German Scientists: Real Scandal Not Big Oil, Rather Cover-Up Of Natural Climate Factors

At Die kalte Sonne site here, geologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt comment on the controversy surrounding allegations of Big Oil “covering up” knowledge of the impacts their products could have on climate.

For example on April 16, 2018, renowned German weekly Spiegel reported on how “a confidential Shell study” showed the oil company “kept knowledge over climate change secret” and how “Shell knew already in detail 30 years ago about the greenhouse gas effect – and decided to keep silent.”

Now just a couple of weeks later, we find out that back then oil companies like Shell in fact didn’t know any more about climate change than other climate experts. The clandestine “Shell study” summarized:

–A thorough review of climate science literature, including acknowledgement of fossil fuels’ dominant role in driving greenhouse gas emissions. More importantly, Shell quantifies its own products’ contribution to global CO2 emissions.

–A detailed analysis of potential climate impacts, including rising sea levels, ocean acidification, and human migration.

–A discussion of the potential impacts to the fossil fuel sector itself, including legislation, changing public sentiment, and infrastructure vulnerabilities. Shell concludes that active engagement from the energy sector is desirable.

–A cautious response to uncertainty in scientific models, pressing for sincere consideration of solutions even in the face of existing debates.

–A warning to take policy action early, even before major changes are observed to the climate.”

At the time of the Shell study, the history of the earth’s climate over the past 2000 years had been poorly understood, and so Lüning and Vahrenholt find the cover-up accusations against Shell a bit strange. Overall the two German scientists say the whole story tells us just how weak the accusations of the activist side really are.

Natural factors have been proven

Some three decades later, the two German scientists note that far more is known today: for example the important roles played by natural ocean cycles and the global phenomenon of the Medieval Ice Age, which now is acknowledged and make the climate models look obsolete. Moreover, CO2 climate sensitivity has been dialed back with each passing year.

Lüning and Vahrenholt add:

Over the coming months and years the IPCC will have to admit to some changes in its understanding of the climate.”

The real scandal is the cover-up of natural factors

But the real intent of the climate activists turning to litigation is about generating publicity, as plainly admitted by German site Klimafakten on 16 April 2018:

Going to court for more climate protection – and for more transparency
Everywhere across the world activists are fighting against climate change by using litigation. Experts already count about one thousands court proceedings in 24 countries. For the litigants it’s not only about getting a ruling, but about publicity: The suits are  a means for strategic communication.”

The real deal, say Lüning and Vahrenholt, is that natural climate factors have been known as real drivers for over a decade, and activists, scientists and the IPCC continue to cover them up.

In fact, Lüning and Vahrenholt say that this is the real story that needs to be the subject of litigation. The real scandal is

How activists and the IPCC covered up knowledge of natural climate change.”

20 responses to “German Scientists: Real Scandal Not Big Oil, Rather Cover-Up Of Natural Climate Factors”

  1. SebastianH

    the global phenomenon of the Medieval Ice Age, which now is acknowledged

    Says who?

    CO2 climate sensitivity has been dialed back with each passing year.

    What are you talking about?

    The real deal, say Lüning and Vahrenholt, is that natural climate factors have been known as real drivers for over a decade, and activists, scientists and the IPCC continue to cover them up.

    Smells like they are conspiracy theorists …

    P.S.: Can you write one article about AGW proponents without calling them activists or alarmists? I heard namecalling is frowned upon on this blog?

    1. AndyG55

      ” Says who..”

      Anyone who is NOT in TOTAL DENIAL of history.

      “What are you talking about?”

      You really don’t keep up with advances in science do you seb. Still stuck at partial junior high level.

      https://s19.postimg.cc/wsak2og8z/Climate-Sensitivity-Value-Estimates-Update2.jpg

      Given the TOTAL LACK of any empirical evidence of CO2 causing any warming anywhere, anytime, it should of course be ZERO. But they are getting there. !!

      Smells like they are conspiracy theorists …

      Poor seb.. stuck on the conspiracy theory.. obviously knows first hand of the collusion and money grabbing.

      “calling them activists or alarmists?”

      roflmao.. poor seb is pretending to feel really victimised now. !! poor sjw petal !!

