German Scientist Calls For Founding And Funding Of Independent Climate Research Institute To Counter Alarmist Climate Claims

Geologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning believes it’s high time for the skeptic side to respond more forcefully to the often hyper-exaggerated claims launched by the government funded global warming alarmists and is calling for the founding of an independent Germany-based climate research initiative.

Lüning DkS

Dr Lüning co-authored together with professor Fritz Vahrenholt the leading skeptic book, Die kalte Sonne, which subsequently was translated in English as The Neglected Sun. Their book clearly provides overwhelming scientific evidence of governing natural factors like the sun and oceans driving climate change throughout history.

Lüning’s idea is dubbed the KlimaForschungsInitiative (KFI) – Climate Research Initiative – which he feels is necessary because the criticism of the apocalyptic end-of-world visions is coming from only a few courageous shoulders and citizens who have recognized the “faulty development” in climate science. The debate is completely lopsided, Lüning writes.

These climate realists as a rule receive no financial support for their work. To the contrary it is highly risky to challenge the IPCC line because positions outside the political mainstream are punished by scientific and societal marginalization. Inconvenient criticism of the climate alarmism line is undesirable. The German Federal Ministry of Environment even published a blacklist of [German and American] climate realists. It’s a real career blocker for scientists at the state-supported research institutes. A University of Graz music professor even suggested the death penalty for people who do not tow the IPCC line.”

Under such a hostile and intolerant climate, who on earth would want to raise a finger?

Climate of political intimidation and fear

Lüning says the pressure is in fact so strong that also western industry is visibly intimidated: “Too large is the fear of upsetting those with political power by presenting inconvenient facts.” Rather than rocking the boat, industry has opted to play along –  and to ship jobs overseas instead, or to shut down complete parts of their company, as is the case with German power giant E.On, Lüning says.

Recently the media reported that lawyers are gearing up to sue the major fossil fuel companies for causing extreme weather, like tropical storm Haiyan“ in the Philippines. Such claims, Lüning writes, are fully based on junk science which he describes as resembling superstition and Medieval witch-hunting.

Lüning comments that the world seems to have gone a bit hysterical. The Philippine tropical storm is a good example. From s scientific view it can be excluded that Haiyan resulted from climate change, a view that is supported by scientific literature. Yet, there are plenty demands being made for industry to pay for the damage.

Too often, Lüning writes, false scientific arguments and outright tricks are allowed to go insufficiently challenged. The German geologists says it is essential that an independent climate research initiative be founded by qualified climate-related scientists who are skeptical of the alarmist scenarios in order adequately to respond to the “wild climate claims” through the use of factual and scientific arguments.

Lüning writes that the main activities of an independent Climate Research Initiative would be determine:

1) The real value of CO2 climate sensitivity.

2) The real role of ocean cycles for the 1977-1998 warming phase.

3 If the correlation between solar activity and the temperature development over the last 10,000 years is just a coincidence, as the climate models like to suggest.

4) If extreme weather events are part of natural variability.

The German maverick geologist writes that here more climate-historical scientific studies are needed in order to better document natural climate variability over the past decades, centuriesand millenia. Important: “Which trends and cycles are really detectable and could they be useful for making climate forecasts?”

Lüning envisions a climate research initiative supported by private individuals and the business sector who are truly interested in finding out what really drives the climate. Lüning proposes the six main responsibilities:

1) Identifying the open, disputed climate issues.

2) Targeted support of research projects, publication of results in peer-reviewed journals.

3) Systematie evaluation of existing climate literature on natural variability and compilation of results.

4) Intensive communication with institutes and media concerning the results. Internet communication with the public.

5) Participation in German and international scientific conferences and workshops.

6) Training seminars for non-scientists, advising.

Lüning is convinced that what is required for a sustainable and rational debate is a “structured cooperation with an independent team of experts with a solid financial foundation” in order to address what the real fears are and which scenarios are unrealistic.

Parties interested in working for or supporting an independent German climate research initiative should contact Sebastian.Luening@kaltesonne.de or Sebastian.Luning@gmx.net.

