper had been submitted in July 2009, when many climate scientists were urging world leaders to agree a global deal on cutting emissions at the Copenhagen climate change summit in December that year. Vladimir Semenov, a climate scientist at the Geomar institute in Kiel, Germany, said the questions he and six others had posed in the original version of the paper were valid and removing them was “a kind of censorship.”

Continue reading at GWPF.

Also a presentation made by the Geomar team in July 2013 in den USA fits nicely (see our blog article “Mojib Latif in presentation in the USA: Climate sensitivity is set too high by the IPCC CO2“). With one exception (T. Martin), all the authors took a position that is identical to that in the publication in the Journal of Climate of 2010. In the conclusion of the presentation, the scientists state on slide no. 30:

(1) ‘MOC variability appears to be predictable about a decade ahead.’

(2) ‘The most recent decades contain a strong contribution from the AMO (MOC) even on a global scale,’ see also slide no.16.

(3) ‘This raises questions about the average climate sensitivity of the IPCC models,’ see also slide no. 21: ‘Implication: Climate sensitivity is too high’.


12 responses to “Leading German Alarmist Scientist Mojib Latif Turns Cool: “Climate Sensitivity Is Too High”!”

  1. Stephen Richards

    Is this the sign of the first rat leaving the holed ship?

  2. oldbrew

    This is what happened with the PRP papers recently. One phrase at the very end of the general conclusions expressing ‘serious doubts’ about IPCC climate projections was deemed sufficient by the publishers to abandon publication of over a dozen peer-reviewed papers, including ones by senior professors with long histories of accepted papers.

    Surely they can’t get away with this kind of censorship for ever?

  3. Mark in Toledo

    it seems they are starting to NOT get away with it. so that is at least encouraging. Every scientist who speaks up like this helps the cause for truth and for good science.

  4. L Michael Hohmann

    I suggest (as already said elsewhere, but bears repeating), everyone read:
    by Joseph Plummer, Brushfire Publishing, Grafton, Ohio, 2014.
    Eye and mind opener, not for the faint-hearted.
    The back cover blurb advises: “Read at your own risk.”

    A soft introduction might be the interview with Ottmar Edenhofer (IPCC working group chair) at

  5. Katabasis

    Michael – is Plummer’s reference in the title to “Tragedy and Hope” a reference to Caroll Quigley’s book of the same name?

  6. Kevin Marshall (Manicbeancounter)

    Margaret Thatcher once said:-

    To me, consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies. So it is something in which no one believes and to which no one objects.

    In terms of climate science I would change the last sentence to:-

    So it is something in which no one believes and to which no is heard to object.

  7. List of excuses for ‘the pause’ now up to 29 | Watts Up With That?

    […] 26) The climate is less sensitive to CO2 than previously thought [see also] […]

  8. Uppdatering av bortförklaringar av ”pausen” - Stockholmsinitiativet - Klimatupplysningen

    […] 26) The climate is less sensitive to CO2 than previously thought [see also] […]

  9. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup | Watts Up With That?