    2. Kenneth Richard

      CO2 climate sensitivity has been dialed back with each passing year.

      What are you talking about?

      Recent CO2 Climate Sensitivity Estimates Continue Trending Towards Zero
      http://notrickszone.com/2017/10/16/recent-co2-climate-sensitivity-estimates-continue-trending-towards-zero/

      activists, scientists and the IPCC continue to cover them up.

      Smells like they are conspiracy theorists …

      No conspiracy is required to cover up inconvenient evidence so as to maintain one’s position.

      When the IPCC tried to cover up their claim that the Himalayan glaciers would “disappear” by 2035 by claiming they actually meant 2305, or that that was simply a “mistake” (even though the report was reviewed by dozens of people prior to publication), do you think those claims of “mistake” or “error” were a cover up, or were they being honest?

      1. AndyG55

        K, add to that chart in your link, several recent “estimates” of around 0.4C as in the chart I posted above.

        SCARY hey, but getting nearer the real sensitivity. 😉

        1. AndyG55

          Doh. I should have scrolled down a bit. sorry.

          Early morning here.

    3. Kenneth Richard

      Can you write one article about AGW proponents without calling them activists

      Do you believe that Eric Holthaus is an activist? How about John Cook or Al Gore?

  2. The Real Scandal is How Green Activists Distort the Scientific Truth – CO2 is Life

    […] Continue reading […]

  3. Kenneth Richard

    One can probably compile a similar list with papers that have climate sensitivity of CO2 increasing over time. Would you believe such a list too? Because science!

    I would assume that we have competing trends…one going up, the other going down. And this would confirm, once again, that the science of CO2-driven climate change is anything but settled and “basic physics” as you believe it is.

    Even going so far an making up a claim that their actual defense was that they meant 2305 … seriously.

    Didn’t make that up, of course. You’ve just once again demonstrated that you are quite unaware of what went on there.

    https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2010/02/anatomy-of-ipccs-himalayan-glacier-year-2035-mess/
    Anatomy of IPCC’s Mistake on Himalayan Glaciers and Year 2035
    “So what do we know? Despite the incorrect citation to the WWF 2005 report, two numerical quirks – the 2350-to-2035 switch and the division error – and various other features of the language and presentation are lifted directly from Chettri’s Down to Earth article. Since, as we’ll see, the WWF 2005 citation did not appear until the final draft of the report, one possible scenario is this:”

    https://idsa.in/idsacomments/GlobalWarmingEnvironmentalismandRelatedIssues_pkgautam_110210
    “Doubts have been raised on IPCC reports which were based on scant Himalayan specific studies like pointing out that by 2035 glaciers will be gone leading to disasters such as drought in the plains below. The media even carried news that the organs of IPCC made a 300-year error while editing by stating 2035 instead of 2305.”

    http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2010/04/21/earth-day-40/
    IPCC’s supporters first tried to convince everyone that this was a simple typo and that it meant ‘2305.’ In fact, it meant ‘2035.'”

    So, now that you’ve been educated, do you believe it was a “mistake” or that it was a lie, SebastianH?

    1. SebastianH

      I would assume that we have competing trends…one going up, the other going down. And this would confirm, once again, that the science of CO2-driven climate change is anything but settled and “basic physics” as you believe it is.

      And if someone showed to you conclusively that most of the papers that present a low climate sensitivity result are wrong?

      Some of those papers are of similar quality as the examples you brought up trying to show me that it’s not human emissions that cause the CO2 concentration increase, and yet you use them to support your claim that climate sensitivity is low and has been decreasing over the years (in papers). I wonder why you think that is neccessary.

      Didn’t make that up, of course. You’ve just once again demonstrated that you are quite unaware of what went on there.

      None of your links actually cite or quote the person that said they meant 2305. The first link actually makes it very clear that the typo came from a WWF paper which mentioned 2350 (not 2305).

      So, now that you’ve been educated, do you believe it was a “mistake” or that it was a lie, SebastianH?