 

20 responses to “German Scientist Calls For Founding And Funding Of Independent Climate Research Institute To Counter Alarmist Climate Claims”

  1. DirkH

    “Lüning comments that the world seems to have gone a bit hysterical.”

    Well I don’t have to be as diplomatic as he is but I’m as German as him.

    The Western world has gone completely crazy in several areas because parasites have overtaken all institutions of the state including the sciences; call them a Mafia or cronies or Murder Incorporated. We have a Scheiss science, a Scheiss economy and Scheiss policies. Nothing of this will stand, all of it will fall. First very slowly; then in an instant.

  2. Rog Tallbloke

    Thanks for posting Pierre.
    I’ve sent an email to Professor Luening expressing my support for his initiative, and offering to help publicise his efforts in the Anglosphere.

  3. Ed Caryl

    It should be international. Each nation should have a “chapter”.

  4. Stephen Richards

    To be honest, I don’t know how much more sceptic scientists can do to counter the utter crap coming from the likes of Gavin, Mann et al without buying a mass circulation newspaper.

    1. DirkH

      Newspapers in Germany are so discredited they currently suffer circulation losses of 10% per year. Mass layoffs are already happening. Web operations don’t help. Readers have formed a front against the journalists as is visible in all comment sections. Only heavily censored comment sections like Spiegel can maintain an illusion of agreement between journalist and readership.

  5. Dr Norman Page

    Sebastian
    If you check the posts on my website
    http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com
    you will see that what I do falls under
    “Systematic evaluation of existing climate literature on natural variability and compilation of results.”
    See for example especially
    http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html
    Too many people simply work in their own narrow field and draw conclusions on this narrow basis- but some people are needed to pull the whole picture together into a coherent narrative.
    I would be happy to work for ? be associated with ? some funded German Research Institute. Some modest remuneration/ travel expense would be very welcome.
    The main difficulty is in getting the results seen in the MSM and by the key politicians who usually live in a bubble of like minded advisers.An important part of any new organization’s task would be the dissemination of unorthodox views as widely as possible.
    Best Regards Norman Page.

    1. Mike Heath

      Your reference to living in a “bubble” is a real danger for everyone, climate sceptics included. I saw a tweet this morning about the increasing heat in the oceans. The alarminsts are very happy about this believing it to be true, and using it as an excuse for the missing heat over the last 20 years. Of course it sounded like “the dog ate it”, but if the ocean heat increase is real, I am somewhat surprised. To what extent are we living in a “bubble” as climate sceptics?

      Ocean heat content is climbing so quickly that the tracking chart broke mashable.com/2015/01/23/oce… #climate

  6. Mindert Eiting

    ‘A University of Graz climate professor’ should be a Musicology professor?

    1. Rog Tallbloke
  7. John F. Hultquist

    I doubt this will work out. What is going on now is not about science. Consider how easily it is for the POTUS and others to stand in public and repeat statements that are known to be false. Statements about more events of extreme weather or more fires are easily checked, have been checked, and are known to be false.
    The CAGW crowd is cult-like and impregnable by science.

  8. mwhite

    Perhaps the good professor could get in touch and establish the German arm of the GWPF?

    http://www.thegwpf.org/

  9. Paul Vaughan

    “3 If the correlation between solar activity and the temperature development over the last 10,000 years is just a coincidence, as the climate models suggest.”

    unacceptable wording

    1. Paul Vaughan

      “If”???

      1. DirkH

        Perfectly good. Replace with “Whether” if you like.

  10. Paul Vaughan

    Neither “if” nor “whether”. There’s no doubt: It’s the sun:
    http://i49.tinypic.com/2jg5tvr.png
    That’s an observation constrained by the laws of large numbers & conservation of angular momentum. To deny the observation’s existence is illogical, but in the west people are of course free to do so for political purposes.

    What I’m suggesting is:
    Let’s take the devil out of lukewarmism:
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/01/22/matt-ridley-a-lukewarmer-against-dogmatism/comment-page-1/#comment-96746
    (I clarified for Tallbloke what I mean by that in a second comment lower in that thread.)