      Wow, I feel so educated now. Do you feel educated when I explain something to you? Or do you shut down and ignore everything that could possibly improve your understanding? In case you didn’t get it, no I don’t feel educated about your conspiracy/cover up claims by your links. The first one describes the mistake pretty good, maybe you should read the whole thing instead of just picking a quote from it that doesn’t support your claim that someone was “lying”.

      1. Kenneth Richard

        And if someone showed to you conclusively that most of the papers that present a low climate sensitivity result are wrong?

        No one has done that conclusively. Instead, we have 80 papers with very low sensitivity estimates. And the list is growing, not shrinking.

        80 Papers With Very Low CO2 Climate Sensitivity

        None of your links actually cite or quote the person that said they meant 2305.

        Uh, that’s because it was a made-up claim. It wasn’t actually true that the author of that piece meant 2305 instead of 2035 and had just made a “mistake”. Is this new information for you?

        The author of that section himself said that it was put in there, and kept in there, to influence policy makers to take action.

        Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.

        In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.

        ‘It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.’

        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html

        That’s what he said. So is he lying? Or is he telling the truth? Do you find it acceptable that the IPCC puts in false data to influence policy?

        Or does this just mean you get to call people names like “conspiracy theorists” when they educate you about the IPCC’s activities?

        The first one describes the mistake pretty good

        Unbelievable. You actually believe it was a “mistake”. There is no hope for you, as you will believe any explanation that supports your beliefs…no matter how unreasonable or ridiculous.

        1. SebastianH

          No one has done that conclusively. Instead, we have 80 papers with very low sensitivity estimates. And the list is growing, not shrinking.

          Just clicked one random (Chylek et al, 2007). You really consider a paper that takes the CO2 climate sensitivity and tries to model how direct and indirect aerosol effects affect the value is supporting a low sensitivity estimate? It’s basically saying that the total warming from an increased CO2 concentration gets dampened by the aerosol forcing, just as the IPCC reports are saying. Essentially what “global dimming” does/is …

          From their paper:

          Increasing atmospheric CO2 causes a positive radiative
          forcing, leading to a warmer climate and a higher
          annual mean surface temperature. A part of the CO2 induced
          warming since the beginning of industrialization has been
          compensated by a simultaneous cooling effect of aerosols,
          particularly sulfate from power plants.

          None of your links actually cite or quote the person that said they meant 2305.

          Uh, that’s because it was a made-up claim. It wasn’t actually true that the author of that piece meant 2305 instead of 2035 and had just made a “mistake”. Is this new information for you?

          How is this an answer to the quoted part? Who actually said that he/she meant 2305 instead of 2035? The original year was 2350 as your first link explains. So who “made it up”? You are way to deep into this conspiracy thing, Kenneth …

          The author of that section himself said that it was put in there, and kept in there, to influence policy makers to take action.

          Is that so? Because “The Mail on Sunday” repeated by Dailymail.co.uk says so? Sorry, you might not like an IPCC report citing a WWF “report”, but what you do here (citing the yellow press) has zero credibility. Any other source about what Dr. Lal has said? I can’t find any. You?

          That’s what he said. So is he lying? Or is he telling the truth? Do you find it acceptable that the IPCC puts in false data to influence policy?

          Wow. https://grist.org/article/exclusive-un-scientist-refutes-daily-mail-claim-he-said-himalayan-glacier/

          It wasn’t false data when they put it in. Nobody noticed it until it was too late. Get over it and don’t blow up such a mistake as if it would question the validity of the whole report.

          If you really think this part that didn’t even appear in the executive summary was conpiratively inserted to influence policymakers knowing that it was incorrect, then sorry … you are a conspiracy theorist.

      2. AndyG55

        “Wow, I feel so educated now.”

        Nope. you aren’t. !!

        You actually come across as sadly lacking in any real education. Especially in science and physics.

        1. SebastianH

          Enlighten me, what education in “science and physics” do you have?

    2. SebastianH

      Interesting, you replied to a reply of mine that got deleted? This blog and its moderators …

      1. Kenneth Richard

        I didn’t delete it. Apparently Pierre has had enough, though.

  4. Scientists: Real Climate Scandal Not Big Oil | Principia Scientific International

    […] Read more at No Tricks Zone […]

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy

Close